Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/01/20_.___.__ ~ "~ ~ ,_..._.__._......t~...,~.~....~. _____.. ._.,.... ~ ~ ~ a ~, :~ City Hall ~ Anaheim, California ~ January 20, 1964 ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anahe3m City Planning Commission.was called #, to or:ier by Chairman Mungall at 7:00 o'clock p.m., a quorum being ~ , present. s ; PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. ~ - COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, i Rowland, Sidese + ABSEM' - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESE[JI' - Zqning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorneys Furman Roberts ~ Office Engineer: Art Daw ' Planning Commission Secretarys Ann Krebs ~ INVOCATION - Reverend Abbott, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, gave ; the Invocatione ; t PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Alle9iance to the Flage ~ ~ , APPROVAL OF TkiE MINUTES - Minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of December 19, 1963, and ; ' the meeting of January 6, 1964, were approved as submitted. RECLASSIFICATION - COM'INUED PUBLIC HEARING. FANNY SHOWALTER, c~o DECON CORPORATION, N0. 63-64-8 and 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; DECON CORPORATION, 2833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, A9ent; property described CONDITIONAL USE ass An irregular portion of land havin9 a frontage of 1,266 feet on PERMIT N0. 450 the westerly side of the Riverside Freeway, the westernmost boundary of subject property being 550 feet east of the centerl.ine of Jefferson Street, said property being further described as PORTION N0. 1 and PORTION N0. 2; PORTION N0. 1 being located in the City oF Anaheim, PORTION N0. 2 being locateii in the County of Orange. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEa ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPIu1ENf WITH CARPORTS - WAIVE ONE- STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION. 5ub~ect petitions were continued from the meetings of Jiily 22, August 19,~September 16, October 28, and December 23, 1963, in order that the petitioner might have sufficient time to submit revised plans incorporating suggestions made by the Commission. Mr. R. H. Murphy, representing the agent for the petltioner, appeared before the Commission and requested that the Commission consider 9ranting an additional two months' extension due to the fact that subject property was under two separate jurisd3ctions, and it was quite difiiculi to carralate tha raquest~ o: both the bodieso Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts,in response to a request by the Commissions stated that a petitioner could ask for as many continuances as he felt was neoessary. The Commission discussed whether to recommend disapproval of sub~ect reclassification and, then not being able to see any revised plans submitted to the Council, or whether it would be wiser to continue sub~ect petition as requested by the agent; and that perhaps the peti- tioner needed more than two months to resolve his problems. Cort~missioner Allred offered a Rotion to ~ontinue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-8 and Condition~.l Use Permit No. 450 to the meeting of March 30, 1964, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to resolve problems in the submission of revised plans. Commis- sioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. - 1939 - ,,~,r----------~--- _..-- -..__...._--------------_..~..-- --------._-----__- ' -- ---- - %~ ~ ii E ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLSNNING COMMISSION, January 20, 1964, Continued 1940 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo FRANK C. 8 NORA M. BECKETT, 2147 South Lewis N0. 63-64-61 and Street, Anaheim, California; RUSS 8 NATALIE BOOREY, 2501 Harbor.View Drive, Corona Del Mar, California; and DOROTHY ROHAN, 430 South Sycamore CONDITIONAL USE Santa Ana, California, Owners; S. Ve HUNSAKER 8 SONS, P, 0. Box 1216, PERMIT N0. 509 Fleetwood Annex, Covina, California, Agents property described as: A rectangular parcel.of land having frontages of 1,279 feet on the west side of Lewis Street, 309 feet on the north side of Simmons Street, and 30? feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2147 South Lewis Str.eet. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDEIJTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEM N0. 30 REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: CONSTRUCT A 98-UNIT SINGLE-STORY MULFIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL DEVELOPME6R' WITH CARPORTS - WAIVER OF THE BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTSo Subject petitioners were continued from the meetings of November 27 and December 23, 1963, in order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to discuss development plans.for subject property with the Planning Department and to readvertise subject petitions as being a proposed amendment to the General Plano Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a request from the developers for.the petitioners requesting that the subject petitions be contirnied for two weeks because the revised plans requested had not been submitted in time for the Planning Department and Interdepartmental Committee to review. In response to Commission questioning, Mro Kreidt stated the revised plans had been sub- mitted to the Planning Department January 20th, and the plans had not been reviewed by' the Planning Staff. ; Mrs. Bertram Velten, 2141 Spinnaker Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated this «ad been the third time she had come to review plans of the proposed develop- ment; that a number of persons in the Council Chamber were concerned with multiple-family development for subject property, and asked that a showing o: hands be indicated. Fourteen persons indicated their presence in the Council Chamber in opposition. Mrse Velten then stated that until plans had been reviewed by the Planning Department and the Interdepart- mental Commi;,tee, she would reserve any comments in opposition to the proposed developmente Mr. Wally Alickel, representing the developers for subject property, in response to Commis- sion questioning, stated there seemed to have been a misunderstanding as to the date on which revised plans should have been submitted, and when he had been informed it was too late to consider the revised plans, he made additional revisions to the plans before submit- ting them to the Planning Department as of this datee The Commission discussed with the developers and the attorney for the petitionexsthe possi= bility of contacting the property owners adjacent to subject property to present any revised '~plans, s6 that a better understanding would be d'erived fram questions which might arise and '~ which the developers could answere This would assist considerably in receiving more favorable consideration of the oppositiono Mr. Dale Heinly, attorney for the petitioners,stated the developers had submitted the first plans to residents of the Spinnaker Street area and were under the assumption these plens had been reviewed by the residents of the area, and that after a number of conferences with the Planning Department, the design and concept of the proposed mulLiple-famil~r deYelopment had been completely revisede ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noo 63-64-61 and Conditional Use Permit No. 509, to the meeting of February 3, 1964, and requested it be scheduled as the first item on the evening agenda to allow the Planning Department and Inter- departmental Committee sufficient time to review the revised plans submitted. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion.. MOrION CARRIED. ----------~.--- I~ i I / _-.... _._._...._ _------_._.__._, , / ~ ~ ~ . • s I 1 ' '. . . _ - - _ _ ~. l ~ ~ MINqTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 20, 1~64, Continued 1941 RECI:ASSIFICATIt~N - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL E. BEATTY~ RALPH W. BEATTY~ AND RUTH N0. 63-64-65 and A. HARRIS, c~o Donn Kemble, Attorney at Law, P. 0. Box 1495, Santa Ana, Cali.for.nia, Owners.; ORCANA, INCORPORATED, c~o Eckhoff 8 Beam, P. 0. CONDITIONAL USE Box 267, Orange,.California, Agent; property described as: An irregular Pg IT_ N0. 519 parcel.of land cnuering.appra.imately 4e2 acres and having a fruntage of 885 feet on the south side of Anaheim Road, and a frontage o.f. 855 feet on the northerly side of the Riverside Fraeway, the eastenly_boundaxy of said property being approximately 2,020 feet west of the center.line o£ B1ue.Gum Street, and further described as 2610 Anaheim Road. Property classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. " REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MUTLIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDI'."IONAL USE: ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPI.E-FAMILY PLANNEL' ;',ESIDENf.IAL DEVELOPMENI' - WAIVE ONH-STORY.HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENLIAL AGE?ICULxURAL.Z~NED.PR~PERTY.. . Sub3ect petitions were continued from ihe meeting of B~cam~ber 23; 1?63: tc~~all.ow the designer of subject property sufficient time to consult with the Planning Department regarding a proposed change in access to Anaheim Road~ ~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a request for a t'vo weeks' continuance had been received from the petitioners.. ~ The Commission discussed the possibility plans might not be submitted in.safficient.time for: consideration since any revised plans would have to be submitted to the Planning Department by 5:00 o`ci~ck pem., January 21, 19640 • Cbmmissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-65 and Conditional Use Permit No. 519 to the meeting of February 17, 1964, as requested by the petitionersa Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC FIEARING. ALBERT TIKKER, 2914 West Lincoln Avenue, N0. 63-64-36 and Anaheim~ California~ Owner; BILLY J. KIKER, 725 Kenmore Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An irregular parcel of land CONDITIONAL USE approximately 185 feet by 600 feet, the westerly boundary of said property PERMIT N0. 479 being 110 feet east of Ridgeway Street, and the northerly b,undary being 396 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2914 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDEM'IAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPh~NT - WAIVE ONE-STORY FIEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED PROPERTYo • Subject petiti.ons were continued from the meetings of September 16, Octoher 28, November 13, and December 9, 1963, in order that the petitioner might hs•.~e sufficient time to submit revised plans and file a tract mapa Mi. Bill Cline, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the revised plans, noting the accessways to subject property would be to the street adjoining subject property to the west. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed street through the ceni~.er of subject property being a standard 64-foot street, and whether the property owner to the west was agreeable to connecting the street on subject property with the street to the west. Mr. Cline, in answer, stated a stub street already existed on the westerly property line; that the street had been fully improved to the property line, and it was their intent to continue said street. Zbning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the stub street to the west was in accordance with an approved tentative tract for the westerly property, and that subject property could now be developed because previously it was landlocked, and would be undevelop- able until the westerly property had be9un development. Mr. Kreidt further referred the Commission to the Staff Report which indicated the analysis made relative to the third revision, noting that a portion of the suggested changes had been taken care of, namely, adequate circulation and alleys; that the present plan indica~ed a _. __. _.. .-.-----._.._---------- --__---_. ~_.~____.~+., . -----_. __..:_~ --~. ~. . n i , , • ~:,, -`~ !, _ __ ..____.__ _ ._ __._. .-- --_..__ ---- ----..__._. - ---.--.._---_ _ . ---.__ _ __ __ . . f ~~ ~ ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 20, 19b4, Continued 19a2 RECi.ASSIFICATION - reduction of .the number of dwelling units, but basically the percentage N0. 63-64-36 and of coverage was in excess o-f the secommended maximum af 40%e CONDITIONAL USE Mr, Cline stated that he had been just recently informed he should PERMIT N0. 479 represent the petitioner and would be unable to answer all the questions (Continue8) the ~'ommission might haveo Mr. Kreidt then stated that the designa~iori on the General Plan as pro3ected the thinking of the Planning Commission indicated low-medium density of a maximum of 18 dwelling'units , per net acre; thet the proposed development was in excess of inedium density which-had a... . maximum of 36 units per net acre,.and that a low-medium density had already.been established in the area with the development of tihe property to the westa The Commission discussed with the agent :or the petitioner the reasons for.not presenting any plans for the portion indicated "not a part", although this had been included in the reclassification request; that this portion, if developed in conjunction with the proposed development, would offer more open areasy and inquired why the existing home could not be removedo Mrs. Tikker, one of the petitioners, advised the Commission the home was only five years old and it was not thzir intention of removing the home since they proposed to reside in it. THE FIHARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion between the Commission and Mro Kreid+ followed, Mro Kreidt noting the proposed development did not meet standard R-3 Code requirements, and it was his suggestion the Commission consider continuance for four weeks with the petitioner being advisad their designer contact the Planning Department to resolve any development problems for su5ject pr~pertyo ~ Commissioner Sides offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification Noe 63-64-36 ana Conditional Use Permit Noe 479, to the meeting of Febx~uary 17, 1964, for the afternoon session, and instructed the representative of the p.etitioner to have the desiyner-developer for subject property contact the Planning Depart- ment to review the necessary changes for development of subject propertye Commissioner Pebley seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo SAMUEL FINK 8 JACK MESF{HKOW, 1218 Sixth Street, Santa PERMIT N0. 528 Monica, California, Owners; DALE H. FIEINLY, P. 0. Box 927, Santa Ana California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT OR TAVERN SERVING WINE, BEER, AND OTHER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land approximately 99 feet by 90 feet, located in the existing shopping center at the northeast corner of Rio Vista Street and Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2821 Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified as C-1, NEIGH- BORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Dale H. Heinly, agent for the petitioners, appearea before the Commission and stated originally.they had intended to serve alcoho~ic beverages, but the proposed lessee of sub- ject property indicated the development would be a Hofbrau, serving beer and wine onlye Mr. Heinly further reviawed the location of subject property and the development surrounding it, noting the County zoning under which subject property had been originally developed permitted a tavern or Hofbrau in the C-1 zone. Mr. Heinly then reviewed the findings~and recommendations of the Report to the Planning Commission. ~ The agent stated that installation of the five by five-foot tree wells would be acceptable to the petitioners; that subject property was only a 30-foot strip on the Lincoln Avenue frontage; that at the time subject property was annexed into the City, discussion was held relative to the payment of the paving of Rio Vista Street~ and the City had asked that they discuss this with the County, but the developers had never beard from the County regarding the cost of the pavemente Mr. R. D. Hauseman, 2816 Puritan Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated the disregard for proper planning for the East Anaheim area which had been indicated for single-family use was spreading like a cancer in approving multiple-family residential use, a restaurant, numerous service stations, and if the Com- mission approved the proposed tavern-bar, this would be the ultimate degradation for the area; that an establishment in the shopping center selling aicoholic beverages would be undesirable because this would present a hazard to the children going to the stores for candy and soda, because of the possibility of drunk drivers coming out of the parking area adjacent to the other commercial development. i , • _._. .._ . . _ . • _~ .__-_.___.._ ._._.._...__,.. ...__~ _ _. _.. ~. _.. _ .Y.__ I I i ~ .~ _ ' ._ , , ~ ~..1 \.J ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 20, 1964, Continued 1943 CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs. I. C, Nealey, 502 Stehley Street, appeared before the Commission PEEt~tIT N0. 528 and asked that clarification be made relative to the square footage of (Continued) the entire shopping area and the number of parking.spaces neededo. , Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt thvn indicated to the Commission that approximately 36,600 square feet were indicated on the plot plan, and on the basis of 150 square feet per parking space, this would indicate 242 parking spaces, whereas the plot plan indicated 234 parking spaces. Mrs. Nealey then stated the County had approved a reduction of the parking space when the realassification of subject property had been approved, and that the proposed use would ' further tax the existing parking facilitieso ' In_response to Commission questionirg relative to a non-conforming use, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that if something was legal, or approved, by-the County and later said property was annexed into the City, any zoning action coming ' uncter a non-conforming use would automatically be recognized by the.City. ~ Mrs. Nealey then advised the Commission that a single-family subdivision existed within 60D feet of the shopping center, and the Commission should consider this in their decision on subject petitione Mr. Roberts then reviewed the Code section regarding non-conforming uses, and the zoning in which a bar or tavern was permittede Mr. James Steltzlen, 2822 Puritan Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition to i sub3ect petition and stated that once the permit to serve beer and wine was granted, the I next step would be to sell liquor; that his children frequented the shopping center for i ftems to buy, and he did not desire having his children sub3ected to drunks and possibly child molesters, and requested the Commission give this consideration also. ~ ~ Mrs. Jean Kyler, 2662 Carnival Place, appeared before the Commission and stated that all the residents of the area had looked forward to the existing shopping oenter since this would be an ideal location for them; that none of the residents opposed the shopping center when it was approved by the County; that at one time a similar request had been made ~o the '. County, but the residents of the area had made their protest through the Alcoholic Beverage ;'~ Control Board; that a precedent had been set the last time a request for a tavern for the ~ shopping ce~ter was made, by the City Council sending an official protest to the Alcoholic ~ Beverage Control Hoard, stai:ing the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one did not permit the proposed ase in the area, t hlr. Arthur J. Lucian, Execui:ive to the President of Alpha Beta~ appeared before the Commis- ~ sion and stated he vigorously opposed the bar-tavern for the shopping center~ the shopping t center was too small~ that the stores were successful as small retail sales stores; that the proposed bar-tavern would not be considered as retail salesj that the executives of ~ Alpha Beta were now drawing up their leases for emall shopping centers~ indicating they would not lease in an area which would permit other than retail sales, and requeated that i the Commission deny the praposed request. .. . ~ 1 Mre Hsi,nly, in rehuttal, stated the proposed owner of the Hofbrau had operated similar t developments in other shopping centers and had not had any problem; that the property owner ; was not aware of the City's protestations regarding the tavern in the shopping area untfl ; it was presented to the Alcoholic Beverage Controi Board; that he had considered reclassify- ~ ing a portion of sub3ect property to C-2 since the use was a non-conforming use in the area, ~ but decided against it after discussion with members of the Planning Departmen+.; and it was ~ his opinion that the owners of a property should be permitted to develop t:~eir property, and , if the tavern or Hofbrau became a nuisance, the lessees of the other stores had a right to request by law the establishment be closed. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that based on 40,000 square foot as indicated by th~ agent for the petitioner was the size of the existing development, 166 spaces were required; or 34 spaces short. ' ' Commissioner Rowland stated this could not be a valid argument regarding the proposed development. Commissioner Camp agreed with Commissioner Rowland, but stated he felt the location in a rteighborhood shopping center of the proposed use was totally incompatible; that other shop- ping areas which were larger, such as the one at Lincoln and State College Boulevard and ; Brookhurst and Ball Road could permit a tavern or Hofbrau, but the subject area was too I , / _._ __-____._._.__, , ---------r___ ----------_ _ ----_~_----._.~._...------.. ~s, . . -- ____ ..~.,. . ~ , ^ . _ ,- i . ~ , ::a ' ~ ~~ MIM,^,'ES, CITY PLANNIN3 COMMISSION, January 20, 1964, Continued 1944 CONDITIONAL USE - small s3nce many small children for convenience's sake ti:~ent over to the PERMIT N0. 528 stores; that the people in the area were opposed to the proposed use, ~ontinued) and the neighboring tenants were also opposed to th~ proposed.use. Cmmnissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1026, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and•adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Usa Permit No. 528, based on the fact that the best interests of the area should maintain C-1 uses without a conditional use permit; that the welfare and well-being of the area should pro.- hibit the approval of the sale of alcoholic beverages; that the size. af.the..shopping center was too small to approve on-sale alcoholic beverages; and that the proposed use would be incompatible to the adjoining land useso (See Reselution Book>)~ • • On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIOIVERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley,. Persy, Rowland, Sidese • NOES~ COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABS~?VT't COMMISSIONERS s tdone. Commissioner Chavos stated his "NO" vote to deny subject petition was based on the fact that the City Council had filed a previous objection with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board when sub~ect property was under the County°s jurisdiction; that the proposed use would be a non-conforming use; and that to permit the waiver of the required parking would be creating a precedent and a parking probleme CONDITIONAL USE - PU3LIC 1-~ARING~ DUAYNE Do CHRISTENSEN, DoDeSe, 7907 Westminster Avenue, PERMIT N0. 529 Westminster, California, Owner; JAMES P. MC GREW~ 7907 Westminster Avenue, Westminster, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A FAMILY BILLIARD CENTER WITH NO LIQUOR SERVED on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 180 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 430 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being 770 feet east of the centerline of East Street, and further described as 1287 "E" East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified as C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEa Mr. James McGrew, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he would be available to answer questions, and that the proposed operator of the billiard center was also in the Council Chamber. Mr. William E. Cain, proposed operator of the billiard center, appeared befcre the Commission and stated he and his wife intended to operate a family billiard center, and he was morally opposed to the sale of liquor of any kinde In response to Commission questioning, Depty City Attorney Furman Reharts stated the Munici- pal Code required that children under the age of eighteen would be required to have an adul~ accompany them; that this had been reviewed with the Police Department, and it was the opinion of the Police Department the ordinance be continued, limiting th~ age of the children using these fa~il~ties.to eighteen years of agee Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1027, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred9 to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 529, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution w~as passed by the following vote~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley9 Perxy, Sidese NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando ABSENTs COMrdISSIONERS: Noneo R~CLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC IiHARING. HERMAN Ho BRUNS, 1102 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, NQ. 63-64-73 California, Owner; WARREN L. SCHUT2, 306 United California Bank Building, Anaheim, California, Agenty requesting that property described as~ A - rectangular portion of property with a frontage of 143 feet on the west side of West Street and a depth of 125 feet, the northsrly boundary of said property being 223 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Street, and further described as 525 South Weet Street, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-i, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL, ZONE to subdivide sub,ject property into two lots and construct a aingle-family dwelling on the southerly portion. Mr. Gail Vary, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he ! wes available to answer any questions the Commission might have, and that the proposed lot ~ split would create two lots of more than the minimum requiremento ' -----------_._..__.._...._..__,.._---- -~-----__~.._._.,- / __._.~...--•--r---__..__..._.,.._..._. , • _- - - -- _...._.. . . ~9, , _ . .. . _ j ~ . i t ~ ~ t i ~dINUTES, CITY PLANNING COiv'udISSION, January 20, 196d, Continued 1945 i ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona ; N0..63-64-73 (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, _ Couenissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1028. Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ; and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-73, be approved, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, (iauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS: Noneo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGe GAIL VARY, Post Office Box 67, Anaheim, California, N0. 63-64-74 and Owner; proper+~~ described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of ~0 feet on the south side of Broadway and a depth of 135 VARIANC~ N0. 1616 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being 130 feet west of the centerline of Bush Street, and further describ~d as 916 East Broadwaya Property presently classified as R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, ZoNE. REQIJESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE REQUESTED VARIANCEt WAIVER OF GARAGE REQUIREMEIII' TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR GARAGES INSTEAD OF FIVEo Mre Gail Vary, the owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that although five garages were required for a fourplex, this would not allow access to the alleys through an open space to the trash area; that the tenants would have to go th:ough a garage to gain access to the trash area; that there was adequate parking space in the rear of the garages to permit adequate parking; that he preferred garages to carports; that on other units where he had constructed four "garages, the doors were always kept closed; and it was his hope that future tenants of subject property would also use their garageso The Commission expressed concern whether or not this would be setting a precedent for the area since this was the first such petition for redevelopment of an R-2 area with R-3 usess that other properties of similar dimensions would also ask for this required waiverf that the proposed development was premature in that the Commission was considering revision to the R-2 Standards, and the Commission should consider these Standards before any considera- tion of change in zone; that if the requested waiver of the additional garage were granted, this might lessen the loading of the land, and more open space would be derived, and in- quired of the petitioner the distance from the proposed garages to the alleya Mr. Va:y stated the distance was 25 feet between the alley and the proposed garagese Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the interpretation of the revision to the R-2 Code would permit three dwelling units on R-2 property, thereby reduc- ing the coverage for the small parcel of land. _ ., ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionse THE I-[HARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred expressed the opinion that the proposed development as submitted, together with the suggested parking to the rear of the proposed garages, presented a better plan of development than if the Canmission required the five garages since more open area would be provided. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1029, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council that Petition f,or Reclassification No. 63-64-74 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Sidese NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo Commissioner Camp in voting "AYE" stated he felt the size of the lot with its coverage would ba within the limits of the Codeo ~ ~, ~ Mi•NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 20, 1964, Continued 1946 RECLASSIFICATION - Comnissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating that approping. N0:..63-64-74 and subject petition would not be beneficial to the area by deviating from the requirements of the R-3 Codeo VARIAidC£ N0. 1618 SContinued) Commissioner Gauer qualified his "NO" vote by stating that the Commission had adhered to the standards of the R-3, requiring one and one-quarter garages, and that by approving subject petition, a precedent might be set. tc.which the Commission could not rule contrary-wise. Canmissioner Perry qualified his "NO" vote by stating that although he felt the proposed de~elopment would upgrade the area, the Commission was establishing a precedent for R-2~ that~until R-2 revisions were made to the Code, the Commission should not predetermine the de~velopment of the areaa Commissioner Rowland stated the pro3ect was worthwhile, but if R-3 were considered favor.ably by' the Commission, the Planning Department should do a study for the entire area for possible overall development, rather than on a pieceineal basiso Comnissioner Sides offered Resolution Noe 1030, Series 1963-64, and moved f'or its pass2ge and adnp~tion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1618, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On.roll call the foregoing resolution was aassed by the following vote: pYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Mungali, Pebley, Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowlande ABSEM': COMMISSIONERSs Nonea Commissioner Chavos in qualifying his "NO" vote stated the petitioner had not presented evidence to justify granting a variance; that the Commission had not established this request , qualif3ed for a varianceo Cpmmissioner Pebley stated he hoped the proposed development would set a precedent to encourage other development in the area to develop similarlyo I Commissioner Sides stated, in his opinion, the proposed development was more acceptable than • some of the developments in which the requirements were met; that additional open space would be available to offset the deviation from the Codeo ' Commissioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 8:50 pem. AMENDN~IdI' TO TITLE 18, SECTION 18e52, - PUBLIC HEARINGo LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ 20NE OF I'HE ANAHCIM MUNICIPAL CODE RHLATING TO Yh't2DS AND SETBACKS CHAPTER 18e52o060 Zoning CAOrdi.nator Martin Kreidt reviewed the action at the previous Commission meeting, noting that although the Commission had intended iavorable consideration, it was noticed after the meeting that an error had occurred in the advertisement of the proposed amendment to the Code~ and that it had been readvertised. THE HE~:RING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1031, Series 1963-64, and moved for its pa::sage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Coue^_il that Arr.zndment to Tftle 18, Section 18.52, reducing the front setbacks for industrial tracts adjace~t to collec- tor streets from 50 feet to 25 feet~be approvedo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides: NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. AgSEtJf: COMMISSIONERSs Allred. _._._- -~----- -..~-----_._...._ ----....__...-..---•--•---------...._.._______.__, . _..... A'~i ~ ~ -- - - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 20, 1964, Continued 1~947 STREET NAME CHANGE - LOS AIQGELHS STREET TO ANAHEIM BOULEVARD.- PUBLIC HEARING. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kz~eidt reviewed the request of the Chamber of Commerce and the City Council regArding the change of Los Angeles Street from Orangewood Avenue on the south to Harbor Boulevard on the north, and stated that as a result of superior coverage by the newsp~per, the Planning Department had received a number of suggested name changes, namely, Colony Road, Germantown Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Pershing Road, and~the:name of~one of the astronauts. , Commissioner Gauer expressed the opinion that if a name change might be considered, E1 Camino Real was the oldest name, since the Padres who had come to Cal3fornia had establi.shed this as a.name, and the name existed throughout the statee This would thtn carry out the theme of the beginning of Anaheim, even though Germantown or Colony Road might be as.applicable.... A letter of opposition signed by five persons regarding any name change for Los Angeles ~treet was submitted to the Commissiono ' Comnissioner Allred returned to the Council Chamber at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Sides stated most of the merchants on North Los Angeles Street were receptive to the change to Anaheim Boulevardo Chairman Mungall stated there would be a three year lapse of time before the name change actually became effectivee ' THE IiEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 1032, Se•ries 1963-64, and moved for its passage and..adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Los Angeles Street be renamed Anaheim Boulevard. (See Resolution Bool:.) ; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYE~s COh9ulISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, pebley, Perry, Rowland, Side~a NOHS: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEtdi': COMMISSIONERS: Noneo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commiss;on that a communication had recently • been received from the State Division of Highways indicating the Katella Street off-ramp would be closed; that within a period of three years the State proposed to construct an additional bridge across the freeway which would present a semi-cloverleaf to provide~access both to Los Angeles Street and westerly on Katella Avenue. It was also suggested the Com- mission request the County also change Los Angeles Street from State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue to conform with the recently adopted resolutiono '. ' I ANAHEIM ROAD TO THOMPSON AVENUE Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the various Span3sh names presented to the Commis- i sion in their report; it was also noted that on contacting the Post Office Department there ' was no ob,jection to designating it as East Sunkist Avenue, but upon further investigation, ~ this sugges~ion was considered a possible confusing factor to out-of-towners since the } majority of our east-wes~ streets were known as "averc~es" and St~nkist Street basically was ~ a'north-south street. ! Mr. Kreidt also advised the Commission that contact with Autonetics indicated no specific j change was recommended other than the possibility of selecting a name which was Spanish in i origin, since this would coincide with existing names, such as La Palma, Coronado~ etc. ~ i Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to namin9 the street after ~ Commissioner Hapgood or Councilman Thompson, Co~mnissioner Sides being of the opinion that there was no significant honor in naming the deceased Commissioner Hapgood; he had noted his name on many bronze plaques from Anaheim to Hoover Dam in conjunction with the Metro- , politan Water District. Commissioner Rowland stated that if the Commission was of the opinion that a Spanish-sounding name was appropriete, that one be selected that could be pronounced by any resident from all over the country. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 103? Series '.963-64, and moved for its passage ' and adoption~ seconded by Commissior~ r Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Anaheim Road be renamed Miraloma Avenue. (See Resolution Book.) ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry~ RoKland, Sides.~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ nncnnrr. rrua~~rccrnn~cc. ni...... ,__.'...__......_. ... . ... . . _ _ _ _ _ _._._...._.. --.-...,. ..-- - ._--~----_~- - -~~ , ~ .. . i • ~.~ ~~ ~ . MINUfES, CITY PLANNING CONIMISSION, January 20, 1964, Continued :1948 REi~DRTS AND - ITEM NO o 1 RECOM(u~NDATIONS Orange County Planning Commission Master Plan for. Planned Community District Zone Change in the Santa Ana Canyon westerly of the Riverside County boundary lineo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the location of the proposed planned community knewn as Cedro Vista and read the communication by the Planning Department to the Orange County Planning Commission Interdepartmental Committee relative to questionable items on the.proposed zone change. Camnissioner Perry offered a motion to continue consideration of Orange County Planning Coranission proposed z~ne change known as Cedro Vista to the morning of the field trip.of February 3, 1964, to receive additional in'fo~mation and re4iew the Planning Depaxtment's recommendations relative to the proposed communityo Commissioner Camp seconded the mqtione MOTION.CARRIEDo ITEM NOe 2 Reclassification Noo 63-64-60 - Earle Brooks - R-3, Mu1t~~,n,7n~Fa~i1~. Rnc_Llortial~ 7nr~a; Planning $'tUC~Y Noo 65-2-4 - South side of Savanna Street, northerly of Ball Road and westerly of Knott Avenuee Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the action taken by the City Council of Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-60, noting that an alternative set of plans had been presented to.the City Council which proposed duplexes for subject property, and that the Council asked that the alternate set of plans be submitted to the planning Commission fo.r their reaction and recommendation to the proposed R-2, Two-Family Residential, Zoning subcaitted..nn the plans. ' Mr. Kreidt reviewed Planning Study Noo 65-2-4 for the Commission, noting..that the study only ; presented the possibility of requiring a street through the center of the.propar.ty heing , considered for reclassification, thence easterly along the southerly boundaiy.of the R-A lots on Savanna Street to Knott Avenue; that a land use study for the entire area on the south side of Savanna Street would be available for the Commission's consideration in.. ' conjunction with a petition for reclassification for the northwest corner of Ball Roatl.and ' Knott Avenue to be considered by the Planning Commission on February 3, 1964, and that i~ would be some time before a complete area study would be availableo Mrs. Ann Logan, 3603 Savanna Street, ~~resented a petition signed by 25 property owners and ,, residents on Savanna Street, Mro and Mrs. Louis Shields, 3640 Savanna Street~ and Mr. Richard 7etrow, 3621 Savanna Street,appeared before the Commission to reiterate their opposition to other than the present zoning for the areao Mrsa Logan, in summation, stated that if other than the present residential use for the area uaas approved, the property owners would even- ' tually be forced to dispose of their animals because the newer residents would complain be- s cause of the noise, odors, flies, etco, since this would constitute a nuisance, and thereby ~ prohibit the owners of these animals from enjoying their present use of the propertyo ~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts verified Mrso Logan's statement, noting that if a nuisance was reported too many times by residents in the area, the owners of the animals uvould be forced.to dispose,of the animals in tha interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the complaining residentso ~ t B( 4 i Mr. Joe Long, representing Lomar Developers, reviewed all the evidence submitted to the City Council, further noting that the Water Departm~nt had informed him that they had received four requests for water facilities on Savanna 3treet. Mr. Tom Johnson, representing the developers, also reviewed the proposed •two-family develop- ment now being proposede Discussion held by the Commission relative to any recommendations for the proposed R-2 plans submitted, and the further projections for the planning study, said study would indicate a possible land development for the area in the event at some future time property owners would request the City's consideration of a general zone change for the area. • The Commission also noted that since Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-60 had been recommended for disapproval, the Commission had granted a petition for a dog kennel and a lot split, but still keeping the property under its present zoning, and that to recommend othsr than its present zoning would be contrary to the Commission's thinking for the land development of~the area. • ..... _ . _~._._-..__"...-._'_'_.__'_'_.... _._ ...... ~. -....._~..__.__....__.~.._.. . . .... .. . . . . .. . ~._ .. . . _~ ~I . . '__..._' ". ~ .... . . . . .. <. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING~COMMISSION, January 20, 1464, Continued 1949 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 2- Continued RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that the Planning Department had to contact the property owners through which the proposed street would bisect to obtain their reaction to utilizin9 part of their land for a street; the study then could be completed to indicate possible land use ad~acent to the proposed new street, and that this information would be available for the Commissian's consideration February 3, 19640 Discussion by the Commission was continued and it was determined that the study include the possibility of cul-de-sacing the new street at the northerly boundary of suh~ect property~ thereby eliminating the possibility of increasing the traffic on Savanna Street, together with projecting R-A for the Savanna Street frontage and a heavier density residential devel- opment fronting on the proposed street. Coinaissioner Chavos offered a motion to refer Planning Study Noo 65-2-4 back to the Planning Department for further study relative to land use development for the Savanna Street.arsa, if the proposed street was considered a possible solution for access to the deep lots from other tlian Savanna Street; that the staff give every consideration to the property owners in the area desirir.g that the area remain rural; that the study should reflect fntux.e.develop- men.t projections for the area; and that 3n view of the fact tnai ihe..~ommission. naa.aot giveii final consideration to the alternative plan for two-family developmant.of Petition_for.. Reclassification No. 63-64-60, the Commission requests that.the•Gity. C.ourscil cnn.tinue .their consideration of said petition until the Commission had additional data..submitted for their consideration at the February 3, 1964, meetinge Commissioner.Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, ITHM NOe 3 Variance Noo 1013 - Travelodge - South side of Katella, west end of Casa Vista - Approval of revised plans. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented revised plans for the Commission's consideration, noting that although 30 units were originally anticipated for the proposed addition, only 18.units were indicated on the revised planso Mr. Newman A. Myhre advised the Commission that the original petition requested approval of 69 units which was development of 39 immediately and a 30-unit addition at a later date. Commissioner Sides offered a motion to approve the revised plans of Variance No. 1013 as subruitted, which indicated the addition of 18 units, rather than 30 as oriyinally proposed. Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe ITEM NOo 4 Correspondence relative to suit against the City by Maurice Pinto. 2oning Coordinator Mar.tin Kreidt read the letter addressed to the City Council whichindicated Mr. Maurice Pinto, the petitioner of Conditional Use Permit Noo 285, was suing the City re- garding the loss of business due to the City's re3ection of his petition for a tavern or Hofbxau. . . Chairman Mungall directed the letter be received and filede ITEM N0. 5 Communication frum Paul Hullo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter From Mr. Paul Hull, 714 Hemlock, Anaheim, relative to statements made in the denial of zoning for condominiums. Chairman Mungall directed the communication be received and filed. ITEM N0. 6 Orange County Use Variance'Noe 5267 - Establishment o•f a nine-hole, 3-par golf course and pro shop in the E-1, Estates District, located on the southeasterly corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Peralta Hills Driveo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5287 to the ~ Commission, and reviewed the loca+ion of the p~oposed developmento Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the commercial aspect of the proposed ~I golf course and pro shop in an area which the Commission has considered for residential . ~ ~ _ ~ .~_..i.__~_.._._..._.---~.....,,..._..~..__..._____.~.___--___.;,,_ .__._.. _ _ . . . . ~ . . . .,... . ' '_'.~._.. ~ ~.t ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 20, 1964, Continued ~ 1950 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 6- Continued REC~MMENMTIONS de~elopment in their review of the Hill and Canyon General,Plan Studye Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission consider the following: 1.. That the proposed use constitutes a possible encroachment of commercial activity into the Peralta Hills area, which might establish a precedent.for a heavier type of commercial use on subject propextye 2. That the area in which subject property is located has been established as a single family low density estate-type residential area, of spacious semi-rural character, at a de:.~::+v or one dwelling unit ger acre. 3. That the proposed development has parking and intensive use areas, such as the pro shop, snack bar, and equipment building, located on the sou.therl.y.pox.tinn of subject property and adjacent to Peralta Hiils Drive, which may create an. undesirable element for the residents of that areae 4. That the size of the proposed golf course appears to be inadequate, since it.is considerably smaller than the average pitch and putt or 3-par course in the County, namely 1205 acrese The smallest pitch and putt course in Anaheim is . 9e5 acres. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa ITEM NOe 7 Reclassification Noo 63-64-62 - Planning Study 33-28-50 ~~~. ~ ~ ~ f ; ~ 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt asked that the Commission clarify or indicate their pref- erences relative to the overlay plens for the four alternatives proposed in the above~reclas- sificatione Commissioner Camp stated he had made the motion for referral back to the Staff for a study~ that he wished to qualify that he could not visualize the implications of the various types of residential zoning proposed in the alternatives;that he would like to see what problems might be created if heavier density was approved, since t4ere was a difference of opinion between the Commission and the people in the area; there~`o.re, he would like to see, if pos- sible, four exhibits with shadings indicating the alternative densities within each exhibit, both one-story and two-story building sites, and all two-story structures not less than 150 feet from the single-story development to the north, east and weste AA70URNMENT - There being no furthsr business to discuss, Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to January 27, 1964, for a work session. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ' The meeting adjouined 'at 10:47 o'clock pom. ' ' " - ~ ' Respectfully submitted, ~ ~~/?/YC~~~%~~~2/ ANN KRESS, ~acretary Anaheim Planning Commission - i i / _ . ... _. - _~ -----•--1--- -- - -, - _._ _ ___._..Y._._,-~: ._ .._ . ____: