Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/11/13 i :; .,; ' ~.~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California November 13, 1963 A REGULAR Iu~ETING OF THE ANAI-IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Flanning Commission was called to i order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being_present. ' i PRESENT - CHAIRMANs Mungall - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. ABSENf - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENf - Zoning Coordinatora Martin Kreidt City Attorney:_ _. Joseph Geisler.__._.. __ -- -_ _ _-=--- Office Engineer Art Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ; INVOCATION - Reverend Calvin Cooper, Pastor of the West Anaheim Methodist Church~ gave the Invocation. PI.EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Chavos lad the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 1963, were approved as submitted. TF~. MINUPES Minutes of the meeting of October 28, 1963, were approved with the following cor.rections: ' / Page 1818 - Reclassification No. 63-64-17, parac:•~phs 4 and 5~~ should be deleted. Page 1824 - Last paragraph, line 2, should read as follows: "and not ~ a standard R-3, and Further that they were opposed to approving substandard lots". / Page 1831 - Paragraph 13, Commissioner Rowland abstained. Page 1836 - Line 7 shauld read "of residences on Magnolia Avenue / north of Ball Road for commercial purposes with the stipulation that two home.s had --". VARIANCE - CONTINUED PUBLIC EiHARING. MR. AND MRS. C. SISSON, 119 South Ohio Street, N0. 1b01 Anaheim, California, Owners; MR. R. S. HEALD, 1142 West Broadway, Apt. 1, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to (1) WAIVE REQUIRED 1~ SPACE PER DWELLING UNI'T IN A GARAGB, (2) WAIVE SIDE YARD REQUIREN~M', (3) WAIVE REQUIRED GARAGE WIDTH, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 4 CARPORTS, on property described as= A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of~40 feet ~ the west side of•Ohio Street and a depth of 158-feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 250 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 119 South Ohio Street. Property presently classified as P-1, AUTOMOBILE PARKING, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of September 4 and 30, 1963, to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans. No one was present to represent the petitioner. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Comrt:ission that the petitioner had'resolved all problems relative to (1) waiver of the 1-~ space per dwelling unit in a garage, (2) waiver of side yard r~quirements, and (3) waiver of the required garage width, and that the only consideration by the Commission under subject variance was the waiver of garages to construct carports. No one ~ppeared in opposition to sub,ject petition. THE I~ARING WAS CLOSED. - 1839 - ---- ---~- -.__._..------- _ __._...------~--._~._.,__..~_.~.____. _ rr~. - -~------~ .._.... ~ . ~: ~ i ~~ r i . ~ . ~ • ~ ..~ 4 ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ \.! ~ 1 ! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1840 ; VARIANCE - The CommisSion reviewed the plans, noting that the proposed setback was N0..1601 five feet, and the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY, ZONE, requ3rement was six feet. 1Continued) Zoning C.oordinator Martin Kre1~t advised the Commission that the R-3 section of the Code, page 493, Section 180320050 and Council Policy No. 516, permitted the setback as proposed on the plano Commissioner Perry off.ered Resolution Noe 956, Series 1963-64, and moved for..its passage and~adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 1601, subject to conditions.. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Pebley, Sides. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LOCKNTL, INC., 7051 Monroe Avenue, Buena Park, N0. 63-64-4~__ California, Owners; WOODY JOHNSON, 224 West Fifth Street, Santa Ana, --- - -- ialiiornia,-ngen'.; requesting inai properiy described as: A recianguiar parcel of land having a frontage of 330 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a depth of 252 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 365.feet west of the centerline of Westchester Drive, be reciassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE to construct a shopping center. SGbject petition was co.~tinued from the meeting of October 14, 1963, to allow the petitioner time to consult with the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department to resolve an ingress and egress problem from Bella Vista Street to Lincoln Avenueo Mr. Max Provisor, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented revised plans incorporating a change in the driveway and a trash storage area, Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that plans had not beer submitted to the department as of this date. Mr. Woody Johnson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and submitted a revised plan, noting that after he had met with the Planning Department Staff, the plans were revised to incorporate a reverse parking lot and trash storage areas. Mr. Kreidt stated that although the Commission had suggested that the revised plans incorpo- rate the extension of Bella Vista Street to Lincoln Avenue, this was not done on the revised plans as the petitioner did not wish to dedicate any land for a streeto The Commission reviewed the revised plans and informed the agent that after viewing subject property, it was their desire to require that Bella Vista Street be extended to provide adeguate circulation as an obligation of the City; that the :~vised plans had not been submitted for the Planning Department's recommendations, and inquired whether it was the petitioner`s desire not to continue Bella Yista Street-.to Lincoln, in order to provide . proper access to the dwellings southerly of subject property. The agent stated that revised plans were based on the recommendations of the Interdepart- mental Committee and Engineering Department, which stated that extension of Bella Vista Street was not essential, since Lincoln Avenue did not have an island opening at Bella Vista, that the request for extension of Bella Vista was a City Planning problem, but because of the siz.e of the property and the cost of its purchase, it would be prohibitive, because about 25~ of the land would be utilized for the street extensione The Commission noted that at the previous hearing a very definite point was made to require extension of Bella Vista on the revised plans for adequate circulation. The agent stated that it was his understanding that the only reason the petition was considered for continuation was to receive the Engineering Department's report relative to extension cf said street. A'Fter the report from the Engineering Department was read in full to the Commission, the Cem:nission noted that the report was predicated on the assumption that Del Monte Drive would be extended to Knott Avenue, that there was no asaurar~ce that this exte~sion would take piace, and ihat no current development was pending •i.o extend Del Monte Drive to Knott Avenue, , although the two westerly parcels of land had been approved for multiple family development with Del Monte Drive to extend to Knott Avenue. ' i ; i !) ,. _ ----~-...-----.-..--..~--..__...~_----- ._._,___..,---.._ .----------•°--_ : . ---~ . ~ ~.-._.____. " ~ , ~ j J ~ ^ ~ ~ ,, .. ~ ~ ( ,~ ~ -~ ~ t' _) ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1841 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Kreidt asked whether the Commission wished to consider continuance of NO.. 63-64-46 subject petition for two weeks for a report regarding the revised planse (Continued) . The agent for the petitioner stated he did not wish to.prolong the petition, and wanted a decision predicated on the fact that Bella Vista Street would not be extended to Lincoln Avenuea The Commission advised the agent that revised,plans should be submitted.prinr. to the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting in order for the various City departments to make recomraendations, and this the agent had not done. Mr. Preston Burrows, representing the Lincoln Arms apartments, appeared before the Commision ar~d stated that Bella Vista Street had been dedicated to the use of childxen,..there was no traffic on it, even though 110 apartments were in close proximity to it, that .to.require an extension of Bella Vista Street to Lincoln Avenue would deprive the children of the only play area they had, and might create a traffic hazard, and that the only logical street extension.wou1d be Del Monte Drive westerly to Knott Avenue. • No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona THE FiHARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 957, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, i:o recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification G3-64-46 be denied, based on the fact that the proposed plan was a poor development in that it did not provide proper access by the extension of Bella Vista Street to Lincoln Avenue, that there was no assurance that Del Monte Drive would be extended westerly to Knott Avenue, and that in the interest of the welfare of the people of the City of Anaheim, proper access should be providedo (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Pebley, Sides, RECLASSIFICATIOPJ - COMINUED PUBLIC I-IEARINGo ANAHEIM BULI.HTIN-FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS~ INC., N0. 63-64-49 and 232 South Lemon Street, JOE P, LEMON, MARTIN E. GEISSLHR, 429 South ; Euclid Street, ARCHIE M. HENRY, SR, 8 MARION C. HENRY, 885 South Lemon ; VARIANCE N0. 1607 Street, Anaheim, California, ~.,;ars; HOWARD LOUDON, Anaheim Bulletin, ~ 232 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described ~ as: A rectangular parcel of land at the southeast corner of Chestn~at ; and Lemon Streets with frontages of 140 feet on Chestnut Street and 226 :eet on Lemon Street, and further described as 208, 218, 224, and 232 South Lemon Street, Property presently ~ classified as C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, , REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-3, f~AVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE~ ' RHQUESTSD VARIANCE: (1) WAIVE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. ; • - ' (2) WAIVE SIZE~OF SPACESe - ' ' ' i Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of October 28, 1963, to allow time for ~ the petitioners to submit a plot plan and resolve the required parking for the proposed I zone with the Planning Departmento ' Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that revised plans had not been received. Mr. Howard Loudon, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and submitted ! a plot plan of the proposed two-story str~icture and stated that a study had been made by engineers for possible subterranean parking, that because of the composition of the ground below said structure, the cost of subterranean parking would be in the vicinity of $48,000, which was prohibitive, and that no other arrangements had been made relative to parking ~ requirements. The Cornmission inquired whetl~er the petitioner had tried to enter into a parking agreement to buy certain City parkir,g areas, to which the agent for the petitioner stated there had been a similar agreament relative to parking, but plans did not materialize, and that they had also inquired as to the present parking area of i:ha :ecently closed grac2ry ~tara across the street, and were informed that the structure was being re-leased by a holding company, and, therefore, the parking area would not be availabl&. ~ti -.. - -. .. ~_.._ _ _ . _ . _ _. .. _.... _ . ~---- ------r-~ - ----- . ._. ---~ ~ ~.. . ... ...._ \ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ) ~ l , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued ig42 RECLASSIFICATION - In response to further Commissio~: questioning, the agent stated that N0. 63-64-49 and they were unable to purchase property in the immediate vicinity for parking lots because qf the exorbitant costso VARIiklVCE N0. 1607 {Ccr,t~nusd) Mse Kreidl: advised Lhe Commission that at one time special parking. agreements were made with the City for downtown mexchants,.and it was • determined that such space could be leased for $1,0O~..pex.parking space, and that the minimum parking requirements as projected in the previous.report to the Commission would cost the petitioner in the vicinity of $100,000 to provide for adequate parking spacea Coumissioner Chavos expressed the opinion that as leaders of the community, the agent for the petitioner and his family had the respect of many people and influenced many people through the newspaper, that subject property was located in the heart of the downtown area~ that he had hoped that perhaps with Mr, Loudon's ability and his many contac.ts, he would be able to resolve any parking problem, and would begin the rebirth of the downtown area of Ar~aheim; that as an example, the Commission had visited the City of Pomona's downtown shopping mall, and the beginning of it was through the efforts of one person who persuaded all.other property owners and merchants to cooperate in development of Pomona's shopping mau. ;ha Commission noLed for the ageni tinat aii structures being proposed in the Commercial Office Zone would require sufficient parking area, that by granting subjec. petitions.with insufficient parking space, would be setting a precedent fon.the.r.~novation of the downtown area, that the new bank being prraosed at the corner of Harbor and Broadway was.required to supply adequate parking, since the parking problem in the downtown area was critical. It was further noted by the Commis~ion that a parking district had been proposed for..the downtown area, but failed to pass because 21% of th? people opposed the plano Commissioner Pebley entered the Council Chamber at 2:35 pomo The Commission further expressed concern that it was their desire to improve the downtown area of Anaheim, but lacked the necessary "tools" to do ~nything that was required for resolving the parking problem downtown, and that all the Commission could do was rer+der a decision on evidence presented to the Commission in com~arison with the Code requirements. The Commission also expressed the thought that any decision relative to parking, other than Code requirements, in the downtown area would have to remain a Council policy, even though they would approve the proposed development, and that possibly the Council could then present a solution to the parking problems relative to permitting parking by down- town merchants and offices in the City parking loto Mr. L, B. Roquet appeared in opposition to subject petition, and stated that the realty company he represented seemed to be the closest to subject property and would be primarily concerned with parking problems, that his firm provided adequate parking for its patrons, that subject petitions had been continued for two weeks to provide the petitioner an opportunity to resolve the parking problem bv contacting the various business men in the area, and to his knowledge this had never been done; that the Bulletin and its representa- tives were the only ones that could resolve their parking problem~ that t4e Commission should not require the Cit~ Council to make•a decis=on on the adequacy of the parking area, and that the Commission should require that the petitioner submit adequate plans which projected adequate parking requirements, since this was an important factor to all businesses and property owners in close proximity to subject propertyo Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the parking district, the parking requirements of subject petitions, and possible solutions, noting that by not resolving the proposed development would only compound a problem by permitting all future requests in the downtown area to be resolved by the City Council, and that the Commission's only position in considering subject petitions was that the plan did not meet Code requirements for parkingi and the Commission would then automatically be obligated to deny any petition which did not meet Code requirements. Mr. Sully Roquet appeared before the Commission and asked that the letter of opposition be read to the Commission. A letter of opposition from Mro Mo Re Thompson was then read to the Commissione The Commission further discussed possibilities of continuing sub,ject petitions to provide the petitioner adequate opportunity to resolve any parking problem, that the resolving of the parking problem should be a challenge to any property owner in the downtown area, and then asked whether or not it was the prerogative of the Commission to continue subject petitions for ?ight weeks~ I `I ~ _._..._....----r--. .----..__ __._...__ _._.._--------------- --- .___ __._ .., , ,~' r„ , ,Q~: ,: . .. , _ .. _ , --.'' . C .,3 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1843 RE(:LASSIFICATION - Deputy City Attorney, Furman Roberts, stated that the Commission couid i N0..63-64-49 and continue subject petitions for an indefinite period of time,.but ~ ~ reconunended that it be within a reasonable period, with.the petitioner's '• VA&IANCE NOo 1607 consenta ~ (Continued~) . .. ~ .. ' ~ Commissioner Chavos offered ? motion to continue the.subject petitions ! .-~ for two weeks, in order that the petitioners might.meet...with.the merchants ~ in..the'area to resolve the problem of development of the downtown area, and to provide for ~ adequate parking facilitiese This motion was later withdrawne .. .._ Further comment by the Commission,in which they stated that the Commission should go on ~ record as stating that the plans as submitted were inadequate at the first hearing, that ; adequate plans were submitted at the second hearing in the form of plot plans and elevations, ~~ aLthough the Commissinn had a policy not to consider plans that were submitted to the ; Commission i~or review on the date of the meeting, since these plans would be required to be reviewed by various departments in the City for adequacy in the consideration of the public I wel~are and health o£ the citizens of the City of Anaheimo i THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, ~~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 958, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage. ; aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that the ' Pe.tition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-49 be denied, based on the fact that the parking ' pr.oposed on the petition v~as inadequate, and did not meet Anaheim Municipal Code require- ' ments, that the petitioner did make a study and survey regarding subterranean parking, which in his estimation was exorbitant, and that the Commission did not oppose the proposed development, which they considered a great improvement, but that adequate parking should have~been provided for employees, as well as clients of the proposed newspaper facilitieso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMiSSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley„ Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.: Allred, Sidesa , Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 959, Series 1963-b4, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Variance Noe 1607, based on the fact :hat the minimum x~quirement of parkin4 would be 112 spaces, whereas the petitioner proposed only 17 spaces, and that no variance shall be approved wtiich would have the effect of granting a special privilege not s-:~red by other property in tihe same zone and vicinitye (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by thp following votea AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Sideso CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARYNGo FIRST METHODIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM - A Corporation, PERMIT N0. 501 305 East Broadway, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to CONSTRI~T A SECOND STORY ASSEIuIBLY ,1ReA AS AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ~ FELLOWSHIP HALL on property describsd .s: A rectangular parcel of land at the northeast corner of Broadway and Philadelphia Street, :~ith frontages of 190 feet on Broadway and 135 feet on Philadelphia Street, and further described as 305 East Broadwayo Property presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLF rAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo ' Mr. Arthur Osborn, 306 East South Street, Treasurer of the church proposing the addition, ~ appeared before the Commission and stated that additional space was needed for Sunday School ' purposes, that when the existing structure was designed, it was anticipated that at a later date a second story would be needed, and that he would be available to answer questions the Commission might havee In response to Commission questioning, Mro Osborn stated that the property to the east of subject property was being considered for future expansion, but that the pr.oper owner was ' not desirous of handling any litigations during his lifetime, and would leave the formality of selling said property to his hoirs, and that the proposed addition would be to the structure to the east of the existing churcho , No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona 1 : .~ . _ ,_._ ~ _ ._ _._~_.. -----..------_._._.._.._._..,----- --~------_-~,. --- _ ~ , ~-_... _._ ----- -- v ~ ~-.> ~ 'ti ~ , , ; , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1844 CONDITIONAL USE - THE FIEARING WAS CLOSED, PERI~tIT N0. 501 SCnntinued) In response to Commission consideration of adequate parking facilities, Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated that the existing.churnh _ ;acilitias and the p:oposed addit:en mst all r~quir~m=nts for parking of the Anaheim Municipal Codee •• Commissioner Gamp offered Resolution Noo 960, Series 1963-64, and moved.for. its..passage and:adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 501, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Booka). ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perryo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Sideso ABSTAINx COMMISSIONERS: Rowlande , TEN1'ATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: HERITAGE CONSTRl1CTI0N CONIPANY, 4100 West Commonwealth, , TRACT N0. 5389 Fullerton, Ca'liforniao ENGINtER: ~tid'lviivu5~riniucni~d+ir'-3-i0v^B~ 1833 East 17th Street, Suite 200, Santa Ana, Californiao Subject tract located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Orangethorpe Avenue and Dowling Street, and covering approximately 30 acres, is proposed ; for subdivision into 357 R-3, MULTIPLE FAN!ILY, RESIDENTIAL, ZONE lotso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the history of the reclassification of subject i property as it pertained to the tentative tract, and further presented for the Commission's consideration the development plans which had been approved by the City Council at the ~ time the reclassification was approved, and that the conditional use permit filed in i con-junction with the reclassification asked the waiver of deviations from Code of certain aspectse The Commission reviewed the plans as they pertained to the tentative tract noting that the subdivision of the property created substandard lots, that said development did not meet R-3, condominium or planned unit development standards, and inquired whether the engineer could explain why a difference of three to five feet existed between the outside and inside dimensionso Mr. Robert Hukee, engineer representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed tract was proposing the subdivision of real property not air space, that it was not properly considered a condominium 'vut a cluster type development, that a moat existed on the outside of the structures to insure privacy, th;+t the wall of each structure was a common wall, and that the space difference only existed because of the moat separating the actual structures from the balance of the common area~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that .. CCBR's had been filed and were being reviewed by the City Attorney's office, and that although the proposed subdivision of subject property did not conform with R-3, condominium or planned unit development standards, these deviations'were provided for, and that in the City Attorney's opinion, said subdivision wouid have sufficient safeguards to insure the City and the proposed tenants of any legal aspects upon the sa'le of each unito Commissioner Rowland expressed concern in approving substandar.d lots, since in his opinion he did not wish to approve a tract map with substandard lotso Commissioner Chavos expressed the opinion that the Commission would approve a tract map with substandard lots for subject property, but would require standard lots for other petitioners requesting approval of multiple family developments, and wondered whether the proposed tract was by-passing zone requirements as well as State Subdivision Act provisions. The engineer exp2ained that the area called a moat around the structures actually did have land, although it was not visible at the surface, that it couldn't be called a lot, although it was the division of real property rather than air spaceo Commissioner Pebiey offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5389, subject to conditions as follows: (1) That shoul~l this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo i __._ _.....----- -- ..__~__., _ _ _ _.. ,,.,- -_._.._ ~ . ~ _. ~_) cJ~ ~ i.~) • i i • ': , ~`} (_) ~~ ~..) • `i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1845 ! i i TENTATIVE MAP OF - ) TStACT N0 5389 ,~Continued) _ ~ (2) That the approval o; Tentativa h7ap of Tract Noo 53^09 is granted subject t~ the anproval of Reclas;if.ication Noo 62-63-112 and ~:onditioraal Use Permit.No.o 422.e (3) That slope easements shall be provided along Dowling Street and Placentia-Yorba Road as needed for the ultimate grade crossingso (4) That alleys shall be reduced to 20 feet of dedication and standard corner cut-offs shall be provided as per standard plar, #1300 (5) That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted.to..and zpproved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council.appro~al nf.the . Final Tract Map, and further, that the approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Trac.t ldapo._. . (6) That lots•shall be property dimensioned to show true position of the property cn the Final Tract Mapo _ _.....--------- (7) That the drainage facilities shall be ~onstructed to the satisfaction of the , (.ity Engineere (8) That dedication of vehicular access rights to Dowling Street, Placentia-Yorba Road~ and Orangethorpe Avenue, except at street intersections, shall be made to the City of Anaheima (9) That the street right-of~way line on Dowli~g Street, north and south of Orange- thorpe Avenue, shail conform to the revised centerline alignment of Dowling Streeta (10) That a predetermined price for Lot "A" shall be calculated and e~~ agreement for ~ dedication entered into between the Developer and the City of Anat•eim prior to approval of the final tract mapo The cost of Lot "A" shall includ~~ land and a proportionate share of the underground utilities and st:eet improvementso Mr. Ralston, the developer, expressed some concern regarding the realirr,ment of Dowling Street, since it was his opinior. that this had been resolved with the F,ngine~ring Departmenta Mr. Arthur Daw, Office Engineer, advised the developer that the charge would be very slight and would not affect removal of any of the units proposed along Dowling Street, and that he would suggest that the developer contact the Engineering Department to determine the exact amount of land which would be taken to realign the street prior to the Tentative Tract Map being considered before the City Council on November 18, 1963e Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, Commissioners Chavos and Rowland voted "NO" and stated that the tract map did not represent a true condominium or planned unit development and the'lots were substandard to Code require- mentse ~ Commissioner Sides entered the Council Chamber at 3:30 pam~ VARIANCL- - PUALIC HEARING~ MONROE REALTY COMP4NY, 8431 Monroe Avenue, Stanton, NOe 1609 California, Owner; LEW SILVERMAN, 8431 Monroe Avenue, Stanton, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE GP.RAGE F.EQUIREMEIJf IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT CARPORTS on px•operty described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a fr~ntage ~f 671 feet un the north side of Orangewood Avenue, and a depth of 615 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Haster Street, and fua•tner described as 239 Orangewood Avenuee Property presently classified as R-3, PdULTIPLE FAMIL~f RESIDENTIAL, ZONEa No one was pr~sent to represent the pi:tition~ro Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that +.he carports were already under construction, even thovgh garag2s were origi~ally proposed on subject propertyo ~ No one appeared in apposition to subject petition~ ~ ~ ~ j TFIE FIEARiWG WAS CLOSL-D. r ! i t i , _ _._ ._-.~ .__--_ ____ ._ . _... _ - -- - .._ . ..._- -- - ~~ ' ~, - , ~...__ _._ ._ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1846 VARIANCE - Commissioner Perry left the.Council Chamber at 3s43 peme ~ N0. 1609 . ~Continued-) The Commission viewed the plot plan submitted, noting that the proposed ~ development was similar to existing property development to the east, and also the co*ner of H?ster Str~~t and Orange:~ood Av2nuao Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 961, Series 1963-64, and moued fax..its passage aad adoption, seconded by Comnissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1609, suhject to conditions. (See Resolution Booko) . i On roll call the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following..vote: ; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Cfiavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides<. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Perryo j ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlande i CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC E~ARING,. Ro Sa HOYT~ JR., BRYAN INDUSTRIES PROPERTIES, INC., PERMIT NOe 497 146 East Orangethcrpe Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requestin permission to ALLOW LIGHT MANUFACTURING. WAREHOtISiNC;. aNn nTRTRTAIR'T WITHIN 330 FEET OF TFIE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL on property described as: A rectangular parcel of :and at the northeast corner of Loara Street and~. Mable Street, with frontages of 280 feet on the east side of Loara Street and 386 feet on the north side o: Mable Street, and further described as 220-230 South Loara Streete Property presently classi:ied as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE and P-L, PARKING-L/!?:GSCAPING~ ZONEe Mre R. 5a Hoyt, Jre, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that three stages of development were being proposed for subject property, and the plans presented were for the first stage on the northwest corner of said propertyo In response to Commission questioning, Mx•o Hoyt stated that the proposed structure was basically similar to the existing industrial buildings with only a few revisionse No one appe2red in opposition to subject petitiona THE HEARING 1NfiS CLCSGD. Commissioner Camp o:fered Resolution Noe 962, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 497, subject to conditionso (See P.esolution Book,) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland, Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENf: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Perryo CONDITIDNAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGa HOh~ REMAL CORPORATION, P, Oa Box 3430, Fullerton, PERMIT N0. 498 California, Owners; SPEECH 8, LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CENTER, 1120 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SPEECH AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPbiENT CEI~TI'ER on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 62 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue ~nd a depth of 108 feet, the wssterly boundary of said property being approximately 203 feet east of the centarline of Citron Street, and further described as 723 West La Palma Avenueo Property presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo Mr. Gladys Gleason, 9301 South Hillview Road, representing the Speech 8 Language Develop- ment Center, appeared before the Commissinn and reviewed for the Commission the proposed development, noting that their existing center at 1120 West La Palma Avenue in the Medical ; Building proposed a new program of speech therapy, but that the board of directors vetoed ~ any development plans in the existing structure, so that it was necessary to look elsewhere for a development center within the means of the income of the existing centere In respon~e to Commission questioning, Mrso Gleason stated that instruction was given to ~ approximately fifty children on the basis of a half-hour class, twice a week, for each T child, that althou9h six speech therapists operated the existing center, all were on a 1 ' part-time basis, and, therefore, parking requirements would be considerably lesso ~ i i ~ ,\ F ~ ; _... ... .... ~-____._. ~__..._._,_..~.., ._ _ _ _ _ __., , ~.-....`_.~.... ~._,_ _.___ __.....__ , ; , -- .. --~ > .. _ . . _ . _ _ . ~ ~ C_~ ~~ ~ ~_) ~ ~~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1847 `, ~ i COI3DITIONAL USH - The Commission noted that the plans as reviewed by the Planning Department ~ PERh1IT N0. 498 indicated an insufficient amount of space for the parking of cars, and j ~Continued) inquired of the petitioner's representative what type of off-street parking i . was pr4posed~ Mrs~ Gleason stated that it was her understanding that i . parking was available in the rear~ ~', Zonin9 Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the petitioner that there was insufficient space for.maneuvrability of automobiles; even though six spaces were indicated on the plans, only two could be utilized. Mrsa Gleason further stated that it was their plan to sign a lease with an option to buy within three years, and inquired whether parallel parking would be permitted on subject propertye The Commission noted that approximately three parkino spaces were available, as well as pasking of cars in the driveway, and that a nursery school was approved for subject property in the pasto No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono 1Ht~ I1..~7Ck{lIVG YYH$ I;LUSrU.. Coaoa~issioner Rowland stated that the proposed plan of development was not in accordanee with City policy, since subject property was classified in the Multiple Family Residential Zonea Commissioner Gauer offsred Resolution Noo 963, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage a~d adoption•, seconded by Commissioner Campy to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 498, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland, Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Perryo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ SOUTFIEASTERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SEVENfH DAY PERMIT NOo 500 ADVENTISTS, P, Oo Box 7584, Arlington, Ca'lifornia, Owners; ERWIN H~ LEHNHOFF~ 2432 Paradise Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH WITH RELATED CHAPEL, FELLOWSHIP HALL AND CLASSROOMS on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land appraximately 660 feet deep, 330 feet wide at its widest point, with a frontage of 113 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street, the northern boundary of said proparty being 990 feet north of the centerline of Wagner Avenue, and further described as 900 South Sunkist Streete Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Pastor Erwin Lehnhoff, of the Anaheim Seventh Day Advent.ists Church, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the first phase of c'.avelopment would consist of the sanctuary for the seating of 550 parishioners and Sunday school classroomsy the second phase would be the fellowship hall and offices, that the last phase of development would be a chapel for the young people, and the entire development would cost $250,000, without t.he loto In response to Commission questioning relative to the easterly 90 feet of subject property i which showed no plans of development, the agent for the petitioner stated that no future plans were proposed for the area, but that after development of all three phases, any over- ; flow parking would utilize the easterly 90 feeto Mr. Edward V. Kalmar, 908 South Sunkist Street, owner of the property adjacent to the church Ij to the south, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether it would be possible to ' maintain the water line servicing his home and orange grove if sub3ect petition were granted, ' that because subject property,bounded his property on the north and east, would the church tae required to construct a fence on the southerly and easterly baundary of subject property, and further inqui:ed whether landscaping being proposed would be planted within a reasonable period of time to prevent the unnecessary nufsance of trespassers through the orange gr.oves~ The agent for the petitioner stated that a masonry wall was proposed, and that landscaping similar to the landscaping of acijacent homes would be planted in the front setbar;ke Mr. Kalmar further asked whether sufficient parking area was psoposed in order to eliminate i on~street parkingo i, / , _ ~__._--------------________ ----~------------ ---~----•-- .._._._________,_. . ~~ . ~-____ .............._.___._ c ~ ~ ~..> ~ ~' C ~~ I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1848 C6INDITIONAL USE - The agent stated thai; adequate parking was proposed to the rear of the PERi4FIT N0. 500 sanctuary, witii ingress and egress through a 25-foot driveo ~ ~Continued) ~ In response to the Commission's questioning regarding dedication of ~ Mr. Kalmar's p_*operty for street Widening purposes, h~, Ka]Jnar.~tated ~ that he owned 1.6 acres and the church owned 3.5 acres, that it was his intent to reside on the southerly property for a length of time, and that there was a possibility that ,vhen ~} he sold his property, he would give the church owners an opportunity to negotiate for '~ a~aitional land9 but did not indicate any agreement to said street dedication and improve- te ice Enginee Arthur Daw advised the Commission that if the property owner dedicated ~.land to t; City, the City would pave the street, but that curb cuts and sidewalks ld be paid for by the property ownera cussion was held by the Commission relative to the side yard setback on the southerly perty line. agent for the petitioner stated that he would resolve any differences with the acemt property owner reletive to the side yard setback•, ~(gl~n3r gtg~FOri }ha4 hu w~,g ~~ ..~y~ i r t..a ~z • Or~^.C~CG~ ~Cfio ICt Cii va ci~j% uuiiuafiC,. S ii7 SUC~'1 CIOSt~ ximity to tiis prope~ty linea anissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 4:10 p,m~ Kalmar further advised the Commission that the southerly property line was divided it existed, because the water line serving his property was located along si.de subject perty, also having been orange groveso HEARING WAS CLOSED. missioner Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 4:15 pomo Commission expressed concern relative to the southerly property and subject property ng located between two R-1 trvects, that both parcels could be considerably developed R-1 subdi~~ision, and that th~~ southerly property might at a later date request lassification for other than single family development, claiining hardship, because structures on the church property would be within seven feet of the adjacent property ee missioner Gauer offered Resolutie, Noo 964, Series 1963~64, and moved for it~ passage adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit 500, subject to conditions and the finding that the waiver of the required side yard back was granted by the Commissiono (See Resolution Booka) roll call the for~:going resoluticn was passed by the following votes S: COMMISSIONERS: Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Sideso Ss CQMMISSIONERSe Pebley, Rowlando ENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Perryo missioners Pebley and Rowland qualified their "NO" vote by stating that the owner of the pe:ty abutting sub~ect property opposed the waiver of the required side yard setback churches adjacent to residential propertyo DITIONAL USE - PUBLIC t[BARING. MARION Co HENRY, 1212 Westmont Dri.ve, Anaheim, California, MIT N0. 499 Owner; WARREN EISENBEISZ 8 PAUL WAC~NBACH, 907 South Gaymont Street~ Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting permisston to ESTABLISH A COIN- OPERATED, SELF SHRVICE CAR WASH ON TI-IE WEST SIDE OF GILBERT STREET EDIATELY SOUfH OF THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION on property described as: A rectangular cel of land located at the southwest corner o•; Hall Road and Gilbert Street with a f:ont- of 615 feet on the south side of Ball Road, and 225 feet on the west si.de of Gilbe•rt eet. Property presentiy classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL,. ZONE, Marion C. Henry, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the its would review the propcsed development and.be available to answer any questions the nission might have. The agent further stated that the proposed car wash was dissimilar >tandard carwashes with their confusion, noise, and undesirable elements, that the >osed carwash wa~ ~:resented to the school officials who indicated no opposition to the ~lopment, that at•c2ndants would be on duty to maintain or•der 2nd cleanliness, and that one !r installation wr~a in operation in Hawthorne at Prairie and Eosecranso ~....._____~°--,- ._....._.,. ~ _. _._._ _ .. ~ J ~:~ ~ ~ } ~ \ I ~ ~ .' . ~ .-.. . ' "____""_ '_._"_._~.,"' ____"'_"_ . ~1 ~_3 ~_~ ``.~ ~-) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIPlG COMMISSION, Novemher 13, 1963, Continued 1849 i CONDTTIONAL USE - The Coaunission discussed the proposed development and its compatibility PERMIT N0. 499 to the area, since the proposed development was to be constructed within SContinued) an R-A.zone, although it was permitted in said zone subject to the filing of a conditional use oermit, thai it miqht be desirable to have subject property r.eclassified.to.nne of the "C" zones.a Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that when subject and adjacent R-A property were presented for Commission consideration; the development at that time was proposed for a professional office building, and that the present uses on the petitioner's large parcel of property fronting on Ball Road seem to predetermine the types of uses for the balance of the property, and that a professional office buildino would not be a ccmpatible type of developmenta _ No•one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TFIE F~ARING WAS CLOSED. . The Commission continued discuss~.on relative to requiring landscaping to beautify the proposed development, thus making it more compatible to the residential environment and the school property adjacent to subject propertyo It was further noted by the Commission that the plan indicated the proposed structure would be within 1~ feet from the property line, and asked whether the petitioner would be willing to-re3ocate the structure to align on the property line, with a solid masonry wall as re- quired by building code~ and further extend the masonry wali westerly and easterly with a stepdown to 42 inches on the easterly property setbacke The petitioner stipulated to the relocation of the structure to ai~;n with tne property line, construction of the masonry wall and landscaping proposed on the w~~st side of the property~ The Commission expressed further concern that existing service stations would also request a similar type of development in a residential areay since this would be an incompatible use, although consideration was being given to reclassify all service stations to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone property, aiid that the existing uses had predetermined the use of the balance of the Ball Road fron'cage of subject property in that service-type stores would be developing rather than office-type buildingsa Commissioner Sides offered Resolufiion Noe 965, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Ose Permit Noe 499, subject to conditions and the requirement that subject property be reclassified to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, prior to final :,~+ilding inspection, the relocation of the proposed structure to align with the southerly property line, construction of a soiid masonry wall on the southerly portion of the proposed structure, a 6^foot masonry wall stepped down to 42 inches in the front setback of Gilbert Street, and extending to the westerly boundary of the service station site, the planting of landscaping in the curb side, and on the west property line southerly of the service station prior to final building inspectione (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: A'IES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Aowland, Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERSs~ Chavos, Gauere AHSENT: COMNISSIONERSs Allred, Perrye RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo CECIL KEi ' 3 SATOSHI CY YUGIICHI, 2810 West Redoado N0, 63-64-54 and Beach IIoulevard, Gardena, ~alifornia, Owners; prope~ty described as: An irregular parce'_ of land approximately 250 feet by 250 feet, with a CONDITIONAL USE frontage of 115 feet on the north side and the north half of the PERMIT N0. 496 cul-de-sac of Winston Road approximately 1,OQ0 feet easterly of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2513 and 2519 Winston Roade Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REOt. ~D CLASSIFICA'IIONs R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDE6fl'IAL, 20NEe REQI:.' CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A ONE-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL CEVELOPMEM WITH CARPORTSe No one appeared to represent the petitioner~o Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noo 63-64-54 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 496, to the meeting of December 9, 1963, in order that the petitioner miyht be present to answer questions the CommisFion had, and directed the Commission secretary to notif~~ the petitioners i;o appear at said hearinge Co:nmissioner I+~,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,.1,.,1 aL.,. .~..as..., unT7n-t rnnnrrn _~_ .._.~.__...__""""""'_'_".... ._. _....._._.__.~___.,~.." " i _ '.._._..'___"'_'___._" ~: . ' ~...... ._ . ... .. .__._._... .. I ~ ;_ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ r ~~ ~~ ` (~ , ~~ . . t \-..~ ` `. ,~ ~ MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1850 Cortanissioner S3des left the Council Chamber at 4:45 pamo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC 1-IEARINGa INIATED BY TI-IE CITY PLANNIN3 COMMISSION, NO. F,3-f4-55 _ 204 East Lincoln Avero~e; Anaheim; California: oronosina the reclassification of property located at approximately 2711-2721 West Lincoln Avenu~, a portion of the Hdison Company Easement from the C-1, NBIGI-iBORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE . to the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the past zoning action under Reclassification Noo 56-57•-41, which reclassified subject property to the C-1, Neighborhood Comm~rcial, Zone, noting that th~ Eaison Company only permitted agricultural uses in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone for any property within said Edison Eas~mente No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ TI-IE• HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 966, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-55 be approvedo (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavosy Gauer~ Mungall, Pebley, Rowlando NOESt COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Perry, Sideso RECLASSIFICATION - CONfINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo ALBERT TIKKER, 2914 West Lincoln Avenue, N0. 63-64-36 and Anaheim, California, Owner; BILLY J~ KIKr.R, 725 Kenmore Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An irregular CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land approximately 185 feet by 600 feet, the westerly boundary PERMIT N0. 479 of said property being 110 feet east of Ridgeway Street, and the northerly boundary being 396 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2914 West Linco:n Avenueo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, ZONE, REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEt ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPiE FAMTLY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - WAIVE ONE-STORY F~IGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTYo Sub3ect petition was continued from the meetings of Sepi;ember 16 and October 28, 1963, in order that the petitioner might have sufficient time to submit revised plans and file a tract mape ~ Mr. Bi11y Kiker, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the~Commission and stated that he had met with the Planning Staff in determining whst should be incorporated in the revised plansr and that he was uncler the impression that the plans met with the approval of basic requirements of the Commissiona Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that he had met with the agent for the petitioner at the time plans were being processed for revision, and that many suggested changes had been made to the agent, and that the revised plans were not reviewed wit;~ him when the agent submitted the plans to the departmenta The Commission reviewed the plans noting that the proposed net coverage of subject property exceeded the proposed Planned Residential Development Standards now being considered by the Commission, that the plan did not incorporate the garages in close proxlmity to tt~s dwelling units, and that access from the dwelling units to the primary street was poore The agent inquired whether the data presented in thr report to the Commission was based on the plan of development submitted or a hypothetical plan of developmento Mr. Kreidt stated that the data was based on the revised plan submittedo ~ Mr. Kreidt further stated tliat the Interdepartmental ~ommittee rec~mmended dedicated aileys along the northeast and south boundaries of subject property, that properties to the left j of sub~ect property on being approved for multiple family development were required to ~ dedicate alleys which the petitioner proposed to utilize as strezts, and that the suggested i alleys be a requirement to provide fox development of the eusterly property~ 1 j Commissioner Sides returned to the Council Chamber at 5s00 pomo ~ 1 ~ _ ---- ---____ ____- --- - ----•----.._-... ..._.._. .-------_ ~ ---~----------.~ ..__._ - - %~'~ ll , ~ 1 • i ` ) `l~ ~ ( .~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1851 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to continue Petitions for ~ N0. 63-64-36 and Reclassification No. 63-64-36 and Conditional Use Permit No. 479, to the meeting of December 9, 1963, and directed the agent for the C013DITIONAL USE petitioner to submit revised plans consistent with the recommendations PEBMIT N0. ~79 of the Planning Deoartment and Interdepartmental Committeee These (Continued) plans weze to be submitted to the Planning D::partment no later than November 29, 1963, for review by the Interdepartmental Committee and . the Planning Department for recommendations to the Planning Commission. Coa~missioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo i RECESS: Commissioner Rowland offered a notion to r.ecess the meeting for dinner, and to reconvene at 7:00 p.mo Commissiuner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 5:03 pom. RECONVENE: Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting, Commissioners Allred ! and Sides being absento i __ __.. _~ ____... .,, __._...._._~. _.. ~ . _ ~ ~~ ~ f ~ ~ ~.. ~ `~.. ~ 7 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1852 ~ ~ SERVICE STATION - COA~SIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF REVISIONS TO TI-~ . SITE DEVET.OPN~Ni SERVICE STATION MINIMUM SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REFERRED ! STANDARDS TO THE COMMISSION BY THE CITY COUNCILo I Zori~g Cccrdinatox hlartin.iCreid.i reviewed ror the Commission past action by the Commission and the City Council regarding the Service Station Minimum Site Develop- ment Standards, noting that +,he Council had appointed a committee of City representatives and service station represer.tatives to resolve differ.ences between the service station operators and the pro~osed standards; that several meetings had been held by the Committee in.an attempt to resolve a~d formulate the definition for a service station; and that the meeting of the evening was to present to the Commission the Committee's views and to hear verbal views by the.representatives of the service station operatorso Commissioner Chavos asked whether the resolution on which the Commission passed the Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards would be amended, and if so, he did not wish to have the voting of the Commission transferred from the originai resolution. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that any recommendations of changes would be made in the form of a motion to the City Council, rather than an ammend- ment to the original resolutiono Mr. John Clark, representi~g the service station operators, stated that no restrictions ~:~C'~. .~?~~.^. ~ u^ p~ cad on th2 building of servic~ sCations in any zone, that at aii the Committee meetings the only amendments discussed were to the definition oi a service stationo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the recommended definition of an auto- mobile service station, and the Commission expressed their concern that the proposed defini- tion was considerably at variance with the original resolution passed by the Cormnission, after the Commission had spent a number of work sessions formulating what they considered reasonable restrictions of operation by service stations in various zones. The concern was also expressed relative to permitting repairs of a major nature in service stations adjacent to residential areas, expressing the opinion that such heavy repa:r wo:k wouid be detrimental ta the heal±h, safety and welfare of the residents ad,jacent to those service stations. Mr. Johr. Tougy stated that service stations attracted large neighhorhood shapping ceni:ers, that the service station business was hi~hly competitive, that emergency repairs of the nature indicated in the proposed definition were a necessity in order to operate a successful service stationo Mr. Clark again stated that it was his opinion that the revised recommended definition of an automobile service station would be acceptable to the Commission and the City Council, ±hat although there were a number of features in this definition that were not acceptabie to a number of service station operators, there was considerable "give and take" on both sides to resolve what was considered an acceptable definition, that service stations help build up the city, that although repairs of various types were included in the definition, these were not considered to ba a major portion of the income of any service station, and that the City Attorney's interpretation was incorporated.within the definition wherein it stated that said repairs shall only be conducted occasionally, shall only constitute an incidental par~ of~the service station operation; and shall not be obnoxious or offensive' by reason of emission of odor, smoke, noise, or vibration detrimental to the public health~ safety or general welfaree Mr. Tougy then stated that the definition as originally proposed took away the right from property owners to lease or sell their properties for the ~est possible land use, and that it should be the property owners' right to sell property for service stations. Mr~ Kreidt then gave a breakdown of the zones in which the 180 service stations in the Cicy of Anaheim are located, noting that 49 were in the R-A zone, many of which were annex~d to the City; 30 were in the C-i zone; 29 were in the C-2 zone; 40 were in the C-3 zoney unlimited; 21 were in the M-1 zone; 5 were in the R-1 zones 1 in the R-2 zoner 1 in the R-0 zones snd 4 in the R-3 zone. It was further noted that if all service stations not presently in a"C:" or "M" zone were placed in the C-1 zone, 126 would be in the C-1 zone; 29 in the C-2.zone; 4 in the C-3 zone, unlimited; 21 still in the M-1 zone; and that if the service station were only permitted to perform repaisc in the C-3 zone~ only 25 stations would be permitted to do this. Mr. Clark stated that 48~ of the service stations removed and replaced motors, 65~ replaced differentials, 67~ replaced mufflers, 17~ replaced brake linings in the station; 51~ repaired tires outside the building; 21~ rented trailers; that all service stations were issued ' business licenses to do business :n the city, and that he realized the City had a problem, ' but that Resolution No., 832 ~vould put tl~e service station operato.rs out of business. ~ _ r__ __-_.._--~_.__ .--._---- -- __.-----...----.------..._ _..._._____...:._..__..__._ __.___.___-- -- --....., -~i ~ ~`4 _. MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1853 SERVICE STATION - Mr. Louis Chappelear, representing the Western Oil and Gas Association, SITE DEVELOPN~IJI' expressed concern regarding the comments expressed by both the Commis- STANDARDS sion and service station representatives; that there was a drive on within the oil industry to regulate service stations so that their operation would be readily acceptabie in any community, that the oil indu~try's objective was to initiate retail services to provide for the servicing and gobds of automobiles and make these readily available to the motoring public, and to avoid major repairs, such as replacemsnt of engines, etco, within the service station proper, although it was understood that incidental repairs were necessary to maintain and operate the service stations, that it was the intent of the oil industry when assisting in the formulation of the original draft of the definition to include the second anc} third para- graphs in the recommended revision of the definition submitted for the Commission's consideration, and that at the last.group meeting it was not intended.by the definition that ma3or repairs be conducted, as one of the service station representatives stated, but to do a minimum amount of such engine repair work, in order that noises and odors would not offend the neighborhoode Further discussion between the service station representatives and the Commission was held relative to the interpretation of major repairs within the existing zones, and possibly limiting the major repairs to only C-3 zonesa The Commission further informed the service station representative that one of the basic reasons for consideration of service station standards was because of the many requests for service stations adjacent to residential areas, that the sale and storage of other than service station material was consistently brought to the attention of the Commission during consideration of any service station, and that noises and odors from heavy repairs was also a major factor. Mro Kreidt explained to the service station representatives the requirement of the enclosure of all trailers being sold on service station property with a five-foot high solid metal fence or wall, stating that C-1 zone prohibits outside, open storage of items being sold, and that the Cortanission might at a work session consider the rewording of this requirement for better clarificationo Commissioner Perry suggested that in the rewording of the definition, that the display of trailer rentals adjacent to residential property should be prohibited, although these should be permitted for display in other zonesa Discussion was held by the Commission relative to rewriting the definition with the suggested corrections presented at the meeting, and that later the Coinmission would get together with the service station representatives for a work session to further discuss the definition and other requirements proposed in the Commission's resolution to the City Councilo Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the consideration of the revision to the Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards for a work session and later consideration with the service station operators to be determined when all data had been considered and suggested revisions madeo Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ~ i ~ ~. . .e.._._.r...._........_ ~_. _._ _._ _,., ~ • ~, ~ ; ! ~ ~ i i (._i l ~~ ~ t,`~ ~ ' \ ~ ~ ~ . . -:b, ~ ~ ' ~ ' . .1 . ~ .. .. • ~ " ~ ~ ... . "' . . . . . ~ ~ .' .~', - ~ - . ~.._ ? ~ ~, _~ ~ ~ l.~ NiNC1TES~'C'iTY~PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued ':A54 RECLASSIFICATIpN - i~UBLIC HEARING. EVA S. BIE'l,~1Iw:KI, ~'r60 Crescent Av~ni~e, a;?ahe~im, N0. 63-64-58 e[~d California, Owner; JOHN A. ~~~:ti.:: k, 583 West 19th Street, c'.e:;t.a blesa, ~~alifornia, Agent; property described ass A rec~cangular r:e:.:el of land CONDITIONAL USE having a frontage of 354 feet cn the south sid~e of Crescen•t Avenue and PER+~IT H0: 5Q3 a depCh o: 410 feat,.tlie.westarly boundary of said properLy oeing approxi- mately 310 feet eust of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and i;urther described as 2760 Crescent Avenue. Property preseni:?.y ~~las~sified as R-A~ RESIDr:vd'IAL AGBIGULTURAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLP.5S~:'T4~4TTnN: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL~ "L0,'JE. REQUESTED CONDT'iiQNAL U~•E: (1) ESTABLISH A OVE-STORY MULTIP~E FAMILY PLA77;~D RESID~NTIAL DEVELOPMENTt (2) WAIVE t3UIL1}`NG SEPARATION AND FR~JNi z: ~'C REQUIEtEMEhT~. Mr. John Miller, agent for the petitioner, appeared befc.re the Comm=ssion and reviewed the proposed developc~ent, noting that an Pntirely different concept was being proposed which was a cons`der~ble improvement ~ver the pr~vious plan for subject -ronerty. The Commission inquired why the petitioner proposed multiple family development xhen said property wa~ ideally suited for single family subdivision. The•agent re~?ie.d that the petitioner did not wish to sell sub;ect property, f;ut proposed ~ to rea:ize incomE from the apartment development, thus retain:ng the prope~- , rather than from its sale in ti;~ form of individual lots, that with this in mind :he deve'loper designed the pr~posed developTC~nt in order that it ;rould be compatib~e with tt~~ single family living environment surroundiug subject propeity on t!?ree sfdes, and that :he tratific on Crescent Avenue was too heavy to adapt subjec± propei~ty for single `iam3ly ~se. The Commission inquiied whether theLe war as:~•-.ne p.~esent who ~~aa s,ign~:d ~.he petition epproving subject petit3on, and receive~ ~~ :k:ply. Commissioner Chav:~ was of the opinior. tPiat said Ksetition :~as not valid as 3.ega1 evidence in considering subjec~t petition, but was only considered i~eresay. Mr. Alle~ Huffma•:, 8951 Crescent Avenue, Buena Park, appeared before the Cort~ission and p:cesented a oetition signed by ten oroperty owners across the street and in close proximity of s~~b3~ct pr~perty opposing the pr~posed development, noting the facts that subject property ~:ould be developed for fifteen single family homes; that additional apartments in Anaheim wcruld inere~ase the vacancy factor in Orange CoU~*y; that no fina~~cial hardship would be createi9 on •;.he p~titioner because said property could be sold for S20,000 per acre for ho!~~sites; that the heavy traffic on Crescent AvEm~~s woald be additionally taxed with an additional 25 units being proposed over the normal fiftee~ homp~ which could be built; that the multiple family develoqment wouid def~at the~ purpose of the ~~v~rall planning f~r the cities o£ Anaheim ar.~ Buena Park •to rt~ ~r.tain the area for single famiiy development; ana that the property owi~srs signing the petition he oresv,nted lived directly acr~ss the stree+. f.rom subject proper±y ~r.d wouid be orimarily aff-cted by the proposed use. M•r. S. D. Rummler, 2751 9ayler Avenue, appeared in opposition and asked that the agent :.ndicate where ±he swimmir,g pool was rroposed to be located, and that if it was proposed '~ t~~bP Eocat~d at the southarly ed,e of subject property, it would violate his p~ivacv ~y tne c.rt ~tion of noises from adult~ and child.r.en from tha ~aany apartments. The agent replied t!iat the uevelopment was proposed w'ith tb~ swimming pool and some play facilitiGS at the southerly property line. Six p~:•on~ in the Council Chamber indicated thair o+:~,ence as having signed the petition of opposition, an~ two others also appeared i~; opposition. THE ElEARING WAS CLQSED. The Commission,in discussing subject petitions, st2±ed •t"ai, r.o physical or economic change had taken place which would warrant favorable considerati~n by the Conm:ission, tiia+ subject property was developable for single family subdivision and multipla f.amily development should not take place in an area predominately develop,.c; for sing!e family use, that 70% of the proposed units were more than 150 feet :rom a standard street, that inadequate circulation was provided, that the derisity would be consideranly hig~er if a dedicated street were provided, that the proposed development di.d not meet the standar:s of the planned unit __._~_.._._~ _..___.___ .___ ___ .-- -.--..._--. ----.__ ---- .. . -- .- --_____ .. ___. `~-' ,~ ~- __ -- •- - ----~- Q ~ ~ i • ~ / _ -- - ---- ----_ ~ `: 1 ~ - ~ ~ < ~ ;~ i ~ t VIINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1855 REC;.~SSIFICATION - development, and that it was the desire of the Commission to maintain N0. 63-64-58 and areas which had been predominately developed for single family use in that zone, rather than approve mul-tiple family development.. CONDITIONAL U€" PEPI4IT P74. 503 Comm'ssioner Pe:.r.y offexad Rasolution No. 967, Series :9b3-b4, and moved Continuedl f~r its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to iacommen3.to the.City CounciL.that Petition for Reclassif.3cation Noe 63-64-58 be disapproved based on the facts that the proposed rsct~ssification was not necessary or d~sirable for the orderly development of tha City, i,llat ~ubjeck prope*~y u~as developable for low density single family subdivision, and that no.physicai or economic ohange had taken place to warr~~nt favorable considerationo (See Resal•~tio~~ f.~ook. ) On ro::.l r.;il the foregoing resolution was passed by the fallowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Cravos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Sideso Coimnissioi;er Camp offered Resolution No. 968, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Per~y, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit ^:oe 503, based on findingse (See h?solution Booke) On,roll call the foregoir.~ resolution wa; nassed by the following vote: A?^i;;: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chc,vos. G=uery Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOES= COMMISSIOtJERS: Nonee ABSENI: CONUdISSIONERS: Allred, Sideso RECLASSIFICATIC~t. - PUBLIC HEARINGo ROBERT Be BURROWS, et al, 9821 Theresa Avenue, N0. 63-64-56 anri Anaheim, California, Owners; property descsibed ass A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 98 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue, VARIANCE N0. 1;~10 and a depth of 412 feet, the easterly boun~9ary of said property being 660 feet west of ;he centerline of ~uclid Street, and further described as 1749 West Oranqp Avenuee Property clas~if.:ed as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZC'I~~r.. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RE~TDENfTAL, ZOA:eo RHQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE TI-IE REQUIREI~ LOT FROM'AGH O;d A IX'DICATED STREET OR P.LLEY. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Gommiseion that the Planning Staff had met ~ with the adjacent property owners ef R-A propei~ty i:o :h~~ west in an attempt to z•esolve ~ develupment problems of the narrow deep lots of :vhich sabject and adjacent ,roperty consisted, ; and that a letter requesting continuance by the p,roper.t'~~ :'Hr,•:;r immed.ately ad,i,acent was ; receive.9 which stated that no solution had been ai•rived at for pr.oper development of t;~.e ~ t;u~ee pax:els left in this area of pred~minately ci;igl~ family homese ' Mr. hicher Baucher, 1171 Lapalina DrivF,=fustin, a~3Faared ana stated he represented the petiticner, although he was not t!-:e authorized agent, that the subject property was r.ather long and could only be developed si~~gly as was proposed, and that the area and the property was primai•ily single family developmen~. Mr. Forrest ;Nolverton, the third property owner irvolved in the narrow deep lots adjacent to subject prope~ty, appeared before the Commission and stated that currently he was not interested in o~veloping his property, that he disliked the thought of having h.is property divided, but he realized tl~at future develo~ment might be extremely difficult, and that the development of the three parcels for twelve single fami].y lots might be the only solution to the present prok~lem, s~nce all the prr~perties in close proximity were developed for single family use, 3nd that aftex the otner two pr.operty owners met with him to discuss development problems, he might be of a different opinion. No one else appeared ~.n opposition to subj~ct oetitionse TE~ HEARING WAS CLOSE!)> F _.._._ _. . . ___ . ... _.... -.--.. - -..__._ .. .. __. _._... ~ ~~,___._. ._ ~ K --- - ---•- . _ ~~ _ :.. i • ~ ,, ) '~~.~r ~ '~ '~• ..~ ) ~,J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1656 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland commended the Gtaff for their efforts in presenting N0..63-64-56 and the problems and the possibilities of development to the property owners of the three narrow deep lots of which subject property is a parta VARIANCE N0. 1610 (Coniinued) Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Fetitions for Reclassification Noo 63-64-56 and Variance Noo 1610 to the meeting of December 9, 1963, in order that the property owners adjacent to subject property might meet for further discussion on development of theiF properties, since one property owner seemed to be willing t~ cooperate if the other property owners were willing to attempt some solution to their development problemso Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono h10TI0N CARRIEDo RECLASSIFICATION - PlJBLIC HEARING. Ro P< GIL_.MAN, G~ T~ ERI~KSON, Ro KAROS, AND Do Wo HOOK, N0. 63-64-57 and 1780 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, California, Owners; _.. property described as: A rectangular parcel of land approximately CONDITIONAL USE 232 feot by 551 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being PERMIT N0~ 502 approximately 28F, feet east of the centerline of Eiaclid Street and the southerly boundary being approximately 575 feet north of the centerline La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1144 North Euclid Street. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIF?CATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONEa REQUFSTED CONDITIONAL USE: (1) CHANGE THE USE OF AN EXISTING COMPLEX OF BUILDINGS FROM A IdOTEL TO A MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENCIAL DEVELOPN~M~ (2) WAIVE ONE-STORY HEIGHI' LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY; (3) WAIVE REQUIRED FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATHD STREET OR ALLEY; (4) WAIVE GARAGE REQUIREMEPiPo ; Mre Warren Finley, 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reiv~wed the past action in the develepment of subject property noting that the petitioners' original intent was to lease the suites for ~iisiting personnel . to~the various industries in the City, that since the Government had made changes in the ! expense regulations for various individuals and industries, their original plan was nulli- fied, that the present use of che prcperty was in violation of the Code which permil:ted the construction of the present facilities, that the motel was not located in an area where it ; would be considered a part of the Disneyland area, and, therefore, did not de.rive any benefits ~ normally associated with the motel business i~ the City, although the tenants were required ; to pay a room tax on a daily basis on apartments being leased on a yeaxly basis, and that due to this discrepancy, the petitioners were unable to obtain a business license to operate as an apartment complexo I The Commission noted that their action on the original request for a motel operation was denied by their body, that the representative of the Motel Owners Association opposed the inclusion of kitchens in the motel because he was of the opinion that the motel would be used for apartment use; that the proposed development did not meet R-3 Code requirements in that the height limitation of the existing structure was more than 35 feet; that although . the City Council did approve the original petition for the motel development with the stipu- lation that dwelling units meet minim4m R-8 requirements, adequate ingress and egress were not provided; that the proposed carports were over 220 feet from the dwelling units, and , would compound any parking problem, becau.;e the residents would utilize guest parking for their own cars; that 10~ of tne units were more than 150 feet away from a standard street; and that it was not within tiie jurisdictior of the Commission to alleviate the problems inherent in subject pe~titions because of the aforementioned findingse Mro Rol~ert Gillman, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed development was considerably better than the average motel, and that by filin9 ~ubject petition, the petitioners were attempting to legalize an operationo The Commission noted that 3f subject petitiors were approved, this would bp setting a precedent for utilization of other motels in the off season for apartment purposes even thcugh the Commission's thinking regarding General Plan designation proposed multiple family development for suhiject property, and that if subject petitions were in the development stage, it would ha~ve been required to submit revised plans as any other new petition would be required to conform with development standards of the R-3 section of the Codee Mr. David Hook, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the Government regulations which limited use of subject property as it was originally intended by the petitioners, and that the Motel Association opposed the construction of substandard motel units, and that subject property was not in competition with the motel business, ~ because of its location, ' j I I , ~-_._._.__~~ .... ._ ._._ _ -----._ . . _... __ ._ __ _ __ .. .- - - - _ __. ._---- :~„ ~ ~ . _ . _.. _ _.__ .. ~ , _ _ I ~ I ' . A _ . .1 ... _._ _ ..._...__._'__' ""_'..'_"__' ~ ~ ,~ ~ c"-~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1857 RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso N0. 63-64-57 and THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, CONDITIONAL USE PERM3T N0. 502 Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council (Continued) that subject petitions be disapproved bssed on the fact that the Commission denied the original petition for a motel on the basis that it should be developed for mu~tiple family use, and that the existing development did not conform •to R-3 Code requirementso Commissioner Chavos seconded the motione On roll call the foreoning motion did not pass for w.ant of a majoricy vote of the nine Commissioners, as followss . AYESi CUMMISSIONERSs Chavqs, Gauer, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Mungall, pebley, Perryo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Sidese Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to ihe City Council that subject petitions be approvedo Commissioner Pebley seconcied the motion. On roll call the foregoing motion did not pass for want of a majority vote of the nine Commissioners, as followss AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Pexryo NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Gsuer, Rowland. ABSENf: COMMISSIOPIERS: Allred, Sideso Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that consideration of said petitions would be held at each meeting for the next 40 days to arrive at a majority vote of five of the Commissionerso The Commission advised the petitioners that subject petitions would be the first item on the agenda for the meeting of November 25, 1963, and that in order for the other Commissioners to be able to vote, it might be necessary that they appear and give a brief resume' of their requested use, before voting was considered, and at the same time the Commission might consider reopening the hearing to consider additional evidenceo . _ __.,,.----~----..._--._._.________~--------__._T.__._ ___ __ _ . _ __.... ___--..--.._ ___._~_~.. ~ , . Bf~_ , . ~ . ~ i , .~ • ; ) -, i~ ~ } ~ . ~ ~ ~_, MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1858 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 328 - Geriatric 8 Rehabilitation Hospital located on the west side of Knott Avenue, south of Linceln AvenUe - request for extersion of time for completion of conditions ia.Eesol.ution...No. 559., Series 1962-63e Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed a request received from Mro Ho Cabot Jones of:~th- Hudson Development Coe, asking the Commission to grant an additional six months` extension of time to complete the block wa1l,Condition Noo 8 of Resolution No. 659~ Series 1962-630 Mr. H. Cabot Jones appeared before the Commission and briefly reviewed all the prob:~~ms which had faced the developers of subject property relative to providing a sewer connec•tic+n for the hospital, and stated that he had received word from the hospital in the City of Buena Park indicating that it was possible their hospital would approve the petitioner's request for a set+er easement through the hospital's property to connect with the City of Buena Park's sewer system, since it had been impossible to make the connection with the City of Anaheim, and that Condition Noe S for the construction of a six-foot masonry e~all along the south and west property line was yet to be completedo Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant the request for a six-months' extension of time, to May 15, 1964, for tfie completion of conditions in the Commission's Resolution No. 659, Series 1962-63o Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOTIOt1 ~ARRIED. ITEM NO~~ ORANGE COUNTY TENfATIVE TRACT NOo 5083, located on the north side of the Santa Ana Canyon Road east of Taylor Street and consists of 2301 acres and proposed for subdivision into 96 R-1, One Farnily Residential, Zone lotso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Orange County Tract Noo 5083 to the Commission for their recommendations to the City Council for considerationo The Commission noted that water and sewer service would be furnished by the City of Anahein;, and that all street improvements would be constructed according to Orange County standards and specifications, and that the Interdepartmental Committee had presented a number of findings to make subject tract compatible to City of Anaheim standardsa Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the following findings be considered in their recommendations to the Orange County Planning Commission relative to Orange County TentativE Tract Noo 5083s In the event the developer desires to obtain utilities from the City of Anaheim, a utilities annexation agreement is necessary, wherein the developer stipulates to the installation of utilities and street improvements in accordance with the City of Anaheim standards. Deviations from existing City of Anaheim standards contained within the proposed tract are as followss ''a. Iulaycfielle Street should~be improved as a~ollector-street with a - 64-foot right-of-way, or at least a 40-foot roadway within 60-foot section. b. Temporary access will have to be approved by the State Division of Highways and the Santa Ana Valiey Irrigation Company in the event the aforementioned own their right-of-wayo c. The discharge of water into the Santa Ana River would have to be approved by the Orange County Water Districto de The construction of a 6-foot masonry wall, where proposed wall abu`.s the proposed freew~• right-of-way and the S.A,V.Ia Canalo Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. ~`: ~ i i - --------_._.___._.___.__~._.__.__._,___._.___-_----_.~. __.._~~~Tr.----•--- ---- _. _ ._ _ ;~;. n--._ . _. _ .. - : ~ \ i ~ ~ \; . ~ ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C0~7MISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1859 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe 3 RECOMMENDATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-22 -'Iille Fluegge, c~o Talt, MacMahon and Nelson, requesting a change of zone from R-A to R-3; property located on the east side of Euclid Street . approximately 660 ~eet south of Katella Avenue - approval of plans submittedo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented plans submitted for the Commission's ccnsidera- tion, and further reviewed past Commission and Council action on subject petition. It was noted for the Commission that the plans had been submitted too late for review by the fnterdepartmental Committee and the Planning Departmento Representatives for subject petition indicated their presence in the Council Chamber to answer any questions the Commission might havee The Commissioners were of the opinion that plans should be reviewed before any considera- tion would be given by their body, that said plans were not submitted as part of the petition when the Commission recommended disapprova~., and that subject petition should be considered by the Planning Commission only at a:~other public hearing in order to provide an opportunityfor property owners within 300 feet of subject property to present their views on the plar,so Deputy~City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that it was not necessary for the Commission to hold another public hearing, but that it would be in order for the Commission to inform the interested property owners that plans were available and would be considered at a future meeting by the Commissiona Cummissioner Pebley offered a motion t~ continue consideration of plans submitted with P~~tition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-22 to '.ne meeting of N~vember 25, 1963, for review of the plans by the Interdepartmental Committee and the Plan~iny uepartment, and for notification by letter to all property owners within 300 feet of •~:Ze Commission's considera- tion of the proposed plan of developmente Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED> ITEM NOo 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 398 - Christine 0'Donnell; Construct a 32-unit motel on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, 205 feet west of Harbor Boulevard - 90 day extension of time for the completion of conditions in Resolution Noo 740, Series 1962-63e Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the request of Mro Edward Cronan, agent for the owner of subject property, noting that the requirement of the removal. of the old well and filling with dirt still remained to :,e accomplished, and the diffic~lties encountered in complying with this conditiono Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to grant the request for a 50-d:.y exter.sion of time for t e completion of conditions in Commission Resolution Noe 740, S~i9.es 1962-53, to expir~ "~nuary 29, 1964o Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MO.t" 1N ~ARRIEDe ITEM NOe 5 CASE N0. 744 (Sectional Distri~t Map 6-4-9, Exhibit H) Orange Cour~ty Planning Commissi~no Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Case Noe 744, Sectionai Dist:4ct Map No. 6-4-9, Exhibit H to the Commission £or reclassification of certain prope:rties located north of the Riverside Freeway, between Blue Gun Street and Dowling Avenue in the Northeast Industrial Area from the interim M-1, Light Industrial District to the 100-M1-20,000 Light Industrial District. The Commission discussed Reclassification Noo 61-62-69, presently pending on all properties within the City of Anaheim in the Northeast Industrial Area, and noted that tne front 50 feet of all properties abutti~~ arterial highways are reclassified to the P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zone. Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Orange County Case No. 744, Sectional District Map 6-4-9, Exhibit "H" be recommanded for approval to the Orange County Planning CoRUnission and, further, that the Orange Cvunty Planning Commission be encouraged to apply site development standards to all industrial properties ad3acent to arterial highways comparable to the requirements of the City of Anaheim P-L, Parking- Landscaping, Zoneo Commissioner Gauer seconded,the motiono MOTION CARRIHDo _M____----- _ ._ ._ .._._.._ _..___..._. _._.__ _.._._._.. _._._ .. _--._.----.____. ~ . ~---_...._- ....__ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1963, Continued 1860 REPORTS AND - IT6M N0. 6 RECaMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 438 - Casualty Insurance Company. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented to the Commission a request from William Rudolph, AIA, for approval of precise olans as required 'oy Contiition P~o. b, o: Planning Cor~mission Resolution No. 838, Series 1903-64, so that the building permit for the first stage of development of subject property could be issueda The proposed plans of development, Revision No. 2, Exhibit Nos. 1 through 11, and the report of Marvin Krieger were reviewed by the Commission. Cammissioner Pebley offered a motion to approve Revision Noa 2, Exhibit Nos, 1 through 11, as precise plans for the first stage.of development nf subject property, in accordance with Condition Noo 6, Resolution Noo 838, Series 1963-64, under which the Planning Commis- sion approved Conditional Use Permit Noa 438, with the understanding that the location of the property line in relationship to the centerline of Manchester Avenue and the proposed building setback line is not to scale, that the development shall incorporate a minimum forty (40) foot landscaped building setback from the planned highway right-of-way line of Manchester Avenue which, in turn, shall be located forty (40) feet from the centerline of Manchester P.venue and, further, that no private facilities shall be located within the future right-of-way line of Manchester Avenuee Commissioner Gauer seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOo 7 CITY OF PLACENTIA RESOLUTIOh N0, 121 - Street name change of Placentia-Yorba Boulevard to Crowther Avenueo Communication from the City of Placentia was read to the Commission relative to changing Placentia-Yorba Boulevard to Crowther Avenuea Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the properties affected by the proposed name change, noting that two parceis westerly of Dowling Avenue and four parcels easterly to the junction of Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia-Yorba Boulevard would be affected, and that said parcels, with the exception of one, were undeveloped. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 969, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that the name of Placentia-Yorba Boulevard be changed to Crowther Avenue within the city limits of the City of Anaheim. (5ee Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Sideso ITEM N0. 8 CONDITIONAL USE PEF~AIT N0~ 486 - Service Station located at the southeast corne:^ c:f Los Angeles Street and Broadway - req~aesting waiver of ireewell on the Los Angeles Street frontage. Zoning Coordinator Mar~in Kreidt reviewed subject petition for Cc.nmission, noting that a treewell was a requirement for the Los Angeles Str~et frontage, '~ut that the petitioners state the 3nadvisability of proposing a tree in front of a large sign advertisir.g the products of the service station. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant the r~quest for the waiver of the treewell to be located on the Los Angeles Street frontage of property considered in Conditional Use Permit No. 486, and approved in Resolution No. 923, Series 1963-64, Condition No. 5, requir- ing that landscaping be developed in accordance with the Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. ~ { t V ~~ [ _ - _. . ~. ~._._ ~__~ - ~_~ . ~ i ; • . . ~ . . ~ ~ } -.. ~ ~ ~ ..~~ ~_) ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Povember 13, 1163,.Continued 1861 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 9 RECOHaAENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 136 - Grace Baptist Church, 2530 West La Palma Avenue - request for approval of proposed parking stallse Zoning Coor.;inator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission past action by their body and pa,.king rey~irements required under a precise plan approved, that the existing sanctuary had a sedtiny capacity of 144 seats and 40 parking stalls were provided, and that the parking being provided exceeded the Code/Policy requirement of one stall per f3ve seats in~the sanctuary by twelve spaces, although the precise plan indicated 100 parking stalls upon completion.of the entire developmento. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve the proposed 40 parking stalls for a seating capacity of 144 seats in the sanctuary of the precise plans of development of Conditional Use Permit No. 136o Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, TEMPORARY ~ There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Pebley offered AA?OURNMHNT a motion to adjourn the meeting to November 18, 1963, at 7:00 p,ma, for a work session to consider the preliminary draft of the R-2, R-3, and PRD proposals for revisions to the Anaheim Municipal Codeo Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting adjourned at 10:55 pom. RECONVENE - Chairman Pro tem Gauer reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p,m., November 18, 1963, Commissioners Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, and Sides being presento Also attending were Planning Director Richard Reese, Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff, Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, and Assistant Planners William Wanket and Marvin Kriegero Planning Director Richard Reese presented and reviewed for the Commission the preliminary drafts of the revisions to the R-2, Two Family Residential, Zone and R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone sections, and the proposed new Planned Residential Development section of the Anaheim Municipal Codee Discussion was heid by the Commission with suggestions being made for incorporation into a new draft of the revisions and additions to the Codee ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meetinge Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDa The meeting adjourned at 9:15 pem. Respectfully submitted, ~!i2~ ANN KREBS, Secre~ary Anaheim Planning Commission _______.,_--~ ---_____------- - --.. - -- ----_ ___-....-- -- --- _.__.._.._____..__.._. ~ _~ . a4