Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/01/06City Hall Anaheim, California January 6, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF Tl~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the ARaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock p.m., a quarum beiny present. PRESENf - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. - COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ABSENf - COMMISSIONERS: Sides. PRESENI' - Zoning Coordinatore Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Art Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ]:NVOCATION - Commissioner Gauer gave the Invocation. PLFDGE OF ALLEGIAI~E - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Minutes of the meeting of December 23, 196°, were approved with the following corrections ' Page 1914, paragraph 3, should read -"Commissioner Chavos offered a motion that it be the policy of the City Planning Commission that revised plans submitted for Commission consideration be filed with tb.e Planning Department not later than 5e00 o'clock p.m. on the second Tuesday preceding the Commission meeting , at which they will be considered. This would necess;.tate a minimum four-week continuance if revised plans are required, since a two-week continuance would only allow one day for the submission of the required plans. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED". RECLASSIFICATION - CONTIl~UED PUBLIC FIEARINGe RAE OAKES, 748 Diamond. Laguna, California, N0. 63-64-20 and Owner; RINKER.DEVELOPMEPR' CORPORATION, 10600 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described.ass An irregular parcel of land CONDITIONAL USE located at the northeast corner of the intersection of the t~ewport and PERMIT N0. 465 Riverside Freeways, and having a frontage of approximately 986 feet adjacent to the Newport Freeway off-ramp, said property covering approxi- mat~ly 14 acres of land. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDEN- TIAL AGRICULTi1RAL, ZONE. ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL~ ZOIJE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SINGLE-STURY MULTIPLE~FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENf WITH CARPORTS. 5ub~ect petitions were continued from the meetings of August 5 and 1~3, September 4, and December 9, 1963, at the request of tYie petitipner, and to allow the Planning Department time to prepare the Genaral Plan "hill and canyon siudy" in whicfi ~ubject prop2rty r:as located, and for, the developer to submit revised plans. RECLAa'SIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RINKER DEVELOPb1EM CORPORATION, 10600 Katella N0. 63-64-21 and Avenue, and CHARLES J. BIDDLE, c/o RINKER DEVELOPNI~Nf CORPORATION, 10600 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; DEVELOPiu~tdf COORDINA- CONDITIOtVAL USE TORS, 4100 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; PERMIT_N0, 466 propexty described ass 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 47.6 acres, the easterly boundary of said land being adjacent to the Anaheim City Limits. Property presently classi- f'ied as R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. ' C - 1915 - " ~- . .. '..-._.__f_'__'_..-~._'_'..'__._,.~_...- i i I I / ~_ f {-~ ~ ~ ~ t~ j ~ ~} ~ ,~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1964, Continued 1916 R..FGr:ASSIFICATION~~- REQUESTED CLASSIFI~ATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY..RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. N0. 63-6A. 21 and REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: CONSTRUCT TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED CONDITIONAL USE RESIDEPifIAL DEVELOPN~NT - WAIVE ONE-STORY PER~IIT NOe 465. HE:GHT..LIMITATION. (Continued) Sub~ect petitions were continued from the meetings of September 4,~snd ' December 9, 1963, in order to allow the Pla.nning Department time to pre- para~the General Plan "hill and canyon study" in which subject property was located, and for ' the developer to prepare revised planse Petitions for Reclassification No~,63-64-20y 63-64-21, Condttionai Use Permit Nos. 465 an~ 466, were considered in con3unction with one another since ti~e develaper for subject properties ! presented plans incorporating both properties involvedo i 1Wr. Harx Rinker develo er a ~ Y ~ p, ppeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed ; development would be a quality type which his company was proud of, that the proposed develop- I ment was designed to meet the needs of the community, and that the general manager of the i designers of the proposed development would present colored renderings of the proposed develop- ~ ment, together witn answering any questions the Commission might have; that it was the intent , of the developer to tie in the approval of subject petitions with the plans as submitted so tt~ere would be no question that construction would be ot'~er than was being proposed. ; i Mr. Darryl Meyers, General Manager of Development Coordinators Company, appeared before the ~ Commission and submitted plot plans in color, and reviewed the plans for the Commission. It ! was further noted that where subject development abutted single-family development tb the east~ that single-story was being proposed, that the balance would be two-sto~y, studio-type ' construction~ that the relationship cf the parking to buildings was adequaie; t~at 613 units ~ were being proposed; that they incorporated a satellite-type recreation area with a large ! coyered area on the northwest; that adequate gu~st parking was provicled,3n.the fr~ont af:the ; builtlft~gs; that the units were being proposed ':or resale; that the architectusal theme of ~ the propOSeB units would be compatible to thc+ single-family development, and that•although + the units were being proposed to be resold, sub3ect development could not ~~e considered a ~ true condomii~ium because some of the units would be single-stoxyo i In response to Commissiop questioning, Mre Meyers stated that if sub~ect petitions were con- sidered favorably, the CCBR's would then be submitted to the City Attorney for approval, and th3s could be made a"condition of approval. Nfr. Ainkei, the developer~ in response to Commission qu~estioning, stated that altho~gh Batavia Street'was nbt consi~lered a through street, he had.discussed the extension of Batavia Street through subjec't property with the State Hiyhway•Department and had been informed that construc- tion on the exi:ension would be started the first of 1965e Mre Rinker further'stated that a condition of agreement with the lenders was that the units would not be completed before the freeway had been completed; therefore,any development of sub,ject property would be ti~ed in with the completion of the freeway. :n respqnse to Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt's questioning regarding the size of the :yt- ports, Mr. Rinker stated that the proposed carports would be in compliance with City reicii•:e- ments, and not as sta•ted on the plot plane ._ . _ Renderings of the proposed recreation area were presented to the Commission with an explanation that a covered area for mothers was provided in order that they might watch the children while they~were swimming, and the children's recreation area included a proposed Little League baeeball field and tennis courtse In response to Cornmission questioning~Mr. Kreidt a6vi~ed the Commission the proposed develop- ment would be a condominium type, similar to the Dowiing property, with the filing of a tract map and CCSR's, if subject petitions were approveda Mr. Rinker advised the Commission that considetable.mnaey had been spent on the development plans f~.• subject propertiess that.the primary reason for a planned condominium was to enab~e the average person to purchase a home ir.atead of renting; that the Goodkin Report prepared for development coordinators.indicated ther~ were few homes within the Anaheim area which could be purchased for less than $20,000, that t~•,e average home was selling for between $25,000 and $35,OOOS that the average pay of industriai employees would not permit purchase of homes priced in excess of $20,000; that less than 200 homes of the 6,2Q0 hom?s containsd in 101 subdivisions in the northeast area were priced below $20,000; that sub3ect properties were ideally suited for planned development and would not adversely affect adjoining properties, since subject property would be bounded on two sides by the freeways, on one side by the Santa Ana River, and the fou•rth side by single-family deve'.opment, and td counteract the single- family development aspect, single-story was being proposed for that portion of sub~ect property. ..__ __.. _. -~ . ..._..~__.....,_ ~. ~ i .. \ !((~ ~n~, i f ~ ! t _ f V ~_1 i `~.J ~ MIKUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jan~.iary 6, 1964, Continued 1917 R&CLk&SIFICATION - Mr. Ri,~ker, in response to Commission questioning, stated that figures N0: 63-64-20 and quoted on.YArba Linda were bath new and completed construction; that the apartment.vacancy in Orange County ranged from 5~ to 16~; that no area CONDITIONA~ USE was over 20,`K; ~that complete detailed information relative to counts in PERMTT~NOe-465 the area wa3 made by a study group at the request ~f de•~elopment coord3na- tors contacting the tract offices of the subdivi~.~vr,~ for information; and that no breakdown was made of homes unsold with`.n a thirty-day p2riod, r,r more, and that tf~e proposed development would be a lasting benefit RECLASSIFICATION to the Citye NE1:.-63-64-21 and ' Commissioner Chavos in reviewing comments made by the develcper s•tated~ CONDITIONAL USE in his opinion, the basic reasons for proposing multiple-family_deNelop- PE~t~T' N0. 466 ment for sub3ect properties did not•present valid evidence to approve ~Continued); such a development, and that the figures quoted in the report could have been so stated to reflect favorably in the manner in which the developer requestede !~s .°.in~ar said ha hauld b2 glad t~ get any iigures sor ihe Commission from tiiie companies or~lenders, which would be impartialo These figu.rPs would be to substantiate any figures that were presentede No one appeared in opposition to sub,ject petitior:s, THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission reviewed the findings of the Planning Department Interdepartmental Committee relative to subject development, together with the minimum guide lines for any proposed development of subject propertiese It Was noted that an 80-foot easement of the Metropolitan Water District existed, over which no construction could be made, but that the developers propose a recreational area; that the renderings and drawings submitted appeared to be a quality development, but the qu2stion the Gommis~ion would have to consider would be whether or not subject petitions would be with- in the thinking of the Commission as pro~ected on the General Plan; that if sub3ect petitions were approved, this might op~n further development for the entire "hill and canyon" area for multiple-family development, and ~eopardize the existinry single-family development, since the sub~ect properties combined consisted of 60 acres, proposing 613 clwelling units for said acreage; a8ditional school facilities would be required on the basis of 1,200 additior~l chi~dren in these'apar~ments; and that to propose 60 acies for multiple-family devela,- nt as~one`~unit seemed tb be out of pxoportion for an area committed to single-fami).y subdivision by the filing of annexation public utility agreements of eight tracts adjocent to and in close proximity to subject propertyo It was further determined, upon questioning, that school facilities would be provided by the Orange School District, that school sites had been acquired based on projections as proposed under General Plan for the "hill and canyon" area, and that there were few available sites of flat 1•3nd to pro~ect fqr any additional school facilitiese Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1008, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to reco~mnend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-20 be~disapproved, based on ~he'fact5 that the proposec~'density was in excess to that presently being developed in the single-family subdivisions to the east, that access roadways were inadequate to handle the proposed traffic, *~~;: i.iie ~ity's policies expressed in the•text of the Gen2ral Plan proposed to encourage and maintain the basic low density characteristics of the Anaheim living area, that insufficient school sites and their physical location for schools could be purchased, and that the area should be reserved for single-family development. (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolvt3on was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: CONUaIISSIONERS: None< ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley,, S.idese Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1009, Series 1963-64~ and moved for its passage and adoption; seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit ! No. 465, based on find3ngs. (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: CODM~fISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES~ COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ABSE~TI': COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sides. t I __.___ _+__~~_._. : _~..__.._r-------~----...---~- ------._____. --__----- • .~a ---. -,~, ~ I i ~ ~ ' .. . .. _ ... .. O l_ ~ C.J ~ ~ .J i tdiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIDN, Januaxy 6, 1964, Continued 1918 RECLASSIFICATION - Commiss3oner Perry off.ered Resolution Noe 1010, Series 1963-64, and N0.~63-64-20 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cortanissioner Allred, io recommend •to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification CONDITIONAL USE No. 63-64-21 bo denied, based on the same findings as Petition for PERMIT N0. 465 Reclassification Noe 63-64-20, since subject properties were being developed as one parcel. (See Resolution Book.) and On roll call tne forec~oing resolution was passed.by the following vote: R~I:ASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-21 and AYESs COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rowlande CONDITIONAL USE NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. PE~iMIIT N0. 466 F~3SENTa COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides. SContinued) Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1011, Series 1963-6r, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to,deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 466, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Alired, Camp, Ch2~~os, Gauer, Mun~all, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABS~NT: COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sides. VARIANCE N0. 1615 - PUBLIC HEARING. SHUICHI KUSAKA, 3047 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; WILLIAM L. nvtiSEY, 9102 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California; Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH OF 78.5 FEET ON REVERSE CORNEP. LOTS TO PERMIT 7l-IE ESTABLISHMENf OF AN R-1~ ONE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION on property described as: An L-shaped parcE~l of land covering approximately 28.8 acres and having a frontage of 818 feet on the north s:,ide of Ball Road and an average depth of 1,320 feet, the easterly boundary of said propert~; being approximately 338 feet west of the center- line of Beach Boulevardo Property pres;entiy classified as R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. No one appeared to rep,esent the petitionere No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. Zoning Coorriinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the location of subject property noting that a condition of approval of Tract No. 3823 required that approval of a variance to permit the reduction of the required 78.5 foot wide rever~e corner lots would be necessaryo iHE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Kreidt further advised the Commission that Office Engineer Arthur Daw had received information that the developer of subject tra:t had lost control of the aevelopment as originally proposed, and there was a possibility ':n,~: mult:nle-:amily development proceed- ings might be filed for subject propertyo Commissioner Camp c~ffered Resolution Noo 1012~ Ser3,~., 1963-64, and mnved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant !'eiii`ian for Variance Noa 1615~ based on conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed ~~y the following vote: AYES3 COMMISSIOI~RSs Allred, Camp, Chavo:~, Gr~uer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Idonee ABSENPi COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sidese I ~ ( i` i , -- _ :.: -a9'~S ___ _ --~---.._. ---- - _---_...._-_.__..~_.._. _,.A..~-----------:~ ~ ~ I` • 1 e _ . ,~.,, ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1964, Continuad 1919 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC f~ARING. CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY, 227 North ~ PER6(IT N0. 522 Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, Califoxnia, Owners; requesting.permiss.ian to ESTABLISH A COMPLETE CHURCH AND SCHOOL (GRADES. 1..TEiROU~iEi_12)~... INCLUDING PRE-SCHOOL~ OFFICES~.GYMNASI.UM, SWIMMING..P~OL~.ANn O.UTSIDE PHYSICAL EDUCATION FACILITIES ON PROPERTY DESCRIBELI AS: An.ir~agular.l.y_.shaped...parcel..of. Ia~d having a frontage of 465 feet on the west side of.Magnol3a Auenue and.~n..average_depth. of-614 feet, the southerly boundary of said proper.ty being adjacent.to the_~raqge CnuntK F1ao,d Control Channel, and further described as 227.North Magpol.ia Aveauee..Pr.operty.presently classified as~R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, Mr. Ray Sherman, representing the Central Baptist Church of Orange County, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the propo.sed development of additional.schaal...facili#ies.and a sanctuary, further noting that the pr.oposed development represented the ultimate needs-af. the•church and school facilities; that although the sanctuaxy indicated 3,QOQ seating.capac- ity, this was not foreseeable in the immediate future; that ~the. propasad .high..schooL.wnu].d._ aECOmmodate 420 students~ that he wished to have a number of..the Repor.t ta.the.Qommission ' recronanendations clarified for himo Mre Sherman further indi..cated that.the.shop facilities shown on the plan would be relocated to be an integral part of the gymnasium.facilities, ei~d-er on the second floor or below the gymnasium proper; this then would remove the shop ! fac3lities approximately 75 to 100 feet from the property line; that the gymnasi~n..would-•be. • a:k.wo-stary structure; that the shop facilities consisted of a print and wood shop, and riot a metal-working ur industrial shopo Ccmm;ssioner Pebley 2ntered the Council Chamber at 2:40 peme ~ In response to Commission questioning, Mra Sherman stated that although the property seemed to be overdeveloped, the land was being taxed to the maximum; that private school facilities did not have the same tax relief as public schools for use of the land; that no windows were being proposed for the westerly wall of the classroom nuildings or gymnasium; that 507 park- ; ing spaces were provided, and it was his opinion that this would suffice,.since the report indicated that 600 spaces were needed, based on the calculation of one parking space per five seats of the sanctuary; that it would be a rare occasion the ultimate capacity of 3,060 seats ; would be filled; that if this did happen, the outdoor volley-ball courts could be used for ; parlcing~spaces; that he w.as adve:se to the requirement of a six-foot masonry wall adjacent to the single-family property to the weste The Commission noted that the minimum setback ~ should be a requirement of subject petition for the protection of the residents in the area; !•• that although a chain link fence did exist between subject property and the prope.rty to the ; west, it would be necessary to construct a six-foot masonry walle Mre Sherman then stated ! that at the time the six-foot chain link fence had been constructed, the residents of the s area had been contacted to ascertain whether they would participate with the church in the j construction of a six-foot masonry wall, and the result was the church finally constructed the six-foot chain link rence insteada ; ,\fter considerable discussion regarding whose responsibility it would be to construat a ~ masonry wall, it was noted that subject tract and the church were developed almost simul- j taneously~with the church having been established shortly before occupation of the first 1 home of the tracto ~ ~ Mr. Faul L~efeid, principal of the school, appeared before t.`.a Commission and stated that x ttie X,:esent 700=foot fence extanded.almost the entix~ length of the single-family property ~~ ~ to the west, and one gate was placed at the Bruce Avenue exit to provide access to the school ~ for children in order that they need not use Magnolia Avenue, that several of the employees ; of the school also resided in the tract adjacenty and to require a complete masonry wall with- ~ out openings would mean these employees, as well as the children attending school and church, ~ would be deprived of the only access to the school property from the residential property to i the west; that it was the church's desire to keep the chain 13nk fence because of the expense involved in constructing a masonry wall; that the gatesto the residential property to the ~ east.were important.to the community as a whole; and that the requirement that Yale, Bruce, ; and Russell Avenues he cul-de-saced.would be an unfair hardship on the church, since the + church and school had been established prior to comoletion of the R-1 tract. Mr. Kreidt expressed the opinion it seemed quite unusual that the City did not require the ~ installation of cul-de-sacs at the time the streets were installedo Mr. Liefeld stated the multiple-family development to the north of subject property was not required to cul-de-sac the streets adjacent to their property on the west, and it would be unfair to require the ; church to do so. ~ Offi:e Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that modified cul-de-sacs had been required for the past two years; if the Commission desired, it could recommend to the City Council or Public Works Director that Yale, Bruce, and Russell Avenues be cul-de-saced; that the cost ~ for cul-de-sacing these streets depended upon whether or not existing drives would have to ; ~ ! , i ~ , ._~__~.~____I ...... ........~....._.._..............__...._..'_"_'"'~~._...,..~._.- ._.~.~___'_'_'___`_'~"_"""__"~_'• (y ' y ~. . ' ~ . . - '1__......_. ... . .~.... _. _.~~i/. MINUTESy CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, b964, Continued 1920 GBNDITIONAL USE - be removad or relocated to allow for curbs and gutters, and the mini- PEl~11TT N0. 522 mum cost would be $150 to $200 par stree,t. (Continued) ,• Mrs~ Hart Oakden appeared befoxe the Commissi.on..and stated.she had . presented a petition signed by 31 proper.ty owners .cn the._three dead-. end~~streets west of sub3ect property who were glad to see the pxoperty_.being devel.oped, but requested that the Commission consider the suggested changes to.r~snlue some of the. problems which had occurred due to children throwing objects ovsr the•fencea_(1) that the Comnission require construction of an eight-foot masonry wall on.the west boundary line, ad3acent to the R-1 residences ta remove the physical hazard...af people.,.pets,.and..pxoperty being hit by ob~ects thrown across the existing fence (this.would..alsa.r.educe the noise ,lavel, watering problems, and would generally improve the overall pictuxe.-to the.property to~the west) and this block wall construction be completed pnior to any construction of new•buildings; (2) that the entrance gate on Bruce Avenue be closed permanently to prevent use of the residential streets for parking purposes since the.church'provides ample park- ing•facilities; (3) that all buildings be of a permanent nature and the qoonset-t~pe construction presently existing be removed; (4) that the buildings be required to set back~at least 25 feet from the rear property line as all the single-family homes were required to do; and (5) that the actual construction be limited~to reasonable hours of the day to alleviate all noises that occurred into the late hours of the night as had ~pieviously been doneo In response to Commission questioning, Mrso Oakden stated that prowlers could use 'the exist- ing gate.to Bruce Avenue, that the teachers used Bruce Avenue•to park their cars, rather than driving around, that she was unable to water her lawn because of the parking of cars, that the streQt sv:eeping crew could never clean up the street because of the use of Bruce i Avenue for parking purposes, that she hoped the Commission would give the property owners some consideration in view of the fact that the Police Department had received. so many ~~ requests relative to the unfortunate situation occurring due to children throwing objects and never havinq Bruce Avenue available for parking of their own guests or for cleaning ~; purposeso Mrse Oakden further stated that the property owners in the single-family tract had been contacted regarding the masonry wall, but before any decision could be arrived I at, the church had constructed the chain link fence, thus they have never had an opportunity to agree or disagree with the construction of a masonry walle I Ara~. Oakden also advised the Commission that any injuries due to children climbing over the fence and being injured on her property would result in the home owner having to pay'for injuries incurred, that the property owners wished to discourage these children going through the fence, and that eight residents of the various streets ad3acent to subject property were in the Council Chamber if the Commission desired to ask any further questionse It was noted by the Commission ~hat the quonset huts being used for school purposes were a~~ro~ed by the City Council in August of 1963, and permission was given to use these huts for three years, and it was not in the Commission's power to require these'quonset huts being removede A woman present in the audience stated that the noise from the existin.g quonset huts was unbearable at times, and to require the masonry wall adjacent to the property to the west would somewhat al!:viate all the noise presently emanating from the school buildingse Mre R. Williams, Pastor of the church, appeared before the Commission and stated that to require a solid masonry wall without gates could work a hardship on the people since the tract people cut across the church property to gain access to their homes on the westerly side of sub3ect property, that it was the church's desire to eliminate the gate, but because of the demand of the people, the gate was not even locked, and the quonset huts would b~ removed upon completion of the proposed classroom buildings, since they were still being used for class meetings. T:~ !~ARIMG !NAS CT 4SEn_ Discussion was held by the Commission regardino the separation of residential uses from a cortrtnercial type of use, which subject property might be considered~ that the proposed plan was excellent, but the petitieners would be required to set back 25 feet from the rear property line; that there seemed no logical reason for the church being required to provide for the modified cul-de-sacs since the church was built prior to the oompletion of the tract abutting to the west, and this might have been an oversight of the City when the .tract was approved: • ,.-------- ------~--•---__ ._..v.. ~__..-~_~ , _ . -~- ,- . ; . , _ _ _._--- . _ _ ._. ~ f-~ ~ ~ ~ V , - . . -- . ~ - i • ~~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~.! MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1964, Contiqued 1921 CONDITIOlVAi USE - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1013, Series 1963-64, PERl~IT I30. 522 and moved for its passage and adoption,.seconded by.Comm.issioner Pe~ley, ~Continued) to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit.Noe.522, suhjec.t to._the relocation of the proposed stru~tures to 25_fPet f.rom.the.west nroperty line; that a six-foot masonry wall be constructed.an..the west_prnperty lia~, measured from the highest grade level of the subject or abutting.property; that no oper:ings shall be permitted in the masonry wall; that the masonry wall"shall be onstructed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the constxuction of any.6uilding on suhject pxoQ~e,rty; and that the parking requirement of 600 spaces.be waived because the existing basketball courts could provide for additional parking facilities in an.emergencyo (See Resolution Book,) On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate:. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Pexry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo A}3SENf: .COMMISSIONERS: Sidos~ RECOAM~NDATION - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council TO THE CITY for their consideration that the City assume responsibility f.ar the CWNCIL FOR installation ~f cul-de-sacs for the stub ends of Yale, Bruce and MODIFIEil CUL- Russell Avenues, since the church property located easterly of said DE=SACS streets had been granted a use variance by the County of Orange and had completed the first phase of their school-church facilities. prior to the issuance of a building permii: for the construction of the R-1 tract to the westo Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDo CONDiTIONAL USE - PUBLIC E~ARINGo EARL Ho DAHI.MAN, 2541 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT NOo 525 California, Owner; ROBERT Fa WALDRON, 2020 North~Broadway, Santa Ana, ~~~~~ California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABI:TSH A SERVICE STATION on property described as: A rectangularly shaped~ parcel of land located at tlie northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Su;+Kist Street, and having frontages of 206 'feet'on Lincoln Avenue and 186 £eet or Sunkist ~t:.~eet, and fuither described as 2541 East Lincoln Avenuee Property presently cla=sified as R~A, RHSIDEIJfIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. Mre Robert F, Waldron, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the location of subject property and the proposed development, further noting that the ea,t- erly portion of subject property would be immediately adjacent ta the off-ramp of the proposed Orange Freeway, or approximately 125 feet from Snnkist Street> In reviewing the recommended conditions of the Report to the Commission, the agent for the petitioner advised the Commission that the orange trees presently on the northern part of subject property would remain with development of the approximate 150 by 150-foot parcel for the service station; if the Coaunission considers subject petition favorabiy, the petitioner would also request that the orange trees on the northerl,y portion of subject property be permitted to remain since the property'owner to the north agreed to maintain said trees until future development plans for the remainder of subject property could be formulated, and, therefore, Candition Noe 4, requiring the blacktopping of the remainder of sub,ject property would be unnecessary; that he was unable to understand why the General Plan should be affect- ed if subject petition was approved, and he did not wish to have the petition continued be- cause of it, and that although the Orange Freeway was not to be constructed for two or more years, the State was planning to acquire a portion of the petitioner's property in a few months. The Commission expressed conce:n regarding the proposed service station being in such close ~roa,::nity to single-family residential development located directly across Sunkist Street from subject property. The Commission further noted that subject property had been recommended by the Anaheim Planning Commission to the Orange County Planning Commission for denial in July of 1962. The agent stated it was his opinion that the Orange County Planning Commission did not wish to grant a service station because sUbject property was under consideration for annexation to the City of Anaheim, and nothing adverse would affect the single-family development to the ! west if the proposed service station was attractive,-and that the entire neighborhood would change because of the froposed Orange Freewaye ~ ~. i ~ ~ ` ~ , • / ~ ' ' ~ `~.~.----- , ~ __ .~~,.~....._.._._ ~. .,.. _ _ _.__--- - ------- --- ...__.. ~ _i_ _.~ ~. _ . . ~_) ~ t~ ~} ~ MI[~iUTES, CI'I'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 196k, Continued 1922 COI~FDITIONAL USE - Mre Samuel DePhillipo, representing the service station developers, PEfiN1IT NOo~:,525 ~ appeared before the Cocmnission and stated that sub~ect property was '~„Coi~.t'inuecl) located on one of the major east-west.highways in .Orange County~ that the highest and best use of the property was for commer.cial..purposes, spec'ifically a gas station, based on pxauiaus City-aai4fons;.that davelap- ment of Lincoln Avenue easterly to the City,of.Oliae was basical.ly industxi.al..and.rural d~lopments that there would be some effect on residential proper.tie's ad3acent.to.sub3ect property, but no more so than its.effect of fronting on an arterial.strsets that many such hemes•were now being developed for professional office.uses that nine hqmes fronted on Lincofn Avenue, and two ~f them were presently for salet that if ownQr.s of these properties pet3tfoned to the Commission, he felt sure the request for zoning would be granted; that the Sunkist-Lincoln Avenue location for a service station would be supexiar to Rio Vista S+.rest because of Sunkist Street's connection with the River.side Freeway; and that since the Commission had granted permission for the construction of~a church at South and Sunkist~ the proposed gas station use would be comparablee ,. !F1@-1i0I1GI115510I1 inyuireu Vi i,1i6 Gii ~vuiNai~~ oY+6~.°.A't8t~1'~ whnthn~ nr nnt ha wrn~Z~l he a~aree- able to building.matexials and roofing~which would be more compatible to the residential uses preseni:Iy extstingj namely, shake roof, stone or masonry materials for the outside of the service station buildingo Mr. Don Brund3ge, representing the Standsrd Oil Company, appreared before the Commission and~stated that it was proposed to erect the regular type Standard service station bu,ildirig, advising the Cammission that the outside ef the proposed structure. would b2 arci~iitecturally enhanced if the Cortanission so desired, but that the basic fundam~ntal building would have +o be kepte Commis~ioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 4:50 pemo In res~lonse to Commission questioning, ttie agent for the petitioner sta~ed that the portion of sub~ect property not being utilized for the service station would remain in orange trees, and ~t was their desire not to remove the trees and blacktop the area because the original owner di the property agreed to maintenance of the orange trees, witi' such'time as corrmercial develodment wairanted their removalo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the plans as submitted and their compati- bility with ad3acent property, .together with the possible development of the ad~acent acre- age of the petitioner after the freeway rights-of-way were obtained by the Stai•ee Commission Chavos returned to the Counctl Chamber at 4t56 pemo No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitione THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to Commission questioning the agent for the petitioner stated that the owner of subject and abutting properties was uncertain what he planned to do with the remainder of his property after acquisition of the property dy the State, since said properties would no longer be desirable for living environmento The Commission expressed concern that no development plans for the remainder of the property had been submitted, and felt this should be a condition of any development of the balance of the property,~ that the Commission reviaw any development planso Commtssioner Pebley rras-~of ~he opinion that the Cot:imission was well aware of previous Eervice station action at Rio Vista and Lincoln, and sutject petition was a similar request. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 1014, Series 1963-64, and :nnved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 525, subject to develapment of the exterior elevations to present a more residential appearance with rock or masonry walls with shake rouf as stipulated by the petitioner, sub~ect to approval by Development Review; that developmen•i plans for the remainder of subject property be submitted to the Commission prior to the issuar,ce of a building permit, and conditions. (5ee Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOESc COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Rowland. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Sides. Commissioner Chavos qualified his vote of "NO" by asking that he b~ quoted verbat•ims "Gas stations are considered a C-3 use, Mro Chairman~ and to pick up a C-3 use amon9 other C-3 uses will grant the petitioner a privilege which would constitute a discrimination against other C-3 uses. The speciai conditional use permit granted to this use grants a gas station a speci.al privilege. This :~~ecial privilege is not equally enjoyed by other commercial uses, T . -- , ~ i • ;, ~ _..~ ` 3 y` \) \~ ~~ ~ V MI1dlfIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1968, Continued 1923 CGN~HITIONAL USE - namel.y C-1, C-2, or C-3. Therefore, the grantin9 of this privilege.may PEt~FIT N0. 525 not.violate the principle of the.].aw,-.bvt.it does.viol.ate..the spirit.of (Corrtinued) the lawy because.before the.law..everyone is equal. The.conditional use request here does not qualif.y. f.oF.a conditional_.use.; ..the. charaatexistics of this type of deuelepment,.the txaf£ic.geROr~te~ hy.~the.usei the effect itr-~i11 have on the development of surrounding.propsrties,.a1L of these haare.nnt.been clearly de~fined, nor•,has thi's Commission, as required by law,. de.firaed••the -quali£ied reasnns..£or..yrant- ing tliis coriditional use permit. Codes Section 18.64.030 reguires the.Co;dmission.to.establish by-~indings the basis for granting,a conditional use permi.t, thenefore, I.vote "NO':." Comfissioner .Gauer qualified his vote of "NO" by stating •that. "On July •23,.-1962, the~ Anaheim . Piahning Commission recommended to•.the Orange County Plannicng.•Commi.ssion ttiat a.° sex~ei:Ce: station for subject property be denied, that the Comtnission et ttiat time knew that the proposed Orango Freeway would utilize a portion of the•petitioner's property, yet did recom- mend denial of Qrange County Use Variance No. 5019, and that nothing has materially changed to~warrant a reversal of his decision on the use of subject property"e Commissioner Rowlanci qualified his vote of "NQ" by stating that this would be "spot aoning", that to grant the servtce station request would predetermine the future of two and possibly the remaining carners ot the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist~Street, and that the single-family development to the west would also be affected, even~though.no on appeared to oppose.•subjeat peti-tione • Commissioners Allred and Peble/ stated their ~~ote was predicated on past Council action in granting aervice stations at Rio Vista Street and Lincoln Avenue, and that subject petition and property was no different than the corners o~f Rio Vista and Lincoln. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIEARING. MELVIN F.~ ARTHUR E.~ FRED~ AND ALMA BENTJEN~ N0. 63-64-71 and 619 Buttonwood Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; LEROY ROSE A..I.A., 600 North Euclid Avenue, Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent; property TENTATIVB MAP OF described ass An L~shaped parcel of land covering approximately,21 acres TRACT N0. 5427 and having frontages of 1,076 feet on the north side of Westmont.Drive ancl 567 feet on the south side of North Street~ the easterly boundary of said property beiny approximately 130 feet west of the centerline of Dwyer Drive and further described as Portion A and Portion B: Portion A- havinga frontage of 1,076 feet on the north side of Westmont Drive and a depth of 111 feet; Portion B- being the•remainder of the previously described property. Property presently classified as R-0, 0!~.-rAMILY SUBURBAN~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-0, ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE ON PORTION "A"a R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, ZON!? ON PORTION "B". SUBJECT TRACT: COVERS APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES, PROPOSED FOR SUBDIVISION INTO 10 R-0, SINGLE-FAMILI SUBURBAN and 58 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NED LOTS. AMENDMENf TO THE GENERAL PLAN ALSO BEING CONSIDERED. Mr, LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed previous action on a portion of subject property, noting thE location snd zoning of the proposed development, together with the requzsted reclassification, and further stated that •the subdividers of subject property har takeia special precautions to protect the properties to the east and south by the inclusion of an area covering 11 lots fronting on Westmont Drive to remain R-0, and that a six-foot masunry wall would be constructed along the entire east side of sub~ect property, with a 20-foot alley separating the R-0 from the multiple-family development to the nor~h, an~: single-story construction within 150 feet of the R-0 property to the south and east. Commissioner Allred lef+, the Council Chamber at 5:15 peme Mr. Rose continued by stating that after consultation with the Planning Department, suggested icieas were incorporated in the present plan of development so that adequate traffic.flow was provided; that Lots 11 and 12 wera reserved for a recreational area and pooisp thai the request for carports was being withdrawn, and garages were being proposedj that the units would be studio-type, two-story, with the bedrooms on the upper floors, and that tha oro- posed devolopment would act as a buffer to the church and parking lot facilities adjacent to sub3ect property on the weste Commissioner Allred returned to the Council Chamber at 5s20 p.m. Mr. Rose then presented elevations and colored renderings o: the proposed development. Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5:21 p.m. Mr. Rose further stated that they intended to adhere to the elevations as being submitted as much as possible, and that he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. _.._..... ------ ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ dlji~tTi'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jar.~ary 6, i9bA, Goqtinued 1924 RECL•~i1SSIFICATION - The Cnmmission.inquired of Mro Rase why mul.tiple-family..development was N0. 63-64-71 and proposed in a predominately one-family subusban ar.ea; that-.th,e-pr.uposed R-3 shoald have been the last phase separating the two parcels,.and.tha.t 'PETitATIVE MAP OF R-1 and_ g-2 shauld. separate R-3 in• ordes to act ..as..a.lw££er-0. T~T NO• 5427 (Gontinued) Mr. Rose stated that economics :~i the purchase and..develqpment.of the land was the basic reason for proposing muLtiple-famil.y dev.elapment in tha-area. Mr: Jack Flanner, 633 Dwyer Drive, appeared before the Commission-in..opposi.~ion.to subject ps~i.~tion and stated that he spoke as a home owner in the area, and.as such, for other home om~ers, that the area was a prime residential erea in the City of Anaheim.since 1952;.that the:proposed high-densii.y multiple-family development was an.incompatibla use; that,the. ho~ owners were aware of the Commission.'s j.uxisdiction as far ar,. aeclassification was . cortcerned, but.they were also awaie~a# the poss~ble influence of multiple-family develnp- merrt in a fine.:area•~where homes were sold for in excess of $40,AOOS that it was the home owners' advantage to live in the.City'~of Araatieim since their businesses were also located. in this City, and that the City and the home owners have civic pride in their estate-like homes; that prior to 1963, eight homes of the Camelot Estates were on the market for almost a-year prior to Commission and Council denial of a previous reclassification proposed for sub3ect properties, and that after such action was taken, all these homes were then sold beaause it reaffirmed the feeling of the residents of the area that the residential subur- ban-xoning would be maintained; that of the thirteen items on the agenda, five wer~ request- ing.multiple-family zo~ing; that he did not desire to see the City of Anaheim considered an apartment ~town; that there was a purpose and place for everything; that Anaheim was bound to grow if adequate assurance were given to responsible citizens when they contemplated moving to the City of Anaheim that the fine residential areas would remain intact, and that in a very short time subject property could be developed,for R-0 uses with fine home sites and homes built of which the City could be proudo Cotnmissioner Gauer returned to the Council Chamber at 5:30 pomo Mr. Lew Overholt, 651 Avyer Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated his:rear yard would be adjacent to subject property; that presently no multiple-family dwellings existed in the Westmont area; that with the exception of three lots, no undevelop- ed property existed except subject property; that he had attended the meeting to examine the proposed plans of development; that all the home owners in the Westmont area oppose the multiple-family development; that in the showings the petitioners presented some misieading information in stating they were complying with the adjacent uses; that a school was a compatible use to residential areas; that the existing employees parking lot could not be considered a commercial use in that it would not be used during the evening hours; that landscaping was required to isolate the parking lot and presenting a more compatible appear- ance with any residential uses being proposed; that the residents of the Westmont area spent considerable money to assist in upgrading the integrity of this City; and he appealed to the Commission to keep the subject property in its present zoning for the protection of the residents of the area. p s~win.g of hands indicated 5~ persons_present in the Council Chamber, opposing subject petitions. Mr. Robert Hardin, 1245 West Eissner Place, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated he had purchased his property after the City had reaffirmed their position as to exist- ing zoning ir. the area; that he was in agreement with the previous speakers relative to the opposition, but that he wished to make further comment regarding the safety of the children, since a narrow sidewalk presently existed, and the multiple-family development would add a consi.derable nu~er of people to the area, increasing the number of children using the side- walks by more than twice the number if the present zoning were maintained; that the agent for the pe~itioner state3 ~~~ a; ~he I'ea58i15 :or proposing mvltiple-fami2y development was it would act as a natural buffer between the R-0 and the commercial development L•o the west of subject property, but in his estimation, an adequate buifer was already provided by the public school and a parking lot which had been adequately landscapedo Another statement made that the area needed good quality apartments was problematic since many of the apartments outside of the area were presently vacant; that the Westmont area•was established as an exclusive family area to attract homeowmers to reside in Anaheim rather than moving to other towns, and that he hoped the Commission would continue to maintain their faith with the home buyers by denying the propased mvltiple-family development requesto 1d..~R. C. Pa+.erson, 417 Meadowbrook Place, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated that a four-unit apartment building would be located only twelve feet from his rear wa:ll; that the petitioners proposed to consiruct a six-foot masonry wal: which would be de~:rimental to the residential integrity of his property; that the statement was made that the'apartmentc would rent for $21~J to $?.25 per month per apartment, but p2ans did not indi- cate that quality of apartment; that he had purchased his property in 1955, and had constructed ~ _ ----~-• ------------ -------------~----------. _ ~_.____-" ~ __.. MIIiUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1•9b4, Continued 1925 RECiASSIFICATION - an 1800-foot.home on his property because he was informed that typical Na~-63-64-71 and high quality homes would be built in the area, and .it-e area.wauld.remain as a residential suburban area, and he was unalterably opposed to any TENfATIVE MAP OF apartments being developed on subj,ect property. TS~T N0. 5A27 • • SCentinued) In rebuttal, Mr. Rose stated the apartments would be.quality.apartments - because they would be larger and better than..aver.age..apar_tments.preser~tly developed since the apartments were being built .to gear to highen in~come pec~ple moving into the area; that the property owners of subject property.had a ri.ght._to.. deve3op as they desired; that the petitioners wer.e unable to sell subject property for R-0 at•this time; that subject property could not be sold for R-0 for less than $40,000 an acre and development of:ttie F,roperty at the present price of purchase would mean that 100 vacant lots would have to~be sold off for future R-0 developmon.t, whereas the apartment development cou3d lie~~consummated immediately. THE H£ARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion held by the Commission indicated that a number of statements had been made that eoonomics and land price necessitated the property being developed for multiple-family use rattiei than R-0 development, but this factor could not be a consideration of the Ccmmission, since land use was the Commission's pri~;e consideration; that the quality of the.apartments might be acceptable, but the proposed development was not presently, nor could in the fore- seeable future be considered as an acceptable development in the residential suburban area of Anaheim, and that the area had been he~d for the highest residential area in the City for ten years, and no change had been indicated which would warrant consideration by the Cominis_ion for other than its present zoning> Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1018, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and'adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-71 be disapproved, based on the fact that the use wa5 incompat- ible to the present residential suburban characteristics of the area; that no physical change had taken place since the area had been zoned for R-0 to warrant favorable consideration of a change in zoning, and that adequate buffering was provided between the shopping area west of Loara Street to eliminate any possibility of multiple-family development for subject property. (See Resolution Booko) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: A'lES: COMMISSIONERS: P.llred~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEM's COMMISSIONERS: Sideso Commissioner Rowland stated that although he had asked and received legal counsel rel.ative ca his participatian in the consideratioh of sub~ect petition, and had been told there was no legal reason why he could not participate, but for his own safety in the future he should disqualify himself from voting, and although he respected the City Attorney's advice, he :elt he was vitally affected by the proposed reclassification since his property abutted to the east of subject property. TEYfATIVE MAP - Subject tract was considr:red~in conjunction with the public hearing of OF :RACT N0. 542% Reclassification No. 63-64~71. Commissioner Camp of:ered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 5427 based on the fact that the reclassification of subject propezty had been recommended for deniai as an incom,oati- ble use in the area. Gommissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Cominissioner Camp offered ~esolution Noa 1025, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment i3o. 1 be disapproved, based on ihe iindings that adequate evidence was noi submit- ted tc~ warrant rec~mmendation oF an amendment to the General Plan. (Sce Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COrNuIISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIOIJERS: Sides. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 5:46 pom. i I I . ` --......_.. _._.--- _.~- i ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ • MINUfES, CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, January 6, 19Ex~, Gontinued 1926 RE4?LASSIFICATION - PUBLIC EiEARING. 'MARGUERITE FERAUD, ET AL (deceased), Owner; A. 8 S. N0. ~3-64-69 INVESTtdEM'S, c~o Ro Co Kelder, 13571 Harbor Baulevard~ ~arden Grove, California, Agent; reqUesting that property described.ass An L-shaped parcel of land covering approximately 7.7 acres, located_at.the south- eaat-corner of Pa1m Lane and Euclid Avenue, and described as:.PORTIQN.."A" -.being xectangular ! in•~shape and having frontages of 390 feet on the east side of••Euclid.Avenue.and 283 feet on the south side of Palm Lane be reclassified to the C-1, NEIGF~ORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONE and PORTIOIJ "B" - being ad~acent to Portion "A" on the east, rec~angular in shape and ha~ing a,.frontage of 345 feet on the south side of Palm Lane and a depth of 640 feet, and further described as 1672 Palm Lane be reclassified to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ; Praperty presently classified in the R-A, RESIDEMIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. I Mr. Art Agajanian, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission i and reviewed the proposed development, noting that the Euclid frontage would be commercial •, development with the two-story office building; that a bank has indicated interest in.locat- , ing in the area; that the rear portion of subject property would have apar.tments with sub- tsrranean garages; and that the proposed development would be an asset to the City and the ~ arsa in particular, since apartment developmenis were appx•aveu :or the property located northerly of Palm Lane to Ball Ro~do ~ Mr.:Robert Jackson, 1684 Palais Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject ; petition and stated he was one of the property owners ii, the single-family tract to the south; ~ that he, together with other interested property owners appeared in the Council Chamber to oppose the multiple-family development for sub3ect property; that although they realized their ~ homes were not the estate-type homes as in the Westmont area, he was hoping the Commission ~ would give the home owners the same consideration; that many of the homes owners in the area i had large families, and if the proposed development were approved, this would mean a substan- ~ tial increase in the number of children utilizing the school and park facilities; that the ~ present facilities at Palm Lane ~chool had an overabundance of~children with the exception i of the fifth and sixth grades; that many of the apartments in the area had a 50% vacancy factor, even though many did not permit children; that the proposed plan indicated a six- ; foot masonry wall within the property line which would create a drainage problem and an i area open to weeds and debris; that 140 units were proposed with only one•small swimming ~ pool; that the swimming pool would be adjacent to his property line, and the noise emanating i would be objectionable; and that, as a suggestion, the pool and clubhouse'area could be re- ; located in the enclosed apartment area, but all single-family property owner= opposed the , entire plan as presented since the tract in which they resided was one of the better tracts i in the City, and subject property could be developed for single-family subdivision. i Dr. Richard Katz, 1655 Palais Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject ~ petition and stated that at the time he purchased his property in the tract, he had been assured he was purchasing a home in a better quality development in comparison with other types of tract homes available in the City; that many of his colleagues had moved to out- lying cities because of the vast number of apartment developments being approved in the City of Anaheim; that this influx of children in the school areas presented an overcrowded condi- tion in the school, and that some consideration should be given to the overtaxing of existing school facilities. Mr. 'Ced Voshurg, 1695 Palais Road, appeared•before the Commission in opposition to subject . petition and stated that a survey of Palais Road indicated most of the property being affected was owned by business and professional men who had their businesses in the Citye Mr. Billy Runkle, 1683 Palais Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in oppositiono After putting $35,000 in his home, including a large pool~ that a playground was placed next to his property, although he was opposed to it; th:t sub~ect property was not that expensive that it could not be developed for a yood qu~lity, single-family subdivision; and it was his earnest hope the Commission would deny sub3ect petitione In rebuttai, the agent for the petitioner stated he ha~9 owned apartments tn the area at 1234 Loara Street for some time;.that both sides of Palm Lane were an eyesore; if apartments were built on the sub3ect property, this would be an asset to the area; that commercial de- velopment existed across Euclid Avenue from sub3ect property; that a fire station was south- erly of subject property adjacent to single-family homess that the apartments proposed would be qualii:y-type apartments; and that if the existing orange trees were no longer maintained as groves, and were permitted to deteriorate, this would further present an eyesore to the area in genera2. Petitions signed by ]32 property owners ad~acent to sub~ect property were presented to the Commission, opposing the multiple-family development. Tk~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. ..._ _ _-- ----..__.._.~____~.__.-------°--~---- - .._ . _.. . _. ~. . . _ ..... _~_ _ _~dM'd = ~ ' • _"~. . -- ~:) ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1•96R, Continued 192~ RF~ASSIFICATION - The Commission discussed the.fact that a fire station did exist on Euclid• ; Nf~:~-63-64-69 Street; .that.commercial_da.uelopmen~ presently existed in ciose proximity f (Continygd) to.subject propert.y;.that_.this might be some justifijation for the peti- ~ tioner to request commercial development on the Euc11d..Auenue frnntage, I • but he did not present any reasonable reason.for presenting.plans for ; mul~tiple-family development, since subject property could be.developed..fnr..single-famil.y y subd3~vision, even though it was adjacent to a school; that schools were.ad3acen~.to or.locat- I ed-~~+rithin many single-family subdivisions; and that possibly-the multiple-family development ~ proposed might not be as compatible as might be assumed next to.commercial deveLnpmento . . ~ ~ The~agent for the petitioner stated he had made a survey of property.adjacent to subject ~ prdpertiy on the day in question and took a close look and noted that apartments were definitely predominate in the area; that subject property would lend itself well for multiple-family de- ~ vei•opment; and that the only way to satisfy the continuing growth of the city was to construct a good quality type apartment developmento Cra„onissioner Chavos asked whether the petitioner might consider development of only Portion A for commercial uses, and continuance of Portion B to submit plans which might incorporate subject property for single-family use; that if this were not done, he would be inciined to vo•te against subject petition. Commissioner Gauer indicated agreement with Commissioner Chavos' remarks and further stated the~petitioner would need assistance in the design of subject property for single-family use whese adjacent to commercial developmento Further discussion by the Commission indicated some favoring modification of,plans to relocate the r@creational area in the center; that the possibility of singie-story multiple-family development might be more acceptable; that a comparison of subject property with the Westmont Drive property could not be made, because subject property was zoned residential agricultural, whereas the Westmont Drive property was residential suburban zoning; that a smaller parcel of land of less than five acres in comparison with twenty-one acres was being proposed. The petitioner expressed hesitancy about making a decision at the meeting regarding change of development plans. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend denial of multiple-family development for R-3 on Portion B and to approve C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone on Portion A, basing zecommendation of deniai for the Portion B on the'fact that said portion could be developed as a single-family subdivision; that multiple-family development was incompatible with the single-family subdivision existing to the south; that schools adjacent to single-family development were not incompatible~ and that many school sights were purchased in close prox- imity to single-family development. Commissioner Chavo~ seconded the motion. On rol~ call the foregoing motion failed for a.majority vote of four to three against the proposal. Further discussion held by the Commission indicated the agent for the petitioner should be given more time to ascertain whether development plans could be submitted; that if revised , plans were submitted, the petitioner~should comply' with Code regulations Fequir3ng 5ingle- story within 150 feet of R-1; that the proposed development was detrimental to the area as submitted, and it was suggested the agent contact the Planning Department for suggestions as to possible zevision of plans. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 63-64-69 to tne meeting of February 3, 1964, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient tiRe to resolve whether or not he desired to continue with the multiple-family ~levelopment for Portion B; if this was his intention, revised plans be submitted in accord- ance with Code, namely, that sing3e-story should be developed witihin I50 fe~l, ai,~;he R-1 property to the south. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion9 further stipulating that if the petitioner desired to develop as he intended, he should contact the single-family resi- den+.s south of subject property to see how sub,ject property could best be developed. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess for thirty minutes. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 6:30 pom. RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7s00 p.m., all Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioner Sides. -- - ~ -- -- -- - ~ , C~ . ~ t~ ~ ~ MINtiTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6~ 1~6~1, Continued 1938 CCRaL1ITI0NAL USE - PUBLIC HEAEING. WILTON ABP.LANALP, WILLIAM 8 SHIRLEY ALMAND, 3345 West PEF~hFiT'N0. 527 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILTQN ABPLANALP, 3345 West •° Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califaxnia, Agent; requesting.pexmiss3on.to , .• ESTABLISH A TRAILER PARK on property described as:. An L-shaped pezcel of lastd having a frontage of 150 fest on the north side of Lincoln Avenue.and..an.average depth of 470 feet, the westerly boundary of said.property being-appxoxSmate.ly._1?09.O.f.eE.t_aast af the,~centerline of Knott Avenue, and further described as 3345 West Lincnln_Avenue. P.roperty px~ently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZANEo. Mr•.••Wayae Darwin, contractor for the proposed trailer park, appeared before.the Commission tacrepresent the agent and stated that Special Use Per•~it No. 16 permitting the develnpment ! of~subject property for a trailer park had expired because of the.~.inability.of the petitioner ; to~.vtilize the sewer corinection with the City of Anaheim at-the time it was available because ~ of•financial difficulties; that they were now able to proceed with development plans, but had• ' been informed the special use permit had ezpired, and they had to reapply~to the City for the ~ proposed use; and that all preliminary requirements of the State for development of trailer ; parks had been met, together with money being available for construc.tian.of..said.trailer ,~ark. ~ In response to Commission questioning relative to the deep, narrow lots adjace~it to the east j and west of.sub,ject property, the agent stated the lots were~ owned by the petitioner's daugh- ~ ters,and there was no plan in the foreseeable future to develop.the.adjacent parceis for a ~ larger,trailer developmente The Commission asked that the record indica'te the daughtersowned E the narrow parcels of land, and one of the daughters stated at the Commission meeting she did s not;wish to participate at this time in any development of subject end'abutting properties•e ~ s It was further noted by the Commission that the still pending trailer ordinance proposed i width and depth of the trailer spaces which were considerably less than the size of many af ! the trailers being presently constructed; namely that a 70-foot length seamed to be predomi- ~ nant, and inquired of the agent what length of trailer they proposed to accommodateo The ~ agent replied the majority of the trailers be constructed today were 60 feet in length, but ; the proposed trailer park could accommodate only 55-foot trailers, and that according to ; State Code, development of the property could place trailers on an arigle on the 100 feet on • the'east property line, and that street improvements were already in subject propertyo ~ Mr. John Newall~ property owner of the second parcel to the west of su6ject property adjoin- ! ing`the shopping center and located in Buena Park, appeared in opposition to subject petition i and stated a great deal of improvement had boen noticed in the area and in Anaheim; that the ~' small shopping center under construction on the south side of Lincoln Avenue was almost near- ~ ing completion; that new professional buildings were presently under construction 150 feet ~ east of subject property; that the proposed development originally approved in 1959 did not ! seem to be compatible to the existing developmer~t c.£ commercial and professional uses adjacent ~ to sub~ect property; thai; the size of the parcel being proposed for a trailer park was con- ' ~ siderably smaller than the average, therefore creating a serious development hazard; and that i in the interest of compatible development for the area, subject petiti.on should be deniedo i 1 Three letters of opposition were read to the Commission. ~ Mr. Robert C. Smith, representing the McMahan Company located in the shopping center to Lhe west of subject property, appeared in.opRosition.to subjeCt petition, stating that the pro- i posed development would be detrimental to the retail commercial development presently 3ccui- ~ ring in the area; that almost everywhere his firm located it was noted commercial development had taken place; that where homes and trailers existed, was an incompatible use for adjacent commercial development; that the entire area was now being developed for commercial use, and the•proposed trailer park might be the end of any future commercial development for abutting properties; and that his firm was desirous of having any commercial type development, but not the proposed development adjacent to the small shopping center to the west of subject property. f In rebuttal, the agent stated the owners of subject property would be the owner-managers of j the proposed trailer park; that a swimming pool and a recreation area were being provided; I tha"t it was not the fault of the petitioner that development could not have been started in I 1959, because of the inability of hooking up the sewers with the City of Anaheim; and that j the proposed trailer park would be limited to adults onlyo ~ ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i 1 Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the compatibility of the proposed use with 1 the adjacent commercial uses~ and if the proposed use were approved~ the petitioner would be ~ able to utilize his home, together with deriving a worthwhile living from the balance of the ~ property; that the petitioner's daughters did not intend to utilize their property for other i than the present R-A use; and that residents of the trailer park would ba utilizing the i commercial facilities existing to the west of sub3ect property. / . ~ ; _ __.__..._~.._r.,,.,...., _ __..__--- - ----- ~~--J . .. .. ~ _ . ^ . . . ~ ' . :~ ~ i .., ' Cf t _1 ~~.1 ~ ~ ~ MI;l~1TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January b, 1+~64, • Continuerl 1929 CONDITI~NAL USE - Coramissioner Perry offered a motion to deny Petition for Conditional Use 'FEiiMI'f N0. 527 No. 527, noting that the proposed development ~NOUld not be the best and (Conti~nued) highest use for the land, and was incompatible with the existing develop- • ment in. the.-area. . Gommissi~ex Cha.vos seconded_ the.mo.tiono ... On:~ao~l call the motion failed to pass by a vote of five to two against the motion, Commis- siarier Rowland abstaiainga Cortortissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1015, Series 1963-64., aad moved for its passage anct adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant -'etition for Conditional.Use Permit No. 527, subject to conditions and .tt,e s.tipulation that the petitionex.would constxuat a sw.tmning pool behind the required 35-foot setback frcm Lincoln Avenue, and the present residence on subject.property to be retainedo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebleyo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos~ Perry. ABSENt: COMMISSIONERS: Sides. AES.TAItds ~CONWIISSIONERS: Rowland. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. BANK OF AMERICA~ SO1 North Main Street, Santa Ana, PERiutIT N0. 524 California, Owner; COLUNBIA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, 7591 Acacia, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A 10~-FOOT ~ BY 24-FOOT BILLBOARD on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Loara Street, and further des- cribed as 1610 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presentiy classified~as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ Mr.:William D. Forbes, employee of the Columbia Outdoor Advertising Company and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to review the proposed construction of the sign and noted that three similar signs were located within 300 feet of subject property; that commercial development existed to the north of subject property, and manufacturing to the east; that subject property has been vacant; that a time limit of five years with a minimum of one year should be considered by the Commission; and that he was available to answer questions. The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether the proposed sign would be covered by the proposed sign ordinance, and Mre Roberts replied in the affirmativey stating it was permitted in the M-1 Zone only, but the sign would not be permitted in its existing zone without a conditionai use permit. Zoning Coord:nator Martin Kreidt inquired whether the proposed sign would be similar to those submitted in the brochure. Mr. Forbes replied development would be substantially the same as other signs in the area; that most signs existed on vacant property and would remain there until the property was ready for development, and no definite time could be stipulated because development of the property was dependent upon interested persons. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione TF1E HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 1016, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 524, subject to a time limitation of three years and a cash bond of $500 posted to insure the~removal of said sign. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Perry~ Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Gauer. ABSENT: COMMISSIONHRSs Sides. Commissioner Chavos stated from evidence submitted, the proposed request did not qualify for a conditionai use permit, and no facts or iindings had been established by L•he Commission. . ..-~----- ...._.____.~_~.__ -•------_~_ __.._-~----- ------------r...__.~ _ __ .. _..... _....._..._.._...._ -~- . , ~_.. __._~ . ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MI~IUTES, CITY PLANNING COh~PAISSION, January 6, 196A, Continued '.1930 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC 1-~ARING. HERMAN FREESE, ET AL, 2143 West Broadway, Anaheim, PERMI•T N0. 526_ California, Owner; DAVID W. HOOK, 1780 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, v California, Agent; requesting permiss-ion.-to ESTABLISH.A_PLANNED.PROFESSIONAL CENfER INCLUDING A FINE ARTS BUILDING~ .MEDICAL SUILt~INf~~_.ANI2.I,AW. AND PROFES- S~{3NAL BUILDINGS on property described as: An L-shaped par.col of.-land.hav.i.ng.a.frontage of 2l3 ~fe~et on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and an average • depth af. 627. .f,eat,_ the..easterly besnndary of said property being approximately 1,015 feet•west or.the~centexline of Euclid Aa4nue~ and further described as 1784 and 1786 West Lincoln•AvEn~eo Property presEntly clas- sif3ed as R-A l2ESIDENI`Ii4L AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~• • Mr•. David Hook, one of.the owners of subject development, appeared befor.e.the..Cnmmi.ssian and•+submitted a rendering of the proposed addi.tion to the commercial facilities appro~red by t~-e.:Coconission August, 1962; that a condition of approval required any future development fos sub3ect property would require an additional conditional use permit, and this was the reason subject p~,tition was before the Commission for consideration. . In.response to Commission questioning, Mro Hook stated the proposed development would be single-story; that a six-foot masonry wall would be constructed along the south and west property lines, and the building would have a setback of 15 feet with 8 feet of landscapingo Mrs,. Vivian Engelbrecht, 218 South Florette, appeared before the Commission and stated she ; was concerned with the encroachment of commercial uses a depth.of 700 feet back to the R-1 '•. subdivision to the south and west; that with the Commission's approval of the original devel- ~ opment, any future development was predetermined; that her main concern was the drainage of ~ proQerty to the east and into the single-family areas to the west and south, noting that she ( had'appeared before the City Cou~icil a number of times regarding the drainage pro!~lems exist- ; ing; that the drainage ditch had not been completed and asked whether the Engineering Depart- ~ ment had any idea when drainage facilities would be completed on Hiawatha Street. Office j Engineer Arthur Daw stated drainage from subject property would go into Embassy Street; that { the':drainage facilities for the property to the east of the street would be taken care of ; as the City program for drainage facilities for the various streets in the City progressed. •; ~ The'Commission informed the opposition that since a six-foot masonry wall was being required ~ for the southerly property line, drainage could not possibly go into Hiawatha Street, but ; would have to be routed to Embassy Street, and the facilities on Embassy Street could adequate-j ly handle any drainage problems. ' i ~ Mr. Daw further clarified for the Commission that the well site at Hiawatha Street had held ! up any previous handling of a drainage problem to Hiawatha Street from the property to the ; east, and since this well site was now being removed, a modified cul-de-sac would be construct-j ed there, and the present drainage pipe would be removed so that drainage would be handled in ~ a normal manner' and this was one of the basic reasons why the City did not become involved in resolving the drainage easement granted to the property to the east. ~ The Commission then reviewed the map of subject and abutting properties to clarify reasons ~ for comolaint on the drainaye problem as it pertained to subject property. ° ; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer o~fered Resolut'ion N'o. 1D17, Series 196$=64,~and~moveci for its passage ;" ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit { No. 526, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Sides. ~ ~ . _.... -_.. ....------ -- ~ _ .. . _ _ __~ / .~ r~ t - ~ ' ~~ e . ~1 ~ MfNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6~ 1964, Continued , 1931 RECLASSIFICATIJN - PUALIC E~ARING. KEYSTONE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION AND ANAHEIM N0. 63-64-68 and INVESTMENT COMPANY, 551, North Euclid A~enue, Anaheim, California, Owners; RONALD W. CASPERS, 555 North.Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, California,..Agent; VAf2IAt~E N0. 1616 property described as: An irregularly. shaped. parcel of land...lacated a.t the southwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Crescent_Stxeet, said~property having frontages of 304 feet on the east.•side of Fairhaven.S.tseet, 3~J4 fe~t on the west side of Euclid Avenue, and 212 feet on the south side..~£.Cre.scent.Stxe~at, a~d further described as 555 and 551 North Euclid Avenue•and 530~. 536,.54~,.•550,.and.~54 Fa3rhaven Street. Property p~esently classified as R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, and C-1., NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONES. " ` - ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK AND THE STRUCTURAL hiEIGHT L•IMITATION TO PERMIT THE EXPANSION (THREE STORIES) QF THE EXISTING BUSINESS STRUCTllRE. Mr.~Ronald W. Caspers, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission-and reYiewed ~, tk~e proposed development, together with an explanation of the existing development, and stated that the proposed two-story additi~~ would be for the petitianers' use only, and not for office ~ rental; that upon completion of the proposed expansion, the structure would be the home office ~ of••what was hoped to be one of the largest financial institutions in.Orange.County; that at ; the time the original structure ~vas built, engineering requixements were provided so that at i arry:~future time additional floors could be constructed; that with the addition to the existing ~ stsucture, additional parking spaces were r.eeded; that six homes had been purchased ranging in 1, pr~e from $15,500 to $18,400; that although onl~~ 102 parking spaces were required under the ( C-0 Zone, 134 were being proposed. i Mr. Caspers then presented a colored rendering o£ the proposed addition, noting it would be ~ an asset to the Euclid-Crescent area; that after reviewing the recommendations on the Report ~ to the Commission, there were a few exceptions fTOm which he'would like to have some relief; ~ namely, the six-foot wall for both Crescent and Fairhaven; that he was quite concernecl with i' small children being hit by cars driving from the parkin9 area onto Crescent; that visibility ~ was impossible with such small children; that if said wall were approximately two and one-half feet high, this would reduce any accident factor, and perhaps this might have been a typograph- ~ ical error. The Commission informed the petitioners that a six-foot wall Hss a normal requirement t~ ~ separate commercial from residential uses, and, therefore, was not in error. Mr. Caspers then stated if a six-fooi: wall was required, he would suggest that it separate the '. residential from commercial on Fairhaven, but be set down to two and one-half feet from three feet behind the sidewalk,for about 15 or 25 feet. Commissioner Chavos then asked the agent what technique had been used to purchase i;he homes from the home owners. Mr. Caspers replied that no technique was used; the home owners w~re offered above-market prices for their homes; that he had offered $20,000 for the one parcel which was not included in the area being considered for reclassification; that it was up'to the.CoRanfssion to decide whetheF or nat one lot wou~d hold back commercial progress;.that. the'homes originally sold for $12,000 and had depreciated considerably. Discussion occurred between Commissioner Chavos and Mr. Caspers relative to the untenable position the hold-out home owner was placed in because the petitioner had purchased property on either side of him. Commissioner Chavos further stated that if the petitioner had originally been farsighted enough, he would have known he did not have sufficient parking for future expansion, and that the property owners had been in the area before the original development had been constructed. ;he C6u~I'ii~SSf8T1 d;scussad the raquir~sr.ent•of a six-foet wall a]ong Fairhaven from Crescent and~expressed the desire that the wall should be stepped down to 36 or 42 inches in the front 15 feet from Crescent Avenue; that the alley adjacent to the east side of Fairhaven Street homes was utilized by the commercial development; that all garages on Fairhaven Street open on to that street; and determined through questioning that the alley would remain as ingress and egress from the present parking area. Mr.°Ronald Holmes, 544 Fairhaven Street, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated he was the one property owner who held out; that he did not like to be walled in; that although the petitioner had offered him $20,000 for his home, when hs attempted to purchase a home in the.area for the same price, he found homes cost $25,000 to $30,000; that he did not like to move out of the area because his children had been going to the schools in the area; that he planned to live there for an indefinite period and saw no reason for movings that the property owners were opposed to the six-foot masonry wall on Fairhaven; that although the neighbors had never complained about the lights, these could be seen constantly at night; and in response to Comnission questioning stated he had lived in his home approximately ten years; that the area ~- ~ . .___._.. - .... _----~1 -. ~- . ~,~ • r~ U' ~f ~ ~ l.1 MINkTI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jan~ary 6, 1_964, 1Contiqued 1932 R~3I,ASSIFICATION - was in the city when.he purchased the home; that the homes did have•deed NO:r 63-64-68 and restrictions, but to his knowledge, none of the home owners had been ap- proached to remove said deed restrtctionsa •~ ; VI~#IA2~.3 ~.J..1b16 ` SCor~tinued) Discussion was held between members of the Commission relative to~ subdivision~ ,,:• ' deed restrictions, Com~issioner Chavos ..nating. that.u~her~ ihe City .appxoved ~ ._ a subdivision, it also approved any conditions attached--ta..it,.~nd_deed ; restri~tions were one of them, and that the hold-out propexty-aw~er.wauld_be a#..the_me.xcy of ! tt~,p~titioner since no one ::ould purchase his home but for commercial purposesand the City j sMould protect the citizens and •:•heir rights. -• i Mr:~~~'eter J. Nozero, 517 Fairhaven-S.treet, appeared before the Commissiar~ in.oppos3Cion :to. i sab3~ct petitions,and asked for cla.rification of the statement regarding tbe possibility o£ ; dave~oping the entire easterly side of Fairhaven Street for parking purposes.for the ~ommercialy s;.~uatures on Evc2id Street, and he opposed any breaking up of the.integrity of.the axea.by j irsterspersing parking spaces with homes, and asked.whethen the Commission would grant,the ~ vax~iance for 3ust the subject property, or the entire easterl~c•.side.o£..the.stxeet. The.Com- m~n informed Mr. Nozero that they could act only on property which had been duly.adarertised•i na~dely, the property the petitioner was requesting for reclassification. Mr. Nozero, in f response~to Commission questioning stated he would not be opposed to parking and landscaping, ; toge~ther with the six-foot wall, but thought it would be wise that the Commission consider 1 initiating reclassif.icaion proceedings for the remainder of the homes fronting on the easterly j side of Fairhaven Street for the proper and orderly development of the area, He further re- { quested that~some safety assurance be made relative to a coverwalli since many children used ~ Euclid Street to go to school, and if the proposed structure was to be tlixee stories, children ' would not be able to use the sidewalk and _hen go into the street liecause of the danger of ~ falling debris. The Commission informed Mro Nozero the Code required tHat where construction ! was more than one story, that a covered walk would have to be providede ~ ~ Mr. Willie Hudson~ 503 Fairhaven Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to ~ ~sub3ect pet~i'tions, stating that the variance asked for would open up,the street for any ~ ~iequest fo~ ~ommercial purposes, that homes did exist on the opposite side of the street and ~: would be jeopardized by any form of development if comme~Cial uses were granted; that at the ~ time the petitioner applied for the one-story structure~ in his opinion, nothing was stated ~ at the,meeting that three stories were contemplated, and he was very much concerned with what i might~be constructed immediately across the street from residential uses; that the variance ~• was to offer some relief for unusual conditions; that property owners should also be given ~ some rights and consideration since the area had been developed for residential use for ten years. ~ Commissioner Perry then stated he felt the petitioner was trying to develop the area in an ~ orderly mannerj that similar situations occurred on Brookhurst Street, and insufficient park- ~ ing was provided; that the proposed development seemed to be the orderly approach to an ~ existing problem on Euclid Street. j Mr. Robert Fitzgerald, 512 Fairhaven Street, appeared in opposition to subject petitions ~ and stated he was in sympathy with the property owner who was holding out; that he had seen 3 areas where•parking•ancY-homes wese ir.tersperse~, and it was unsightly and an untenable situa- ; tion; that to finance a new loan for the purchase of a home was rather an experisive item since ~ financing took up a great deal of any profit that might have been gleaned from the ~,ale of a ! home; and that although the homes on Fairhaven Street were not expensive, all the home owners ~ were proud of their homes. ~ Mr: Caspers, in rebuttal, stated that all the lights in the parking area were i~,~.+ and not ~ visible over the fence; that the new addition would have the same type of lig!,:s; that the , axisting naon light Was an unobt*usive ane and did not light up the area, th~~:. the lights ~ came from other commercial structures in the area~ that the meeting room wa~ required to be i closed at 10e00 p.m., and he had heard that sometimes it was kept open unt'.: 11:00 p.m., and the caretaker had been instructed to close the meeting room at 10:00 p.m.; that he was also I concerned about the children in the area, and he would assure the property owners that a ~ covered walk would be erected for pedestrian use to protect the children; that he had offered , Mr. Holmes a loan at 4~ interest for any home he would purchase in Orange County~ up to $20,000; and that although Commissioner Chavos seemed to be vitally concerned with the rights of one property owner, he felt that since they owned five parcels of land, a similar considera- tion should be given to the petitioner. In response to Commission questioning, relative to any issue being made regarding one-story construction and later more than one story, Mr. Caspers stated they had discussed this at the consideration of the original application, and it was stipulated at that time more than one story would be constructed, but he had felt it would be only two $t~ories, not the three stories they presently proposed; that they presently had 32 e~nployees, but this would go up ~ A. ,. ~ . . . ~. ' . . . } I • ,. l .: ,.~- \.,~ ~ ~ ~.l ~ `NIIyUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1964, Continusd 1933 R6rLASSIFICATION - to 75 employees, and that the additional parking area would be used for N~J:~b3-64-66 and employee parking only, and the existing front parking area would~still be for the in-and-out customers. V!G~TANCE N0. 1616 (Eontinued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Disoussion was held by the Commission relative to.the.me~hod.o~ development i whas~s residential areas abutted a commercial zone~ that if.psoperty ad~acent.to. Euclid Street i hat~ outlived its usefulness, the Commission should have a statement of.policy indic.ating ; proRer development of the balance of the easterly frontage of.Fairha~en Stxeet as to the j proper use for it for future Commission consideration.... •• ~ I Commfssioner Chavos stated that the home owners would be penalized if.a parking area was es~tebl-ished directly across the street from their homes; that these home owners should be • co~ensated for any damas~ because Y.he homes would not be puxchased as homes, even thaugh . ttre~petitioner stated he had given above the market price for.the homes.;'that no-legal reason had been given by the agent, on-sight inspection, or am~thing set at the meeting that.supports reasons for zone change of the area with the exception if the petitioner wished to•expand his pzesent facility~and that one of the important considerations the Commission must take is whether ~conomics should govern the decision of the Commission in preference to the existing homas since a city without homes was a ghost city. Commissioner Pebley stated that he could not agree with Commissioner Chavos remarks in that he felt a six-foot wall with landscaping would act as sufficient buffer for the area;that the proposed development.was an orderly expa-tsion and that the Commission should consider reclassification of the remainder of the easterly properties in order to provide expansion for the commercial facilities fronting on Euciid 5treet for C-0 parking uses only~and that it should be speci£ically developed in this mannery the Commissior, further discussed the possibility of the C-0 for the remaining Froperty on easterly portion of Fairha~~en Street and were of the opinion that this discussion should be held at a work session~requesting that the Planning Department make a study of Fairhaven Street to indicate the use asfor parking of C-0 Zone onlye Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 1019, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, secondea by ~ommissioner perry to recommend to the City Council petition for ReClassification No. 63-64-68 be approved~subject to a six-foot masonry wall on the Fair- haven Street frontoge steppeel down to 36 inches in the front 15~ feet to Crescent and set back a minimum of three feet.from the sidewalk, said three-foot.s~rip to be landscaped, to remove the existing driveways of the homes and replace with standard curb and gutters, and condi,tions.~See Resolution Boolb) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Camp~ Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos. ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS: Sides. Commissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating that this constitutes "spot zoning", and he wished he had a record of the number of times the Commission stated they did not believe in "spot•zonipg";.that the home owners, by the approval of subject petition, would be suffering damages, and they had a rigt~t to be compensated for thisj that their health, safety, arid generai welfare would be jeopardized, and that the homes in this area were deed restricted to R-1~ single-family use only. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 8:50 pem. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1020, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1616, subject to conditions. (See Resolution'Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes A`lES~ COMMISSIONERSs Allred, CampP Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOES: COMhiISSIONERSs Chavos. ABSF*ii: COMMISSIONHRSe Rowland, Sides. Commissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating that the varianca violates itself in that it in effect was granting a special privilege not enjoyed by property in the same zone. , . ._.._. ----r- -- _.-----------•---------_._-.__~__.~_---..,..,.-----_ ._, . . _.__........ _. _ ._. ~ , . 1 ,5, ~ ~ -_-- .. .... . M7.~NTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOP;, January 6, 1964, Continued I934 RFCI.ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEAR'~NG. BROAD4VAY-HALE STORES, INCORPORATED~ 600 South Spring N0. 63-64-67 and Street, Los .Angeles, California, Ownerss S. CRAIG GBAINGER, 125 South Claudina Strbet, Anahefm, California, Agent; property descxibsd.ass CF~iDITIONAL USE An irregularly ahaped parcel of land located at.the.southeast corner of P&RNfIT•N0. 523 Wilshire Avenue and Loara Street, said pxope~.ty..hauing.fr.ontages.of. 286 feet on the southerly side of Wilshire• Aver.ue•, .5Q-fee.t.on .the..east side of Loara Street, and 277 feet alon.g .the,:•northerly .side of the Sasrta Ana Freeway off-ramp. Property presently classified as.R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20Dg. .. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs C-2~ GENERAL COMN~RCIAL~ 20NE. REQIIES?HD CONDITIONAL USE: cSTABLISH A SERVICE STATION. Mr,:S~e Cra~.g GFainger, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and.reviewed the•proposed development and location of subject property, noting that they had been ander the a'ssumption the property had been rezoned to C-2 at the time the~9roadway Shopping Center had been considered, but upon application for a conditional use permi't, the petitioner had been informed~this was still R-A property, and that no access would lie had from Loara Street, but'only from Wilshire Streete In response to Commission questioning, the petitioner stated that little additional traffic would be generated onto Wilshire Street to create a traffic hazard. 1 ~ I f I I Mr. Grainger then reviewed the findings and conditions of the Report to the Commission, noting ~ that Condition No. 4 required the petitioner to take care of.a drainage culvert, but on analysis: of the property deed, it was noted this was on State property, and, therefore, nothing could be ~ done since their property line was eight to ten feet away from this drainage hole. ; ~Ar. M. W. Elliston, 352 Bridge Street, San Gabriel, appeared before the Commission to discuss i the flood-light problems with the Commission, and i~formed the Commission that the flood-lights ~ would be directed on the drives of the station, and in no way would create a problem to the ; apartmants being constructed across the street since the lights wouTd be reflected down, this ~ would never reflect on the windows of the apartments~ and the station would be a 24-hour station.f i The Cosmnission expressed concern that the lights on Wilshire Street would be of such a nature that the City would be sub,jected to many complaints regarding the poor zoning, since they were ~ certain any lights would affect the apartments. ; f The Commission tivas informed that the reflection from the lights on the metal would be minimal, ; that the lights would be neon tubes under canopies and reflect onto the building. ; i, 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt noted for the Commission that the plans indicated a sign I about 32 to 35 feet in height, and asked whether this sign would be directed toward freeway traffic. Mr. Robert C. Runyon, 543 Concord Place, appeared before the Commission and stated that the bulbs being.used .in the sign would be 700 to 1,OOG watt bulbs, and would be used only to illumi- nate the drive to the station. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSFD. Deputy City Attorney Furman Robert~ inquired why the petitioner asked for C-2 zoning, and was informed tnat ~k7~ nhop~in~ cantsr hed C-2 zoning, 3nd they f91t this would be more uniform zoning for commerci.al purposes in the area, and that it would have been originally zoned C-2 except that an error had been made in the legal description submitted to the City at the time the Broadwey Shopping Center was rezoned. Commissioner perry offered Resolution No. 1021, 5eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-67 be approved, sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll ca21 the for~going resolution was passed by the following voteo A1fESe COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer~ Mungall, Pebley~ Perry. N~S: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Rowland, Sides. ~ ~------~-- --------._.----~.._ _.-._____._____..._ _.___.-_.,~___.__ . ;• _ . ...__ . - ._.._._. .. , _ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~~ ~ ~ ~ d MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1964, Cont~nued 1935 REGLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Allred.qualified his "NO" vote by stating that he falt•this N0: 63-64-67 and was not the location for a seruice station and it would be..a txaffic •> problem since there would be considerable traffic emanating from the CONDI?IONAL USE multipieefamily development presensl.y•under constxuction.. ... PF.f~4IT N0. 523 . . (Continued) Commissioner Chavos o,ualified his "NO" vo•te.by stating.that.the.traffic . from the proposed development.would gene~ate a tnaffic..pxoblem, and_to propose a ~arvice station ad~acent to residential.property was contrary ta principles -ef..good•planninge • • • • - • • Co~rissioner Camp stated he felt a service station for subject property would be the most feasible_.type.of. development, rather than a sa1•id structWrea Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1022, Series 1963-64, and moved.-For ita passage. ar~d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petit3on for Conditional Use Permit. Na:..523,..suhject .to conditions. (See• Resolution.Book.) ..: .. ' . ' : : '. ''"'On' ro1L ca1L..the..fnrsgning...xesoluti.on.:was passed by the fol3nwing. votes - AYES~ COM-AISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perr.ye NOES: ~~ CbMN1ISSI0NERSs AllrPd, Chavos. ABSENT.: . COMINISS.I~lE13S ~__ Rnwl.and, Sides. Cortanissioner Chavos asked that if the owners of the apartment develApment had.not been ir~farmed, that the Planning Department so inform them of the.proposed service station si.te ~vst approved by the Commiss3ono ' RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, HOWARD Mo LANG, 700 Ocean View D*ive, Fullerton~ N0. 63-64-70 and California, Owner; ALEX FISHMAN, 991 Nc~th Tustin, Orange,. California, Agentx property described as: An irre;~ularly shaped parcel of land VARIANCE NOo 1617 .cove°ing approximately 1207 acres and having frontages of 1,248 feet - on the south side of Crowther Avenue and 1,178 feet on the north side ~ of Orangethorpe Avenue, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 1,575 feet east of the centerline of Dowling Streeta Property presently classifieci_as R-A, .RESIDENfIAL.AGRICULTll@AL,..ZONE, REQUF.STED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIpEM'IAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIA'NCE: WAIVE ONE-STORY FIEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A, RESIDEMIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONED PROPHRTYo Mr. Alex Fishman, agent for the petitionerappeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed use of the property would be to subdivide a 12~ acre parcel into 30 R-3 lots; that the reason for the variance was a technicality because subject property was adjacent to residential agricultural.property whish had..not been rezoned to M-lo The Commission inquired whether the petitioner had filed a subdivision tract map, to wHich Mr. Fishman replied that Tentative Tract No. 5482 would be submitted in time for ttie Council to consider it with the reclassification if subject propexty were recommended for appxoval by the Commi- sion. In response to further Commission questioning, Mre Fishman stated that plans of devel- opment were not submitted because he proposed only io subdivide the property for resale of the R-3 lots, and any developmen~ for "these lots would then recjuire plans being submittede In response to a question by the agent for the petitioner, the Commission informed him that although the Commission might approve such a petition, the Tentative Tract Map By-law wou~d have to be considered by the Commission prior to its submission to the City Council; that if the time element involved was important to the petitioner, it was suggested he submit the tract to the Planning Department, and subject petitions should be continued; that the Council would avtomatically continue any reclassi:ication on ~hich any p2nding tract nap rlauld bo filed; therefore, in the interest of saving time, the petitioner should have tract map approv- al:by the Commission prior to the submission of the reclassification to the Council. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the tentative tract map would have to be submitted to various cities and other governmental agencies other than the City, if adjaeent to State highways or County property, and the earliest the Commission could consider this would be in four weeks, since the Interdepartmental Committee would have to receive all the :ecommendations prior to their reviewing the tract map. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Pet3tions for Reclassification Noe 63-64-70 and Variance Noo 1617, to the meeting of February 3, 1964, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to file a subdivision tract map for Commission considerationo Commissioner Pefir,y seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ____ ---- i -__._.._-___...__--.~.._-------...---_.---------._._.~...__._.~__., ~ . ~-- 4 ~_ -~ '- ~ - , --. L.1 _.~-^- ~ . _ .. ' . . .._ . ti: _.,_ . _ . 4: . .. . . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MiNU'i'ES, CITY PLANNING CONLNISSION, January 6, 1964, Continued 1936 RECT.ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEABING. I-IERMAN H. BRUNS, 1102 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, NOo 63-64-72 California, Ownerp ~RANK D. MORE~IS, 676 South "D" Street, Tustin, California, Agent;.requesting that property descsibed.ass A rectangular parcel of land • locat~d at.the southeast corner of Los.Angeles.Str.eet_and_29Q feet on Ciif~ton Avenue, and further described as 1102 South Los Angeles.Stree.t,-be-r.e.classified from the C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL and P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONES, to.the-C-O, COMN~E3CIAL.OFFICE, ZA91E ~o establish a professional office buildinya.- . ... Mr.~.i,ee Webb, 'deveioper of the pro,ject,appeared before the Commission.and xeviewed the pro- posed~development, stating the architect was available to answex any questions..tha.Commission m~ght have, and that while the Commission was reviewinz~ the. plat.plans, he would review the. recommendations of the Report to the Commissione' Mro Webb further stated he would like to havoe some clarification as to the dedication of 30 feet in width along-Clifton.Avanue.. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the agent for the petit3oner that althaugh 30 feet wa•s stated, the present dedication was 19 feet; therefore, onl.y ll additional feet were re- quired for dedicationo . . Mr. Webb then stated that subject property already had a strip of lana on the south property liae~dedicated, that drainage easement was being instalied there, and wondered whether this public utility easement also included this itemo Office Engineer Arthur Daw replied the suggested dedication of a five-foot public utility easement was for electrical utility easement, and that if the Commission so desired, Condi- tion Noe 6 might be deleted, since there was the possibility of being able to use the exist-• ing drainage easement. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TI-!E HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cwnmissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noe 1023, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-72 be approved, subject to conditionsa (See Resalution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:. AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Rowiand, Sideso AMENDMENf TO TITLE 18. CHAPTER 18.60, . ~ RELATING TO P-L. PARKING-LANDSCAPING ZONEe PUBLIC I-IEARING. ~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the urgency ordinance recently recommended to the ~ Council for adoption and the action taken by the City Council relative to it being the Council ? policy to establish a 25-foot P-L Zone where M-1 property was adjacent_to collector streets. j After further discussion by the Commission, Mro Kreidt noted that an error had been made in ~ the advertisement of the correct Chapter in Title 18, and recommended this be continued to ~ the next meeting for readvertisement of said zone changeo ~ Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue the public hearing of Amendment to Title 18 and directed that a correction be made to the advertisement, designating Chapter 18.52 of the ~ Anaheim MunicipaZ Gode being con~idorad for a~~endm~nta Conmissian~r Per~~ sacor~dad tha mation. ; MOTION CARRIED. . ~ REPORTS AND - ITEhi N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Clarification of the use of dry cleaning equipment ! in the C-i and C-2 zones. ( ~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the sections of the Zoning Code relative to dry ~ cleaning establishments and equipment, and further stated that an interested dry cleaning ~ operator was requesting ciarification of the possibility of nsing a 30to 50 pound capacity ~ machine in a C-1 zone, and it was the Planning Department's feeling that permitting this I. would get in to the realm of.the C-2 zone. Mr. Robcrt Mackinson, operator of the Martinizing Cleaning Service on East Lincoln Avenue, ~ appeared before the Commission and stated the proposed unit for the shopping center at 1287 ~ East Lincoln Avenue would be a 30-pound capacity machine; that four employees were presently employed for both the dry cleaning and laundry agencies, and that it was a regular cleaning establishment. , -_.._----~----~-- -.~.___.___ _._.~.-- -----------~--- R ~ ~y , . .. , ~ ~l._... - I , I . j\ .... . , ,...., ~. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ January 6, 1964, Continued 1937 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1~Continued) RFCflMMENDATIONS Mr: Kreidt.then stated that some time ago the Commission had established an S to 12-pound capacity machine which was a similar use as a laundry which could be established in the C-1 zone; that the dry cleaaing operator proposed to place larger equipment in the new stores in the Alpha Beta Shopping Center located at East and Lincoln, and the cleaning would be per£ormed on the premises. DepUty City Attorney Furman Roberts discussed the comparison of a laundry using water and soap and the clothes cleaning agency using inflammable cleaning fluid. Mr. Chavos was of the opinion the City Attorney should be given more time.to.analyze the use and to consult with the City Attorney's office for a definite answer.....If the City Att~orney ruled the use came within the_framework of the C-1•.•zone, he.could ad~ise both. ... the Planning Department and the cleaning establishment operator, but if he ruled contrary~ then the petitioner would be requi.red to file for C-2 zoning. Commissioner Chavos offered a motion that the question be presented to the.City Attorney's office for interpretation, and to notify the Planning Department of their findings. Commissioner Camp seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Special Use Permit Noo 84 - proposing two one-story hospitals in conjunction with a market~ service shops, medical-dental offices, and a professional.office building on property located on Beach Boulevard between Rome Avenue and Bail Road. A letter was read to the Commission from the new owners of subject property, requesting that Special Use Permit No. 84 be terminated because the developers of the property had no intention of constructing a hospital on the site; therefare, the use permit was no longer in force, and since the land was zoned for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial uses, when develop- ment plans were formulated, the property owners would reapply, if necessary, for a new condi- tidnal use permit. Mr. Kreidt further advised the Commission that the letter 3ust read was in response to a request that the $2.00 per front foot for street lighting be paid for the property or~ the Beach Boulevard frontage, and recommended to the Commission that the use permit be terminated. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1024, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Special Use Permit No. 84.be terminated as requested by the new owners. On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote~ AYESs COMMISSIOYERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOESs COMMISSIONERSt Nonee ' ' " - • ABSENTs COMMISSIOl~RS~ Rowland, Sides. ITEM N0. 3 Special Use Permit No. 72 - Central Assembly of God, 1026 South East Street - Use of an existent buildin9 for ohurch facilitias. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt noted for the Commission that the use of the existing structure had a three-year time limit, which expired on December 6, 1963, and noted the bui,lding was still being used for church facilities, and recommended that an additional three-year tima limitation be granted for the use of sub~ect property. Commiscioner Gauer offered a motion to grant an additional three years' time for the use of;property located at 1026 South East Street for chuich facilities. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 6, 1964, Continued 1938 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 4 REGOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 419 - Psyc;~ological Guidance Center, 1019 West La Palma Avenuee A request from the Psychological Guidance Center for an extension of six months for the coi~letion of conditions attached to Resolution No. 760, Series 1962-.63, granting.the conditional use permit.was read to the Commission by the Commission secr.etary, and it was.noted that street dedication, engineering, street improvements, street light fees, parking lot~ six-foot masonry wall, and trash storage areas were provided, and that only the remodeling of the existing structure was to be complied withe ..... . Cmmnissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extensinn..far the.completion of conditions attached to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 419~ dated May 13, 1963. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 Street name change - Los Angeles Street and.Anaheim.-Road. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt brought for the Commission's attention a. list of suggested names for Anaheim Road, if the Commission wished to consider. these. It was further noted at.a previous meeting the suggestion had been made that Los Angeles Street be renamed Anaheim Boulevard, and since a conflicting similarity in names would occur, Anaheim Road should also be considered for renaming. After considerable discussion the Commission resolved to set for publ.ic hearing consideration of the change of Los Angeles Street to Anaheim Boulevard and Anaheim Road to Thompson Avenue. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to 3irect the Commission secretary to set public hearing for the meeting of January 20, 1964, the consideration of street name change of Los Angeles Street to Anaheim Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue on the south to Harbor Boulevard on the north, and Anaheim Road to Thompson Avenue from the Riverside Freeway on the west to Jefferson Street on the east. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NU. 6 SouthernCalifornia Planning Congress. Commissioners Chavos, Gauer, Mungall,•Perry, and Pebley indicated they planned to attend the Planning Congress and directed that reservations be made for them, AATOURNA~M' - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Perry offered a m~tion to adjourn to the meeting of January 13, 1964, for a work session on the PRD and R-2, R-3 Standards. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10s05 o'clock p.m. Respectfuliy submitted, ~ /,~~~-..~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission ~t: .. -.