Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/05/11~7 ~~ ~ ` 1i c~ty xzii Anaheim, California May 11, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF TI-IE ANA[~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P.Me, a quor~m being presente PRESENI - CHAIRNANs Mungallo - COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Rowland, Perry. i ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sidese ~ PRESEIdT - Zoning Coordinators Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Mr. Mike Maxon~ Youth Minister of the First Christ~an Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE GF ALLEGIANCr - Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flage APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of April 27, 1964, were approved as submitted. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: TRAVELER'S INN, 2415 South Manchester, Anaheim, California. TRACT N0. 5577 ENGINEER: C. C. Bonebrake, 1115 East Orange Grove, Orange, Californiae Subject~tract, located at the southeast c~~rner of Orangewood A~enue'and State College Boulevard and covering approximately 10 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 15 M-1, Light Industrial, 2oned lots~ Mr. C. C. Bonebrake, engineer for the developer, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposad tract development located in the southeast industrial area. The Commission reviewed the tentative tract map, and then inquired of Mro Bonebrake wt;~ther or not the "not a part" was proposed to have street dedication and improvementso Mr. Bonebrake stipulated that the street improvements for the "not a part" would be included in Lhe develo~ment of subject tract street improvementso Commissionex Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5577 subject to the following conditionss 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivis3on, each subd~vision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approv~l. 2.. That the developer shall• ins±all zll street improvements along Orangewood • Avenue ad~acent to the "not a part"e 3. That the alignment of State College Boulevard shall conform to the plans af the State Division of Highways. 4. That drainage shall be handled in a manner satisfactory to the City E;igineer and any drainage facilities discharging into State College Baulevard shall be ripproved by the State Division of Highwayso 5. That adequate area shall be reserved for a future flood control channel at an alignment approved by the Orange County Flood Control District. 6. That Street "A" shall be stubbed on the southeriy boundary of subject property. 7. That Street "A" shall be recorded as Union Street. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. - 2086 - , - --- -___ ._..___ . r- ----__--- - _ _ t . . -~ . . ~ . ~- ~_ - l_~ ~` ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2087 TEM'ATIVE MAP OF ~ DEVELOPER: BLANK CHECK INCORPORATED, 1807 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, TRACT NOo 5508 California, ENGINEER: C. Ce Bo~ebrake, 1115 East~Orange Grove, Orange, California. Sub,ject tract, located on the south side of South Street, 660 feet east of ~unl~ist Street and containing apprm~fmately 15 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 66 R-1, One-Fami2y Residential, Zoned lots. Mr. C. C~ Bonebrake, enginees for the developer, appeared before the Commission and requested that subject tract be continu:~d to the meeting of May'25, 1964, in order that a revised map might be submitted incu~porating suggestions made at the Interdepartmenta2 Committeee Comnissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5608 to the meeting of Nwy 25, 1964, as requested by •the enginee:, in order that a revised map might be submittedf indfcating a change in the street layouto Conmissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WALTER J. FURIE, 1800 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach 2, PERMIT NOa 5,53_ California, Owner; W. J. MC CLURE, 1354 South Anaheim Ba~levard, Anahairrt, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CONFORMING U5E QF A PRESENTLY EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ~FW AND USED AUTOMOBILE AGENCY AND PERMIT EXPANSION OF SAID OPERATION on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land'with a frontage of 250 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulev~ard (Los Angeles Street) and a maximum depth of approximately 326 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximateiy 1,03d ieet~souin-oi~,crte--~eu-L-erilne ~F Bali R~ad, s,-,d `urt;ar de~crfbad as 1354 South Anaheim Boulevard (South Los Angeles Street)e Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING ZONE, Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski reviewed the location of sub~ect property on Area Develop- ment Plan Noo 6, Exhibit "A"o Zoning Coordinator Mai•tin Kreidt advised the Commission the plot plar, submitted by the petitioner did not indicate the recommended landscaping approved in Area Development ?2a~ No. 6 and Variance Noe 1627. No one appeared to represenL the petitionere No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona . THE HEARING WAS CLOSEll. In response to Commission c,uestioning relative to landscaping, Mr. Kreidt replied that during his discus~ion with the petitioner, he had previously agreed to the landscaping requirement indicated on Area Development Plan No. 6, and it must have been an oversight on the part of the developer to indicate this on the plot plano Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that Condition No. 4 of the recommended Interdepartmental Committee recommendations could be deleted because since the I,C.P,Semeeting sidee:alks had been constructed on subject propertyo Commis~ioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1153, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage a~id a..•~ption,,seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 553 sub~ect to conditionso (See Resolution Booko) • • ~• ' - - . _ • On roll call the foregoi.ng resolution was passed by th~ following votee AYES: CONa1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES~ COMMISSIONEP,S: None. ABSHNfs COMMISSIONERS: ^ebley, Sideso RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD C. AND PATRICIA KAMPLING and JOHN F. AND MARY N0. 63-64-115 R. KIR.GCH, 2240 East South Street, Anaheim, California, Owners~ CEIJI'RAL MANAGEMEiTi COMPANY, 1905 East 17th Street, Suite 101, Santa Ana,California, TENfATIVE MAP OF Agent; reauesting that property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel TRACT N0. 5611 of land with a frontage of 206 feet on the south side of South Street and REVISION N0. 1 a maximum depth of 1,294 feet and covering a total area af approximately 14 acres, the eastern boundary of said property being app.roximately 1,321 feet GENERAL PLAN west of the centc3rline of Sunkist Street, and further described as 2240 AMENDMENT N0. 19 East South Streel:~ be reclassified from the R-A, RESIABNTIAL AGRICllLTURAL~ ZONE to the R-3, ~`4ULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONEe ~_._:- .,,,.. .._ ~ __ --- -------...._ _,- ~_.__._...__..,_::,__ ~ ° °_ __.._ ~.~s __ ~ ; --___ ; ~:> ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 ( 2088 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - DEVELOPER: CENiRAL MANAGEMENf COMF!1AfY, 1905 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, I N~a 63-64-115 California, ENGINEER: Moote, Kempa, and Galloway, Incorporated, 19a5 ~ East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California. Subject tract, located on the TENTATIVE MAP OF south side of South Street appr~ximately 1,116 feet east of State College i TRACT N0. 5611 Boulevard and containing appxoximately 15 acres, is proposed for sub- REVISION N0. 1 division into 46 R-3, MULTIPLH-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONBD lotso j GEIVERAL PLAN Associate Planner Rur.ald Grudzinski reviewed the proposed General Plan ~ AMEN~MENf N0~ 1 Amendment Exhibit adjacent to the General Plan map on the west walla Continued ~ ~'~ro Grudzinski further reviewed Planning Stucly 45-114-4 a Planning Commission and i~;;:cdting the area of said study outlfnedbinthe black adopted by the City Councilo It was further noted that if subject petition were ap- proved, this might set the pattern of development for the vacant parcels adjacent to subject property for low-medium, medium, or high density, multiple-family development for the area; that it might even affect prooerties on the south side of Wagner Street; and that multiple- fami~.y de~ielopment had been GEnied easterly of subject property which was now being developed for church facilities and a single-family subdivisione Mr. Guy Green, Chief Planner for the engineers, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting he was aware of the General Plan designations for the area; that the petftions were brought to the Commission in the belief that from their experience, the multiple-family development would be an appropriate use for sub3ect property since it had natural transition uses to the east, namely schaol.s an~ ~ GhZ;:C(Z~ that the per~an•~;ye of new housing was rapidly changing, with more emphasis on multiple-family development; that an indication seemed to be more people were desirous of living nearer the center of town; that land cost made it economically infeasible to develop many R-1 subdivisions; that they were proposing twelve units per acre for subject property; that in his estimation, no adverse effect on surrounding properties would be noticeables that the City's ordinance controls and supervises limitations within 150 feet of single-family development~ and that a majority of subject property abutted undeveloped property and the school and church propertiese Mra Green further complimented the Planning Depar•tment on the very professional Staff Reporte In reviewing the commentaries of the Staff Report, Mr, Green stated from his experience only 3~10 of a percent of children were usually calculated for apartment dwelling which would make 55 students for the area, whereas low density, single-family would have 87 students; that the assessed valuation of the property would be three times that of single-family development; that since the proposed development was projected between low and low-medium density, no traffic problem would result in the overloading of streets and highways act.~ar,ent to subject property; and that the City must think in terms of higher density for the ~:ea because of the demand for multiple-family developmento In response to Commission questioning Mr, Green stated that regardless of the number oi bed- rooms proposed, the elementary school children would be substantially less than was experienced in a single-family subdivision development. Mr. Green further statad the new housing construction in Anaheim for last year was 80% for multiple-family development; that this was typical of Orange County, and the City must antici- pate providing other methods for housing with the influx of people to the areao In response to Commission questioning Mre Green stated that,Lot.No. 46 wpuld_be used by, the owners since a home presently existed therea '~ ' • Mrs. Earl T. Butcher, representing the President of the East Anaheim Homeowners' Association, appeared before the Coaunission in opposition to subject potition and stated there were five factors the Commission should consider in their decision on sub,ject petition; namely, (1) the compatability of multiple-family development to the single-family area presently established as a form of development; (2) its adverse effect on the value ot the surrounding homes; (3) the potential over~oad to present and future school and park facilitiess (4) the proposed multiple-family development location in the center of existing single-family residences, which fn her estimation would not represent an orderly planned use of land resources; and (5) the proposed 184 units would increase the tr~.ffic flow in the vicinity of the junior high school, thereby increasing the safety hazards for children walking to and from schoolo. Mrs. i3utcher furthar stated man of the p there from other sections of the City anticipatingino stripeoraspotizoningAofhundesirableed uses would be pro3ected for the area, and in her estimation, the proposed use would be spot zoning. Mrs. Butcher further presented a petition signed by 79 property owners, opposing sub,3ect petitiona ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,., _.~ _.~ _.__~ ;.,-~s ~ ~ ---..._ ..... _._~.--- ---..~.... ~ _._----- - ---- " ~ ~:'. . __ . ~ A~r = ~ ._ , . . _ .. C~ ~ MINUTES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 • i`i 2089 ~ REGLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Betty Jarvi, 2532 Alden Place, appearad before the Commission in NOo 63~64-1T5' opposition to subje::t petition and stated she represented the homeowners between South Street, Lincoln Avenue. Sunkist Street and the ~xange Free- TEM'ATIVE NWP OF way, and stated she concurred with the statements made by Mrs. Butcher in TRACT N0. 5611 opposing subject petition, and she had a petition signed by 366 property REVISION N0. 1 owners opposing subject petitiono GENERAL PLAN Mr. Lou Klement, 2125 Viking Avenue, appeared before the Commission in AN~NDN~NT N0. 1 opposition to subjec•t petitio~ ~nd stated he represented the tract im- Continued mediately adjacent to the west of subject property, stating they urould be primarily affected by the proposed development; that all the property owners opposed the proposed multiple-family development adjacent to their hames backing on to subject property; and that there were fifteen additional persons present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petitione In rebuttal, Mra Green stated the statement made that the multiple-family development would be incompatible to single-family development would be cir,cumvented by the ordinance requir- ing single-story construction ad3acent to any single-family subdivision developmento THE HEARTNG WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the various facets of the Report to the Commission, noting that al- though the General Plan adopted by the °lanning Commission was just a general plan, from this plan other City fur~ctions derived the3r future calculations fer schools and park~, etc.; since they used the General Plan to project their future requirements, this might present a problem in ~future acquisitions of acreage for expansion of schools and park sites; that if suliject petitio~~ were approved, this would ultimately determine the development of property to the south for multiple-family development; that the C~mmission had considered several requests previously in the same area for multiple-family development, and the petitions were denied,subsequently at the corner of South and Sunkist a church and a single-family subdivi- sion tract were developed; that although only 15 acres were involved in subject petition, the Commission's decision would ultimately affect 80 acres in the area; that the Planning Commission and City Council's policy for the pa~t several years has•been that the area esst of State College Houlevard be maintained for low density, single-family residential develop- ment, and the various community facilities have been established on the basis of low dersity, resider,tial development; and that no evidence had been presented whfch would indicate any change had taken place in the area to warrant a change in this policy by the Cityo Commi~sioner Gauer expressed concern that by :~',creasing the Notential for mu1t±.F.le-family development, this would greatly reduce any acceptable single-family subdivision o'evelopment in the City, and that other areas within the City were more suited for multiple••zami.ly deve2- opment than the area in which subj~ct property was lucatede Commissioner Rowland stated a great deal of money had been extended for services and studies of the center city area; that these studies indicated the center city had a grea.t potential for high density, residential de~~elopment rather than encroachment into the residential area; and it would be a great boan to the cort~nunity if the center city area were dev~rloped for this suggested high density,resident{.al development. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1154, Series 1963-64, and moved For its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reelassification Noo 63~-64:115.•be disapproved~ based on the fact that the area in which subjer,t property was located was partially developed for single-t;imily'subdivision daVelop- ment~and it has been the City's stated policy to encourage continued development of single- family homes where logical extension and completion of partially developed single-family . areas was possibie; that to approve subject petition would earmark 80 acres of land for mul•~iple-family development, and the Commission reaffirmed its position regarding Planning Study 45-114-4 projecting the study area for low density, residential development. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYHSs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOES: CONNAISSIONERS: None. ABSEt~Ffi COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny Revision No. 1 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5611, based on the fact that the Commission recommended disapproval of the reclassification of sub~ec~, property. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~~..__. ~_.__~_ __- _ _ ._ _ ... ` _ _. • -~ . ~ , ' . . "- I@ . . _ . ..._. . . , _ _ ._,. _ - !E . . - , _ . . . .. ~ f~'~ .~ ~ ~ MINI-1'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 11~ 1964 !~i ~ 2090 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1155, Series 1963-64, and NOe_~3~64-115 moved for its psssyge and adoption, seconded by Commission Allred, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 19, TENTi:~VE MAP OF Exhibit "A" be disapproved. (See Resolution Book.) TRACT N0. 5611 REVISION N0. 1 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: GENERAL PLAN AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, AINHNDMENT N0. 1 Rowland. (Continued NOHSe COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley~ Sides. VARIANCE N0. 1636 - PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD C. DINKINS, Trustee for Mrs. Valeri Dinkins, 2416 Del Mar Street, Newport Beach, California, O~vner; RAYMOND LEVANAS, 3432 Via Oporto~ Newport Beach, Cali.fornia, Agent; requesting permis- sion to WAIVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD AND WAIVE ONE-STORY IiHIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A, RESIDENTIP.L AGRICULTURAL, 20NED PROPERTY on property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the south and east sides of the southeast knuckle of Anna Drive, the total area of said property being approximately o4 acre, and further described as Lots 11 and 12 of Tract Noo 3328. Property oresently classified as R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, ZONEo Mr. William North, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed subject petition, stati~g that i.~:; ~rder to develop subject property to its maximum use and because of the shape of the property, it was necessary that encroachment into the rear yards be requested; that the easterly boundary of subject property abuts the 3unior high school property, and the other three boundaries are adjacent to multiple-family developmento Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission the architect had been advised that some of the proposed units were below minimu~ Code requirements of 700 sqiaare feeta The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether or not Code requirements would be met, to which Mr. North replied in the affirmativea In sesponse to Commission questioning Mro Kreidt advised that a block wall was not required by~Code, ad,jacent to school property, but that the Commission may wish to make this a condi- tion of approval. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TFIE HEAP.ING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1156, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1636, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following voter AYES: , CONVuiISSIONERSs Allred,_Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. _ ~ NOESi COMA4ISSIONERS~' None. ~ ' ~ ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sideso RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HUGH B. SPRAGUE, 757 North East Street and LEONARD L. N0. 63-b4-11 EGGLESTON, 755 North East Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; E. L. BENSON, 1803 North Old Tustin Road, Santa Ana, Calif~nia, Agents CONDITIONAL USE property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of l;and at the PERMIT N0. 568 southwest corner of- North Street and East Street with frontages of 164 feet on the south side of North Street and 155 feet on the west side GENERAL PLAN of East Street, and further described as 755 and 757 North East Street. AA~NDMENT N0. 18 ~r,pSSIFICATION OF PROPERTYs R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIpL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SSRVICE STATION. Mr. E. L. Benson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed service static~ ar.d reclassification petition, noting a number of changes had taken place in the residential environment of the area~ that the traffic generated from the freeway~ ' and ad,jacent streets to the freeway, made residential living impractical at the corner of North and East Streets; that the change because of traffi~ was toward commercial rather than ; , ~. _-------r---------------------------~---____~.._.___-_------_...-- _. ,- . , . . . ~ __._ __.... ~ _ . _ • . __ _ ~ ~ o ~ MINflfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2091 RECLASSIFICATION - residential; that the noise from the starting and stopping of cars at a NOo 63-64-~12 four-way stop signai was injurious to the health of the petitioners; that the proposed service station would not adversely affect the adjoin- CONDITIONAL USE inc land uses, but would alde by removing homes from the corner for PERMIT N0. 566 betttr. visability; that two other service stations existed at North and East Si:reets~ and the proposed use would be compatible to the present GENERAL PLAN uses in the area. AIuIENDMENf N0. 18 Continued The Commission expressed concern that if additional dedication were required for street widening at the easterly side of subject property, this might present a traffic hazard in that a blind spot might occur as the people left the station; that if the grade were reduced on the proposed service station, this might create a drainage problem with drainage from the existing homes into subject property; and that if subject petition were approved, this would set a pattexR of development for strip commercial of the entire East Street frontage. Mre John Spielman, 747 North East Street, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition and asked what effect the proposed development would have on the 700 block of North East Street; whether or not the Commission would consider commercial development; that if subject petition were approved and the strest widened, his property would pretrude into the street~ thereby creating a traffic hazard, to which the Commission replied if anyone was desirous of requesting rezoning of their property, they were permitted to do so through the usual re~lassification proce@ureo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono Tl~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the compatability of a serv~ce station at the junction of a local street and arterial highway; that the two arte::•ial streets were L~ Palma Avenue and East Street; that there was a possibility that upo.~ the extension of La Palma Avenue westerly from East Street, the Public Utilities Commission would require the closing of North StrPet across the railroad right-of-way; and that North Street should be used as the southerly boundary of any commercial encroachment into the residential uses. Commi.ssioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1157, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- tion for Reclassification Noe 63-64-112 be disapproved, based on the fact that although two service stations were presently established at the intersection of two arterial streets, namely La Palma Avenue and East Street, that sub,ject property is located at tlie fntersection of a local street and an arterial street; that North Street should be used as an effective point of termination of any commercial encroachment on East Street southerly of North Street; that North Street, now functioning as an arterial highway, will be subtantially altered when La Palma Avenue fs extended westerly from East Street across the railroad right-of-way, particularly if the Public Utilities Cottunission requires the closing of North Street across the railroa~ right-of-way; and that it would be impossible to make a service statio,~ on subject property compatible to the abutting single-family structurese (See R2solution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ~10E3: CaMMISSIONERSs ,None. ABSEI3T: COdM~IISSI0NER5: Pebley, Sidese ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ " ' ' ~ ~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No< 1158, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland,to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 568, based on findingse (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes - AYES: COhONISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlarid. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSEM'i COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sidese Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1159, Series 1963-64, and moved for;its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 18, Exhibit "A" be disapproved, based on findingse (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followino votes AYESs COl~iMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Per~•y, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSEM's COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, $ide5e - ~ Y--r-------...._..._-------_-__.._.. „ _ _._ _ ..,,._ ..,,;:.~~- t .~ . _ _. . . . . . ~`, _ ~ ~ ~ t \~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~JN, May 11, 1954 2pg2 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC tiEARING. HOWARD GILMORE, ~27 North Rose Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 567 California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE SHOP THAT WILL ENGAGE IN FRONT END WORK AND THE INSTALLATION OF BRAKES, MUFFLERS, SMOG CONTROL DEVICES, AND SHOCK A3SORBERS on property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 52 feet on the easi: side of Anaheim Boulevard (Los Angeles Street) and a depth of 149 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 128 feet south of the centerline of North Street and further describad as 750 North Anaheim Boulevardo Property presentYy classif3ed a~ C-2, GENERAL COAM~IERCIAL, ZONEo Mr. Howard Gilmore, the petitioner, appeared before the Cemmission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that all work would be performed under cover; that he was leasing the property; that the lessee was present to answer any questions the Commission might have; and that in response to a question by the Commission, it was his understanding that a new service station would be constructed at the corner of North Street and Anaheim Boulevard. Mr. Jack Kavanaugh, the proposed lessee of subject property, appeared before the Commission to answer the Commission's questions, and stated that front end work, smog control devices, installation of brakes, mufflers and shock absorbers would be the principal work which would all be performed under cover; that no body work would be performed whatsoever; that trash bins would be provided at the rear of the property, and a general improvement of the site would be accomplished, and in reso~osa__to Commission auestians, stated he was not oqe.rating as a franchise, but that he preferred not to give the name of the proposed operationo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TI-IE FIHARING WAS CLOSEDo It was noted by the Commission that the duplex at the rear of sub'ect i ~ property would not ~ have access to the street except through subject propertye ( i Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that when Conditional Use Permit ' No: 261 had been granted on subject property, one of the stipulations was that the residen- ~ tial use on the rear of subject property could not be incorporated in the operation but must ' remain for residential uso, and that access was given to the residential development through subject property. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1160, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 567~ based on the fact that the petitioner stipulated that no body or paint work would be conducted, and that all work would be performed under cover, and subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko) • On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Ferry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sideso Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 3s15 p,m. CONDITIONAL USE - PU'BLIC HEARINGo ~DAVID CORDERMAN, 1130 North Plest 5treet, Anaheim, PERMIf N0. 566 California, Owner; LEISURE CARE OF ANAFIEIM, INCORYORATED, 3067 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTAHLISH A CONVALESCENT REST HOME AND MENfAL ILLNESS CONVALESCEPTT HOSPITAL on property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land appr~simately 192 feet hy 256 feet, the southern boundary of said property beii~g approximate~~ 265 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and the westernmost boundary of said property being approximately 170 feet east of the centerline of West Street. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, Mr: .lames Wood, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and exhibited a picture of the proposed development, stating that although the Report to the Planning Commission suggested a 64-foot wide street, they were unable to obtain any addition- al street dedication than that indicated on the plan. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the 60-foot wide street had been obtained through an easement. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that normal street width for a collector street was 64 feet; this would provide for a wider parkway, but if the Com~nission approved the 60-foot width, this would provide a 40-foot roadbed~ and that treewe7ls cpuld be placed at 40-foot intervals. I - ' ~ _ ... . . _ . . . . _. _ _. ., ~ . :-_,. ~. . .. _ ~l (_~ ~ • ~ MINl1TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2093 i ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. i PERMIT N0. ~~ i Continued THE f~ARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 3s22 pom. Cc:anissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1161, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 566, permitting a 60-foot wide street, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followfng vote: AYESi COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry. I NOES: COMMISSIONHRSs Noneo ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides. ; ABSTAINs COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo COSTA MESA SAVINGS 8 LOAN, 1895 Newport Boulevard, NOe 63-64-114 Costa Mssa, California, Owner; DAVID Wo HOOK, 1780•West Lincolns Suite H, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: __. A rectangularly shaped parcei of land with a frontage of 385 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 300 feet, the northern poundary oi said property being approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue, and further described as 411-431 North Brookhurst Stre~t be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRI- CULTURAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE, TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-STORIED APARTMENT BUILDING, Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that plans originally approved under Conditional Use Permit Noo 561 indicated subterranean parking under the main structure; that plans submitted with subject petition's plans t~ave removed the parking f~cilities from under the main structure and relocated the building westerly because test borings indicated that the subsurface was inadequate to :.ust~tn the proposed structure; that the r,riginal pian in- dicated a 57-foot setback, whereas the revised plan proposed a 3~-foot setback; that the original proposal had 17,924 square feet of recreation area including 8,424 square feet of balcony on each apartment, and the revision indicates 19,824 square feet of recreation area including 254.1 square feet of balcony for each apartment; that the original plan indicated 98 covered parking spaces and 135 uncovered, whereas the revision proposes 98 covered and 106 uncovered parking spaces; that no revised plans were submitted for the front portion of subject property; and that the proposed revised plans were in conformance with Section 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, but do not show the landscaping as indicated on the original plane Mr. Robert Gilman, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that the landscaping was omitted through an oversight by the architect; that it was their inten- tion to landscape the property as ariginally planned; that when the engineers we*e meking soil compaction tests, they hit water at 60 feet~ thus it became necessary to relocate the structure and eliminate subterranean parking under the main structura because they plan to use the floating slab type of construction; that they were in agreement with all of the Report to the Commission recommendations except that they would prefer to plant the trees in the parkway since those generally planted by the City were considerably smaller than those they planned for the area~ and that he would consult with the Superintendent.of Park- way 1W31ntenanr.e as to tba ac~eptabl~ type.of t~ees for the parkway. Mr. Kreidt brought to the Commission's attention the letter submitted by adjoining property ~ owners to the south requesting that the Commission require a 50-foot setback, together with a wall to separate subject and abutting propertieso Mr. Gilman stated that it would be necessary to have a retaining wall on the north and south property lines, because of the ramp for the underground parking, and a masonry wall any height the Commission desired would be constructed on top of this retaining wall~ and that it was their intention to landscape the wall with Iow growing plants. No ane appeared in opposition to subject petition~ THE IiEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1162, Series 1963-E4, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commis:,ioner Chavas, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-114 be approved subject to the petitioners planting trees at 40- foot intervals in the parkway; that a 24-inch masonry wall be constructed on the north and south property line on top of the retaining walls, and that no cons'truction would be permitted in the fronl: yard setback measured 50 feet from the front property line and conditionso (See Resolution Bcok.) On roll call the foregoing resolutioq Was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allrqc~~ cam~, ~haVO4~ ~~U@~'~ Mung~~l~ RQ~'Fyr t~pw~Afi~~ NOESe CO~M~fI5SI0NERSs Npnee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSe Pebley, Sideso . '~::..,: __. _.-.--.._~.._~.. __ _ _ __ _ _ , ; ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2094 CONDITI~NAL USL - Approval of revised plans - PERMIT N0. 551~ Filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 63-64-114. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that since the reclassification proceedings approved plans which were not substantially in conformance with those approved in the Commission':~ action on Conditional Use P~rmit Noe 561, that approval of the revised plans for the conditional use permit was in order. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Revision Noo 1, Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Exhibit Noa 4 of Conditional Use Permit No. 661o Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. M9TION CARRIEDe RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEpRINGo FIRST AMERICAN TI?LE INSURANCE 8 TRUST COMPANY, NOe 63-64-77 P, 0. Box 267, Santa Ana9 California, Owner; STANTON T. STAVRUM, So H, FIEDRICK COMPANY, 900 South San Gabr.iel Boulevard, San Gabriel, CONDITIONAL USE f:alifornia, Agent; property described ass A rectangular parcel of PERMIT_NOe 53~ land at the s~uthwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Gilbert Street with fror.tages of 1,300 feet on Crescent Avenue and 615 feet on GENERAI. PLAN Gilbert Streete Property Fresently classified as R-A, RESIDEM'IAL AMENDMENT Npa 6 AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL DEVELOPMEM WITH CARPORTSs WAIVER OF ONE- STOkY HEIGHT LIMITATIOIJ WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL9 ZONID PROPERTYo Sub~ect petitions and General Plan AmFndment were referred back to the Commission by the City Council for their consideration and report and recommendations on revised plans which the agent for the petitioner stated would be submitted~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the ~emmission that no savised plans'had been submitted for their considerationa Mro Narry Knisely, representing the developer cf subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated that after the developer had made numerous attempts to improve the plans, it was decided that the original plans which had been submitted were the most desir- able from the developer's standpointo Mro A, J, Radoccia, 2441 Glencrest Avenue9 appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petitionsy and stated that he represented the 45 persons present in the Council Charr~ber and a11 the single family home owners in the area~ that when the o•riginal plans were submitted for both Commissicn and Conr.cil conside:at~ony 139 per~or,s s~g~e3 a,petitio~ af oppositionr that a letter had been submitted by Mrso Radoccia and Mrso Paul Shaver which gave a daily traffic count; that these figures were proof that the additional traffic which would be generatsd by the proposed development at the intersection of Crescent Avenue and Gilbert Street which is used by school children walking to four different schools would create a traffic hazard; that developers of R-1 tracts in the immedia+e area of subject property were interested in subject property for subdivision into $35,000 single-family homes; and that consideration should be given to the single-family home owners to the north and west •~of :suhjec~ property9 whose t0'cal inves'tment in theix properties was•considerably•mr,re.than was proposed to be invested in subject propertyo Commissioner A11red offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Cortunission's position regarding Petitions for Reclassification No> 63-64-77 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 532 has remained unchanged in their previous recommendation of denial of sub- 3ect petitions, and further based on the following factss lo That subject property is ideally suited for single-family subdivisiona 2. That single-family subdivision development exists to the north and west of sub3ect propertyo 3o That the proposed plan of development does not incorporate adequate circulation facilities for trash trucks, and emergency, or service vehicleso 4o That a request for R-3, Muitiple-Family Residential, Zone for property on the south sid2 of Crescent Avenue easterly of the co~nercial development on Magnolia Avenue, and 700 feet west of subject property, was denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council9 and that subsequently s~id property had been deyelpped for single- family residential subdivision9 (Tract No, 5113), i 1 i r - . _ ___.._ ... . --~-----~•~ :. ._~ _.'. ... ._.. _ - ~ `~ ~ ` ~I ~ MINUTES, CI'FY P'LANNING ODMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2095 ~ REGZASSIFICATION - 5. That at the original hearing three persons appeared, one of whom ~ , NOo 63-64-77 presented a petition si~ned by 1?9 persons and who also represented ~ 35 persons present in opposition, and that at the hearing on May 11, , ~ QDNDITIONAL U5E 1964, one person appeared re:presenting 45 persons present in the ~ PFRMIT N0. 532 Council Chamber, a~d two letters signed by 25 persons were received in opposition to sub~ect petitions. ~ GENERAI. PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 6 Commissioner Gauer second=d the motiona MGTION CARRIID. Continued VARIANCE N0. 1632 - PUBLIC HEARING. ORANGE COUNTY DHVELOPMEM CORPORATION, 310 Rosebay Street, Anaheim, Californl.a, Owner; JACK Do MC LEAN, President, Orange County Development Corporation, 310 Rosebay Street, Anaheim, California, A9ent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT AN S-FOOT FENCE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT FENCE AT THE REAR OF THE 12 SUBJECT LOTS, on property described ass Those 12 lots bordering on the west side of Hanover Street and extending approximately 913 feet south of the center- line of Crescent Avenue, the western boundary of said lots being approximately 273 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described.as Lots 1 through 12 of Tract No. 5113a Property presently classified as R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo Mro Josh McLean, developer of the subject proFerty,appeared before the Commission and stated they were presently developing Tract Noe 5113 adjacent to the commercial shopping center fronting on Magnolia Avenue; that the proposed extension of the existing 6-foot wall was to give ad~ied privacy to the single-family homes backing on to the commercial development, afford- ing thert, more privacy; that the height of this wall might v2ry, but would be a maximum of 8 feet in he'ight, and he would stipulate that a maximum of not more than 30 inches would be added to the existing wall; and that the construction of said addition to the wall would be in conformance with the Building Department's requirement, which would be constructing said plastic extension on a wood framee No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitione THE HEARING WAS C[.OSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1163, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, secoaided by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1632, orovided that the maximum height of the proposed extension shall be not more than 30 inches atop the existing 6-foot masonry wall along the west property line to shield the single~ family residences from the commercial development to the west. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY:.$: COMMISSIONERSs Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOHS: CONN7ISSIONERSs Nonea ABSENTa COMMISSIOIVEFcS: Pebley, Sides. Commissioner Rowland stated his vote of "AYE" was based on the fact that this would not be setting a precedent for any future masonry wall construction, but because of the extenuating circumstances of commercial development immediately adjacent to the single-family development, the extension of the required 6-foot wail was deemed necessary. VARIANCE N0. ].635 - PUBLIC 1~ARING. NELSON E. ENDICOTT, 3521 Savanna Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting waiver to CREATE TWO R-A PARCELS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE EACH IN AREA AND WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH on property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 118 feet on the north side of Savanna Street and a depth of 395 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 308 feet west of the centerline of Knott Avenue, and further described as 3521 Savanna Street. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Mr. Nelson E. Endicott, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the pro- posed plan of development. The Commission discussed with the petitioner the narrowness of the lot, and the petitioner informed the Commission that oniy the front portion of the lot would be narrow; that the rear portion was considerably wider, and that a home presently existed on the larger parcel of land, having a frontage on Savanna Streeto No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE IiEARING WA~ C~.Q~~D. ~ : ,.,. . , _ _ ~ ~~ ~ MINITTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2096 VARIANCE NOo 1635 - Commissioner Cam~ effered Resolution Noo 1164, Series 1963-64, and Continued moved for its ~ass<~,;~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Pe;i;::.o~ ';~ Var.iance Noo 1635, subject ta conditicnse (See Resolution ~r,o~::j On roll call the foregoing re-•~i.•t.ion w:.: ;,~.,sen by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSe Allxr:i. C;_t ~;:;tsvos~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland< NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None> ABSENI': CONAAISSIONERSs Pebley, Sidesa CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC [-IEARING. LONG BEACH BANANA DISTRIBiITORS, INCORPORATED,..1419 PERMIT N0. 569 Magnolia Aven~e, Long Beach, California, Owner; JOHN H. IRWIN, P, Oo Hox 7457, Long Beach 7, California, Agent, requesting permission to ESTABLISH A FAMILY BILLIARD ANJ RECREATION CENTER on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Euclid Street with frontages of 758 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and 432 feet on the north side of Ball Road, the totaZ area of said property being approximately seven acres, and further described as 915 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified as C-1, iveIv3i80RH00D COhWiERCInL~ ZOtde. Mr. John Irwin, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that in addition to two tables of billiards, he planned to operate a small hobby shop witfi a miniature race car track; that he was the owner of the shopping area with 33 other tenants, and it was c'-..:'•re not to undErmine the integrity of the shopping area; and in response to Commission uestioning regarding advertising as it would appear to the single-family homes, Mro Irwln stated he did not desire to cover up the windows, but would have small lettering advertising the billiard center and hobby shop, and this wouid then not give the appearance of a pool hall, as many people considered a billiard centero Mr. E. W, Hill, owner of apartment buildings to the rear of sub'ect ~ ,7 property, appeared be- ; fore the Commission and stated he was concerned the proposed use would be similar to a pool ~ hall and would be detrimental to the area; that if it was maintained as a pool hall, this ~ would depreciate the entire neighborhood and would involve considerably more traffic than ~ presently being handled in the shopping area. The Commission inquired of Mr. Hill whether he had viewed other family billiard centers operated within the City, which had never given the Police Department any concernj further stating that if any other type than what was being proposed was developed on subject property, the petitioner would be required to submit plans to the Commission for reconsideration•e Mro Hill stated he had never viewed any of the existing family billiard centars in the citye In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Irwin stated he realized there might be some ; problem with teenagers, but he would maintain hours so that teenagers would not be frequent- ; ing the place; that he was having only two billiard tables and one auto racing table~ and it would be a combination recreation area and hobby shop. TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1165, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 569, subject to conditions and based on the fact that the petitioner stipulated 75-foot candlepower would be maintained in the family billiard center; that two billiard tables and one race car track would. comprise the recreation facilities and that a hobby shop wouid be in conjunction with sai.d recreation. (See Resolution Book.~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOESi COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS~ Pebley~ Sidea. ~._.~_.___~. _ .....__.._.___ _.. ' _~~_.~,_ _ ~ _ .,._ . . . AI, • { ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2p97 I i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC E~ARING. EDWARD E. HESSE, 1694 Sumac Lane, Anaheim, California, j N0. 63-64-113 Owner; HARRY KNISELY, 1523 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, ~ Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped ~ parcel of land at the southeast corner of Sumac Lane and Euclid Street ~ with frontages of 73 feet on the south side of Sumac Lane and 100 feet on the east side of i Euclid Street, and further described as 1694 Sumac Lane, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE- ~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOIVH to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMHRCIAL, ZONE to ESTABLISH A BUSINESS E AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, stating the petitioner was attempting to ubtain the cooperation of the abutting property owner to the south to grant an easement after the removal of the 6-foot masonry wall was accomplished to eliminate utilizing a residential street for com- mercial purposeso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that when subject property was developed within the single-family tract, all.access rights to Euclid Avenue were dedicated to the County of Orange; therefore, proposing a curb break to p:ovide accessway from subject property to Euclid Street might not be possibleo Discu~sion was held by the Commission relative to the logical location of an accessway to subject property, the parking of vehicles, and possible tuxn-around areas to minimize any traffic hazarda It was noted by Mro Kreidt that according to the plot plan, the petitioner proposed office use of the existing garage, and if any blacktopping were done, landscaping should be instal- led to soften the commercial effect which abutting single-family property would be subjected toe The Commission discussed the possibility of the petitioner obtaining an easement after the 6-foot masonry wall on the commercial property to the south was removed; that the parking facilities, if subject petition were approved, might be beneficial to the restaurant and cocktail lounge in the shopping area after business hours; that the only logical solution for obtaining adequate circulation for subject property would involve the property to the south, since a curb break to Euclid Street was almost impossible; that one solution to development of subject property would be the removal of the existing residence and repla,e it with commercial facilities; and that since the plot plan indicated the garage area was included with the home for use as offices,this :ould not be considered additional parking spaceo Mre Kreidt asked the Commission whether they would consider the possibility of suggesting a variance for the reduction of the parking spaces if the rear yard parking and maneuvering were not workable, and that he urged them to consider the single-family homes to the east so that any development, if approved on subject property, might not be detrimental to them, and suggested a possible continuance in order to resolve the possibility of gaining an ease- ment and the removal of the wall from the property owner to the southo Deputy Ciiy Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission they should determine whether or not the proposed reclassification was a proper land use for the area before the Commission requested.revised planso - The Commission stated the .).and use ,was_ no ,problem sin ~e the surrounding~property to the south, southwest and northwest was already developed for C-1 uses. ~ " ' ' ' Mro Kreidt then asked whether ~he Commission favored recommending a curb break to Euclid Street to the City Council if subject petition was recommended for approval, and that no access of commercial purposes should be permitted to a residential streeto The Commission stated that if only two offices were permitted in the converted residence, this should offer no traffic problem for Sumac Laneo Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-113 to the meeting of June 8, 1964, in order to allow the attorney for the petitioner to contact the ad~acent property owner to the south to determine whether an agreement could be reached for an easement and the removal of the masonry wall to provide access from the shopping center to the south and for the submission of revised plans if this easement was obtainedo Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDo -------~-- ~ t _ --___., ~. ~ '~ ~ MINUTES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2098 REPORTS AND - ITE~d N0. 1 RECOMN~NDATIONS Reclassification No. 62-63-19 and Conditional Use Permit No. 361 - approval of revised plans. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Revision No. 3 of plot plans for Reclassification No. 62-63-19 and Conditional Use Permit No. 361 for the Commission's consideration, and reviewed the findings and conditions of the Development Review function and the City Engineere Mr. LeRoy Rose, architect of the development,reviewed the revised plans for the Commission noting that in the revision a reduction of land coverage was accompiished, and that although the development was proposed as a standard R-3 development, in design it was closer to a planned unit developmente The Commission reviewed the plans and the suggested revisions to the Ordinance reclassifying subject property, noting that Lot "A" for Tract Noo 3886 and Tract No. 5102 would have to be purchased by the developer of subject property, and advised Mr. Rose that a predetermined price had been set by the City for said lotso Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Revision No. 3, '~-^'li'S~~ if05.~-i~ ~~ ait~ .°i ~'ic BNpi'6VBCi SUbJECt t0 ~ilE i'vi2'vWiPly ieC"v6uTicIld2~ amendments ~O Ordinance Noa 1.809 reclassifying subject property: lo Eliminate Condition Noa 4. 2. Amend Condition Noo 5 to read "That access rights shall be acquired to the alley along the westerly property line by purchasing a portion of Lot "A" of Tract No. 3886". 3o Amend Condition Noa 6 to indicate Revision No. 3, Exhibit Noso 1, 2, and 30 4o Eliminate Condition Noa 7, 5. Add Condition No. 9 to read: "That access rights shall be acquired to the alley along the northerly property line by purchasing Lot "A" of Tract Noo 5102"0 6o Add Condition Noe 10 to read: "That an aliey cut-off with a radi~as of 17.50 feet be provided at the northwesterly corner of the subject property prior to the issuance of a building permit". Commissioner Gaiser seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NO„ 2 Program and Ordinance for preservation of street trees in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether any action had been started by the Planning Department relative to drafting an ordinance to preserve the beautiful trees of the City of Anaheim, and presented tree ordinances from the City of Pomona and data regarding trees in the City of Pasadenao Zvning Coordinator Marti~i Kreidt advised'the Commission memos-had been sent ~o the Director ~ of Public Works and the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, but no actual tree ordinance had been drafted as of this datee Mr. Rowland then stated the parkway trees should be a part of the Parks and Recreation ~ Division, rather than Public Workse ; It was noted by other members of the Commission that the Planning Commission met in 1927, ~ and one of their first programs was the tree planting program,in accordance w:.th the State ~ of California Tree Act,which was initiated at that time9 and that in the drafting of the ~ ordinance these things should be iaicen into consideration. ~ Mr. Kreidt then stated he would relay the data submitted by Commission Rowland and report ~ back to the Commission when preliminary studies and a draft were completed. , ~ #: ~ ~~ ~~ . ._'.'___._...._.___. _ 1 ` . .~ ... .., ~ m4wcr.naa~•~-d,.-- ~_'_._ ' : r, ~_.. ~~ ~ ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2099 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 3 A Conditional Use Permit No. 493 - 192-unit motel Continued at Manchester Avenue and Harbor Boulevardo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented subject conditional use permit to the Commission, noting that subsequent action in Conditional Use Permit No. 544 was granted recently by the Commission, nullifying previous action on Conditional Use Permit No. 493, and recommended that it be terminatedo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1166, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 493, based on the fact that a subsequent petition for a conditional use permit was approved by the Commissiono (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ivu'e5: I.UIV11171Jj1V1VCttJi ivoneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sidese ITEM N0. 4 Parksand Recreation fee - requirement for R-A parcels being divided into lots for R-1 developmenta :o~.:ng Coordinator Martin Kreiclt noted for i:he Commission that a number of the small R-A ~arcels which were being submitted to the Commission and to the Department for lot-split approval are being developed without the responsibility of paying for the Parksand Recrea- tion fee as required of multiple-fa~:.ily developments, and that this might be a recommenda- tion to the City Council to require the payment of said fee at the time the building permit is issued when said lot splits are madea Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council the requirement of $25000 per dwelling unit for Parks and Recreation fees be assessed whenever R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zoned parcels were subdivided and subsequently constructed with R-1 develop- ment, and this fee be collected at the time the building permit was issuedo Commissioner Allred seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 Variance No< 1278 - Jolly Roger Inn - Request for encroachment into the 20-foot landscape setback strip on Katella A~enue. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that at the meeting of April 27, the Commission had denied Mr. Duffey's request for permission to encroach into the setback area on Katella Avenue to permit the construction of a storage room, and that Mre Duffey had requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision and was pr~sent to present his comments~ Mr. Richard Duffey, owner of the Jolly Roger Inn, appeared before the Commission and steted he had submitted colored renderings of the area indicating where the encroachment would occur and a summary of existing dev~lopments on Katella Avenue which encroached within the 20-foot setback requirement on Katella Avenue, and stated it was found necessary to construct a storage area into the front setback of Katella Avenue since this was the only logical place adjacent ta the kitchen for this expansion. The Cormnission inquired whether there was no other area available for this space, to which Mr. Duffey replied that service trucks use the area to the rear for delivery purposes~ there- fore he was unable to encroach into this rear section of the property for the proposed exten- sion. Mr. Duffey then reviewed the setbacks of the various motels and other developments along Katella Avenue, noting many of these wera constructed a considerable timQ efter the Jolly Roger Inn, and that his present setback 3rea was 23 feet; therefore, he would be encroaching only a distance of 8 feet for 38 feet along Katella A~enuee The Commission reviewed the plans and evidence submitted by the petitioner. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve plans for an addition to the existing Jolly Roger Inn to permit an encroachment of 8 feet into the required 20-foot setback on Katella Avenue, for storage facilities, said encroachment shall extend for only 38 feet along the Katella Avanue fronta~~. Gommis4ioner Gaver ~eGOnued thQ mot~pn. MOTION CARRI~1~. ~---- --. _ ...- -~.. . __. ..._ _ __- _._ _ ___ __ _.____._ ,._ ..__...___._.___.:. , .. _. . . ~._ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2100 RECESS • - Commissioner Camp offered a motion ~o recess the meeting for dinner and reconvene at 7:30 o'clock pomo Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting recessed at 5:00 o'clock pemo RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:53 o'clock pome, Commissioners Pebley and Sides being absento AMENDMEPR' 70 PUBLIC HEARING~ Initiated by the Anaheim Planning Commission, TITLE 18 - ANAHEIM - 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiaa Proposing changes and MUNICIPAL CODE additions to Chapter 18~16, R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone; Chapter 18>28, R-2, Two-Family Residential, Zone; Chapter 18032, R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone; Chapter 18.40, C-;., ~~eighborhood Commercia].; 7nne: Cha~ter_18e.61;_ NRC.; Nattiral Res~urcPS and Canserva~ tion, Zone; 18.65, PRD, Planned Residential Development, Zone> Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff presented t.he proposed amendments and additions to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Codeo He noted that a major change had taken place in land development, generally reflecting changes in the economics of the building industry, and that multiple- family development has resulted because ~:: high land prices and increasing population influxo Multiple-family units were accounting for a larger and larger share of building permits, namely, from 74% in 1960 to 88~ in 1964a When one considered the proportion of apartment units related to all units in the City, the following statistics were particularly.revealing: Date Sinqle-Familv__,~Multiple-Family___wWTotal Number 1960 Census ~ ?5~ 25% 31,500 1962 estimate 70;K 30~ 37,300 1964 estimate 63~ 3'7~ 42,300 Additionally, the City"s General Plan implied that, out of about 73,,Q00 dwelling units, 54% will be multiple-family units, and 46% would be single•-family units~ Mr., Shoff noted that, in 1961 83% of the population lived in single-family homes, and only 17% in apartmentso Today the proportions had shifted, so that 75% live in single-family homes, and 24% in apartments~ The General Plan projected 61% in single-family homes, and 39~ in apartmentso Mr. Shoff continued, noting two current trends: (1) more people would be living in apart- ments in the future, and these people would have more chiidren than apartment dwellers had today; and (2) because of tha changes in the land market referred to earlier, and the pattern of land development which was occurring in the community, more apartment•-type dwellings would be constructed in closer proximity to single-family residential areas~ Because of these trends, apartments would have to meet the needs of a different populatione Apartment developments must be able to accommodate families as weli as childiess couples and single peopleo The living environment should be designed to accomplish the "Southern California" outdoor way of life that so many people came to Anaheim for~-- and it should aTso be` designed within' the framework of land development pressurese The Staff, with the guidance and counsel of the Planning Commission, had tried to draft zones which would encourage the provision of this better living environment, and create a reason- able transition between areas of different densitiesa This had been attempted within the framework of land development pressures and patternse The Multiple-Family Zones had largely incorporated and systematized the individual conditions applied to each individual zoning case< They were based upon a revised R-2 Zone, which was the basis for the R-3 Zonea The present R-2 Zone was not presently being used in Anaheim because it permits only two units on a 7200 square foot lot„ The proposed R-2 and R-3 Zones differed only in three basic respects -- density, coverage, and recreational-leisure areao Densitv: i:he R-2 Zone permits 1 dwelling unit for each 2400 square feet of lot area - about 18 units/net acre; the R-3 permits one for each 1200 square feet -- up to 36 units~net acree Coveraqe: the R-2 permits 43% coverage~ the R-3 permits 55~ coverageo Recreational- leisure area: the R-2 requires 300 squere feet/dwelling unit, the R-3 requires 200 square feet dwelling unit~ Mr. Shoff noted that the Commission had set requirements for the Staff that were a reason- able compromise between land development pressure and living emironment qualitya• These were as followss The R-2 Zone permits 3 dwellings on the ground floor plus all open space; - - -~ . _. _ __.._.....__ .__ _. _ ..__ _ __ _.__ -- --..-----. ~; . . _ . .... ~ . :- ,._ j' ~ ~, '~ i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2101 ' AIuIENDMENf TO - and the R-3 permits 4 dwellings on the ground floor plus all open TITLE 18 - ANAHEIM spaceo These conditions had been met by the Staff, and the zones ~ MUNICIPAL CODE incorporate these requirementse (Continued) Mra Shoff, in reviewing the PRD, Planned Residential Deve2opment section, stated that it was not written as a series of hard-and-fast standards, but as a list of principles to be strived for. These principles tied back into ~ the Residential Zones, giving the designer the opportunity to create a more desirable livin9 environment by not being limited to the normal multiple-family subdivision patterne The ~ proposal requires that PRD's be processed by Conditional Use 1'ermit, because of their special, individual nature, and to be reviewed at both the Commission and Council level. R-2. R-3. PRD Zones. Mro Shoff then reviewed the R-2, R-3, and PRD proposals section by section, noting several amendments to Section 18008 - Definitions, which were necessary to clear up ambiguities in the Code. He explained the Commission and Staff thinking behind the recreational-leisure area requirement in some detailo Although this represented a new thought for the City, it was soundly based on the fact that the City would have more apart- menls~ arid more fami2ies would be residing in themo The R-2 Zone, being of lower density and coverage than the R-3, required patios for ground floor units, and balconies for second- story uni+.so Mro Shoff noted that, although this was a new thought for the City, private developers had been providing outdoor living areas in an overwhelming number of caseso People are drawn to Southern California and Anaheim by the idea of outdoor living -- parks, trees, open spaces -- and many developers were providing this environmente Recognizing that there mi9ht be problems incorporating everything on a minimum-sized lot, Mra Shoff pointed out that the proposed revision allowed recreational-leisure spaces to be incorporated as part of the required yards around each buildingo The Calculation of yards around buildings was discussedo The proposal being to relate yards to building height, building length, and to the location of doors and windowso Yards, and distances between buildings would be based upon the use of inside and outside spacese Mro Shoff noted an error in the R-2 draft, in Section 180280050 (6-a and b), and that a corrected copy would be submitted to the Commission at the next public hearinge Commissioner Chavos, at this point, noted that the Staff should contact the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Realtors, and possibly other interested persons to discuss the zones with themo Mro Galen Moore, representing the Board of Realtors, concurred and asked for such a work session~ Mra Shoff responded that the Staff and Commission had both felt, in their numerous work sessions on the Multiple-Family Zones, that the Chamber and Board should certainly be in- volved irt the review of the zonesa The current public hearing was not an attempt to "slip the zones past" people, but to put the matter before the publico The Staff welcomed the opportunity to work with the Chamber and the Board, and this has, in fact, been a Depart- mental procedure in all zones adopted in the pasto He offered to schedule work sessions with the Chamber and Board at a time to be mutually agreed upon~ Commissioner Rowland expressed concern that, in attempting to make the zones more compatible with the Single-Family Zone, and in attempting to create a more desirable living environment, the land-use issue was being played downo He felt that, regardless of the living environment c~eated, the location of apartments was still an important pointo Mro Shoff replied that, very possibly the compatibility and livability features of the zones ~~ were being overemphasized, that the livability and compatibility features of the zones could stand on their own merits, and that the land-use decisions would still have to be made when petitions came before the Cortunission and Council~ ~ In response to Commission questioning, Mr~ Shoff stated that a Planned Residential Develop- ment could be applied for in any residential zone, subject to all the provisions of that zone, and further suhject to a conditional use permito He noted that, in the Single-Family Zones, PRD's would be held to single-family, detached dwellings, a` a d~.nsity of one dwelling for each 7200 square feet in the R-1 (or one~10,000 square feet in the R-0, or one~acre in the R-E) Zoneo The design flexibility would then apply to the location of houses, recrea- tional-leisure areas, access and parking, and other facets of developmento R-A. Aaricultural Zonee Mr. Shoff reviewed the proposed draft of Chapter 18a16, advising the Commission that the primary changes te the zone have been to (1) organize the zone as a holding zone, which the City Attorney has ruled that it is, and (2) make the wording, format, etco, comparable to the newer zoneso The Commission question the applicability of the R-A Zone in the Hill and Canyon Areao Mr. Shoff replied, noting that the R-E Zone is currently the City's one-acre estate zone, and that the Staff is currently working on a series of R-H Zoues, specifically designed for these areas, and that the R-H Zones would be brought before the Commission at an early work sessione ----------~ -- - .._..._ ._...._.. - _._.___._,_..-.--_____..___- ___ _. ___.._ ..-._....____.~. . i, ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, May 11, 1964 2102 AMENDMENT TO NRC. Natural Resources and Conser.a~ion Zoneo Mr, Shoff noted that TITLE 18 - ANAHEIM - this Chapter,18.61, would be a new addition to the Code, that the pro- MUNICIPAL CODE posed zone was basically a sand and gravel zone, very similar to the (Continued County's sand and gravel zone, and that the proposed zone would provide continuity of zoning upon annexation of land zoned S-G in the County. Mro Shoff compared the proposed NRC Zone with the County's S-G Zone, noting the similarities and differenceso ~ In response to Commission questioning, regarding Section 18.61.050(5)(I), Mr. Shoff stated that the liability insurance provision was required by the County, and was included in the ~ draft for discussion purposes only, and that although it appeared to be within the legal ; power of the City to require such insurance, the Staff did not feel that this was a proper exercise of the Zoning Powerso li Commissioner Camp stated that if this were applied through zoning, he would oppose it as a matter of principle since liability insurance was a matter of concern for the operator of the gravel pite Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that under Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, insurance was required for taxis, etc., but only where they were using public streets and utilitieso He stated that the City does not require insurance as a condition of zoning. Commissioner Rowland inquired as to the ultimate recreational use of the sand and gravel excavations along the Santa Ana River. Mr. Shoff noted that the General Plan states the City's policy of ultimately developing a"Riverview Park", using the sand pits and power- line easements along the river~ He noted that because the pits were near the settling basins of the Orange County Water District, the type of fill that could be put in the pits was severely limitedo In addition, John Collier, Director of Parks and Recreation, had noted that with minimal filling and earth moving, a park could be designed which used the excavations to good advantagea C-1, General Commercial Zoneo In reviewing the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.40, Mro Shoff stated that the draft systematized and incorporated the conditions which the Commission and Council had been attaching to petitions for commercial zoning, that these provisions had been put into the Ordinance to arrive at a uniform treatment for all com- mercial property, and that the C-0 Zone also served as a model in writing the C-lo Mr. Shoff stated that drafts of the C-2 and C-3 Zones had not been prepared at this timeo The C-2 was being incorporated as a part of the Center City Program, and the Staff might be able to obtain additional data from the plan that Victor Gruen Associates was preparing. The C-3 2one, from all appearances, was used primarily for service stations, and there was some question as to its future function. The C-2, C-3 Zones and a Commercial Recreation Zone would be the next zones to be studied by the Department~ Commissioner Rowland inquired as to the need for the interior setback where a commercial use abutted a residential usea He noted that the requirement of Fire Zone 2 would be adequate to protect residential areaso This would require certain materials insur.ing fire and noise protectione Mr. Shoff stated that the Department would investigate the potential use of Fire Zones in the Ordinance, with respect to this situationo Commissioner Rowland further stated that Suena Park has a regulation of this sorte Mro ~hoff then reqoested that the CoriUnission consider a continuance so that the Staff might ~ meet with the Board of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and other interested groups to review the zonese Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue the public hearing of Amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Titie 18, Chapters 18.16, 18028, 18032, 18040, 18061, and 18065 to the meeti- ing of June 22, at 7:00 o'clock p,m., in order that the Staff might meet with interesteC persons to review the program being proposede Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ADJOURNME M - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp off~red a motion to adjourn the meetinga Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 e`clock p,mo Respectfully subrnitted, ~i~~/J?~~ ANP; KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission .___.._._......._ ~ . . ....