Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/12/23; ,~ .. ~,.,~:E~W. , . ~ ~ .~ City Hall Anaheim, California December 23, 1963 A REGULAR MEETIAiG OF T,yE ANAI-IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGIJLAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to ' order by Chairman Mungall at 2s10 o'clock p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENf - CHAIRMAN: Mungalla ' - COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Per~y, Rowland, Sides. ABSENf - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Pebley. PRESENf - Zoning Coordinators Martin Kreidt Deputy C3ty Attorneys ,Terry Brody Office Engineer: Art Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Commissioner Gauer gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF THE~MINUTES - Minutes of the meet~~ng of December 9, 1963, were approved as submittedo RECLASSIFICATION - COM'INUED PUBLIC FIEARINGe FANNY SHOWALTER, c~o DECON CORPORATION, NOo 63-64-8 and 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; DECON :.ORPORATION, 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property described CONDITIONAL USE ass An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 1~266 fe~t on the PERMIT NOe 450 westerly side of the Riverside Freeway, the westernmost boundary of ~ sub3ect property being 550 feet east of the centerline of Jeffeison Street, said property being further described as PORTION N0. 1 6nd PORTION NOo 2; PORTION NOo 1 baing located in the City of Anaheim, PORTION N0. 2 being lo~~ted in the County of Orangee Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRI- CUl.~URAL, ZONE. • REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDE~TI'IAL, ZONEe REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIQENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH CARPORTS - WAIVE ONE- STORY FIEIGHT LIMITATIONo Subject petitions were continusd from the meetings of July 22, August 19, September 16, and October 28, 1963, in order th~t the petitioner might have sufficlent time to submit revised plans incorporating suggestions made by the Commissiona A letter was received from the agent for the petitioner requesting an additional four-week continuance, and further stating that this would be the last continuance which they would requesto Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noe b3-64-8 and Conditional Use Permit No. 450 to the meeting of January 20, 1964, as requested by the agent-for the petitioner to allow time to submit plansa Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. - 1895 - , a ~ E ~ P I ~ ; ~ .~~ ~ --~----~------ -- .___.__. _.. _..~, __...._ _---~ ~ ` ~~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J • ^ .."""'._ _'__'_'_'_ .~ . . . _. - .. 1 ... ~ . I . ..~ . ~_~ > f o ; 1.J ..\ ~ ,1 ~~ / ~ t ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONa1ISSI0N, December 23, 1963, Continued 1896 RECLASSIFICATION - COMINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo FRANK Co 8 NOitA Mo BECKETT, 2147 South Lewis NOo 63-64-61 and Street, Anaheim, California; RUSS 8 NATALIE BOOREY, 2501 Harbor View Drive, Corona Del Mar, Caiifornia; and DOROTHY ROHAN, 430 South Sycamore CONDITIONAL USE 5anta Ana~ California, Owners; Se V. HUNSAKER 8 SONS, P, Oe Box 1216~ PERMIT NOa 509 Fleetwood Annex, Covina, California, Agent; property described ass A rectangular parcel of land having frontages of 1,279 feet on the west side of Lewis Street, 309 feet on the north side of Simmons Street, and 309 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue~ and further described as 2147 South Lewis 5treete Property presently classified.as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL~ ZONco REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: CONSTR[~T A 98-UNIT SINGLE-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPN~M' WITH CARPORTS - WAIVER OF TFiH BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENfSe Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of November 27, 1963, in order to allow ~r,~ petitioners sufficient time to discuss development plans for subject property with the Planning Department and to readvertise subject petitions as being a proposed amendment to the General Plano Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a letter from the agent for the petitioners had been received in which a four-week continuance was requested to allow time to submit revised development planso Mro Clifford Rothrock, 2161 Spinnaker Street, appeared in opposition and stated that the petitioners had been attempting to reclassify subject property since 1957 to multiple-family zoning, that if the petitioners wished to have the Commission consider their petitions,they should be considered as scheduled on the agenda, that two other persons were present in the Council Chamber also opposing subject petitions, tha•t a petition signed by 35 property owners was being submitted, who also opposed multiple-family development for subject property, that '•.he Commission had previously stated that they were desirous of lirniting multiple-family development to the north side of Orangewood Avenue, ar~~ that single-family development existed to the west and south of sub3ect propertye The Commission advised the opposit3on that no further notice would be given them if subject petitions were continued by the Commission, and that if the Commission recommended denial of subject petitions to the City Council without considering the proposed revised development plans, in all liklihood the Council would refer subject petitions back to the Commission for further considerationo Mro Rothrock then asked whether it was the opposition's preprogative to request that tfie continued hearing be considered at an evening session since it was difficult to appear at an afternoon sessiono The Commission advised him that the continued hearing would be con- sidered at an evening sessiona Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noa 63-64-61 ~ and Conditional Use Permit Noo 509 to the meeting of January 20, 1964, to allow the petitionexs ~ sufficient time ~o submit revised plans, and directed the Commission Secretary to scheduie ' ~' subject petition:> for an evening hearinge Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION ~ CARE?IED. , Commissioner Sides left the Council Chamber at 2:25 pom. TENTATIVE MAP OF •• DEVflLOPERs CLARENCE CLARK, 3400 Del Monte Drive, Anaheim, Californiaa TRACT N0. 5439 ENGINEER: Hal Raab Surveying Company, 10568 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 110, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the west side of Bella Vista Street, approximately 684 feet south of Lincoln Avenue and cover- ing 205 acres, is proposad for subdivision into 8 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lotso No one appearod to represen+, the developer or engineero Zoning Courdinator Mai~in Kreidt reviewed for the Commi,ssion pending action on subject property, ! further noting that an ordinance had not been read on the reclassification of the propertyo tl ! ~. ___.___,__----~_... ___.__..-.--- -... _ - --. -=,~ri ~ € ~ ~ ~ ~ --- ---~ . ..._..._~ ,.....__.___-__._ ~ ,. -__._ ..._-..----__ -'" . ~` . i . .. .~ e r _r ~.,~ ~ ~ ~-~ (.~~ ~ (_~ MINUfES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1897 TENTATIUH MAP OF - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to a~prove Tentative Map of Tract TRACT N0. 5439 Noo 5439, subject to the following conditionss (Continuedl .~,. (1) That ehould this subdivision be develope3 as more than one subdivision, each subd':vision ~hereof shall be submitted in tentative form for ~pprovalo (2) That the subdivider acquire that portion of Lot D, of Tract Noo 3886 not previously dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (3) That an alley cutoff be provided at the southwest corner of Lot Noa 5, in accordance w3th Standard Plan Noo 130e The City of Anaheim will permit an encroachment of the existing garage until suct~ time as the single-famiiy garage is removed, or until additional units are constructedo (4) That the exi.sting 20-fcot drainage easement shall be abandoned at such time as Del Monte Drive is extended to Knott Street. (5) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5439 is granted subject to the rec2assificetion of si~bject pioperty to the R-3, Iulultiple-Family Resident3al, Zoneo CommissionPr Gauer seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED, TENfATIVE MAP OF - DEVEIt.~~ :•. L~ Go ROBINSON, 2975 Huniington Ilrive, San Marino, TRACT N0~ 5452 Calif: ~ ao ENGINEER: McDaniel cngineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, ~aliforniao Subject tract, located on the southwest corner of V'ermont Avenue ai:d East Street and covering 802 acres, is proposed far subdivision lnto 17 M~1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONED lotso No one appeared to represent the developer or engineero Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the recommended conditians if subject tract was approved, and further reviewed for the Commission the existing parking landscaping setbacks on Vermont Avenueo The Commission reviewed the tract map and inquired whether the "not a part" was owned by the ewner of the tract, and received an affirmative replya The Commission reviewed the existing setbacks on East Street noting that only two industrial buildings encroached into the required 50-foot parking landscaping setback, an~ that the 50-foot setback should be adhered to regardless whether a service station was to be proposQd for the "not a part" or not, atid if the reqUired 50-foot setback were appealed, this must be through the filing of a petition for a variance or a reclassificatione The Commission further stated that it shauld be made a matter of record or a finding that the "not e part" specifically omitted from the subject tract could not later be considered for an incompatible zane to the presently existing M-1 and P-L Zoneso Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approva Tentative Map of Tract Noe 5452, sub,3ect to the foliowing conditions~ (1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivi~ion, each subdivision therecf shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo (2) That the "not a part" be included as a lot within the tract, or the dedication given along East Street, the imp.ro~r~ments installed along East Street and Vermont Avenuey and the lot split shall be in conformance to Section 17o08e250 of +.he Anaheim Municipal Codeo (3) That a draina~e easemont be provided and improved between Loi; Noso 7 and 8, end 16 and 17, (4) That vertical. curbs be constructed along "A" Street, ac ' stipulated by the engineero ----~_..._....T___.._.---r•---__-----._._...__.._..._~--____..__._______.._...._..___._ _.----...---...._..._.-..~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ _....----------- i ---..__1______________._. _ ._.....,.~....____ _ __. • :..,~ , ,. ~ _ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ __ (~) ~. ..) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM1M~IISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1898 THNTATIVE MAP OF -(5) That the curb along Vermont Avenue be located at 24 feet from TRACT N0. 5452 the centerline of the street, as stipulated to by the engineera ~Continued) (6) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to East Street shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim, as stipulated to by the engineera (7) That the sidewalks shall be installed along East Street (at ultimate location and grade) and Vermont Avenue, as required by the City Engine2r and in accordance with standard pla:~e and speciiications on file in the uffice af the City Engineer, because of the proposed school ar. the southeast corner of East Street and Vermont Avenuee (8) That a temporary sidewalk waiver be granted for "A" Street due to the industrial nature of the developmento Commissioner Chavos seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo VARIAArE NOe 1612 - PUHLIC HEARINGo SOUTI-IERN COUNTIES GAS COMPANY, P. Oo Box 2736, Terminal Annex, Los P.ngeles 54, Califoz•nia, Own~r; JOHN F. GANAHL, P, Oo Box 31, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRIICT AND OPERATE A CABINET SHOP IN CONJUI~TION WITH AN EXISTING LUNBER YARD on property described as: A rectan9ular parcel of land having a frontage of 56 feet on the eas~ side of Topeka Street, and a depth of 250 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approxi- mately 180 fee•~ north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 114 North Topeka Streeto Property ~resently classified as P-1, AUTOMOBILE PARKING, ZONE~~ Mre John G.;nahl, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he would be available to answer any questions the Commission might havca The Commission reviewed the p2ans and the findings of the Planning Departmeni; and Tnterdepart- mental Committeeo No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitiono THE ~'~EARING WAS CLOSED~ The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether it was his intent to construct a wall on the north sid~ of subject property in order to protect the residential environment to the north of subject propertyo 5 I ~ Mro Ganahl stipulated that he would construct a masonry wall, but would prefer a solid wood fence, that the proposed use would be mainly for tools and storage with a minor portion being hand-finishing of any itams they proposed to construct, and that no large equipment which woul.d cause noise, dust, and irritation to the residential development to the north was being proposed for sub3ect propertye . ._ , . Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No~ 996, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp~ to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1612, sub3ect to the construction of a solid fence or wall cn the north property line as stipulated~by the petitionere (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMM7SSIUNERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES~ CON~ ~~IONERS: Nonea ABSENT: C~ ^' ' iONERSs Allred, Pebley, Sideso VARIANCE NUe ,!- PIJBLIG I-IEARINGe EUGENE Ao FAHRION, 625 Nor~h Claudina Street, Anaheim, ' Calif~xnia, Owner; requesting permission Lo CONSTRUCT TWO APARTNiHNf BUILDINGS WITH WAIVER OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONs (2) SIDE YARD RHQUIREMENTSs (3) REQUIRED NUMBER OF GARAGES TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION # OF CARPORTS AND OPHP! PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land ; located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Fahrion Place, and havir~g frontages of 126 ; feet on Broadway and 130 feet on Fahrion Placee Property presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLE- ~ FAMILY RESILENTIAL~ 2QNE, Mre Eugene q. Pahi~fe•n, the ~Q•ci~iqner, appeared bQfore thg Gommi~~i,or~ and ~tatQd that the basis for his requasting a vari~pce wa~ s~a~~d in his peti~~q~. LF7A+ a change in the d~~aheim Code _ _~ .~__. _ . _~----~ --.. . . _ _._ _ __ ,.._ .. _ ___ _ ._. _ -- ....._ _._.-•- - . .. . . ... _ ._.. _ _ .-- --•- ~ ., . - ~ ._.,.___._.._:- _ ..~.a , ~ -- , i • ~~:,~ t 4 `_' ~..~ ~ ~. .) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1899 VARIANCE NOe 1613 - requirements had been made since the ordinance limiting construction on Con inu ~! his property to single-story apartments had been passed, and that the garages would.encroach into the side yard area by two and one-half feet. Mr, L. J. Downey, 1266 East Broadway, appeared in opposition to subject petition, and stated that he resided directly across the street from sub~ect property; that property owners in the area had been having a running battle with the petitioner for several years; that the request for variance had no basis, because the pecitioner had created his own problem by previous apartment construction; that •the ordinanc~~ was specific211y written to limit construction of any future units on sub,ject property to s:ingle story; that the petitioner was being placed in a_disadvantaqeous position by recent approval by the Commission and Council of apartments which.had a detrimental effect upon the petitioner's property because it was being used for the parking of automobiles, there being no room for the parking of cars on the street, and the owners of the apartments charging a rental for garage space; that it was requested of the Commission that they consider certain restrictions being applied to the development of subject property, if Commission considered favorably development of the proposed apartments, this be- ing the limiting of the number of structures on the lots; that a certain percentage of the property be left as open space for yard purposes on the front facing onto Broadway; that adequate.landscaping be installed; that the carports bE constructed along the north property line with the cars havin9 access through a service alley; that subject property was directly west of the Southern Baptist Church which had spent thousar.:s of dollars for construction ~f church facilities and had future plans for further expansiun of these church facilities; that the architecture be compatible with, and not detrimental to~ the church facilities, and this was one of the basic reasons for asking that the garages or carports be located at the rear of the property; and that the Co~nission deny any relief from the ordinance which pro- hibits two-story construction for subject propertya In response to Commission questioning, Mre Downey stated that the units facing on i3roadway were held to one story; that thirty units pr.esently existed on subject property; that the additional eight units would create a high density for subject property, that this was a prime concern of all the area residents in that the petitioner proposed overbuilding of his property; that he did not personally oppose two-story apartments if they wex~e confined to the rear of the property, and not adjacent to s3ngle-family development~ that the "Broadway Apartments" were not an asset to the neighborhood, that the developer when applying to the City had stated these would be "luxury-type" apartments and were to be held as an investment by the peti'tioner, that upon completion of the construction of these apartments, they had been sold immediately; that maintenance of the lendscaping for these apartments was not kept up, therefore, creating a blight to the area; that all single family homes maintained their landscaping in the best manner possfble; and that if the petition were approved9 a thorough inspection of the buildings be made before final building inspection because the Council had expressed the thought that the "Broadway Apaxtments" were substandarde TFIE FiEARING WAS CLOSED, The Commission discussed the proposed development and expressed the opinion that the existing apartments on subject and abutting properties represented a high density of development; that the petitioner•should conform with the required 25-foot space between buildings; that the ordinance required single-story construction which should not be violated; that the petitioner did not present adequate evidence which would indicate a ha~dship existed which deprived the petitioner of his rights; that subject property had been limited to single-story construction because of the opposition of the single-family homes adjacent to subject property;'that the proposed developmeat would also consist of a substandard R-3 development; that if waiver of the required single-story construction were grante~9, the City would be breaking the faith of the citizens oi the homes adjacent to sub3ect property; that inadequate parking was being pro- vided, and thus would compound a parking problem on Broadway, as well as Fahrion Pl~:e adjacent to the churche Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 997, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1613,"based on the facts that the proposed development did not meet the Code, that inadequate parking was being provided, that the petitioner prop>sed a higher density for the area than was' acceptable, and that the petitioner did not submit evidence to substantiate his request for a varianceo (See Resolution Booko) On roLl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONER5s None. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Pebley, Sideso ~ i ~ _~..___._.______ _ ____...__..___~__.._...-__._.._____._......_.-- ~._. _._..._-----,.__._.... _ __ _.__.__2. -~ ~ \, ~ ~ ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1900 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. BEN HIJR OIL COMPANY, 102 VJest Whittier Bc+ulevard, PERMIT NOa 514 Whittier, California, Owners; HUGH LACY, 102 West Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A NEW SEFVICE STATION ON AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION SITE on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue, and having frontages of 160 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 150 feet on Brookhurst Stxeet, and further described as 2190 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified as R-A~ RESII~NTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe Mro Hugh Lacy, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Com~nission and stated that it ~ was proposed to rebuild the existing service station site with new facil''~ies, that the new ! building would upgrade the area, and in response ±o Commission question' ~, stated that frontage on Brookhurst Street wou.ld be dedfcated to the City and at the iime Brookhurst Street was improved with the street widening program, said dedication would then be completed by the removal of the pumps and canopies and pipingo ! Zoning Coard3nator 61a;tin K~ridt advised the Comsnission that Condition Noo 3 should include the legal agreement with the petitioner, subject to the City Attorney's approval, that the encroachment be limited in time~ the responsibility for the removal o: the pumps, can,~pies, piping, etco, and the liability for this, should be stipulated in said agreement and should be recorded~ that Condition Noo 4 should be revised to state,"prior to issuance of a building permit" rather than a"construction perrait", t~cause this would provide a better control on developmento The agent for the petitioner stated that their reason for requesting that the pumps be located as proposed was that they would ]ike to have potential customers see the service station from the street rather than having the setback as it was eventually being proposed for Brookhurst Streete Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the City Engineer had advised the agent there was no definite date for development of Brookhurst Street for si:reet widening purposes, that one pump island would be affected by the proposed encroachment, and that the petitioner agreed to the payment for the removal of any facilities in conjunction with the pump island at the time tFe street widening program took piacee No one appeared in opposi~ion to subject petitiono TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 998, ~eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp~ to grant Petition i'or Conditional Use!Permit '.Voe 514, subject to the filing of an agreement with the City Atf;orney's office setting forth the time permitted for the encroachment of the pump island into the dedicated setback area for street widening purposes, and other conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes A1fES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, C~avos, Gauer, Miangall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COhWIISSIONERS: Nonea ABSEM': COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Pe'b:eq; Sideso ' • - - CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CLARENCE PETTIT, 1921 Pinecrest Drive, Corona, PERMIT N0. 515 California~ Owner; LOUIS Eo 8 VIVIAN L~ SHTELDS, 36~0 Savanna Street, Anaheim, California Agents; raquesting permission to ESTABLISH A DOG KENNEI.: WAIVE ONE ' RESIDEMIAL AGI~ICULTURAL AREA REQUIREMENT TO CREATE TWO RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUR~i: PAR~ ~ t;r LES£ iHAN AN ACRE IN ARBA on property described ass An irregularly shaped parce' r.:' land naving a frontage of 186 feet on the south side of Savanna Street and an average depth of 200 feet~ the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 1,150 feet west of the centerline of Knott Avenue, and further described as 3640 Savanna Streeta Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDEMIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe Mro Clarence Pettft, the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he pro- posed to subdivide the property and sell a portion of the property, and the portion being sold was to be used for a dog kennelo In response to Commission questioning, the petitioner stated that he proposed to sell a 75-foot fcontage on the west side of subject property in the triangla between the Flood Control Channel and the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way9 that the number of dogs being proposed would depend on the number of pups from any litter, that ten ~.a twelve adult dogs was being proposed, and that the construction would be first^class, sinc¢; the dogs 1 ___-.__-- --r--- -- --- _ _ _ .. _ _. .. --- - _ _ _-----.._ _..._ _ .. ----- ---~ , ; C_~ ~ :) ~ ~- ) ~ .1 _'_'_"" `"""'".... o , ~_~ ; ) ~' ( ;~ i9oi ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23~ 1963, Continued CONDITIONAL USE - were show dogs which required one and one-half hours for their grooming PERMIT NOo 515 and were quite vaLuablea (Continued) Mrse Vivian Shields, 3640 Savanna Drive, appeared before tha Commission and stated she had an option to buy subject property which was being suhclivided; that she is not planning to board other dogs, but was proposing to use subject property for the breeding and showing of dogs; that she hoped to later add an additional room for trophies; that the subject property was most unusual because on the west side over an acre was undeveloped land in Buena Park to the south of railroad tracks and on the east side pasture land and a stable, and directly across the street pasture land also existed; that the proposed structure would be air-conditioned,and no dogs would be permitted on the outside of the kennelo No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ TE~ FtHARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission ex;~ressed the opinion that the area in r~hich subject property was located was an appropriate area for the proposed dog kennel use, that it would not be consistent to deny subject petition since similar uses were in the area, that restrictions should not be imposed by the Commission; that development plans for subject property should be subject to Develop- ment Reviewo The Commission advised the petitioner that waiver of the required sidewalks and street lights couid be made to the City Councile Commissioner Row2and offered Resolution Noo 999, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 515, subject to submission of specific plans of development to Development Review, and the recording of a record of survey permit'cing the proposed lot splite (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIOI~RS: Camp9 Chavos, Gauer~ Mungall, perry, Rowlanda NOES: COMMISSIOIVHRS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Pebley, Sideso CONDITIONAL USE - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised th~~ Commission that the agent PERMIT NOo 518 for the petitioner had requested that subjec:t petition be considered at the evening agenda because of his inability to be present in the Council Chamber for the Commission's consideration of sub3ect petitiono Commissioner Perry offered a motion to postpone the consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 516 to the 7:00 o'clock agenda, Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ Se Oo ECKSTEIN, 906 South Birchleaf Drive, Anaheim, PERMIT NOe 516 California, O~,vner; KEITF NOSACK, 1830 South West Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL ~ ` on prbperty described as: A parcel of-land having a 150-foot frontage on the east ;ide of West Street and a depth of 150 feet, t'ie northerly boundary of said property being app.roximately 510 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1640 South West Streeto Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Mr, Keith Nosack, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the variance under which the subject propc,:•:f was proposed for development as a motel had been approved, only a portion had been built, and that suuject petition had to b? f~led be- cause said variance had expiredq that they were proposing to have half the ur.its with kitchen facilities, that the existing motel was an off-street motel from the usual Disneyland motels, that the original motel had kitchen fac:ilities and had proven highly successful in that they were able to have 8~ to 90% occupancya an~ in response to Commission questioning, stated that th~e i=ason they ha~ auch a high per::entage of occupancy ~~•~s because they catered to large fa~h9.:iese The r~commended conditions were read by Zoning Coordinator Ma Creidte Tne petitioner asked for clarification of Condition Noo 4, wh. .. stipulated the widening of West Street, stating that the existing curbing had a Iandscaping strip planted thereo ~ ` ~ ~ _. . ..__-_ _.-~e _~ - - --_ __ --- ~ l ~' _._ . _ ___.____.----- ~ ~. .- - ~:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963 1902 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission advised the petitioner that Condition Noo 4 could be PERMIT NOo 516 eliminated since landscaping was already installed in the parkway portion SContinued) of the subject propertyo ~ :~~ing Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the variance or.iginally approved for subject property covered an overall development, that only one-half had been completed, and since compliance with conditions stipulated a six month time limitation, said variance could not be considered for development of subject property; therefore, the peti~tioner was requested to file a conditional use permit as required for any property being developed in the Disneyland areao The petitioner stated that he was agreeable to construction of the masonry wall being required for the south property line, and in response to Commission questioning stated that it was h;s desire to construct a masonry wall on the east property line, if this met with the approval of the Commission and the adjoining property owners, and that he could see no reason for any opposition.because it would not jeopardize the property development to the easto No one appeared in opposition to subject ~etitione THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1001, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland9 to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 516, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoi~ig resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENTs COM4JIISSIONERS: Allred, Pebley, Sidese CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo UNITED BROTI-IERHOOD OF CARPENfE3S AND JOINERS OF AN~RICA~ PERMIT_NOo 517_ LOCAL, UNION 2203, 608 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim9 California, Owner; C~ Mo OLDHAM, 608 West Vermont Avenue, Anahelm, California, Agents requesting permission to LEGALIZE A NON-CUIVPORMING USE AND EXPAND AN EXISTING UNION ASSEMBLY BUILDING, RECORDING OFFICE AND MAILIhG OFFICE on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 197 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue and a depth of 409 Feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 600 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 608 West Vermont Avenuea Property presently classified as R~-A9 RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe Mro John Jamison, designer of thR addition to tY.e proposed union headquarters, appeared before the Commission and presented a colored rendering of the proposed development, and further stated that all suggested conditions on the Report to the Commission were agreeable to the petitioners, and he would be glad to answer any questions the CoRanission might haveo The Commission made a comparison of the colored rendering with the pians as submitted and accepted the plans as being reasonably in accordance with the colored renderingo The Commicsion inquired whether the pro~:~sr;d develupment expansion of the existing facilities would incorporate the air-conditioning fs~:i.lities within the structure itself, or whether they would be viewed from the streeto The de:ig~:er stated that the air-conditioning facilities were indicated on the plot plan as being enclosed on the second floor< The Commission advised the representative of the petitioners that the plans did not indicate where air-conditioning fac3lities were proposedo i~o one appeared in opposition to subjeci pei:itiono THE f~ARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1002, Series 1963-64~ and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissio~~er Gauer, to gran.t Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 517, szab3ect to air-condition3ng f~cilities being enclosed or shielded from view from the streeto ~ (See Resolution Booko) ; On roll cail the foregoing resoluticn was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONHRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rowlando NOES: CONafISSIONERSa None. ABSENT: CON9u1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Peblpy, Sideso , . , ~ E ----------- ~-- -...__ __._...---._.-----.._....__ _---_._......_. ...~.~~ .~; '.--- -- ~ :=1 ~ ~ _? ~ c~ ,- ~ ~' ~ :~ ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING CONWIISSION, December 23, 1963 1903 P.ECESS - Commissioner Camp off:~rtd a motion to recess the Comnission meeting for dinner and to reconvene at 7:00 pomo> Commissio~~r Perry seconded the motiono MC`TION CARRIEDa The meetir.g recessed at 4:45 pamoo RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the Commission meeting at 7:00 pomo, Commissioners Campy Gauer, Rowland, and Perry being presento RECLASSIFICATION •- PUBiIC l-IEARING~ HUBERT D,. DRUMMOND, et al, 927 South Webster Avenue, NOo_63~64-62__ _ Anahefm9 California, Owners; LEONARD SMITH REAL ESTATE9 125~D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, Galifornia, Agent; requesting that property described as: Those properties along the east and west side of Webster Avenue, between Orange Avenue and Ball Road9 and being further described as: "PORTION A" - those properties along the east and west side of Webstex• Avenue with the exception of (1) Saverai propart:~s hav:ng a::c:tagc of 2?Q fs~t on th~ SQU~h sic~e ef Orange Av?nue and frontage of 700 feet on the east side of Webster Avenue; (2) A 75-foot by 270-foot parcel of land on the west side of Webster Avenue9 approximately 1y000 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue; (3) A 128-foot by 301-foot parcel of land on the west side of Webster Avenue, approximatel.y 400 feet north of the centerline oi Ball Road; and "PORTION B" being a 135-foot by 241-foot parce'1 of land located on the northwest corner of Webster Avenue and Sall Road, and a 301-FOOt by 218-foot parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Ball Road and Webster Avenuey be reclass3fied from the R-A' RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,, ZONE on."Portion A" and C•-ly NF.IGI-IBORHOOD COMMERCTAL, ZONE on "Portion B", Mro Leonard Smith, agent for the petitionery appeared before the Commission and asked that the Commission act separately on Reclassification Nos..63-64-62, 63•°64-42, and Variance Noa 1604a Mro Smith further stated that a group of 63 propesty owners9 owning 39 separete parcels, was proposing the property for redeve?opment ta its best and highest land use, that street improvements9 dedications, street lights, etco9 would be paid as each parcel developed; that the purpose of the proposed reclassification was for redevelopment of subject properties by individual owners; that although subject properties had been used for residential agri~ cultural purposesq this use seemed +.o be deter3orating in the past few years; that the property owners wished to establish a zoning that was uniform for the entire area as a redevelopment pro,ject; that the development of these p-ropex•ties would be a form of urb~n renewal development by individual property ownersy and that it was the petitioner°s desire that the Commission consider subject petitfons favorably in order that they might be able to develop their prop- erties in a uniform manner as each z•eceived proper financingo Mro Smith then reviewed the Report to the Commission regarding the reclassification of the property, commenting that the property owners felt that not all of them were in a position to develop the property as one complete development; that the conditions should be imposed at the time each parcel developed, together with street plans for each project; that the City was presently planning to 2ower Webster Avenue from its original height, from Orange to Ball Road; that the street lighting was an assessment which would not be developed for several years; that there was no reason for buiiding plar.~ being submitted at this time since the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential,Zone explicity stipulated the type of development v~hich could be proposed for said zone; that the only thing being asked was permission to have the properLy reclassified so that redevelopment could be started on individual parcels; that the depth of the parcel made it impractical to use it for other than the proposed development since most parcels were three-quarters of an acre in size, and that the properties could be developed for either apartment or sin~le-familyo I'he Commission expressed the desire l:o have a~~pi.lot pian"ior deveioprnenl: of ali properties rather than approving a blanket R-3 Zone for subject propertiese Zoning Coordinator A7artin Kreidt advised the Commission that single-story development would be required for the rear portions of the properties involved since they abutted single-family residential development, that two-story could be proposed for the Webster Avenue frontage, and that the Commission should be considering Reclassification Noo 63-64-62 at the Public Hearing, since Petitions for Reclassification Noo 63-E4-42 and Vari3r.ce Noe 1604 wer~ only referred back to the Commission to be considered as part of the subjact propertyo The Commission exprassed concei•n that the narrowy deep lots being proposed for multiple- f2mily use Wo:,ld not be sufficiently large to permit development of each parcel in a piece- meal iashion without development plans being subm3.tted for the Commission's consideration, ; -------- •- - ---...... .. - -._... _.._...._____..._. ___.. ~_ ~ - __r . _. - -~-- ~--K i j .~w . ` ~ ' ~ IfY. ._.. : _ _ . .__ .- ~ ---•-- " . MINUlES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963 1904 RECLASSIFICATION - that the Ccmtni.ssion might find themselves in a position of sacrificing NO< 63-64-62 Code requirements by creating a high density development for each parcelo ( d Continue Mro Smith stated that if development occurred on individual parcels, it ! would be the Commission's prerogative to consider any deviation from the R-3 Code requirements through the filing of a variance, since the zoning Code could not be ~ applied to all parcels, and a variance might be needed to develop parcels, and that the Com- mission should not be concerned with not having development plans for individual parcels if the Commission considers subje~t properties suitable for multiple-family development cn Webster Avenue and neighborhood commercial development on the Ball Road frontage, and Lhat '~ a number of the property owners were present in the Council Chambers to support subject petitione , Mrso Wo K, Wendell, °1~ Texella Court, appeared in opposition to subject petition, stating ; that the need for apartments was not apparent in Anaheim since the Orange County Report for ~ December indicated a 12-9/10~ ~acancy facioi•y that the proposed multiple-family development ~ would infiitrate a s-ng'e-family res'dential area with apartments; she agreed that the area ~ should be redeveloped, but fo.r other than multiple-family use; that subject properties could ~ be~developed for large estate-type homes; that residence of apartments was of short duration~ ; and occur~nts lack pride in home ownership; that the privacy of the single~family residents j to the east and west of subject properties would be invaded by noise in excess to that normal- , ly associated with single•-family subdivisions; that no recreational area was being considered j if each parcel would be developed individually; that with the proposed large tract of land j and the number of children which would result as development for multiple-family use was ; projected would leave the children without adequate recreational facilities and would tend S to have children play in the streets3 that the statement that the Commission should allow ? the prop~i'~y owners to develop as they saw fit would create a definite problem; that multiple- i family deve'lopment for subject properties would decrease the value of the residential areas adjacent to subject properties; that lack of school facilities might result if multiple-family { development were proposed; and that it was inconceivable to approve apar'tment buildings for ; a half-mile distance on both sides of one streeto ! Mro Martin Moyle, 906 South Texella Court, appeared in opposition to subject petition9 and ~ stated he was not opposed to the property ~wners making a profit on their. property, but was ~ opposed to developers taking advantage of the home owners by proposing a piece~meal multiple- t family develooment of the separate parcels9 that he was desirous of having his thirty-year ~~ investment on his property maintained; that he had purchased his property because it was ~ considered low density residential use; that he wouid not realize the potential of his invest- ment if multiple-family were approved for subject properties; tha+, to approve multiple-family t development in the center of an area primarily developed for single~-family use would not be ~ in keeping with past Commfssi.on action in which they were interested only in the best develop- ~ ment for the City as a wholeo ~ 1 Mra Ralph Iiller, 455 West K Street, Brawley. appeared before the Commission and stated he 3 was the owner of the Speedee Mart at Ball Road and Roanne Street; stated he did not oppose ~ multiple family development, but felt that commeicial development should be in keeping with the existing commercial dc~velopment on the Ball Road frontage; that setbacks should be in ,, conformance with the existing setback for Ball Roada ~ 1 Mie Smith, in rebuttal,•stated that,other property owners wanted to say something in their j defense, that in reference to the Tiller property, the petitioners would comply with ordinance ; requirements of the City for the setback area for the Ball Road frontage of Portion R being i proposed for com~rercia:~ development; that the multi~le-family development of individual parcels f would be undertaken with the entire area being taken into consideration} that some of these ~ parcels would be sold to developers for ultimate development on an individual basis; that few i of the property owners proposed to de•relop their homes at the present time9 but were proposing ; a uniform type of development for the area when the property owners felt it was necessaxy to j develop their parcels for multiple-family use; that the Report to tne Coimnission indicated ~ there were adequate school facilities; that the Apartment Owners' Association stated that Anaheim had only a 703% vacancy facto~:, that this meant apartments were needed in the City; and that multiple-family construction was more economically feasible than tract development for many properties in Anaheim, specifically deep-lot areaso Mr. Homer Kirk, 918 South Webster Avenue, appeaxed before the Commtssion as one o£ ~he owners of subject property~ and stated that he had purchased his prop?rty 15 years ago with the intent of raising animals on the property;school facilities were incseased from 800 to 1,000 by efforts; of the property owners af Webster Avenue; that the single-family residents now objectad to his raising animals because of the ilies and odors eminating from the livestock; that only. one residence was permitted on the property which was too large for such residerrt~al use; that he could not sell his property except for multiple-family developmert; that estates would not be practical for the area, and that he w~nted multiple-family zoning so that he would knov~ how he could develop this property in the future, si~ce it was necess:ary he sell nis property since he was unable to take care of both parcei~ of lando _ _..___..r._- - -____ _ __._ _ _- - _ _ ._-- - ----- --~. __ -------~---..__... ~+ '. ~ . ._ _ _ I 1 ~ _ ~~ ,} !~ ~ ` ~..) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNiISSION, December 23, 1963 1905 ; i RECLASSIFICATION - Mro James Moore, 2449 Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and NOe..•63-64-62 stated he was the property owner of Lot Noe 1 of the tract in which (Continued) subject properties were located, and stated he was always proud of his home, and he kept up the land; that since the road was being widened, the home was too close to the street for use as a residential home; that since he paid taxes9 he did not desire to have other people tell him how to develop his property; that he proposed to develop his property for commercial uses since it had a Ball Road frontage; that he would provide adequate parking facilities and planned to develop the property so that it would be compatible with the existing commercial development on Ball Roade THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that for the record he wishe@ to correct Page 13c, Item Iy indicating that it should be "park acreage requirements" rather than just "park acreage"o The Corrrcnission discussed the prop~sed rezoning of one~half mile of Webster Avenue frontage of the d~ep lats, notir,g that su~jec± p*ogeriies were abutted to the east and west with single-family development; that a single-family tract had been approved and was under con- struction on the northerly portion of Webster Avenue,; that with all the multiple-family development being proposed for Anaheim, no area was being left for the construction of single~family homes; that some of the parcels could be combined for a single-family tract similar to the one being constructed to the north so that single~-family characteristics might be maintained £or the areay that for land use purposes it did not seem feasible the area should be given a blanket approval for multipleWfam~.ly development since the characteristic of the area was sing'le~family use3 that additional Flanning Studies should be projected by the Planning Department to update Plann3ng Study 33~28-3y said study presenting possible land development under the four a'lternatives submitted ia the Renort to the Commission; that historically it was noted the area lacked park acreage requiremen~ts9 and proposing multiple-family development would further compound the dire need for park facilities; that because of the complexity of the proposed reclassification of the Webster Avenue frontage from Orange Avenue to Ball Road, it mi9ht be in i:he interest of the Commission to consider complete land study rather than denying the pstition and referrin9 it on to the Council; that if this study were made, this might present a land develc~ment pattern for similar deep lot areas in the City, a problem which affects many people; Li~Bt any decision made by the Com~nission would have a great effeci upon the single-family ~esidential areas adjacent to subject propertyy that the development of three parcels into a nine-lot subdivision was some indication of how properties could be combined for single-family development; that originally multiple•-family development had been proposed £oi the ~ ac+.c~srently being developed for. single-~family use; that when the Planning Study had been appr~ved by both the Commission and the Council, the people i~~ ti•~~ area stated they wanted their properties to remain in the R-A Zone, because they wanted to live this way, and that multiple-famil.y develcpment had then been denied by both the Commission and Council after adoption of Flanning Study 33-28-30 Mro Kreidt asked the Commission to give more specific details on what they desire as in€orma- tion from the Planning Department relative to possible land uses under the four alternativeso Commissioner Camp then stated he wanted to see a more complete picture o£ what might be developed for the a::ea to creat~ a campatible living environment; that a developmeni plan indiceting open areas comlainiru3 parcels for the various forms of low, low-medium, and medium density; and that it was not the Commission's desire to grant or recommend approval of multi-~ ple-family development witi~out anpilot plan'~or precise plans of development f~r a combination of parcelso Mxe Smith then commented on the Commission's discussion re9arding joint ventures of parcels of property stating that the property owners were more desirous of developins individually rather than combinir.g their parcels; that this would would out more ea,~itably than as the Gommission suggested; that the petitioners Kere wil2ir.g to comply with R-3 Code r~quirements since this would give them an opportunity to sell or develop their properties; tnat regard- Iess of the Planning Department making a study with ovezlays and pictures and maps of gossible development of subject propertyy it would be difficult to get al: parcels to agre~+ to any re-subdivision of the prorerty because of their financial statuso Mro Kreidt stated there was a possibi.lity of developing subject propertiesfor duplex.~s by proposing an addition to the exi~ting structureso Mro Smith stated that some redevelopment mi~i~~t be with3n the very m~ar future, wher~as o':hers would be a number of years before redeveiopmen~. wou~c~ occuro ~ \ ' , ,. ,...__ . .. ._.__. ___ _... -- ..._. . _. •-------._._ - _ . _ -- _ _ , ~.._..___---~ ~----- ~ "~" , -- .._ _ L~ ;-~ ~ ~.~ O. :_ (`~~ ; - ` ~ ~ ~ t'!~ ~~. % . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, Cont;nued 1906 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Wendell t!~en as!:ed the Cha~rman why the pe~titioner~' representative N0. 63-~64-62 could speak after the hea~ing was ciosedo (Continued) Chairman Mungall then reopened the hearing. Mr. Wilbur Wickham, 812 South Webster Avenue, appeared befare the Commisaior. and stated that he raised rabbits for a living until the residents in the area complai:•~~~ ~:~d that he h~d to either sell his property or resor.t to raising rabbits again for a 13~:alihood.. Mr. Kreidt then stated that it would be of interest to the people that ?la~r~~ii:~q Study 33-28-3 was prepared on the basis of propert;z being orient~d to the use of the pro~.+ert~~ after it was annexed to the City, that the Plannin~~ :tudy prcpc.is^~ the development of ea:.h p~ircel on the basis of seven dwelling uni+.s Far net re~identiai acre or 6,OOG souare feei bui:.din.g lots for each residencee Mr. Kirk then stated that at one time a developex had proposed to purchase all the lots for single-family subdivision, which later was dropped because no one seemed tu be interested in purchasing the prope•r±y for single-zaniily sui~~ivi :~;.~i~, Mr. Dale Fowler, 2461 Wsst Ba11 Road, owner of Lot ?~c: 2 of subject tract, appeared before the Coartnission and asked that the Commission reconsid~r and approve commercial development for.the Ball Road frontage rather than holding it up for further study for the remainder of subject propertiesy since the precedent for commercial development Fad. heen sFt for C-i stores to the east ot 5'1..ti'jBGe ~ropextieso THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission discussed the length of time needed by the Planning Department for studies to be made for ~ossible development of subject properties in the up-dating of Planning Study 33-28-30 Mre Kreidt stated tnat the Staff was presently developing a community-wide s±udy of the front-on and s:,~e-on lots of a:terial streets and highways which was to be cumpleted by January 28, 1964. Commissioner Perry asked +Nhether or not tt~e Comnission was consid:~ing a ~~.moromise for less than the R-3 requirernsnts, to whi~h Ccaunissioner Camp statE+d that ths Cort~nission was to consider either R-3 or R-1, and since ne was in no position tc v~te on either one, it wa~ his desire to have the study completed by the Pianning I'ieE~artme~c and !ater considered by the Commission for rzore con;rete evidence. Commissioner Gauer expressed tha desir~ to ~ave a full Comrt!=s~ion present to consider such a vast project as vras being proposed under sub~~at petition~ Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petitien for Re- classification Noe 63-64-62 be disappr.oved. Cammissione, Gauer s~acon3ed the moticne ~n roll call the motion failed to pass by a vote oi three to~two> Comrt~issioner Camp tbe^ offared a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Recla~~ifir,ation Noa 63-64-62 to the meeting of February 17, 19649 and requested that the Planning Departm2nt prepare a stt~,iy witi~ overlays of possible development for subject properties bt+sed on the al',r~rnatives E~resertted in tho Report to the Cortunission dated December 23, 1963e Commissioner Rowland seconded thP - motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Perry voted "no"o RECLASSIFICATION - ALLEN Eo BARbWELL, C~0 LEONARD SMITH, 125-b Sauth Claud4na Street, N0. 63-64-42 and Anaheim, California, Owner; LEONARD SMTiH, 125-D So~th Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent: requesting prop. ^ty 7.cai,ed at 2501 West I~ARIANCE NOe 1{~ Ball Road be reclassified from the R-A, k2ESIilF.NTIAL AG~ICIJLTUFtAL, ZOIVE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised tfie Commission that subject petitions ~vere xaferred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council on November 19, 1963; that the Co~mnission had recommended denial of sub~ect petitionsto the City Council; that the Commission was tn consider sub~ect petitions only on a recommendation basis because the Council continued consideration of the petitfons until January 27, 1964, since the agent for the petitioner atated that sub~ect properties were being incorporated in the overall reclassification of properties on K'ebster Avenue, and the basis for the Gommission's denial was based on the fact that the proposed developer of the property felt it was unfeasible to construct other than two-s±ory, multiple-family unitsa _---._---_ _-____ _._..._ _......._ __.__. _.__.._____-----..__., _~ __... __._.__. . _ .~. ~ ~ -. I ~,- . 4 , J i i ~ ' ..... _..._ ... _..~.__..~..~'.~_._.~__"_ i _.__._J~~..~~..r~ '- ~.. .~...~.... ~...~.~...~..~.....,,.a~.~= ~.~y.._~_... _ _. ,1 . . ._~~__ : ' .~.____"._ _......__ ,. / l,_;; / -,1 ~ ~ " ,~ . _i .. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23; I963, G~ntinued 1907 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commissiun reviewed the origi:~al plan submitted to the Commission N0. 63-64-42 and at the time the ~~ommission hau recom~r,ended denia~ of sub3ect petitions, and further note~9 that +..hc• Commission was not in :avc~~ of two-story VARIAI~E N0. l.~%4 construction for subject property, t}~at since subiec roperty was (Continued) considerPd as p;-•t of Petition for R,~classificat'.on l~ue 63-64-52, that the Commi..seior. ~:~ulci not ,rPnder an opinion until further study was made ~:v •t~e r~annir.g Ae~art~~»nto Nir. Leonard Smith, age;it for •the peii~ioner, appeared be'c~r the Commission and stated that sub~ect property haci been under consi.9eration forseveral month:;t:~a~ tt:is wss a ca:sid-:rably lcmger time thar. usual for perrnission t: utilize a piece of prop1s•i:y, •~hat nothing was accom- ~~:lished by coni,inuance of suh: ~ct petitio~s, and that the Comm'.ssi.o~. sPOUld not delay anyone rv}io was d2sirous of developi:~g his propertyo Mr~ kreidt statec. that the Cort;mission was asked only to consider suliject petitions in conjunc- tion wi~~h Reclassification Noo 63-64-62, in the event the Comm;~sion approved any overall development of the Webster Avenue and Ball Road fror;tages, and that by motion to the City Council, the ::ommi~•sion could express its thoughts regerding development of sub~ect property as ~~roposedo The Deputy City Atto:ney advised the C:ommission that G~nce subject petition Was not advertised es part of a Public :iearl::q, that on7~y a report or 2xpressicm of what the Commission felt could be submi+:ted to the Counci2o The Commission expressed the op;'nic~i that no revised developme~.t plans had been submitted to ~`te.r the Commis~ion's thinki.ng r.e'lative to two-story construction, even though the nroperty was suitable for the pl.oposed cevalopment, since it fronted on a major high~vay, and that two- stoi:~ construction nas noc pe:mi~sible within 150 feet of single-family residential develop- mento Conu~issioner Gauer offered a motion to advise the City ~~ouncil that the Cammission reaffirm its former action on Petitionsfor Reclassificatior. Noo b3-64-42 and Vari.ance Noo 1604, and that no alternative could be suggested to tl•,em becausc the Commission had referred back to the Planning DeNartn.an+. Pet~ition fo~ Reclassl.fication Noo 63-64-62, of wi:ich sub3ect property was a parto ~o:aunissi~ner Perry seconded tne motione MOTION CARRIEDo Commi~sir,~er Cam~ stated for clarificatian f~~r the City Council the basis for the i.ommis=ion :. denial uriginally ~vas because the petitionez• stat~o he woL.ld be unable to reduce the proposed devel~~pm~nt to single-story, and that Find3.ng Noo 2 of Resolutic^ Nro 938, Series 1963-64, ~ recrmmending denial of subject petitions stated that according to ~ode9 one-story construction wa~ ne;,essaryo ' Commissioner Sides entered the Cow•icil ChambEr at 8s5~~ pomo CONDIT?n;aAL 1;~E - PUBLIC I-IEnRINGo MARY 'c?~ HOSK3iv, 810-816 So~ath !~lagnolia Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 5,~1 California, Ownery VAL "LAJEC and~o~ BETTY W1?SON, 1016 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, Califoi~nia, Aaer,ts; reques~ti~:q permission to ESTABLISH A DOG KENNEL PRIMARILY FOP, HOBBY PURPOSES on property described as: A rect^.ngular parcel of. land ha~~inq a froi:tag,= of 140 feet on i:he east side,of Magnolia Avenue ana a depth of 260 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 125 feet. soutti of the centerline of Rome Avenue, and fu~~i:her describpd as 820-816 South Magnolia Aver,uPe Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTlAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, Mro Val Zajec, a~ent for tha petitioner, appeared befora the ~ommission and reviewed the proposed development noting that for a numk~er of yeaxs.it was a hobby of the proposed owner of subject property; that thE property owner would abide by all Code requ;rements as to sani- tation, health and safety requirements; that the proposed use would not be comme*cfa13 that no signs would be proposed for the property, that surplus dogs would be di§posed of through newspaper advertisements only, that the owner was not in ihe business of selling dogs wholesale, but was handling pure-bred dogs, that by developing sub,~ect property for the r~roposed use, the ramoval of dead trees and unsightly landscaping would be accomplishedand the entire property re-landscaped~ that dedication of the streets with curbs and gutters and sidewa].ks on the Magnolia Avenue frrtntage woulc' improve a large parcel of land, and that more would be gained by approving subject petition, rather than the inr,onvenience which might result if subject petition were not approvedo @ .. . . __ _ _.. , , ,, ~ -- __ _.._--~.. _ .._ ..... _.._._ ___._ .. __., .._ _- - .-_.. . -- -. -._ _--._. ~ ...---._.. . _. . .._ - At`;~.1 . .. _- . ~ ._.___-....___. ._ . i ' . ~ ~ ( } ... °~~ `•._ J _ j ~ MINUTES, CITY ~LANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1908 CONDITIONAL USE - Mrso A, Ja Letellier, 2568 West Rome, appeared before the Commission PE~lI7' NOe 521 in opposition to subject petition, and stated tha;, the so-called (Continued) hobby being propo:>ed for subject property consisted of 20 or more dogs; that the country area ~ound Santa Ana would be ideal :or the raising of dogs, whereas subject property was located within an R-1 tract, and the establishment of a dog kennel would disrupt the residential environment of the area; that the runs and kennels for the dogs were baing proposed approximately 48 feet from her rear property line, and that this proposed use would be detrimental to the health and welfare of her home and all adjacent property ownerso The opposition then subm~tted a petition signed by 58 property owners, opposing the proposed useo co John Sheppard, 2564 West Rome, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated Zat regardless of the clear~liness being proposed by the petitioner, the noise from 20 dogs yuld be considerably magnified to that already in the area, and that it would disrupt his ~eep since he worked on the afternoon shift and would have to sleep during the daytimeo re Zajec, in rebuttal, stated that the kennels could be relocated, that the proposed use as tt~e least objectionable for the property, and that thEre were other dogs in the neigh- ~rhood making similar noises, and the noise could not be a deciding factoro ro Frank Stevens, 2578 W, Ro~se, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition, ~d stated that the noise from the proposed kennel would be no more than that presently exist- ng; that properties fronting on Magnolia Avenue were impossible to dispose of for residential ses, since he had been trying to sell his property for three months, and had received no nterested inquiries because of the traffic problemso ro Kenneth Gahnke9 2579 Wa Rome, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was one f the original owners of the properties on Rome Avenue, and it was his desire that the neigh- orhood remain as residential use; that although the petitioner stated the dog kennels would e::ept in a most sanitary condition, it was hardly feasible to understand that odors would ' ot he emitted from any t:•~e of dcg, and that a property owner could not expect to sell his roperty and ask for more than the value of the property since any home could be sold for a easonable priceo ro Oliver Peterson, tha proposed owner of the dog kennels, appeared before the Commis~ion nd stated that the type of show dogs they proposed to have on subject property was, in the trictest sense, kept as clean as possible, that odors would not be noticed because only oncrete runs were proposed9 and these would be washed down daily, that smells would be nly emitted from a gravE~l or dirt run, and that dogs barked only when they saw things; herefore, a wall was k~eir.g proposed to keep the dogs from seeing the outside of the propertye l-tE F~ARING WAS CLOSHDa t was noted that the ordinance provided that only a maximum of three dogs could be kept in n area predominately single-family in character, and that a kennel as proposed by the peti- ioner wes not permissible in the surrounding zonee 'he Cortunission noted that if this were in an area predominately residential agricultural, the ise would be permissibleo :ommissioner Gauer offered Resolution l~o~ 1003, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and doption, seconded by Comr,iissioner Sides, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 521, ased on the fact that the proposed use would be incompatible to the single-family residential nvironment surrounding subject property; that the granting of the conditional use permit ~ould be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the ity of Anaheime (See Resolution Booko) ~n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~ - ~ 1 r ~ ~YESs CONWISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sideso fOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ~BSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Pebleyo . ~ ~ ~ ~ ;, ~) ~ (.~ O MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1909 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo EVERETT Ho MILL~.R, Po Oa Box 731, 220 Atlantic Avenue, N0. 63-64-64 and Long Beach, California, Owner; IuiC DANIEL ENGINHERING COMPANY, Ce Jo Queyrel, P, 0, Box 3668, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described VARIANCE NOe 16~4 as: A rectangular parcel of land having a irontage of 232 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 250 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 681 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 910 South Brookhurst Streeto REQiJESTED CLt,SSIFICATIONs C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEo REQUESTED VARIANCEs WAIVE STRUCTURAL HEIGFiI' LIMITATION TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY SAVINGS 8 LOAN OFFICE BUILDINGo Mre Ca Je Queyrel, architect and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that complet~~d plans had not been submitted and presented rendesings of similar in"staTlations in other cities for a savings and loan office building, and that the petitioner had appeared before the City Council to receive approval for operations of a savings and loan office on a temporary basis until the proposed structure was constructede Mr. Queyrel f~arther asked for an explanation of the required 10-foot landscaped setback on the Brookhurst Street frontage, and was informed that although the Report to *he Commission quoted the Commercial Office Zone, this was also included for consideration in other commercial zones as they were beina revisedo No or;e appeared in opposition to subject petitionso THE I~i,RING WAS CLOSED~ Upon questioning,the architect advised the Commission that he would prefer to have a 5^r 10-foot setback rather than the presently required setback for Brookhurst Streeto Office Engine~r Arthur Daw advised the Commission that several additions were recommended for the Interd:apartmental Committee r•~commendations, namely, that a 54-foot strip of land be dedicated for street Yarposes, known as Brookmore Avenue9 that street improvement plans should be prep3red for Brookmore Avenue, as well as Brookhurst Street, and the $2v00 per front foot for street lighting purposes, should include Brookmore Avenueo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1004, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-64 be approved, sub~ect to the maintenance of a 10-foot setback from Brookhurst Street, that the sign as indicated on the plans was not to be considered as part of this exhibit, and that the recommended changes as suggested by the Office Engineer be incorporatedo (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gaver, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ Sidesa NOESs COMMISSIONHRS: Noneo ABSENfs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Pebleye Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1005, Series 1963-64, and moved for it~ passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1614, sub~ect to conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungali~ Perry, Rowland~ Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Chavos~ Pebleyo RECLASSIFICATION - PUHLIC HEAKINGe PAUL Eo BEATTY, RALPH Wa BEATIK, and RUTH A. HARRIS, N0. 63-64-65 and c~o Donn Kemble, Attorney at Law, P, Oo Box 1495, Santa Ana, California, Owners; ORCANA, INCORPORATED, c/o Eckhoff 8 Beam, P. 0. Box 267, Orange, CONDITIONAL USE California, Agent; property described as: An irregular parcel of land PERMIT NOo 519 covering approximately 902 acres and having a frontage of 885 feet on the south side of Anaheim Road, and a frontage of 855 feet on the northerly side of the Riverside Freeway, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 2,020 feet west of the centerlins of Blue Gum Street, and further described as 2fs10 Anaheim Roado Property classified es R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zoneo __ __. .._. ... .._._ _. - ~~- - ~ • - -. ---._._..----• ~ ~.~? ~"~ ~ t,-~ ~ idI%UTES, CITY PLJINNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, ~ontinued 1910 RECiASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEN'IIAL~ ZONEo N0. 63-64-65 and REQUESTED COADITIONAL USE: (1) ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY CONDITIONAL i15E PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPN~III'~ AND PERMIT N0. 519 (2) WAIVER OF THE ONE-STORY }iEIGHI' LIMITA- ~Continued) TION WI:HIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURO.i ZONED PROPERTYo Mro Frank Gonzales, representing the designers of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the location of subject property and the proposed developmento Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the Interdepartmental Committee had•discussed the.many drive openings being Nroposed directly from the proposed development to Anaheim Road, and felt this was a serious traffic hazard, that it was the hope of the Planning Department that the developers could meet with the Planning nepartment to discuss the possible solution for adequate access drives in the form of a cul-de-sac, and by so doin« reduce the square footage of blacktop being proposed for subject developmento Mr. Gonzalgs then sta+,ed that because of the shape of the pazce~ of :ar.~', they felt this was the best solution for. accessways, but if there was another solution9 he would be glad to discuss the proposed development with the Planning Department9 and further asked whether it was necessary to construct a 6-foot high masonry wall on the south property line, and was advised this was a Council policy to require a masonry wall where property was adjacent to a freeway, for aesthetic reasons9 as well as being a sound buffero Mro Kre~dt further advised the Commission that the petitioners had submitted the entire legal descripti.on for the parcel, and that if the Commission considered subject request favorably, a four-we~~k continuance was requested by the Department to consult with the representative of the petit'ioner and for the submission of the revised le;at description~ Discussion by the Commission indicated~that no more than two openings sho•~ld be permitted for the proposed development onto Anaheim Roado Commissioner Sides offered a motion to continue Petitions for Rec!.assification Noo 63-64-65 ~ and Conditional Use Permit Noo 519, to the meeting of January 20, 1964, to allow the petitioners°; representative to contact the Planning Department regarding revision of plans to provide two ~ access openings to Anaheim Roada Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDo RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING~ GIACOMO 8 AG06TINA LUGARO, 532 North Magnolia N0. 63-64-23 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; TALTi MAC MAHON 8 NELSON, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a fxontage of 275 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, and a depth of 247 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 658 faet south of the centerline of Crescen•i Avenue be reclassi- fied from the R-A, RESIDEIJI'IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHpOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEa Mr~ Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissics~~and reviewed the past action o~ subject petition, and stated that the proposed development woui.' bp a continuance of the existins -~mmercial property to the north for shopping area; that the ,:u: restrictions applied to the adjacent property for commercial develoQment should be applied •;~ subject property. Ir, response to Commission questioning, Mre MacMahon statea that the petitioner.s p1~3n to move the existing home at the corner of Magnolia and Crescent to that portion mar;cec? "not a paz•:", Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the "not a part" would create a less-than-an•acre parcel of R-A proparty, and suggested that if the Comm3.ssion considered the proposed reclassification favorably, a condition be attached to require the f ling of a variance permitting the use of i:he "not a part" as an R-A parcel of less than an cre~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1006, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-23 be approved, subject to the filing of a petition for variance, requesting approval of division of the land creating a less-than-an-acre parcel or R-A property, and conditionso (See Resolution Booko) _ .. _ ._ _. . _ __ _- _ .... . . _ _ _ . . . _... - -.._ __.__ .- ..__..._ --- .--,~ ~ - --- - ~ _ _. . _ ~ i ~ ; ._. 4~ ' . ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~._ , MIIvUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1911 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes N0. 63-64-23 (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sideso NOESa COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEIVT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Pebleyo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC !-1EARINGo FLORIEIJE SANDERSFIELD, 9621 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, PERMIT NOo 518 California, Owner; ROBERT W< MAC MAHON 1695 West Crescent Avenue, $uite 560, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED PARKING on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Knott Avenue, and having frontages of 157 feet on Orange Avenue and 295 feet on Knott Avenuee Property presently classified as C-1, N6IGI-IBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEo Subject petition was continued from the afternoon session at the request of the agent for the petitionero Mr< Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the'proposed developmsnt of subject propertyo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a report regarding acceptable parking requirements for various t•ypes of walk-up restaurants to the Commission~as prepared by the Southern California Restaurant Association, noting that 24 parking spaces was the absolute minimum that could be provided fur adequately handling any form of parking for a restaurant9 and that the Report to the Commission in Finding Noo 3 had errors in calculation of the parking spaces, noting that 97 parking spaces, rather than 77 parking spaces, were proposed, and that 35 parking spaces were proposed for the walk-up restaurant aloneo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona Tf~ F~ARING WAS CLOSEDe Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1000~ Series ~;a3-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 518, grantin the request of waiver of required parking spaces, and conditionse (See Resolution Booka~ Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer~ Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sidese NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Pebleyo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC E~ARING, ALMA Ce MALER~ 2411 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 63-64-66 and California, Owner; LEROY ROSEy 600 North Euclid Street, Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described ass A rectangular CONDITIONAL USG parcel of land located at tt:e northeast corner of Gilbert Street PERMIT N0. 520 and C.rescent Avenue, and having frontages of 315 feet on Gilbert _ Street a~,d 518 feet on Crescent.Avenuee Property presently classified ~ ' as R-A9 i3}:•.SIDENfIAL AGf~ICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ REQUESTFD CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEPTTIAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEt (1) ESTABLISH A TWO~STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL DEVELOPN~M ; AND (2) WAIVEP. OF THE ONE-STORY HEIGHT I.IMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL AGRI- CULTURAL ZONED PROPERTY. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a request from the petitioner asking that the Commission consider a two-week continuance in order to submit revised plans. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noo 63-64-66 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 520 +,o the meeting of February 3, 1964, in order to allow sufficient time for the petitioner to submit revised plot plans, and for the Interdepartmental Cortonittee and Planning Department to review said plans for recommendations to the Commissiono Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo : -- -------------..__--------._..._.-,--------- ' . ~ '. -- ~ . . ~~ ~ ~..) ~ t .:~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAYNING CONaAISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1912 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RECOMN~NDATIONS Oran9e County Tentative Map of Tract Noso 5058 and 54530 DFVELOPER: MARJAN DEVELOPN~Idf INC., 1605 East South Street, Anaheim, Ca.liforniaf BNGINEER: McDaniel Engineering Co~, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californias subject trac+.., located approximately 2,000 feet easterly of Imperial Highway, and covering approximately 15 and 14 acres is proposed for subdivision into 50 and 53 R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lotso 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed Orange County Tentative Map of Tract Nose 5058 and 5453 with the Planning Commissiono Mr. Kreidt noted for the Commission that the Interdepartmental Committee had recommended that if the Commission considered sub~ect tracts favorably, a recommendation be made to the City Council to be transmitted to the Orange County Pianning Commission that the proposed north-south street be relocated towards the westerly side of the subdivision, to provide adequate vehicular circulation and to make oossible the ins+.al?ation ±hnrgin _F ~_~,~e;7;~;;~a drainage facilities for acceptance of surface water draining from a 146-acre drainage area to the south. In response to Commission questioning, Mro Kreidt stated that the cost of this proposed drainage would be borne by the developer, and that this was not setting a precedent. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Orange County Tentative Map of Tract Nosa 5058 and 5453 be recommended for approval to the Orange County Planning Commission subject to the following recommended conditions: Tract Noe 5058 (1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvale (2) That the proposed north-south street shall be relocated towards the westerly side of subject property, in order to provide adequate vehicular circulation and make possible the installation therein of underground drainage facilities for acceptance of surface water from a 146-acre tributary drainage area to the southa (3) That the drainaga from the south shall be accepted in an underground storm drain systemo (4) That the north-south street as relocated, shall be stubbed at the southerly boundary of sub,~ect tract and~ further, that one stub streat shall be provided to the westo (5) That one street shall be stubbed to the east, unless the ad~oining property is acquired for school purposes, in which case a pedestrian walkway shell be providedo (6) That Tract Noo 5453 shall be developed prior to Tract Noo 50580 Tract Noe 5453 (1) That should this subdivision l;a developed as more than one subdivision~ each subdivision thereof ahall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (2) That the proposed north-south street ahall be relocated towards the westerly side of sub~ect property, in order to provide adequate vehicular circulation ar.d make possible the installation therein of underground drainage facilities for acceptance of surface water from a 146-acre tributary drainage area to the southo (3) That the drainage from the aouth shall be accepted in an underground storm drain systeme Thia will require construction of a storm drain to the south boundary of Tract No. 5068~ or en adequate transition from the exiating drainage ditcho (4) That one street shall be stubbed at the west boundary of subject tracte (5) That this tract be developed prior to Tract Noo 50580 (6) That approval for access to Santa Ana Canyon Road b, obtained from the State Division of H:ghwayso Coamissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ~ , 4 I f ;~ , . . _ .,.... ., _ .,..~._~._- ---~- __- ------ - ._ _._ .. ---~-------.......-----------... __.._. __.._ _ _ ._ ._ ~ ~ F ~ i (," ~ (_~ ~~ 1..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23~ 1963, Continued 19i3 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOa 493 - ED L. & Lida Smith - Establish a 191-unit motel at Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenuee Request for amendment to Condition Noo 1 of Resolution Noo 946. Series 1963-64, granted October 28, 19630 Mro Harvey Heirs,representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the action taken by the Commission, noting that Condition Noo 1 of Resolution No. 946~ Series 1963-64, required that dedication be made for the frontage of an existing service station; that this had been explained at the hearing as being an impossible condition to meet, since the service station property had been leased for 25 years in March of 1958; that the original legal description incorporated this 150~foot by 150-foot parcel in the application, in error, that he had explained this to the Right-of-Way Department at the time he received the bond to guarantee street improvements for Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue; that it had never been the petitioners° intention to include the service station as part of the develop- ment; that if dedication were required, it would cost the lessees of the property of the SBTV~CP. stat~.n~ R7~i;nnn ±~ rcl~r~}o n~~mne Z.. ~ ~~ i ~t.., t ~: i. z ~+•••••~•••7 C•~r •~7 ~~GI t~n~u ° ~i4~ 1 aa Itc CAlOl.l17y L~~2din9t that the lessees would not agree to that expenditure; that if^thi.s dedication were required, it would mean the loss of a million dollar motel development for the petitioners, and that he urgently requested that the Commission amend Resolution Noo 946 to delete the 150-foot by 150-foot service station property from said resolution, as well as deleting the referral of the 25-foot radius return in Condition Noo la Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a report by the City Engineer relative to the street dedication, noting that 43 feet would only ba needed along the service station site because of the existing gas storage tanks` locationo Mro Heirs then stated that when subject property was developed, the service station lessees planned to continue their expansion program for additional pumps for which tanks were already located, and that it would be impossible to obtain any agreement from tihe lessees for dedi- cation of the streeta Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that ~t the time the petition had been submitted, the legal description had the service station property on it; that the dedicatir~n was necessary to provide for a full secondary highway when the City°s program for street widening took place; that it was the Commission's prerogative to delete the ,•equirement of the dedication, but this was not within the ~urisdiction of the Interdepartmer.tal Committee. Discussion was held by the Commission on the requirement that a street widening program by the City should not be required of a piece of land already developed and being used; that it was something out of the control of the petitioner to give any dedication on property which had been leased for 25 years; that the cost would be prohibitive to the property owners, and the Commissfon was not in a position to recommend that the cost be borne by the City, and inquired when the City proposed to initiate its street widening program for Manchester Avenueo Mra Daw stated that there was no schedule set up for the street widening, but when traffic became too heavy to be handled by the existing street width, the City at that time might widen the streeto _ , , , Commissia~er Camp offered Resolution Noa 1007y Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides to amend Condition Noo 1 of Resolution Noo 946, Series 1963-64 to delete the requirement of a 25~-foot radius return~ and to substitute the origina2 Exhibit "A" with the revised Exhibit "A" which deletes the 150-foot by 150-foot parcel at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue from the approval of Conditional Use Permit Noo 4930 (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sideso NOESs COtAuIISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:_ Allred, Chavos, Pebleyo ! ~. r . ~ ~, ` - _.__._... _ `l ; , _ _ _. _ _... _ .. . ... _ _ .. . _ . . ._ _ . . __- _ - ~__~_._._.____" _i~ -- -r-- ~ ', ~~ ~ ~ ~`Y~ `~~ '~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2'3, 1963, Continued . 1914 j REPORTS AND - ITEM NOa 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Time Revision Commission Po:i~y on Revised Plot Plans being submitted :or raview by the Planning Department and Interdepartu~anta2 Cocmittree Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the problem the Planning Department had in making a complete analysis of any revised plot plans being submitied for further consideration by the Commission and asked that the Commission consider a revision to their policy requiring that revised plans be submitted to the Planning Department no later than the second Friday at 5:00 pomo prior to the Commission"s consideration to the second Tuesday at 5:00 pomo prior to the Commission's consideration of the xevised planso Commissioner Chavos offered a motion that the policy of the City Planning Commission regard- ing the submission of revised plot plans be amended to reauire said revised plans to be ~~ submitted to the Planning Department not later than 5:Q0 o'clock pomo the second Tuesday prior to the Commission meeting scheduled for said revlewo Commissioner Gauer seconded the, motiona MOTION ~ARRIEDo ~ ITEM NOo 4 Street Name Change for South Los Angeles Street from the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp to Harbor Boulevard as recommended by the Chamber of Comanercee Zoning Caordinator Martin Kr2idt reviewed for the Commission the request of the Chamber of Commerce to the City Council on December 17, 1963, regarding the changing of South Los Angeles Street, noting that the State Division of Highways would not identify the street as such because it added to the confusion of motorists thinking they had alrea~y arrived in Los Angeles proper; that suggestions had been made to change the nsme to Anaheim Street or Anaheim Boulevard, and that if said change were to take place, it might be necessary to change Anaheim Road at the same time, so as not to create two streets with similer namese During a discussion by the Commission relative to the street name changes, it was revealed that the merchants on the si;reet prefer that it be named Anaheim Boulevard< Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue consideration of a street nart,e change to the meeting of February 3' 1964, to obtain additional informat~on beiore setting the street name change for Public Hearing, if this is found to be necessaryo Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ADJOURNNIENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner G~uer offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Camp seconied the motione MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting adjourned at 10:00 o'clock pemo Respectfully submitted, - . . -~/`~ ANN KREBS, Secretary ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~ ~ i r • i ~ ; ...1. ...,_,, _, .,. _ ....., . ,~ x.~..~.. .~ .~_ • 3 ~~ '~~! ~,+~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 23, 1963, Continued 1914 REPORTS AND - ITHM NOa 3 RECOMMENDATiONS Time Revision Commission Policy on Revised Plot Plans being submitted for review by the Planning Department and Interdepartmental CommiCi:eee Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the problem the Planning Department had in making a complete analysis of any revised plot plans being submitted for further consideration by the Commission and asked that the Commission consider a revision to their policy requiring that revised plans be submitted to the Planning Department no later than the second Friday at 5:00 pome prior to the Commission's consideration to i•.he second Tuesday at 5:00 pomo prior a~~the_~ommission's consideration of the revised plansa Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the request of the Chamber of Commerce to the City Council on December 17, 1963, regarding the changing of South Los Angeles Street, noting that the State Division of Highways would not identify the street as such because it added to the confusion of motorists thinking they had already arrived in ' Los Angeles proper; that suggestions had been made to change the name to Anaheim Street or Anaheim Boulevard, and that if said change were to take place, it might be necessar~ to change Anaheim Road at the same time, so as not to create two streets with similar nameso • ; During a discussion by the Comr.iission relative to the street name changes, it was revealed that the merchants on the si:x•eet prefer that it be named Anaheim Boulevarde Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue consideration of a street name change to the meeting of February 3, 1964, ~o obtain additional information before setting the street na~ne change for Public Hearir,, if this is found to be necessarya Commissioner Gauer r•econded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, AA70URNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Camp seuonded the motiono MOTION CARRIED„ The meeting adjourned at 10:00 o°clock pemo Respectfully submitted, ANN KREBS, Secretary ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION _. _. . _ ------ _ .. __ _~ . _ _._ . . _ _. . _ _ --~fL; ___ , _ ~ ~ ..._.._~.. .._...,. . . .... _ . - _..~.~