Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/06/08_----_____ ~. _-- -- , --- ,~; --- --- ~.~ ~~ ~ . - t , , . City Hall ~ Anaheim, California June 8, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF TF~ ANAHEIM 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.M., a quorum being presento PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Rowland, Perry. -- -- - ABSENf - COMMISSIONERS: Gaue~e PRESENI - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend John Hart Olson of Sto Michael's Episcopal Church gave the Invocationa PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the evening meeting of May 119 and the meeting of May 25, 1964, were approved as submittedo GENERAL PLAN - COIJfINUED PUBLIC 1-IEARING~ INITIATED B`.' THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION~ AMENDMENT NOe 16 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan for Manchester Avenue easterly from Harbbr Boulevardo Subject General Plan Amendment was continued from the meeting of April 13, 1964, to allow time for the Engineering Department to prepare a study of the areao 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission it was his understanding the owner of.the property on the north side of Manchester Avenue would be presento Mro W;lliam Wenke, 2014 North Broadway, Santa Ana, attorney for Mrs. Hughes, the property owner of the property on the north side of Manchester Avenue, appeared before the Cornmission and stated an additional twelve feet would be required to be dedicated to the City of Anaheimy that Mrsa Hughes wished to object strenuously to providing any additional dedication to the City; that when the freeway on-ramp for Harbor Boulevard was built by the~State,~she was required to dedicate a considerable portion of her land to the State; that Mrse Hughes was being penali~;ed by the realignment of Manchester Avenue because the property owner on the south side of Manchester Avenue would not give the additional dedication; and from his view- point, Mrsa Hughes was paying for the improvements of the prooerty owner on the south side of Manchester Avenueo Chairman Mungall inquired whether the property owner of the service station and motel was present and received no :esponseo In response to a request for a report from the Engineering Department, Mra Arthur Da~, Office Engineer, stated the realignment of Manchester A•renue was proposed at the time the orig:nal owner dedicated and improved the property; that there was a change in the thinking of the Ci,ty, and Manchester Avenue was established as a secondary highway with the 90-foot dedica~ tion; that at the time a conditional use permit for the motel surrounding the service station on the south side of Manchester Avenue was considered by the Commission, the fact that a 45-foat half width would be required for a right-of-way on Manchester Avenue was brought to light; that the service station property owner refused to dedicate any additional.property because the undergsound tanks of the service station would be located within the dedicated right-of-way at the time the ultimate widening of the street became a fact; that the City would be required to purchase a portion of the property as well as relocate the tank facili- ties, and if this were not done, it would render the servica station useless for future expansion of these services~ such as pump islands on the Minchester Avenue frontage; that - 2121 - ,~ . _~ ---•-------- -___.. _.. ~.. _._., _ .__ ._. _. ....___...- , ::...,._ . .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,!~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June S, 1964 2122 i . ! GENERAL PLAN - since the City deemed it necessary to have Manchester Avenue a:secondary ~ AMENDMENf N0. 1 highway, the proposed realignment of Manchester Avenue was pregared for a (Continued the Commission's consideration; and that it was the~City's policy to somewhat compensate £or this additional dedication by participating in ~ the cost of paving, relocation of curbs and gutters, etco Mra Daw, in response to further questioning, stated that at the time the service station was-•approved and developed•in 1956, Manchester Avenue was not proposed to be a secondary highway. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to requiring one property owner to dedicate the larger portion of property for street widening purposes; that this was penalfzing one property owner in favor of the other; that this action might be something t:~e City Manager or City Council should negotiate with the property owner;in order to compensate far any land required for further dedication; and that if adequate compensation was given to the property owner on the north side of Manchester Avenue for any required dedication, this ~i~ht rgcQ].vB an unfortunate situationo Mro Daw then stated many streets within the City had off-set centerlines, such as Sunkist Street.from Lincoln Avenue to La Palma Avenue, Walnut Street from Cerritos to Kateila Avenue; that the proposed type of action had been accomplished in the past; and when the requirement of secondary highway for Manchester Avenue was adopted three years ago, through•an oversigbt the off-set portion immediately east of Harbor Boulevard was not requiredo Mr. Wenke then asked Mr. Daw whether or not the tanks were located in the ultimate right-of- way,.and whether any survey had been made by the City to substantiate the service station property owner's statemento i Mro Daw stated the tanks were not quite under the proposed widening; that an investigation had been made by the Building Department insaector, and the tanks would be located in the ~ sidewalk portion of the ultimate right-of-way, which would prevent any future expansion of ~ the sexuice station since they proposed to have pump islands on the Manchester Avenu~ frontagee ' ( Continued discussion by the Commission relative to a study being made to determine the expense ~ involved in the relocation of the tanks compared with acquisition of property from the proper- ; ty owner on the north side of Manchester Avenue; that since the City required a 90-foot right- of-way .fox secondary highway for Manchester Avenue, this should be taken into consideration since the Commission and City Council policy regarding freeway frontage property in the Disneyland Area approved multi-story buildings and structures, and'considerably More traffic would evolve from this type of constructiono In..response to Ce:runission questioning relative to the actual location of the existing tanks, Mr< Daw stated the taaks were located approximately one foot within the ~ltimate 45-foot dedication; that it would be under the sidewalk portion of the dedication; and that,publ3c utilities, such as sewers and electric power, were usually placed in the sidewalk portion ~ of, the dedication, and it would not be advisable to grant an encroachment under the ultimate ~ sidewalk since the Building Code would not provide for ita ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue GenEral Plan Amendment No. 16 to the ~ meeting of July 8, 1964, in order to allow the Engineering Department sufficient time to make a study of the ultimate cost of the relocation of the existing tanks in the service 1 station property on the south side of Manchester Avenue, and the acquisition of property ~ from the property owner on the north side of Manche~ter Avenueo Commissioner Chavos seconded y the mationa MOTION CARRIEDe ~ RECLASSIF.ICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EDWARD E. HESSE, 1694 Sumac Lane, Anaheim, ~ Nn. 63-64-113 California, 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 Larse and Euclid ~ Stxeet with frontages of 73 feet on the south side of Sumac Lane and 100 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, and further described as 1694 Sumzc Lane, be reclassified from the , R-L,.ANE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBCRHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEs to~ESTABLISH ~ A BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGa , Subject petition was continued from the meetiny of May 11, 1964, in order to allow thE petitioaer time to resolve with the ad;acent property owner to the south regarding removal of, the existing masonry wail and obtain an easement over said propertya Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney fo- the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the reason fur continuance of subject petition from the previous meeting, further stating he had attempted to obtain cooperation from the property owner to the south for the removal of the masonry wall and the provision of an easement ove: the property line, but was unable ~ ~. .,. ~ _. -...,...... . 1 T,,.._.._._.-- -- . .... ~` ~~ ~ ~'i MINU'IES, ~STY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8, 1964 2123 RECLASSIFICATION - to receive any commitment, and that the revised pian su~bmittec} indicated NOe 3- 4r113 a 6-foot masonry wall together with additional landscapfrig to esthetically (Continued screen from view any commezcial development, and that sincP the access to Euclid Street was dedicated to the County, and subsequently to•the City, no access could be gained to Euclid Street; therefore, Sumac Lane would be,the only ingress and egress for the proposed officeso No~,one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARI!~G WAS CLOSEDe Discussion held by the Commission relative to adequate parki.ng spaces indicated sufficient pai~kiny w~es providedo ~ Coaamissioner Perry expressed concern the ~roposed development was considerably different than the r-1--~:cp~_ty approved on the rert~~a~+_ corner ef S,1mac Lane and Euclid Str~~t; that it was possible the City would be opening up Sumac Lane for strip commercial•develop- ment in the residences, Khich in his estimation was not a good method of p~anning for the Ci~y or.-tfie a:eao Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated the:e was dana~r of cars backing into the travel lane on Euclid Street; therefore the City would not consider approval of the relinquish- ment of access rights to Euclid Street, and in discussion of elimination o~ parking areas to permit~access to Euclid Street, the Commission noted there would be inadequate space to.pxovide such an accesso Co~missioner howland stated tile Commission should consider the land use for the property , rather thgn t*ying to resolve the adequacy of the proposed plano Copunissioner Chavos stated the Commission had anproved the C-1 aoning for the property on the northeast corner of Sumac Lane and Euclid S,:reet, and the Commission was not in a position to deny a similar request ort the opposite corner, although he was not in.favor of permitting commercial traffic on a residential street such as Sumac Lane, and that C-2 ` zoning existed immediately adjacent to subject property to the southo ~ ; Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-113 be disapprovedo For lack of a second, the motion was losto Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1179, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ' and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City ~ouncil that Petition for Reclassi;ication Noa 63-64-113 be approved, suhject to conditions~ (See Resolution Booke) On•roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONE4S: Allred, Camp, Chavos, MunSall, Rowlando NOES~ COMMISSIONERS: Perryo A$$ENfs ~ COMMISSIONERSs Gauere COjdilLiIpNAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LEO FREEDMAN, 2012 Coldwater Canyon Drive~ Ba~verly P~RMIT N0. 574 Hills, California, Owner, requesting permission to ESTABLISH A TEN-STORY HOTEL WITH OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AIdD A TEN-STORY OFFICE BUILDING GE~IERAL P.LAN WITH COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AND ON-SALE LIQUOR AT BOTH LOCATIONS,.on property Ab~NDMEAIT. N0. 1 described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land 505 feet.by 974 feet in size and containing approximately 905 acres, the western bounoary of said property being approximately 660 feet east of the centerl'ine of Harbor Boulevard, and the southern boundary of said property being approximately 205 feet north of the centerline of Freedman Way, Property presently classified as M-1, L•IGHT INDUSTRIA,L~ ZONE. Subject General Plan Amendmeni:,initiated by the Anaheim Planning Commission, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposes the establishment of Clement~ne Street and Freedman Way as collector streetse Mxl. Preston Turner, attorney for Altec-Lansing Company, appeared before the Commission to pxtesent opposition relative to the abandonment of Alro Avenue which was pending boefore the Ci~ty Courscil and was to be considered on June 16, 1964, asking the Commission to postpone any consideration of subject petition until a.°ter the a;.n~onment proceedings had been re- solved by the City Council, since his client would be ••• :ily affecied if Alro Avenus was permitted to be abandoned because of recent cor.~' •: on the assumption that Alro .+venue would he carried throagh to Harbor Boulevard~ ---- __~__ _ ._ __._. ..___ _ ..__._._. ._. _._.. _._....._~...__ ___ _.__..._.._.. ~ _.._... ., ~ , . ~.. % ~ ~ i I . ~` ~ MLNUT~, ;CITY PLANNIldG COMMISSION, June 8, 1964 ~ ~~ ~ 's 2124 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Leo Freedman, the petitioner, appeared before the Coireniss~on and PERMIT NQ. 574 stated ~he original dedication of Alro Avenue was based'bn the fact that Alro AVenue would continue through to Harbor Boulevards ~hat sub- GENERAL PLAN sequently a variance was granted to permit the estabii~shment of a motel AMENDMENf NOo 1 on Harbor Boulevard which negated any possibility of extending Alro (.Continued Avenu~ to Harbor Boulevard; that for a distance of approximately a mile along Harbor Boulevard no east-west street existed; that~a street 60 feet by 1300 feet, known as Freedman Way, was dedicated by him to the City, and it was his proposal to extend Freedman Way to Haster Street if abandonment proceed- ings were approved for Alro Avenue; that expenses had been budgeted by the State for a Manchester Avenue interchange at Katella, coming from the south - this woutd then be a more convenient exit for people leaving the Santa Ana Freeway to attend any Melodyland function, thereby avoiding all Disneyland traffic; that all dedication and street improvements along the Charter House Hotel and Freedman Way had been paid by himself; that the abancionment of Al,ro Avenue and Clementine Street was necessary in order to implement and utilize an over- all plan of land use development for the properties immediately south of the existing dedicated ri;h+._of-Way ef A~ro p~,onu?x tha:r_there would be no cut-off of access to Altec- Lansing; that the area proposed for abandonment would be used as parking space and would be open for easy accessibility; that he was willing to cooperate with the Altec-Lansing Company in providing adequate acce~s to their loading platform; that although it was hoped ' ta name the proposed new hotel "Melodyland Hotel", the name "Melodyland" was the exclusive ~ property of the Melodyland Theater people, and he wa; negogiating for the use of the name; ; that he would be the owner-lessor of the hotel and office complex; that Freedman Way would ~ be dedicated and complete improvements to Haster Street would be made by himself; and that ? this would then reduce the traffic flow from NL~nchester Street when the theater was in ~ operationo , Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt inquired of Mro Freedman whether there was a proposal to maintain the presently dedicated Clementine Street along the easterly portion of subject propertyo Mro Freedman replied it was his desire to carry through the abandonment of every- thing north of the power lines; that he had purchased a strip of land 60 feet by 175 feet fram the Southern California Edison Company at two different locations and had bonded for the improvements of the extension of Freedman Way, Mra Turner again appea:ed before the Commission and stated Altec-Lansinr~ were concerned whether or not the petitioner in his proposal included the development of Alro Way for park3ng purposeso Mxo Freedman then stated this is possiblee Mro Turner then stated thai; in accordance with the two maps he had exhibited, t3~e Commissi.on should consider continuation of subject petition until the City Council determined whether or not Alro Avenue would lie abandoneds that the flow of traffic might deter fire equipment from having access to A;tec-Lansing property in the event of a fire; that a narrow structure had been constructed on the south side of the Altec-Lansing property on the assumption that Alro Avenue was a dedicated street; that the loading platform could be reached only by the use of Alro Avenue; that the problems of fire protection, traffic back-up, traffic conges- ti.on, and access to the area from Nanchester Avenue became quite pronounced duriris~ certain times of the~day because of the heavy traffic concentration; that if Alro Avenue was main- tained as a dedicated street, this would provide ready access from the fire station located at Manchester and Alro Avenues; that if the abandonment was approved, thi.s would require fire equipment to detour approximately six blocks in order to gain access to the Altec-Lansing prAperty in the event of a fire; and that if the abandonment was not approved~ basic changes would be necessary in the conditional use permita In..r~sponse to Commission questioning, Mro Turnex~ stated A1ro Ave~ue had been dedicated by Mro Freedman; that Altec-Lansing had not contributed toward its development; that the Commis- sion must understand an easement was not invoked at the present time except for a short distance from the fire station; that although Alro Avenue served only Altec-Lansing and Mre Freedman's property for trash pick-up, fire protection and traffic circulation, the fire trucks would need ready access to thes~ properties, and the Commission should have the recom- mendation of the Fire Chief and Engineering Department before approving sub,~ect petitiona The Commissic;n inquired how the Altec-Lansing Company was being served for trash1pick-up at the present time. Mr. Ward, President of Altec-Lansing Company, appeared before the Commission and stated that trash pick-up, loading, and unioading was being done at the loading dock at the westerly portion of the Altec property; that at the time the most recent structure was presented for building plans eight months ago, the Engineering Department was contacted relative to Alro Avenue, and had been informed by the Engineering Department Altec-Lansing would be able to develop a new structure, and that Altec-Lansing would be ready and willing to pay for their share of paving Alro Avanue in order to obtain an entrance to the rear parking lo~ which was needed, and that since the problem of the possible abandonment of Alro Avenue was already being considered.by the City Council, said payment could not be made, but that a bond to insure these street improvements would be made had been filed with the Cityo _-.° _ ,.______.._._ ~ .-_---...___~_, _ _ _ _._._ - t ' . ~ ~ .._ . ~' ~ ~~ ~ . MINUTES,•CITY PLANNING COMI~IISSION, June 8, 1964 2125 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT_N0. 574 Mre Ward then stated Mre Turner had failed to mention another basic GENERAL PLAN factor in the abandonment of Alro Avenue: that all drainage from the AMENDMEI1f NOa 21 property northerly of Aitec-Lansing went through the parking area and (Continued) then on to Mr. Freedman`s property; that all plans relative to drainage were approved by the City Engineer on the assumption that when Alro Avenue was improved, drainage facilities would be incorporated into that street for drainage of Altec-Lansing and all properties to the north, and if this were not done, the parking area would be inundated with approximately one foot of water every time it rained, and upon discussion of this problem with the Engineering Department, he was informed if Alro Avenue was abandoned, the City would have no further responsibili- ty to get rid of the water, and it would be the entire responsibility of Altec-Lansing to take care of the drainage probleme In response to Commission questioning, Mro Ward stated the question was whether or not a dedicated right•-of-wa, she~ld bs abandoned; that there had been na.physical improvements on this dedicated right-of-way; that if the right-of-way was not abandoned, in the future these street improvements and drainage facilities wouid be installed in conjunction with the traffic plan considered by the Traffic Engineer which would provide adequate drainage facilities southerly to Freedman Wayo The-Commission inquired of Mr, Freedman whether he was aware of these drai:iage problems, and whether he had a possible method of disposal of the drainage coming from the properi.y bordering his property to the north. Mro Freedman replied that when the Melodyland Theater was built, adequate drainage lines were incorporated both on Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street; that he was aware the water would drain from A1tec~Lansing, and it would be an abso- lute necessity to provide for adequate drainage since his parking facilities would also be inundated by water drainage; that if Alro Avenue was abandoned, provision could be made for an easement for such drainage, and he would stipulate to this as being something he would providee The Commission further inquired whether or not Mro Freedman considered giving some sort of, an easement to Altec-Lansing to provide access through his parking lot for trash pick- up aad loading purposes on the loading docks on the westerly portion of the Altec-Lansing propertyo Mro Freedman repiied this could be accomplished by eliminating six traffic or parking stalls on the northwest corner of his property; that the same trash pick-up would be.provided for his structures and would be using the same access to Altec-Lansing, and this pick-up was presently being made to Altec-Lansingo Mre Rex~Scott, General Manager of Robertshaw Controls, appeared before the Commission and.stated his concern was also with the abandonment of both Alro Avenue and Clementine Street; that it was his understanding the Clementine frontage was property dedicated by his company at the time it was purchased from Mro Freadman; that at the time a chenge in zoning was being considered, this dedication was a requi.rement in •~;,der to obtain~the M-1 zoni.ng, since it appeared at that time that Clementine Btreet was a necessary~street; that if substantial development occurred in the area, the exi;ension of Clenientine~Street would be necessary to provide adequate traffic circulation; that if Clementine Street were carried through, it would enhance the value of their property wi:ich was the ma~or considera- tion at the time the property was purchased; that the drainage problem was also their concern since the drainage from Manchester Avenue now flowed under their property through to Alro Avenue; and that he would also be concerne9 about where this flow of water would goe Zoning Cc~idinator Martin Kreidt informed the Commission the petition was unalear:as to the proposed height limitation in con,junction with the 35-foot height waiver now pending on the property; that it would be necessary that the Commission be specific in..~he event subject petition was approved, as to the exact height limitation being wa~ved; and that it would..be•very helpful if Mr. Freedman specified the height of the structures,including signs, being propused. Mr. Freedman stated he had had a meeting with Mro Ed~E~e , Marketing Manager of Disney- land, selative to the height limitation; that this height would be maintained at approxi- mately 125 feet, including all signss that in order to maintain this height limitation, one floor was eliminated, and the structures were relocated easterly to avaid•any visual in.trusion; that he was attempting to cooperate with the Disneyland people, and tha~ in ansNer.ta the manager of Robertshaw Controls relative to dedication of Clemantir treet~ at the time the purchase was made, 4a92 acres was purchased; that no allowa~.u a.wa ;de for dedication of a street; that only 40 to 50 employees were on the premises _~;c! shoulc, provide no traffic problem; that the structure on the Robertshaw Controls property was only 160 feet by 60 feet, and in his estimation this development of 4092 acres was not utilizing the high- est and best use of the lando i ~ 9-___-. _.---_ _- - ---~,.,._... ____..__ _ : ~ . ~--- - _"_ . .. _ . _. __ ..^ 1 ~:. .._.,~._._~___ .. ~ _ . ._._._ __..~~ _ ____ ~ ~ / ~ ~i ~ !'J - ~ '; ~ MIMIIESr.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8, 1964 2126 ' ~ i CONDIT.IONAL USE - Mro Wallace Wade re resentin Disne land a ~ , p g y , ppeared before the-Comm'~ N ~ FERMIT N(>o 574 sion and stated he was.Aeb aware Mro Freedman had met with Mro-•Ed~ ; - that Mre Freedman had agreed to the removal of one story, representing ~, GENE@AL PLAN fourteen feet - the reduction of this story then brought the height of ~ AMENDA~~ NT N. 21 the structure to 106 feet, and no opposition would be voiced by Disney- (Continued) land if the height limitation was maintained, including the signs~ to ; a naximum of 125 feeta THE..E~ARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to evidence presented to them regarding the abandonment of Alro Avenue and Clementine Street;since this was under the jurisdiction of the City Council, that if the Commission considered subject petition favorably, the condition of development in accordance with plans, would require the submission of revised plans if the abandonment proceedings were not approved by the City Council,and then inquired of Mr~ Kreidt the specific conditions to be attached to subject petitiono Mro Kxe3dt advised tt,e Commission there were three additional conditions to•those in the i Staff Report which the Commission might wish to consider, which could be attached and had been recommended by the City Engineer, in order to save time in the event action was taken by th~a Commission today, and :vere as follows: (1) that adequate interior private drives and circulation facilities for the property be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; (2} that the existing dedicated right-of•-way along the easterly property line ~ be 'mproved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and (3) that the owner of subject i property deed to the City of Anaheim a 30-foot public utility sewer and drainage easement ~ along the westerly boundary of subject propertyo ; ; The Commission then stated that since the land use was no different than had been developed ~ in the past, that if development was in accordance with plans approved by the Commission as of this date, and the abandonment proceedings were not approved, revised plans ~vould have to ~ be submitted, and that the entire project was based upon the abandonment of the dedicated ; righ~-of-way of Alro Avenue and Clementine Streeto a Mr4 Kreidt then advised the Commission a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element ~ was to be considered in conjunction with subject petition since Freedman Way and Clementine StreEt were collector streetsa . The Commission stated no action should be taken on the General P1an Amendment until the City Council determined what was to be done about the requested abandonment proceedings for Alro Avenue and Clementine Streeto Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to Mro Freedman`s stipulation he would permit.access throu9h his property to Altec-Lansing for trash pick~-up; whether or not this should be a requirement, or whether this was a private easement over which the Commission had no.control; that since Mre Freedman had stated the height limitation would be~approxi•- mately 125 feet, this limitation should also include any signs which might be projected on the roof of any structure, and that Mr. Freedman had expressed his v~illingness to cooperate relative to drainage easements and access easements for adjacent property owner to the north. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1185, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 574, waiving the required 35-foot height limitation by permitting a maximum-height of 125 feet, which shall include any signs ~thereont that the petitioner stipulated to.the Commission he would record private easements alung the northerly property line to insure trash truck pick-up for ine property owner to the north; provision that the petitioner provide adequate interior private drives and circulation facilitiesg a 30-~foot public utility sewer and drainage easement on the westerly boundary of subject property; and improvement of the existing dedicated right-of-way on the east property Iine to tl~e satis- faction of the City Engineer, and conditionsa (See RESOlution Booke) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: . COh'~ufISSIONERSs None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Gauera Commissionor Camp offered a motion to continue General Plan Amandment Noo 21 to the meeting of June 22, 1964, in order that the Commission might determine the ultimate abandonment proceedings for Alro Avenue and Clementine 5treeto Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ... . _..----.. _---- ~ --- ----.. __.._~.__. ~ •- ,... - -- _ . .~- - ----_ _ ~ ____ __ _~..~_. a~~ i ~ ~ ~ j MINI,ZTES,,CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, June 8, 1964 2127 RECL6SSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JOE A. Ci+NO, 937 North Claudina 5treet, Anaheim, NOo.63-64-124 California, Owner; ALBERT Ao MAR(:OUX, 817 North Clementine Street, Anaheim, California, Agent, requesting that property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 40 feet on the west~side of Lemon Street and a depth of 130 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 525 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described as 1129 North Lemon Street, be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RHSIDENTIAL, ZONE, to the G2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEa Mr. Albert Marcoux, 817 North Clementine Street, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and requested the Commission consider subject petition at this hearing even though the Staff Report indicated a recommended ~nntinuance of four weeks, since it.was apparent the area would be ultimately developed iur commercial purposese No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE I~ARING WAS CLOSED. Zoniny Coordinc+tor Martin Kreidt presented a land use study of the area for the Commis- sion°s consideration, further noting curbs and gutters were installed on the east side of Lemon Street, but not on the west side; that the alley shown at the rear was a.private alley; that a request for abandonment was being considered by the City Council which might seriously affect subject property; that a recent petition had been filed with the Planning Department relative to the northwest corner of L2mon and Anaheim Boulevard; that the City had purchased property westerly of the existing private alley to the rear of subje~:t property-for parking purposes; that the ultimate widening of Lemon Street would-project througb the front porch of the existing structure; that if subject petition were approved, temporaxy encroachment and waiver of sidew3lks might be made; and that tne Staff••recommend- ed the continuance in order to give them an opportunity to meet with the property owners and p*_epare an Area Development Plan which would indicate the ultimate development of all those properties northerly of Anaheim Boulevard on the west side of Lemon Streeto Mro.Maxcoux then stated his client was willing to comply with all of the conditions stipulated in the Staff Report, and in response to Commission questioning relative to parking facilities, stated the petitioner was operating under a variance until some futurp date, which continuance was granted by the City Councilo ,:~ 1 i ~ ( i ~ Mro Kreidt then stated the variance was granted for ar indefinite period in I957, which proposed two office buildings for office use; that when the petitioner inquired of the City Council an interpretation of "office use", the City Council granted a 90-day temporary permit provided the petitioner filed a reclassification of the property to its most appro- priate zoneo The Commission inquired whether or not it could be recommended that an extension of time be granted, and in the meantime the Area Development Plan could be prepared and presented ! to.the Co~miission since the most appropriate zoning might be C-0, Commercial Office, Zone ~ becaus~„ of its close proximity to the municipal courtso Mr, Kreidt advised the Commission that the variance was granted in 1957 for office build- ~ ings; that the present use was granted by the City Council, which would expire on July 140 3 The Commission expressed concern that the Lemon Street frontage of subject property would ~ be deleted for any ingress and egress to the property; that parking at the rear portion of ~ subject property would be lost if the proposed abandonment took place, and inquired of ~ Mro Kreidt the approximate time the Area Development Plan would be completeda ~ Mr. Kreidt replied if subject petition were continued four weeks, and action was ~y~sA~uently ~ taken..by the Commi~sion, this information could be relayed to the City Council at •t.h4 time ~ the time limitation of the operation of the beauty shop and barber shop expired, anci ihat the Area Develppment Plan might be dovetailed into the proposed service station at •~he same ~ meetinga Mre William Pebley advised the Commiesion he was opposed to C-2 zone, because too many uses were permitted, and an ;:ld house was being used for that purposeo Mr. Marcoux stated his clients were willing to accept any "C" zoning the Commissibn consider- ed desirableo Cortmissioner Camp offere~ a motion to reopen the hearing and continue P~tition for Reclas- sification No. 63-64-124 to the meeting of July F3, 1964, in order that an Area Development Plan might be prepared and advertised fo•r public hearingo Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. __ ---____...-----....__._------------....._....____..__--_.._...-----_._.__~ - - 1' , • . ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8, 1964 2128 1[AR7;~IVCE N0. 1639 - PUBLIC HEARINGo CATI-IERINE A. WHITE, 102 West La Palma Avenue~ Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to REi~UILD AND EXPAND ExISTING MATTRESS ASSEMBLY PLANT TO INCLUDE LARGER RETAIL SALES FACILITIES AND WAIVE REQUIRED PARKING on property described as: An irreguiarly shaped-parcel of land at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Zeyn Street, rrith frontages of 121 feet on La Palr~a Avenue and 99 feet on Zeyn Street, and further described as 104-102 West La Palma Avenueo Property presently ~lassified as C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, Mrs.•Catherine White, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and revie~•ved the proposed development, stating it was her desire to tear down and rebuild the ex!sting structure; that the proposed structure would be an improvement to the City, and inquired what was meant by the condition "a 10-foot alley be dedicated"o Office.Engineer Arthur Daw replied that the intent was to acquire an additional two and one-half..feet from the centerline of the alleya It was also suggested by Mr, Daw that a 15-foot radius return at Zeyn and Lemon Streets be provided in order to eliminate any lina of sight problem entering into La Palma Avenuee No,one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona The..petitioner presented a petition signed by eighteen persons favoring the proposed addition to the existing facilitieso THE HEA&ING WAS CLOSED. Coromissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1180, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry~ to grant Petition £or Variance Noo 1639, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On~roll call the foregoipg reeolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: Gauero VARIANCE N0~ 1~f40 ~- PUBLIC HEARING~ NARRY No COOK, 817 South Seventh Street, Alhambra, California, Owner; ROBERT Eo ANDERSON, 741 West Williamson Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF STRUCTURAL SETBACK AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPING on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land at.the.oorthwest corner of the Riverside Freeway right~of-way and State College Boulevard~ the northern boundary of saic? property being approximately 350 feet south of the centerline of Via Burton and further described as 1419 North State College Boulevardo Property presently classified as P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING and M~-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONESo- Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented an exhibit indicating the existing centerline of State College Boulevard northerly of subject property, and the location of structures adjacent to the on-ramp e: the Riverside Freeway; that the only variance required in the proposed ~velopment would be the landscaping requirement in the M-1 zone, and indicated on...the exhibit the existing landscaping on the property northerly of subject propertyo Mr..Robert Anderson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Cortunission and stated the recommended conditions in the approval of subject petition were acceptable, except that he was desirous of having the landscapin3 abutting the front parking area removed because it would be inadequate for a turning space for parking adjacent to the landscaping, since this was only a 25-foot drive, The Commission informed the agent for the petitioner there was more than su.fficient room for parking~ and the elimination of one parking stall in the front setback would not be considered a hardship, but that the turning radius into the parking arFa could be rounded out in order to provide adequate linr_ of sighto The Commission instructed the Planning Staff to revise the Exhibit "B" to provide a corner cut-off on the landscaping adjacent to the 25-foot drive entering subject propertys No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WRS CLOSEDo Cnmmissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1181, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petitlon for Variance No. 1640, ~ubject to conditionse (See Resolution Bool:e) V-• ~ ~. .\ `r ~ .. _.~.._ _-___. -~ ---- -- -- _~ __ _ _ _~ _ _---- ---~ _M.-.,-~ ,...._ '. . ... ... -.. ' ~ ~ , -___._ , _...._.. . ~ _.__ _ . ;~ ... ,U ~ ._. ___ f 4 ~`'7 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8, 1964 2129 ~ ~ VARIAI~E ~IO. 1640 - On roll call -the foregoing *~esolution was passed by the following I Continued~- vote: , AYESs COMMISSIONERSc Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENf: COMMISSIONERSs Gauer. . CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. INTERtJATIONAL HARVHSTER COMPANY, 4501 South Alameda PERMIT N0. 575 Street, Los Angeles 54, California, Owner; DAVID T. WITIiERLY, 1771 Hiilhurst Avenue, Los Angeles 27, California, Agent, requesting permission to ESTABLISH RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE FOR NEW AND USED TRUCKS on property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 304 feet o~ the south side of Katella Avenue and a depth of 507 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 660 feet east of the centerline of Lenis Street, and further described as 1110 East Katella Avenue< Property presently classified a; ~;-1, ;.IGEP' :,~CJSTRInL, and P-L, PHkKihiC;-LANL~CAI~ING, ZONESe Mr. Arthur Beanes, Resident ~l,anagpr of the Santa Ana Branch of the International Harvester Company, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, further noting that the 20-foot strip of landscaping would be the full width of the property~ that a display area for new trucks only would be located approximately 30 feet from the curb: that it was not their intention to display the merchandise as passenger automobile dealers did, since their business was dealing with industries more than trying to merchandise their property from the street; that one sign would be erected behind the landscaping areas that all used vehicles would be parked on the side of the proposed structure; that it was pro- posed to obtain the services of a landscaping architect in order to present an attractive laadscaping area in the front setback of sub,ject property; that t~o flags, banners~ flash- ing lights or signs other than the one indicated previously would be erected on the property since it was not their intention to display outward advertising; that it was their intention to have the property have a similar, or better, appearance than the Genesal Foods plant constructed acrose the street; that the recommendat'on that the business be conducted entirely inside of the area would create a hardship since the trucks would be stored outside, and it would be physically impossib~e to display them indoors; and in response to Commission ques- tioniny relative to servicing trucks at this location, Mr. Beanes stated any minor.repair would.be conducted entirely indoors; that overhead doors were being provided, and these would be kept closed which would minimize any noise factor; that his company would be agree- able to the installation of sidewalks if the City felt this was entirely necessary, but that he.would prefer not to place sidewalks at this time until development of the entire area warranted the installation of sidewalkse Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated the Director of Public Works was attempting to acquire.commitments to install sidewalks in the City on arterial highways; that this par- ticular area might have some type of pedestrian traffic with the proposed new stadium; and that the proposed operation was considered a retail operation which might necessitate requiring sidewalks. Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated no opposition would be indicated by the Engineering Dep~rtment for the construction of sidewalks in an industrial area; that this was n~t a necessary requiremant, but if the petitioner wanted sidewalks, there would be no ob,~ectiono The Commission noted Mr. Kreidt had brought out the fact that sidewa~ks might be required ~ for .pedestrian walks at the time the stadium was built., to which Mr. Daa~ stated the recommenda- tion.would be for temporary waiver of sidewalks only. wouldSbenad~acent~toithenbuildinglfrontsonlyq thatlnew trucksawouldtbeeparked~behindrthe9 landscaping on Katella; and the reason the proposed site was being projected for the sales of.trucks was that he did not consider his operation primarily a retail op~rations that their business ~vas primarily with large concerns; and that tractors and farm implements were a different operation. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TI-i~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission expressed the opinion that the proposed use was a compatible use a~s indicated in the.Conditional Use Section of the M-1 Zone and might be construed as being incidental and necessary to a manufacturing section. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1182, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petitfon for Conditional Use Permit No. 575, subject to conditions, and further provided that no flags, banners, flashing lights or display signs shall be exhibited as stipulated by the petitioner, and as the • ----_ ~._._.. .._~ -__ ----.__ ._ .............__......._...---._._...___ _._,~___- -- _ _ .. -~ ~ __ .._- - ---- .. ..... ~ ~ MII9UTES~ CIiY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8, 1964 l.l 2130 CONDITIONAL USE - petitioner further stipulated, only new trucks would be displayed in PERMIT N0. 575 the front setback area behind the landscaping setbacko (See Resolution Continued) Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYEBs CONA7ISSIONERS: Allred,~ Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs CONWIISSIONERS: Nonea ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Gauero Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recortunend to the C~.ty Council that a temporary waiver of sidewalks be granted to the petitioner of Conditional Use Permit Noe 575, pro- vided that there is no permanent planting within the sidewalk areao Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION GA6RIED, RECIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC IiEARINGe STEHLY PROPERTIES, ET AL, 1336 South Brookhurst Street, N0. 63-64-122 Anaheim, California, Owne:s; Ae J. LITTMAN, 1811 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent, requesting thati property described as: An GHNERAL PLAN irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of aForoximately AMENDMENT NOD 23 1,281 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a ciepth of approxi- mately 1,300 feet, the southern boundary of said property being•approxi- mately 427 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue be reclassi- fied from the R-A; RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEMIAL, ZONE. Subject General Plan Amendment, initiated by the Anaheim Planning Commission, is in conjunction with the reclassification of subject propertyo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a request from the developer for the petitioner~ requesting that subject petition be continued ;or four weeks in order that development plans might be submitted for the Co~nission°s considerationo Chairman Mungall advised the interestec! opposition this was their notice that sub~ect petition would be continued for four weeks since no plans were submitted, and the Commis- sian would not consider a petition unless development plans were submitted for their considerationo Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-122 and General Plan Amendment No. 23 to the meeting of July 8, 1964, requesting that it be the first item scheduled on the afternoon agenda in•order that the developer might submit development plans for subject propertyo Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe RECESS - Commissioner Ailred offered a motion to recess temporarily for ten minuteso Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:15 o'clock pom. RECONVENE. - Chairman Mungali reconvened the meeting at 4s30 o'clock poma•y all Commissioners being present with the exception of Commisstoner Gauer, RECLASSIEICATION - COMINUED PUBLIC [-IEARINGo JOHN NUNEMAN, 419 East Orangewood Avenue, N0. 63-64-105 Anaheim, Cali£ornia, Owner; Jo 8 Bo DEVELOPII~NT COMPANY, P. 0. Box 3366, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as= A rectangularly CONDITIO"4L USH shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 330 feet on the north side of PE&MIT NG. 560 Orangewood Avenue and a depth of 640 feet, the westerly boundar}~ of said property being approximately 1,320 feet east of the cen+,erline of Haster Street, and further d~:scribed as 419 East Or.angewood Avenue. Froperty presentl,y classified as R-A, RESIDENTiAL AGRICULTURAL, ZOi1Eo REQiJESTED CLASSIFICATIONt R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAI.~ ZONE. REGUES?ED CONDITIONAL USE: (1) ESTABLISH A ONE~~TWO~ AND THREE-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL DEVELOPII~NT WITH WAIVER OF TF`E REQUIRED GARAGES TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORTS~ ANA (2) WpIVER OF THE ONE-STORY F~IGFff LIMITA7ION WITHIN 150 FELT OF R-A ZONED PROPERTi'. Suhfect petitions were continuod from the meeting of April 13, 1964, in orde•r to allow the developer sufficient time to submit revised plans and file a tentative tract mapo Zoning Coordinator Martfn Kreidt reviewed the Report to the Commission relative to the .~- --_~_._ ` \ I I -- ----• ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8~ 1964 2131 RECLASSIF•.ICATION - proposed development, stating the City Attorney would haVe to rule as ~ NOo.63-64-105 to whether or not waiver of the garages and height limitation coul.d k~e ~ .overed in Conditional Use Permit No. 560, since C~nditiona~ Use'!~erm3* CODIDIxIONAL USE No. 560 was originally filed as part of a Planned Resideniia~i De~ieiepmeni: PER6iIT..N0.o.560 which subject development no longer incorporateso ; (Continued) i . Deputy City Attorney Furmen Robert: stated that sinca the conditional ~ use permit was already advertised, the waiver of the garages and heiyht limitation could ~ be accomplished through said petitione f Mr. Jack Jolly, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiss:on ar.d revieKec the ~ revised plans of development, noting the circular-shaped structure was prnposed for three h story construction; that previoysly the plans of development indicated eight individ~aal i buildings, whereas the present ones met all R-3 Code requirement~~ ~ Mr. Kreidt stated that the three-story construction would be on the south:+rly twa-~.hirds of.the property where the petitioner was able to incraase the ~v~bar cf d~~ci2isig cn?.t~ while decreasing the coverage; that no provision was made for a dedicat,Qd alley on the west,property line, and it was ~roposed to eliminate the masonry wall to provide access to the alleye Mr. Jolly stated it was not their desire to provide alley access throuyh to Pearson Street , because,.off-site traf:ic was not desirable, and it was decided to construct carports in I lieu of garageso Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Comrtrission t:ie drive was not a dedicated one and could be blocked off at any time; that the reason for requesting the alley be extended through subject property was to provide two alley accesses to Orangewood Avenue and two ~ to Pearson Street, ancl further providing for Pearson Street to b= extended through subject ~ pxoperty to the East; and that the alley was parallel to the property easterly of Sp:.nnaker which no longer provided access to said propertyo I i Further recommendation by Mra Kreidt indicated that a tract map could be filed which would I resolve any difficulties within the proposed development, and since the dediceted street was proposed, this would be one of the requirements, and further recommended the Commission waive the required garages and the height limitation unde^ conditionai u;~e permit< f No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ ~ Discussion was held regarding the elevations of Parcel "B", and .*.he Commissian requested if any development plans were submitted, the developer imp.rove the architectural comoati- i bility of the structures for Parcel "B", and these should be reviewed and approved ~•,. i Development Review prior to the issuance of a building permito j Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No~ 1183, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passaye ` and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- ~ tion.for Reclassification No. 63-b4~:05 be approved, subject to cond'•tions and the submission of revised el~~~ations projecting a mo*e compatible living environment. (See Resolution Eiook.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the,following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOESs COMMISSION~RS: Nonee ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Gauero ~ Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1184, Series 1963-64, and moved for :ts passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 560, with a waiver of the required garages to construct carports and waiver of the one- story height limitation ad~acent to R-1 property to, permit the development on Parcel "A" with a structure 33 feet in height, and Parcel "B" with structures 20 feet in height, and conditionso (See Resolution Hook.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes I AYESe COMNIISSIOIJERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall. Perry, Rowlande NOES: COMMISSTONERSs None. ~ ABSENTs COMMISSI~Iv£RSs Gauero ~ --- ---_-..~----r-.__ ._.___.._._._. .- ._........-------•---•----- !a ._ . . _ . ~ ~ ~ ~..,.~..A..,.e.~,....,....,._ ,,,_ - --- °.='~+e~a~ .q ~ _ _ _ _. _. . i~ . ~ I ~ ~ :. ,~;~ I + i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS'!'~N, Jur.:t $, 1964 ?_132 ~ ~ CONDIT.IONAi, l~S!? ~ PI.~+~IG F~~..•%.T.)~:': •.'t-3TIS Wo REEDY, c~o James Ea Walker~ 206 Wzst 4:h °ERMIT N0. ;;'1i Street. S•ar~t~ An., California, CRENSHAW CARPET CENTER, INCORPORATED, and An.~.aV7N L. KAPEL'JS, 8447 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Cali- rorr:i~, °:rr,e~rs; JMNI~ :h~~~::0": or ~er~: TANjJTNf~C~ ?lOQ TpmnlF Av~enue, Sigaal Hill, Cali'~rnia, Ac„~nts, requesting permission to ESi:4BLISH A REST~URANf WHICH CONSISTS OF 21 COAM~ION EATII~G ~.ONCESSIONS WITH ~~ COMMON L~INING AItEA AND A COCKTAIL LOllfJC.,F. on property desr.ribed ass An "L" shaped parcel of land ~~~ith a frontage of 33Fi feet on the narth~,side nf Katella Ave~r.ue and a depth of 615 f;et, the easternm~~i N.nu~c.lary of said property be~ing approximately 1,322 feet west of the cen~erlinP o; 'r'.astt•* ~treete Property presently clase".Fzed as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZC~?:F.. b9r. Jack Kn3gh•t, represe~n+:ing the petftione7•s, appeared before the C~imnission and re~riewed the propose9 devElopment, ncting that simil.ar dining facilities were aperated L~y thelessee in Hi1lSdale, San Mateo,, the shopping ce~ter i.n Buena Pa~k, and in New York; thafi all these various food concessions wo+~ld be in;iividu~ally leaszd a-id would be cot~. ;ructed of concr~te and plastere Zonina Coordin~c~r Martin Kreidt advised the Commission sElveral technical problems existe: regardii.g t~~e propused development, notably that no waiver of the height limitation was requested; that the petitioner proposed spixals 86 feet in height; that the plans indicated an nffice:building, whereas no request for an operation was made in the petition~ to which the agent for tk,a ~etitioners replied the plans submitted we~e a prototype and were similar to the.one being constructed in Las Vegas; that it was their intent to plot the.plan as it existed and thac constructin;~ was already ur,der way on the Las Vegas developmento The Commission stated subi-~;t petition shoulo be correc`ly advertised sin~e tF.e Pl~nning Staff was presently prepe:.~ng a study rega-~:ing the height problem ~n ':he commercial- recreation area, o'' whict~ subject property v:?s a part; that plans should ~~oin.cide with each othe:, and requested the petitioner submit.revised plans appli~able to th~ develapment as proposedo 4 re?reser:tati.e of t.hc.• Melodyland Theater requested if sub3ect petition were readvertised, zhey be advic.o~S of the 2x~ct time and date througn tne usual ~rocedureo Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to ::ontinue Petii;ion for Conditi~nal Use Permi~. Noo 577 to the meeting of July 8, 1964, anc requested tha~ subject petition be readvertised to incliide a waiver of thc height limitation, and that t:~e ne;.i.j,:ioner submit revised d~~vel- opment plans to conform w,ith the petition submittedo Corvnissioner Chavos seconded the mot~on. MOTION CARRIED~ RECLASSIFICA770N -°UBLIC I-IEARTNG~ STUAP.'C Do ~,ND FL"JRINH M. NOBLE, 514 Sou~h Reseda Street, N0. 63-6d-121 __ Anaheim, Cal'fornia, Owners; E~roperty described ass A rectangulaxly .. shaped parcel of land wich a frontage of 64 feet on the south sidie of i;ONDITIONAL USE Ball Road and a depth of 96 feet, tt: K~•_,tern uoi~ndary nf said p:roperty PeR""rT ;~0.~76 being approximately 990 feet east of the centerlfne of Harbor Boulevardf and iurther descr:bed as 31~! West Ball koad. Prope~cy presentiy classi- Ge'NL-FtAL ?LAN fied as R-', ONE•-FAMILY RESIDEP,iIAI,~ ZONEo {~MEND(u~;VT NOe ~, ' REQUESTED CLAS~IFICATIONt C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZON"c. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLI5.`i A REAL ESTATE LO,~N 9ROKER'S OFFICE IN A RESIDFN'1'IAL STRIICTUREo Sub3~:i•. General Plan Amen~m~nt, initiated by the Anaheim Planning Commission, is in con;unction with the reclassification of subject propertyo Mr.,SY.uart Noble9 one of i,ne pe±itioners, appeared before the Commission and stated there wauld re.iittle ex~erior changes to the existing structure; thaL• it was proposed to have approxima~ely five employees; that they proposed to work through real esiate brokers; that the majority of the business was done via the telephone and very little walk-in business was anticipated; that he had similar operations in La Habra, Whittier, Fullerton, and Monteb~>llo which were existing in converted homes; that the area in which the proposed raal estate loan bro:er's office was located xas on a heavily travelled street and was no 2~nger d~sirabie for residential purposes, and he then quoted the traffic r•olume for varfous streEts witiiin ~che ~:ty to make a comparison of traffic on Ball Roado , The .:~mmission stated t.here should be no problem a.n obtaining office space in the City sinae consi.derable areas were now devoted to commercial purposesf that if suhject petiti.ons w,re approved, ~his wo:ild open.up an area of approximately 40 homes fo~ cortunerci2l devalopment~ -~ and it was a bit p.r.emature to propose such a thing for this ar^a at the present time. Zonang Coorciinator inar+in Kreidt presented a land use inventory study for the Commi;,sion's conside•ratior., tioting that :f ;ub3ect petition were approved, or considered favora~~ly~ "9 ~; `'~ . _...... ~._.-- __ __ . ._ ~li~~~'s/~ __.. _..~.._- ~--- __ ---_.... . ~ ------ ...__ : ~ . _.. ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLA~ RECLASSIFICATION • NO... 63-64-1~,~_,__ lIV1~Y11iV1~Ri VJ~C.. PHRMI'I N0. 576 ~ • INING COMMISSION, June S, 1964 2133 • an Area Development Plan should be required to indicate development of approximately 40 sing:e-family homes in close proximity to sub~ect property; that it would be ner.essary to extend the alleys presently ax;~tir.g f~r ad~y~~ate Circii7~~.in~t that the problems not only existed for Ball Road, bUt other streets on a long range basis. GENERAL PLAN Mr, Kreidt thsn requested the Commission consider the land use study AIdENDMEM NOa 22 as evidence for subject petition, and if the Commission considered any . i ~ (Continued) action on future Area Development Plans, this would bs part of the study. I Mr. J. E. Miller, 302 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission in ~ favor of subject petition and reviewed ths type of traffic existing in a three block area, noting that heavy truck traffic existPd because of the freeway on-ramp; that although he ~ had lived in that area eleven years, he felt the area was no longer desirable for residential ~ purposes and stated that although the land use inventory indicated Ball Road as a residential ~ area, this was no longer a fact and some change was necessary as £ar as zoning was concerned. e No one appeared in oppo~ition to subject petitionsa Tt~ HEARING WAS CLGSEi' I Discussion was held by the Commission relative to opening up another area in the City in which heavy traffic occurred; that the City had many front-on and side-on streets which ~ would ultimately be affected if the proposed petition was approved; that subject petition ' was premature in proposing the development of a residential area for commercial purposes~ that there were ei:her streets ?n the City on which C-l property was developed and on which the proposed use could also be ,~stablished; that the Commission could not consider as evidence that where homes existed on a busy street, these were no longer desirable for ~ residential use; that in a study made on the commercial frontages on Lincoln Avenue, if all parcels were developed within the City of Anaheim, one quarter of a million homes would be required to support strip comn;ercial zoning on Lincoln Avenue; and that since subject property was in the center of a number of other single-family homes, this should be con- sidered spot z-~ning since 40 other homcs would be primari]y affected by any proposed C-0 development. ~ ~ Commis~ioner Rowland then complimented the Planning Staff for a concise presentation of y ~ land use invent:,ry adjacent to subject petition. ~ k Comm3_sstonar Cho~~os offe*ed Resolution No. 1186, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ~ and adoptio:, seconded by C~mmissioner Rowlan.~, to recommend to the City Council that Aetition ~ fo*_• Reclar,sification t~o. 63-64-•~1 ba disapproved, based on the fact that it was premature to project B~~11 Road in the vic_nity of subject property for commercial development at this time i since 40 h~mes immed9.ately ad~acent ~rould be affected; that the proposed reclassification was ~ incompatib'.e to the residential integrity adjacent to subject property; and that the proposed ~ i r~classirica•~ion was not necessary or desir~ble for the orderly and proper development of the ce~~ur.~mity~ (See Resolution Book<) On roll ca?1 the fr,regoi~g resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYcS: CGMMISSIONERSs ,111red, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Gauer. Commissioner Chavos offerpa Resolution No> 1187, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage . and.adoption, spconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Fermit ~ rvoe 576, based on findin9s~ (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C~WuIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. IvOES: i~OMMISSIONERS: Nonea ANSENT': COMMISSIONERSs Gauer. Commiss;oner•~amp offer.ed Resolution No. 1188, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passaae and adopiion, seconded by Commissioner A1?red, to recommend to the City Council that General Plar. Amendir.ent Noe 22 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposod Exhibit No. 1 as pr.esented was not in confo.rmance with the pro~ections on the General Plano (See Resolution Booic. ) On roll c~ll ~~u rorc••~ot,~g resolution was passed by the following vote: AYt~Gj ~:UMMISSIO!?rRSt Allr~d, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ ^?'?F'•° s COMMISSIC)NERS ~ None. -.:>~ ~'?' e COM"~IS5701V£RS s Gau~r. ~. 5,~ ~' . .~._. ..__.._~._""' '__1 _.. _ ._._.. ... ~ ....._. ._ ~'. : ~~'... _~... . . , 1- ~e ...._.~._.,. ~ ." , • -.- I ' 1 . ,- •' ~J ~, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8, 1964 2134 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LILLIAN HUSON, 954 Garden :~treet, Anaheim, California, NOe 63-64-123 Owner; BILL W, PEFJLEY, 302 East Broadway, :1r,~heim, California, Agent;. nrnnurtv ~o$rr~h?d as: A rectanaularly shaoed oarcel of land with a r--r- - VARIANCE N0. 1641 frontage of 50 feet on the east side of Philadelphia Street and a depth of 154 feet, the northern buundary of said property beir.g approximately 358 feet south of the centerline of South Street, and further described as 828 South Philadelphia Streeto Property presently classified as R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESI- DENfIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSiFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo REQUESTEU VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YA4D AND MINIMUM REQUIRED OFF~STREET PARKINGo Mr. William Pebley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the development of the property adjacent to the proposed R-3 development, indicating the proposed development would greatly enhance the area; that it was his desire to eliminate one_garage in order to provide adequate trash storage areas, and in response to Cownission questioning, stated the blacktopping of an axea would be necessary for trash removal purposeso Mr. Pebley further stated that in his opinion, the requirements far trash storage areas should be redesignedg that some that he had placed on a parcel of land on Santa Ana Street were almost destroyed because of inaccessibility of the trash bins to the trash collectorse Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated the trash stora,e standards were administered rather looselK, and if the petitioner had any suggestions for a better way to construct these trash storage areas, the Department of Public Works would approve themo The Commission expressed interest in Mro Pebley's comments regarding the maintenance of trash storage areas and recommended if he had any concrete suggestions, the Director of Public Works would be glad to discuss them with him. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resoluiion No. 1189, Series 1963~~64, and moved for its passag~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Fetiticn for Reclassification Noe 63-64^123 be approved, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book)e On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMN!ISSIONEFSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOHS: COMMISSIONcRS: None. ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Gauere Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 1190, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No, 1641, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On xoll ca11 the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Mungall~ Perry, Rowlan~lo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauero RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East NOo 63-64-,~,~8 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: All that certain property situated on the west side of Brookhurst Street extend- CONDITIONAL USE ing southerly from the Anaheim City-Orange County boundary to Orange PERNi~T N0. 573 Avenue, tl~e maximum deoth of said properties being 350 feet and having frontages of 140 feet an Orange Avenue and 375 feet on Broc+khurst Street~ and further described as 403-533 South Brookhurst Streeto Present clas- sification of nroperty R-A, RESIDEM'IAL AGRICULTURAL, C-1, NEIGEBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, and C-3, HEAVY COMMHRCIAL, ZONES. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY: C-1, NEIGf-IDORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZOIJEn PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF A WHEEL ALIGNMEPTI' AND BRAKE ADJUS'IMENT SHOP on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel'of land with a frontage of approxi- mately 74 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 140 feet, the southerly boundary of said property be3ng approximately 190 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 519 South Brookhurst Streeto _. _-~_._.. .__.____ ...------.-.----- -.....---____._ ___--- ._ . _._. , -- -- " ~ .. . - ,::: _ 4~' ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CdTY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8, 1964 2135 RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreid~ advised the Commission that Parcel NOe.63-64•~118 Noo 8 of the parcels under consideration was the only vacant•parcel; ~~ that since all parcels were annexed intc.• the City from the County of CO;:DITIOr:~L USE Oranga a~d had b2~r, g:anted the usss in the County, non-conforming uses PERMIT N0. 573 existed, and that it was the Department's recommendation that Reclassi- (Continued) fication Noo 61-62-96, now pending on the property be terminated officially~~ that upon checking back in the records, a business license w2s issued on one of the properties; that formerly the Department approved all business licenses without checking the zoning, whereas in the past two years, a business license was approved only where the proper zoning existed; that.when this business license was requested the City Council then directed the Planning Commission to initiate reclassification proceed- ings on subject proper±y, and it was then held in abeyance to the first meeting after the annexation voting of the Southwest Annexation in order that these properties could be incor- porated with all properties from Orange to Broadway, but since the annexation failed, this was never again presented to the Commission for their consideration; and tha: since no additional information or contacts had been made with the property owners~ subject-~petition remained as it was at the time the Cpmmission continued subiect petition. Discussion was held between the Commi~sion and Mro Kreidt relative to the purposes arid intent_of.the proposed reclassification and its need for establishment of non-conforming uses as conforming usesa Mro.Jo P. Pharris~ 1901 Skycrest, Fullerton, California, property owner of the vacant parcel of subject properties, appeared hefore the Commission and stated that at the time of the annexation ~e had discussed with former Councilman Joe ~hompson, who had agreed the City's Jrdinance provided that only if property being annexsd into the City was R-1~ would it be cnnverted to R-A, and i:hat subject properties were C~1 in the County and should be consiu.red C-1 in the City; and further, Mre Dawson of the City Attorney's office stated if under annex- ation requireme~ts ~n the Ordinance this was not specifically stated as to requiring~all proper.ty being annexed from the County being conve~ted to R-A, the existing zoning in the County would apply when the annexation took pZace; that all properties, with the exception of one, were developed £or C-1 commercial uses; that the Department's recommendation for a dedicated alley to the rear of subject properties would Serve no useful purposef that a private alley existed to the north of Parcel No. 10 which permitted access to all the com- mercial properties° rear portion, and that said private easement was granted to allcrnmercial propexties presently being considered by the:ammission; and the contention the trash trucks ~n~ould be unable to maneuver for trash truck pick-up was erroneous since there was considerable proper.t.y i~ the rear to enable the trash trucks to turn around in the area, and they were presently servicing the area on that basisa In response to Commission questioning, Mro Roberts stated a business license could be with- held only on the developed properties upon a request for an alteration or addition to the existing buildings, or when the undeveloped property came in for a building permito After Mr. Kreidt had read the recommended conditions of approval, the Commission expressed the opinion that reclassification would never take place if all these conditions were required to be mety that if all these conditions were a part of the existing or pending C-1 Zone, thi.s shnuld be the only requirement - if the property owners in question desire C-1 zoning, they conform with all the requirements of the L'-1 Zoneo THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1191, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Counc_1 that Petition for Reclassification Nc. 63-64-118 be approved, subject to condition that prior to the read- ing of an Ordinance on any parcel of property, site development standards shall.t;a in accord- ance with the existing C-1 Zone, and the submission of a legal descriptiono (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: CONN1ISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Gauero Cowaissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1192, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, ~•;conded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 573, subj;-•t to the completion of Reclassification Noo 63-64-118 cov~ering subject propertyo (See Resoluticn Booka) On roll call ti~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSa Gauer. ,~._____~....---r- _-------- - _ - __.. _- .. . . _~_ . ~a , _ . _ ` ~. „ ; i i . ~ ='' ~a~ . ;~:~ ~ ~ ;.. ' MINUiES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 8, 1954 2~36 i ; GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TFIE ANAHEIM PLANNING CONQJIISSION~ ' A11".cNDNI~NT NOe 20 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califnrnia, proposing an Amendment j to the Circulation Element to realign Jefzerson and Linda Vista.Str.eets f between Orangethorpe and La f'alma Avenueso ~ i Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented an aeria.l photograph of the area in which the ; proposed realignment of Jefferson and Linda• V'sta ~treets was to take place and said the aerial photograph further indicated the thre% alirrnative plans presented in the Report to the Gommission. Mr. Apalategui, Mr. Martin representing Belva Greenwald, Mra Roy Solomon, and Mr. Charles Hunt, pr~~perty owners adjacent to the proposed alignment were present and reviewed the r~tcommerded alternative plan as illustrated on Exhibit "B". It was noted by Mro Kreidt the only parcel seriously affected by the propos2~ realigrnnent was Mro Samuel Hurwitz' property, and this proposed alignment should not be considered a preci~;e alignment study, and no plans were proposed for the acquisition of properties to develop this realignment since it was possible this might be several years in taking place. THE FIEARING WAS CLOSEDo ' Curomissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1193, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ind adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 20, "Alternative No. 1", proposing an amendment to the Circulation Element to realign Jeiferson and Linda Vista Streets between Orangethorpe and La Palma Avenues be ~ approvedo (See Resolution Booko) i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by i:he following votes i AYES: •COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Norn~o ' ABSEIJf.: COMMISSIONERSs Gauera ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Street Tree Ordinancee Zoning Coordinator Martin Krei;li: inquired of the Commission whether they wished to make any recommendations relative to the motion of their meeting o~ -'~y 11, at which time the Commission requested the Planning Department, together with the Department of Public Works, initiate a street tree preservation program, together with a street tree ordinance. The..Commission re°;uested this be continued for the mPeting of June 15, 19640 Cortunissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue discussion of the proposed stxeet tree preservation and ordinance to the meeting of June 15, 1964. Commissioner Chavos secanded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO• 2 Amendment to Plannin9 Study Noo 45-114-4. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that at the time Ten±ative Map of Tract Np, 5608 was approved~ i~; was intended the Staff would recommend Planning Study Noo 45~LL4-4.be am~nded to incorporate the street pattern as indicated on said tracto Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to amend and up- date Planning Study No. 45-114-4 to incorporate the street pattern as approved in Tentative Map of Tract No. 5608. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 Reclassification Noa 62-63-112 - Approval of Revised Planse Zoning Coordin~tor Martin Kreiclt advised the Commission that revised plans were not avail- able for. the Coi,~mission's consideration and requested a continuance of one weeko Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to c:ontinue consideration of revised plans of Reclassification Noo 62-63-112 to the meeting of June 15, 1964. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I ~ ~ • ~ t i I . i :+i l _ _. ~ ~ ~~ . ~`~~ < < MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM.iSSION, June 8, 1964 2137 ~ REPORTS F~ND - ITEM N0. 4 ~ RECOMMENDATIONS Termination of Conditional Use Permit Noe 2120 ; Zoning Coordinator Martin KrPidt reviewed the Commission's action in the approval of y Conditional Use Permit No. 212 and subsequent action by the Planning Department in an y attempt to resolve meeting all conditions in the approval of Conditional Use Perroit 1 No. 212, and that during the telephone conversation with the agent for the petitioner, a ! statement was made to the effect that the use was no longer going to be exercised due to the fact that because of financial problems, development would not occur~ and b~aause leasing of the proposed ssnitarium was not made. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1194, Seriee 1963-64~ and.moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissionei Perry, to terminate Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 212, based on findings. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing :esolution was passed by the follo-ving vote: AYES: CONWIISSIONERS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEP?T.: CO~MIIISSIONERS: Gauer. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allsed offered a motion to adjourn the meetinge Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6s35 o'clock p.mo Respectfully submitted, 0 ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission '. . ~~` I --y----~-------------------°__,___- ---~------------•---,.__,~ % , ~,:...=_::~.-- __ -