Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/04/08~'~~a}~sz'.,~'~ i,~~n; a ,S { ~"'~~'°7t~ -~ ~'«r yr ' .us~= hf +{~,w9.r . ~P' ~tr ``,~r`"~'~` .te , ~.,.K" ~ ` ec ~ ~1 ~. ~ ,~~ z ,y .~+ . . ~ .~' n ~ ~ N ~ . ~.~ ~~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ ( .. 1 ~ ` V City Hall Anaheim, California April 8, 1968 A REGULAR IuIEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLqNNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'_clor_-k P.M., a quorum being presente PRESENT - CHAI4NIAN: Camp. . - COMMISSIONERS: Faxano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowery Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Office Engineer Representative: Robert Jones Associate Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Alfred W. Engle, Pastor, First Baptist Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Herbst oFfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner THE MINUTES Mungall and motion carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of March 25, 1968, as submitted. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. L. AND M. DUNN, 2415 South Manchrster PERMIT N0. 1016 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; JOSEPH H. FROST, 2415 South Manchester Avenue, anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to IWANUFACTURE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BLEACHES IN THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approxi- mately 3 acres of land located contiguous to and easterly of the intersection of the Southern Pacific and Atchison, Topeka 8 Santa Fe Railroads, the edsterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 870 feet west of State College Boulevard as measured along_the southern boundary of the S;,uthern Pacific Railroad. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of March 25, 1968, in order that the agent for the petitioner could be present to answer questions. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petitio~, notin9 that when the petition had been submitted to the staff, it was determined that they were planning to manufacture ind,~strial bleaches which required a conditional use ,permit in the M-1 Zone; however, since the last public hearing discussion had been held with the agent and it was determined they had altered their plans of operation and now were planning to have just storage and distribution of the bleaches, and a letter request- ing termination of subject petition was in the file for consideration by the Commission. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 1016, as requested by the petitioner, on the basis that the nature of the use proposed had been altered and now conformed with the permitted uses in the M-1 2one. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 3839 - ~ ~: ; ~- ;:5, w' I *' `~' Pr _ r~ ~ t,`:~$. ,.; ~ra~ - , ,~~ .~..~..e.~ ~.~.~. r ~ _ t~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3840 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. RUTH C. WILLIAMS, c~o Les Calkins, P. p. Box 736, PERMIT N0. 1017 Lodi, California, Owner; FRED H. BICE, 1127 Ebbtide Road, Corona del Mar, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MOBILE HOME PARK on pro,perty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 12,0 acres of land having a frontage of approximately 410 feet on the east.side of Kraemer Boulevard (Dowling Avenue) and a maximum depth of approximately 1,320 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 250 feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue and adjacent to the southerly boundary of the Orange County Flood Control channel. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented to the Commission Conditional Use Permit No..1017, noting the location of subject property, the request to establish a mobile home park in the Northeast Industrial Area, the land uses adjacent to subject property, and reviewing the staff report, emphasizing the fact that the proposal indicated a l trailer site layout which was unimaginative compared with current mobile home park I trends, and would result in a l~ess than desirable environment for park occupants; ~ furthermore, the lot pattern had not been developed to permit maximum privacy for the occupants and access drives would result in a one-quarter mile long drag strip; that the interior landscaping of the proposal was minimal, and the development plans indicated ~ no s~creen landscaping provided around the periphery of the park which might relieve some o~ the harshness of the project layout; and that the amount of recreational area provided ap~eared to be minimal for the size of the pro~ect and the number of families involved, and the xecreatio.nal area was not centrally located and would be almost one-quarter of a mile fs~m some of the mobile nomes. Mr. Roberts, in evaluating the proposal, emphasized the fact that the primary issue before the Commission was the matter of land use,and serious consideration should be given to the ~act that the development trend for the northeast section of Anaheim had been directed toward maintaining an industria.l environment, based largely on the policy statement of the General Plan and commitments made to industry that had located in this area., Fu s ore, it was the staff's feeling that mobile home parks should be thought oi as mily areas on a horizontal plane rather than a vertical plane as with apartments, and studies conducted by numerous mobile home park authorities indicated that the demand for community services gener@ted by the mobile homes was similar to that created by apartmer.cs, and the traffic generated by the mobile home parks was about,equel to the traffic generated by multiple-family developments i~aving a density equal to'that of a mobile home park. Quotes from some of the foremost mobile home park authorities were also reviewed by Mr. Roberts, and the basic questions which the Trailer Coach Association had for consideratior. when developing mobile home parks were considered as follows: ' 1. Does the site location have residential characteristics? The answer would be "no". 2. Was the site located in close proximity to community and shopping services? The answer was "no", since the shopping se:vices were several miles away. 3. Was a mobile home park development on this site a logical use of the land? The answer was "no", because it was beinglocated in the heart of the industrial area. Mre Fxed Bice, agent fox the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he would be the proposed developer of the mobile home park; that he also owned a mobile home park in Costa Mesa which was located in the industrial area; that according to a survey, 75% of all homes built sold for less than $12,000, and of that 75%, 30~ of these were mobile homes; that the location of subject property was on the fringe area of the, M-1 Zone, adjacent to approved R-3 property northerly of subject Qroperty, and the proposed park would be an asset to the community because it was planned to be a five~star type mobile park; and that because of the tax structure of the State, it was difficult to maintain this property for future industrial development. Furthermore, trailer parks paid their share in taxes through motor vehicle and personal property taxes, and the schools, parks, and other public facilities would also benefit since these facilities would not be used as extensively by an adult mobile home owner. Mr. Bice reviewed the County of Orange study relative`co the amount of land being converted into industrial development, noting that during the past several years only 3?0 acres per year were bein9 converted, and of that amount, during the past three years the Irvine Company had sold 1,200 acres - this, then, would indicate they had consumed the eptire industrial land of the County. FurthermorE, the Title Insurance Company had indicated that the industrial sales in the Northeast Industrial Area were well uelow that nornally proposed, with a maximum of 65.8 acres being sold between the years 1964 and 1967 - or only 5% of the total used in the County; that thexe was in excess of 1,000 acres of land set aside for industrial purposes, and it would take more than fifty ' years for conversion of this entire acreage to industrial purposes; and that the oroposed trailer park would be an interira use of the property until such time as the area would s be developed for industrial purposes. ' ; $.-">~ r:'K t+'7 rjr a ~. K;%, ( ai, -y. !. ~ ~y1s e ..~1 C' f, . d' ] ~ ~,';`3;'. _ ~~1 , ~ . .~ ~ , ~ ~, MINUTES~ CITY .PLANNING COMAIISSION, April 8, 1968 $841 F~ .. CONDITIQ_NAL USE - Mr. Bice then reviewed the comments made by the staff in their PERMIT N0. 1017 Report to the Commission regarding the recreational facilities, (Continued) landscaping buffering of the mobile home park, and the location of ~, the recreational facilities, noting that they could be placed in ~„ i`~~' f i the center of the park - however, it was felt the recreational " ac lities could act as a buffer from the street noises along Kraemer Boulevard; and F that the density as indicated by the staff would be approximately 11.7 units per acre - -=;;~;~ ~` however this seemed to be somewhat in error since their calculations indicated a maximum ~ of 8.5 units per acre, which was approximately the size of his present facility in Costa ` Mesa. Mr,. Lester Calkins, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting he was handling the estate of his aunt, who was an inualid; that they had been attempting to .~ispose of the property for the past six years, but had received no offers that were legit3mate, and the proposed use of the property was the first responsible offer they had received for the property; that he had contacted the flower ranch owner to the south who had also indicated he had received no offers for his property; that all the property owners had dedicated property for Kraemer Boulevard when it was proposed to be widened; and that the proposed use could be considered a commercial use, and, therefore, he urged the Commission to consider subject petition favorably. A letter from the City of Placentia indicating their opposition was read to the Commission by the Commission Secretary. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst noted there must have been some discrepancies between the figures given to the agent for the petitioner by the County and the title company since the Warner Lambert property was more than twice the amount quoted; furthermore, the railroad had been purchasing a considerable amount of land .which represented many more acres than that quoted - all of these transactions having transpired during the past year or two. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission, summarized as follows: 1. That if the Commission adopted the practice of encroaching on industrial land which had developed, the balance of the properties designated for industrial purposes would not develop. - 2.. That the statistics quoted by the agent were impressive - however, the City of Anaheim had been singularly attempting to encourage the industrial growth of the City. 3.. That the 5% figure quoted as to industrial development for Anaheim was, in fact, erroneous. 4. That if the City permitted encroachment into the i.ndustrial area, this area would not develop, thereby creating an island of residential use in the heart of the industrial area, and the reverse could also be true if other than residential uses were permitted in a residential area. 5. That the proposed use would oreate a hardship and would prevent future development of the properties in close praximity for industrial purposes. 6. That the petitioner's intent to inr.icate this was an interim use would affect the character of the area, as we~'1 as the future redevelopment, since the character of the land would change the entire area, and the Commission should c,onsider reserving the entire area for indusCr.ial puxpo:cs as indicated on the Gene*al Plan. ~• 7hat industrial land still was being developed in the area, and this was indicative through the subsequent consideration by the Planning Commission of an industrial tract almost immediately to the west of subject property. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-87 as~d moved for 2ts passage a~d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Co~ditiona' Use Permit No. 1017, on the basis that the charac±er of the area wou],d be adversely affected by the proposed land use by the injection cf residential uses adjacent to potential industrial uses without adequate buffering to separate the two uses which were incompatible; that the industrial development already established in the area should be given the protection which such industry requires so that residentiial encroachment is dicouraged from developing in the industrial area; that no land use change had taken place nor was evidence submitted to warrant consideration of a land use change for subject property to other than industrial Fiurposes. (See Resolution Book) ~ 4:! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 ~ ~;~ ~,, p,~ n. ~ ...~ , 3842 CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following PERMIT N0. 1017 vote: (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIO(~ERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER5: Allrede CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING.. ALFR~D D. AND JOSEPATNE YAINO, 711 South Beach PERMIT N0. 1018 Boulevard, Anaheim, Califu•rnia, Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANi IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING AMUSEMENT FACILITY~ WITH WAIVER OF 4.4XIMUM PERMITTED NUMBPR AND AREA OF SIQ1S on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 113 feet on the west side of Beach Boule~~ard and a maximum depth of approximately 310 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approxi- mately 880 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 711 South Beach Boulevard. Properiy presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. > Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the locatien of subject property, current 1 zoning of the property, and uses established in close pcc~imity, noting that the exist- ing baseball batting park was approved in 1961 by the Planning Commission, subject to certain conditions - street improvements a-d a 20-foot wide landscape strip, both having °,:,.:_ '; been bonded for; however, the original bonding company no longer was in business, and ~~ there was no bond in effect to insure these improvements would ba installed~ ~>, Mr. Roberts further noted that the petitioner was proposing three free-standing signs ~ and only one was permitted in the R-A Zone, of a maximum of 20 squ•~re feet - however, ,:~:. if uses being proposed and established were considered as part of the C-1 Zone, only one '~;`;:;;`'~, free-standing sig~ still would be permitted - however, it would be a maximum of approxi- j~ mately 226 square feet, and the roof sign prooosed would not be permitted within 300 :~: `' feet of the free-standin si n. Furthermore in anal zin the arkin ~ ~ 9 9 , y g p g plan and access '~ points, it was apparent considerable improvement could and should be made, since the ~r r~ soathernmost egress drive would have atmaximum width of 12 feet, and the Planning ~, ~ Commission might wish to consider requ~ring the existing sign to be relocated toward t~ 'i the center of the property in order that a more efficient drive facility might be ~~„ ~' installed,.and that parking should be in accordance with the site development standards ~" _i of the G1 Zone. Furthermore, the petitioner should be encouraged to integrate the ~ ? three signs rather than ask for approval of three separate, free-standing signs. _ Mr. Alfred Paino, ane of the petitioners, appear~d before the Commission and advised ;; that the roof sign could be removed witnout any problem, and he would increase the 4 ~' existin si n 3 additional feet makin it 9 x 12 rather than the 6 x 12 , ~• 9 9 ~ 9 presently ~,~~~ existing. However, he was desirous of retaining the sign between the tv~o buildings , `~ since this would be advertising the proposed new use of the building. 3: „ ~ 'i~ Mr. Paino also noted that although he had street improvement plans prepared by the f 1 Neff Engineering Company in 1963, and had bonded for these improvements, the State oF ~` ' California would not ;; permit him to consi:ruct ~hese improvements on his property; that t he had rebonded for the property with the Security Insurance Company, and he was more ~ than desirous of improving the property as the City required, but he could not get t ~ State; approval. Furthermore, if the Commission desired:, the present sign which was fi ~ established while under the jurisdiction of the County could be relocatede ~' ~ The Commission and the staff discussed the problems involved in the ingress and egress f to subject property and the siguiny of subject property, and upon completion of the ~ ; discussion, it was determined that access to subject property should be developed in f~I such a manner that the staff could administratively handle any approval of revised plans rather than bringing them to thE Commission. ~ ~ ~~ '~ Mr. Paino then advised the Commission that any recommendation the Commission made, '= the,y would be willing to comply with so long as it would not hamN;~r approval of the "~ ~ walk-up restaurar.t now being requested. ~k ~ No one appeared in opposition to s~bject petition. ~` ,b THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ; t ~ Discussi,on was held by the Commission relative to the pos:~ibility of integratino i;he ; signs pxoposed since this could be accomplished by raising the height of the existing sign, thereby assisting in maintaining the investmen~ in the existing sign - which, k- *r`; accordin9 to the petitioner, was fairly new; that no hardship had been proven that a 'i'~ ` need existed for the additional free-standing signs, and free-standing signs could not , be permitted for each new use projected on a petitioner`s property since this would be h~.:.'.,5`n ~ i~ fi v -C- ~`Wi '.- Y . r.7:~ ~~ ' , ~" . L~: ~ "; ~ ~ y~: MINUfES,_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri1~8, 19E~8 3843 CONDITIONAL llSE - contrary to the Sign Ordinance; and that when new signs were considered, PERMIT N0. 1018 the petitioner should consider all tha ramifications of the Sign (Continued) Ordinance as they might affect his future development of the property, in order that investments in signs would not create a hardship. The Commission advised the petitioner that under the requirements of the C-1 Zone, he would be permitted to heve 226 square feet of signing and one free-standing sign. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson then advised the petitioner that the existing sign could be saised and incorporate the advertising copy of the proposed, new, free-standing sign-since the existing sign was 132 square feet, approximately 100 additional square feet could be incorporated.into the new advertising copya ~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-88 and moved for its passage and adop~ion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 1018, providing that all requirements of the C-1 site development standards be complied with relative.to the one free-standing sign, and the parking requiranents and the ingress and egr.ess to the facility should be handled administratively in the event revised plans were submitted, and sub~ect to conditions.' (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COWNISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONHtS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EUCLID SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 West Ball Road, PERMIT N0. 1021 Anaheim, California, Owner; H. RALPH LOVETT, 4921 Durfee Avenue, Pico Rivera, California, Agent; requesting permission to have ON-SALE LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 9.0 acres of la~d having a frontage of approximately 660 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 660 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Streete Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Associate.Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the existing zoning and uses established in close proximity, and the request for the eetablishment of on-sale liquor in conjunction with a proposed restauiant. Nir. Roberts further noted that the first reading of the ordinance to reclassify sub3ect : property to the G1 Zone would be read at the Council meeting on the 9th of April. . Mr. Roberts also reviewed the plans presented, noting that the petitioner was proposing a cocktail lounge in conjunction with a"Hyatt House" restaurant, with a 4500-square foot building, and the cocktail lounge would be on the westerly portion, with a separate entrance, and the cocktail lounge would also be screened from the coffee shop. Further- more, the plans did not conform with the C-1 site development standards; however, the petitioner had indicated they would conform with requirements as to drives, landscaping and signing. Mr. Roberts further stated there was one point he wished to bring to the Commission's attention - namely, since a free-standing sign was being provided for this property for their identification, any future use of adjoinin9 property with structures would be required to have wall siqns unless an additional free-standing sign variance was approved. Mr. Ralph Lovett, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed development was another phase in the development of the 20-acre parcel, and that they would conform with staff recommendations and the C-1 site development standards. Mr. L. N. Page, owner of property at 1790 South Carnelian Street, appeared before the Commission end inquired as to what the Commis'sion proposed for those lots that would be affected by all the commercial development along the south side of Katella Avenue. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that no plans were contemplated for commercial uses in the area on the north side of Katella Avenue since this area had been reviewed in the Front-On Stud_y adopted by the Commission and City Council, in which it was determined that this area`6'hould be retained for residential land use, and that a number of zoning requests had been processed over the past several years on the parcel owned by Mr, Page - however, they all had been deniede . ~ ~ ~ 3 ,~,,.V ~ ~.., ~ :a;r ;;.m r ~ ~ ~ MINUTES,,,CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOh~ April 8, 1968 3844 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Page then noted that the commercial uses adjacent to their property PERMIT N0. 1021 were creating considerable problems in renting the home, and he would (Continued) be in favor of any consideration of C-1 uses for those homes alon9 the north side of Katella Avenue which had to face the commercial uses under consideration. • The Commission inquired of Mr. Page whether he was for or against the proposed petition, and if he had no opposition, his best interests could be served by directing his questions to the staff of the Zonin9 and Planning Division. Mr. Thompson then advised Mr. Page that if he would contact the zoning representatives, they cou],d answer in detail any questions he had regarding future zoning of the propert~, as well as the Front-On Study. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-89 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1021, subject to conditions and the stipulation made by the agent for the petitioner that the site development standards of the C-1 Zone would be complied with. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSTONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Alired. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. VARIANCE N0. 1962 - PUBLIC HEARING. GORDON L. AND FRANCES E. HODGE, 50B1 Crescent Drive, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND (2j MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF A MAIN STRUCTURE FROM A DEDICATED STREET, TO PERMIT 11N0 R-E, RESIDEN7IAL ESTATE, LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE EACH on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 1.76 acres of land located between Crescent Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road and having frontage on the west side of a private road which intersects Crescent Drive at a point approximately 1,400 feet west of'the_centerline of Roya1 0ak Road. Property presently classified R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that the R-E Zone required a minimum of one acre, and the_petitioner was proposing to subdivide a 1.76-acre site into two less than one acre site5. Mre Roberts also noted that during the discussions at the Interdepartmental Committee, it was determined there was a need for policy statements for the area relative to public services, and it was recommended that sub3ect petition be continued from four to six weeks in order that detail studies might be pursued to arrive at definite policies. Mr. Gordon Hodge, the petitioner, appeared before L•he Commission and stated that his request for a lot split was predfcated on the fact that whenever he had a prospective purchaser for the property, the more than one acre site was a deterrin9 factor because of the_upkeep of such a large parcel, and it was hoped subject petition would 6e approved. Chairman Camp noted that the staff had recommended continuance of subject petition in order that policy decisions on the public eerv3ces might be formulated, and inquired of the petitioner whether this would create a hardship as far as he was concerned. Mr. Hodge replied that there would be no problem involved for a later decision. Mr. Alan K.,Jennings,281 Orange AcresDrive, appeared before the Commission in opposition. stating the basic consideration by the Commission was whether or not the R-E Zone applied to the Peralta Hills srea of a minimum of one acre should be broken; that there were many problems basic to the development of this antire area - most of these being service roads,.gas,.and other public facilities - however, because of the uniqueness of this area, which was formerly under the jurisdiction of the County, he did concur with the staff in attempting to establish a po~icy, and there were other considerations which related to the variance: As a representative of the Peralta Hills Estates Improve~ent Association, they were incorporated some years ago to resolve and maintain the area with its rural character- istics; that they were in sympathy with lot split sizes where problems were created because of the terrain,which was above and beyond the control of the owner - however, I i "~ 1 '~ i;;"!~' r-'•; i ;k1 g .G Y<~ ~ x'n .;r f..~ yF ~'Y~ 4'~.,~§ ry ~;i+~ + x •t R~ ~. .~ ,.. r , r. ` i ;; : ' ~ } y,,; " ~.~+~.~.. l . ~ V V MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3845 VARIANCE N0. 1962 - this particular area was a rolling'hill area and was one of the most (Continued) steep areas in the Peralta Hills, and because of this.steep terrain, the lots appeared much smaller than the regular one-acre lot with less rolling, and the value of the land would be much more if this were split into two lots - however, the Peralta Hills area was established for the majority of people who were desirous o: having large lots and who wanted to retain these larger lots, and if persons were interested in purchasing smaller lots, there were areas in the County where they could be purchased, and it was not the desire of the Improve- ment Association to create a subterfuge of the R-E, Residential ~state, Zone, since the County's interpretation of one acre did not count the squoie footage of roads, while in the City of Anaheim this was counted in the acreage itself; that the owners of the property .in the Peralta Hills had requzsted annexation to the City of Anaheim primarily to insure that this rural area would continue to develop as in the past, and most regula- tions before and after the annexation had been as a result of a cooperative effort between the City and the Peralta Hills homeowners; that subject property was a portion of a large 10-acre parcel that had been subdivided, and through the number of subdivisions of this parcel, the property owner had created his own hardship - therefore, he cauld not claim a hardship under the variance reouirement, and requested that the Commission deny subject Petition on the basis that a hardship could not be proven that a reduction in lot size was necessary and urged the Commission to retain the requirement of a minimum of one acre for this.particular area. Mr. Jennings also stated that the Association was not in opposition to the minimum distance to a dedicated street - therefore this waiver could be granted. Mr. Hod9e, in rebuttal, stated that the lack of services mentioned in the Report to the Commission was gradually being resolved; that the statement made by Mr. Jennings that the appearance of the lots on subject property was somewhat smaller than one acre was quite true - however, the proposed lot split would place both houses without bein9 seen by one another because of the propose.d location, and it was their intent to retain the rural beauty of the area as had been maintained during the past years. Mr. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that he was in sympathy with the petitioner from an economic standpoint since this would affect his tax rate; however, the Commission should look at the overall devel- opment of,the area since this area was unique, and the City would be faced with these requests for subdivision into less than one acre many times if subject petition were approved, and it would be up to the City to come to grips at this time by sustaining the policy established, as in the R-E Zone, relative to parcels being not less than one acre in size, and because of the size and terrain of the property, most of the lots would be more than one acre rather than one acre when subdivided - therefore a 10-acre parcel could not be divided equally into one-acre parcels; and that if subject petition were approved, this would set a precedent and a pattern of development for other properties in the area for similar requests of dividing properties into less than one-acre sites, and this could eventually completely reduce the rural atmosphere of these lots by further subdivision into R-1 lot sizes. Mr. Krueger, in reply to Commission questioning relative to the number of hon,eowners he represented as members of the Peralta Hills Estates Improvement Association, indicated heand Mr. Jennings represented 120 residential land owners, and there was a total of 400 acres, mostly undeveloped or in orange groves; that the organization always had had the strong support of all the people in this area, and they had contacted many of the people adjacent to subject property and discussed this with them - in .=,ome cases they had expressed the feeling this should not be started since this would set a precedent, and this was one of the strongest objections made by the immediate neighbors, but they were not desirous of making a personal appearance to voice their opposition; and that the Association was con- cerned that if subject petition were approved, this would set an undesirable precedent unless the policy was maintained as established in the zoning code. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the differences between the County and City estate zoning. Considerable discussion then was held between the Commission, the staff, the petitioner, and the opposition relative to the proposed subdivision and the method of calculating the acreage of a parcel. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that in calculating the acreage of the proposed lot split, the staff did not take into account the private road that was adjacent to subject property, and if the Commission were desirous of calculating the percentage of reduction in acreage as it pertained to private access roads, a percentage of 14% to 15% could be used. '~ {f~ ,tis< ~ +~..,'~~p'q. .~..> ,~ia Y.~a=~ 'ti"~"r 'i~"J$ Ya"~'~ '" `^p~c ~.` n.`~„ ~rc ~~a'N` ~ a ;~x ~ ': +`t~, a ~ x ~ . ~• ~~.a ~'w s n a ~ ~ ~ -. I ~.' r f w x ___.~ -- ~ i:ih „c . ~ ._ ... !'? ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, ApPil 8, 1968 - 3846 VARIANCE N0. 1962 - Commissioner Gauer noted that when the Commission had considered (Continued), the R-E Zone for adoption prior to snnexation of the Peralta Hills area, many of the people who appeared before the Commission had '„ indicated they had no intention of subdividing their property, and they had wanted to retain the maximum acreage they had purchased or developed, and that ~5 .~ the proposed request was the first time a lot split of less than one acre was proposed. Office Engineer Arth>>r Daw advised the Commission that the cost for servicing the lots `' , in the Peralta Hills area with ~c facilities was $700 per acre. ~;:~; ''` ; ; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. .~ut.t/ ~'~ Discussion then was held by the Commission as to whether sub'ect ~~~ continued for further staff study, or whether two separate actionseshould be~considered~ ~~ ~~ ~~ namely, action on subject petition without consideiation of the problems regarding public ~ K~ services, since this petition had implications which might affect other properties in the I, Peralta Hills area, and a further action to request that the sta.ff study the possibility ~~ of establishing a policy statement regarding the xequirements for public services in the ~;. Peralta Hills area. ~ ; Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-90 and moved for its passage and adoption, :i seconded by.Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1962, on the basis '''' '~ that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable ; to the praperty involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply . general,ly to the property in this area; that the requested variance was not necessary , for the..preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other ti ,;: property.in the area and denied to subject property; that the area knaw~ as the Peralta Pi ~~` Hills was annexed into the City of.Anaheim with the understanding that all properties ,~~` Nithin the area would be retained in not less than one-acre sites; and that to grant ;, subject petition could set an undesirable precedent for the many odd-shaped lots in 4,~~ ; this area, thereby destroying the rural environment that is desired by the ma,jority of t~~,~ .w the pro ert owners< P Y (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the staff to make detailed studies in order to establish a definite policy statement regarding the provision of public services in the Peralta Hills area. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.. ~' VARIANCE N0. 1963 - PUBLIC HEARING. MARK AND AMELIA SORRELL, 843 North West Street, ti, Anaheim, California, Ownersj requesting permission to CONSTRUCT AN , x~ ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH WAIVER OF ;' MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARDS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped ~, parcel_of land having a frontage of a p proximate ly 9 3 feet on the west side of West Street and a maximum depth of approximately 205 feet, the southerly boundary of said ~~ t3 parcel being approximately 500 feet north of the centerline of North Street, and further ~y~ described as 843 North West Street. Property presently classified R-0, ONE-FAMILY ., SUBURBAN, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, noting the existing.uses established in close proximity and the proposed variance waiver, which indicated removal of the existing, nonconforming portion of the structure and replace- ment with an•addition of 1,100 square feet, increasing the square footage of the exist- ing residence to 1,900 squaxe feet; however, due to the location and orientati~n of the existing residen~ial structure, the new addition would encroach 2~ feet into the reouired 25-foot rear yard, and the requested side yard setback waiver was necessitated by the fact that the existing bathroom and service utility area was presently located 5 feet, 4 inches from the north property line, and the petitioner was proposing to extend the existing wall as part of the new construction. Mr. Mark Sorrell, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that the proposed 2~-foot encroachment would not affect the north or south property owners since it would not be visible to them; that the neighbor to the south had a dog run approximately 2~ feet above the level of the fence, and a garage wall existed to the north adjacent to this 2~-foot encroachment; that he had presented plans to adjacent property owners and no opposition was expressed so long as he conformed with the plans they were reviewing; that the homeowner adjacent to the west, on the cul-de-sac street, was set at an angle, thus preventing them from seeing the proposed addition; that the new construction would enhance the neighborhood, not to mention the remedying of , -;~..',~ ~ ~ .~-T S .;.,Fi ) .;r'R .:i .,;,cY,ro { i=x i j:N i.J `i r, MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8~ 1968 3847 VARIANCE N0. 1963 - the unsafe living conditions; and that the proposed addition would (Continued) provide a hallway and needed storage space for the existing three- bedroom home. Mr. James Vaughn, 842 North Yvonne Place, appeared beiore the Commission and stated that his home was immediately ad,jacent to the west of subject property, and he was in ravor of the proposed v~riance since this would improve the area, where all the hdmes wese well maintained. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Com~issioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe PC68-91 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commi~sioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1963, subject to conditions. (See F;=solutior~ Book) "~ "' On roll.call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: t: : + `` AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~' NOE$: COMMISSIONERS: None. ti"' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE N0. 1964 - PUHLIC HEARING, ADVENTURE INN, INCORPORATED, 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; HEATH 8 COMPANY, 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles, California, Aqent; requesting permission to ERECT TWO FREE-STANDING SIGNS, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHI' OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (2) MAXIMUM AREA OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, ANii (3) LOCATION OF A FREE-S?ANDING SIGN on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying south and east of a 120-foot by 150-foot parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Harbor Bo~levard and Manchester Avenue, having approximate frontages of 135 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and 460 feet on the south side of Manchester Avenue, and further described as 1414 South Harbor Boulevarde Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and the fact that the theater was approved with reciprocal parking with the restaurant proposed between the service station site and the theater site. Mr, Roberts also noted that the petitioner had submitted a request to the City Council at the April 2, 1968 meeting, requesting approval of the signsas proposed under subject petition, and this request was approved by the City Council subject to assuming all risks in their removal if the City Council concurred in the action taken by the Planning Commission. The report to the City Council by the Development Services staff was reviewed in detail, and it was further noted that since there was considerable expense invoived in the erection of these signs, it would put the Planning Commission in a compromising position if the signs before them for their consideration had been approved already under temporary permit by the City Council, since this would negate any of the positive effects of the Sign Ordinance,which would set an undesirable precedent whereby an applicant could avoid the normal procedural channels for sign applications which did not meet the Zos~ing Ordinance. Mr. Richard Crane, attorney representing the National Dental Corporation, appeared before the Commission and noted that there were other considerations which had not been presented to the Commission - namely, that the Manchester Avenue sign which was ariginally approved for a 35-foot height had to be reduced to 28 feet because of the power line, this height being one foot less than allowed under Code, and the sign area was also reduced because the space between the name and the reader board was reduced; however, it was still desired to have the sign located at the edge of the Manchester Avenue frontage rather than in the center of the property. Furthermore, there seemed to be some difference of opinion as to calculation of the measurement of the sign by the sign companies and the Sign Ordinance- however, revised sign plans would be presented by Mr, Briesemeister. Mr. Rowland noted that the method of calculating the area of a sign was very specific in the Sign Ordinance and inquired of the Assistant City Attorney whether or not this had been explained to the petitioner. Mr. Dawson noted that this had been very carefully explained to the petitioner and his ~ agent by both himself and Mr. Geisler, and there should be no dispute by these people ~ as to variations in the calculations. i r'~ Fyi "."_ ~ 3"'.,]~f' "e7. 'S~}. y,r 7 r' . C' r~,::~.. t - •" .- ~... ,.. . . J / ~+9 ~ , . . ~ . . . . . .~ . .. . . . . ~. . . ~ . . ., .,.-.~ . - .:~. ..: ., ~. . . .~~ nh ....._- __ ~ ' ~ `~ ' " ~ ~ ,:~: '\ ? CU Q ~ ` ~ MINUTES~ CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri1 8, 1968 3g4g , i.,~-~;` VARIANCE N0. 1964 - Mr. Eugene Briesemeister, agent for the petitioner and representing ~:'t `:.` (Continued) the sign company, appeared before the Commission and submitted { revised plans for the sign on Manchester Avenue, noting that the ~ g+,"``` actyal size of the sign now was reduced to 366.6 square feet or ~`'~'`' 3~3.4 s uare feet if the area between the si ns was included. However the si n on :ar:;;:.:_, q 9 ~ 9 ~r:,;;:;':' Harbor Boulevard would still be the same height and size. ~~ ,,., Mr. James Edmondson, 1380 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared in opposition, stating that _,. if the signs proposed were allowed to remain, he would be deprived of the right to erect `.`~,~`;;;;; a sign for the proposed steak house and cocktail loun9e or the restaurart approved under the var.iance for reciprocal parking; that he had filed for a building permit for the ~~q~ restaurant and expected to break ground for its construction shortly - however, he was ~~~:i'~`~~; completely taken by surprise when he was informed that no consideration was given by the '``' Ci~~y Council to the theater usurping the entire square footage for signs; that he would ~ suggz~t that the Commission require that the petitioner comply with the Code, just as ~ the Howard Johnson restaurant and motel, whom he also represented, had been required to do. Fr Mr. Crane, in rebuttal, expressed amazement that`the opposition had applied for a building ~, _ permit without having had a lease for the property from the landholder; that the peti- ~'~:'_ ti~ tioner had a lease which stipulated that any lease which the developer of the restaurant ~. had would be subject to signing of their property so that it would not be an intrusion on the,.theater sign, and it was not the theater's intention to restrict signing of the restaurant property; that the opposition expressed should not be considered valid by 4~:' the Commission since the opposition only had a set of plans without a lease for the ~~ restaurant; and that although signing was needed for a restaurant, their needs were not !?~- , as stringent as the needs of a theater. „ Mr. Crane further noted that it was not the intent of the petitioner to bypass the ~ ; Commission by requesting approval of the signs through the City Council, but they were ~'` '~ faced with the theater opening and signing not approved by the City since the petiti.on ~,,. ;,;~~ would be presented to the Commission only one day prior to the opening date. :~:::: ;,:,:,; ~~ ~r ~ The Commission noted that the operators of the theater were well aware of the opening ~,,_..,.,.~ ! ' date for some time; whereupon the attorney for the petitioner noted that they were aware g:~., ;; , ,:;. ,,,,;,~~;:,;,~ that the variance should have been applied for sooner, but its importance had slipped by F k F I their consideration until it was too late to await the Commission's action. n 1~ tic"~,'~y, " Mr. Crane also noted that the restaurant would not be part of the theater operation but ~ fs~ tw !§. would only be sharing common parking. The Commission then noted that when the original proposal was considered by the Commission, the Commission had approved the plans subject to precise plans being submitted for the restaurant since these were in limbo until a lessee was obtained; therefore, approval , was contingent upon consideration of both the theater and the restaurant being signed, and it made no difference whether or not the parties concerned had dealt with each other without giving any consideration to `he regulations of the City of Anaheim on the type ~ of signs which could be approved, and the developer had more than ample time to obtain the Planning Commission's feelings about the signs. Mr. Crane noted they had not seen plans for the restaurant until M~;rch 28, 1968. The Commission then advised Mr. Crane that the variance or conGitional use permit request was approved by the Planning Commission on the assumption that the theater and restaurant were part and parcel of the same plan, and the only requirement of the Commission was the precise plans for the restaurant being submitted for Commission approval. Mr. Crane then expressed the opinion that he could see no reason for the Commission's being so concerned since the restaurant had certain requirements and the theater had specific requirements, and it was not the fault of the theater that the requirements of the restaurant had increased because of the increase in square footage. The Commission then noted that the petitioner was placing the Commission in a position which might require xemoval of the signs now being erected, and if this would happen, then the Commission could be considered the "bad 9uy" type; however, it was their opinion the sign companies were intentionally bypassing the Commission since they felt they could get approval by the City Council, but this was not solvin9 the problem which was quite apparent on Harbor Boulevard where the Commission had urged the property owners and lessees to solve the sign problems on that street in a manner that would not be detri- ' mental to the property owners - doing so by attempting to comply as nearly as possible ~ with the sign requirements without creating a hardship on themselves or the adjoining ( property owners, and that the Commission in the past had attempted to assist developers j in solving their problems, and to approve subject petition would be granting a privilege ~ not afforded the other property owners in the area. ~ ; -, ~ ~ ."!TeV, ^ d xr" "f L~ ~:~ .r' '; p ~4~~~ ~ yy.:2{ j ~ t Y 'f1'~1 4 : .$~~ _ . . .__ ._ . ~~ . ~ ~~ __ ~._. _ ._ _ _ _ _.__..__ -. ~ 1 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3849 VARIANCE N0. 1964 - Chairman Camp noted that the theater was under construction for (Continued) the past four months, and it took only four weeks to file a variance petition for consideration by the Commission, and in his opinion, the consideration of subject petition was a waste of the Commission's time since ti;ae sign already was being•erected, and consideration of the variance made no difference - whether the petitioner had the blessings of the Commission or not - since the City Council already had granted these signs. Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that variances and conditional use permits must have a positive action by the Planning Commission, whether a denial or approval, and that a representative of the City Attorney's office had made a very thoxough research to determine the exact procedure which the Commission was forced to comply with relative to sub,ject petition, and he urged that the Commission take positive action relative to the petition rather than submitting it to the City Council without any recommendation - due to the possible legal implications, since on the variance the Commission was required by the law to make a decision. Commissioner Camp then stated that he could see no reason for holding a proper public hearing for a petition which was approved for a waiver of 50% to 60;~ in excess of Code requirements. Mr. Dawson stated that the City Council had granted a temporary permit for the sign until the Commission made a ruling and its recommendation to the City Council, and if the City Council decided to over-rule the Commission for any reason, this could be done - however, it was also possible the Council could concur in the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Farano inquired whether the petitioner had been advised.that he was taking a considerable risk in the event the variance was disapproved; to which Mr. Dawson stated,they were fully aware of this. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the Commission was not overly concerned about bypassing the Sign Ordinance since the Sign Ordinance was developed through the City Attorney's office and was to relieve the City Council of the onerous obligation of reviewing all sign requests; that the biggest problem on this petition was the fact that the granting of this variance created the absolute necessity of another variance inasmuch as the Commiss'ion and City Council were aware of the nature of the conditional use permit under which the theater was constructed and the additional building on the property'would be sub~ect to the Sign Ordinance requirements. However, under this petition it was difficult for the Commission to determine how they could establish that a hardship existed since no hardship, in fact, did exist, but would exist on any sub- sequent request for the restaurant sign. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Tliompson advised the Commission that the waiver of the Manchester Avenue sign no longer was necessary as to its height and size; however, the location still was too close to the property line. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1964 to the meeting of April 22, in order to allow the Commission time to review the Minutes of the previous petition covering the theater and the restaurant under Variance No. 1938. After further discussion by the Commission relative to consideration o.f subject petition, Commissionex Farano withdrew his motion. Cortunissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-92 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to approve in part Petition for Variance No. 1964, grenting the waiver of the sign area and location of the sign along the Manchester Avenue frontage, and denying'the request for waiver of the sign area along the Harbor Boulevard frontage,..basing the approval of the waiver on the fact that the petitioner had withdrawn the requested waiver of the height of the free-standing sign since revised plans had to be submitted because of the existence of overhead electrical lines, reducing the height of the sign to 28 feet and further reducing the size of the sign to approximately 375 square feet, which the Planning Commission determined was close enough to the maximum permitted area, and that the requested location of the Manchester Avenue sign was granted on the basis that the sign would have no affect on the adjacent property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Camp. ~~~~rr- ~ ~ •1 8 1968 ~ 3850 MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Aprl ' etitioner in voting °no", stated that the Pro sed, was p PP VARIANCE N0. 1964 - Commissioner Rowland, _#.ho_reby was fully aware ~f the fact that another building (Continued) ~ ::~;~nstructed. yet was requesting a waiver of the sign requirements requiring an additional variance when the restaura(~'~~ xY'~~Frz~n,s stated that he felt it was a waste ~+~ 7y~„~•4i~~ time in any consideration of a sign that was u:%~~~p t'~~ Commissioner Camp~ in 2bstaining, and the petitioner's roved by the City Council. and which had been epP E~ir~• ~, _'I,~y~' '^r~„~`, ::~ RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess t e D1e issioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _---- Comm recessed at 4~~~ P'M~ The meeting p~M,~ Commissioners - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:12 RECO~ E pllred and Rowland bein9 absent. AND ELAINE S. GOLDEN, 929 West Pionner ` JACK R. Uesting permission to ~ _ pUBLIC ~ARI~'' California, Owners; req VARIANCE N0. 1967 Drive, Anaheim, A ro erty destribed as- CONSTRUCT AN ADEIYARD SETBACK on p P INGLE-FAMILY ~ pID eet on UIRED SID a frontage of approximately WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM ~4 th of approximately 105 feet, the ularly shaped parcel of land having the centerline i rectang pioneer Drive and a maximum dep 480 feet east of erty presently the north side of arcel being approximately prop westerly boundary of said p of West Street, and further describedZONE929 West Pioneer Drive. p ONE-FAMILY SIJBURBAN, =_on of subject property, the uses classified R- ~ o^' ~,'lance, noting that the existing Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the arc•'~lY roximity, and the proposed Was developed PTior to the established ln ~lase six feet, and the home aPP side yards were anly Written, and the proposed addition would haue the eaves within present R-0 Zore bein9 eaves. 1942, of which subject property was a part, the same distance as the exist ng edestrian traffic Pioneer Drive, and the p ~, Boberts further noted that Tract °~ installed at this time. was granted waiver of the sidewalks alon9 uestions in this area did not warrant sidewalks 5 eindicated his presence to answer any q ~, Jack.Golden, one of the petitioner , the Commission mi9ht have. I' No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. I THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. assage and Mun all offexed Rxsolution No. PC68-93 and moved for its p issioner g • 5ioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1967~ Comm Commis +, adoption, seconded by subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~ote~ `''~'' resolution was passed by the following y~(~ On roll call the foregoing ~ Herbst, Mungall, Camp• ~, •, AYES~ ~pDAMISSIONERS~ Farano, Gauer, ~'~' COMMISSIONERS~ None. ~ ~lOES~ Allred, Rowland. ~~ ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS~ h~'}~~~ _ PUBLIC HEARI[4G. FRANK L. TAYLOR, 1225R Last 216thP tr~eeBox 591, ~s:'~,n;; Ow•:~er; COONS, `~''~"*~ci' VARIANCE N0. 1968 California, r.r,:T•; ~ Hawaiian Gardens, A ent; re t'uesting permissioularlysshaped ~'~~ California, 9 p rectang re ~ ~~4 ~t~ Anaheim, ro erty described as~ ~~~~^ AND SERVICE FACILITY on p P "~1".~y el of land located at the sfouthwest corner of Cerritae Avenue and Walnut TI ~ r ~y CAR RENTAL ~~:rt< 145 feet on the south sideSCTibedras~12~4eand 1210 AL ,r„r~~ parc and further r roximate frontages o ~lassified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDE z~' ~`~~ having aPP ~~r.i ` 100 feet on the west SiPiopertY1PTesentlyt, ~ a~ West Cerritos Avenue. eTtY~ eXisting ~*~''~ ,~~,,;7,. ;ect proP ~,y<<r~ ZONE. roximity, noting that ;~~'"~~ Charles Roberts reviewed the location of su . ~t~''~'~ pssociate Planner a~ uses established in close p *='?`o the waivers requested, however, ;~,;~ay, zoning, roposing a combinaef°a pro ednfoT that corner in 1956;for subject ~""•s'i* . the petitioner was p _ therefore the `~'"~ and a service station had beadjo ning it had been developed for multip e' i~:ix~ property, + the property was developed "!~?:~r~:ri uent to hat time, subseq and the service station never "~'~'~~ family residential uses, uesta for extensions of time were ma e, t~~;,;k,~w er was in effect eince no req ,:~ =5„~ variance no long ' :.~~ ~ _-_._ ---...~~.~.~.x~~. -'7f'rr4 ~ _._ .:~. " ~;- ~ O • ~ MINUTES, CLTY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 ~:?,,:- ..~~F r `;~S i y~,.:."~i ~ r:s ~ ~ ~:.~':14 3851 h`: VARIANCE N0. 1968 - that although the area had been almost completely developed for (Continued) multiple-family residential uses, the proposed use would be permitted in the Commercial-Recreation Zone - a zone immediately to the east of subj~ect property, and, therefore, the Commission might wish to con- sider whether the use would enhance the area or shoulci be located in the Commercial- Recreation Zone. Mr. N. S. Bernard, attorney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had previously represented the petitioner for the emall shopping . facility proposed under Reclassification No. 66-67-37, which was denied by both the ~~,s Commission and City Council; however, the proposed request should be considered reason- ~ able since it would enhance the area. *y;,. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 4:18 P.M. ~: ~ ~' ' Mr. Bernard further noted that the Disneyland Hotel's new entrance would be at the ~} corner of Cerritos and Walnut Street. ~ ; ;; Mr. Rex Coons, 111 West Elm Street, appeared before the Commission and.stated that r #' Mr. Bernard had reviewed the request quite well; however, as Mr. Bernard had pointed ~ out, thes~e lots had a previous petition for a service station approved,•and with the ~; Disneyland Hotel proposing to relocate their lobby to Cerritos Avenue and the addition e~ of another section to the hotel, it would be better to have the service station at ~: this intersection than residential uses, and man ~a~.','~ would be utilizin the car rental aaencv. Y People who arrived by air or bus ~ ~:: ~:;. . 9 ~ Mr. Coons further questioned the requirement of an additional dedication of five feet ~' since the adjoining property already had full improvements on it, and it would be M;,,;.~s: `''' "", doubtful.any additional land could be acquired from the adjoinin ~}:~~~:~:~~' 9 property owner. ~ ~~ ~'~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the agent for the petitioner that it was ~ H, proposed.to have both Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street ultimately developed to a ~~~~` 45^fioot half-width, and the 25-foot radius corner return was neoessary for said street ~p~r:';;~"~ wldening. Yp ; '~~' Mr. Cooos.then reoted ver little ,~'+~ Y parking was proposed, and if the curbs and gutters ~yy,~ and sidewalks..were set back, this would reduce their proposed parking. k rya~~ ~,ti~~"~ After discussion be~ween Mr. Coons and the Commission relative to consideration of a ,~+~,~~~ masonry wall along the south property line, it was determined that due to the fact '~~45~k` that the garagec on the opposite side of the alley backed into the alley, the wall ~;~;;~,^.,~a might not be advisab3ea Mrs. Diana Stinson, 1'226 West Cerritos Avenue, appeared before the Commissic~: in opposi- tion, stating she was the residential owner of the fourplex at that address and they were opposed_to any commercial use of subject property for either a service station or a car rental facility, and most of the legal owners of the properties in the R-3 tract had not received a notice (mailing list checked and all property owners had been advised); however, she had contacted the adjoining property owners and seven property owners of ten ;i R-3 lots had signed a petition of opposition to the proposed request. A letter of opposi- tion from Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hansen was also pre~a;ented. Mrs. Stinson also noted that another commercial request recently had been turned down by the Commission and City Council, and the use ~ multiple-family residential development. proposed would downgrade the entire j' ~ 1ulr. Coons, in rebuttal, stated that the Disne land i I as the heliport, and a new 400-room addition to thegexistingSDisneylandhHoteltwassnowll under construction, which would be directly across from these apartments, and the City Council had expressed the thought that the property to the north might.possibly be developed for commerciel-recreation purposes in the event Disneyland further expanr]ed. Mr. Coo~s, in response to Commission questioning, stated that there would be very little , utilization of traffic through the alley because of the location of the parking stalls, and these stalls would be used primarily for the parking of automobiles in the event of car rental customers. Further discussion then was held by the Commission relative to the requirement of a wall along the south property line adjacent to the alley because of the fact that children utilized the alley for playing purposes, and a very serious traffic problem might occur due to the fact that three or four garages opened onto this alley. ~ ss G~ ~,~ j'. 2 rcr ~' ` Fs.7w;°TtT / J~ •: - l~ ~ ~ ! , O ~ V r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3852 , VARIANCE N0. 1968 - Mr. Coons then advised the Commission that if they so desired, a i%~;,~• (Continued) wall would be constructed along the south property line; however, '~'~~'~ the referred not to construct it because of the y ~r ; Y P possibilit of ~ damage to the wall when automobiles from the garages to the south ~4;;';;.' left their facilities. Furthermore, the parking stalls which were designed in a north- east, south-west direction could utilize the exit through the proposed service station ~~"„'' facility. ` THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;?~f•: '~ ~ Mr. Coons, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the proposed sign would ~,,~~„~~~;~ be the standard Texaco sign, which was a revolving sign. r e; Mr. Thompson noted that under the R-3 and R-A Zones, the only size sign permitted was a 20-square foot sign, and the proposed sign would be larger than that permitted. '~' ~` Further discussion relative to the proposed sign was held between the Commission and ~ the petitioner, and at its conclusion it was determined that the apartments immediately adjacent would be no more affected by the proposed signing and they would be affected °` ~? by the lights from the Disneyland Hotel to the east. Mrs. Stinson then noted that since all those properties adjoining subject property were ~ residential, and subject property was the only one not developed as such, it was their ' opinion a commercial use would be detrimental to the area; however, they had no opposi- ~ _' tion to development in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and the property owners of these ''::r': apartments would suffer a considerable loss in the value of their properties if commer- '' - cial uses were permitted in close proximity on their side of the street. ~`; ';r? . ' a' ,T~~ Commiss~oner Herbst offexed Resolution No. PC68-94 and moved for its passage and adoption, ;,;..::;,..H, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition far Variance No. 1968, on the basis ia{ that adjoining land uses to the east and northeast, the proposed use would be compatible, q j; and that the normal wall requirement between commercial and residential.uses should be ~,''` eliminated.because of the fact that damage to the wall could occur with automobiles ~ ~{~ backin o,t of the ara es to the south of the alle and that a 9 4 9 9 y, previous variance had ~~~,~ ` been approved for a service station on subject property; furthermore, subject approval ~~~ was also predicated on compliance with conditions as set forth in the Report to the ~ ~~ . Commission. (See Resolution Book) i/ F; , ~ .. . . ~ . 7 ~~3~' ~ On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~;; +j '?'! ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. 1~A1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~, s,~, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. _ `fi, ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. VARIANCE N0. 1969 - PUBLIC HEARING. C. MICHAEL, INCORPORATED, 8501 Bolsa Avenue, Midway City, California, Owner; KEN HALVERSON, 8501 Bolsa Avenue, Midway City, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 1,890 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 1,266 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 750 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presen+.ly classi- fied R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Commissioner Rowiand left the Council Chamber at 4:42 P.M. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the property, the previous zoning.action on the property, and the Report to the Commissio~, noting that the varied setbacks should add interest to the development and should not adversely affect any surrounding land uses since the entire complex would be developed by the same owner. However, the Commission might wish to state a finding that would require all setbacks to be maintained as specific plans had been presented so that any individual property owner.in.the future would be limited to that setback as approved under this petition. Mr. Ken Halverson, agent for the peti'tioner, appeared before the Commission and indicated his presence to answer questions and their willingness to comply with the requirement of development in accordance with the specific plans on file. N~ one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~' ;'r_?: ~~~.'~~ ~~ 1,~ ~~x~~ ~7 9~~ ~L ~'~,~'%w'~' k. -rF a Y 'K" '~ ;] v. ,r ~ b.r:! l,t~ ir 1 'l ~t };. . ... .. I ~, : lY ~~ . . . . , . . .. _ ~. .. . . . \:/ ~ . , . /'~1j ' . `'~ \..: `" ~c..~ NlINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 8, 1968 3853 VARIANCE N0. 1969 - Co:nmissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-95 and moved for (Continued) its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1969, subject to the requirement that development shall be in accordance with plans and 3 finding that any future development of the property should require the setbacks to be maintained as indicated on plans approved under Variance No. 19b9. (See Resolution Baok) On roll cail the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: . COMMISSIONHRS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. ~$' ; RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MIKAGI NAKAMURA, 2109 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, { N0. 67-68-66 California, Owner; HARRY KNISELY, 1741 South Euclid Street, Suite Bs ~;,<.: Anaheim, California, Ag~nt; requesting that property described as: ~ An irregularly shaped parcel containing appror.imately 5.0 acres of ~~ ~ land and having a frontage of approximately 196 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue ;': and a maximum depth of approximately 732 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being 1`: approximately 200 feet west of Aladdin Drive, and further described as 2109 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ' ' ts~ ZONE. ~,.. .:'V ` ~ti Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~eot property and the ~,,,,,.~~; uses established in close proximity, noting that no plans had bee~. submitted with the ~ ;, petition; however, the petitioner had indi:ated that the site development standards of ~,.,<,~:>;~ the G1 Zone would be complied with, and the primary issue before the Commission was „~.`~~ci:;.~;:,~; one of land use. Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the zoning of the property in close proximity, noting that the only logical use for subject property would be for commercial purposes. No one••appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WpS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-96 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recomrt;end to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-66 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. _ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALAN AND MARJORIE TALT, HERBERI' AND SHIRLEY BOTSFORD, N0. 67-68-69 AND MARVIN AND LUANA FLUEGGE, Wilshire-Flower Building, Suite 806, . 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California, Owners; ROBERT S. CONDII'IONAL USE MC MICHAEL, 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California, Agent; PERMIT N0._1020 property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 2.7 acres of land having a frontage of approximately 260 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approximately 772 feet, the, southerly boundary of said parcel being the northerly boundary of the Orange County Flood Control channel. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT A 35-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WITH WAIVER OF PERMITfED LOCATION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that a flood control channel separated this odd-shaped parcel from the single-family residential uses to the south- east, and that single-#amily homes abutted to the north, which were located in the City of Garden Grove. Furthermore, the petitioner was proposing single-story construction within 150 feet of all single-family zones, and the waiver being requested was to permit the garages to be located alon9 the flood control channel boundary. 's+' "~~ 1°~t ~ ~. ~.* .'~,ax s ~ "-ns ~ -.:` ~ ~ r ~',.~'~" ~ a; .~Z ~ 2 u''+' ~, ~. rn n et,.7: ,$~ . ~ ~. . . .. . . ...."_" - . . ~ - . ~ ~ ' . . . ~ ~ ~ .. MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3854 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Roberts further noted that the General Plan designated this N0. 67-68-69 general area for low deasity residential uses; therefore, the CONDITIONAI. USE primary issue before the Commission was one of land use, and they,must determine whether the property was more appropriate PERMIT N0. 1020 for multiple-family residential use or single-family residential (Continued) use. Mr. Robert McMichael, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the proposed development was the most logical use of the property since the parcel was very difficult to develop, and after considerable conferences with the staff, the plans before the Commission were the most acceptable. ~ :x ~~ No one appeared in o~position to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ', Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that an analysis of the plans indicated that ~ the coverage would be 41%, and the density would be 16 dwelling units per net resi- _ dential acre. Furthermore, 29 of the uncovered parking spaces were proposed along the private street. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-97 and moved for its passage and adop- tion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition ;: for Reclassification No. 67-68-69 be approved, sub,~ect to conditions. (See Resolution ' Book) E a On roll call the foregoino resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ , ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, ~auer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. ! NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ! ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-98 and moved for its passage and adop- tion,_seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1020, subject to conditions.' (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 4:47 P.M. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.52, Light Industrial Zone, Section 18.52.050(3) Conditional Uses - to consider deletion of i:he requirement of a conditional use permit when an industrial use was proposed to be located within 330 feet of a public school or park site. Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that the proposed amendment to Tit1e 18 was initiated after tne City Attorney expressed the opinion that he would be in a poor position to defend the City if the Planning Commission or City Council refused to approve a conditional use permit or refuse to rezone property under the stringent requirements of Section 18.52.050(3), since the City's position could be attacked on the basis that this was condemnation of the property without just compensa- tion by the governing body. Furthermore, there were only two locations within the Ci.ty affected by this particular section of Chapter 18.52, those being at the northeast corner of Loara Street and Broadway and at.the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Walnut Street, and the latter location already had a conditional use permit to permit M-1 uses adjoining the Betsy Ross School, and the staff had presented two alternatives relative to this amendment: the deletion of this section, or the amend- ment to permit specific uses. No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ _. _ . ,. „ ~ ~ - ~ MINUTES,,CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3855 Ah.rtNDMENT.TO•TITLE 18,. - Commissioner Gauer offered ResolUtion No.'PC68-99 and moved. ANAHEIM ~uIUNICIPAL CODH `for its passage and adoption,'seconded by Commissioner _(Continued) Herbst, to recommencl to the City Council that Title 18, ' Anaheim Municipal Code, Cha~;~aT-,18.52, Light Industrial Zone, Section 18.52.050(3) Conditional Uses, b4 amended by the deletion of this section from the M-1 site development'standards. (See Rasnlution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was-passed by the following vote: . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMdSSIONERS: None. ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ,i 4~ . r TENTATIVE MAP OF - PUBLIC HEARING. DEVELOPER: DONALD H. YODER, 415 West 4th Street, TRACT N0. 6598 Tustin, CaliFOrnia. ENGINEER: Samuel Salkin, 1107 East Chapman Avenue, Orang=, California. Subject tract, located at the north- west corner o4' La Jolla Street and Kraemer Boulevard and containing approximately 10 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 17 M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONED lots. Assaciate Planner Charles Roberts presented Tentative Map of Tract No. 6598 to the ~ Commission, noting that subject property has a resolution of intent to the M-1 Zone; * that Red Gum Street is proposed to be extended from Miraloma Avenue to Orangethorpe "~~~ Avenue, as a collector arterial street; that the Traffic Engineer is of the opinion ;^~ that Street "A" should extend to Red Gum Street, in order to enhance the flow of ;f vehicular traffic within a portion of the Northeast Industrial Area westerly of sub- , ,, '`~' ject property, which would also assist in development of the area ty providing addi- ,` ~ '~'~ tional street frontage; thexc;cr.e Street "A" should be stubbed at the westerly boundary ^ J ~ ' rather than cul-de-saced as N•roposed; and that at such time as either or both of the ~,5 parcels to the west are proposed to be developed, that the developers present, or the ~?:r• staff should prepare an area dsvelopment plan for the Planning Commission's approval : to assuxe adequate vehicular circulation. '` . . . , . . . . . . , :~~ . '; ~k ~`l. . Mr: Samuel Salkin, the engineer, appeared before the Commission'and noted that they f ~~~ would.be,willing to stub Street "A" at the westerly property line_for future'street ~ i '~~~ : connection; provided, however, that the properties to the west incur the expense of '' ~ , extending the street; that waiver of the requirement that utililities be underground ' ~; was being requested, since at the present time it could not be determined what voltage ~ ~~ would be needed for future tenants; and that overhead facilities would better serve ~ ra this area without the expense of breaking into the pavement at some future date. , ; ; Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that underground utilities was discussed with the representative of the Utilities Department durin~ the review of subject tract at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting, at which time it was determined that if the Commission deemed appropriate to waive the requirement, they could forward this recommendation on to the Utilities Director. Commissioner Rowland noted that power demand is not really an unknown factor because industrial developers will take the maximum voltage available, and then it was a simple matter of transformation of stepping down to the needed power supply and not stepping up to meet increased demand to serve~each iadustrial facility, thereby ~ i eliminating any need for changing the wiring in the under9round facilities. Further- more, it was noted that industrial subdivisions should not be given preferential f: consideration over any other subdivision that is required to have underground utilities. Mr. Don Yoder, the developer, advised the Commission that the industrial buildings . were constructed as shells and no facilities were provided, since power_ demand was an unknown factor; however, if the'expense incurred to provide adequate electrical power was greater than that proaided by overhead facilities, a tenant cauld be lost because of this added expense. 1 , ~ The Commission then advised the developer that one conduit wiring for any type of ' `~~ voltage.with either a 4-inch or'1-inch conduit would have a very small variation in i cost:. Furthermore, the City of Anaheim has had little experience in underground utilities - thus this was the reason for writin9 it into the subdivision ordinance so that any future subdivisions would be required to provide underground facilities, and that eventually all overhead facilities would be placed underground. ~.`{1Y'~it~:`~+F'r'+~°T+X' •'Tii~FS.fiB'~ [ ~ }c ,~,"~~`-. ~. N..ly q"F ~ :Z, M3 ?,~l55 f ~"i',.y°T T 'T~1 ,.t '..q; y z 5 ,,..ra`kN" ~5 /J:.! -~ c `' ''i , .~',M`;7 L . §Tt' 1# t i S ~. ~ ~ ~ s `; s ~.''3z ".:r'i ''Y- ^'J n ~;. -~$ 1~r~-, ~~ ~ sT~ _. . . . . . ~',~ ?~j y~~ . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ - ~` ~ ~~ .:~ . . ~ . . . . ~ MINUTES,, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 • ~ t ' _ . 3856 ~"` TENTATIVE MAP CF - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to a '~ TRACT'N0. 6598 Tract No. 6598, subject to the following find ng andtconditMonsof (Continued) .a~. ft . Findino: That at such time as either or both of the parcels to ~ the weat are proposed to be developed, that the developers ~. present, or:the staff prepare, an area development plan `~~. for the Planning Commission's,approval, to assure adequate r vehicular circulation. ~ ~ Conditions: ~ .f " 1. That should.this:•subdivision be developed as more then one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the developer shall provide all underground utilities. 3. That Street "A" of Tract No. 6598 shall be stubbed at the westerly boundary ' of the tract rather than cul-de-saced as was now proposed, in order to provide for future circulation from subject property through the two parcels to the west to connect with Red Gum Street, upon development of these adjoining parcels. 4. That Street "A" shall be recorded as Lunar Way. ;` ` Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I: ADJOURNMENT. -`Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn for dinner. FOR DINNER . Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:03 P.M. It : RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 7:25 P.M., f Commissioner Allred being absent. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AMENDMENT N0. 97 , 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,: Galifornie; to consider increas- ~~,' ing residential densities :or properties east of Rio Vista Street and north of.Lincoln Avenue. I Assistant Planner liave Williamson Planni.ng Commiasion (detailed reporteonnfileGinethe DevelopmenteServices7Department). Mr. James Geriak, 2913 Hempstead Road, appeared before the Commission,representing approximately SO persons present in the,Council Chamber in opposition, and presented a petition signed by 250 residents in the immediate area who were all opposed to the General P1an Amendment, and stated that all single-family homeowners were opposed to any land use change on the General Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Commission may have already decided that a higher concentration of multiple- family uses should be_considered for subject property - however, in the opinion of the residents in the area, an increase in density would be undesirable since multiple- family residential development had been approved to the west of Rio Vista Street, extending to Sunkist Street along the north side of Lincoln Avenue, with an additional concentration of multiple-fa~ily development north of La Palma Avenue, east of Sunkist Street, and the suggestion to extend this heavier density further east would mean a sea of apartments for.almost a mile along the north side of Lihcoln Avenue; therefore, ' this would completely destroy the low density residential uses in this area, if the propose~3 General Plan Amendment were approved. Also, the proposed General P1an Amend- ment would be contrary to the policy adopted by the Commission and City Council which projected heavier deasities to be developed around major arterials, such as the free- way, which could act a5 a buffer zone to the low density uses. 2• Approval of heavier densities for sub3ect and adjoining properties to the north would create two sma11 islands of low density development between the freeway on the west,side of Rio Vista Street and north of Lincoln Avenue and the R-l tract immediately to•the west of the Santa,Ana Riuer, of which this tract was a part. Furthermore, although the staff indicated that multiple-femily density did not increase the number of school children, this was not true since most of the apartments proposed projected three,and four bedroom units, which would indicate as many as, if not more than, the number of children=projected for low density development, and the fact that the City of Anaheim had the most'prolific residents because more children were born in Anaheim than eny pther city in the United States with a comperable population. Also, is the report made for the General Plan Amendment was to be considered valid, then many I ~~~~ ~'~s ;r''~'f; ~ yl,~,e^m?~,' r~k ~;'F"~''~1 5~-~";~ '~ ~~.. `~F'k.~'/~1,~'1-F~ y~ -~,,,, ;~u x z m r ti~.t 1;>~f hvr+.t J/" ~ y. ~ ~ l'' ° n 7s, r s r t < • .. _' ,. ~ ~ - ~.. . __._- -• MINUTES., CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3857 GENERAL PLAN - families who no longer had small children would be renting these AMENDMENi' N0. 97 units, and he was sure they would not be interested in the many (Continued) children who would be a part of these multiple-family units if utilization of the three and four-bedroom apartments was to be accomplished; therefore, these older families must like children in order that the figures quoted as to any net change in school children or park requirements were to be substantiated. Furthermore, proof of that could be seen in the R-1 tract to the east where families who had no children had moved because the average number of children in this tract was four to five per family. 3. When annexation was considered by the residents of the tract, a representative of the City Manager's office had told the R-1 homeowners that the area east of the shopping center would be developed for low density residential uses; although no bind- ing bargain had been given, all the people understood that the General Plan was a policy of the City unless there was evidence there was a radical change and sufficient reason for any change. Therefore, since the General Plan indicated low density, and the park and school projections were based on this density, all of these homeowners voted for annexation into the City of Anaheim, and the low density residential growth was as expected with development of homes which had been constructed recently north of the area under consideration, which indicated these families preferred homes rather than apartments. 4. There was obviously a problem of inequitable treatment of the land immediately adjacent ta a shopping area because logic would dictate that low density residential uses should not be adjacent to commercial uses; however, developers were desirous, usually, of building a large apartment complex - therefore, he would suggest a buffer adjacent to the commercial area, with the possibility of a church adjacent to the apartments and low density uses surrounding this area. This would be acceptable to the single-family homeowners abutting subject property, and the transition would establish a very desirable area in whicll to reside, and which the City would be proud , of since the existin9 homes were well maintained as to landscaping and residential appearance. Mr. Russell Strom, 211 Sout,i Kingsley Street,appeared before the Commission, noting that the previous speaker had not stressed the problem of reduction in the value of the single-family homes, and the single-family homeowners were quite apprehensive since the tract had been a slow-moving tract to begin with, and now with all the homes. occupied, any decrease in the value of these homes because of possible land use change to the west could amount to $2,000 per home, or approximately $500,000; that the orange growers.were fortunate that Disneyland came to the city, which made their properties more valuable = however, the only loss the property owners of the agricultural land might incur would be minimal and could not be considered when compared to the loss the R-1 homeowners would incur; that the proposed land use change would have an adverse affect o.n the adjoining land uses; and that the Commission also should consider protec- tion of the R-1 homeowners' investments as well as the orange growers'. Furthermore, plans.of development were not presented to the opposition until April 7, and the later plan,before the Commission had not been seen by interested persons at all. Chairman Camp noted for all persons present at the hearing that the Commission presently was considering e General Plan Amendment, which did not mean a change in zone - there- fore the opposition expressed by Mr, Strom should be more directly applied to the reclassification petition. i Reverend Gabe Ashie, 141 South Kingsley Street,appeared in opposition, stating his ~ property was immediately adjacent to the study area and noted that the study area did not.take into consideration the fact that a 24-home, R-1 tract was immediately to the north; that na land use change had taken place to warrant consideration of a change in the General Plan ~ymbology; that 250 homes have been developed in this and only one ingress and egress to this number of homes was developed -gthereforeeasome consideration should be given to providing adequate and additional circulation for these homes to the east; that he was not opposed to apartments in their but the approval of apartments and their projection in this area would indicatepthat~ the City was planning to have apartments rather than homes for the City; and that he was opposed to turning this entire area into an apartment development when homes could be built and sold as well. I'HE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland was of the opiuion that before the Commission took action on the General Plan Amendment, the public hearing should be held on the petition for reclassi- fication, and thereupon offered a motion to consider Reclassification No. 67-68-64, Variance No. 1960, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6607. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, a~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~-,it:' MINUCES., CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ April 8, 1968 3858 ; RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD W. HENNING, 2861 East Lincoln N0. 67-68-64 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; WILLIAM S. PHELPS, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: VARIANCE N0. 1960 An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 12 acres of land, • having a frontage of approximately 890 feet on the north side of TENTATIVE MAP OF Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 750 feet, the TRACT N0. 6607 westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 460 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vista Street. Property presently classified R-A~ AGRICULTURAL; ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILLING AND STRUCTURAL HEIGHT LINITATIONS. I Subject tract, located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, easterly of the commercial facility and containing approximately 13-3~4 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 22 R-3 lots to be developed with fourplexes and one R-3 lot for which no development was proposed at the present time. Chairman Camp noted for interested persons that the low-medium density symbology also permitted single-family homes on 5000-square foot lots - this meant an increase in density of R-1 from 4.2 to 6.5 lots per net acre, and if any further explanation were necessary, the staff could so advise the peopie. Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted that the reclassification covered the entire parcel and the waiver of the building and structural height limitations applied to the lots in the tract since R-~ zoning was immediately to the north of a portion of the tract lots; that the tract proposed 22 R-3 lots to be built with fourplexes, and one large lot-for which no plans were submitted; and that the only point not yet discussed was that if.the Planning Commission determined that some higher density residential use was desirable, then the Commission could give consideration to a buffer area of higher der~sity adjacent to the shopping center - then downgrading in terms of density easterly and northerly with single-family homes, such as R-2-5000e Furthermore, if the Conunission did consider this the proper approach, then the petitioner could be required to submit revised plans which would reflect the desires of the Commission. Mr. William Phelps, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that considerable discussion already had been held re9arding the proposed apartment complex; that the plans submitted were as they proposed to develop; and that he would be available to answer questions to clarify any misunderstanding as to density because of the statements made by the opposition under the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Phelps, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the higher density proposed on the easterly portion was planned at first for a PRD, but because there were several problems in developing under this concept, rather than leave the entire parcel in limbo, continuation was requested at the last hearing in order that a pattern of development could be presented to the Commission which would permit a portion to be developed now and the balance later, without appearing again before the Commission. Furthermore, it was his opinion that the development would be an asset to the community- which would provide a living environment and in which maintenance of property and yards was eli.minated; that the fourplex tract was proposed adjacent to a shopping center, and the same type of development had been built elsewhere in the County and had proven to be successful; and that the large parcel would be developed as a condominium under one ownership or une person. The fact that the property was located on Lincoln Aven~e, which was an important thoroughfare, was also noted by Mr. Phelps, and this was one of the reasons the owner and developers were proposing R-3 - because apartments should be developed along freeways and larger arterials. •rTti ~...~i~.~,.1 Mr. Phelps further noted for the Commission that the fourplexes would be owned not as individual units, but each fourplex would be owned by one p>rson. Furthermore, past zoning actions where homes fxonted on larger thoroughfares proved these homes would ;' be undesirable for residential purposes - therefore this was part of the evidence necessary to prove that the area shoald be considered for heavier density residential use, and that more circulation will be provided for this area to permit traffic flow to Rio Vista Street as well as Lincoln Avenue. ,'. The Commission also noted this increase in circulation could be accomplished by project- ing R-l de~~elopment for the property as well. ^YS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI•TY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3859 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr.,Richard Brown, representing the Bayport Development Company, N0. 67-68-64 the proposed developers of the project, appeared before the Commission and noted that the R-3 zoning request was predicated on VARIANCE.NO. 19b0 what had been developed in the past for buffer strips adjacent to commercial areas; that traffic volumes along major streets were not TENTATIVE MAP OF conducive to low density residential use; and that they were quite TRACT N0..6607 sUrprised so much opposition was being expressed to the proposal (Continued) since the proposal was similar to that proposed in the pasi: for a similar type of situation. Furthermore, the R-1 tract to the east did not have the same problem as subject property since they were below grade, and the noises were effectively blocked out with landscaping; that the proposed development would provide additional circulation; and that their company had a number of•developments in Anaheim, Garden Grove, Westminster, and Fullerton, and none.of.these developments were unusual or unat~ractive. The Commission inquired of the developer whether or not he had considered revision of the plans since so much oppo3ition was presented, and whether there seemed to be any change in the quality of the homes in this area. Mr. Brown stated that it made no difference where heavier density residential use was located, since they had built other R-3 subdivisions in the County, and these subdi- visions had never generated or created any animosity, and because the R-1 development to the.east•had moved so slowly, it was felt that the development of subject property with R-1 homes would be more difficult, due to the proximity of homes to the commercial development and to a heavily traveled st:reet. The Commission further inquired whether or not the develuper felt medium density development would enhance the moving of R-1 homes in this area; whereupon Mr. Brown stated that no particular zoning would enhance an area since it would be up to the City to.designate the types of uses for each area. Furthermore, they could project a much less attractive development with smaller R-1 lots - however, it was his feeling that any of the developments he had built in the past had increased the value of adjacent properties, rather than decrease it, and that they had always been good neighbors in the past, and it was not their intent to create an untenable r?lationship with their neighbors in the future. Mr. Brown, in response to questioning relative to the possibility of considering development of the majority of the property with R-2-5000 lots, stated he was not familiar with the R-2-5000 Zone and would have to do a feasibility study as to service roads and accessibility to the property. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that some of the comments made by..the.staff seemed. to have been interpreted differently than was intended; however, the staff did point out that if the Commission felt a change in density were desirable for this area, that development should take place by providing a gradual transition ~rom the comm?:cial use with medium to low densi.ty, which would act as a buffer between the commercial use at the intersection of Rio Vista and Lincoln and the low density residential use as developed at the northeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard, where a tier of one-story apartments and R-2-5000 acted as a buffer to the shopping center there and the R-1 easterly and northerly of that intersection. Mr. Brown again stated that since he was not familiar with the R-2-5000 Zone, he would hesitate to make a flat sta•tement that he would consider that zone for a major portion of subject property. Mr. James Geriak, 2913 Hempstead Road, appeared before the Commission, noting they were also in opposition to the rezoning of the property, as well as the General Plan Amendment, since one of the most important considerations by the Commission was the fact that.the land use change in the City was to low density, with the R-1 tract being developed northerly of subject property - otherwise, no land use change had taken place to warrant consideration of higher density; that the R-1 tract to the east-of..subject property was now a very attractive area with all the plantings which were planted•five years ago having grown; and, furthermore, the traffic on Lincoin Avenue_was a minuscule problem to the problems that might be created if multiple-family zoning were approved £or sub~ect property since the existing tract east of subject property was built with a buffer of land between the homes and Lincoln Avenue frontage, and "fourplexes" was a sugar-coated title for apartments and not considered the highest and best planning for t}iat area. ''S~ ~ ~ii ,'~i `•' :i~, ~ `5 .; j;;; ~ ~ MINUfES! CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 ~' ':iY d~: ;i. ~ --- ------ ~~ ~~ a:x ;:_~ 3860 . ``;;: y RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. William Pzerlip, 111 Glendon Drive, appeared before the N0. 67-68-64 Commission and noted that if subject petition were approved, this would present a continuous line of apartments from Sunkist VARIANCE N0, 1950 Street easterly of Rio Vista; that this was not one of the reasons ~ he had purchased in Anaheim, and it was his thought that when a TENTAI'IVE MAP OF General Plan had indicated low density, this iNOUld be the assurance TRACT N0. 6607 for persons purchasing their homes to be affarded some protection (Continued) in the maintenance of residential uses, and i.f he were interested in living in an area consisting primarily of ~partments, he would be go3ng back east to live with the rest of the cave-dwellers. Mr. Clarence Cross, 159 South Kingsley Street, appeared before the Commission, noting that seueral remarks had been made that the homes in the tract easteriy of subject property had moved slowly, but this was true of most real estate where homes were priced above the average and were developed with a higher quality than the low priced home; that development of a portio~~ of the property for fourplexes would not provide for adequate play and recreation area for the children who would reside there; that if.multiple-family development were approved immediately adjacent to the west side of Kingsley Street, this could also create a considerable amount of noise from the play areas of the apartments; that he was also an owner of fourplexes, but not within the City of Anaheim - however, the fourplexes were profitable for the builder, but not for the buyer because most of the purchasers of these fourplexes we*e not experienced in how to handle real estate and were sorry they had purchased them; and, therefore, owners of fourplexes who thought they were buying income property were in for quite a surprise. ! Chairman Camp reminded the opposition that the economics of properties and development ~ had no bearing on the Commission's consideration of land use implications. Mrs.James Worker, 102 South Alice Street, appeared before the Commission and stated ~ that a change in zone was desirable only when there had been a change in the area i which would bring this about; that the people have spoken before relative to the ' newly developed tract of which her home was a part, and in her estimation, since ' this had developed in the past year, this was a definite change to enforcing the ' low density residential use for the properties as projected on the General Plan. ~ :c , Mr. William Florcyk, 175 South Kingsley Street, appeared before th? Commission in opposition and stated that the proposal for rezoning would result in apartments which would add too much noise to the area, would reduce the amount of privacy their families ' now had, would inject more transient people into the area, and would help to depreciate ; tha properties already developed in the area. Mr. Brown, in rebuttal, stated it was not their intent to generate any more noise where children would be playing than would be permissible in any residential area, and the question before the Commission was whether or not the property was suitable for multiple-family residential use as proposed, or whether it should be developed for single-family residential use, and in his estimation, the general overall area could be used only for multiple-family residential development. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, noted that Portion A had 22 R-3 lots and Portion B was Lot No. 23 of the tract, which had no precise plans, ; '"a i Commissioner Gauer noted that although precise plans had not been submitted for Lot ; No. 23, statements made by the developers indicated they projected what they proposed for that area. Furthermore, there probably could be apartments as a buffer around ' the shopping center, but, in his opinion, this has always been R-1 property, and every time something like this came before the Commission, the ranchers who own the land knew it was projected for R-1, and if they have upped the price and were unable to sell the land, that was their hard luck. The petitioner then informed the Commission that when his property was annexed into ~ ~ the C~ty it was zoned Gl; that the tract never would have developed if he had not given some land for ingress and egress to the tract - therefore he felt he had been a good neighbor. Commissioner Gauer then stated that the purchasers of the single-family homes had bought with the idea that the entire area was projected for low density use,and they ` had invested considerable money to improve the area, and until the character of the neighborhood changed to a point where it no lon9er was suitable for R-1 uses, this should remain as R-1. ',`; ~,~y':~ • ~ ~ INUTES CITY PLANNING~COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 '.m~ .;~"~~z,`;°~, '~~si~ ~ a~`~ `:~.~ r~ '.r~'~`~ ._._--~-'---~= " ~ 3861 M . RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano concurred in Commissioner Gauer's statemen s, noting that a peripheral area around the shopping center could be N0. 67-68-64 at least to the considered, but until the entire areachanged, a finding VARIANCE N0. 1960 thatnthe areathadUChangedlin charac ersandnthemdens"9ity in zoning TENTATIVE MAP OF should be changed, any fuxther peripheral changes should not be TRACT N0. 6607 mrotectionaforhtheirghomesmand bemassured thaththerincrease inpthe (Continued) P value of their homes might be enjoyed with further increase in value. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Statementsattogetherl fication No. 67-68-64 be denied on the basis of the foregoing a chan e in the with therfofdthe neighborhoodeasCo~issioner Gauer seconded,thelmotion. 9 characte r Prior to a vote being taken, Commissioner Rowland asked that there be further dis- cussion, which is summarized as follows: 1. That consideration must be given to the fact that a shopp1~9 center was located in this area, and denial of +he use of the entire lar9e parcel was not what the ~ would be coming before the ~ persons who were objecting wanted, since this property Commission time and time again - however, in smaller parcels rather than this one ~ large parcel - for a chan9e in zone; that even if the Commission approved higher ~ rotection from C-1, density for PortioinA~centerswoulddalso~wantlsomentypenofsbufferhp property to the ~ north of the shopp 9 which then would affect the single-family homes to the west of Rio Vista Street. 2. That it was not the Commission's position or duty to solve the landowner's problems for development of the balance of his proPerty, and consideration of a complete rezoning of the property just for a peripheral change Wthe Commissions~thenrtherpetitionerfavor- able consideration were to be contemplated bWith the sug9estions made by the staff and should submit revised plans more in keeping the Commiesion, which would enhance and protect the neighborhood. 9 resent, and rather than ~ resent revised plans for ~ 3. That all persons affected by this tashould beamadeWtoepp ,~ deny the petition in total, some attemp in center, a row of ~. other development with two-story apartments around the shopp g or something single-story R-3, and then single-family homes on 5000-square foot lots until a tier ~i of R-1 lots was placed adjacent to the R-1 easterly of subject property, !,J~; which the developexs could live with andt night ould also be acceptable to the owners ??:; of the 250 homes who had been objecting ~`;~ taki ng '~ Commissioner Farano then stated he would change his motion 1faTCelpoflproperty~uld ~,~~?' agree to the submission of development plans fo~hehPlanning Commission. ~~i'' into considQration the recommendations made by ~a:' which subject property should t~~ .~ ~ ;-,i ~~~,~~: The Com~~issioi~ continued discussion as to the metho he staff for the General Plan ~i~ be considered, and whether the exhibits presented by resented by the staff ;i~~!iii, Amendment reflected thshou d1be1scatteredkthroughouttReltso that the R-3 residents ~r!~ that a higher density "+~ could enjoy the same privile9es was not the intent of the GeneWas just arslight increase~ 'i~' and the land use eymbology that the Commission was discussin9 ' a;,^.` ~,~ in density, not complete conversion of the large acreages into multiple-family develop- "w~~ ment. I"' ?,~;; Commissioner Gauer then requested that the motion before the Commission be voted on ~~, before any further discussion was held. ,ti1~1 as follows: ~~'+~ pn roll call the foregoing motion Tost for a majority vote, ~~}~ ~.ti4~,`, pyy~g; COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer. .""~;; COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Mun9a11, Rowland, Camp. ~rd,: NOES : j~,~yrti. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. 11,~ 5 La, `4i,e;~,;7rt:~; _ . . 1 Mr. Brown, represortunityhto furtherestudy the recommendationssmade by the Commission; Kat.~ , ~" appreciate an opp ~ ~'~~~~,~;; however, they needed further guidelines from the City and the Commission in order tha r ~ r': ~xa` any revised plans or considerations might more nearly reflect the Commission's thinking "'~u`+~ roximately 5~ to 6 sin9le- ,~~ik~y.r{ ~ . . ~+,'~!y Chairman Camp then notedWi~htoneehouse o~noeachelot, ortadsubdivision with lots that ~,„. family lots to an acre, ~,'~'~~'';~~ were smaller than a standard subdivision. ,t~(,`SAfC~*_~~.~~ ~~,. ~ ~ ir*~ 1aN}+rur;~,~tLE.~u ,~y~•~r 3~~'~~;L~' ~ ,p~i vF ~,~ f ; ~' ~ _ _ ,~~f ' '~ t T ~ir r+~, ~v J . . . ~~ r3 ~~ C~ c~ _..___.___ -. ~.:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3862 _ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr, Thompson, in response to a question presented by Mre Brown, N0. 67-68-64 stated that if any changes in plans would indicate a readvertise- . VARIANCE N0. 1960 meetinthwouldUadainebebnotifiedaas tolthersar~s pre.sent at the g 9 proposed changes. TENTATIVE MAP OF Mr. Thompson then requested that the Commission make some decision • TRACT N0. 6607 on the General Plan since the General Plan should be a guide which (Continued) was general enough in symbology; however, from statements made by `: the Commission, it was rather difficult to determine how any exhibits could be prepared which might fully reflect tl~e Commission's ~'. thinking where the transition should take place. Furthermore, the Traffic En9ineer had made a study of this entire area, and it was hoped to provide more access to Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street when subject property was developed. Also, the staff was quite aware of the problem of inadequate circulation, and the shopping center was rather a.small service center which did not necessarily mean the property would have to be buffered with apartments. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue General Plan Amendment No. 97, .F; Reclassification No. 67-68-64, Variance No. 1960, and Tentative Map of I'ract No. 6607 .~, to the meeting of May 6, 1968, in order that additional exhibits might be prepared - ~ reflecting the thinking of the P~an~ing Commission as to the symbology for the study ' area and to allow the developer an opportunity to study the recomraendations made by ~' the Commission and consideration of submission of revised plans which might have to ~r be reac~,vertised. Commissioner Rowland ~econded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. f".u .~,'?T.~~y; L, ~'~:'`.~~ ''~"~~'" GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ;~;,•,;:,•{ , ~'~ AMENDMENT N0. 98 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider a change in the '~` residential density for the general area bounded on the north by "" the Southern Pacific Railroad, on the east by Ninth Street, on the :'.`,,~;~ west by Euclid Street, and on the south by Katella Avenue. i~<<;%%.~.`~.' Assistant Planner Dave Williamson presented General Plan Amendment No. 9& (copy on file in.the Development Services Department). Mr. Williamson then noted that Exhibit "A" depicted low-medium residential density for the parcel recently approved for a mob9.le home park and low-medium density for the vacant parcel southerly of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and that Exhibit "B" depicted low-medium residential density for the acreage south of the So~;thern Pacific Railroad. Mr. Bernard McCune, representing the owner of the property to the south of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks,appeared in favor of the proposed land use change, ;ioting that many people still were desirous of purchasing single-family homes - however, because of the cost of the land, it made it almost prohibitive to construct homes which the average wage earner could purchase, and they were attempting to provide this type of facility, and heavier densities in land use were necessary because of this. Mrs. Florence Manke, 1666 West Cris Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that the character of the entire area was single-family residential except for the trailer park recently approved north of the railroad tracks, and she urged the Commission to maintain this low derisity residential use in order that the well estab- lished homes in the area might remain that way. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-100 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 98, Exhibit "A", be approved as being the most appropriate land use change for the area.(See Resolution Book) On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. _~ ~ ~.rs ° ~l _.}t T r - r /~. ~r•4~ t~ I 5 MINUTES~ CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3863 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC,HEARING. GEORGE VANDENBERG, 1112 North Lowell N0. fiZ-b8-63 Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; HAROLD L. RAAB, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California, Agent; property VARIANCE N0. 1959 described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 19 acres of land, having a frontage of approximately 630 feet on the TENTATIVE MAP OF east side of Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approximately TRACT N0. 6585 1,270 feet, the northerly boundary line being coincidental with the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and the southerly boundary being approximately 150 feet north of the centerline of Sumac Lane. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO PERMIT A SUBDIVISION OF 113 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, WI7H WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND (2) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK. Subject tract proposes to subdivide subject property into 113 R-2-5000 zoned lots on a 19~-acre parcel. Subject petitions were continued from the mee~ing of March 25, 1968, because the agent for the petitioner was unable to be in attendance at the hearing. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and previous zoning action on the property to the north. In reviewing the Report to the Commission Mr. Roberts noted that due to the fact that the petitioner was proposing to have sidewalks immediately adjacent to the curb, the proposed front yard setback for the garages would be utilizing a port~on of the public right-of-way for private purposes since a 14.5-foot setback was proposed, whereas 20 feet was required, and that in light of the recent Code amendment to the R-2-5000 Zone, wherein coverage was reduced from 45% to 40%, the Commission must consider implications in which the development was proposed to have coverage up to 45%• Mr. Bernard McCune, representing the S 8 S Development Company, appeared before the Commission.and geve some of the economic background for development of properties, noting they had a similar type of development in Seal Beach where 5200-square foot lots had been developed, and then Mr. McCune presented colored slides of similar develop- ments which indicated the sidewalks adjacent to the curb and street trees planted in the lawn area behind the sidewalks, and fire hydrants also placed in similar areas. Mr. McCune further noted that the 5000-square foot lot was a must for subject property, and in ozder to develop the property, the density must be increased; that they planned to have lath and'plaster for these homes; and that the reason they proposed the devel- opment as presented to the Commission was they were not desirous of building the homes similar to row housing - however they were attempting to build a home the average wage earner.could afford. Furthermore, the people purchasing these properties were more discriminating and were requesting many more features than normally would be permitted in the home - such as a large master bedroom, a family room or separate dining room, and three to four bedrooms, as well as a two-car garage - and that it was impossible to build this type of a house with only the 40~ coverage permitted under the R-2-5000 Zone, especially if they were one-story homes. Mr. Roberts also noted for the Commission that a letter had been received from the agent for the petitioner stating that the fire hydrants within some of the adjacent subdivisions were located to the rear of the sidewalk. However, a field inspection was made by representatives of the Development Services staff and the Assistant Fire Chief to examine these facilities, and it was determined these areas were developed while the property was still under the jurisdiction of the County and the water services were provided by the the Dyke Water Company; howevsr, the type of fire hydrants and their locations as referred to in the letter by Mr. McCune would not be satisfactory in terms of current City of Anaheim standards, and if subject tract were considered favorably, it was recommended the fire hydrants be located adjacent to tha curbs. Mr. McCune noted there would be 20 feet between the garage and the sidewalk, as plans were presented; however, because of the location of the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, this would mean the parkway would be incorporated into the main front yard where maintenance would be better handled than if the parkway were separated from the main yard area. Furthermore, if the City Fire Chief felt there was a problem relative to the Location of the fire hydrants, they could be placed adjacent to the curb and increase the width•of the sidewalk. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEA. ~~,~'' ~ r ~ ~°r~" +"" ~~.y'~ 9'~e #2 mh ~~.x;sv+~7 a'~r ~ : ~ +Q ,~ F~ ~ .. ~ t r~~r a ,, ""11Y hr"4 q;f~.}~ ~, _,.~._ . -- . r . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ . ' ~. ~ - ~. ~. U ~ ~ . ~ . ~ MINUTES., CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 . 3864 RECLAS~IF.ICATION - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-1D1 and moved N0. 67-68-63 for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for:Reclassifica- VARIANCE N0. 1959 tion No. 67-68-63 be approved, subject to conditions, and that the location of the fire hydrants shall be resolved with the TENTATIVE.MAP OF staff end the Fire Department. (See Resolution Book) TRACT N0. 6585 (Continuecl) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ '"~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Comtnissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 1959, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, on the basis that the requested 45% lot coverage would provide a totally inadequate living environment for single-family homes, and that the request for waiver of the front setback was not desirable since homes having gar3ges fronting on the property would have to have a minimum 20-foot road, and the petitioner was proposing a 14.5-foot road, with encroachment into the public right-of-way. On roll call the foregoing resolution was lost by the:following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Camp. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. 'Ihe Commissioners voting "no" felt that the lot coverage should be maintained at 40%; however, the proposal for the setbacks as presented on the plans offered an alternative method of developing the R-2 property. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-102 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1959, in part,'denying the request for waiver of the minimum lot coverage and granting the request for waiver of the front yard setback, on the basis that the 4096 coverage should.b:e.maintained in order to provide more recreational-leisure area.for the children who would be residing in these homes, and based on the fact that the waiver of the front setback was for those homes on which garages would have direct access to the street - however, this would provide an alternative means of developing R-2 property, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISS:C;IERS: Herbst, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of 'Iract No. 6585, sub3ect to the following conditions, any seconded by Commissioner Herbst with the MOTION CARRIED: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6585 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-63 and Variance No. 1959. 2: Ttrat should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivison, each • subdivision thereof shall be s~bmitted in tentative form for approval. 3. Tt~at the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings to Evclid 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. 1 through B and 113 and Euclid Street, an arterial highway, except that corner Lot Nos. 1 and 113 sha11 be stepped down to'a height of thirty inches in the front yard set- back, and except that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highways right-of-way line of an arterial highway. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and sub~ect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. .1" -.=,;;~`.,~.'f'~f"~,~.`^~~,fi1+~s '^~~ I`q ,~.T 3'n'!k~' ~.~'~ < c1a'.xk „ ra ,~. K :~ 3 .;p" ;s . '1 ,~. .~i y ~-": ~~ ~ ~~~: ~. ;: ~ _ 'c .~. . ~.~ -,~.' ; . . ! I' ~~ `~w~ ~ { - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, .],968 3865 RECLASSIFICATION - 5, That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground N0. fi7-68-63 utilities. VARIANCE.NO. 1959 6. That Street "A" ~hall be named Inez Way; that Street "B" shall be named Melissa Way; that Street "C" shall be TENTATIVE MAP OF named Tiara Way; and that Street "D" shall be named TRACT N0. 6585 Camrose Way. (Conti.nued) !~;?~. VARIANCE N0. 1966 - PUBLIC HEARING. BERNARD A. STOFFEL, 119 North Helena Street, ,~;,,f}:~ Anaheim, California, Owner; LEE 0. WEBB, 1008 South Anaheim ~ '~ Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF '' THE P.ERMI?TED USES IN A MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-2) ?0 PERMIT A PARKING AREA FOR A PROPOSED SERVICE STATION TRAINING CENTER on property described as: A ':~'' rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 25 feet by 100 feet located between '~~' Anaheim_Boulevard and Ze n Street, the westerl boundar of said arcel bein a roxi- ~;: Y Y Y P 9 PP ~,'; - mately 120 feet east of the centerline of Zeyn Street, th;: easterly boundary being 5;.. ~: approximately 165 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard, and the southerly ~ boundary being approximately 165 feet north of the centerline of North Street. ~;;: Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ' Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the locatio;~ of subject property, the uses ~ ~'v established in close proximity, and the proposed zoning for the Commission, noting ~"` -`~' that although subject property had commercial zonin9, the requirement for location of r:.~ ' _, ; ~ ; ~, a service station was at the intersection of two arterials, while subject property ;r;.:=;' `~" was in the center of the block, and the Commission should determine whether or not ~` r; the proposed training center was that in fact, or would be a service station in ' realit Furthermore it the ro osed use were determined to be a ro riate at this ''! Y• , P P PP P '~~=~~:.°`'~~~~-~ location, the Commission might wish to require a six-foot masonry wall constructed ste ~ ~' y along the new property line separating the commercial use from the residential lot, '~,sr;.,.:.~'~ along with the requirement that a landscape screen be provided along the boundary as ~F,:~,~,r,l. weil. Mr. Lee Webb, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that all.they were attempting to do was provide adequate parkin9 requirements for the She11 0i1 Company training center. Mr. Curtis Cooke, 1136 North Brookhurst Street, representing the Shell Oil Company, appeared before the Commission and stated it was their plan to develop subject property into a dealer training school with a ranch-style service station building, with all the amenities of a service station; however, although there were overhead lube bay doors, these would be closed most ef the time, and the use of subject property would be for parking purposes only. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired of Mr. Cooke whether or not they intended to sell service etation products, such as gasoline and oil, to which Mr. Cooke replied that.it was not their intent to conduct a service station - the only use for the property would be to train prospective dealers, having a building that wa.;ld be similar in design and type of the Shell service stations, and it was not their intent to sell anything since the hours of the school would be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Further- more, in response to Commission questioning, Mr. Cooke stated it was not theix intent to have retail sales whatsoever, and the only evening hours ~vould be when the janitor came to clean up the area, and any actual work on the automa'~iles that might be done would be one of the dealer's cars,who would be going to the school. Mr. Cooke aTso noted that a six-foot, slumpstone wall would be constructed to the west, and only two, low-level lights would be constructed in the driveway. Furthermore, he would.like an explanation of the easement request in the Report to the Commission since it was his assumption that the existing poles on the property already had the easement. Assist~nt Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised Mr. Cooke that no documentation was available that would indicate these power facilities were covered by an easement, and the conditions were included in order that the City might be covered_by an easement. Furthermore, no driveway entrance to the alley would be needed since all exit and entrance would be from Anaheim Boulevard. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition: THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~s'. ~~ + ' ~ y r^ :St,,~,~,~x", ~ MINUIES,, CIlY PLANNING COMNiISSION, April 8, 1968 3866 VARIANCE N0. 1966 - Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No..PC68-103 and moved (Continued) for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1966, subject to conditions and•the stipulation that the petitioner indicated the use of the property would be for a training school only, and no retail sales would be handled on the property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIC:!ERS: None. ABSENZ_. COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ;~; ;<,;, •, .; ';7 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~ ~ N0. 67-68-71 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approxi- ! ; mately 9.6 acres of land extending southerly from the south side ~ 1, of Ball Road to the north side of Winston Road and having approximate frontages of ; _ 330 feet on both streets, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately . 1,320 faet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, be reclassified from the County A-1, General Agricultural District to the Anaheim R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. .<_. ~ ~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, notin9 that,the property was immediately east of the recent Fire Station No. 7 Annexation, was relati.vely flat with drainage generally southwesterly, the current land use was agricultural, and that the City of Anaheim R-A Zone most nearly approximated the County A-1 District. FurthermorP, the staff recommended that the Plonning Commission recommend to the City Council that upon certification of the pending annexation by the Secretary of State, the property be rezoned to permanent City of Anaheim R-A, Agricultural, Zone. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-104 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-71 be approved, subject to rezoning of the property to the R-A Zone upon certification of che pending annexation by the Secretary of State. (See Resolution Rook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: F~YES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ' RECLASSZFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. EDWARD AND VIVIAN SIMONEAUX, 604 North Magnolia N0. 67-68-67 Avenue; EPHREM AND ROSE A. LA PLANTE 608 North Magnolia Avenue; and EMILY E. 0'KEEFE, 612 North Ma9nolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, CONDIT.I,ONAL USE Owners; E. LEE SCHULTZ, 415 West 4th Street, Suite D, Tustin, PERMIT N0. 1019 California, Agent; property described as: Those lots fronting on the east side of Magnolia Avenue between Crescent Avenue and . Glencrest Avenue, and further described as 604, 608 and 612 North Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (2) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN HEIGHT. Associate P~anner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the property, the uses established in close proximity, and the previous zoning action, noting that those properties fronting on the east side of Magnolia Avenue had been part~of the Front- On Study considered by the Planning Commission and City Council and determined to be retained for residential purposes; that the General Plan indicated this area for C~ 4/ er m.. . a ~ ~,~r ,.s. ~:Y .~t ~ MINUTES, CI1Y PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3867 RECLASSIFICATION - low density residential uses; and that discussions with the agent N0. 67-b8-67 relative to signing of the proposed service station indicated that the sign would be in conformance with the sign regulations. Further- CONDITIONAL.USE more, the City of Anaheim would not approve the alley and joint drive PERMIT N0. 1019 approaches as indicated on the plot plan. (Ccntinued) Mr. George Argyros, 415 West 4th Street, Tustin, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that,the service station industry had undergone a change in philosophy for site selec- tion and formerly had required the primary site to be at the intersection of two arterials - however, because of the problems of traffic at this intersection, it was now determined that service stations should be located where the traffic flow would not hamper the accessibility to the service station or to the street from the service station; that another prime consideration for a neighborhood service area such as the one proposed at Magnolia Avenue and Crescent Avenue was the fact that this neighborhood was away from heavy traffic, and the secondary highway acted as a collector street for the residential area; and'that they had an opportunity to review the Front-On Study recommendations and had utilized s~me of the recommendations to their advantage. Mr. ArgXros then reviewed some of the excerpts from the Front-On Study report as it applied to the type of use he was proposing for subject property. Mr. Argyros also reviewed the traffic count for both Crescent Avenue and Magnolia Avenue,,noting that the projections for both streets for the next ten years, and inquired whether or not consideration was given to the fact that the State would construct an overpass extending Crescent Avenue over the Santa Ana Freeway; whereupon the staff advised the agent that the Front-On Study had taken into account the possi- bility that Crescent Avenue would be extended over the Santa Ana Freeway. The a.gent also advised the Comrtiission that the landscaping plan would be developed in accordance with suggestions made by the Commission, and that the adjoining property owner had indicated he was in favor of the service station site and had expressed a willingness to help him obtain the approval of the reclassification. Mr. Marvin D. Witt, 2571 West Crescent Avenue, appeared before the Commission and indicated.his approval of the proposed service station site and indicated he had agreed to the construction of the six-foot masonry wall on their property. Mr. Argyros further noted that they had been unable to contact the property owner at 2574,West Glencrest because he was out of town; however, they were hopeful of obtain- ing his permission to erect a six-foot masonry wall on his property. Furthermore, they were willing to stipulate that if permission were obtained, to construct a six- foot masonry wall along the east side oi the alley - this would be done at their expense, and they would also stipulate to providing adequate screen landscaping along the northerly property line, with trees to reach the height of fifteen feet within three years. The agent then note~~ that, in his opinion, there was a change in land use due to the fact that a service station had been approved on the southeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, and with the approvai by the State of the overpass of the Santa Ana Freeway, extending Crescent Avenue westerly, traffic would increase and the character of the area would change. Fifteen persons indicated their presence in opposition to subject petitions. Mr. Richaxd_Winchell, 2517 Glencrest Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, stating that the property owners of the area were dependent upon the Planninq Commi.ssion for protection of their property rights and consideration of commercial uses for the property should be made only if the area were run down.and in disrepair; however, this neighborhood was one of the better areas, being well maintained, and if commerpial uses were approved, the residents would stand to lose a substantial financial loss, while certain people would be gaining financially by conversion of thei~ properties to commercial uses; that a shopping center had been erected to the south of Crescent and Magnolia A~enues two years ago, and many of the stores still were.vacant, and the area was more than adequately served with service stations; furthermore, the site on which the service station was proposed was inadequate for proper service station facilities; that the petitioner was proposing to use a public right-of-way as approaches to the service station; that because of the size of the parcel, there was a possibility there would be inadequate off-street parking when cars had to be serviced - because this was a major thoroughfare and this should be considered; that the intersection of Crescent and Magnolia Avenues was considered a rather hazardous intersection due to the fact that an elementary school was on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, and children using the crosswalk would be subject to `:; ~',`, .. . . . . . „ . . . . . . . _,\ . . VJ.. . . . . ~ ~. . . ~ 4/ . . ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3868 RECLASSIFICATION - cars going into the service station and leaving - therefore he N0. 67-68-67 urged that the Commission deny subject petition on the basis that too many hazards would exist; and that the commercial use CONDII'IONRL USE would depreciate the residential integrity of the area. PERMIT N0. 1019 (Continued) Mr. D. L. Bell, 704 North Magnolia Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating he was not desirous;of having commercial uses in close proximity to his property, and if subject petition were approved, all the properties along Magnolia Avenue should be granted commercial uses for the entire block, rather than spot zoning one area. Mrs.Annetta Sand, 705 North Hanover Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that granting subject petition would set an undesirable precedent for similar requests for commercial uses of the property along Crescent Avenue and_Magnolia Avenue; that many people had spent considerable money for improving their properties since they intended.to stay, and commercial uses of properties along Magnolia and Crescent Avenues would create a hardship on the property owners who had expended their money because of a decrease in the value of their properties. However, her main concprn was the small children who would have to cross at this intersection - which sometimes was protected by a crossing guard - and the small children would be subjected to many dangerous and unpredictable drivers; furthermore, when the new freeway proposed to go to the beach was decided, there would be many changes to the type of traffic along Magnolia and Dale, with.the heavy traffic load diverted to the fr~eway proper. Mr. Argyros, in rebuttal, stated that statistical data proved that where an intersection was opened up with a service station, fewer eccidents occurred because the line-of-sight was better than when buildings were closer to the intersection, and it was their hope '',};~ they would consider chiidren in the same manner as•the property owners, and this was the `~;;~1('; reason for locating the structure nearer the northeast property line than normally was ;~ required, and also was the reason for requesting waiver of t!~e setback from single= '"-`.~' family residential uses for the height of the building proposed. `;{r;~ Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickels~n noted for the petitioner that .' i' ~ when-MagnoYia Avenue was developed under,the jurisdiction of the County, trees were not ~,~ "~ ~ ~ required in the parkway - this was the reason for requiring an additional three'#ee~ '~';, ., , ~ for street widening purposes. ~ ~ ';'Fu . . . , . . .. . . . . . ~ . a~ga~ , . . ~ . . ~ . ~ . - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~,.,~ , ~.r$ , ' Commissioner Farano again inquired whether or not the statement made by the agent for ~ ; :. ~`, the petitioner re9arding consideration of increase in traffic of Crescent Avenue at the time the street was extended over the Santa Ana Freeway had been considered in the Front-On Study. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that the impact of the overcrossing was considered as to land use when the Front-On Study was made of these properties. . Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-105 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petii:ion for Reclassification No. 67-68-67 be disapproved on the basis that no land use chan9e had taken place in the area to warrant consideration of a service station.in an area that was primarily developed for residential uses, and that the recently approved Front-On Study had projected subject property to be retained for residential purposes, and the proposed reclassification would adversely affect the residential land uses established in close proximity. (See Resolution Book) `i On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONLNISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. t,'; NOES:, , COMMISSIONERS: None. . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-106 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1019, based on findings. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: !.: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~'~ s .. ~ 7~`ir. I,~ ~^ ~~1F~'v T7 ~ ''~¢4~~~1' "~~~i'x ~ ~4 t'~, 13' f'2"j'~Ys~'~.; q" , i ~... ~.~ r~ r ~~i , Nn ~ i~ 47 .1 ~~ t Y' fl "t~ ~ ~r.' ,,j.~~C2 t i:s`, i ti`-ky: u r w ,. , ~s, ~• .a, ~,,4 r r 1, t; ~ ~ . ... . . , . z x a . ~ ~ . MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3869 GENERAL:.PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY ?LANNING COMMISSION, 204 AMENDMHNT N0._31, East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider a land usp READVERTISED change for property along the south side of Ball Road, extending southerly to Cerritos Avenue between State Colle9e Boulevard and ~ the proposed Orange Freeway. 7 Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 31, readver- tised, for the Commission (copy on file in the Development Services Department), emphasizing the fact that since April 10, 1962, when the City Council adopted in Resol,ution No. 62R-335 the area limited by Ball Road on the north, Los Angeles Street (Anaheim.Boulevard) and the Santa Ana Freeway on the west, and •the Santa Ana River on the east to be designated for industrial use on the Anaheim General Plan, the established policy had been questioned twice - once in 1964, when medium density residential use was proposed on the south side of Ball Road, and again later on in 1964,when commercial uses were proposed along the south side of Ball Road. Mr. Grudzinski aiso noted that if residential uses were proposed for the area on the south side of Ball Road, consideration would have to be given to approximately four to eight acres for park sitee, depending upon which exhibit was recommended and adopted by the Planning Commission; and the additional projected school requirements as depicted in the report had been com^iled in conjunction with the school district, who had asked to be kept infermed relative to action taken by the Planning Commission and City Council since it was their intent to increase the existing school rather than provide for an additional elementary school. Mr. Grudzinski, in conclusion, noted that some general points of consideration should be ment~oned relative to a proposed change from industrial to multiple-family residential use - namely, that'industrial land use reports as prepared by Economics Research Associates and the City staff had projected an expected industrial use potential through 1980 for the land within the Southeast Industrial Area; that ihe City ,f Anaheim was attempting to improve its competetive range of housing - one of the tools broadening thi; range had been the recently adopted R-2-5000 Zone, and the possibility of reducin9 the amount of -. avail.able industrial land in order that a greater labor force could be housed to support the existing industry. Furthermore, an industrial survey portion of the forecast for 1968 had indicated that 23% of those employed in Anaheim's industrial areas'resided ~' withi,n Anatieim - however, no study had been conducted to determine,why the remaining ' 77% lived'outside of the City, and a goal of many communities was to provide for resi- dent industrial workers, thereby benefiting from the income expenditure, and that comparative economic analysis may indicate that multiple-family use compares favorably _ with industry in terms of actual property tax, gasoline tax, and income expenditure revenue to the City. Lastly, the Planning Commission would have to determine which lend use policy, industrial or multiple-family residential, represented their oelief #or development of the study area, and to recommend same io the City Council for adoption. Mr. A. J. Schutte, representing the property owners, appeared before the Commission and noted that in the report made by the staff, 7'l~; of the working population in the City of Anaheim did not reside in the City, and the biggest source of income for the City was from sales tax, which came f•rom residents of the City, and amounted to about $500,000 more than all property taxes collected; that the City could have 50,000 more people who would bring a net income of 2~ million dollars into the City, and if additional multiple- femily use were considered, such as a development with 4,000 more people, this could mean an increase in revenue from electricity, sales tax, property tax, and.even cigarette tax; that,.although a statement was made that this was M-1 zoned property, the property owners in the area were never considered when this was reclassified, and every individual property owner has a right to use his property to its highest and best use, providing it does not harm his neighbor, or is not beneficial to the City; and that any one of tne,three exhibits presented for po~sible General Plan amendment would be acceptable to him since this'area could be developed into a fine multiple-family residential use and would neyer interfere with industry develuped there - however, if industry felt there would be'a problem, it would be because the industry would be bothering R-3. Mr'. Schutte also noted that the land owners in the City had a far greater problem than before - since there was not a piece of property in the City that wa's paying for cost of production; that he was leasing his property for $200 an acre, and the taxes amounted to $300_an acre, and regardless of the request for consideration of a reduction in taxes, this was confiscation of property; that the properties in this area had been industrially designated for some time, but had never been sold, and this was one of the reasons for requestj,ng multiple-family development south of Ball Road; that in the development of this area, it was hoped to ogen tne street from Bail Road to Winston Road; that he was,planning, together with his neighbors, to dedicate property to extend Sunkist Street from its present terminus to Winston Road, and it was hoped that at some time in the future it would be extended all the way to the stadium; furthermore, the property owners ~ ~ ~ I ~ ! ~ ~, i ~ ~4 ,~c r ~~~.~w4lx~;~5'~{'"Fi~c ~, "t*' L72FN'.~ i ~~'~,'~ `~j ~l~ ti s~~~'~-,~z'r~ ~:. t~. { ~ r ~. rtx ~ .. ~ ~r~ i , t ~' . ~ ^ f `_' ,n F'. ~: ~ i+ ~ ; ' s ~ 9 . - . . ..._"~ - . . ~i ~+- F, ~~ L~ - . ~ ~~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CITy PLANNING COMMISSION A , ~ pril 8, 1968 . ~~ ~+ GENERAI, .pLAN 3870 ~ AMENDMENT N0. 31 - in the area were attempting to develop the area .since they were a~~' READVERTISED ' unable to continue paying taxes in excess of the rent of the land; (Continued) and that the City of Anaheim needed money, and one wa ~'3 this money was to permit multiple-family residential develoement9 in the City - however, the problem of havin a p ~'~*~~ to R-1 was not a ~~~° ~: was that the apartments would be adjacent to industry. 9 Partments adjacent problem in this area.- the only consideration ~~; ~SC` Mr. R. H. Lincoln, 730 East Lute Street, Placentia,.a ear stated that he was Cheirman of the Industrial Development Division for the Ch ~'~x' ;,, Commerce and would like to review some of the pP ed before the Commission and the year: projects the committee was planningrfor r ~~ . ~~r ~; 1. They had just started on a very ambitious ~ improvement through dialogue and improvement ofarelations between in ustr ° and the community. Promote the Cit for industrial ~: • Y, the City, ~r 2• A very extensive program to bring considerably.more industr int Anaheim had been undertaken for 1968, which would fill up the industrial a:eas whi had remained vacant. Y o the City of ~ ch z ' 3. :hat the committee had not had an o ?I PPortunit to stud the Plan Amendment; however, from a cursory examina.tion of .theYexhibits, this woul ~' ~<< encroaching into the area which Proposal of the General b~ and some other Previously had been designated for industrial usee ~' property was considered quite ~+ prime industrial land which he felt his ~' ~ committee could help the City sell to other industries since the land i, ~ major freeways or was in close ~ for industries to settle in thisrarea,tandhthatWhelwas making these obsertlpred on 't' ,~~~ wanted the Commission to give very seriou provide additional opportunity ~+ ~ s consideration to this ations and proposal. ~rr~. Mr. R. W. McMichael, 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton ~ ~ and stated he was the , appeared before the Commission ~~ ~`" for a land use chan e Proposed developer of a ~~w~~~ 9 3 that a number of changes~had~occurred on~thetnorthesidenofdBalll~n ,~; ~h? L~ Road, and with the south side being industrial any,buffer between the'R-3 with R=1 to the rear if industrial development was decided ~' ! to remain along the south side of Ball Road. Property, it was difficult to provide j;; rt new jobs wouTd be aveilable'in Anaheim and 1,000 new '~ .~ ,, , that the'forecast for 1968 indicated 3600 wondering where all these people would live, if onl dWellin units ~ '~%;;~~Y` developed each 9 - therefore he was rn,~,x~ year in the industrial area Y 20 acres of property were being ~~ "~,~ which had been reserved for industrial purposesh this would mean a ,~ ~4 ~,~ before the saturation PProximately 1,800 acres remaining point for M-1 Pproximately 90 years ~'~~ ~Y'~~hy~; ~ Property was ac~' ~ieved. , `~,~ , Mr. Albert Toussau, (672 Rq,h{_~i i;,°~~it,~.~ portion of his d noad, appeared before the Commission and stated a * y property, and he was in agreement r that.multiple-familyrdevelopmentcshould occurlalong the south side of ,~~ however, it was hardly fair to lay out an area as large as was indicated for a use without considerin Ball Road; area of. 9 other compatible uses adjoining the area, and to consider an ~f~~ ,155 to 170 acres for R-3 uses did not seem logical; and that it would Specific cult to utilize such a large parcel' for one particular use. ~`~~~~~~~ be diffi- ~ ~' ~,t~ a s Mr. Robert Cotten, Production Supervisor for Pacific Scientific ~~kY`~~~ State College Boulevard, a ea Co pp red before the Commission, noting their company was ~~;~ located at Winston Road and State College Boulevard, and at the timeatheylmovedointo r7,}r~ that area in 1957, they wera bordered on the north b ti~,„i~i• and the proposal would mealo{hat residential use wouldpbeeimmediandustrial property, ~~~~i that they had a ten-acre,p , five acres of which were already bein used ~~ square foot buildin tely.adjacent to them; 9 proyiding jobs for 220 9 as a 50,000- people in the area; that they had found ~ Msl~ this industrial area very attractive and had competed.with people in more remote t:. and had found sufficient interest in the area to a ~'~ 18,000-square foot addition to their existing facilit that the areas ~~}~, ppoint an architect to draw an ! k, re was a great deal of ' industrial opportunity in this area; and that they found it very rewarding and reco - ~~ mended that the Commission maintain this area for 'industrial uses. Furthermore, one othex consideretion the Commission must take into account was the fact m ~ ~~ truck treffic utilized Winston Road to service their 1 ~,~x residential-uses were close to truck traffic, considerab that heavy ~, plant•and other plants, and if f ~~'1~~ he felt sub'ect J property under consideration in the General~PlaneAmendmentrcould~bend ~€f„~~g. developed for industrial purposes. Also, he was unfamil'iar with the {~' i~~ and income for the Cit ~~x,~ Y3 however, if the status of taxes property were developed for industrial pur- ~,~C~M~~~ Poses, considerable taxes and income might be forth~coming, and he further recommended i that the present land use be retained. I*~ i W*~' ,~ rJ;,: . i 4 1 N ~~. ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~dl:~~ . ~ . ~ . . .. ~-, 0 d,~ I 14 ' .. . , .._ t ... ~:S J ~+ j ', ~~ ' . II ~~.v { ~ " ~ .. t t 4 y - r Af 4~ L . ~ r ~ s, it , . A . . ~.' . c ~ .. ~ , a',-.~ ..~ °i._~~ . '~ ~ ,~~r~s., ~ ~„n ~. ~ ~ _ ~ _ .. ~ .!. ~. . ~ K . . ~ ~~' ~ . . `~ . MINUIES, CITY BLANNING COMMISSION, April 8,.19fi8 ~ ~~^'r. ~ ':t ;^~I I ;':~ 3871 GENERAL,~PLAN - Mr. Robert Ulrich, 730 Nor~;,h West Street, Manager of Neville AN~ENDMF.~IS N0. 31, Chemical Company, agoear~d before the Commissionrand stated that READVERTISED when they relocated their plant to this area, it was hoped the (Continued) CitN would maintain some depth of the industrial land because they had a heavier industry than most industries in the City, and a street or housing of any type, together with landscaping, was not suf#~cietrt buffer when considering heavier industrial uses and urged that the Comm3ssion maintain the present land use designation for this area - for industrial purposes. Mr. Schutte again appeared before the Commission and noted that a statistical report of fou*.Southern California counties indicated it would take'fifty years for the industrial areas to develop since all the cities within these counties~had considerable industrial land for dev~lopment; that it was not the intention of the..developers of the R-3 to intrude on the industrial property, and he had worked very hard to bring Pacific Scientific into the City - however, the original plans they had presented ne•:;•.~ -eemed to have materialize by an increase in the utilization of industrial land. Furthermore, it was.hoped they would have the right to use the land to its highest and best - and he felt this was for the best interest of the City since ci=culation would be provided to the ball park, and the biggest source of income for the City was sales tax, not property tax. c, Mr. Lincoln again appeared and advised the Commission he would like to offer the ~;,,,.. ,,.a, services of his committee to assist in any way possible to bring about the further ~ ;,° development of the industrial,properties in the City of Anaheim since they did have ,`rr.;:,; ,,,;' quite an ambitious program, and they would be glad to assist the staff in any way. ~~ `; `: '„'`.~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst felt there were a number of things that should be said about this property being developed for other than industrial uses; that industries have been putting a great deal of faith in the City of Anaheim to maintain the industrial areas since they would be expending a considerable amount of money in developing - however, it was his experience that apartments or homes were an encroachment on the industrial area and would deter the development of the balance of the`area due to the incompati- bility of residential and industrial uses, with noises, dust, late shifts, etc., and by projecting this area for multiple-family residential use, would lower the price of the M-1.property to the point tnat the property own?rs would not sell their property for other'than multiple-family residential use; that the City had a balance in the combined residential, industrial; and commercial uses, and if a portion of the property were taken away from industrial uses and added to the residential use, this could create an imbalance; furthermore, there~still was considerable land which had been designated for R-3.and R-2 or R-1 which has not been developed to date and probably wouid not run out because of the annexations going on east of the Newport Freeway, but many of these areas could not be considered for industrial purposes - therefore it-was urgent that the Comm9.ssion consider maintaining or retaining those areas now designated for indus- trial purposes; that Anaheim had become a focal point of Southern California, and when the Orany~ Freeway was completed; this would open up one of tlie finest industrial areas in the State since it would pull more industrial traffic along Ball Road. Furthermore, jobs were needed to purchase homes in the area, er to rent apartments, and to change this balance of industrial, resii3ential, and commercial uses by decreasing the indus- trial a~d placing it into the residentiai purposes might create an irreparable problem. Commissioner Herbst also noted that the a.ntegrity of the City was at stake since the resolutions of intent to •reclassify a11 these properties to M-1 had prompted many industries to move into Anaheim,'and if industry were permitted to encroach in the same manner as multiple-family residential use was being projected, then industry should.be given the same protection from residential uses that residential uses were being given from industrial uses, or heavier residential uses, and he was against coneidering residential uses immediately adjacent to industrial uses, and if this step were taken, an industrial developer would take a second look at the Southeast Industrial Area and decide that the City no longer was providing the protection that industry needed; however, if a buffer were needed adjacent to the R-1 on the north side of Ball Road, then perhaps a portion of the property along the south side of Ba11 Road could be considered for multiple-fa~ily development, but to extend this to Winston.Road would be depriving the industries that had developed there from having the protection they expected when they moved into the area. Commissioner Gauer noted thti-.t since he had been on the Commission at the time the Southeast Industrial Area was reclassified to the M-1 Zone, he had been under the impression that when it was zoned, it was with an agreement made by all property owners since the City had held public hearings on the M-1 Zone for that area, and from his own personal observation, the property owners were saiisfied with the M-1 Zone vr U :" 1, ': , .. ' ~ ~ . .. ' `~./ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April S, 1968 3872 GENERAL_PLAN - because it was selling for a better price than R-3 or R-1; that ANI~NDN~i1T N0. 31, he had never heard any opposition to the M-3 Zane - therefore, READtIERTISED he saw no reason to change it. (Continued) ' Commissioner Gaues also noted that the Commission, in the afternoon, had denied a trailer court in the Northeast Industriel Area and had approved an industrial tract almost immediately ad~acent to the trailer park location, so it would appear that developers still were interested in developing industrial parks, and perhaps the proposed land use change•was a little premature for consideration, and the Commission should take cognizance of the offer made by the Chamber of Commerce to further.,study this area for consideration of some type of buffer zone along Ball Road; however, not extending the buffer zone to Winston Road. Commissioner ftowland noted that if any change in land use Here proposed for the south side of Ball Road, it was almost imperative that it be extended to Winston Road in order,.to provide adequate drainage of adjacent property. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the street could be requi.xed half-way through, approximately 6'60 feet south of Ball Road, which would take care of the drainage, land use, and still provide a buffer area for those industrial plants already.developed south of Winston Road, by requiring that the industrial property dedicate all access rights to the new street, thereby eliminating a combination of incompatible uses as to traffic, since industrial and residential traffic did not mix because of the trucks and noises. Commiss.ioner Farano noted that property projected for industrial use should not be set aside .for an indefinite period, and inquired how recent had a study been made that,would indicate the amount of industrial property projected was not needed for the Ci.ty of Anaheim, and if there were too much industrial property set aside, the study should be updated to determine which property was more properly suited for industrial and rezone the other to another zone; however, he was not desirous of having low density residential adjacent to the industrial area. After further discussion hy the Commission relative to where the delineation line should'be made relative to industrial and multiple-family residential use, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 31, readvertised, Exhibit "A", be approved, requiring dedication of all access rights for the multiple-family residential uses to Winston Road. The foregoing motion lost for want of a second. Discy.ssion was held by the Commission as to the preparation of an additional exhibit which would reflect medium density residential uses for a distance of 660 feet south of the.centerline of Ball Road, extending from State College Boulevard.on the west to Sunkist Street on the east. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-107 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded b;~ Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 31, readvertised, Exhibit "D" be approved, changing the land use from industrial to medium density for a distance of 660 feet south of the centerline nf Ball Road, extending from State College Boulevard on the west to Sunkist Street on the east. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rauland, Camp. NOES:. COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEN7~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALAN R. AND MARJORIE TALT, Wilshire-Flower 'Building, N0. 67-68-7A Suite 806, 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California, Owners; ROBERT S. MC MICHAEL, 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California, VARIANCE N0. 1965 Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 9.6 acres of land extending southerly from the south side of Ball Road to the north eide of Winston Road and having approxi- mate frontages of 330 feet on both streets, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 1,320 feet east'of the centerline of State College Boulevard, said parcel being fuither divided as follows: Portion "A" - The northerly 617.5 feet of said parcel, and Portion "B" - The southerly 622.5 feet of said parcel. Property presently classi- fied County A-1, General Aqricultural District. I ~ r t~~ 4~ ~ ~ I~ 7 W ~~ I .:~ MINUTESe•..CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, April 8, 1968 3873 RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. N0. 67-68-70 REQUESTED ~aRIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE N0. 1965 WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESI- (Continued) DENTIAL ZONE, (2) MINIMUM SIDE YARD - SETBACK~ (3) CARPORT LOCATION'; AND (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS. Associa,te Planner Charles Roberts noted that sub3ect reclassification was the prezoning `'~r`. for this property prior to annexation into the City, and the northerly five acres was ';~=;~~ propossd for development with a 112-unit, multiple-family residential development, and the variance was requesting waiver of the height limitation adjacent to the R-A Zone; that the yard setback provisions for the northerly structure was necessary since they were;proposing to develop with larger,private patios, and the five yard setback might ,'''`i act as a catch-all trash area, and the minimum distance between buildings was necessary to provide additional private patios. _ Mr. Robert McMichael, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted t~iat since the Commission had more or less cut subject property in half by their recommendation of the delineation line for an amendment to the General Plan, the plans as pr.esBnted were no longer applicable; however, they originally had proposed to have a stree~ extend from Ball Road to Winston Road to provide better circulation. Zoning Sup.ervisur Ronald Thompson noted that there were a number of problems apparent in applying the plans of subject petition to the General Plan as it was amended, since not only-was north-south ci:culation needed, an east-west circulation also was needed; and that perhaps some aclditional study would be necessary in order that revised plans would reflect this circulation. Mr. A,.,,J. Schutte, representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated,.it was their intent, with the development plans before the Commission, to provide a good,circulation plan, and he hoped to be able to get Sunkist Street also extended to Winston Road - however, with the General Plan Amendment recommended for approval, it was doubtful whether this circulation could be accompli'shed, and also doubtful whether adequate drainage could be provided. Mr. Thompson then noted that several of the Commissioners in their discussion had indicated an additional street should be provided in an east-west direction to act as a buffer adjacent to the industrial and residential uses; therefore, if the developer knew,his limitations, there were a number of alternatives - but the staff needed addi- tional guidelines in order to discuss intelligently the type of buffer the Commission desired for adequate separation between industrial and residential uses -- then the staff.and.the developer could work together to provide the necessary circulation and drair}age. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that although the Commission had recommended a land use change for only a portion of sub,~ect property, the petitioners could request of the City Council consideration for the entire parcel to be reclassified to the R-3 Zone; however, since the petitioner had proposed develop- ment for only the northerly portion, the present plans still could apply to possible development; and that the waivers requested were technical because of the balance of the property adjacent to subject property being zoned R-A. THE HEARING~WpS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-108 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommpnd to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-70 be approved, in part, granting reclassifi- cation for Portion "A" and denying reclassification to the R-3 Zone for Portion "B", since the General Plan recommended for amendment reflected multiple-family residential uses for the property considered under Portion "A", and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On xoll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMi~IISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. 'f~y 1 .:~j 1 _ . _ . . . _._ _ .r „~_ _ ~,~ h.,~. t ~;: -~ .y r '~t a a i , y . ~S 1.• „ ih „1g2•f,. y y} ~ ~ ~{ ~ ., '~. ; r ,, F _ i f ~. a. 'er~.~"'v,~ -x ..Y... -n;t If 3..Y f "~t. ~ '~_ . ~. 1 y~ `' W 1 ~ ' 3W~r~i)eT1-.~ F .. i _ ~'.. ~~ ~,1 . ,./. ... ,. . _ , . , . . ~ n .,. .:{~' 1 ....,; 1 !, .. `~ . -c ~. <sr ~rr ^.. ~1 v i ;cxy^"r' ''F ~'~ {+ ~ , V` a~ n ~'' i 5; ~ ~ . , ~ ~ ~ 3874 MINUTES,~ CITY PLANNING COMMIS&ION~ April 8, 1968 RECLA$S~FICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-109 and moved Nd 67-68-7.0 for its passage and adoption,seconded by,Commissioner Farano,to grant in part,l~brtion"A",Petition for Variance No. 1965, granting the VARIANCE N0. 1965 waiver of the building and structural height:limitations and (Co.ntinued) denying the waiver of the yard and building setback requirements and the minimum distance between buildings, on the basis that the petitioner was not certain he would develop in accordance with the plans before the Commission, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On xoll:call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: pyEg: COMMISSIONERS: Fareno, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEIIT.:. COMMISSIONERS~ Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD M. AND ALEENE B. WILEY, T30 Bryant Court, N0. 67-68-65 Exeter, California, Owners; UNION OIL ~~ANY~ P~ro•ertX desoribed Terminal Annex, Los An9eles, California, Agent; p p Y CONDITIONAL_USE as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of PERMIT N0._1015 approximately 60 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and a maxi- mum depth of approximately 95 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 150 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 513 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (DEED RESTRICTED). G h~,, . ~' ' ': ~n yi Ci4 ~ -. ~ .-.'.,'w~ =;~ r~ r;?t~ i . ~ ,? ~ :`~;~ ,<` ~ ~ :sg ~s ~~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: DELETION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS WHICH LIMIT THE USE OF ~ ? SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES~ 4, TO PERMIT THE FULL RANGE OF USES PERMITTED IN THE C-1 ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE~ 75RFEETTOF AXRESIDENT~IALAZONEISWITH WAIVEREOFTTHE R QUIRED - BUILDING SETBACK ADJACENT T O T H E R- 1 Z O N E. s Associate.Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the loTetuest femphasizing~the facththat 5 ! estab_lished in close proximity, and the proposed q e the'petitioner was requesting permission to expand the service station already in use to the parcel immediately to the nurth, and that G1 zoning was on the property, based on Ordinance No. 1659, dated December 21, 1961. Mr. Robert Franks, representing the Union Oil Company, appeared before the Commission, notin9 they were proposing to rebuild the existing service station in order to erect one of.:their new residential-type service stations, and the additional property was necessary. No one. appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-110 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that the City of;,Anaheim execute a written consent to the amendment to deed restrictions hereto- fore imposed by the deletion of said deed restrictions as covered under Reclassification No. 61-62-24, established in Ordinance No. 1659, dated December 21, 1961. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS~ Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commi~sioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-111 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1015, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES~ COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~.. ;.,. ._ _....~~;; ~ . 4 ~CSG' . y ~~~ ~ . ~ ~ f l M1 ~~M1~~~4'1~~1~i'k ~Z ?v ~...~~)~ 5~ ~y~'L'i~(~~'t 4 T1 1 ... ~l" S~ `} RJ~ ~` Y'+4 / ~1 i ~ . ~~C.~4T S'~ ~l. ~ :~ :.rY'. . i~`~~~ .. .bn - ~/}.. ~ h f 'li ~'?. ~v:`~ , h~t:M1.t:~ . ) av~.:;ta'+s~ 3 ` o ~ i ~n i . . r)~ . ~,..rJ ~ .-. . . ~ ~, ~" . 1~ ~41 ~ iJl~ MINUTES, CI~1''PLANNING COMMISSION,'April 8 1968 87 ~'. , 3 5 ~. REPORTS:'AND: - ITEM N0. 1. , ~^ ';~ ~ ~~R£COMMENDATIONS SECTION' 18.12.030- Rules of Interpretation - Set for , . ~ ~ . : : public hearing. , 4y :,~ ~~ The.Commission Secretary noted'that the proposed amendment,to Title 18 as depicted ' ' ' in the: Repor.t to the Commissiom would have'to be set for public hearing, if the ?~ . Commi ssion=so desired the amendment. ~`~''• ~ , z 1. ` ~ Commissioner Herbst offered-a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for ' ~ ~ K , public .hearing May 6, 1968, consideration of an amendment to Tit1e 18, Section'18.12.030, . Rules of~Interpretation, relative to annexation zoning. Commissioner Mungall seconded ` ' y ~ the,motion._ MOTION`CARRIED. s!` ~~', y ~~ ADJOURNMENT. - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland ;~ ~±t offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Farano F~'~~ ,. . seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. . „;Y . ^`' r. . . . - The meeting adjourned at 12:05 A.M. ' ~ai.n.. . £ 1 . ~ . . ., ~~. Y. ~ r -:; Respectfully submitted, i ~. , ~~` ~'~ /~~'~~ ,. ?': ~}~ ANN KREHS, Secretary ~'': ;_ Anaheim City Planning Commission '' ~ ~ '* . , r `~ ~'~~ti YS ~ t'kt :,• C,a ~, : r, ` ' ~, ":;`% :,~ : Vr ~~~~,*ML , ~ #`~ ~ ,~ ~ ~9 ~,~. , ,i ~ i ~ i ;,~~ , 1 ~ ` .::~: i ~ t , , ~ . . _ * . .. . ~ ~ ~. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . .. . . . . . . . . - .. ~ , . . ~ ~ . ~ j -,,: ; `' .~.,,:_•.i ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . . . . I ~..~ ?,'~ f ~ . - . . ,..m..__ . . ~ . ~ . . . ~ . . . ' ~ .. ~ ~ ~ :. ~ ~ . ' - -. _ . _ . . _ .. .. . . ~'~ ~ . . ~ ~:;i ;, ~~:'•iC! ~ N ' r.~":.c'a,.. . ~ ,~; .: _ . , _. :~. . , . r . . :: , _ . , ~. ~,, ' _ ' i -~ -~.~.~ ; . ; ,a ~ ~ t ',- /~ ~i ; ~ ~ _ ~~ syat.~x'~Ya ~{ ': ~S ir~C~d ~4 ~ t t~~ . 1 ~i5 ~5 '+ Fh~s "4 r 1 ir ,, F ~"~~ ~ ~~x .~ f,» ke > ~. u c , ; tt ^+^v.~ yr ~. ;~aa~ Y~` ~~ r ,~ ~ f~j .f ~it AV ~ t Zl ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' i 5 S ~,}qjyA.~~~p;~}~,~~~. S}' ~~ t+, ~c'S~. 4~'4 1 .'~L ~ ~ T . ]1~ k ~~ ~'4' tA .. M ~Et 7 t ~t ~ t ~ J. Y j'R ( P ~' ~ F~, ~. 4 f ~j ~~} ,~ v M ~ ~ . p ~, a ~ ~ } wy,,, I 7 . ~. ( ~ n ki a,.h 1~ 1~~ r. - l y 1 Y' ~ Y-i ~~J J 2 ~' ~ ~ ~ ' 3 ^ ; ~• ~ ` y S 'f 4 S F ~ L.1 a1~ 4 d t ~.~1 ^'a t7ti7't s s ; t ~ k,~, ~ . 7- i^ v '' i y.Y eK'~ d~ .rr~i~~ ti~~ ~1 .~rS~`,~..,~ ~ y~ ~. 1 t > a 3. cr r ~~ y ~. . F ~ ' ~ ~ ;~r ' ~ i ~~ ~ . t . { )~ ti . t y~~~~ :, ~ i ~i yt c . c }.. ..5.s ~ ~~ l ~ Y t S i ~`~ F ,~N, ' L. 'i „~1!' y ''. t ~ ~ C'~' ~ 3i 'Y.~ ~ S ~' l~: ` f ,~;}!J~'~ tl~ ~ i ) 1. ~t ~ i t ' 7 ] :? j t ~ r .. b ~ ~ ~ '' ` ~ i ~~f ~ ~ ( : cn ' t f , ~ ~ a -r~,° iyia i ~~: " . nd ~ T . r ~ r ~ ~ PF ~ ~ . ~y y T~ :t~ 4 ~~' ` ~ _ . t n .. , Yy.'~ i ,1 ~ ` '~ ~ ~. ~ J ~ ; ', L .. ~ ZL ~1 ~ Y ~ sV ~ ~'r ~ 1 S C > >C ~ ~ ~ 4 4 ": h r +~ t 4 r '7 ~ " ~ - - ' ~~' ::' t , r ' ,. f ~ ~ . , v ~ y ~~ ~ ; . I d ~i.i 7 "~ .~ . 7 Y .J ~~l t ' . . ~4 . . . ~ t ~ ' r r, : .. ',+:• ,'.:.r: ... . .::.. . .. . .. '~~.~ ~. ; ! ' . ~ . . . . . - .. ~. . . . ~ . . ., ~ _ ' . - . ~ . ~~ . - .. 1 \ , * r ' ~ ~ ~ . f ~ ` ~ ~'.~ t ~ .. t, ~ x z ~ Y k ti - ~ ~ i t ~ t ~ . ~z ~ l . ~,~ M1 ~~~~~ - ~~ I ~ ~ 1 1-.~ T ~ !'~ ~ . • II I \r ! ~•~~ 7 4t ` A .~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ P ~ ~ ~ t~* f ~ , ~ ~ ' I~ ~l l ~~h y Y .~ d 4 la h ~ ~~ ~ 1 1 ~'~ C 1 ! y I " 'f ~' ~ ~ t . r y' ~ t I ,~,~ + 4 „ : } ~., I ..,_~ 5l ~' ~~J .,~ ~ ~~r .'.I l' .. ~ . ,; .. ~ . , . , ~ Y F C ".{ } f X yl ~ . ~ ~ ~'. .., , ~ .i~ , . t . . .. ,~.~; .:: ' . ' 1 r . . .. ~ i' ~ ._. .., . ~. i ~ , . :.: . ., ~ ~ . ..., , ,~ _ . '. ..: -' .. ',.~. , . .i:'. .I -.~, , '.'. ~ :::. _ ... ~.':'. . r ~ l . ~ , ~ ~ t 1 4 f il ~ ~ r `' ~~ + ' ~ r t~ ~ 'S 5 i ~ , 5 , 7 ~~ : ~ : ~~,.~~~ ~ ~.v ~ .:.;. ~., - . 1 ! ` I / f ~ ~. 1 I 1 ''1 I l 1 . ~ r ~ k ~ } ,` ~ I ~;J ~ ' ~~ ~ ~,~ ,~ ~ ~ + .~. . ,~, ..~ :,, ;~ i . ~~ .: ~ . .., r .~ ~. ~ . ' 1 ..,. , r ~.;.^ ..,,. . ~~. 1 ' .. + ~ .,:,, { S ': ~ ` ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~a t ~ t . ~ 1 ~ . 7 ~ ~; 3' ~ ~ t ~ . Y , _ ~ dS( ! k A~ •i ~ ~ .,:,1._~. . . ~ ~~ ~ . ~:'.;/ ' . . . , . ~ . , _ ~ ~ . .. . . . . . uf. ., P :. .. .7 .. ... ~ . . . ~ . . ... ... .. . . . ~ ~. . . . ~ . ~ . . . ~~ .. ~ . . .. ~.. .