The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1968/06/03~. ---- , ~ _ ~ ~ ~ , City Hall ~ '~ Anaheim, California June 3, 1968 { ~~, ~ . A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ,.~-~'° ~ " REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called ~.> to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. j; $ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer (afternoon only), Herbst, Mungall, Rowland (evening only). ABSENT - CAMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Charles Roberts Assistant Planner: Pat Brown Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend H. A. McPheeters, Anaheim Counselin9 Service, gave the invocation. . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to ~he Flag. APPROVAL OF - Approval of the Minutes of the meeting of May 20, 1968, was deferred THE MINU?ES until the meeting of June 17, 1966. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CLIFFORD C. BOTTENFIELD, 732 North N0. 67-68-54 East Street, Anaheim, California,,Owner; A. E. SANDORF, 13224 Newport Avenue, Tustin, California, Agent; property described as: VARIANCE N0. 1954 A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 75 feet on the east side of East Street and a maximum depth of approximately 271 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 245 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further described as 732'North East Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO CONSTRUCT SIX TWO-STORY APARTMENT UNITS, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES AND (2) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL. Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of March li and 25 and May 6, 1968, in order that additional parcels in the area could be advertised for R-3 zonin9, and in order that various departments in the City might give additional consideration to vehicular circulation and access probTems in the area and for action on an overall reclassification of properties along East Street. Associate Planner Charles Rober.ts reviewed the location of subject property, the pro- posed request, uses establish.ed in close proximity, and previous zoning action in which the City Council approved R-3, Multiple-Family zoning for properties along East Street and La Palma Avenue of wh:lch subject property was a part, and that because of the technicality that properties to the north and south of subject property were still R-l, the petitioner would need the waiver of the masonry wall along those property , lines - however, plans presented indicated single-story construction within 150 feet of the R-1 to the east. Mr. Clifford Bottenfield, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and requested withdrawal of Reclassification No. 67-68-54 on the basis that he planned to develop in accordance with the site development standards and requirements of the R-3 Zone; however, he was requesting approval of the variance for~waiver of the required masonry 3936 .,% '~~X~ ~ `! ~ ~A ~ , ; i t.j i ,, ~,': _,~: i ~ ~ ~ A ! i ~. l 1 , ~' . ~~r~ .Yi, ~f .. tJF tt ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~,~4r/Y` R ~J k~2 Tf ~ ~l ^ °` ~t~ ~ h ~M. V,~,.'M i a P.A}~~ -_ _ ~ "_ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~` ~ . . . . . ~ . ~ . .' .~. . I .~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3937 } ~ ,_ RECLASSIFICATION - wall along the north and south property lines. Furthermore, he N0 67-68-54 b ~ ~ ~ . had een informed by the property owners to the south that devel- ~' ~ VARIANCE N0. 1954 o ment of that P property would be for R-3 purposes within the very °`~; . (Continued) near future. ~~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED. ~ : , ;~' ?d ~< Commissioner Mungell offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition h~ for Reclassification No. 67-68-54 be termineted, as requested by the petitioner, on "~ the basis that the petitioner proposed to develop in accordance with the R-3 Zone , ;`'`~~ ~ recently.approved under Reclassification No. 67-68-68. Commissioner Herbst seconded rs ~ the motion. MOTION CARRIED. . , ; ,,,, ; ~ Commissioner ~.llred offered Resolution No. PC68-151 and moved for its passage and j~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mun9a11, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1954 for waiver of the required masonry wall along the north and south property lines, and d ial f th i ,'`~ en o e wa ver of the one-story height limitation adjacent to the R-1 to the east, subject to conditions and development of the circulatioh in accordance with the " Specific.Plan of Access". -(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Rowland. +~~` -~ ,~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - PUBLIC HEARING. DEVEIAPER: C. MICHAEL, INCORPORATED, 8501 Bolsa :ik' TRACT N0. 6646 Avenue, Midway City, California. ENGINEER: Raab and Boyer Company, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, California. 5ubject tract, located on the west side of State College Boulevard, north'of ~ Ball Road and containir,.3 approximately 5~- acres, is proposed ~ for reversion to acreage. ; Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Tentative Map of Tract No. 6646 to the ~ 1 ;~` Commission, noting that.the proposed reversion to acreage for that property originally f ` in Tract No. 6409 would give the developer the opportunity of presenting a new design ~ ~'~ concept for the development of the property, and that standard conditions of approval ~ would be placed on subject property when a new tentative map or parcel map was sub- ~ mitted: Furthermore, drainage was found to be necessary to permit the development i' ) of the R-1 tract to the north with proper drainage, and that the existing 15-foot ~' '; easement for sewer, public utilities, and drainage should be retained a?ong the ; westerly tract boundary. ; Gommissipner Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6646, ' ~ subject to the following conditions: ~ 1. .That drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 2. That a 15-foot easement for sewer, public utilities, and drainage be retained along the westerly tract boundary. Commissioner hlungall seconded the motion. NlJTION CARRIED. ~ RECLASSIFICATION - COIdTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HILLMAN, ET AL, 2610 West Ba11 Road, ! ; N0. 67-68-88 Anaheim, California, Owners; WESTERN SHOPPING CENTERS, INCORPORATED, ~ ' 811 West 7th Street, Los An9eles, California, A9ent; propeity ~ VARIANCE N0. 1985 described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 6. acres of land ad,jacent to the southwest corner of Ball Road and ~ Magnolia Avenue and having frontages of approximately 535 feet along Sall Road and approximately 246 feet along Magnolia Avenue. Property presently s; classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICAI'IONa C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. i REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILOING HEIGHT WITHIN ~ 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONED PARCEL. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of May 20, 1968, at the request of the petitioner who had'indicated he had a conflict in appointments and wished to be present at the public hearing. ~.~.. - _ ~:>y F;: ~„ .. ~ . . . ~ ~~' ~ .. \~ ry r~ 1 t ~y V ~ MINUTES,;CIT.Y PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3938 RECLASSIFICATION - Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of N0. 67=68-88 subject property and the existing uses, noting that the original VARIANCE N0._1985 request had included the westerly 132 by 328-foot parcel; however, (Continued) this had been withdrawn, and the plans encompassed the remainder of the property which would adequ'ately serve the proposed develop- ment. Furthermore, the plans submitted indicated the shopping center would be comprised of two major tenants, a large supermarket and a drug store, with smaller stores around the periphery of the property, and all requirements of the C-I Zone would be complied with. Mr. Roberts also noted that the petitioner had intended to acquire the City-owned well site located south of the service station property - however, these negotiations had not been completed, and this property, therefore, was deleted from the plan of develop- ment. Mr. Roberts also noted that the Anaheim General Plan presently designated this area as being appropriate for low-medium density residential development, with a neighbor- hood shopping center symbol located easterly of the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Ball Road, and that in addition to the 8-acre shopping center at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Magnolia Avenue, an additional 2-acre shopping center was located dt the northeast corner with a resolution of intent to reclassify the single- family residential lots located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue extending northerly from Ball Road to Rome Avenue - however, the only parcel which had been converted to commercial uses was the service station site. Furthermore, that the prime issue before the Planning Commission would be to determine the appropriateness of land use and whether.an additional 5 acres of commercial facilities should be developed at this location. Mr. William Carver, 811 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the Report to the Commission had pointed out that the_primary issue before the Commission was the addition of 5 acres for com- mercial uses at this intersection, with the staff indicating the question whether or not there would be sufficient demand to patronize an additional 5.acres for commercial use - however, the prime tenants of the proposed shopping center had advertised in this area for a number of years and had never had a facility within the City of Anaheim. Mi. James Stewart, 1321 Cobblestone Drive, La Habra, representing Vons Markets, appeared before the Commission and expleined why they had planned to locate on this property, noting thet their surveys had indicated the location was economically sound, and their intent to reinforce this through the Thrifty Drug Store survey which had also concluded the proposed location of the market and the drug store was economically feasible since there were no complete drug and market facilities within two miles of subject property; that the population density obtaiped from the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study of 1960 indicated there were 47;000 people within a mile of this intersection - there- fore, the proposed developmenf would seem to be economically feasible. A rendering of the proposal was presented to the Commission (rendering retained by the petitioner) indicating that Vons had twelve stores in Orange County, and that Mr. Ernest Grossman would be able to answer any questions relative to the drug store facility. Mr. Ernest Grossman, 5051 Rodeo Road, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and stated that Vons Market and Thrifty Drug Store usually were engaged together in' a shopping ce.nter; that the architect for the proposed development presently had similar facilities being constructed in La Mirada and Huntington Beach; that there were no Th'rifty Drug Stores in the City of Anaheim, and by the construction of same, the sales would be part of the sales tax which the City could glean which presently were 9oing to Buena Park and Garden Grove; and that the drug store facility would serve a popula- tion within a mile radius in excess of 23,000 people since the drug store was a one-stop facility for drugs, furniture, clothing, and cosmetics. Mr. Carver then indicated his presence to answer questions relative to the Report to the Commission; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired whether or not he took issus with any of the recommended conditions. Mr. Carver then stated therr were none he could point out - however, he would like to review.the reason for the variance in that a setback was required adjacent to R-A property according to Code when commercial uses reared-on to these properties, and they were proposing a normal, 20-foot setback to provide an alley adjacent to the ~ R-A uses:~ Furthermore, the condition recommended by tht staff relative to planting of trees at 20-foot intervals at the exterior boundaries along the R-A property would be screening any future development of the properties to the south and west. >~; ;:i; ~ { r~~,Y? , ~ ,, . f- ,t', r ° ~ l ,....~_~.:.~__ J.. ~_ ~ .~_ ,: ; : .. ~ ' _ ' _ ' . _ . . ._ . •' "~._._ __.~-__. . ,. _.._ . ._ ~~ - ~ ~+ ~,:~'I ' Y~~'" ~ ~ ~ ~,.~ . . ~ i ,,~ MINUTES,.CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3939 ' ~~'" : ~ 'a ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Thompson noted that if the property to the west were developed ~ N0. 57-68-88. for some type of multiple-family residential use, the setback ~ VARIANCE N0. 1985 would be 10 feet, except that a secondary access would be required --*~ (Continued) around the shopping center. ~-.:;;~ - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired of Mr. Carver whether or not they intended to provide signing in accordance with the Sign Ordinance; whereupon Mr. Carver stated that he had not reviewEd ti~e Sign Ordinance and was not familiar with any discrepancy.which might occur. Mr. Thompson noted it would require some evaluation on the part of the developer even > though the Sign Ordinance was liberal - no signing could be put up by both Vons and ~, ~ Thrifty Drug Store unless the signs were more than 300 feet apart, and no roof sign ~ ! could.be constructed within 300 feet of these signs; therefore, signing might take some mo.dification in order to conform to the Sign Ordinance. s ~ The Commission then noted that when a development of the proposed size was considered ~ before the Commission, some sign consideration should be given as a matter of conven- ~ '' ience and courtesy since they would not like the idea of having zoning aporoval and ~-~•`~~ then later coming in requesting a variance, since the Commission was more desirous of ~ ti ,~ reviewing the entire proposal,including signs, at one time. Mr. Thompson advised the petitioner that if wall signs were permitted, the aggiegate 4 area of signs permitted would be 2 square feet per each lineal foot of street or high- f way frontage, plus an area equal to any wall sign permitted in accordance with Section i 18.52.090(c), and that no more than 25% of the wall could be covered with the sign. ~ Furthermore, since subject property had frontage on both Ball Road and Magnolia Avenue, ~ two free-standino signs would be permitted of a maximum of 350 square feet; however, ~ they would have to be located 300 feet apart. ~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-152 and moved for its passage and ~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that ~ Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-88 be approved, subject to conditions. ~ (See Resolution Book) ~ i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' ~ AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIGNERS: None. ' ABSENT:. CpMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-153 and moved for its passage and j adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1985, subject to conditions and development substantially in accordance with plans, together 1 with a finding that the petitioner stipulated to screen landscaping along the south and west property lines. (See Resolution Bool.) i On roll.call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: j AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RowTand. ~ VARIANCE N0. 1988 - PUBLIC HEARING. IRVING KINGSTON, 324 North.Palm Drive, Apartment 8, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) , MAXIMUM AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN AND (2) PERMITTED IACATION ~ OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, TO ENLARGE AN EXISTTNG FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel•of land located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Ii Avenue.and Loara Street and having frontages of approximately 100 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 165 feet on the east side of Loara Street, and further described as 1566 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT IIdDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the pro- posed request, and uses established in close proximity, noting that the M-1 Zone permitted a maximum permissible area for a sign of 100 square feet; that the current sign was 104 square feet, and the proposed sign was approximately 232 square feet; and that upon requesting an explanation as to why a variance was necessary to relieve . , .6-. :;• , . ~~,~, ~ . ~Yi.K ' ~5. ~f'~f ' I'. "' • I•: 7 _ ~ ~t, I/ ~~ 'T ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3940 ~~t" VARIAI~CE N0. 1988 - any hardship, the petitioner had indicated~that two tenants ''~. (Continued) were now occupying the property, and the existing sign covered only the requirements of one tenant - therefore, the apparent ~4 lack of foresi ht of the ~~ 9 petitioner in providing for the possi- ~~ - bilitK.of more than one tenant, and no hardship existed except that created by the i ~,+ ~; ` property owner. ~~s ' No one appeared to represent the petitioner. ~~~~ : ~ ~~.~„ ~:~= The Commission was of the opinion that subject petition should be continued until later on in the meeting in order to have the petitioner present to answer questions and for the..staff to check to determine whether a building permit had been issued ;~'`~~ for the integrated sign covering both tenants. ~ i:t: r~:;:`~' . k Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for e:,-,;--><": Variance No. 1988 to later in the meeting, and directed the staff to contact the ~` petitioner in order that he might be present to answer the Commission's questions. Commissioner Gauer seconded the mot.`on. MOTION CARRIED. (See Page 3954 for continuance of this item) ~i VARIANCE N0. 1987 - PUBLIC HEARING. EVERETT DEAN, 419 North West Street, Anaheim, ~ z} California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED ~ ~; DISTANCE OF LIVING UNITS FROM A STANDARD STREET AND (2) MAXIMUM ri f~ PERMITTED BUILDING SITE ~VERAGE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped ~: :~'~• parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 127 feet on the west side of Webster ~ ~ Street and a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, the southerly boundary of said ~<<,;,.R~ parcel being approximately 515 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property a''°`~'~ presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. fi:i.. -;~b Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, i:he uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action which placed a resolution of intent to R-3 zoning on subject property, other developments under the reclasaifica- tion petition, and the proposed request. Mr. Roberts further noted that when the City Council approved R-3 zoning,the resolution limited the number of dwelling units to"18 per net residential acre or xesidential site when slightly less than one acre; however, the petitioner was proposing a maximum coverage of 5'7%, which would project a density at 34.5 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the Commission must consider not only the reques~ed waivers of the'provi- sions of the R-3 Zone, but also the intent of the resolution which established the development criteria for this particular area. Furthermore, the petitioner was prapos- ing subterranean parking, and density was increased considerably since no surface structures would be using a portion of subject property, nor would there be any access drives. Mr. Roberts then reviewed the previous five developments under Reclassification No. 63-64-62, noting that in no instance were more than 18 dwelling units proposed or developed, although two parcels were developed with a percentage of 26 per net acre because the size of the parcels were less than one acre. Mr. Everett Dean, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the designer, Mr. James Hodges, would answer any questions regarding the design of the building. Mr. James Hod9es, 903 South Agate 5treet, appeared before the Commission and noted that the original intent of the resolution for the density approved on subject property was because of the R-1 homes abutting to the east and west of these properties; that the lending institution with whom he had discussed the proposal had indicated they preferred underground perking - therefore with the proposal of underground parking for subject property, an additional 18,434 square feet were added to this property, making the size 56,493 square feet, or a net density of 23.13 per acre. Furthermore, other properties were permitted to develop to 26 units per net acre, and the prime question before the Commission was the projection of dwelling units more than 200 feet from a dedicated atreet and whether or not the proposed development was protecting the rights of the R-1 residents; that it was his estimation the proposed development was protecting these rights by proposing that eight apartments be one-story wi~thin 150 feet of the R-1 properties, and the R-l property owners would not be subjected. to noises and fumes from automobiles since the parking facilities were subterranean; that the underground parking was a new concept to this area, but had been developed successfully in Los Angeles; that there v~ere no set rules to follow for this type of ~ {~ .~~ f~ ,~ 's, ~ ~ fe ~ h ~"~, ;~ ;;, '~ ~:t 1`rt _~';#;. _... . _.,;,. , ,_ .,;:.: _. ,; , ,. _ ~ ' ~ , U MINUTES; CITY't,PLANNII~ ~-u1MISSION, 7une 3, 1968 ' 3941 ~ VARIANCE N0. 1987 - parking in the R-3 Zone; and that a,great deal of research had (Continued) been done regarding the underground parking since he had presented this idea to the several members of the City Council, the~Devel- opment Services Department, the City Manager and the City~Engineer to note the great potential of a great deal more living use gained because of the underground parking, and the fact that it would not be-necessary for the people to drive their cars any great distance and then walk from the parking area. Mr. Hodges then noi:ed that they were now planning to have the recreation facilities located between the two structures, and since no windows were proposed for these one- story apartments to the west, the proposed 5-foot setback would be adequate for the ~ proposed developr~ent~ Mr. Hodges, in response to Commission questioning, stated that there was natural ventilation to take care of the exhaust fumes; that some consideration had been given to providing automatic garage doors - however, there was the problem of guest parking ~ since they proposed 52 subterranean parkin9 spaces where only 38 were required; that there were two entrances to the parking area, and it was entirely open inside~ that since the apartments would have only one bedroom, the requirement of 1~ parking spaces per dwelling unit would be adequate according to their studies; that 90~; of the apart- ment developments in Orange County made it almost impossible for the tenant to park in his garage since ti~e approach looked like an alley, and a person had to drive pasi open doors where people stored all types of things, and because of the distance from the garages to the dwelling units; that the proposed development would discourage this since.he felt the garaye should be the front door, with landscaping, lights, etc., to make this more appealing. The Commission expressed concern about the density proposed since this could overload on-.street parking because apartment dwellers were noted for parking in the str.eet rather than in the off-street parking area provided. Mr. Hod9es noted that the City Council was on record to establish a policy for devel- opment of higher density residential uses in order to provide homes for the workers in.the industrial plants in the City, and the proposed development was a partial af;swer to:that statement. - Furthermore, the'concern always expressed about density was to pxovide a livable place, protection'of the neighbors, and preventing slums; that all R-.3 rules and standards were designEa to effect this; that the proposed development had 14.spaces in excess of that required; that the parking was more easily accessible and provided considerably more privacy, affording a livable area for the apartment dwellers as well a5 their neighbors since the proposed development had no windows to the west, except for the possibility of glass patio doors,and the windows of the bed- rooms would be oriented toward the patio; and that by parking being provided under ground, this would add 18,400 additional square feet. The Commission noted that the method of computation used by the designer might be allowable, but if this computation were carried to extreme, one could build any number of units; that the theory could not be subscribed to, even though the development might be a good project as proposed and could enhance the area - this did not permit the Commission to grant es intensive development as was proposed since the petitioner was not actually addin9 land but air space. Mr. Hodges was of the opinion that since the proposed development was conforming with all other Code requirements and underground parking, the petitioner should be given some consideration for utilizing ~he property to its fullest. Zoning.Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that when the City Council ~onsidered the reclassification of the properties on Webster Street, the real issue was one of density as well as protection of the R-1 properties, and when the Cfty Council approved it, they indicated 18 dwelling units per net acre unless the parcel was less than an,acre - therefore, two parcels approved for a higher density did not build.in number of units, but the calculation for the less-than-an-acre increased the density to 26 units. The Commission inquired as to what effect approval of subject petition could have on the sewers, water, and other public facilities. OGr.• Thompson noted that as far as the one parcel was concerned, there would be no effect, but this could set a pattern of development for the remaining parcels on Webster Street, and Webster Street could not handle this additional traffic since it was only a collector street, and there were no additi.onal facilities for providing schools or parks in this general area. -:: '~ Q l~ - :~ '~~' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING-COMMISSION,'.June 3, 1968 3942 VARIANCE 1~0. 1987,- Mr.' Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated `(Continued) , that the first few parcels which had developed were at 18 ~welling unite per riet-residential'acre; however,;after one development . `` came in having interpreted the City>Council.action to meen T8 ' .dwelling.units!per site, the staff had requested:clarificatiom from the Plenning Commission and City CounciT - theiefore two of the developments had an increa'se in density due to the size of the parcels. .~ ~ . .~ .. ~ . .~ ~ .- .,_ , f ~~ The;:Commission then noted that if underground parking were proposed, this would permit one additional story - in essence, using an increase in density,which 'affecte;on-street ~ parking, as'well as having air effect on the public facilities. Coneiderable discussion was then held by the Commission,.staff, and representative of-the petitioner regarding the:proposed cleveTopment as it pertained to on-street and off-street parking. Mr..R..D. Miles, 804 South Webster Street, appeared before the Commission and noted that although he was somewhat confused by the_proposed development, he could see that maybe.he could have developed his proparty with an increasad density because of the vagueness of the City Council action, and then requested a few moments to review the proposed development before making any additional comments. The Commission inquired of Mr. Miles as to his interest in the proposed development; whereupon Mr. Miles stated that he owned property to the nortt,east of subject property on Webster Street. The Commission noted that they did not necessarily disagree with the idea - that it `"`"'~~ probably could be successful while still protecting the R-1 properties; howsver, the -'~F. greater concern of the Commission was a matter of density, and the petitioner must ~~ ~ justify the variance petition since there,were other aspects than protecting the R-1 ;: ,~' properties;,that the petitioner had only indicated the variance was necessary•from ~ " an economic standpoint, which could not be considered by the.Commission sinceithe r', prime consideration of.the Commission was the effect the increase in density would have on schools,,.parks, and traffic because Webster Street was only a;,collector street, and'sewers`and water because favorable consideration of subject petition could bring:: ,~ti~ similar requests from the balance of;the We6ster Street properties for:ar, inciease ;;:,~µ in density therefore,'this increase would be multiplied many times over; and that ;; 7i' other properties which'had developed;had the same problems as subject property, but ~ `. ~-~~ had complied with the City Council requirement of a maximum of :18 dwelling"units per ' ~',~+~ ~,_ ,. building site or acre. ~ f } a;,~~ ' .~ . , .~ .. ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ , . ~,~. ~ ! ~~~ rI Mr. Hodges then stated that they had attempted to obtain financing for 18 dwelling ~ I ~ ~FG '(y; units~ but the lending institution requested they provide subterranean parking, and ' ts; in order to make this an economically sound investment, they.would have to have more j N: units to cover the cost of subterranean parking; that if the Commission denied subject !., ~' petition, and the property developed in accordance with the requirements, they would be providing less livable.quarters, and the City would be the loser as tivell as the r~( petitioner; that the Commission did agree the Ciiy needed additional apartment units, ' and the ro osed develo ment was a better land use without sacrificin the P P p 9 quality " ;~ of the units; tha~ a great deal of research was done before the proposed development ~~' was drawn up, and there was no indication that a traffic'problem could result; and that there would be no burden on the schools because they were proposing one-bedroom ; apartments for adults only. `'r; The Commission then noted that if subject petition were approved, and all other lots developed in a simiiar manner,' there would be 364 apartments.and over 500 edditional `ti automobiles, and then inquired if this were the last parcel to develop, would the ~; ;`, developer still propose the seme plans7 ' u'~ M . H d e th t d th t i h De m ' ;' r,, ' r o en no g s a e ; e velopment Services Depart ent and other depaitments ~' f had made studiea - that it would be a waste of land if'the entire street were developed ~'',; as:the first five parcels had developed. , ` ;,;,;;; ~ ;; j ' Mr. Dean again appeared before the Commission and stated that one of the points which . wae overlooked was the fact that Webster Street extended only:between Arange Avenue ;;. and Ball Road and had no side'streets entering into it; that since subject property I was only 127 feet wide, the only way tn develop the parcel was as proposed because ~ of its size,; that the idea suggested in talks wittr the City Manager, that if subject ~ petition were approved that the curbs :or Webster Street should be painted and signed to permit 20-minute parking only, would require off-street parking to be utilized by both guests and resi:dents of the units. ~ :, ~ ~' '; ' ~~~~~ ~1~ ~~.~~~9~~ •,~ . ,rnr'. ~ , ~'~N`4 t~ p ~ A i: ~ -[ r+. i ~.1 ~r f-,~''W,~'ti~ y~~a~~~~~-I ~~ f.:~.. {~t../ HF ~~M1 ~~+~"~m f d~'-~''4'7 i, f~ '~~~' ~ ` ~ 4 3__'_~.. .. J' r^ ~.f ~s7 ,P~{ n ~S ;'r ' ,:',~. ~~ ~ . . . . . - ~ . ~ ~ ~,._~~ .. -t+,INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3943 VARIANCE N0. 1987 - The Commission noted that oth~r c'_ti~es had found it necessary to , (.Continued) require a 2:1 parking ratio while Anatieim still maintained the 1~ ~;; ~ parking spaces per unit. Mr. Dean, in response, stated that the proposed development had adequate room to provide twice the number of parking spaces proposed or required. Liscussion was then held~by the Commission on the progosed concept and the fact that ,it.might establish a precedent for tha remaining parc,els to be developed similarly and its effect on the traffic, which .he street could not handle, as wel~ as'the service which the City provided, and then suggested that the staff do additional study to determine the effect this type of development would have on the area. Mr. Dean noted that 80% of the land weF;, of the Sarita Ana River in the City of Anaheim was developed, and the balance should be developed in such a manner that the most efficient use of the land was made. Mr. Hodges noted that the proposal had been studied in depth by the Interdepartmental Committee, and the recommendations were in the Re art to the Commission. Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission that the Interdepartmental Committee had only reviewed subject petition as it pertained to the needs for street dedication and improvement, as well as street lights and street trees; however, no in-depth study was made as to the impact the development of the remaining parcels would have if develooed in the same manner as the petitioner was proposing, and no comments were made at that meeting other than concern regarding circulation and parking adequacy; and that when considerir.g an individual parcel, the problems were not of the same „ magnitude as that if all parcels were similarly developed. Mr. Miles again appeared before the Commission, noting the history of the zoning for ?he street, and that at the time he developed his prop<~:_•; he was not sure whaL•her i.o develop under the R-2 or R-3 requirements because c~ . z ambiguity of the require- :Yants of t"e resolution of intent - therefore, in plannin;; d2velopment for his proparty, ~:~nsidering the fact that he had 1.2 acres, he was only able to place 18 units on the property; that he had asked to be permitted to put 20 units on the 7roperty, but because ot the interpretation made, it was not permitted, and hed he known there was'a new interpretation of the density for these properties, he would have been able to get a b.etter yield - h~wever, since his development was now completely finished, he felt he.had an excellent development, together with an ideal parking oian, but he'was now sorry his designer did not have the vision that was presented in subject petition, b~.t~ since he was led to believe there w~s no compromise in the resolution, he was now opposed to the proposed development. ~ Mr. Miles also noted that he had several other parcels which he was considering developing viithin the regulations of the resolution of intent for the Webster Street property, and with the cost of +.he land increasing in deference to the original understanding of the Webster Street requirements, he could so interpret the yield en subject property would be greater than he had originally developed, and to consider favorably any of the proposed develapment wouid set the pattern of development for other properties along Webster Street, and that the proposed de~•elopment could have an effect on the value of the property on the street, as well as the ci:culation problems - however, he did npt feel that because he interpre~ed the City Council intent as he did, that others should also be required to build accordingly. Tl3E HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired of the staff the time needed for preparation of a study to determine the effect thp proposed development could have on the development of the other parcels, and what the increased density would do to the circulation, increase in school needs, park requirements, seH•er and water facilities, etc. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that if the proposed development were considered favorably, thi.s could mean an increase in density of twice that now projected on the General Plan, and a General Plah amend- ment would be necessary so that the implications could be reviewed with the various depar.tments; that the increase ~n density had more important ramifications than under- ground parking because of the increase in services that would be required, to'gether with the possibility of providiny secondary access since Webster Street had been approved for low-medium density - even though the City Council approved R-3, the limitations made it a low-medium density. Furthermore, it might be necessary'to request that the City Council amend tiie resolution of intent for the limitations s~et for these properties. Also, tho ordinance did pro•ride for underground perking. _ ,; ,,, ~-,. . ~ ~. ..... n ..r.. - .f . . i. r .. I . . ' . ~ , . _ ~ ~:`~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OpMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3944 VARIANCE N0. ].987 - Chairman Camp then noted that the R-3 Zone approved for subject (Continued.) ~ property was not the-same as the regular R-3 for this particular - reclassification since if development were in accordance with the R-3 Zone, subject petition would not be before the Commission; however, the limitations imposed by the City Council gave these properties a different vehicle i.n which to build. Commissioner Herbst noted that due to the scope of the problems sub~ect petition imposed as to futui~e development of these parr,els on WebsteT~Street, it would seem the staff would need a minimum of four weeks to present an in-depth study. Mr. Hodges requested;that the Commission consider approval of subject petition and use this petition as a"guinea pig" since the City would be faced with a new idea, and this would be the rule of thumb. Commissioner Herbst ~hen noted that if subject petition were permitted, the Commission could not deny any other requests for development along Webster Street in a similar manner. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance No. 1987 to the meetin9 of Juiy 1, 1968, in order to aliow the staff time to prepare an in-depth study relative to the implications the proposed increase in density would have on public facilities, circulation, etc. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. REVEREND H. A. MC PEiEETERS, 1648 West Broadway, ?ERMIT.NO. 1032 Anaheim, California, Owner; CHRIST CHURCH 1'RUTH OF ORANGE CA UNTY, 1648 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; re~uesting permissio~ to ESTABLISH AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY AS A CONFORM- ING USE, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD on Nroperty described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 80 feet on the south side of Broadway and a maximum depth of approxi- mately 305 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 330 feet west of the centerline of Loara St•reet, and further described as 1648 West Broadway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURA.L, ZONE. Associate Plenner Charles Roberts revieKed the location of subject property,Ithe existing uses established in close proximity, and previous zoning action on the pxoperty, notin9 that the structures were presently in existence and have been utilized for chapel facilities for several years - therefore it would appear that the continned use of the property would not be detrimental to the City. Mrs. Hazel Dascenzi, 7972 Primrose Drive, Buena Park, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the existing residential stxucture would be used as schoolrooms and not for a parsonage, and that the church had been utilizing the existing facility for a chapei for several years. Mr. Norman Lipin, owner of property at 1600 West Broadway, appeared before the Commis- sion and noted that after one of his tenants had a slight accident relative to backing ~ut of the garage abutting subject property to the east, he had investigated the entire wali area and noted the wall had sustained damage with 21 holes, and upon making inquiry with Reverend McPheeters,.he had noted that they were pulling cars into the area with tow trucks to make repairs, and in prESenting the claim to the insurance carrier he had been told it would take ~805 to repair the building - however, upon contacting Reverend McPheeters, he had stated he was an expert. in construction and could repair these holes for $400; that he had asked both the church and the woman in charge of the church facilitie~ what they intended to do r~.lative to protecting this wall in the future and was told he could provide his own ~rotection for the wall - that they v~ould do nothing relative to it; that there preser~tly existed a severe park- ing problem along Broadway because of the fact that the City c.ad restricted parking on Broadway in order to provide a left turn pocket - therefore all of his tenants had to parx the_r cars in the garage facilities; and that the existin,y church facility had services during the week as well as on Sunday and would continuously have parking problems if they did not provide adequate parking for the church facility. The Commission inquired as to the exact location of the garages since it apper~red on field inspection that the ;arages were on the property line; whereupon Mr. Lipin stated that when subject property was built, it was owned by someone else - however, it was explained to him that tha McPheeters property had had a wire fence,and they could not construct the garages within the 12 inches, and the contractor must have made special arrangements with the Mc~heeters to eliminate the fence, and now there was no measure of protection for his garages; that he had written a letter saying he had no objection ,~ ;~ ~ - --_.___.._.~.._.J .. .. , ;~.~ ; ~ (~,. ~ MINUTES,'iC2TY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3945 ~NDITIONAL USE - to the proposed use, but this was prior to noting the damage PERMIT N0: 1032 that had been done to the garages, and inquired of the Commission (Continued) who would,be responsible for taking care of the damages done to the garages since the insurance carrier indicated they had no actual legal liability. Chairman Camp advised the opposition that the Commission's first duty was to establish whether or not the requested use of the property was a good land use, and, furthermore, the Commission was not qualified to judge.any moral responsibility or claims on properties, since thie was a private matter. However, if the garages were on the property line, there was a possibility the.Commission could require bumper guards, ~ but that is all that could be required as far as parking was concerned. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the statements made by Mr. Lipin were a privete matter, and it was not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to enter into any of the discussion. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the Code provided for bumper guards where the parking lot abutted the public right-of- way; however, there was no provision to protect private parking areas, and there were many areas in town where people had knocked over the masanry walls. Mr. ~Lowry then stated that under the General section of the condi•tional use permit, the Commissi~n had the power in order to protect the public safety and general welfare to require some protection for adjoining land uses; however; this was an area in which he would rather the Commission did not concern themselves. Mrs. Dascenzi then advised the Commission that if Mr. Lipin did not tiave enough room to provide some measure of protection for his property, they would be willing to review any plan where he would be encroaching into their property to provide this protection. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired of Mrs. Dascenzi whether she was aware of the conditions of approval of subject petition relative to street tree fees, street light fees, trash storage areas, fire hydrants, installation of sidewalks, air-condi- tioning facilities, and exterior lighting; whereupon Mrs. Dascenzi stated that the property`to th'e west was for:sale and requested that the requirement of sidewalks be waived until the property to the west was developed. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that generally the Engineering Division was desirous of having sidewalks installed as properties developed - however, the sidewalks could be waived by the Commission through the posting of a bond. Mrs. Dascenzi, in response to Commission questioning, stated that she knew of no immediate olans for the`sale of zhe property - the only way she could discern the property was for sale was the fact that a sign was posted on the property. Mr. Lipin again inquired of the Commission why the City could not require some measure of protection for his million-dollar development which was already established from the damage being done through negligence on the part of the adjoining property owner. The Commission advised Mr. Lipin that this was a private matter over which they had no control, and the various City depaiiments could not enter into the private problem and recommended that he contact his attarney to resolve this problem. THE H"cARING WAS CLASED. The Commission then discussed possible means of resolving any additional damage being done to the 9arages of the adjoining property to i.he east, and after discussion with the staff,'it was determined that if the parking as proposed were reversed, with parking along the east side and bumper guards adjacent to the parking a.rea, and the parking restriped, this might resolve the problem of damage to the garages to the east. Commissioner Allred off.ered Resolution No. PC68-155 and moved for its passagc and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1032, sub,ject to conditions and the requirement that the parking as proposed on plans and specifications on file with the City be reverst_, placing the parking bays along i:he east property line and the installation of bumper guards, together with re- striping of the parking area. (See Resolution Book) '7G;:--q~ i? "~ ~- - `~~ --- - ,. ~. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3,`1968 _. 3946 CONDITIONAL USE ' ` - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following PERMIT N0. 1032 vote: (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred; Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, . Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMI`iSIONERSe Rowland. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting ~ for ten minutes. Comi.;issioner Allred MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed seconded the motion. at 4:20 P.M. REWNVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:30 P.M., all Commissioners being present except Commissioner Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DR. G. P. BROOKS, 3341 West Ball Road, Anaheim, N0. 67-68-92 California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 72 feet.on the CONDITIONAL USE north side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approxiroately 100 PERMIT N0. 1033 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 177 feet east of the centerline of Westvale Drive, and further described as 3341 West Ball Road. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESI'ED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COMMERCIAL-0FFICE, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO PERMIT THE OFFICE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUC.TURE, WITH WAIUERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED SITE AREA. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the location of subject property, the existing uses in close proximity, and previous zoning on the property, together with the„requested,waivers of minimum required number.of,off-street parking spaces and minimum site area for use"of the property in the Commerciel-0ffice Zone. 1Nr. Thompson further noted that the Development Services Department records indicated that on November 17, 1966, a'building permit was issued for a home alteration, and because of'the nature and magnitude of the alterat•_on, a letter was sent to the present owner, pointing out that subject property had been denied for commercial zoning by the City Council on August 16, 1966, and was still in the R-1 Zone, and any uses other than those permitted under the R-1 Code would be illegal - furthermore, no signifi::ant changes in the proposed development were indicated on the.plans, and the petitioner was proposing to establish a chiropractic office in the existing structure; that the lahd use designation on the General Plan was noted to be low- medium density, and in the recently adopted Arterial Front-On Study subject property was not considered as a potential conversion site since it did not meet the criteria established for such conversion; and that those areas.designated for conversion pur- poses should•be redeveloped and rezoned prior to any further strip commercial devel- opment.along arterials. Dr. G, p, Brooks, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that when he haci moved into the existing residence the property was under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange, and he took out a building permit to construct a rumpus room, and these records may have been lost or mislaid; however, the letter referred to by the staff selative to the building permit for home alterations may have been written as a result of someone complaining he had no facilities for a garage, and he was usiug the building for professional purposes. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompeon advised the Commission that at the time Dr. Brooks' home was built, a two-car garage was not required, and after this had been checked out, a letter.wes submitted to Dr. Brooks inc~icating there was a possibility he was proposing to~USe the home for other than resideni.ial purposes. Dr. Brooks then noted that originally Ball Road v.•,,a a two-lane road when the house was built, but the uses have changed considerably in the area, and a previous reclassi- fication of the property had been opposed by all of the neighbors; that many of the people in the area had to utilize the hospital facilities that were built to the south of subject property; that very few single-family homes would be affected by the pro- posed use; that those properties fronting on Ball Road had experienced the changes in the area; that an alley existed to the rear of sub,ject property which could aci as an ~y~/:~ ,~ ;Nyry .. ;::r-~ ~ ~r4 ~ r !, I i ~,.:>~ ::''`; ~,,.= ._~ -" i t r : ~ -- - - _...~.~__.__._ •y : ~ ' . ~ ~/ 1 _ MINITTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3947 RECLASSIFICATION - adequate buffer between the residentiial and the proposed commer- N0. 67-68-92 cial use, and access to Ball Road was prohibited for two of the CONDITIONAL US£ three properties fronting on Ball Road - therefore the alley was. PERMIT N0. 1033 the only means of access to subject property, and the homes front- (Continued) ' ing on Deerwood Drive did not have access to this alley; and that he planned to use the existing residence for his personal use as a chiropractor, and his funds were insufficient to support a long- term lease for a suite of offices in a regular commercial establishment: Dr. Brooks, in response to Commission questioning relative to the fact that the ~ patients would be using the alley for access to his property, stated that in his profession when one was first attempting to establish a practice it was difficult to have many patients, and the parking which would be permitted along Ball Road would be adequate to serve hi ~urposes at this time, but in the future the alley;might be utilized. The Commission then inquired whether or not he was the owner of the property at the time the reclassification was considered in 1966; whereapon Dr. Brooks stated that he was the owner but did not request the proposed zoning, and only the two parcels to the west were'involved. Mrs. Henry Ledisma, 3342 West Deerwood Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that her property backed up to subject property, and she was opposed to subject petition on the basis that there were adequate commercial facili- ties to be leased by the property owner without converting the residence for business and professional purposes; that because of the a~e of her children, she would be unable to reside in her property since the children use the alley to gain acces: to the homes of their friends, and they would be subjected to automobiles tising the alley for ingress and egress to subject property; that the proposed request was spot zoning and should not be permitted in this a*ea; and that the proposed commercfal ' use would affect the living environment of hers and her neighbors' property, as well as the property values. Furthermore, the residents adjacent to Dr. Brooks' property had indicated their intent to sell their property for similar commercial requests. Mr. 7oseph Seymour, 3341 West Ball Road, apYeared before the Commission and noted that he h~d lived adjacent to Dr. Brooks for some time, and because of the traffic problems on Ba11 Road, this had created a hardship; that he had adopted two youngsters and these youngsters had no place to play because of the hazardous conditions due , to the traffic situation; that in an attempt to refinance his property, the FHA had advised him financing was not obtainable because of the commercial aspect of the ~~ property; and that in canvassing the neighborhood they had only obtained opposition from one person, and the opposition presented to the Commission today was a:newcomer to the neighborhood. Mrs. Ledisma again appeared before the Commid~ion and stated that she had resided in ~ the area for fo,nr years and that her children played with Mr. Seymour's children, and that Mrs. Edmonds, a neighbor of hers, had indicated her opposition to subjeci: petition also. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed reclassification and its relatianship to the front-on study recommended for approval to the City Council, which also had been adogted by the City Council - namely, that the properties had b'een reviewed and it was determined that they did not meet the criteria for potential conversion to commercial uses; that there was no way the Commission could determine whether the front-on study would be effective until it was given a chance to operate under the condi.tions which existed; and that if the Gity started approving other areas for commercial uses, this would start a trend and would prejudice th~ statistics for the front-on study. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-156 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council,that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-92 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community;:that in the recently adopted Arterial Front-On Study sub~ect property was not considered as a potantial conversion site since it did not meet the criteria e~tablished for such conversion; and that there were approximately 176 homes geographicaliy dispersed throughout the community which would be more appropriate for conversion from residential to commercial uses. (See Resolution Book) ~. ~~1,F ~~ ~~ ~~` {^' ~ ~' YFh. ^~ +y`~'~J' 'Y ~" ;Ym t._ -~{~'}~- y,~,~.`~M;~; ~CS.t~ ~. ` yy~5. ~tiu - ~.,,~ ,.. ! t ~ . . . ~ .;. ` , ta S, .. rd+tAn ~'~ t ~S? i F r d..F:p # ` j'~''f ~~ 1:.,: r k;~At~..~! ~_1~;Y±'~' ~~ 3 v}t ~ j. .~.~;' { r 4 > ; 1. y :1 _ _ . .~ :~' , ~ ~ . ~ -.. ~. . . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES; CIIY PLANNING CAMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3948 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ±he following N0• 6?-68-92 votes CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1033 AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, (Continued) Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. . . Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-157 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1033, based on findings. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSSONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMIS3YGNERS: None. ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, P. 0: Box B, N0. 67-68-91 Newport Beach, California, Owner; WESTPORT FINANCIAL COR?ORATION, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting TENTATIVE MAP OF that property described as: A rectan9ularly shaped parcel of TRACT N0. 5123~. approximately 7.9 acres of land located on the west side of Lewis REVISION ~NO. 1 Street between Orangewood Avenue and Simmons Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 1,250 feet on the west side of Lewis Street and a maximum depth of approximately 290 feet, be reclassified from•the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEIvTIAL, ZONE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. THNTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Subject tract proposes subdivision of the property into 48 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, previous zonincy action on the property, and uses established in c.lose proximity. Mr. Roberts further noted that no precise plans had been submitted with the proposed ' reclassification and tentative trect map; however, the petitioner had indicated that single=family residences would conform to the site development standards of the R-2-5000 Zone, and that the proposed subdivision wo,uld appear to be an excellent use of the property since the property was located in an area that had been developed w'ith single-family homes and was found suitable for low-medium density at the time the City Council approved R-2 zoning in 1964. Mr. Darrel Meyer, 914 East Katella Avenue, appeared bef~re the Commission to represent the developer of subject property,noting that they i~ad reviewed a number of lot d=signs with the staff, and at the latest meeting with the s~kaff advised the revised map would be submitted which would cul-de-sac the lots at Orangewood Avenue and have an entry to the tract from Lewis Street as well as from Simmons Avenue, and that they had started abandonment proceedings for Seelig Circle. In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Meyer stated that all lots would front on the interior street and back-on to either Lewis Street or Orangewood Avenue. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARZNu WAS CIASED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-158 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-91 be approvpd, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ODMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungai,., Camp. NOHS: OOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~ _ _ _. ...._ .. ~ . .,_ ~~ U ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COAMAISSION,~June 3, 1968 3949 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map N0. b7-68-91 of Tract No. 5123, Revision No. 1, subject to the following TENTATIVE MAP OF conditions: TRACT N0. 5123~ REVISION N0. 1 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5123 is (Continued) granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-91. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~ 3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings to Lewis Street and Orangewood Avenue, 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 northerly and easterly psoperty line separating Lot Nos. 24 through 48 and Orangewood Avenue and Lewis Street, except that corner Lot Nos. 24 and 25 shall be stepped down to a height of thirty inches in the front yard setback, and except that pedestrian openings shall be provided in.said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highway rights-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 subject 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. 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That Seelig Circle shall be abandoned prior to approval of the final tract map. 7. That the proposed north-south street shall be cul-de-saced south of Orangewood Avenue and a street provided to Lewis Street Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED: RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE AGAJANIAN, 6541 South Bedford Street, NO. b7-68-.90 Los Angeles, California, Owner; OSCAR J. ROBISON, 1625 Centinela Avenue, Ingle:~cod, Qalifornia, Agent; property descr=bed as: VARIANCE N0. 1986 A rectangularly shaped parcel of approxim~tely .8 acres of land located at the southwest corner of gumac Lane and Humor Drive, having approximate frontages of 301 feet on the south side of Sumac Lane and 124 feet on the west side of Humor Drive. Property presently classi- fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUES7ED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE.AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGS, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A?WO-STORY, 25-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~ Associate. Plann~r Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in .r.lar,e proximity, and previous zoning action, noting that in 1960 a variance was apprt~ved to permit the con,truction of a seven-unit apartment complex on the easterly 7:i f~~pt of subject property; however, the project was never pursued. Furthermore, the wsiver of the maximum building height adjacent to the R-A parcel to the south would be a technicality because it was hardly likely that R-1, single- family homes would be developed on the parcel to the south since commercial uses were established both to the east and west of the parcel, and the owner of subject property had filed an abandonment request for the portion of the cul-de-sac on Sumac Lane extending into subject property. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING.WAS CIASED. Discuss3on was held by the Commission relative to the requested waiversof the minimum building site and minimum distance between buildings, the Commission noting that subject property was adequate in size to develop.in accordance with •che R-3 Zone, ~.~~i.xq.... i ..:t r ' ~ ~ r:; - , . ~ . ~ ~ ~_ .. ~ ,~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ . . _ ~ . ~. . ~ , ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~~, MINUTES~.CI1Y PLANNING CO-,~MISSION, June 3, 1968 3950 ~~~ `~~ . ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - and the only waiver that should be granted would the building N0. 67-b8-90 and'structural height limitation within 150 feet of the R-A ~` - ~ L VARIANCE N0. 1986 zoned parcel to the south. ~ (Continued) . '~~"~'''~ ~ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-159 and moved ~-'' " <yyy s for its passage an:i adoption, seconded by Commissioner: Allred ,.~s , '~ ~ `~ to recommend to the b City Council thaL• Petition for Reclassification No. , 67-68-90 . : , e approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~': On roll call the foregoing resolutior was passed by the following vote: AYES: O~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauex, Herbst, Mungail, Camp. -;.a'~•, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~_';:':%` ABSENT: (;OMMISSIONERS: Row=and. a: : ::,: :: ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-160 and moved for its passage and ~. ;~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to approve Petition for Variance No. 1986 ' for waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-A parcel to ,.;; the south, and deny waiver of the minimum building site area per dwelling unit and ;;~; minimum distance between buildings on the basis that the parcel was adequate in size - - to develop in accordance with the R-3 Zone, and the petitioner had not been present to submit evidence that a hardship existed, and subject to conditions, deleting _ Condition No. 3 of the Report to the Commission since the plans would have ta be ~ ~ revised to comply with R-3 Zone site development standards. (See Resolution Book) ,~ ~ A` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ; r" AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. s.:,;;j NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None. ;;';,:;;;-;~ ABSENT: _ OOMMISSIONERS: Rowland. VARIANCE N0. 1980 - PUBLIC HEARING. FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; MANNY'S RESTAURANTS, ATTENTION OF LARRY SOUZA, 1113 West Struck Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MqXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDII~ SIGN TO REPLpCE AN EXISTING FREE-STANDIN,i SIGN on property described as: .An "L" sheped parcel of appzoximately 10.0 acres of land generally located north and east of the service station located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, having approximate frontages of 460 feet on the east side of State Colle9e Boulevard and 520 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue. Propexty presently classified G1, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, the requested variance, and previous zonin9 action on the property, notzng that in September, 1967, the Planning Commission approved a variance which waived the minimum permitted distance between free-standing signs to permit an additional free-standing sign within 220 feet of the existing sign (Manny's.Restaurant) located on the same property, and that the petitioner now was proposing.to replace the existing, conforming sign with a 42-foot high, revolving sign in approximately the same location; that in order to justify approval of the variance request, the petitioner must demonstrate a hardship was being imposed on the use of the property by the strict interpretatior. of the zoning regulations, and in this particular case, if a hardship did exist, it would appear to be a.self- imposed hardship, and the petitioner's statement as to the exceptior.al or extra- ordinary circumstances applicable to the property which did not generally apply to other property in the same vicinity wa5 that other structures, trees, and shrubs limited visibility of the allowable height, and the nature of the business required adequate identification from La Palma Avenue, State College Boulevard, and the Riverside Freeway, which was located approximately 2,000 feet northerly of subject property. Mr. Larry Souze, the agent, appeared before the Commission, stating that the requested variance was not entirely a hardship; that when the existing sign was erected, it was ' located behind a residential structure - however, since that time 'a McDonald hamburger stand had been constructed northerly of subject property, and although their sign was in conformance with Code, the building itself was their advertising; that the restau- rant did not necessarily have to be identified from the freeway, but it tivas desirous of having easy identification for both State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue; and that the request fo~ the 42-foot high sign was not unreasonab'.= considering the fact that service stations were allowed to have 70-foot high signs, Furthermore, ~ it was hoped to have all the signs of the Manny's Restaurant franchises similar, and the proposed sign would be the type of sign that would be constructed on all the other restaurant sites. d~:' ~` .,.,. ~+,~i .2~.~~ t. ~ ,~ a r ~. .(f i d ~~ d ~.~m+tsa ~yK~ s~ y ~' ~ ~'~, ~. ,.= y ` M~ ''. @i , „ . ,. ~'~ ~ ~- . . -. _ .. ,:. ,.,. ~.~~ . ~-~ , .:. ' ., ~ ._ . -.~. . . :.. . . .. . . ~ . ~ . ~,,._ _ . . . .. . , . . . . . ~ , .: _,; ~ (:~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI.TY PLANNII~ COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3951 VARIANCE N0. 1980 - Mr. Souza, in response to Commission questioning relative to the (Continued) need for the height of the sign, stated that the service station and telephone and light poles, i:ogether with the trees and shrubbery, ma.de it impossible to view the existing sign, and that the proposed sign would be approximately.l0 feet above the structure. Furthermore, the sign could be seen going south on State College Boulevard but was more difficult to see going north, and it was almost impossible to see it coming from the east of La Palma Avenue. The Commission noted that the existing sign was larger than the McDonald sign, and if a reader program was proposed, this could still be seen at the same height. Mr. Eugene Breisemeister, representing the sign company, appeared before the Commissinn ~.,; ,~. ~ ef~ and stated that.the reason for the proposed height was in order to obtain identification ~ from'both La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard; that the existing shopoin9 center sign blocked off visibility on State College Boulevard; and that the line of sight was ~,~ ~ difficult coming from the east of La Palma Avenue to be able to change traffic lanes in ~" the event the motorist saw the new height of the sign, whereas this was not possible ~~:::~~., ;~, with the existing height. a'~- ~~: The Commission then noted that from their familiarity of the area, in order to have the sign completely free of any obstructions, it would have to be at 75 feet to be free of the existing.poles, existing signs, and trees, and that the proposed height viewed at ~ a distance would be completely blocked by signs now existing because of line of sight. ~4 ~ ~ti ~~ The Commission further advised the a9ent that a revolving sign was permitted by Code, and since the petitioner had not proven hardship existed, the Commission could not grant ~ ~~;~ subject petition. ;~: ~,~ ~~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-161 and moved for its passage and adop- i t~ tion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1980 on the ~ basis that the petitioner had not proven hardship existed if subject petition were not ~ ,~:~ granted, and other findinqs. (See Resolution Book) '~ r 'L fi~ {w+ On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: ~s < <~~fi~ ~kii,t5~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. ~"~„r~ NOESe COMMISSIONERSc None. i~i~ h;,~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. CANDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MAX C. AND PAULINE GRAVES, 406 South Ohio Street, PERMIT N0. 1031 Anaheim, ~alifornia, Owners; STILES WEGENER, Union Bank Tower, 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, California, Agent; requesiing permission to ESTABLZSH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel o£ land located at the southeast corner of Underhill Avenue and State College Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 127 feet on the south side of Underhill Avenue and 99 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, and fu•rther described as 2004 and 2008 Underhill Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate.Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the Report to the Commission, noting that no screen landscaping was proposed along the east property line adjacent to the single-family homes - that Code required a minimum of a six-foot masonry wall and screen landscaping; that the petitioners proposed the location of the trash storage area immediately adjacent to the single-family home, and it was recom- mended that this be relocated; and that the lighting proposed should be constructed in such a manner that it would be directed away from the single-family homes.and be a maximum height of that of the masonry wall. However, the prime issue before the Commis- sion was that of land use.and the problems of circulation and access for a walk-up restaurant.of this nature, as well as the hours of operation, the control of noise, lighting,~litter, and difficulties involved in solving them on this property in a manner equitable to the residents in the area. Mr. Stiles Wegeiier, the agent, appeared before the Commission, noting that the proposed development.was similar to those located within the City; that there were similar type restaurants ~n close proximity to subject property, and a nursery was located across the alley, with a dental clinic to the north, and the only side affected by the proposed use would be the single-family home to the east. Furthermore, recommendations .of the Report to the Commission would be complied with; namely, relocation of the trasfi storage area, increasing the height of the wall to whatever height recommended, and the screen ~;: n, .,, _. . ., _ . ~ . . ., y .___ .___--__ +, ~- /: . . . . ~ ' . . . . . . .. ~..~ ~.." ~~~. . .~ . . ~~ . ~ ~ MZNUIES, CIZ'Y PLANNII~T~ COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 # 3952 CONDITIONAL_U~E - landscaping along the east property line and downlighting as well, PERMZT N0: 1031 and that he would stipulate that the sign would be in conformance (Continued) with the G1 sign regulations. The Commission Secretary read a petition of oppositi.on signed by 27 property owners in the immediate vicinity of subject property (copy on file with the petition). Mr. Wegener, in rebuttal, stated that there were six other restaurants in the area, and from the standpoint of operation, restaurants usually grouped together; that the overflow parking objected to in the petition would not affect subject property because ~ there was moxe than adequate parkina provided; that the noise level and trash problem were alwa.y,s apparent in an operation of this type - however, a rep.resentative of Taco Bell visited the looations three times a week to assure that no trash was left on the premises, and it would be up to the representative of Taco Bell and the lessee of the property to resolve any noise problem. Furthermore, the restaurant would be oper. until 10:00 P.M. The Commission inquired whether or not the Taco Bell was a franchise restaurant, and if so, this would not permit a great deal of control by the Taco Bell people as to hours df operation, etc. Mr. Wegener then stated that there was no direct control as to use when operated by franchises, and when operators of these francfiises were new to the business, they spent considerable time attempting to influence their method of operation so that the opera- tion would prove monetarily successful; however, they did not have the right to say they had to comply with the regulations set up by the Taco Bell headquarters. The Commission expressed concern that considerable debris could blow i~to the alley and create a problem as far as trash was concerned for the single-family homes to tfie east; whereupon the agent stated that if the Commission de5ired, a low wall could be erected along the south property line to confine the trash to subject property; an~ that entrance would be primarily from State College Boulevard. THE HEARING WpS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative ~o the stipulations made by the petitioner as to erection of a low wall along the south property line, screen landscaping, etc,. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-162 and moved for its passage and adop- tion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1031, subject to conditions of a six-foot masonry wall measured from the highest grade level along the east property line and a three-foot masonry wall along the s~~th property line, screen landscaping along the east property line, lighting to be down- lighted a maximum of the height of the six-foot masonry wall and to be directed away from the single-family residence, and all signs to be in accordance with the C-1 sign regulations, as stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followir.g vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: C:OMMISSIONERS: Camp. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Camp, in voting "no", stated that for many years the properties~along State College Boulevard had been the subject of long and bitter fights by all the single-family home~owners, and the proposed use was a more intense use i:han the C-0 uses originally approvedfor the property. Commissioner.Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5:40 P.M. RHCLASSIFICATION - PUELTC HEARING. INITIATED IIY THE CITY PLANNING-COMMISSION, N0. 67-68-89 204 East Lincoln Ave we, Anaheim, California; p~oposing that property described as: A 50-foot strip of land fronting on the south side of Vermont Avenue, extending westerly from th~ west side of East Street to the east side of the Southern Pacific Railroad (Olive Street~) be reclassified from the P-L, PARKING-LANDSCA~ING, ZONc to the M-1, LIG~IT IN~USTRIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the P-L Zone was established by the City Council in 1952, requiring a 50-foot building setback along Vermont Street; that the P-L Zon~ ~vas designed to be used in _ - ~r -~ r ' %:: ~ . .~'. . . ~ ,.._ , ~ , ... . . .. . . . . . .. 7 y~f ~`1_: ~ ~+r 5 '~ .s„t { ~ 7y~1~~~~j' i f/,~,weJ ~ ~ yt },~ n. 4 ~'c rr.. .: ~ ~,S :-'a ';~,~,.w t ~ 2 t r r_ . ,: . , . .. . ..:. ... . . ., .~ . . . ~ ~ . ...; .. . . . . ... ~ _ r . . _._,_:__ , .. ' ' . ~ . . . ..' . - ' _....__.._ _4._..._ ~ . . ... . .. . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . . . . . .... . . ' . .. ' l . . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' y ~ .~ MINUTES, CIIY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 196E . 3953 ~ ; ~~ RECLASSIFICAIION - conjunction with the M-I and M-2 Zones to assure setback standards, ~ Ai N0. 67-68-89 and since these standards were now incorporated into the industrial r' y (Continued) zone, there no longer was a need for the P-L Zone on industrial ~ '"•~ parcels; therefore, in,December, 1966, the Anaheim ~ity Council ~+ adopted an ordinance rezoning all the P-L Zones within the Anahei m '~ . industrial areas to M-1 or M-2 Zone as necessary, with the exce~tion of that F.trip ~; along the south side of lfermont Avenue, and tHe reason this area was excluded from the rezoning was that the Planning Commission felt additional study should be made to ';~ determine whether the classification of Vermont Avenue ~hould be upgraded from a local t~~ street to an arterial designation since the required building setback along a local ~ ~;~ street was 5 feet, whereas the setback along a collector street was 25 feet.and 50 feet ;~ 5~ along a major, primary, or secondary arterial. Furthermore, that after further consulta- ~ tion with the City Traffic Engineer, it had been determined there was insufficient ev:- k:,~ dence or reason to change the street's classificati.on, and that a number af buildings ~ along the street already had 20-foot or less setbacks, along the south side of Vermor t , . Avew e, and setbacks along the north side of Vermont Avenue rangecl from 0 feet to 5 1 feet, including one of the City buildings and the school district. ' ' Mr. Roberts noted, in conclusion, that it had been determined there not su:ficient i ! reason to upgrade the classification of Vermont Avenue, and because cth~s parcels ! along said street had setbacks of less than the required 50 feet of the P-L Zone, ' reclassification to the M-1 Zone was in order so that setbacks could be maintained ~ as required on a local street. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ ~:~ THE HEARIISi WAS CLOSED. Commissioner.Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-163 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council ihat Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-89 be approved, establishi„g the existing P-L Zone in the M-1 Zone. (See Resolution Book) j On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo:.lowing vote: ~: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. ~` NOES: COMMISSIONERS:- None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Rowland. <~: ~ AMENDMENT_TO TITLE 18, - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CADE COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, An~heim, California; proposing to consider an amendment to Titie 18, Zoning, Chapter 18.12, Zones Established,Sectior. 18.12.03~, Rules for Interpretation. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 6, 1968, in order to allow time for the staff to make additional study on the proposal. Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that after additional discus- sion with the City Attorney, it had been determined that changes to this particular section of the Anaheim Municipal Code would not be necessary at this ti.me, and the staff recommended that reconsideration of an amendment to Section 18.12.030 be terminated. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on consideration of an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code on the basis that the proposed change was,not necessary at this time. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offexed a motion to recess the meeting for dinner. Ce.^.+missioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 5:42 P.M. RE~NUENE - Chairman Cam~ reconvened the meeting at 7:40 P.M., Commissioner Gauer being absent. i .. ~ , ~- _4 } y ~ ~~ - . .. ! '~ ., . .. ~ ~u~~ ~ ~ . . ~ `S~~ V Y . . . ~" ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' . ~ ~ ~ tl5 r ;~4 ' ... , : . . . MIhUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3,`1968 . 3954 ~~?..~.-~ ~~ ti _ VARI•.4NCE N0. 1988 - Associate Planner Charles Robestn~ ada~n ^•eviewed the irforma+;;on ~ ~-~ (Continued from preaented to the Commfssion ~: t;ie ai~~Prnoon session relative to ' ~ ; Page 3940) the proposed sign waivers. ~ ' ~" ~ ~ ~' Zoning Supervisas~ Ronald Thom~;son aC~~~ised Ch2 ~,or;n,is:-i,~n i ' that when the buildin g permit j - lys 5 was , ssued on <h,~ original sign, the parti.cn be2o~'r the furniture copy was required to ~,~„s ' r be deleted. ~~'r t ~ ~J. Mr. Irving Kingsto,~, the ~etitione.r, ap~,ear,ed r•afore the Commissfon and n~,k~d that ~,~k, . ~ ~ the Report to the Commission indicsted that '..he location i af the proposed :~E~w sign woul : t~e 30 feet from the easterly property lin~, not 40 ' feet as the plans i,.~icated, ~~,~.~ ~ a ,•~a that he-was available to answeir question;~. ~~.~ The Commission inquired of the pe'citioner N;hether the sign whiah was depicted on th.c ~t ~l`~~ colored slide was tfie same as the drawing supmitted; whereupor, the petitioner stated ~~f ttiat the lowez• portion of the sigr, would be reri~oved, and the yellow sign woula be , ~ retained; that they had a ~emporary sign p~armit but needeu aaproval of ~ub,;ect petition `~~ in order to eszablish the second ~norti.an of tF~ sign iraenti#ying the secon~9 tenant. t ~ ~ The Commissior. then 1:n,uired of the ~taff whether or not the ~x~sti~ig sig,^, Qxceeded -~~~ the Sign Ordinance f~~r tbe M-1 Zr,ne, to Hrhich Mr. Thompson re~iied that it w,~s in ~ accordance with the ordinance, or neax• to it, and that the exi:sting sign w:,s ~6 feet :;i '~?i high. ~.;'~`~. ~':K: . dF ~i ~ ~: Mr. Kingston, in response to Commiss:on questioning, noted that the lower sign was in a existence for three years- however, the new tenant ria;,ted to di.splay a larger sign ~ incorporating both businesses intr, one r~ew sig~:; that the original tenant was orly ~ ~; desirous of having a small sign, and the new t~~nant wanted a~.iicer appearing sign - ~~;,,.;;;*~ therefore suggested that both aigns be integrz'ed. Mr. Thompson. advised the Commission tt:.~t the fu.rniture sign is Yern:itted by CodJ - that the ;uestion was the location ~f sign becai~se according to the building permi-,, plans indicated the proposeci sign a1or,,3 the wes+. property line; iiowever, the revised plans. under this pei:i±..on isv3icate~d the e~L~n along the east property iine, and ther~ was no pra!:~,lP~ ^e9a.~d•ini} the locstzo;; ~€ ihe. sign. No one a,,pisareti in oppositi:on to subject petition. THE' HEARING. WAS CLCSED. Commissioner Mungall offereo` Resolution No. PC68-155 and moved for its ~assage and adoption, seconded by Commis~•ioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1988, ~uhject to conditions, and the finding that the proposed si9n would be an intP3~ated sign, making a more pleasing appearance than two individual ~lgns. (SeF ResolL~tion Book) On roll call the fo;~egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AyES: GOMMI~SIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: r„'`' VIISSIONER.S: Far~no, Rowland. ABSENT: OL'MMISSIONERS: Gauer. GENE~i~I. PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNIfJG OOMMISSION, 204 East AMENDMENT N(3. 102 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, ~aiifornia; to consides a land use char,3e io* an area generally bound2d on the west b; Brookhurst Street, on the nnrth by Herle Avenue and the Southern California Edison ease- ment on the south for a 9epth of'approxima•~ely 125 feet, frtn low density residential u_=e to aom~:escial-professionai land use designatian. Pssistant Developmen+. Serv3_ces Director Robert W-ickelson reviewed for interested persons the beckground for the zaat,ons for the Commission initiating the General Plan amendments, reclassificatians, ard area aevelopment plar,c on those properties fronting along major `arteri,als as part of the Front-On Study which tna Gommission had reviewed at great length, noting that~nany res~dentialtr~cts had been constructed with access to major arterials or primary ~ighways, and considerable pxe~s~re had been noted by requests for changes of the existing residential uses ;:o commercial uses for most of these residential front-on homes and single-family lots, •r,d as a result ~f the Commission's studying the problems of the 2,200 - pius lots fronti n,, Qr siding•~n arterials, and areas determined to be most appro- priate as to criteria, _i areas with approiimately 176 homes or parcels were affected as being unreasona6le for retentior. for residential purposes, and that if all the 2,100 --+rw~a~ ~ ~~. -~ F ' ^ r .:r: -~. . . r, -~ - .. >, , , ,: .. f ', _ r , , ~ :. . - - , . . ._.._._ ~,.~,~r.~; ~. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES; CII':' PLANNIN„ CONNAISSION, June 3, 1968 3955 GENERAL PLAN - hoines were converted for commercial uses, this would interject AMENDMENT N0. 102 2 million square feet of commercial uses, or 12~ of the projected (Continued) commercial us~s for Anaheim with':acpopulation growth to 250,000 ~eople, and that by having General Plan amendments, reclassifications,s.. and area development plans for these areas when inquiries were made as..to possible.commercial uses'in these areas, the interested persons could be directed to these:areas and away from other areas which the Commission deemed were more appro- priate'for-residential use. . Commission directed Mr. i~ickelson to outline the legal procedures which?had tran- spired relative to the Front-0n Study. ! ~ Mr. Mickelson thei: noted that ~he Commission had had many work sessions to decide which areas were most appropriate for commercial uses and had recommended these aieas to the ~ City Council, who had adopted them, and the Commission was now initiating General Plan amzndmenis which would change the policy statement indicating the potential uses for these areas as being the best areas for conversion to commercial uses, and the area , development plans were necessary to help resolve secondary circulation problems since adequate secondary circulation was a:necessary part of the conversion to commercial uses. Mr. Mickelson also neted that when a General Plan amendment was adopted, this did not ~ ~ change~the zoning on the property, but was a pclicy statemEnt that these areas were , considered appropriate for conversion to commercial uses, and that approval of the ~ e reclassification of the property meant that a resolution of intent had been established '~ ; on these individual pYOperties, and individual property owners who wished to convert ., ;t,~ "~*~p their properties int~~ commercial uses wo~ld have to comply with the conditions of "' ti dedication, street ligh+ and street trse fees, special easements, etc., as established . g '•'~, ~ in the reco;^mended conditior-; of the reclassification prior to obtaining commercial .~ ;.Y:;~.~.r ~:~?;v;,~" ' zonin for the 9 preperty, and that the area development plan would allow individual lot ' °"' "`~.'>k conversion if the need arose, pravided that all conditions of the reclassification and '?~~'~« recommendations of tne area developm=nt plan were complied with. ~ ;~ Assistant Planner Pat Brown appeared before the Commission and reviewed General Plan ;, y~ A~:endment No. 102 covering property on the east siue of Brookhurst Street, bounded on ` ;"'~~ . the north by Har1e Avenue, om the so'uth by,the Southern California Edison easement, '„~ i ~r.3 on the west by Brookhurst Street, noting that there were eleven parcels measuring ; ~+ ~~;. a total of,695 feet by 115 feet de:p unde*• consideration; that the land usas adjacent , ;~~,~~~; *o these eLeven parcels were low density resi~e;~tial homesites to the north'and east, ?t~ ~ tf~e Southern Califorr.ia Edison easement co the so~th, and low density'residential , ~'~. ,u hones to,the west, wita several parcels haviny been converted tr, residentiai-profes- , ~~~;~ " sional use with:n the ;;~ri'sdiction of the County ••• however, these parcels within the ~ i :~ ,;; jurisdicti.o~i of the County h~d never developed ?xcept for one which was a real estate ( i`: offi~e; that no previous f,enerai Plan amendm~ents, area develo~.....nt ~lans, or rE~oning ,; ~ actions.had been considered on the proper~•i_s except for a~vasiai:ae to permit a beauty ~; ' shop in one o: the homes, which was denaed in 1966. The bala~c, of the Re~os~ to the ; ~ Commission was also revieveed (copy on fi;e in the office of the Dev~eL~pment Services Depar#ment). , ~!;~ Exhibit "A" of General Plan Amendment Idu. 1~'2 was reviewed as depicted on the General Plan. Chairman Camp then requested tnat considerati,;n oi the reclassification and the a~•ea ~I development plan be considered in con;unction wiih the Generai Pl~~n amendment. ;::; RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARID::i. .,T.h;ITIATED BY TkiH CITY PLANNING OpMMiSSION, ~"+ N0. 67-68-95 ^D4 East Lincoln Avenue, Anai~eim, California; proposing that ~;i property described as: All those eleven lots fronting on the ; ~ ?' AREA DEVELOPMENT east side of Brookhurst Street between Harle Avenue and the . ~" '; PLAN N0. 91 SouthPrn Californi~ Edison Company easement, having a frontage of approximately 695 feet on the east s~.de of Brookhurst Street :; and a maximum depth cf apr~oximaielr 115 feet be reclassified '-` from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAZ, ZONF to the C-0, COMMERCIAL-OFFICE, ZONE, i ;,'' Area Development Plan No. 91 proposes the adoption of a policy for the provision of addxtional secondary circlilatzon facilities to link the existing alley located at the rear of subject property with Brookhurst Street. ~ ~ , Mr. Glen Miller, 1692 South Brookhurst Street, appeared before the Commission and noted i i that if the proposed reclassi:icatior, were approved for commercial-professional uses, ; this would mean offices similar tn real es#ate offices, and the area would take on the i appearance of North Brookhurs+ Str~et, nortl. oi ?,i.ncoln Hvenue. . . ~ .. _~ {i~ ~ +~' ~'y~ ~y ~ ,~ -^P R' ~„~ ~yf 's"Iv"t r~z.~ hy r~~ d°a v ~ ;_ a ~„ f _ r ~5s, ; i~ "T w e:l r ,'1 r zr' :? ~` ti 1 F ;. a - ti i .... , . ~ . . . .. ~:~ ,. _ ~ . . . ~ . ~.J t../ MINUTES, CIlY PLANNING OOMMISSION, June 3, t968 3956 GENERAL PLp~I - Mr. Brown noted that the homes north of Lincoln Avenue along AMENDMENT N0. 102 Brookhurst Street had 15-foot setbacks, and when ultimate dedica- RECLASSIFI.CATION tion was made, the homes would have to be relocated and parking N0. 57-68-95 would have to be placed to the rear, which might even require the Ati=A DEVELI)PMENT removal of these homes since a minimum of 10 feet was required PLAN'N0. 9T for a setback, said setback being landscaped and cars could not (Continuec?) be parked in the front setback. Furthermore, these homes were under the jurisdictio~ of the County, which had no site develop- ment standards, and these properties were never brought up to the Code requir~ments of the City of Anaheim because ~ihe City had no jurisdiction. Mr. Milier then noted that the properties on the west side of Brookhurst Si:reet, adjacent-to subject property, were now being rez~ned by the County and inquireci whGt was proposed for these homes. Mr. Brown noted that only or.e horne had been converted for commercial uses, and that was for a real estate office. Mr. Miller then noted there were several other uses of these homes - other than a real estate office; however, if the City were considering professional office uses for subject properties, why wasn't consideration given to general commercial uses for a depth of 300 feet from 9ookhurst Street along the east side of the street - this would afford the adjoining property owners adjacent to,the a;.J.ey some measure of relief from strip comm.ercial use, and this could be considered a pat~:ern all along Brookhurst ~treet to Ball Road since consideration of just commercial-office for the residen~ial properties was not solving a problem because the street needed widening, and this street widening could not be accomplished unless rezoning took place. ; Mr. Brown not=d that it was the Commissi.on's feeling the properties under consideration ha~ commercial potential; however it was not felt that greater commercial use was cempatible with the residential uses to the east. Mr. Gary.Smith, 1607 South Lamar Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that his three children present2y used Harle Avenue to attend school, and if the commercial uses of subject properties were approved, this would inject additional traffic to a residential street from the alley, creating undue hazards and hardships for these child~en in attempting to utilize public streets for pedestrian purposes to attend school; that he presently used the alley to the rear of his ,~rcperty for storage of his trash, and if commercial uses constantly backed into this alley or utilized the alley, he would be deprived of its use; that he had purchased his home to reside there with his family, and if tne properties along Brookhurst Street were zoned for commercial uses, this would reduce the value o;' his property; and th•at all of , his neighbprs and friends were opposed +.o the proposed reclassification. Mr. Keith Dobbs, 1644 South Brookhurst Street, inquired why the Comroission did not ~ utilize the Edison easement for secondary access to Brookhurst Street; whereupcn the I Commission informed Mr. Dobbs that the easement was not given to the City -'therefore they had no r3ght to construct an alley on the property. . i Mr. Dobbs then noted that if the City had no control over the ~dison easement, then i something should be done toward proper maintenance through cleaning up the weeds and ~ debris that were prevalent on this easement. ~ The Commission inquired of Mr. Miller whether he was sug9esting that a strip of land ~ 300 feet in width extending from the Riverside Freeway to the beach be developed for commercial purposes. Mr. Miller responded that +he entire area eventually would develop for commercial purposes; therefore the Com.mission should be foresi9hted enough to provide for this commercial develop~.nent. Mr. Helpern, 2).69 West Harle Avenue, appeared bP{ore the Commission and inquired whether the..alley a+ould extend through his property since his driveway was opposite the alley. The Commissi.on advised Mr. Helpern •,`.hat the alley already was 20 feet in width and would not be wiuened`beyorid that; however, Brookhurst Street would be widened to 120 feet all the way through Fullerton. Mr. Helpern then;stated that he was oppesed to the proposed reclassification, area development plan, and Generel Plan amendment. - ,i 1 e ~ V =• i ~.' Ay : L*yyt ~:qv ~ MINUTES, C~TY.PLANNZNG COMb~ISSIUy, June 3, 1968 3957 GENERAL PLA;1 . - Mr. B. W. Morris, 1625 South Lamar Street, appeared before the AMENDMENT N0..102 Commission, stating he had recently constructed a room addition RECLPSSIFICATIQN to the rear of his home, which was within 21 feet of the alley, NO•'67-6~-95 •and stated he had several questions for the staff since.,they had AREA DEVEIAPMENT not indicated the recommended conditions of approval if'subject PLAN N0. 91 properties were reclassified. (Continued) ~ ' Mr. Mickelson then reviewed the Interdepartmental Committee and Development Services Departr~ent recommendations if the reclassi- fication were appraved - namely, dedication of land for street widening purposes, dedication of vehicular access right,s to B~~okhurst Street, payment of street t:ee ~ fees, street light f~es, sidewalks installed along Brookhurst Street, trash storage ~ areas provided, air-conditioning facilities properly shielded, exterior lighting ~ directed downwa.rd, noting that all conditions applied to each parcel, and reclassifica- tion was dependent upon complying with these conditions. ~ _ Commissioner Rowland then advised the interested persons that the conditions aitached ~,, ,'V to any reclassification were conditions by which the community had been developed for ~ the p~.st 25 years, whether residential, commercial, or industrial, and it has been ~+ the responsibility of the persons who have deveJ.oped the property to provide the t;-' services to,Jnake utilization of the property for a more intense use work so that the City as a whole did not bear the burden of redevelopment, and this would keep the ;: expense ~f redevelopment from the immediate neighbors. For instance, the $2.00 per ~ ; foot for street light fees waa to upgrade the existing street lights and was a long- ,,~ range program of the City, depending upon payment of these fees for improvement of ~+ the street lighting in the City. ~;<.' ;: <r' The Commission further noted that the conditiuns af approval applied only if and when these properties were converted to commercial pur~oses; that the owners of the property were not required to comply with these, but if the property were sold andjor redeveloped, these would have to be done prior to reclassification of the property. The Commission further noted that regarding the reference made to utilization of the existing residenceson Brookhurst Street - these all were under the jurisdiction of the County, and the City had no jurisdiction whatsoever so far as site development standards wer•a coacerned since the City,of Anaheim would not permit parking in the front setback arE_. Mr. Morris then inG~ :ed whether additional street widening would be required on Harle Avenue; whereupon Mr. Brown replied that although the street was not quite to the standard, it was deci~~ed against requirin9 street dedication since only two feet was needed. Mr. Morris then noted that a masonry wall presently existed along the alley adjacent to the east, and m~ny of the peopie who had to drive into their garages have been backing into the wall and destroying the appearance of the wall, and inquired if this alley would be used to gain access to the parking area, what protection would the property owners of the masonry walls have. Mr. Mickelson then noted that a special turning ra.dius and parking stalls, together with a back-up lane within the parking area itself, would prevent automobiles backing into the alley. The Commission further advised b1r. Morris that relc~ation of the buildings or removal would not be required until actual reclassification had taken place. Mr. Morris then expressed concern that if only one loti:developed for commercial purposes, this would jeopardi~e the residential use of the balance of the homes on Bi~okhurst Street, and.then the City would have a problem on thei.r hands. ~hairman Camp noted that the City had been attempting for some time to encourage land assembly of these various lots; however, they had been unsuccessful to have two people agree on anything at any one time. a, Commissioner Allred noted that a group of ].ots north of Ball Road to Ro,ne Avenue on the west side of Magnolia Avenue had been reclassified to the C-1 Zone ten years ago; however, none of the properties had developed for commercial purposes except for the service station site at the northwest corner of Magnolia and Ball Road. Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to a question relative to maintenance of the al?ey, stated that the Public Works Department had been attempting for a number of years ~ to have mo~~ey budgeted for maintenance of the alleys, but they have never been able to ~ have this approved by the City - therefore it was u to the ~ the alleys. P property owners to maintain ~. r. ~ ~ ~' .~ ~ V ~ ~ . \~~' ~ ur. ~z'~ t:: ~r* ' t '., t' "•`:'' '~".y V MINUTES, ~ITY PLANNING COMMIS6I01~, June 3, 1968 3958 ~ GENERAL PLAN - Mr. Morris fur•ther noted that peopie parked in the alley, and it AMENDMENT N0. 102 difficult to zig-zag down the alley in order to gain entrance to RECLASSIFICATION the garages; whereupon Mr. Daw stated that no parking was permitted N0. 67~68-95 in'•the.alley, and if complaints were made to the Police Department, AREA DEVELOPMENT this illegal parking would be remedied. PLAN N0. 91 ~ (Continued)~ Mr. Morris inquired as to whether or not screen landscaping would be required ad~acent to the commercial office uses end whether or not the exist3ng masonry wall would be increased to eight feet. = Mr. Mickelson replied that one of the orovisions of the Code was the six-foot masonry ~ wall and screen lan~scaping be required, and in some instancee where a wall adjacent ~°'~~~ to the commercial use was considered unfeasible, •the wall was sometimes placed on the '' ' oppos.ite.side of the a11ey with the permission of the property owners. Mr. Morris then stated that he had lived in this area for fifteen years and intended to live there .for some time and suggested the Commission deny subject petition, General Plan amendment and area deVelopment plan. Mr. Clayton Fees, 1603 Lamar Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired if the General Plan amendment, area development plan, and reclassification were approved, when would the changes take place. The Commission stated that only if land assembly, dedication, street widening, etc., took place, would the commercial uses be established on the properties, and when the properties were converted for more intense uses than single-family residential; however, the Commission was not advising the property t,wners to sell their homes since the proposal was only a tool for them to obtain a measure of return for their homes if they were unable to reside in them. Mr. Daw advised the Commission that based on the question by Mr. Fees, it was the City's intent when all the conditions of approval had been completed, and the properties were proposed to be redeveloped, then dedicat~.on would be accepted; that the curbs and gutters presently existing would be relocated at no expense to the property owner; that the sidewalks would have to be installed at the expense of the property owner; however, street widening and relocation of the ~urbs and g~:tters would not take place until all eleven parcels had dedicated land for street widening. Mr. Keith Dobbs indicated he was in favor of the proposed reclassification because his children were unable to play in the yard along Brookhurst Street because of the number of cars that had run up into his property because of excessive speeds and people losing control of their cars, and this could be verified by accident reports. Mr. Alfred Porter, 1620 Sou'_h .,rookhurst Street, appeared and stated he was in favor of the proposed reclassifics,,ion, but he was more desirous of having the C-1 Zune rather than the C-0 Zone. Mr. Mike Hunter, 2173 Harle Avenue, inquired why only those eleven properties before the Commission were considered and why the properties north of Harle Avenue had not also been taken into consideration. I ~ Mr. Mickelson stated that one of phyical problems relative to the lot at the intersection of Brookhurst and Harle Avenue was the fact that 20 feet would have to be removed from the lot and this would reduce the lot so that it would be unusable for cammercial purposesj however, the other parcels alon9 Brookhurst Street could be developed indi- vidually or combined with a4joining properties for reclassification. The Commission noted that the rer..lassification, General Plan amendment, and area develop- ment plan were set for public hearing so that all persons could express their vienvpoints and hear the reasons why the Commission had considered these areas as possible conver- sion areas, and considerable tim~ had been expended by the Commiss.ion in determining which single-family homes frontin9 on arterial streets had met the criteria for cc~ver- sion to commercial purposes. Mr. G. L. Templeton, 2122 West Judith Lane, appeared before the Co~nmission and inquired whether or not building code requirements would necessitate major c~a,;ges to the proper- ties and could anyone make these changes without consulting the City. Chairman Camp advised Mr. Templeton that one of the conditions of approval for any commercial office use of a residential home was to comply with the building code requirements for a commercial structure; that the interior would have to be remodeled to provide for restroom facilities, opaque glass in the windows, and adequate side yards to provide for ventilation - however, the City did not have an architectural control to review the architectural compatibility of these homes being redeveloped. _ ~; _- a_~ ~ . _ .__ z . _ . ~~~ ~ r -4~"x ~ ~r, za ~ ~; ,!} 5 s ~f} w ~ r ~ "~. 's~55 ~ "Y'W~ ~ C 1 ~ 4 l ~ b~ Y ~Y, ~ ,~ <{~ }''1^4 / ~1 nH'~t.: y f '~ .:AIt 1J "'~ ~G S,..S ~~T~l* ..,'1 ¢. _ i.~ Yl' ::f. * : ( $ r . :~ .. i . "` r~.. ....- " ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ y a k %' : .r ~ ~•. ... ~ . . _ _- t ; ~ ~ ~.~. J i j~ ~._._... . _~ y HI'Ji T 1 ~ ~ '.._ . ~~ . . .. . ." • ~ ~~ . ~ ~ . . . . . . . ~ ~_' ~ ~~~ ,MINi1TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3959 ~ GENERAL PLAN - Mr. Templeton then noted that one lot could have a new building ,;;9 AMENDMENT N0. 102 and another lot could have a remodeled building, with a little of ~ RECLASSIFI~ATION everything in one block. ~r ~ NO. 67-68-95 rt~ AREA DEVEIAPMENI' THE HEARING WAS CIASED. PLAN N0. 91 a; (Continued) - The Commission noted that any actic„ caken by the Commission on ;K the General Plan amendment, reclassification, and area development ~~ plan were recommendations to the City Council, who was the political ,~,; body making a£in.~l der,ision on zoning; that the Planning Commission had studied the ; problem of front-cr. hames for a year and a half because of the numerous requests from ~ many people ~.ix~ng ori these streets, stating that it was undesirable to live in these ~~ homes - however, of the 2,200 homes that fronted-on or sided-on arterial streets, oniy ~ 1.76. homes were deemed by the Commission as being appropriate for commercial uses, and '`'" there wae a possibility that the conversion for commexcial purposes might take up to fifteen years. The Commission further noted that only one zoning apQlication, which was a variance, ~ had been applied for on these eleven lots, and that had been denied. ~ Commissioner Rowland, in response to a question by a person in the Council Chamber relative to a popular vote, explained that the Cormnission as a body made recommendations ~ to the City Council which was the elected body and had the final say-so as to the policy ~ making of the City. ~ ,+ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-164 and moved for its passage and ~~` adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 102 be disapproved, based on findings. (See Resolution Book) . On roll call the foregoing resc3ution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. I " NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMiISSIONERS: Gauer. ! ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-165 and moved for its passage and "`' adoption, seconded by ~ommissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that ` Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-95 be disapproved on the basis that the ~ proposed reclassification was premature for consideration of a more intense land ~ use at this time and should be reconsidered on an area basis upon requests by the property owners in the area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, ~amp. NOES: COMMISSIONEFiS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer. Cemmissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. t'C68-166 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Munga~l, ~GO recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 91 be disapproved on the basis that after careful field observation of the evidence submitted at the public hearing, that the proposed area development plan is deemed unnecessary due to the fact that the Commission had rec m- mended denial of the reclassification. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: :,YeS: CQMMISSIONERS: Alired, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. / . 3 ;,.., . ~~ W.--. ~s , r ~i . . ~ ~, g „{rc,F°r!-'-~w;"'j~4i~ r :~ v ~"~Y~ ~°~t`f ~~.~ "' Kk'F~ .~.: .al y{= s i ~ ~.o/ . - ~.~J 3960 MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COINMISSION, June 3, 1458 GcNERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 103 PUBLIC HEARII~. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, I 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider a land ~ use change for properties fronting on the north side of Ka'tella Avenue extending from Brookhurst Street on the west to Dallas Drive on the east. Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed~for the Commission the location of subject property, ` ~~ t e uses established in close proximity, noting there were four areas consisting of ° 17 lots, totaling 4.82 acres, and an existing service station site totaling approximately ~ 1.14 acres; that no previous General Plan amendments or area development plans had been prepared for these properties; and that four of the former low density residential lots were now developed into a service station site, having been reclassified to the commer- cial zone in 1965. ~. Mr. Brown further noted that subject.area was one of the 17 areas designated for front- on conversion to office and professional or general commercial uses as a result of the City Council's adoption of "A Study of the Problem of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial..Highways"~ that Katella Avenue carried 26,000 vehicles per day and was projected to carry 31,800 vehicles per day in ten years, and Brookhurst Street presently carried 33,500 vehicles per day and was projected to carry 42,500 vehicles within ten years; that the.primary vehicular access points existed along Brookhurst Street, Katella Avenue, William Miller Drive, Garden Drive, and Dallas Drive, and a dedicated alley was adjacent to seven of the easterly lots under consideration; that the ultimate right-of-way half- width for both Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Street was 60 feet, and only the service station site and one of the single-family lots have completer3 full dedication - the balance of the parcels involved had 40-foot existing dedicated half-widths on Katella Avenue, and upon ultimate dedioation of Katella Avenue, this would place the public right-of-way at or beyond the structural fronts of all existing homes which would necessitate either relocation or removal of existing residential structures fronting on Katella Avenue; that the Planning Commission detexmined during the review of the above factors as part of the Front-On Study that commercial potential was indicated for these properties,and in view of the fact that the area is surrounded by low density, single-family residential developments, and neighborhood and community shopping centers exist with3n a reasonable proximity, commercial-professional was considered to be the most preferabl~ type o: commercial use. Also, the prime consideration which substantiated the feeling tht'. this area would more than likely undergo some form of use conversion in the future was the iarge volumes of traffic on both Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Street„ which would creste the need for eventual widening of Katella Avenue to its ultimate arterial right-of-way, and that there were few commercial-professional uses in the immediate area; that from the standpoint'of noise,'traffic, structural and sign esthetics, commercial-professional uses adjacent to the single-family homes would be preferable; that there had been little trend in r.his area towards general commercial use conversion; and that any form of multiple-fam.ily use conversion, while desirable from the viewpoint of a tr.ansitional use adjacent to the single-family residences, nvould undoubtedly prove eeonomically unfeasible b~acause of the small lot sizes after ultimate dedication. Mr. Brown further noied that F;;iiiLit "~" depicted commercial-professional uses of the properties extending fro~:a Dallas Drive on the east to Brookhurst Street on the west. Chairman_Camp then indicate, ~:hat the reclassification petition and area development plan sho.uld. also be con5ide.r~~a at this time. RECLASSIFICATI~N - PUBLIC iif:ARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING ~MMISSION, N0, 67-58-96 204 F.ast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as iour paccels of land located on the north side of Katella Avenue AREA DEVEIOPMENT generally located east of Brookhurst Street, and further described PLAN NO• 92 as: Parcel 1- Fuur lots having a combined frontage of approxi- mately 252 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, the easterly boundary of said lots being William Miller Drive; PaTcel 2- Seven lots having a combined frontage of approxi- mately 500 feet on the nozth side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 118 feet, the westerly boundary of said lots being Garden Drive; Parcel 3- A rec.+.angu- larly shaped parcel comprised of four lots located on the north side of Katella Avenu? betweerllNilliam Miller Drive and Garden Drive and having a frontage of approximate.ly 235 feet oa the north side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 333 feet; and Parcel 4- Two lots located at the northwest corner of Dallas Drive and Katella Avenue, having a combined frontage of approximately 125 feet on the west side of Dallas Drive and a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet. Property presently classified R-1, OI~E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COMMERCIAL-0FFICE, ZONE. s;: R~j~T. 'St .~t h,Y..'-' 7.: . .. l~ ~ ~ , ~ . . ~ . i: m t.rc t,: .jr y ~ u I r '-"'_' . . ...._'_' "' :i~ ~ \ . ~. . . , :~;:i ~Y MINUPES, CITY PLANNII~ COhNu1ISSI0N, June 3, 1968 3961 GENERAL PLAN - Area Development Plan No. 92 proposes the adoption of a policy AMENDMENT_N0. 103 for the provision of secondary access for the~e parcels. RECLASSIFICA'IION ~ N0. 67-68-9:6 Mr, Brown then noted that under the reclassification petition the AREA DEVEIAPMENT area was divided into four parcels~ Parcel 1 consisting of four °LAN N0. 92 lots, Parcel 2 consisting of seven lots, Parcel 3 consisting of (Continued) four lots, and Parcel 4 consisting of two lots. Mr. Brown..noted that Area No. 1 had primary vehicular access to Katella Avenue and William Mi11er Drive and no secondary vehicular access, an alley, existed; Area No. 2 had primary vehicular eccess to Garden Drive (1 lot) and secondary vehicular acess for six lots; and Area No. 3 had primary vehicular access tc: Katella Avenue, William Miller Drive, and Garden Drive, but no secondary vehicular access to Dallas Drive. Furtherrr.ore, Area Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had curbs and gutters, but no sidewalks, and Area No. 4 had curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Mr. Brown then reviewed Exhibit "A" depioting the proposal for secondary access, noting that 20-foot alleys should be provided and dedicated to the City for Area Nos. 1 and 4; that an optional alley could be provided for Area No. 3, and that only the number of primary vehicular accessways as shown on Exhibit "A" be permitted, and that if the vehicular accessways were mutually developed and the properties adjoining said access- ways were developed singly or jointly, it would be necessary that a mutual agreement be recorded by the property owners involved upon initial zoning action to guarantee final joint.vehicular access, or ten feet from each property. ~~ Mr. John Miller, 1761 William Miller Drive, appeared before the Commission and submitted a petition si9ned by 161 property owners, all in opposition to the proposed petitions, ;; noting that signatures were only obtained for property owners within 500 feet of the ~,s_, i property; that a irue picture had not been presented relative to circulation and noted that William Miller Drive extended northerly to Crestwood Lane and then exited on ,z;,>:.;:,;.} Brookhurst Streat as well as Katella Avenue - however, Garden Drive had anly one access z :q for 80 homes; that because of the inability of these residents to gain access to Katella ~, ~,.::;; Avenue through either a left or right-hand turn from William Miller Drive and Garden ~M" '1 Drive, one.police officer could be utilized exclusively to take care of the accidents ~ i' at these intersections; and that if commercial zoning were approved, this would increase a:~~ ;'r;'I ,~~ ; the traffic through the residential streets. Furthermore, that he had resided on his r, -',~1i property for fifteen year~ and would be affected by any proposed alley along his south ,, .. :,:,1 Property line. . Mr. Brown.nated for the opposition that if the properties under consideration were developed for commercial uses, since they abutted residen~tial properties,a six-foot masonry wall aad screen landscaping would have to be provided. Mr. Miller stated that he had a swimming pool immediately abutting one of the parcels, and he feared considerable trash and debris would be blowing into his property; that he had spent considerable money on improvements for his property, as had many of the adjoining property owners, and the purpose of moving into this residential area was because it had all the characteristics of a nice residential area; and that the inter- jection of commercial traffic on William Miller Drive and Garden Drive would create an undue hazard for the chiidren who had to utiiize this area to gain access to school. Mr. William Lown, 2111 Midwood Lane, appeared before the Commission and noted there were 87 homes in the tract having access to Katella Avenue from Garden Drive, and it was the only way they could leave this tract; that it took ten minutes Qresently to be able to enter,the flow of traffic on Katella Avenue, and if commercial uses were approved for these lots fronting on Katella Avenue, this would create ar, almost impossi- ble situation; that he had resided in this area for thirteen years and had intended to live there the rest of his life; that if these properties were developed one at a time for commerc.ial uses, street widening would not take place, and the children would be subjected not only to the tsaffic along Katella Avenue, but also from the:commercial uses being established; that no buses were available for transportation of these c:~ildren to school; and that unless something was done to relieve the traffic problem in this particular.area, considerably more traffic accidents would occur. Furthermore, he was opposed to spot zoning which the proposed reclassification was projecting. Mr. William Schwenn, 1771 Garden Drive, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition, stating he realized .Fe was taking the impossible side - however, th.ere were some facts which should be aired before this hearing: namely, the traffic on Katella Avenue was also very harmful to the residents living on that street; that he had lived in this area for fourteen years and was one of the original owners; tnat he also had a swimming pool and one time had to pull an automobile out of the swimm:ng pool after it had gone throu9h his fence; that the tree in their front yard had been hit twice in the past six months, and the car owned by the people to the rear of them ~;_ +- i ~ r n~ ~ ' ... ....._.... ........`a'~. .,..,_. , ., ..... ~ .» ... , .. .... .. i!:i ~ I ' i ~ I ~e ~ ~ Y ; ' , ~ ,q, s: ~ ~ ~R M :. 1 Y , : -.~ . ~... .;,~,..~ ~ MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING f~tAMISSION, June 3, 1968 3962 GENERAL PLAN - had been hit twice, and each n~ght they wexe aKaketied by the AMENDMENT N0. 103 screech of brakes since their bedrooa~ waR at the corner toward RECLASSIEICATION these two streets; and that some reii~i should b~ given to N0. 67-68-96 people who lived under these conditions. AREA DEVELOPMEPIT PLAN N0. 92 Mr. A1 Price,~2119 West Katella Avenue, appeared before the (Continued) Commission and noted that in January of 1959 he had been permitted to establish a beauty shop in the garage of his residence; that the beauty shop was developed and presently in operat:on; that he felt he had lived in peace with his neighbors during this entire time, but it was about time someone spoke for the resident.s fronting along Katella Avenue, and when the street w.as widened,, it would turn into a suicide sitGation at the intersections, namely, Dallas Drive, Garden Drive, and William Miller Drive, and the only solution he could see as to solving the circulation prob3em was to have access throuqh the northerly part of the tract; that he had had a number of automobiles stop in his front yard because of near accidents, and those residents involved in the homes fronting on Katella Avenue found it no longer desirable for thert! to be used for residential purposes; that he had attempted to refinance his property, but because of this situation, the proposed reclassification was the most appropriate means of resolving the problems for these , homes; and .that he was aware the properties to the rear were opposed to commercial uses - however the Commission was attempting to resolve an untenable problem for these properties fronting along Katella Avenue. Furthermoxe, many of the children who used Katella Avenue to go to school walked through the middle of his yard, but he was not opposed to that since he wou?d rather have children use a safe method of going to school, and if a more reasonable access were proposed than the area develop- ment plan indicated, then perhaps fewer people would be opposed to this. The Commission inquired if any of the pxoperty owners had any suggestions as to how to resolve the circulation problem from the many homes northerly of Katella Avenue. fdr. Price stated that it might help for a left-turn lane to be striped so that persons could at.least get to the center of the street before making a left-hand turn into traffic after it had cleared. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that what wes proposed would even#ually happen after street widening took place, and that one of the alleys vias just an optional suggestion to provide turning access for the parking area. Mr. Price then noted that he took exception to the possible development of these properties on an individual parcel basis since after dedication these parcels would be too small for utilization, and he would suggest that if development took place, it be as one project, and •that the proposed reclassification would benefit the general area; however, if the property owners to the north opposed, they would have to express their opposition. Mr. M. L, Bodse, ]2~11 Rebecca Lane, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission and noted he had a lot on the east side of Dallas Drive, and Dallas Drive extended northerly, dead-ending,at Folsom:Street, and perhaps the City could resolve some method of routing the txaffic northerly rather than going on to Katella Avenue. Furthermore, it was his opinion that commercial-office use of the property wo~ld be considerably more quiet at night; tha~ sidewaiks would be required for the children who are now walking in the street; and that the alley would separate the residential from the commercial use. Mr.. David Clark, 2831 Colorado Lane, Orange, appeared before the Commission, noting that he owned property at the intersection of William Miller Drive and Katella Avenue; that he did not live there and did not plan to live there because of the heavy traffic; that he had been renting it for the past six years, and the tenants were constantly coming and going, and the revenue irom renting the property was utilized in repair and taxes; and that he was in favor of the proposed development plan to allow for commercial uses of the residential properties since they were a comp:ete loss for residential purposes. Mr. Floye Wright, 2122 Midwood Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that the proposed development plan, in his estimation, would not be feasible even though 20 additional feet were re~uired for street widening purposes, and perhaps the Commission might consider extending Midwood Lane to Brookhurst Street through the cul-de-sac at that end of Midwood Lane, or perhaps running it eastarly io Nutwood Street, and the proposed area development plan would create an increase i,~ traffic hazards, Mrs. Jean Lown, 2111 Midwood Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated that with all the opposition the hearing could last all evening long, and it was her estimation that further study should be made relative to the proposed area development plan and r; :~~ ~ .'.,'!'ii i::ti :~:~ - ^';.-.,. _._., . _ ., ,.., ,..._~ .' . , ~ ~~.! .}.~ ',~ It 7fi~jF ~ J ~r~~ '+~~ fY~v` ~ + ~ / ICr, ~. r~, ,~ ,~ ~°' t ~ ~.,~ r > ;, r _,r ti~ ,~aL F yv8~ 1 1 _ ~ ., (,..:~ h..,v :I _ ~ _ :'-1 ~ p } ~L R' <; b t : F ' ~ .{ ~ .,: C~~ ;~ x~ ~ ~~ . .. ~ ~ -------- . ~ : ~ ~~ `e ~ ~ ~~ ~ - . xyf :~ r ~ ~ ~~} ,~ ~a ,,~F ~ ;dINUTES, CIT.Y PLANNING COMMISSION June 3 1968 ~ 'xrx , , 3963 ~ . ~i„ GENERAL PLAN - reclassification; that she was in complete sympathy with the ~ ~ AMENDMENT I~. 103 owners of property along Katella Avenue - however, she,was desirous RECLASSIFICATION f `-~ ~,~ r o having some concrete idea of the type of development that would N0: 67-68-96 b =' ri ~ ~ e placedt~n the properties rather than reclassifying.them for any AREA DEVELOPMENT t e of c i "' ~c yp ommerc al-office use. PLAN N0. 92 ~'~' ~ ~~ (Conti w ed) Mr. Earl Underwood, 2115 Midwood Lane, appeaxed in opposition, 1 noting that the traffic situation was desperate enough without j ~ the addition of commercial uses on the frontage lots, and the proposed reclassification would be of primar benefit t th t '~ W; ~ y o e few single-family home- owners along Katella Avenue, but would be detrimental to the 150 persons living in `~ ' the 80-odd lots having access only from Garden Drive and the 75 lots having access to William Mill D i ,;.r~, :~:,. : ' er r ve and Crestwood Lane. . ;~; ;;:'. ~~ ~ Mr. Ed Steele, 412 Fann Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that if the ~r .~ 1 opposition would have one spokesman, the hearing would progress much more smoothly. 1 ' •; Mr. Arthur Sexton, ownar of property at 2105 Katella Avenue, appeared before the Commission notin that hil . ~ , g w e most of the people were opposed to the proposed area development.plan and reclassification the id f , ea o a plan to widen the road to make possible a lef~t-turn lane is a step forward, although this also might increase the traffic considerably. ~ ~ THE HEAf2ING WAS CIASED. ~ r a" ~ ~ The Commisaion inquired whether or not all the structures would be utilized on Portion No 3 th ~ ~ . , ose parcels having access to William Miller Drive and Garden Drive, if the alle were n t t d I r:. y _ o .ex en ed through. ~ ~ I '~` ,~ Mr. Brown noted that the structures on the Katella fr~nta e would 9 probably be removed ( ~ ~~ ~ ~ or relocated because the public right-of-way would be at the side of the structures; however th ~ E E~ w r ~ , ose on the northerly two lots could remain, ar.d if the alley were not approved in the area development plan for th ~ ~~ ; ~ N'r ~ ::. ' ` ose parcels, no other dedication would be re q u i r e d o n e i t h e r W i l l i a m M i l l e r or Gar den Dr ives. However tho e w t l f i ~ ~~h , s es er y o William Miller Drive would have to be combi n e d in or der to con form with the C-0 site I '' } ~4~~ ~ . ~ ~ development.standards, and the structures removed. , . . ~ ; i 1,~ ~y ; ° ''1r'i Commissioner Rowland noted that if the reclassification were a pproved and development ~ , ( ,`; ~ f ~~; occurred piecemeal, one of the eleven parcels not redeveloping could stop street widen- ing for an int i bl i +k ~; j _ erm na e t me, unless the area development plan were denie~, since this would be id , ' c~~,~ cons ered strip zoning; therefore, he was opposed to approval of the area development plan, and all parcels within thi ~.~y.~' s reclassification should be developed according to the site development standards of the C-0 Zone sin ~;~ ~ ~ ce none of the indivi- dual parcels was large enough to develop in this zone and would force land assembly i ~a , . f any development were proposed. ~~, . ;~ Commiss3oner Farano noted that none of the parcels had developed for uther than residen- tial ~t~! ~ use, and until all parcels were reclassified the , parcels should conform to tl~e character of th ,* ; ~ e area, with a minimum of siqning of the property, and whatever was developed on these lots would h " ave some effect on all the ather lots in this area, as well as.the remaining lots in the Front-On Study. Furthermore the alternativ s . ~ , e for rentention of these hames for residential uses with a masonry wall and landscapin ,~ ;ti g might also be comsidered. .;,~w, ,, ~~'~, Mr. Mickelson noted that in the overlays the six-foot masonry wall would be allowed onl on th i l y, ~ ~'; y e u t mate right-of-way line, and under the present ordinance, this could not ~be done ~ G , ~ ~ . ,~ , ~k4 ~~ ~+~ ~ ~?~~ Commissioner Rowland offered,Resolution No. PC68-167 and moved for its passage and ado tion c d d b q , ~` ~ ~ p , se on e y Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that General Pla A yY Y ; ~ n mendment No. 103 be approved. (See Resolution Book) ~ . ~~ r . . , ~ ~;~,J~' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~q r , v„~~~, ; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. P~~r~~% 4kt;. : ;' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. %'i~t';;'~"~, 1 4; I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSz Gauer. ~ : ~r q;~ i ~. Y ~ r~';~ Commissioner Farano, in voting "no", stated that although the Commission had considered thi ~c ~~ s area previously for conversion to commercial uses due to its proximity to a major arterial, the general charact f th ~~'`; ; er o e area was traditionally residential and could be retained for residential uses with the wali and iandscaping treat t ; ` men proposed in the overlay. ~ f•. ~ ~ x ; ~ J t~'j~~,_ ~ ' ~ ~ , ~.. ~ Fx~ ~ `' ~ ,~~'?+ ' - +' -fi ~ MINUTES, CT2Y PLf1PiNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3964 GENERAL PLAH. -~ommissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-168 end moved JWiENDMENT N0. 103 for 3ts passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, RECLASSIFICiAT20N to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification N0. 67-fs~8-96 No. 67-68-96 be approved, subject to conditions. (5ee Resolution AREA UEV:EIA~~1£NT Book) PZA ~l N6 . 92 Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote`: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: .COAM4ISSIONERS: Gauer. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-169 ano moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 92 be disapproved on the basis that development should be in accordance with the site development standards of the C-0 Zone, making circulation a part of the properiies and requiring land assembly in order to develop for the C-0 Zone. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: ,CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer. RECLASSIFICAI'ION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE• CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N0. 67-68-93 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land comprised of seven lots AREA DEVELOPMENI' gene:ally located norih and west of a rectangularly shaped parcel PLAN NO• 89 of approximately 110 feet by 135 feet at the northwest corner oi Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street, having approximate.frontages of 550 feet on the west side of Gilbert Street and i73 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, AND R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES. PROPOSE~.CLASSIFICATIONa G1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Area Development Plan No. 89 proposes consideretion of secondary access problems relative to the R-A parcels fronting on Gilbert Street. Ass3stant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the Report to the Commission, noting the location of the property, the existing land uses, the proposed reclassification, and the proposed area development plan which provided for secondary circulation. The adjoining land uses were.also reviewed, and previous zoning actions taken on the properties. Mr. Brown also noted that subject properties were one of the 17 areas geographical:.y dispersed throughout the community which met the criteria for potential conversion to commercial uses. No one appeared in favor of or in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to strip zoning the R-A parcels to •li:e north and south of the R-2 parcel since multiple-family uses had been developed immediately to the east and the high school property abutted it immediately to the west. Upon completion of discussion, the Commission determined thst the 1.43-acre parcel and the small, R-A parcel immediately to the northeast of this large parcel should be considered for commercial uses only, and the remainder of the portion deleted from the reclassification as well as from the Front-On Study. yIJ 7 ~•';::j ,~'~',~..~~ ^;~~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-170 and moved for its passage and adcption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-93 for the 1.43-acre parcel and the small, R-A parcel immediately adjoining it to the northeast be reclassified from the R-A Zone to the C-1 Zone, subject to conditions; and that the remaining five R-A and R-2 parcels to the north be retained in their present classification and deleted from the Front-0n Study. (See Resolution Book) , q:-> t~"°sa"'~"~..- ~~2~ ,~ "~u`I ,~`~~ '~x+~~r 2~~'~~~J~•~i~~~~i ''~"~'~~ o ~'~^ ~ lt Sx v?~ 3 1 ~ x. r<-~ ;~ r;X~ "~ ~~'~~5~-. ~~'ra'~~'~' ~t:vs EF 1 ..'(~t I~.~ r~'~C C• ~ ~ ~ T "w ;l ., -- - ---- ~~`~ ~ .. , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3965 RECLASSIFICATION - An roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following NO: 67-68-9~3 vote: AREA DEVELOPME~}T PLAN NC1.-89 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, (Continued) Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-171 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 89 be disapproved on the.basis that the plan projected secondary circulation for the small, R-A parcels to the north, and those recommended for approval for reclassification had sufficient land to provide their own secondary circulation. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by th= following vote: AYES: CONNAISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Gauer. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CIIY PLANNING ~(uydISSION, N0. 67-68-Q4 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: A recta;:~ularly shaped parcel of land comprised of six lots AREA DEVELOPMENT fronting on the north side of Broadway between Brookhurst Sireet PLAN N0. 90 and Garnet Street and having a frontage of approximately 436 feet on the north side of Broadway and a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet. Property.presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COMMERCIAL-OFFICE, ZONE. Area Development Plan No. 90 proposes consideration of secondary access for said lots. Assistant Planner Pat Brown presented to the Commission Reclassification No. 67-68-94 and Area Development Plan No. 90, indicating this was onE of the 17 areas geographically dispersed throughout the community which met the criteria for potential conversion to commercial uses. The location of the property was reviewed, and the uses established in close proximityc namely, low density, single-family homesites to the north and east; a small, commercial complax to the south; together with low density, single-family residential homesites and property under the jurisdiction of the County presently developed as .an orchard, but commercially zoned, to the west. Also, 7,000 vehicles per day were presently utilizing Broadway, a secondary street, and it was pro}ected to carry 8,900 vehicles per day in ten years; that Brookhurst Street,at the westerly extremity of the property, was presently carrying 33,500 vehicles per day and was projec'ted to carry 42,500 vehicles per day within ten,years; that all primary vehicular access, except from the easternmost parcel, was to Broadway, and none of the parcels had secondary vehicular access; that the properties have existing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and a half-width was dedicated to 40 feet, while 45 feet was required for a secondary street, and a half-width street dedication of 50 feet on Brookhurst"St:eet for the westernmost parcel, while 60 feet would be required for a major street; that all the lots have a depth of 100 feet, which would be reduced to 95 feet after ultimate dedication and further reduced if an alley were approved as projected on Area Develop- ment Plan No. 90; and that the average rear yard depth of the six lots involved was approximately 15 feet, and any rear parking as required under the C-0 Zone would be nil unless.existing structures were removed. Mr. Brown also,noted that because of the shallow rear lot depths, Code requirements for the rear.parking and~or alley could not be met, and it was the recommendation of the Plannin9 Commission, as adopted by the City Council, that all front-on areas when develope~ for commercial uses would have adequate vehicular circulation and would comply with all site development and building standards of the pertinent zone to which they were to be reclassified, and that the reclassification petition would reclassify these from the.R-1 Zone to the C-0 Zone. Mr. C. S, ~loyer, 2173 Victoria Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that a petition signed by 50 p:operty owners had been submitted prior to the public hearing; that this was not the first time that reclassification of these properties had been under consideration, and this was requested in pre'vious petitions only when individual~ were interested in developing for commercial uses along Brookhurst Street - however, none c~f the property owners were haopy with the proposed reclassifi- cation;•that no traffic problem existed, even though the traffic was considerable on Y~ J ~~.v~~yyl Y q< ~ ~s •~ I ~~ ~ .. `;:F I, v ~ ~ 1 MINUTES, CIZY PLANNING iAMMISSION, June 3, 1968 i x i ^; ~ :f,.~t ~} ~x~.. ~ d^.P'[S ~N ~~~ " , 3966 ~ . RECLASSIF.ICATION - Broakhurst Street; that a number of persons who owned the parcels I~• 6~-6$-94 had indicated they were not interested in developing.their proper- AREA DEVEIAPIu1EN7 ties for commercial purposes; and that the only commercial use was PLAN N0...90 iocated at the northeast corner of Hiawatha Street and Brookhurst. (Continuedj Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that it was possible the commercial use at the northeast corner of Hiawathd and Brookhurst might be a home occupation, and that the staff had no prior documentary evidence that commercial us~es had been requested for subject property - therefore this might have occurred wliile under the jurisdiction of the County. ~~; Mr. Moyer then stated that the property at Hiawatha and Brookhurst had real estate ~r ~ advertising and other commercial uses, and that in his estimation, the reclassifica- tion and arF~a development plan should be denied since there was no potential commercial L`~-~~' use for these p ,, ;, , .; • pro erties. Mr. Frank Pa6sare13a,, 2161 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission, noting that ~ -. if subject properties were reclassi#ied and not developed, there was a possibility they ,~ ;y might be reassessed for commercial uses, and he would be unable to refinance or sell '~j his,property ds a residential use; therefore, he was opposed to the proposed reclassi- ,;; fication of the property. Assistant Development Services Director Robert M~ckelson advised the Commission that the staff had conttacted agencies like th~e FHA arrd VA regarding refinancing of various homes, and 'they had stated that as a statement of policy, if the City indicated an area would remairr resicsential, this would insure refinancing of the property as a residential use, ,assum'sng ~here were no other problems involved. However, if the City has indicated an area hz;s potential commercial. reconversion, this, then, would act as notice to the uarious agerocies that there was no assurance this would be residential - therefore they would not refinance a hcme for residential purposes. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. A showing of hands indicated 30 persa~~s present in the Council Chamber in opposition to subject petitions. Commissioner Herbst offared Resolution No. PG68-172 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition.for Reclassification No. 67-68-94 be disapproved; that tfie area be designated on the Fxont-On Study as.being retained for residential purposes; that no commercial petitions had been received or acted upon for any of the properties under considera- tion; end..that nwners of the properties had indicated no desire for reclassification~ Furthermore, the Commission finds that after considerable testimony and discussion, together_with a field inspection, that the size and shape of the parcels even after dedication would be suitable for residential purposesd (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutinn was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-173 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development P2an No. 90 be disapproved on the basis tha~ the plan was not necessary since recommendation had been made t:iat the reclassification of the properties be dis- approved. (See Resolution Book) On rall call the foregoing resolution was passed by the iollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMI~SIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. V ~ MINUTES~~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 RECLASSIFICATION - PU~LIC HEARTNG. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING OpA~MISSION, N0. 67-68-97 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land comprisedof three lots AREA DEVELOPMENT lo~ated generally at the southeast corner of Broadway and Fann PLAN N0. 93 Street and having a combined frontage of approximately 258 feet on the south side of Broadway and a maximum depth of approximately 9~ feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 250 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-1, OA'E-FAMILY RESIDENT7AL, ZONE. PROPpSED CLASSIFICATION: G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Area Development Plan No. 93 proposes the consideration of a secondary access solution. Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject properties and the existing uses in close proximity: nam~ly, a neighborhood shopping center to the north, retail and service commercial :.+ses to the east, and low density, single-family residential homesites._to the sou~h and west. Also, that circulation for Euclid Street, which is approximately 250 feet east of subject property! was presently carrying 32,000 vehicles per day and was projected to carry 40,600 vehicles per day within ten years and that Broadway, a secondary street, was presently carrying 13,400 vehicles per day and was projected to carry 17,000 vehicles per day within ten years. Site features we~ then reviewed by Mr. Brown, noting that subject properties had curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; that the two commercially zoned C-1 properties at the southwest , corner of Euclid and Broadway had fully dedicated street frontages; that ttie three lots under consideration in the proposed reclassification had 40-foot half-width dedication, whereas 45 feet would be required; that the single-family lots ivould have 91-foot depths after ultimate dedication - however, they had 86-foot widths, wider than the normaT width of a residential lot; that subject property was part of the Front-On Study in which it was determined there was potential for commercial-professional use of the properties; and that upon ultimate dedication of Broadway, this would reduce the struc- tural setbacks to 15 and 20 feet, which would be adequate for commercial uses, but if the area development plan were approved, this would reduce the depth of the lots by 20 feet, and since the existing rear yards were only 15 to 30 feet, the rear yard parking could not be met if the existing structures remained. Mr. A. W. Raschick, 410 South Falcor, Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, noting that he represented a number of his neighbors who were all in opposition because they did not desire to have their nice residential area disrupted with com- mercial uses; that those homes that would be rearing on the proposed commercial zoned lots would be basically affected by commercial uses of the property; that the area was fully saturated with commercial uses, and there would be inadequate parking facilities for all these lots if they were conver+:ed for commercial purposes; that there wovld be commercial parking along the residenti~~ street, which would be highly undesirable; that because of the oversaturation of •.-ommercial uses, many of the commercial ventures were unsuccessful because of the extreme competition; and he urged denial of subject petitions on the basis that they would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the properties in close proximity on both Fann Street and Falcon Street. Mrs. Maxine Clayson, 401 Fann Street, appeared in opposition, stating that she was constantly.in fear of :njury to her children because one was presently in grade school and the other would be enterin9 grade school in the fall; that the children had to walk on Broadway to Loara Street in order to attend school, and both the intersections oi Euclid Street and Broadway and Loara Street and Broadway were heavily traveled, •making it very hazardous for children to cross the street - in one instance ju~t recently, her fourth grade child had been walking home from school with another child when the other boy had been hit by an automobile and injuring him, and this upset her, and the injection of additional business on these lots would make it difficult for the chilciren to walk to school because of the incoming and outgoing traffic for the use of the commercial lots; and that the Commission should consider the safety factor of children having to go through a commercial area to go to school by denying subject petitions.. Mrs. Hel.en_King 8543 Harrison Way, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission, represer~t- ing one of the property owners of the properties under consideration for reclassifica- tion, no~ing;her client owned the center home; that she was a real estate broker attiempt- ing to sEll these properties, and shey were ahere that well maintained residential homes did have problems where streets were wic?=r._~1 and commercial uses were established across the street from them; and that the oppa~:ition should take into consideration that the City had progressed from a small city to a metaopolis, and the people living on Broadway were further subjected to heavy traffic. Furthermore, she was in sympathy r ,; `4. ' ~ ~~ :;~ ;r, ~ `~ ~ :,a ~ "'~ ~,ti ~i; ~:' ~, _ _ _ _. ~.. .. :;~. ~ ~ MINUTES,:CI:TII PLANNING COMMISSION, June 3, 1968 3968 RECLASSIFICATION - with the property owners ad3oining subject properties because 'NO• 67-68-97 they would be affected by commercial uses-however, this was.the penalty of growth and progress of a city, and that she congratulated ARF•~ DEVEIAPMENT the Commission in making a long-range study of parcels in order to PLAN N0. 93 have the highest and best use of the pxoperties. (Continued) Mr. Raschick again appeared before the Commission and objected to the statement made by Mrs. King about the best use of the land, if the use of the property was not that which w.as originally intended; in addition, the proposed reclassification would be creating problems for other properties adjacent; ~ and sub3ect property would have inadequate parking for commercial zoning, and these: ~ automobiles then would be parking on Fann Street or Broadway. Mrs. King noted that those residents living away from Broadway did not hear all the noise from the traffic, and this was only a strip of land which was immediately adjacent to commerciaY uses. Mr. James Shea, 434 Fann Street, suggested to the Commission that commercial uses approved for subject pr~perty shouid also be approved for those properties fronting on both sides of Broadway between Euclid Street and Brookhurst Street. Mr. John E. Dotson, 417 Fann Street, appeared before the Commission, noting he was also concerned about the children being subjected to additional commercial traffic; that they presently walked their kindergarten ch3ldren to school twice a day because of the heavy traffic, and that many people bypassed the Euclid Street traffic by using Fann Street as a means of arriving at their destinations southerly of Broadway; and that this could incxease if commercial uses were approved for subject praperty and would ruin the residential character of Fann Street. Furthermore, there were 42 homes on the street, with 55 children attending school - therefore he felt the proposed reclassi- fication should be denied. Mr. James Westell, 420 Fann Street, inquired what interest the real estate broker had "~ in the proposed reclassification. ~ F', Mrs. Donella Coons, 1722 West Broadway, advised the Commission thet she owned the ~'°tY- center home, and the two remaining homes were rented; furthermore,;the lady who owned ~'j1` one of the parcels was in attendance earlier but stated she did not know any',commer `' ~~~i~; cial consideration was being given her ro ert until "'" P P Y yesterday. ,:~ ~1 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised thQ Commission that the staff had never had any requests for commercial uses on these properties, and from a physical standpoint, the lots could be retained for residential purposes. , Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-174 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that ~ Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-97 be disapproved on the basis that the size and shape of the parcels after dedication would still lend them to residential use, and that these parcels should be removed from the residential Front-On Study as being inappropriate at this time for cort¢r,ercial uses. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,'... ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. +'r% Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-175 and moved for its passage and I~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recomnend to the City CounciL that Area Development Plan No. 93 be disapproved on the basis that the Commission recom- mended denial of the reclassific~tion petition. (See Resolution Book) ~ r' `: On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following votee AYESs ~MMISSI~NE.4S: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEN?: CON4'NISSIONERS: Gauer. i `C: ?, . ria~~l'i~a1Y~n.dY ~~ ^ ~ . ~tS~h ]~"~y~~ =T '-"~ y~yt ;:' Y n ~: , 'Ih::TM~'~'~~'' r.{r '~ 3Y':2~ ~, , "' " < . ~ t . . . . . . ~ . . . ~y ~ • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTM~ ;AMMISSION, June 3, 1968" 3969 ` REPORTS.AND . - STEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 1741 (Kurt Singer) -.Utilizing a single-family structure as a professional writer's office at 3164.West TyTer Avenue - Request for extension-of time. Associate.Planner Charles Roberts presented Variance No. 1791 to the Commission, ` noting.tha.t,the petitioner was requesting an additional one-year extension of time; that~Variance No. 1791'was approved for bse of the existing structure for.a profes- sional:writer!s office for a period of two years on May 6, 1966, and Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 2024,:Series 1965-66permitted an additional one•year of time if epproved:by.the Planning Commission; and that the Development Services Department had received no complaints regarding this particular use, and it was recommended that the one-year extension of time be granted. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time for the,use of the structure at 3164 West Tyler Avenue as a professional writer's office approved under Variance No. 1791, said time extension to expire May 6, 1969. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 970 (Walt Disney Productions) - Request for extension of time for completion of conditions on property located on the east side of Walnut Street, southerly of Cerritos Avenue. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from Walt Disney Productions for an extension of time for the completion of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 970 for the estabIishment of an 11-story hotel~motel complex approved by the Planning Commission in November of 1967. Mr.,Roberts noted the only condition remaining to be met was the dedication of Cerritos Avenue as required under Condition No. 2, and that the staff recommended - a six-month extension of time to expire November 6, 1968. ,Commissioner Farano offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time, to expire November 6, 1968, for the'completion of conditions of'Conditional Use Permit No. 9ZO.. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED: ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. M01'ION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, L~~ /~,~=[~uv~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ",; r , ,,, ;; ,;;: ~: ; i • ;;~;': ~ , ~,