Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/12/09~_) - ~ ~_~ t;_~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California December 9,.1963 A REGiJLAR MEETING OF TI-~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR Iu~ETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to ' order by Chairman Mungall at 2:05 o'clock pomo, a quorum be.ing.presento PRESENf - CHAIRMANs Mungalla - COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Rowland,;Sideso ABSENf - COMMISSIONERS: Perryo PRESENT - Zoning Coordinators Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorneys Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Art Daw Planning Commission Sec retary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Abbott, Pastox of the First Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocatione PF,EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Sides led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 1963, were approved with the following corrections: ~' Page 1863, last paragra ph should read, "Commissioner Rowland a. "~ Page 1865, paragraph 9, delete Conditional Use Permit Noo 313a ~ Page 1875, paragraph 5, should read~ "Commissioner Gauer o o." / RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC I-1~ARINGo RINKER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 10600 Katella N0. 63-64-21 and Avenue, and CHARLES Jo BIDDLE, c% RINKER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 1060G Kateila Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; DEVELOPI~Nf COORDINATORS, CONDITIONAL USE 4100 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; property PERMIT NOe 466 described as: An irregular parcel of land on the northeast corner of the intersection of the Riverside and Newport Freeways and having a frontage of 1,030 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and an average depth of 1,850 feet, and covering approximately 4706 acres, the easterly boundary of said land being ad~acent to the Anaheim City Limitso Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ 20NEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: CONSTRUCT TWO-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENf - WAIVE ONE-STORY FIEIGHT LIMITATIONo Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of September 4, 1963, in order to allow the P].anning Department time to prepare the General Plan "hill and canyon study" in which subject property was locatedo No o~e a~peared to represent the petition~re Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the compatibility of the proposed development with the trend of development of sub3ect and abutting properties, noting that the study area incorporated 248 acres, and of that acreage, 155 acres had been committed to single family ' residential development; that the petitioners should be notified that although the developer had requested a continuance in order to develop revised plans, it was the Commission's opinion that the developer be fully appraised of the Report to the Planning Commission, dated December 9, in the event the developer elected to prepare revised plans; and that if subject petition were approved, a multiple of problems would develop relative to schools and traffic, since the School District had acquired a site to provide for develapment of subject property for single family use. Commissioner Allred entered the Council Chamber at 2s10 peme The Commission continued discussion relative to advising the petitioner of the Commission's ' feelings, noting that no encouragement should be derived from submitting a copy of the Report to the Commission, that the proposed use would be incompatible and a detriment to the existing single family development in the area. - 1879 - I _.._------.. _.. ____,_ • .,e„_..... _ _ _.. . _... ._----- ' , ------ -~1 ~t. . ~> ~ -~~ C~ v 4 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963, Continued 1880 RECLASSIFICAT.T.7Id - T[-IE HEARTNG WAS CLOSEDe N0. 63-64-21 and • Further discussion by the Commission centered around the possibility of CONDITIONAL USE denial or continuance of sub3ect petitionse PE$iriIT NOa 466 ~ontinued) Commissioner Camp offerad a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification Noo 63-64-21 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 466 to the meeting of January 6, 1964, and requested that a letter be addxessed to the'petitioners and the developex, indicai:ing the Commission's feeling of.the incompatibility of the proposed.reclass:fication to the st+.~dy area in which sub~ect property wae.located, and thdt a copy of the Report to the Commission be submitted to the developer in the event he elected ~o submit revised planso Commissioner Gauer seconded ttce motiono MO'CION CARRIEDo RECLASSIFICATION - C()NfINUED PUBLIC E~ARINGo RAE OAKS, 748 Diamond, Newport Beach, NOa 63-64-20 and Californ3.a, Owner; ARTHUR KOVACK, 1442 South Euclid Street, Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as: An irregular parcel of }and CONDITIONAL USE located at the northeast corner of the intersection of the Newport and PERMIT NOa 465 Rivezside Freeways, and having a frontage of approximately 988 feet adjacent to the Newport Freeway off-ramp, said property covering approximately 14 acres of lande Property presently classified as R-A~ RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SINGLE-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL DEVELOPNIHNT WITH CARPORTSo Sub3ect petitions were continued from the meetings of August 5 and 19, and September 4, 1963, at the request of the petitioner, and to allow the Planning Department time to prepare the General Plan "hill and canyon study" in which subject property was locatedo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the developer for sub~ect property had requested a continuance in order to develop new planso The Commission noted that subject property was immediately adjacent to that property which had ju:,t been considered in Reclassification Noo 63-64-21, that in the Commission's opinion, multiple family development ad3acent to an already committed 155 acres for single family use was incompatible, that there were many problems inherent to the development of subject property, such as adequate access from the property to adjacent streets, that some streets had not been improved or were actually not in existence, and that if the developer elected to submit plans, both the petitioner and the developer should be appraised of the Commission's feelings regard- ing the proposed development, together with a copy of the Report to the Commission, said report stating in detail the problems inherent to development of subject and abutting properties~ Mr. Darrel Meyer, appeared before the Commission and stated that although the petitioner had not signed an agreement with the Rinker Development Company, said comoany was, in fact, proposing the development of subject property~ that in his opinion the problem of ingress and egress to subject property was not insurmountable; that they were aware of the problem of the inadequacy of.schools, but that in the interest of his client and the City, he would recommend the Commission continue subject petitionso ' TFiE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Chavos stated that he had previously qualified voting for continuance with the statement that multiple family development should not be considered favorably by the Commis- sion, that the petitioner should be advised of the feelin9s of the Commission, and that the developer should be appraised of the Commission's feelings so thaL money should not have to be expended for revised planso Commissioner Chavos offered a moiion to deny Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-20e The motion lost for want of a'~econd"e Commissioner Sides offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclas- sification Noe 63-64-20 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 465, to the meeting of January 6, 1964, and directed that the petitioner be advised of the Commission's position relative to multiple family development for subject and abutting properties, and expressed concern ths1; Che , petitioner and developer fully understand the implications of the Report to the Commission, and that a copy of said report be submitted to the petitioner and deve],oper.in the event they elected to prepare revised plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ' i , ,i ~,_..~_ _._--- ---~--~--- -------------------------.~..:_.___._. -..... _...__ . _----: _. .-~ ~ ~ ~ - . _ . ~ t l _ .~ . __-----~------- -----_-.~.~._.._. ~ `~ i ~ ~`-~ ~.~ ~ i ~ 1881 ~ ' M]:NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963, Continued ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo CLARENCE L. & MARY SUE MIXON, 1244 Palm Lane, NOo 63-b4-52 and Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMES Ro MC DONALD, 1518 East Sycamore Avenue, Anaheim, California (new addx•ess: 523 East Buckeyewood Avenue, CONDITIONAL USE Orange); Agent; property described ass A rectangular parcel of land PERMIT_N0. 494 having a frontage of 100 feet on the east side of Palm Lane and a depth of 150 feet, the northexly..boundary of said property being approximately 572 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 1244 Palm Laneo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEa REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPN~M' WITH CARPOR'fS - WAIVE ONE-STORY FIEIGHT LIMITATION. Subject petitions were continued from.the meeting of October 28, 19b3, at the request of the petitioner in order to allow time to formulate revised development planso A letter was read to the Commission in which the petitioners requested that their petitions be~terminated because of development probiems for subject propertya Cooertissioner Gauer offert~d a motion to recommend to the City Council •~hat Petitions fur Reclassification Noe 63-64-52 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 494 be terminated as requested by the petitionerso Commissfoner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC I-~ARINGo ALBERT TIKKER, 2914 West Lincoln Avenue, NO,. 63-64-36 and Anaheim, California, Owner; BILLY Jo KIKER, 725 Kenmore Street, Anaheimy California, Agent; property described as: An irregular CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land approximately 185 feet by 600 feet, the westerly PERMIT N0~ 479 boundary of said property being 110 feet east of Ridgeway Street, and the northerly boundary being 396 feet soutt~ of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2914 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDEM'IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY R~SIDENTIAL, ZONEa REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELUPMENf - WAIVE ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY ZOPIED PROPERTYo Subject patitions were continued from the meetings of September 16, October 28, and November 13, 1963, in order that the petitioner might have sufficient time to submit revised plans and file a tract mapo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a request for a four weeks' continuance had been received from the developero Mrse Albert Urbigkeit, 2884 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that her property adjoined subject property, and if the Commission considered sub~ect petitiu~nsfavorably, that it be required that a six-foot masonry wall be requiredo The Cotnmission advised Mrso Urbigkeit tYiat if subject petitions were approved, the masonry wall would be one of the conditionso The Commission inquired of Mrso Urbigkeit whether or not she owned the motel, and was informed that the motel was on sub3ect property, and that her property had only groves and vacant lando THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe The Commission went on record to notify the opposition that no further notice of the proposed reclassification would be submitted, and if revised plans were submitted, these would be considered at the meeting to which the Commission would continue ite Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclas- sification No. 63-64-36 and Conditi.onal Use Permit Noo 479, to the meeting of January 20, 1964, as requested by the petitionero Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe , . ~ ..---____~_._... ----------__...._-.___..______. ~ . _. __.- -- - - -_...._ ~.: ._.. _ . _ ~_ ~ ~. .) ~ ~ , j ~ MII3liTES, CITY PLANNIAlG COMMISSION, December 9, 1963, Continued 1882 RE~LASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC FIEARING~ ROBERT B~ BURROWS, et al, 9821 Theresa N0. 63-64-56 and Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 98 feet on the north VARIANCE NOo 1.610 side of Orange Avenue, and a depth of 412 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being 6b0 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 1749 West Orange Avenueo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDE6TfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo REQUPSTED VARIANCE: WAIVE THE REQUIRED LOT FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET OR ALLEYa Subject petitions were continued from the meetinr of NovembeF 13, 1963, to allow the petitioner time to meet with adjacent property owners and the Planning DepartmEnt for possible development of adjoining parcels for a standard subdivision, single family tracte Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the development of the meeting held in the 1'lanning Department between property owners adjacent to subject propertyo It was further noted that at both meetings the petitioner did not appear or was not present dtu~ing any discussion relative to combining the R-A parcels to the west for development into a standard.subdivision of single family homeso The Commission was also advised that the attorney for Mrs. White had telephoned, indicating that Mrs. White would not oppose any form of development for subject property, and would even be willing to incorporate her property for future developmenta TI-~ E~ARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion wz.s held by the Commission relative to requirements for a standard subdivision, and it was noted that the Interdepartmental Committee recommended a 60-foot street for any development of subject property; that alleys or substandard streets were proposed to front the single family lots being proposed, and that all three parcels, subject property, and the two parcels to the west wouid be needed to adequately and economically develop said properties~ The Commission discussed the possibi]iiy of proposing R-2 for subject property, noting that property to the north was predominant~y single family subdivision developmento Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclas- sification Noo 63-64-56 and Variance Noo 1610, to the meeting of February 3, 1964, and directed that the petitioner be informed to personally appear at said meeting, and further to submit a copy of the Report to the Commission for the petitioner°s perusalo Commissioner Pebley seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CECIL KEITH 8 SATOSHI CY YUGUCHI, N0. 63-64-54 and 2810 West Redondo Beach Boulevard, Gardena, California, Owners; property described ass An irregular parcel of land approximately CONDITIONAL USE 250 feet by 250 feet, with a frontage of 115 feet on the north side PERMIT N0, 496 and the north half of the cul-de~-sac of Winston Road, approximately '• 1,000 feet easterly ~f Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2513 and 2519 Winston Roado Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONEo REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A ONE-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPN~ NI' WITH CARPORTS. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of November 13, 1963, because there was no one present to represent the petitionerso Mr. Cecil ::<~ith, one of the peti::ioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that it was their desire to keep the garages being proposed in their location as noted on the plot plan, to eliminate any noise from the automobile shop in con3unction with the school adjacent to subject property; that the deyelopment ad~acent to the west of subject property also had their garages located along the northerly ' proper.ty line; that the recommendation that the westerly 21-foot drive be reduced, and a I deed of easement be recorded was, in his opinion, unnecessary because the westerly property ( was also owned by the petitioners; and further, if any architectural changes were required, ~ the architect, Mro David Mancini, was available to answer any questionse { ~ ~ _ _._._...___ .. _.._ -~ i ~ _._._ _ ~ _ _ _.`_. i • .I .: .,+ i~ ~_~ ;~-, ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~_ , . i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963, Continued 1883 R6CLASSIFICATION - In.response to.Commission questioning relative to the number of units NOa 63-64-54 and which the proposed.driue would serve, Mra Mancini stated that the proposed development was almost identical to the one westerly of subject CONDITIONAL USE property; that.a total-of 40 units would.be using the westerly driveo PEf~IufIT NO o 496 ,~Cantinued) Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advisad the Commission that according to the preuious.Report to the Commission, the reduction cf the proposed westerly drive to incorporate a 30-foot drive to serve both the sub1ect propPrty and the property to the west would reduce the coverage of subject property, together with a.reduction of the large portion of gross area which had been asph~lted; that the.CDUncil had~approved Reclassification Noo 61-62-122, reclassifying property to the west of subject property, and that subject development was similar l:u that approved on th~ westerly propertyo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso THE FIEARING WAS CLOSEDo The•Commission discussed the possibility of the proposed reducti.on af the wesierly urive and the incorporation of the remaining 11 feet in landscaping adjacent to the easterly dxive aad the westerly drive for a more compatible living environment, and further determinF~d that although a number of the dwelling units would be a considerable distance away from th~~ car- ports, entrance would be obtained through a rear court, rather than having to walk around the entire development to the units fr~~nting on Winston Roado Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 982, 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 63M64~-54 be approved, subject to the reduction of the westerly drive, to re2ocate and landscape the remaining 12 feet so as to provide landscaping adjacent to the easterly and westerly drive, and the submission of an irrevocable agreement providin9 access to.the 21~-foot drive to the west of subject ~ropertyo (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, l:auer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland, Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSEPTI': COMMISSIONERSs Perryo Commissioner Camp ofFered Resolution Dlo~ 983, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cortunissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 496, subject to conditionso (See Reso'lution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, pebley, Rowland, Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perryo CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Jo Oo & PHYLLIS CRAWFORD, 1336 South Walnut PERMIT NOo 507 Street, SEREPTA_Ao.MOHN, 1343 South West Street, BEIV TER BEEST, 1215 South West Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; RTCHARD L. TOM, AaIoA., 1665 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting permis- sion to ESTABLISH A"Tf~ME" TYPE COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE EXBCUTED IN THREE PHASES on property described ass An L-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 630 feet on the south side of Ball Road, a frontage of 1200 fee~ on the west side of West Street, and a frontage of 665 feet on the east side of Walnut Street, the southerly boundary of said property bein9 approximately 1353 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 1336 South Walnut Street, and 1215 and 1343 South West Streeto Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENIIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting of November 27, 1963, to allow the petitioner time to meet with adjacent property owners for a presentation of the proposed planso A letter from the developer, Mra Sidney Barton, was presented to the Commission, and the Commission requested that the City Attorney's representative analyze the letter for any implications. A letter from the owners of Disneyland was also read to the Commissiono ~\ , . , - ~~~--._.. --- _, ._... . ---- ... .__..._ _. _ . _ ._._...._ _ _ _ ___.._ ---____-___,.~ ~ } t .~ ~ ~ s __. _.. :S ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963, Continued 1884 CONDITIONAL USE - Mro Sidney ' rton, the developer, appeared before the Commission and PEi~MIT NOo 507 advised '.~~: Commiss3on that the architect and he had met with representa- (Continued~__ tives ~.. Disneyland and a number of inembers of the City relatiVe to any problemsinherent in the proposed development, that the letter read by the Commission s~cretary from I:he Disneyland people indicated a tentative approval of the proposed devC~oPandtthat he wastdesirousVOfireceivingitheiCommission'SVal of tne final plans of~the proje , of a Public Hearin9 approval o£ the proposed development, so that the recommended schedulin9 by the City ~ichcwouldUexpirecFebruary~29, 1964r that he might utilize the option on subject properties wh Mro Barton further requested that if the Commission approved subject petition, any improve- ments for Walnut Street be deferred until the third phase of developmenta The Commission invited Planning Director Richard Reese to comment on the proposed development since he had met with the developer and architects regarding the Orient theme complex being proposedo ~~re P.~esa iRf7r(nP_.f~ the Commission that he, along with several other QCPTtativettoes of the City~ met with the developer of subject preperty and the Disi~eyland :ep:_--^ re~riew the problems inherent with the proposed development; that the developers were attempt- ing to obtain an answer or. interpretation at i;his stage from the Commission relative to whether or not the proposed concept would be within the Disneyland policy designatior., since less than 20% of the proposed development was planned for recreational purposes; that the theme merchandising facility might be considsred by the Commission and Council as a tourist- related use falling within the Disneyland policy and located within the Disneyland area; that any other problems relative to management, operations, maintenance, etco, should be e problem which the City Council might wish to investigate, and that the Commission should only consider whether thei_ interpretation of the proposed use would be the proper land use within the confines of the Disneyland policyo Mre Reese further stated that if the Commission considered the proposed development as a compatible land use within the Disneyland area, the Commission may wish to request that the City Council set for public hearin9 the proposed development so that any additional problems inherent to this proposed development might be resolved at the Council level, and advised the Commission that the letter which outlined theand~asked thatlopmbetread atbthisetimeo Mr, Barton, could be easily read at the hearing, After the Commission secretary had completed reading the proposed Orient consideration regarding ownership, organization, developmen± stages, contents of the Orient development, and recreational facilities, Mro Reese further commented on the fact that the Wonderland Fair had been set as a precedent for a theme type merchandising center approved by the City Council some time a9o, but which had not been developed; that if the Commission was favorably considering subject petitiony that development or precise plans could be subject to both Commission and Council review~ together with comparison of these precise plans with the developer's letter of intent which had andnwhether~it alsohfellrwithin thenlimitswofhtheat was proposed in this letter of intent, Disneyland land use area policya Discussion was then held between the Commission and the developer, Mre Barton, regarding the adequacy•of the accessways to subject property.for fire protection, the Commission notin9 for the developer that Disneyland maintained their own police, fire, and maintenance facilitiesa Mro Barton stated that policing the proposed development would be taken care of by the developers to control the flow of traffic, but they were not planning any overall protection plan relative to police and fire; that since the proposed development was still in the concept stage, there was a possibiliandtfireaprotectionmwouldtbe resolvedhwhenQprecise rel.ative to policing, trash truck pick-up, plzins were submitted for approvalo It was further pointed out by the Commisandnwhentanhthio eas complexeasatheWproposedbdevelop- prooerty owners in the Disneyland area, Y 9 ment was being proposed in the Disneyland area, any property owners within that area should be considered in a proposed developmento Mr. Edwin Ettinger, representin9 Disneyland, appeared before the Commission and stated that they were not opposed to the proposed development, that sufficient information had not been formulated to ascertain whether the proposed development would fall within the Disneyland land use policy, that they welcomed any form of development that was compatible with the area, and that his suggestion in the letter that any final decision of approval on subject , petition by the City Council should be considered at an additional public hearingo I i i ~ ., _ ._.___..__..__ .____...__.._..__.._._..-- --- r --- --.~..--- --.. _ ~ ,~~-~A. ~ _.... ~ _ _ , . ~- , 3 ~ ~ ' 3 . ~ ~ ~ - ~ e ; . ______. _ .. ..._ . . _ __.... ...._ ....._._ .....~._......____.._.... . . ~1 . . .. .. . . ."" "__""_"' . ...._ _""....... ._ '_l'~~~ _..~_..~..__._-....,.._... .... . ~ ..,, ~.... . .. . ... . : `.~ . I j i~ ~~ _ ___. .. __ _ ~' : , ~...~ `_'' t ) ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963, Continued 1885 CONDITIONAL USE - Mrso E, W, Chat£ield, 1119 West Vermont Avenue~ appeared before the PERMIT NOe 507 Commission and asked that the Commission consider the increased traffic (Cantinued) problem on West Street and Ball Road, that the traffic flnw from Disney- ~ land up West Street to Verm~nt presented quite a problem to property owners on Flore Street, and that the City should consider cul-de-sacing Flore Street, since it is only a block~-long streete Mr. Robert Do Shaw, 930 Flore Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he also was conc•erned about the heavy traffic problem presently existing, and if any additional develop- ment in the Disneyland area was proposed, the City Traffic Department should consider either cul-de-sacing Flore Street or the erection of signs which would be illuminated to indicate that Flore Street was not a through street, but a residential streeto Mre David Collins, 952 Flore Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was also concerned with the serious traffic problem on the street, that the possibility of the erection of signs might resolve this problem, to prevent tourists from leavirg the Disney- land park and driving ir,to a residential area; that the proposed concept was an exc:elienL one, that the Commission should be concerned with the compatibility of the proposed concept o~ a land use within the Disneyland area; that any other control problems and details should be considered by the City Councily and that the sales tax and other revenue that would be derived from the proposed development would certainly be an asset to the City Treasury, in addition to increasing the real estate value of propertya THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa The Commission continued discussion on the proposed development concept since more precise plans had not been submitted, that it was the Commission°s duty to determine whether the proposed development would be a proper land use as designated in the Disneyland land use policy, Commissioner Camp stated that in his opinion, all the petitioner desired was a policy state- ment from the Commission relative to the Orient theme concept as it related to the Disneyland policy, and that the developer had stipuiated that any precise plans would be submitted to the Commission and the City Council for their approval before the issuance of any building permits, and that the Commission should request that the City Council hold a public hearing on subject petition to determine any problems inherent with the development, other than land use as proposed under the Disneyland policya In answer to questioning by the Commission relative to the legality of approving subject petition, Deputy City Attorney Furman E~oberts stated that the Commission may wish to act in a manner described by Mro ReeseY which stated that the land use as it pertained to the Disneyland area was to be approved by the Commission, that all detailed plans of construction should be submitted to the Commission and the City Council prior to issuance of the building permit so +.hat the Interdepartmental Committee could review any plan of development for the City's requirementso Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 98., Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comrnissioner Sides, to grant Conditional Use Permit Noo 507, subject to conditions and findings that the proposed theme commercial recreation facilities were deemed compatible to the interpretation of the Disneyland land use policy by the Commis- sion, that the development would be constructed in three phases, that all precise plans be submitted to the Planning Commission for compatability with the adjoining land uses, the Statement of Intent of the developer and concept plans as noted in Exhibi+;s Nose 1 through l00 (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sideso NOHSs COMMISSIONERSs Rowlando ABSEM: COMMISSIONERS: Perryo Commissioner Rowland, in voting "NO", stated that he was not sure what was being presented, and could not, therefora, vote in the affirmativea ~'r' ___-.---- --- - -. __. ....---__ . ._._._ ---- __ ..._._. ~C! 1" 1 i ~--~~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ; .~ ~ ,_ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, December 9, 1963, Continued 1886 RECESS . - Commissioner Pebley moved for a ten minute recess. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOI'ION CARRIEP. i The meeting recessed at 4s00 p.m. ~ ~ RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:12 p.m., all members , being present except Commissioners Pebley and Perry. VARIAI~E N0. 1611 - PUBLIC I~HRING. RICHARD R. 8 EVELYN TETROW, 3621 Savanna Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; W. E. BOUCK, JR., 10650 Beach Boulevard, Stanton, California, Agent; requesting permission to CREATE TWO R-A PARCELS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE: WAIVE FROM YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 133 feet on the north side of Savanna Street and an average depth of 275 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 932 feet west of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3621 Savanna Streete Proparty presently classi- fied as R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. Mr. Bill Bouck, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that any additional information was submitted on the petition and that a 130 foot lot was being proposed for a lot split in order to construct a home on the westerly portiona In answer to Commission questioning relative to the request for waiver of the front yard setback, the agent for the petitioner stated that no hardship was evident, that he had requested the waiver because all homes constructed in the area had a similar setback; that he woule~ relocate the structure to the rear, if the Commission so desired. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt inquired whether the petitioner wished to withdraw his request for waiver of the front yard setbacks to which Mr. Bouck replied in the affirmative, that he would stipulate to the request for approval of withdrawal of the requested waiver of the front yard setback. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione TFlE f-IEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to Commission questioning, Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that dedication was desired because other parcels immediately adjacent to subject property had been required to dedicate, and that it would be foi the petitioner's protection to dedicate at this time, with improvements at some future date in accordance with Code requirements. It was further suggested that the Commission stipulate by a finding that a previous variance had stated that at such a time as the development of the property would take place, said dedication and improvements would be madee Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 985, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos. to grant Petition for Variance No. 1611, and granting the request~of the petitioner to withdraw his request for waiver of the front yard setback, and coAditionse (See Resolution Sook.) • ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Sidesa NOESs CONN7ISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Perry. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ARNOLD CONSTRUCTION CO., 2293 We$t Ball Road, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 511 California, Owners; SULLY-OPPENHEIM 8 ASSOCIATES, 1227 North La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles 69, California, Agents: requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MOTEL WITH LATER ADDITION OF RESTAURANT-BAR FACILITIES on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 130 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, and a depth of 250 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approxi- mately 242 f~et north of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described as 1224 North Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE~ and C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Robert Sully, architect representative for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development as presented in the petitiono _._ _ _ _ _.... _ _ ._-------- ... ';e~ , ------- - ._........_ , ~t / ~. i • ~~ t.. ) ~ ~ . ) ~ `,-; ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1968, Continued 1887 , CONDITIONAb USE - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt referred the Commission's attention PERMIT NOo 511 to Finding Noo 2 of the Report to the Commission~ in which a letter ~Continued) from the petitioner requesting a reduction of the 14-foot vertical clearance as required by the Interdepartmental Committee for trash truck pick-up would be proposeda Mre Sully then reviewed the proposed petition, noting that the plot plans and elevations subh~itted with the petition indicated the 14-foot minimum clearance under the second floor por.tion of the motel, that by conforming with said height clearance would present a cost faator, together with inconvenience to motel guests; that the petitioner proposed a 15-foot strip of landscaping in the front yard setback, said landscaping would be removed, if and when the City decided to widen the streeto Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that full dedication had been acquired on subject property, that curbs and gutters had already been installed, and the only request was for the installation of sidewalks, and the space between the curbs and the sidewalks woirld be seven feeto Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt then asked that the Commiss~on consider the installation of tree wells with the planting of trees in the parkway portion at 40-foot intervals, and that the Commission might possibly consider approved landscaping in the parkway ?ortion. Mro Sully stated that he had been told that the City was desirous of beautifying the high- way rights-of-way with landscaping, and his intent was to landscape according to the plan submitted, subject to approval by the Department of Parkway Maintenance; that he proposed an il-foot clearance for fire prevention facilities; that trash collection would be at the front of the building, with landscaping to shield the trash storage area. The Commission continued discussion relative to the proposed trash pick-up at curb side, noting that this might be objectionable from an aesthetic viewpointo The Commission reviewed the plot plans to note where the petitioner proposed the trash storage area to be located. It was noted, though, that the petitioner would be required to move the trash containers to the curb side on pick-up day since the maximum distance the trash pick-up employees would travel to roll said containers would be five feet, that the request for the reduction from 14 feet to 11 feet clearance was basically because trash pick-up would not be to the rear of the proposed motel, but that it would be incumbent on the petitioner to remove the trash containers as soen as trash pick-up was maieo Mre Sully stated he recognized the unsightliness of trash areas, that the petitioner was pxoposing to landscape the trash area in order to beautify it and shield it from view of the street; that the Commission could be assured that any good commercial establishment would never leave its containers out on the street all dayo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione Tl~ [i~ARING WAS CLOSED. In reviewing the recommended conditions of approval, the Commission noted that air condition- ing facilities were required to be shielded from view, and asked that the petitioner clarify this. ' - ' • Mr. Sully stated by stipulation that it was their intent to keep all air conditioning units from the street side and locate them on the inner court of the proposed 1~-story building, and t!iat thQ existing structure would be utilized for an office building and would be renovated and brought within conformance of the Code requixementso Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 986, Series 1963-6d, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos~ to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 511, subject to conditions and the finding that the propased 14-foot vehicle clearance may be reduced to 11 feet for access by fire vehicles, and that the petiticr.er stipulated to the installation of landscaping in that area adjacen~ to the front property iine, that all air conditioning units would be shielded from view9 and ~hat precise plans of development for the proposed restaurant-bar facilities shall be submitted to the Planning Commissicn for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the restaurant-bar facilities. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes """"°"" AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Rowland, Sidese NOES~ COhUNISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Perrye ~ , ~ __ _ _... .- _ _ - -- - ---s_._..__._._.__........~._..._.__._....__~~- _ -- --+~d ~ ~ ~ ~__t ; ~'~ ; - } ~1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963 1888 PUBLIC HEARING~ CONDITIONAL USE - ALBERT J. AND FLORENCE JANZEN~ Fa No DOYLE~ L~ Pe SHIELD6, AND PERMIT NOe 57,~,. WILMA MILLER, c~o DAVID Se COLLINS, 1077 West Sall Road,'Anaheim, California, Owners; DAVID So COLLINS, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 22-STORY HOTEL, It'vcLUDING SPECIALTY SHOPS ANB ASS~IATED SERVICES on prdperty described as: An iregularly shaped parcel of land covering approximately 12 acres, and having frontages of approximately 706 feet on the east side of West Street, 537 feet on the north side of Ball Road•, 459 feet on the westerly side of the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp, and 455 feet on the southwesterly side of the Santa Ana Freewayo Property presently classified R-A, RESIDEMIAL AGRICULTURAL9 ZONE, Mre David Collins, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that Mro Milton Freeman, coordinator of the proposed hotel development would present the proposed development and answer questions for the Commissiono Mro Milton L~ Freeman appeared before the Commission and reviewed +.he proposed development, noting that 750 rooms were proposed for a 22-story glass hotel to be known as the Sheraton- Anaheim, that if the subject petition were approved, site preparation plans would be scheduled for May 1, 1964, and the hotel would be open to the general public May 1, 1966, and ownership of the entira project was in the hands of three Orange County business men, that approximately $200,000 had already been spent on the preliminary work for development of the proposed petition, that three separate feasibility studies were undertaken be;ore positive steps to dovelop the hotel facility were finalized, that the hotel was located longitudinally so as to.minimize the line of sight intrusion on the privacy of the surrounding areas, including the residential homes in Disneyland, that local area residents were appraised of the details of the proposed development at a meeting November 20~ 1963~ that the Disneyland park officials had been acquainted with the plans of the hotel throughout the various phases of development, that he would be available to answer any questions the Commission might have, with technical assistance from the archftect for the proposed hotelo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the title report submitted with the subject petition included the "not a part", but that the plans did not include said "not a part"o Mro Frank Tulley,924 South Flore Street9 appeared before the Commission and stated that his property was located directly west of the proposed garage structure, that he had discussed with the architect the possibility of relocation of the garage northerly toward the Santa Ana Freeway, that he was opposed to the present location because of the possibility of lights being on all night, shining into his bedroom windows which were located on the westerly side of the proposed garage facilities, that he would prefer the requirement of a completely enclosed structure, and if that was not possible, the relocation of the stsucture to the northeast, toward the Santa Ana Freeway frontage, and any proposed lights for the ground parking area be so located to minimize any direct glare to the residential development westerly : of subject property, said lights being similar to those in shopping centers and similar to the Disneyland Hotel parking areao Mro Tulleyalso advised the Commission that with the proposed development, the traffic problem would be greatly increased, and requested of the Commission that the traffic engineer give serious consideration to the intersection of Ball Road and West Street, togethe~ with the possibility of making Flore Street a cul-de-sac street to eliminate through traffic to Vermont Avenue, that this small residential street was being utilized for a main thorough- fare from the Disneyland property, that with the convention and hotel facilities being pro- posed, the traffic hazard would be Near-around, rather than for the three months presently existinge Commissioner Pebley entered the Council Chamber at 5:00 pome Mr. Gordon Savage, 920 Flore Street, appeared to conditionally oppose the locaiion of the garage structure and the increase in traffic which would result if subject development were approved, and requested that serious consideration be given to the resolving of the traffic problem if subject petition were approvedo Mrso !iester Vaugn, 112°: West Vermont Street, appeared in conditional opposition, asking t}iat the Commission consider the residents of the area by taking precautionary measures to maintain the attractive appearance of the area of single family homes adjacent to the Disneyland areaa Mr. Andrew Peterson, 1102 West Hampshire Street, appeared in conditional opposition to sub~ect petition and stated tie was concerned about the proposed location of the garage facilities, noting that they were directly across the street from his bedroom windows; that no one in his family woulc~ be able to sleep because of a 24~hour noise factor from cars being parked in the garage and parking lot facilities of the proposed hotelo _._ ____ -------------..._ ~_...,-..~..._..-.-_--. . . -~ri ~ ~ . . ..._.~_....., ~ . ~~; MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963 1889 CONDITIONAL USE - Mro Edwin Ettinger, representing Disneyland, appeared before the PESMIT N0, 512 Commission and stated he was speaking in favor of the :~otel, that tl~e (Continued) proposed development would he generally good for the entire area, to- ~ether with the proposed convention facilities; that the developers had submitted the plans to Disneyland for review, and their only reservation was the possibility of the line of sight intrusion; tha.t Disneyland still had their own pxoblem to solve with the hotel, that it would be another eighteen months before the construc- tion of a new facility within the Disneyland park would be completed to substantially eliminate their.present line of sight problem, in.reference to the Disneyland Hotel, and that some form of a landscaped berm be constructed to minimize the commercial appearance of a hotelo Mra David Collins then stated that they would make a sincere effort to resolve the line of sight problem regarding the residential homes and Disneylanda In response to Commission questioning regarding suggestions for resolving the line of sight problem, Mro Freeman stated that he, too„ would not like to see the illusion broken of the Disneyland area, that his firm was making a study to reduce any unpleasant line of siyht problems relative to the 22-story structure~ and that i+ was his sincere hope that this might be resolved with tt~e Disneyland representativeo Mre Richard Shaw, 930 Flore Street, appeared in conditional opposition to subject petition and asked whether the developer of subje.;t property had considered ihe flight pattern of airplanes and helicopters to Los Angeles and Los Alamitos, and the Fullertun Airporto Mre H, H. James, 889 South West Street, appeared in conditional opposition and stated that he was directly across the street from the proposed parking structure, and that his structure would be only 70 feet from the proposed garage structure, that the petition submitted in opposition to the proposed development nad been started by him, but that he was in full accord with the proposed development if some relief co~ld be given to the relocation of the garage structure northerly and easterly to the Santa Ana Freewayo Mro John 0'Leary, 1107 lNest Vermont Street, appeared in conditional opposition to subject petition, noting that tha proposed development would increase the hazardous traffic problem for ~Yest Street northerly into Ball Road and mistakenly into Flore Street, that it was extremely hazardous to families with small children, and suggested that the City consider signs or cul- de-sacing the street to minimize any increase in traffic, and that it was his hope that the Commission would request that the petitioner relocate the propcsed garage facilities to mini- mize the noise and light factorso Mro Freeman, in rebuttal, stated that he was in agreement with the opposition in reqiiesting that the parking facilities be relocated, and then submitted an overlay on the proposed plot plan which pxoposed the relocation of the garage facilities easterly 150 feet to the Santa Ana Freeway; that retainer walls 42 inches in height would reduce the possibility of lights shining toward the residential area to the west; that the parking area would have lights similar to that of the Disneyland parking area, which would be more aesthetically compatible to the proposed development; that the lights from a 22-story hotel would be somewhat reduced by draperies at the windows; that it was hoped that a minimum of traffic would deave the proposed development and use West Street as an access to the freeway; that they had contacted the various airports relative to ~he proposed development, that~the owners of the helicopter port advised him that before construction would be started on the proposed development, the helicopter company would relocate the:r heliport. The Commission inquired of Mro Daw, Office Engineer, what could be done regardir~g the traffic problem which might res~~lt if subject petition were approveda Mro Daw replied that if the situation had been cal.ed to the attention of Mro Granzow, the Traffic Engineer, he was sure he would be inclined +,o resolve any traffic problem resulting from excessive traffi~ using West Streete Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that this request for resolving any trafFic hazards for West and Fiore Streets might be resolved in a request to the City Council to ask that the Engineering Department analyze the traffic problem for these streets, with the possible solution of cul-de-sacing Flore Street and the erection of signs to indicate that the streets were only residential streets and did not afford proper access to adjacent strastso Mr. Marko Botich, architect for the development, advised the Commission that the proposed parking facilities would be an open structure, and that the height of the structure would be 24 feet, with a 42 inch retainer raile Mro David Collins advised the Commission that an amended Title Report would be submitted to the City Attorney which would exclude the "not a part" parcel advertised for the public hearinge _ _ Gi ~ • ~~~ ~ , t~ >> , , ~,~ ~, ~~ ~ ;~ 0 , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963 1890 CONDITIONAL USH - The Commission discussed the vehicular access sights of the State on PFRMIT N0. 512 the Ball Road off-ramp with Mra Daw and tvlro Kreidto ~1ro Kreidt stated SContinued) that it was his opinion that Finding No. 4 of the Report to the Co~renis- sion was information for the petitioner rather than the concern of the Cityo Mr. Collins then advised the Commission that the petitioners were aware of a problem relative to off-ramp traffic, but felt they could resolve this with the proper authoritiese TI~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDe Comnissioner Sides offered Resolution Noe 987, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 512~ granting a waiver of the 35-foot height limitation to permit the establishment of a , 260-foot hotel structure, and that precise development plans be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to issuance of a building permit, and conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland, Sideso NOESe COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Perryo Commissioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 5:50 pe:no RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo WoNaJo INVESTMENT It~ORPORATED, 10801 Dale Street, NOo 63-64-63 and Stanton, California, Owners; R. H. DESSERT, 2203 North Flower, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property described as~ A rectangular parcel CONDITIONAL USE of land having a frontage of 220 feet on the south side of Ball Road, PERMIT NOo 513 and a depth of 450 feet, the westerly boundary of said proparty being approximately 664 feet east of che centerline of Brcokhurst Street, and further described as 2130 West Ball Rc,ad. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL~ZONEo REQUESTED COIVDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISIi A THREE-STORY APARTMENT BUILpING WITH WAIVER OF THE FOL.LOWING~ (1) G.4RAGES TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORTS; (2) 2~,r STORY OR 35-FOOT STRUCTURAL tIHIGHT LIMITATION~ AND (3) ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIOh WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONED PROPER'IYo Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 5:52 pomo Mr. R. H, Dessert, agent for the petitianer, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed developmente Commissioner Allred returned to the Council Chamber at 5:55 pomo Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 5:56 poma A letter from the manufacturing concern ad3acent to subject property to the east was read to the Commission, referring to a request for a masonry block wall, proposed setbacks, and drain- age problemso In response to Commission questioning, the agent for the petitioner stated that a six-foot masonry wall would be constructed on the easterly property line, that although the development was indicated on the Staff Report as three distinct buildings, it was proposed to have a standard R-3 development consisting of one apartment building owned solely by one person, since he did not desire to construct a garden-type apartmente Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts submitted a copy of the Report to the Commission to the agent for the petitioner at the meetingo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt noted for tt~e Commission that if the Commission interpreted the proposed development was more than one building, then it might.consider the proposed development in relationship with the proposed Planned Residential Development Standards; that the Commission and the developer consider the possibility of a 54-foot wide street on one side of aub~ect propertyo -- - - _ . . . .. . -,~: , ' d~ ~_~ i ~~ ~` ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963 1891 REGLASSIFICATION - The Commission reviewed the plans in conjunction with the request of N0. b3-64-63 and the manu~acturing concern to the east for a 25-foot setback, and stated that the request seemed unreasonable; that the planned unit development CONDITIONAL USE should not be interpreted on the basis of the type of structure, but PEftMIT NOo 513 upon the size of the property; that if a 54-foot street were required SContinued) and the development constructed in accordance with R-3 standards, approval of the proposed development for subject property with a 400-foot parcel of land could not be justified; and that there would be no more circulation on a 54•-foot street than a 45-foot street, since only residents of the structure would utilize the street and the proposed alleya Mro Kreidt then noted for the Commission that if a 45-foot street were approved, parking on the street would not be accommodated, whereas there would be adequate space for street park- ing on a 54-foot street; that the alley drive would be approximately 600 feet long; and that the analysis of the proposed development as it pertained to Planned Residential Development Standards was noted in the Report to the Commissiono ii~~.peiitioner stated Lhat even though a Iong streat or alley v~as propased, ths effect of a long canyon would nat be noted; that the proposed development would have considerable aesthetic value; that 1250-foot, two-bedroom units were proposed, and it was his opinion that large size units were preferable to a reduction of these units to provide for greenery; and that only a three-story portion of the proposed structure was being proposed for the front of the structureo; Mre Kreidt then asked that the Commission and the petitioner consider the inadequacy of the +, proposed guest parkingo , Tl~ HF.ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp stated that the Commission had a great deal of work to do before the Planned Unit Development Guides could be applied to R-3 requests; that parcels of land similar to subject property should be considered on the basis that the width should be one-half of the depth of the parcel of property, and when located on an arterial street or highway, multiple family development should be considered compatible; and that the Planning Commission might consider different types of R•-3 developments> Mr. Kreidt asked that if the Commission considered subject petition favorably, that it be clarified as to the exact number of units being proposed, and that the Commission stipulate that the proposed development was considered one buildingo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 988, Series 1963~64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissloner Sides, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-63 be approved, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book..) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred9 Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Roland, Sideso NOES: CO~M~fISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Pebley, Perryo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 989, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoptfon, seconded by Comsnissioner Sides~ to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 513, that the waiver of the 2~-story or 35-foot height limitation, and the waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone property be granted; that because of the size and height of the proposed structure, that one-hour fire code construction be required, and conditionse (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: CONUiiISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gaues•, Mungall, Roland, Sides. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Pebley, Perrye Commissioner Rowland stated for the record that it was his opinion that a variance should have been filed, rather than the conditional use permit, since the proposed dEVelopment was a standard R-3, and the requested waivers which the Commission granted could have been requested on a petition for variancea __... _ _ .____ _. _._ ._. __. _ . ._ ... __ .__ __ ._.. __ ----.---------.--•-------.-_._________._~~__.._ ~___.._~___. _-- -~ . ~~ ' ~ _ . ~ I • ~ : ~ (~ ~ l. ) ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963 1892 REPORTS AND - ITBM NOo 1 RECOMMENDATIONS RECLASSIFICATION N0, 63-64-22 - Tille Fluegge, et al, c~o Talt, MacMahon and Nelson, requesting a change of zone from R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, property located on the east side of Euclid Street approximately 660 feet south of Katella Avenue, review and recommendations of plans submittedo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the previous City Council and Commission actien on subject petitions, noting that the consideration of plans was continued from the meetings of November 13 and 27, 1963, because the plans were not completede Mro Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that he felt that the proposed plans had incorporated all the recommended changes, and that the plans had.been reviewed with the single family residents adjacent to sub~ect property, and no objection had been presentedo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the condition that Fostoria and Loara Streets and Lida and Lindaloa Lanes be cul-de-saced subject to obtaining ano:•oval of the City of Garden Groveo Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that in previous instances when a similar condition had been added to an approved petition, if this approval was not received by the City of Anaheim within a reasonable time, the condition was deletedo It was further noted by the Commission that the proposed plan was set up so as to have single lot ownership, and if this were so, the petitioner would have to file a subdivision tract mape Mro MacMahon then advised the Commission that ownership of the propert~, would remain with the estate, but that separate building sites would be leased on a 55-year basiso No one appeared in opposition to subject pet£tiono Commiseioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council favorable consideration of the plans as submitted and considered by the Commission on December 9, 1963, ii' the Council, in their opinion, considered multiple family development as pxoposed in Petition for Reclas- sification Noa 63-64-22 compatibley since it was adjacent to primarily single family develop- ment to the south and east, subject to the following conditionss lo That a Final Tract Map of subject property be approved by the City Council and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recordera 2o That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25000 per dwelling unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the builJ~ng permit is issuede 3e That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file in the office of the Director of Public Works, prior to final building inspectiono 4e That subject property shall be Gaveloped substantially in aqcordance with plans and snecifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Revision Noe 1: Exhibit Noso 1 through 90 Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM N0~ ~ Communication from the City of Buena Park Planning Commission regarding fourplexes being developedo A letter was read to the Commission from the City of Buena Park Planning Commission in which the Commission was urged to recommend necessary changes to correct the current "planning by lending" practices by the various lending institutions who seemed to have taken over the role of Planning Commissions creating monotonous suburbia with shortlasting values and waste of shrinking land resourceso Chairman Mungall directed that the letter be noted as received and filedo ITEM N0. 3 SOUTFIHRN CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRESS Meeting to be held December 12, 1963, hosted by the City of Santa Fe Springse Commissioners Mungall and Gauer indicat~~d that they would attend the meeting. .-_~-_..... _--~ -- ----__--- --.. .. _. _---- -___ __.......--- --- ----- _ ___.__: . ___- x`' , a4. ._ _, _. __. ._ __- .~ _. ~-~ ~ ~~ ~ ., ~ ~~ ; , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963 1893 REPORTS AND ITEM NOa 4 RECOMN~NDATIONS Urgency Ordinance for Amendment to M-1 - (Continued) Permitting a 25-foot setback for collector streets within an industxial tract< Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the proposed amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code: Section 1t3o52, notir,y that tnis amendment was urgently needed to be submitted to the City Council in order that any requests for approval of industrial tracts might incorporate the proposed changeo Co-mnissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 990, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland,to recommend to the City Council that an Urgency Ordinance for Amendment to M-1, Light Industrial, Zone to permit the establishment of a 25-foot setback for collector streets within an industrial tracto (See Resolution Booko) On rol.l ca11_ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer~ Mungall, Rowland, Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABS£M': COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Pebley, Perryo ITEM NOo 5 Communication from the City of Fullerton - RECLASSIFICATION NOo 63~64=7 - Landscaping on the frontage property of Harbor Boulevarda Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the action taken by the Planning Commission, noting that one of the items discussed by the Cortmission was the request fox• landsceping on the Harbor Boulevard frontage adjacent to the City of Fullerton's water faciiities9 adjacent to property a~proved for a service station under the above reclassificatione A letter was x~ead to the Commission in which Mro Jack Lo Royer, City of Fullerton Manager of Municipal Utilities agreed that landscaping would be installed upon receipt of a layout of the service station so that landscaping would be compatible with said layouto Chairman Mungall directed that the City of Fullerton be advised by letter that the City of Anaheim Planning Commission expressed their appreciation for the cooperation with refer- ence to landscaping by the City of Fullertono ITEM NOo 6 Work Session - Service Station Standardso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the original date set up by the Service Station Committee for a work session with the Anaheim Planning Commission for ~ December 16, 1963, would have to be changed because the Service Station Operators' representa- tive, Mro_Ralph Clarke, would be unable to attendo Discussion by the Commission also indicated that a quorum would not be present, and then set the work session for December 19, 1953~ ITEM N0. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOe 370 - RECLASSIFICATION NOe 62-63-101 - Roquest for reinstatement of the terminated conditional use permit. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission all action taken by the Planning Commission on Conditional Use Permit Noo 370 and Reclassification Noe 62-63-101, noting that when the Commission recommended to the City Council that subject reclassification be approved, it also recommended termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 370 as being unnecessary, that the City Council had taken no action of the Conditional Use Permit Noe 370, an@ later in the meeting disapproved Reclassification Noo 62-63-101 on May 14, 1963; that the petitioner of both petitions was operating a used car sales agency in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code because of this apparent oversight in terminating the Conditional Use Permit Noe 370 L~puty C3.ty Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the termination of Conditional Use Permit Noo 370 was not null and void and quoted from Code~ Section 18e68.040e _ ; ~` _ ..._ ~._._-_ _._. .._ __ __. _. ... _ _--- - _._. _ _ .._._ ._..._... . _._ .....____ . -~ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ ~~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1963 REPORTS AND ITEM N0. 7- Continuedo RECOMO~AENOATIONS 1894 Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 991, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissianer Gamp, to rescind Resolution Noo 731, Series 1962-63, which terminated Conditional Use Permit Noo 370, on April 15, 1963, and by this action does hereby reinstate Conditional Use Permit Noe 370 to an active statuse (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolutior. was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Camp, Gauer, Mun9a11, Rowland, Sideso EIOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIOI~RSs Chavos, Pebley, Perryo ITEM NOo 8 UARIANCE N0~ 1580 - William K, and Yvor.ne L. Nyman - Requesting an extension of 180 days ta comply with the condition granting said varianceo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property and•the proposed use, and advised the Commission that the only condition attached to the approval of Variance Noe 1580 was development substantially in accordance with plans, and that the letter of transmittal stated that conditions be met within 180 days after the grant- ing of a petitiono CoRanissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant an extension of 180 days for the completion of Variance Noe 1580o Commissioner Sides seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOe Q CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 160 Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the location of subject property and the action taken on Conditional Use Permit Noo 16, in which the City Council had approved the request to establish a trailer park east of Knott Street on the south side of Lincoln Avenue. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that he had reviewed all subsequent action by the petitioner.s, noting that development of the trailer park was not completed be- cause of the inability of a city sewer connection as required by the State, that the petition- ers had been informed in the Fall of 1961 that this service was now available, but the petitioner had not exercised his option on the use, and on January 22, 1963, the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, terminated subject conditional use permito Discussion held by the Commission brought forth the facts that the Commission could not reinstate said conditional use permit since it had been terminate@ by the City Council~ that a land use change had occurred since 1958, and the Council might wish to have this request considered at a public hearing, and that the owners of said propexty should contact the City Clerk to ask that Conditional Use Permit Noo 16 be considered by the City Council for their reactiono- • . - . . TEMPORP~RY - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the regular meeting to ADJOURNMEM' the evening of December 19, 1963, in order that the Commission might meet with the Service Station Standards Committee and service station operators at a work session to further oonsider rev3sions to the Service SL•ation Minimum Site Development Standards recommended for approval by the Commissione Commissioner Sides seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe The meeting ad;ourned at 7:10 pom. Respectfully submitted, ANN KREBS, Secre ary ANAHEIM PLANNING CONA7ISSION i i { ~~ ._.__ _ _._._._ ~ _ _ ___ __~.___ _ _ _ .._.`____ ---~- °---_.~.._._ : -.~3'; , ~ ~ =~ ~; •