Loading...
Minutes-PC 1969/12/01~ ~ ~~~ City Hall Anaheim, California December 1, 1969 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ""~ -w ~:T -__.:.. REGULAR MEETING•- A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Co~ission was called ' to order by Chairman Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESEhT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland. - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Aasistant Development Services Direct or: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attarney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Coimnissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Thom offered a motion to approve tite Minutes of the THE MINUTES meeting of November 3, 1969, as submi tted, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOT.T.~N CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE COLLMAN, 16651 Yorba Linda Boulevard, N0. 69-70-8 Yorba Linda, California, Owner; JEFFERY MILLET, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as: Portion A- TENTATIVE MAP OF A rectangularly'shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 TRACT N0. 6978, acres, having a frontage of approximately 260 feet on the west side of REVISION N0. 1 Kellogg Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 340 feet, an.d being located approximately 575 feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue; and Portion B- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.8 acres, having approximate frontages of 345 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue and 505 feat on Kellogg Drive, and being located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive. Property presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION A- R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. PORTION B- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: JEFFERY MILLET, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California; ENGINEER: Mi11et,Kin$ & Associates, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California; propa,?ing subdivision of subject property into 59 R-2-5000 ~ zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the reason for previous continuances, and the present proposal which had to be readvertised because of a change in the proposal wherein the original request was for C-1 zoning for the entire parcel - however, the northerly two acres, known as Portion A, was now proposed to be zoned R-2-5000 in addition to the R-2-50(10 tract previously approved and was now referred to as Revision No. 1, Tentative 24ap of Tract No. 6978; that 12 R-2-5000 zoned lots were added to the original tract map which made a total of 59 lots; and that although LAFCO had approved annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim, the owners of the property, as yet, had not made formal application to the City. Mr. Brown furCher noted that no plans had been submitted for the C-1 portion, and that the Anaheim General Plan-1969 indicated a neighborhood shopping center in the vicinity of the intersection of Kellogg Drive and Orangethorpe Avenue - therefore, the requested zoning appeared to be appropriate for the southerly portion of subject property, known as Portion B. 4922 ~~ ~~~ .'c~ ..;~"«'` ,, i ~:: `,*~ , r;a ,.v ,° I 4 I ~ I i `~ ~ ..C.,, C7 .A ~ ~ O ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 ~c?'t-c .m~- . `~ .:~ ++~~.c 4923 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Jeffery Millet, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the N0. 69=70-8 Commission and stated that the recommended conditioag were acceptable to the petitioner --however, he had a question pertaining to Portion B, TENTATIVE MAP OF namely, the Engineering.requirements for Kellogg Drive and OranE~thorpe TRACT N0. 6978, Avenue - as to whether or not these had to oe met_immediately or could REVISION N0. 1 these requirements wait until the County constructed all the improve- (Continued) ments for said streets? Furthermore, would this be required prior to zoning the property? Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to the agent for the petitioner's question- ing, stated that prior to the reading of an ordinance these engineering requirements must be bonded and improvements would not be required until development of the property occurred Furthermore, the time limitation of 180 days applied to conditions for street dedication, streeC improvement and street lighting bonding, and for street tree fees; therefore, any time within that 180 days, said conditions could be met. No one appeared at this public hearing in oppoaition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not a service station would be permitted on the counnercial portion without a conditional use permit. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the only time a conditional use permit was required for a service station site was when it was located within 75 feet of a residence; however, in this particular instance, the R-2-5000 zone would be over the 75-foot limita- tion. Cocrm~issioner Gauer then expressed the feeling that additional service stations were not needed in this general area. Deputy City Attorney Frauk Lowry advised the Commission that a service station was permitted as a matter of right at this intersection since Kellogg Drive was a secondary highway having a 9Q•foot width and Orangethorpe Avenue was a primary highway. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. FC69-243 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-8 be approved subject to Znterdepartmental Committee and Development Services Department reco~mnendations. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp; Farano, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6978, Revision No. 1, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6978 (Revision No. 1) is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 69-70-8 and Reclassification No. 68-69-88 and Variance No. 2090. 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 in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be construcEed on the southerly property lines separating lot Nos. 1, 2, 58 and 59 and Orangethorpe Avenue and the easterly property line of lot Nos. 26, 27, 42 and 43 and Kellogg Drive, except that for corner lot Nos. 26 and '27 said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty (30) inches in the required front yard setback. 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 Clty of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to Kellogg Drive shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. M'i ,Y ~,i~',. ~ 0 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 ;:~,, , '.=~~ C~ 4924~ RECLASSIFICATION - 6. That pedestrian and vehicular access rights ?o Orangethorpe Avenue N0. 69-70-8 shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. TENTATIVE MAP OF 7. That retaining walls or grading as necessary for the regrading of TRACT N0. 6978, Oxsngethorpe Avenue shall be constructed on the south property REVISION N0..1 lYhe separal•ing subject property and Orangethorpe Avenue, as (Continued) required by the City Engineer. 8. That drainage facilities shall be constructed as required by the City of Anaheim. 9. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to,approval of a final tract map, Commissioner tlerbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Gauer voted "no". RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARIN6. GEORGE COLLMAN AND HORACE MORLOCK, 16651 N0. 69-70-10 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba Linda, California, Owners; ,TEFFERY MILLET, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California, Agent; property VARIANCE N0. 2121 described as: Portion A- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approxinately 7 acres, having approximate frontages of TENTATIVE MAP OF 530 feet on the east side of Kellogg Drive and 53~ feeC on the west TRACT N0. 7103 side of Post Lane, having a maximum depth of approximately 630 feet, and being located approximately 575 feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue; and Portion B- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.8 acres, being located on the north side of Orange- thorpe Avenue, having approxir~ste irontages of 510 feet on Kellogg Drive, 510 feet on Post Lane, and 600 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue. Prope~ty presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL UISTRICT. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOh: PORTION A- R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. PORTION B- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION A ONLY - ESTABLISH A 44-LOT, R-2-5000 SUBDIVISION WITH TWO LOTS SIDING ON AN ARTERIAL AIGHWAY. TENTATIVE TRACT RE~UEST: ENGINEER: MILLET, KING & ASSOCIATES, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California; proposing that a 7-acre site be subdivided into 44 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that subject property had been readvertised for this date because the petitioners now proposed only R-2-5000 and R-3 zoning for the property, whereas formerly they had proposed a small C-1 parcel the size of a service station site at the southwest corner of subject property; that the petitioners had increased the number of R-2-5000 lots from 23 to 44; that Woodwind Lane was proposed to be abandoned, and the southerly portion of said street would revert back to the petitioners if the abandonment were approved - thus the tract map reflected this abandon- ment in the design of the lots; and that annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim had been approved by LAFCO - however, the owners of the property, as yet, had not made formal application to the City. Mr. Brown, in reviewing the proposal, noted that no development plans had been submitted for the portion proposed for R-3 zoning, consisting of approximately 6.8 acres; that the tentative map indicated a proposal to realign W oodwind Lane through Portion A, the R-2-5000 portion, so that it would form a continuous alignment with the existing street in the R-1 tract [o the east, as well as the proposed street approved under Tentative Map of Tract No. 6978 for the property to the west, across Kellogg Drive, and with the abandonment of the existing alignment of Woodwind Lane along the northern perimeter of the property, the northerly half of said street would revert to the Placentia ~chool District; that with the addition of 21 more lots, a cul-de-sac street entering from Post Lane on the east would have lots tiered on either side; that with the extension of Woodwind Lane westerly through subject property, this created two lots with a side-on orientation to Kellogg Drive, an arterial street - therefore Che variance was necessary and would have to be approved; and that no development plot plan had been submitted for the R-2-5000 portion. Mr. Brown, in evaluating the petitions, noted that the Anaheim General Plan-1969 indicated low density residential uses as being appropriate to this area; that the Planning Commission on November 14, 1968, in recommending approval of R-2-5000 for a large parcel of land located east of Kellogg Drive between Esperanza High School site on the souCh and Imperial Freeway on the north, had stated, "That the Planning Commission deems it ( ~ i 7~ ^.''r `>:~ ;' ~~ :~-,a ;;,pfw '~;~ '=: ~ . ,;,' ` R't, : R ' ,:. `:- ~aa . rr L ..,7:.~~';t ~' ' i. ~ ~ \/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 4925 RECLASSIFICATION - desirable to maintain the low density rasidential designation on the N0, 69-70-10 General Plan for the area southerly of the Esperanza High Schaol site, easterly of the new alignment of Orchard Drive (Kellogg Drive), and VARIANCE N0. 2121 southerly to Orangethorpe Avenue." Thus, the Planning Commission and City Council concurred with this conclusion at a later date when the TENTATIVE MAP OF General Plan-1969 was approved by both bodies, TRACT N0. 7103 (Continued) Mr. Brown noted by City policy, the R-2-5!l00 Zone in the past had been considered to be desirable in areas designated by the General Plan as being appropriate for low-medium or medium density residential uses - therefore, the proposal would not appear to be commensurate with past Planning Commission and City Council consideration relative to this area, nor with the recentiy approved General Plan use indications, and the Commission would then have to determine whether sufficient land use changes in this area had occurred to warrant favarable con- sideration of the proposed reclassification and a consequent amendinent to the General Plan. Mr. Brown concluded that approval of a final tract map for the R-2-5000 portion would be contingent upon abandonment proceedings being filed by the applicants, with approval by the City, for that portion of Post Lane north of Woodwind Lane lping within the R-1 tract to the east of subject property and for that section of Woodwind Lane located along the northerly border of subject property. Mr. Teffery Millet, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated it would be rather difficult to make a positive statement regarding the proposal after the staff's presentation - however, conditions attached to the approval of the tract were acceptable to the petitioners. Furthermore, the original proposal was for a portian of the property to be zoned for cotmnercial uses, and upon contacting the County Planning Department, he was informed that their regulation for a neighborhood shopping center was from 2 L•o 8 acres, whereas the City of Anaheim permitted a maximum of 4 acres; that the reason for requesting the R-3 Zone was to provide a buffer between the single-family homes and the railroad and a primary arterial - although after talking with the staff at some Length, he had assumed that R-2 zoning would be advertised since it was proposed to nave garden-type apartments; and that when the industri3l property south of the rail- road track was ultimately developed, apartment development for the southerly portion of subject property seemed more appropriate. > a ~~ ,~ ~~ ~. The Commission inquired of Mr. Millet why he felt subject property was any different in requesting multiple-family zoning for the property along Orangethorpe Avenue when the property to the west had R-2-5000 extended to Orangethorpe Avenue and additional single- family tracts had been developed all along Orangethorpe, under both the jurisdiction of the County and the City of Anahein~, since these residents also would be subjected to ~ the same noises which he had stated would affect the single-family homes on subject ~ property if developed to Orangettiorpe Avenue. ; Mr. Millet replied there was no difference - however, the railroad was a very busy one and c~.ite noisy, and the R-2-5000 homes, in his estimation, could qualify as R-1 homes in that residents of apartments objected less to noises than those in single-family ' homes. The Commission then inquired of the staff v~hether or not the abandonment of Woodwind Lane had been discuased with the Placentia Schcal District. Mr. Brown advised the Cou¢nission that s letter was on file from Mr. Eaxl 8rewer of the Placentia School District, noting their concurrence with the proposed abandonment; however, stating that the Schoo~l District expected to receive half of the road. Further- ?' more, they advised that the revious lans ~ P P presented to the Commission two years ago regarding the E1 Camino Real special sahool access i~ediately to the north of this ;a proposed abandonment now proposed to be relocated to the extreme north end of the school property. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that abandonment proceedings were held at entirely different public hearings - however, a condition of approval of ~~ the tract was to institute said abandonment proceedings and receive approval from the ' City for both Woodwind Lane extending from Kellogg Drive to Post Lane and Post Lane ~ry southerly from this extension of Woodwind Lane to the new alignment of Woodwind Lane, ~ and that all improvements in the streets being abandoned were to be removed. ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~''i . _ ._~J ...] .. . .~ . , : . . . . . . ~ . O . ~ . . ' ~ ~ MIIVDTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December I, 1969 4g26 i(~ -~, ti` ` ~_. .:.:'.-. RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission then discussed the proposal in which the agent stated N0. 69-70-10 they would develop subject property for garden apartments, noting that development plans should be submitted since blanket zoning for this VARIANCE N0. 2121 strategic property would be unwise because of its proximity to the large R-l tract to the east; and that the lots to the east were developed TENTATIVE MAP OF under the jurisdiction of the County, wherein 7200-square foot lots were TRACT N0. 7103 required, and to approve R-2-5000 zoning for the northerly portion would (Continued) be granting a privilege to the petitioner not afforded developers of the property to the east, Chairman Rowland inquired of the Commission whether or not there was any opposition by the Commission as to R-2-5000 zoning for the northerly portion. Commissioner Farano stated he opposed apartment development for Portion B. Commissioner Gauer noted that he had already indicated granting R-2-5000 zoning to tae petitioner for even a portion would be granting a privilege not enjoyed b} the developers of the property to the east. Co~aissioner Thom stated he would be responsive to R-2 zoning for Portion B. Commissioner Farano then noted that by asking the petitioner to submit plana for Portion B wouYd be requiring him to incur an expense without any assurance that he would be receiv- ing the zoning, Commi~sioner Camp noted that the agent had stipulated to R-2 rather than R-3 zoning, if the Commi.ssion feit R-2 zoning was appropriate. Commissioner Herbst noted that at one time the property along Orangethorpe Avenue was zoned R-2 while under the jurisdiction of the County. Commissioner Farano then inquired of the staff that if R-2-5000 and R-2 zoning were recommended for approval, would this be contrary to the Planning Commission and City Counci~ intentions when the Anaheim General Plan-1969 was adopted? Mr. Roberts replied in the affirmative and noted that the density for R-1 was approximately 4.4 homes per acre, and R-2-5000 was 5.6 homes per acre; however, R-2-S000 was granted only in areas where the General Plan projected low-medium and medium density development. Commissioner Thom offered a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of R-2-5000 zoning for Portion A and denial of R-3 for Portion B; however, recommending R-2 zoning instead under Reclassification No, 69-70-10, as stipulated to by the petitioner. On roll call the foregoing motion lost by a vote of one to five. The Commission continued discussion of the proposal and tllen inquired of the agenk for the petitioner whether or not he could present plans for Portion B; whereupon Mr. Millet replied that he would rather have the Commission approve Portion A for R-2-5000 and deny R-3, and then take his chances with the City Council. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that if R-2-S000 zoniag were considered favorably for the entire property, this action could be taken at this hearing. Chairman Rowland, in response to Commission questioning, stated that from his observation of the discussion, it appea.red the majority of the Commission was opposed to R-2 zoning but seemed to feel that R-2-5000 was more appropriate. Coimnissioner Farano then stated that if subject petition were considered to be continued, then the Co~nission should advise the petitioners what was being considered by the Commission, and if the majority were for R-2-SOOO, then plans would not be needed, but if Portion B were to be considered favorably for R-2, then plans should be submitted. Co~nissioner Herbst stated that Portion B would be across the street from an approved shopping center; that said parcel was separated from the R-1 to the east by a stree~, and all homes to the east backed up to said street; that it~was bounded on the south by a railroad and projected M-1 property, and this would indicate that a higher density wouFd be appropriate - Eurthermore, this could be further substantiated by statements made by representatives of Autonetics wherein they stated more residential uses should be established closer to the industrial areas - however, he would still prefer to see plans for Portion B. ";j ~~ `~b ~~ r r ?~ ;~ I.. . .... ^'.~A ~~:~1a~4 ,~_ -'~: o ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,, December 1, 1969 492' RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Thom offered a motion to recoum~end to the City Council N0. 69-70-10 approval of R-2-5000 zoning for Portion A in Reclassification No. ~ 69-70-10 and denial of the request for R-3 zoning on Portion B since VARZANCE N0. 2121 the }s~tc;;ti+aner requested that the Comaission take action this date. TENTATTVE MAP OF ~`~'.v~•as t.w 4~5~;~±~ the vote on the aforementioned motion, the Commission TRACT N0. 7103 a~xS~tar ti4.l.1e{:.~?e~ the motion, and the Coimnission Secretary also asked (Continued) ~t'~*~ 9:~t:et,:iF~»r~x ~i,ndings far denial; whexeupon Commissioner Thom with- '~3'x'~'' ~~x i?~::r;~n snd stated that perhaps plans for Portion B should be "'n~i~tsa~' s~~$~r.ltre s~y action by the Planning Commission shouTd be taken either for or agains'C ,>.;~,lt~ ~t~~el, Commissioner Farano again stated that if subject petition were continued for the submission of plans for Portion B, and plans were submitted for apartment development which would be denied rather than continue subject petitions, perhaps the Co~nission should cansider s~proving only Portion A and require the refiling of a new petition at such time as plans were submitted for Portion B, Commissioner Gauer then conceded that ~f subject property were entirely developed for R-2-5000, he would not be in objection. , Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for ~ Reclassification No. 69-i0-10, Variance No. 2121, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7103 I to the meeting of February 9, 1970, in order to allow time for the petitioners to submit J plans of development for Portion ~. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION ~ CARRIED. I Mr. Roberts advised the agent for the petitioner that plans of development should be submit[ed in sufficient time for analysia;':y the staff in order to determine whethec or ~ not s,..,ances would have to be advertise:c. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GERALDINE E. ROTH, ET AL, P. 0. Box R, Placentia, ~ N0. 69-70-25 California, Owners; JEFFREY H. MILLET, 5l1 South Brookhurst Road, ! Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularlp VARIAFCE N0, 2142 shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 90.2 acres, having approxi:~ate frontages of 3,100 feet on La Palma Avenue (future) and TENTATIVE MAP OF 3,780 feet on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, TRACT N0. 7137 having a maximum depth of approximately 2,200 feet and being located ~ approximately 2,800 feet east of the centerline of Im~er3.a1 Highway, 7 Property pres~ently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: ESTABLISH A 454-LOT, R-2-5000 SUBDIVISION WITH WAIVER ~ OF THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR ONE LOT. ~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: SCHMID D£VELOPMENT, INC., 2949 Randolph, i Costa Mesa, California. ENGINEER: Millet, King & ~ Associates, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California; proposing subdivision of approximately 90 acres of land into 454 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject proQerty and uses established in close proximity, noting that because of numerous development problems pointed out at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting in cannection with this develop- ment, the petitioner has requested a six-week continuance in order to resolve these matters, and that LAFCO at their November 12, 1969 meeting continued the request for annexation of. subject praperty Co the City of Anaheim until December 10, pending action by the Orang2 County Board of Supervisors on the proposed regional park to be located in this area. Mr. Jeffrey Millet, agent for the petitioner, advised the Cocmnission there was a possi- bility a longer continuance than six weeks might be necessary because of probiems in attempting to have a railroad overpass. Chairman Rowland advised Mr. Millet chat if a longer tLn~ ~ere necessary, at the January 12, 1970 public hearing he could again request a continuance. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue censideration of Petitions for Reclassi- fication No. 69-70-25, Variance No. 2142, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137 to the meeCing of January 12, 1970, as requested by the petitioner, in order to resolve develop- ment problems. Coimnissioner Farano seconded the mol•ion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ , ~ . -„ z F.~~h^RY r ~ 5 ~' e ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO'rTriISSION, December 1, 1969 4S2£ -`"'i, r^~ CONDITIONAL USE - PU$LIC HEARING, JOSEPH AND GI:ACE ROMO AND FRED AND ALICE SOTO.MAYOR, ~' PERMIT N0. 1143 744 North East Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requestir.g ,.,~ permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING CH1LD C?.RE NURSERY on property I-~,.~;! described as: A rectangularly shaped parceY of land having a ! ~i frontage of approximately 75 feet on the east side of East Street and a maximum deptih ~ '~~ of approximately 258 feet, and being located approximately 320 feet south of the r' ZONEerline of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENT7?,L, f 1~ Assistant Zoniag Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning, and the proposal as outiined in the Report to the Commission, noting that Conditional Use Permit No. 904 was approved in December, 1967, to permit a child day nursery in an existing residence, limited to a maximum of 30 students and 3 staff inembers; that currently the facility had a total enrollment of 38 studencs and 5 supervisory personnel; that the petitioner had submitted bui2ding plnns to expand the existing facility with an 880-square foot addition to the existing structure to be used primarily for additional classroom space, with the addition extending easterly from the present structure; that because the petitioner had indicated an expansion to 56 students and supervisory personnel of 6, the plans and the petition were brought tu the Coimnission at their October 20, 1969 meeting, aC which time [he Commission stated that because of a substantial expansion and proposal to increase the students from 30 to 56, almost twice the number originally approved, a new peticion would have to be considered at a public hearing, Mr. Brown r.oted that a physical inspection of the site was made by the staff, which indicated four parking spaces were proposed for the 6 proposed staff inembers; however, one of these parking spaces was a tandem space; that the petitioners had indicated that, in the past, Che staff inembers had made arrangements with a nearby service station opera[or for additional parking space on thac site, and the existing circular driveway from East Street, which provided vehicular access for the dropping off and picking up of the children, should remain free and clear of any on-site parking spaces; that with the proposed expansion which would appear to be appropriaCe to the area, there were several facl•ors involved which the Cormnission would have to consider in their decision, namely, the proposed tandem parking - which had never been a policy of the City in approving such parking due to the obvious problems involved in getting the cars in and out of the parking area; that the Code did permit parking on properties adjacent to or within 400 feet of a site wherein such properties were either owned by the owner, or wherein an agreement for such parking had been filed with and approved by the City Attorney's office; that the Commission might wish to question the use of a service stacion site for off-aite parking which was a use not normally permitted other service stations; that subject property was a r~ther deep lot, and with the proposal to increase the number of students to 56, since four residentially zoned parcels of land abutted subject propercy, those to the north and south having resolutions of intent to R-3 were still being utilized as residences, and the parcel to the east, abutting subject property, was zoned R-1 with no resolution of intent to a more intense zoning pending, and numerous complaints had been received from the owner of that property to the east regarding Che proposed expansion of the facility near his property line; and that with the increase in the number of students-almost double-the existing circular drive might not be able to accommodate the number of people arriving or leaving at one time since it could acco~mnodate only four cars, and this could create traffic conflicts on East Street - therefore, since ample rear yard area was available, it would appear that a surfaced parking area could be provided for permanent members of the staff to the rear of the existing garage by providing a drive-through area. Mz. Brown noted that building permits had been issued for the conversion of the existing garage to provide an additional school facility room and for a 20-foot by 20-foot storage room structure located 40 feet from the rear property line - however, the Building Division had indicated no final inspection was ever requested for the garage conversion or the original conversion of the existing residential structure, and upon initial inspection of the storage structure, the Building Division indicated it was no[ in compliance with the Building Code - therefore, if subject petition were approved, it was recommended that all strucCures located on subject property be required to conform [o all applicable City building, electrical, and plumbing codes, and, finally, that since the proposal to enlarge the nursery school appeared to be more permanent in nature than originally considered by the Commission, the Commission might wish to require a 6-foot masonry wall along the north, south, and east property lines. Mrs. Grace Romo, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted she was aware they were faced with a parking.groblem, and the only way she could see to resoive it was to remove the garage and place the parking to the rear - howeverr becausE their financial arrangements were insufficient due to the many changes needed for the additional students, Ghey could noc provide this at the present time; that Che circular drive was for the dropping off and picking up of students, and up to the present time ~~ "~ ej .,,~ , iy,~ `;:;'~~ 'ti~'T9~ : .~ ~~ i:,i `, ~ r ~ l . `.., ~~ . : :_'. } ....'.:..J:. _ , .. . . . .... .....~,. . ^~ ~ ~: ~ s :;f,"'7 .r ~;>:a S" ,i~:a ~ c,-~ (;~) ( ) r`~ MINUTES, CIT1 PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 ~ ~i925, CONDITIONAL USE - no traffic problem existed since parents dropped off the children PERMIT N0. 1143 between 6:30 and 9:00 A.M, and picked them up between 3:00 and 6;00 (Continued) P.M.; that presently they had five staff inembers and would need two t additi.enal members, which would also mean additional parking, and , inquired whether the ornamental planting area along the frant coixld ~ , be removed to provide this additional parking Ynstead of proposing ic to the rear of ~-'~ the property. , '~ ., , ~ The Commission inquired as to whether or not separate toilet facilities were provided far tiyA;.~,,:.,; thE boys and the girls; whereupon Mrs, Romo replied that they presently had three for the children and one for the staff inembers, all of whom were women; that the State law required one facility for each 14 students; and that the Eacilities were used by boch ~.~ the boys and girls as part of their educational program to teach them not to be ashamed ~'~";~' „ of using the same facilities at the same time and since these children were only between +.;,'.~;.. ~' . , ~` z~, the ages of two and six; and that a kindergarten was planned if the new facility were ~j~ approved. Chairman Rowland noted for Mrs. Romo that her question regarding the removal of the planter area had not been answered; however, she should contact the staff relative to this. Mrs. Romo noted they had two large trees in the front and were unable to park two cars on each s?de, and this was the reason for having tandem parking; however, iE the bushes were removed, they would then be able to have an additional parking space. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Coimnission that he was not at all familiar with the proposai Mrs. Romo had made; however, if si~e were desirous of submitting a proposal, t~e staff wou18 be glad to review it and discuss it with her. Mrs. Romo noted for the Commission that the maximum number of students was never attai.ned each day, and they would average 45 students out of the proposed 56, and the reason for proposing the kindergarten classes was to offer a better service to the children; that there were large rooms where children were able to play during rainy days, if the proposed addi~ion were approved, and now they were able to play only in the garage area, which mean~ they were outdoors. Mrs. F. J. Szot, 727 Juniper Place, appeared before the Commission and noted her property was directly behind subject property; that the new shed addition which the petitioners claimed they were building was 50 feet Erom the present building and 50 feet from the east property line; that she and her husband had contacted the Development Services staff to determine whether or not a building permit had been granted and had been advised that none was applied for - however, no staff inember came out to review the complaint as she had presented it. Furthermore, she was desirous of hAVing a 6-foot masonry wall from the highest levei of the property because of the appearance of the rear of subject property, and this was based on the fact that they had attempted to sell their property for more than a year, but because of the unsightly appearance of the nursery school property and che fact that tt~e existing wall was less than 6 feet high and was on her property, potential purchasers of her property were able to look over the ~aall into subject property. Mrs. Romo, in rebuttal, stated that they had started to construct the shed 40 feet from the east property line and it was to be used for storage of equipment during the rainp season - however, they did not continue with the building because they were unsure of the outcome of subject petition. Mrs. SzoC then inquired why storage of articles was to the rear of the shed rather than in the facility proposed. Chairman Rowland advised both Mrs. S2oc and Mrs. Romo that this was a policing and house- keeping problem and did not involve any zoning or planning - therefore, the Commissiou would not consider this as part of evidence for app~oval or disapproval of subject petition THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission then noted that their original intent in approving the nursery school in 1967 was on the basis that it would be an interim use until such time as the properties to the north and south of subject property were developed for multiple-family purposes as the reclassification resolution of intent permitted. However, with the proposed expan- sion of the school this indicated the use would be on a more permanent basis, and if the proposed expansion were approved, then it should be developed in accordance with all Code requirements, such as parking, 6-foot masonry walls, etc. since subject property could be sold and additional vehicles would be utilizing subject property, creating a traffic hazard. Commissioner Thom inquired as to whether or not there was an agreement on file for off- site parking. .a k ;~'~ ;,.:~ ~~ ~~i `,, :'':~~::'ir r~ ~'."~ ~' .r . O .. -. ~ ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 4930 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Roberts advised the Commission theze was no agreement on file Co his PERMIT N0. 1143 knowledge. (Continued) Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the City had accepted agreements in the past for off-site parking, Mr. Roberts noted thaC this was correct; however, the Commissioh should determine whether or not other uses should ;be permitted on the service station site since this would have far-reaching implications as it pertained to all other service stations in the City. Chairman Rowland noted that from all evidence submitted, it appeared the petitioners had additional problems.to resolve before the Coimnission could :nake any decision on this; therefore, the petition should be continued in order to allow time to resolve parking problems, etc,, and since Mrs. Romo had suggested several ideas, these should be presented to the staff in order to obtain their professional observation of the proposal. CoL*missioner G.amp noted that if subject petition were approved to permit an increase in rhe number of students, and the Commission determined that this would be a permanent use, it was his opinion that all Code requirements should be met, and this would include the 6-foot masonry wall, said wali measured from the highest grade level of subject or abutting property. Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that there was a further obstacle - the fact that he was not sure whether under the Education-Sanitation Code joint toilet facilities were permitted. Chairman Rowland noted that hey being an architect and having designed other nursery schools, knew it was permit:ed by the State. Mr. Lowry stated he would prefer having some time to pursue this as to its legality. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1143 to the meeting of December 29, 1969, in order to allow time for the petitioners to resolve development problems relative to parking, landscaping, etc. Coimuissioner Gauer ~~+~;.~ded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, RECLASSIFICATION.- PUBIZC HEARING. GRACE BISLE CHURCH, 2550 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 69-70-21 Ca1;.fornia, Owner; DAVID C. MADDOX, 111 North Western Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel VARIANCE N0. 2133 oE land consisting of approximately one acre, having a frontage of approximately 126 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 343 teet, and being located approximately 522 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY LINES AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, TO ESTABLISH AN 18-UNIT, ONE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses escablished in close proximity, noting that a single-family tract was established to the east, an existing R-2 zoned apartment complex to the south, vacant agricultural land with a resolution of intent to R-3 to the west; that the petiCioner was proposing an 18-unit, single-story apartment complex since the entire property was within 150 feet of the R-1 to the east, with a density of approximately 22.6 dwelling units per net acre and a coverage of 54.3%; that a private drive 20 feet wide extending to the rear of the property along the eastern portion was proposed, with an indication from the petitioner that said private drive along the southeriy portion would join the proposed private drive on the property to the west wherein a similar private drive was proposed on that approved apart- ment complex, thereby providing vehicular circulation for tenants, fire and trash vehicles for both complexes; that the requested waiver for separation of buildings from property lines was applicable to the western portion of the property wherein a 10-foot space bet.,Yeen the main structures and Che west property line was proposed to be utilized for private patio areas; that the Anaheim General Plan-1969 indicated this area as being appropriate for low-medium density residential uses - however, since properties directly west of subject.'property had been approved for medium density residential uses and also due to the Fact that subject property was within the 150-foot, one-story restrictive area, the proposal as submitted was essentially just slightly hiRher than densities permitted by the low-medium densiCy residential standard which was 18 units per net acre; and that iC would appear the proposed request was an appropriate one Eor the area. ~~ M?'" ~ k~+ s~e .c r ; r ' ~;~ ,. "~; ,'~~t r ~ ?~, ~~ r `' ` ' ~ r s, ti i {.~ ~r . ~~ x ~ 4 ~ - Y'.• i~N~: R 'j Y ~ ~ f ~ ~1 Jl a ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ .. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 4932 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Brown also nored that as a result of the proposed mutual extension N0 69 70 2 ?, t . - - 1 and use of private drives between subject property and the property ~ ~ ~ immediately to the west, a mutual easement agreemenc for these drives VARIANC~.NO. 2133 would have to be fiTed and a ro d b ' ..~.::1 µ`y i pp ve y the City Attorney s Office and (Conti;uied) then recorded and that said r„ ~~ t , accessway across the co~mnon property line would have to remain unobstructed so that it co ld b l ~~F ~ 4~ ~ i x u e uti ized by fire and trash vehicles; and that if the Commis~Q<,on did noc a pprove exten- `T } ,~ ' sion oE this proposed drive to the west, then a 54-foot turn-around area at the terminus of i J ` *~aa the proposed private drive would be required for fire and trash vehicles ~ r . I ' ~ Mr. David Maddox, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that ~ ~ ~. r.. . r~ ~~ Che petitioner concurred with the staff's recoimnendations; that the 10-fout distance b '~ ~° etween the wes: property line and the proposed structures for patios would have the ~ ; i L car ort walls Eacin the pp P P g property Line - therefore, the requesred waiver seemed a ro ri- i '~ ~} ;~ k ate; that he was somewhat surprised to note that the plans presented did not meet the ;' ~ ~, minimum standard for distance between buildin s• that the 8~ petitioner had approached him ! , ~~ ~ at the time the C:ty had approved R-3 zonin for the g propertq to L•he west to combine his i f ,^ ~+ property with [he property Co the west, but it was too late to incorporate this prcperty with h ~ ~? t e plans of the property to the west; that since apartment development on sub~ect ,; property would have to be one story because of the height limitation the architecture ~ .~° ~ , would be cumpatible with the properties to both the east and west; and that he was avail- +i able to answer any Questions the Cemm;cc;~., m;s-,f ws.,e ~ ~ Mr. Julian Sollberger, 1207 Courtright Street, appeared before the Commission and noted i ~X ~F they were not in opposition - however, he was representing three other property owners I r who would be affected by the proposed multiple-family development and requested that a ~ 6-foot masonry wall be required to separate the propo~ed access drive from their property. ~`~' ~ . `'~ ~ Chairman Rowland advised Mr. Sollberger that one of the conditions of approval would be ~ ~ ,~1 ~ a 6-foot masonry wall, said wall being measured from the highest grade level since Code ` ' ~` , `~~ required tais. I rJ ~~~~ Mr. Sollberger then inquired whether or not a driveway and carports were ro p p~^.e:; adjacent .~~ ,,~`;~ tu the east property line; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noi;ed L:.at a private ~'~~ drive was proposed along the easterly property line - however, the majority of the carports ~`;-~ would be along the south property line, with four carports being located on the westerly ~~'~ '~ri boundary of the access drive and that there would be no open or closed parking facilities i~` '%~ along the east property line~ r~~K 4 ~ ~; W4 t ,~, ,;; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ; The Commission expressed interest in the further detailed report regarding the turn-around ` •~~, area as indicated in Finding No. 9 of the Report to the Commission. ~ . ~. ~~ Mr. Roberts advised the agent for the petitioner that in the event subject property was • developed in accordance with the plans submitted, it would be dependent upon developmenc `"` of the ro ert to the west and if sub ect ; P p Y , j property were developed prior to development ~~ of the property to the west, then the turn-around area would be required - however, if p ~ both were developed concurrently, then the access road would be sufficient for circulation. Y i f ~ Mr. Maddox expressed concern that they would be required to construct a 6-foot masonry ~+ a wali which would be greater than the height of a wall normally required for separation of ;,.,~_~ R-1 and R-3, namely, 6 feet. a` 4 • : ~~ Chairman Rowland noted that this had been a requirement of the City of Anaheim for a '' ~~ ~, num~er of years and was part of the Code. Furthermore, if the access propused to the a ~'I properCy to the west was incurporated and developed, the width should be the full width ~~ ~ of a driveway rather than as proposed; that if parking were proposed to be located on fi ~:, either side of either access drive connecting to the proper~y to the west, then said ~ " access drive should be 25 feet - however if no ~ , parking were proposed on either side, ~k~ ° then a 20-foot wide access drive would be sufficient. ~`~~ ~ 4+ `~ Mr. Maddox stated the reason for proposing the 20-fool- drive was to discourage residents "'"" of the apartment development proposed to the west fLOm using rhe access through subject ~ ~~ ~ property, and the 20-foot access drive would be sufficient to provide emergency exit and ' ~$,_.~ access to the southerly property. 4 1 ,,~ ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-244 and moved for its passage and adoption ; ;~, to recomnend to the City Council that Pe[ition for Reclassification No, 69-i0-21 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) - x.,~~, ~ ~ c.~ _ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 ~~~ 4932 RECL4SSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bq the foilowing vote: N0. 69-70-21 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowiar_d, VARIANCE N0. 2133 NOES: CONatISSIONERS: None. (Continuedj ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Allred. Co~aissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-245 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2133, amending Conditiqn No, 3 to add, "provided, however; that.if open parking is proposed adjacent to the connecting dri~e to the property ~o the west, that said connecting drive shall be 25 fee~ wide, and further provided that if no parking is propos~.,: adjaceni to the connecting drive, then a 20-foot wide drive ma be constr~cted". y On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bp the following vote: AYES: CODIItISSI0IVERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Row2and. PdGFS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COhQiISSIONERS: Allred. RECL4SSTFICr1TI0N - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER, RCA I3uilding, Suite 700, 6363 Sunset N0, 69-70-27 Boulevard, Hollywo~d, California, Owner; Je1MES ELKINS, LcXINGTON DEVELOPMENT CORP., 600 West La Veta, Orange, California, Agent; property VARIANC~ N0. 2I4I descrited as: An irregulariy shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 295 feet on the east side of Muller Street, having a mar_imum depth of approximately 468 feet, and being located approximately 6I0 feet north of the centerlin~ of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LiGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQ'JE;STED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM DI~TANCE BETWEEN BUTLDINGS, TO EST?.BLISH AN 86-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLFx. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses esta"tlished iri close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify subject propercy from the M-I Zone to the R-3 Zone in order to estahlish an 86-unit, two-story apartment complex with waiver of the required minimum distance between parallel walls, noting that a majority ' of these instances invoived separation between the main apartment structures and,carpores,, with' the intervening space pzoposed to be utilized for patio areas; and that this`particular typ~ oi variauce had been approved many times in the past. Mr. Brown also noted chat the petitioner was proposing adequate parkir.g spaces which ' slightiy exceeded present Code requirements and was proposing tu utilize the 20-foot wide, ~ pubiic alley adjacent to their north property Line - said alley was constructed and dedi- j cated at the time tt~e apartment development to the north was constructed; that this public ~ alley woula provide access to carports and open parking spaces located in the northerly a portion of said property; that ~he General Plan-1969 indicaCed land uses along the eastern side of Muller Street exlending northerly from Lincoln Aveuue as being appropriate tor ~ highway-zelated commercial, industrial - which included subject property - multipLe-family residential, and thence light industrial extending northward to Crescent Drive; and that wnile l•he proposed rezoning and establishment of an apartment complex on subject property wouid appear to be an ap~ropriate requcst in light of the rather large apartment compiex located to the north and approved on what was formerly industrial land in 1964, the Co~nission might wish to give serious consideration to further encroachment of residential ~ uses into prime indusLrial land. Mr. James Elkins, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted L•hae ( ° this industriai property was now selling in the vicinity of $60,000 an acre, ar,d this ! rc ~~ might be the reason why subject property and adjoining properties were difficult to develop; ~ ~`' that a coc~¢nercial development existed immediately to the south and an apartment developmenL ~' to the north - therefore, projection of industrial structures adjacent to apartments did not• seem logical; and that they were in agreement with the recommended conditions of approval except for Condition No. 6, wherein the requirement of underground utilities seemed to be superfluous because two-story structures were proposed, and utility poles at approx.imately 70 feet would not be too visible - these poles were already in exiscence across [he street from Che alley of subject property, and wires would be strung across the gar;.oes to subject pxoperty, Furthermore, the architect had added some refinements to the pZans and inquired whether or not the plans before the Commission indicated mission tile roof or shake roof. Upon being advised that the mission [ile plans were on file, the agent for the petitianer sCated that the patio areas between the carports and the ~ buildings had been eliminated; that after sCudying the plan it was determined that the C' hedrooms would be facing these paCios and it would not be too desirable when adjoining ' residents held parties on their patios; and that it ~ras p:anr.ed to have a large greeri belt - since this was proposed to be an adult development, CnterL•ai.nment or, patios would be more disturbing Co the residents on the second floor. +~ .. ~ :~~s. ! gz. .~ 1 ~ h ~ : ~' ~ ^~i fr~ T r ~'s'~+F".'~<T "~~ . zf~ T )J 4.~ ',A L '~ .,Z k u:~ 4 4 l : p i ~.~~ ' '^ ~~• ~' .. _ . /" i i , . i e, t71~2 .d~ ..d ., ::~7's ~~ra:, f .n~tk ,T n.~` ~% a" ~~~^a< . .'1 "w'-`~',.. ~I . .n. • f. ~.u . ' ; 1 2~~~,2 "~, r a ._ . . . , ~~ ~ . . . . . . ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ "t~ . . . J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 4933 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Elk3ns further noted that a large recreation Facility was proposed - r`r s N0. 69-70-27 ' therefore, they were desirous of having the residents of this complex ~3 limit their noisy activities to the recreation area rather than co the ~ VARIANCE N0. 2141 apartment area; that said recreation area would have facilities for a c" (Continued) - barbecue and no barbecuin would be ~ g permitted in the individaal units. `"; ,,,~ Mr: Elkins then submitted colored pictures of a development in Orange which was similar " ~' ~ to that proposed on subject property and expressed the opinion that this would give the '-~' Cort~ission some idea of what was proposed, and that they had just completed two develop- ;~ ments'of 94,and 98.units each in Orange in which the mission tile roof was used and made rs~ a very distincEive xnd attractive building of which they were very proud - furthermore, the had received a b f y num er o compliments on their developments. ~ ~ ' 7r u one appeared in opposition L:, subject petitions. ~, .~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by ihe Commission relative to the proposal of further encroachment of residential uses into the industrial area, and the Commission also noted that the pattern had been established in this area when the City Council approved the multiple- family development to the north - therefore, the petitioner could not be denied a sim3lar use for subject property. Mr. Brown, in response to the statement relative Co underground utilities, advised the Commission that this was a requirement of the Subdivision Code - however, in the past ' the Director of Public Utilities had granted waivers of this requirement. ~' ~~v;; Chairman Rowland advised the petitioner that although the Director of Public Utilities i ,~ had granted waivers in the past, after considerable discussion with the Council the , Director was now rarely granting this waiver - thus he should be forewarned in the event the waiver was not granted. ! 5 Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-246 and moved for its passage and adoption ~ to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-27 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On ro1T ca11 thE foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Aerbst, Thom, Rowland. ~ : NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-247 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2141 on the basis that the waiver was granted due to the fact that it was applicable only to pedestrian accessway areas separating apartmenC uni.ts and carports; that similar waivers had been granted on numerous occasions; and suoject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vo~e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMTSSIONERS: Allred. ' RECLASSTFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMPIISSION, 204 East N0. 69-70-26 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.7 acres, having a frontage of approximately 198 feet on the west ! side of Braokhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 410 feet, and being ~ located approximately 122 feet north of the centerline oE Stonybrook Drive be reclassi- fied from the COUNTY C1, LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. i Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown revieNed the location of subject property and uses ~ I established in close proximity, noting that subject property was presently undergoing ~ annexa[ion proceedings to the Sity of Anaheim; that vehicular access to subject property ~ was provided by Brookhurst Street, and the total ultimate right-of-way of 120 feer had been made, together with improvements; and that subject winery had been established for a number of years at this location. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TIiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i r~'r r¢.. ~ ,~ z . y .~ i ~, ti ~r ,y~F . 3` . { . 7 !i ? i r _ .r 4.t -i~: s uL~.~ :.`P +~~ ,l ° ~' ~ ..r) r{ ~ ~n ~ ~~~ ~> Q ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December l, 1969 4934 ~.. .,.:. ---~ ~i 1 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-248 and moved for its N0. 69-70-26 passage and adoption to recoimnend to the City Council that Petition (Continued) for Reclassification No. 69-70-26 be approved, subject to completion of annexation proceedings to the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO1~IIfISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0, 1 RECOI~4IENDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 1791 - Kurt Singer - Request for an extension of time for the use of a single-family residential structure located at 3164 West Tyler Avenue as a professional writer's office. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the Commission in May, 1966, had granted use of a single-family structure located at 3164 West Tyler Avenue, zoned R-1, as a professional writer's office for a period of two years; that a one-year, extension of time had been granted, and inasmuch as the Zoning Division of the Development Services Department had received no complaints regarding this use, it was recoiwnended that ~: two-year extension of time be granted retroactive to May 6, 1969, and to expire May 6, 1971. Cormuissioner Farano offered a motion to grant a two-year extension of time for use of th~ property under Variance No. 1791 granted by the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 2024, Series 1965-66, on May 6, 1966, as a professional writer's office, said two- year time extension to expire May 6, 1971. Commissianer Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE PERMIT N0. 6274 - Request for amendment to reduce the front setback area long Brookhurst StreeE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented the amendment to Orange County Use Variance Permit No. 6274 to the Commission, noting the location of the property, previous consideration on July 14, 1969 by the Anaheim Planning Coimnission, and action taken by the Orange County Planning Commission on July 23, 1969. Mr. Brown, in reviewing the County's action, noted that the aforementioned petition approval per.mitted parking on R-1 property for the enlarged chiropractor's professional office located on BrookhursC Street, said parking having vehicular access Co Ranchito Street, a residential street; chat the existing professional office structure was located within four feet of the present right-of-way and that the building encroached three feet into the ultimate right-of-way - 60-foot half-width for Brookhurst Street - as depicted on the Circulation Element, Highway Rights-of-Way of the Anaheim General Plan. Mr. Brown then reviewed tlie present request for amendment to permit construction of an 8-foot masonry wall and eave overhang within two feet of the existing right-of-way which would create an encroachment of five feet into the ult~mate right-of-way. Discussion was then held by the Commission, at which time it was noted that approval of the proposed amendment in the front setback would create a self-imposed hardship by constructing an 8-foot wall in the ultimate right-of-way which would have to be removed at such time as widening of Brookhurst took place, and that the front landscaping area required in the commercial zone of the City of Anaheim would be eliminated. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to deny the requested amendment to Orange County Use Variance Permit No. 6274 to permit construction of an 8-foot masonry wall and roof overhang in the existing setback, thereby reducing the setback to only two feet on the basis that: .~;„ :;~ ~ i r I i c ~ 1. The existing structure at its present location already encroaches three feet into the ultimate 60-fou[ half-width right-of-way required for a major arterial, which Srookhurst Etreet is projected to be on the Circulation Element, Highway Rights- of-Way of the Anaheim General Plan. ~ ~~~'~, ~ inrt wrf~ ~'vi'Z '~? TSy.-r' 3r, y~~ 1 `~~ ~''~'_t~Y t'G "~Y+~4, Nc'~ } i ^Te4~' ~,~7 F~ ,w , ~ e ~+E. 5 '` +, ~{ ',~'C~r3 r ~ ~ ~. ~ r, }. h ~c4~ / ~ ~ J f ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 1, 1969 4935 ,:}~ REPORTS AND ir~~ RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0, 2 (Continued) ,~ (.,,,~ 2. The approval of further encroachmeat into the ultimate right-of-way would create `""'~'' a self-imposed hardship since the petitioner would have to have the 8-foot wall ~ and eave overhang removed at such time as said street were widened. 3. The existing landscaping would be completely removed, and the appearance of a ~ professional office would deteriorate, which would be contrary to site development standards in the C-0 or C-1 Zones of the City of Anaheim. ~ F . Cammissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ,,. ,' ~ ... ~ , .~ ITEM N0. 3 .+~ ~" T> Sale of mobile homes in conjunction with t4e establishment of a mobile home park. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that complaints had been received relative to mobile home sales being conducted on newly established mobile home parks and requested an opinion of the Commission relative to said sales. Discussion was held by the Co~mnission relative to the clarification requested by Mr. Roberts, it being their opinion that further study should be made both as to its legality and as to whether or not this would be a requirement through a variance or handled by the City Council since inadequate data had been submitted by which the Commission could make a positive decision. Mr. Roberts advised the Coimnission that a study would be made and presented to them under Reports and Recoc~m~endations at the December 15 meeting. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Co~nissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 3;50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, (_/l/f~~ 77~~ l ANN KltEBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ,~~:_ ;? ; .~ , `?~ ~i ~i. . ~.~~~:i,V f ~ I ~''9 ~,,