The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1964/07/08a " I ~ _ '~_ ~ i .~ ~_ ~~ ~ ' ''~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ Oity Hall Anaheim, California July 8, 1964 A REGULAR MIDL'TING OF TI~ ANAHEIM CI1'~C PLAidN1N(3 COl~lISSION RE(}D'LAR ME~rIN(3 - A regular meeting oY the Anaheim City Planning Co~ission was oslled to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'alook P.l~., s quorum being present. pRPSffidT - CHATRNADt: Mungall. - COINMISSIONERS: Allred, Ohavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. Agg~ - CO~MLSSZOIZERS: Camp. pgE~'yN.r - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Sreidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts OPfico Engineer: Arthur DaW ,,.., Planning Commission Searetary~ Ann I{rebs INVOOATION - Reverend A. M. Engls, pastor of the Fir~t Baptist Churoh gave the invooe,tion. pI;~D(}ID OF - Co~nissioner Gausr led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ALI~E~IA4CCLi APPR(7~1'AL OF - 71ie Minutes of the meeting of ~une 15, 1964 Were approved as submitted. ~ e~r;rrms RECLAS52FICATION- CONTIN?,~',D P'i;B~=C AEAR'L~i(3. Sl'IIiI~Y PROP~RRTIES, ET AL, 1336 South Brookhurst N0. 63-64-122 Street, Anaheim, CaliYornie., Ovners; A.J'. LITi'MAN, 1811 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CaliYornia, Agent; requesting that property desoribed as: An irreg- pffiVER6I, PT,AN ularly shaped parnel of land with e~rontage of spproaimately 1,281 Peet on ~I.ND~N'P N0. 23 the east side of Brookhurst 3treet and'a depth of approaimately 1,300 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approaimately 427 feet north of the oenterline of Cerritos Avenue be reolassified from the R-•A, RE~IDENT'iAI+ A(3RIC1II~1`L1tAL, ZOt~[E, to the R-3, MQLTIFI~ FA![ILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOI~. 3ub~eot petition and aenerel Plan Amendmsnt rvere oonti.nued from the meeting of ~~ne 8, 1964, ; at the request of the petitioner in order to allov the petitioner sufPioient tim6 to submit development plana. Zoning Coordinator lKartin Fseidt advised the Oo~i.saion tha: the petitioner hsa submitted a letter requesting an additicnal f~ur weeks extension of time to submit development plana. i Mr. YYarren Stephene, 1401 Dallas Drive, appeared before the Co~iasion in oppoaition to the . proposed realassifiostion of property i.~ediately ad~aoent to his property to the west and further submitted a petition signod by 148 property ovvners repreaenting 98~ oY the single iamily residentiel homeosners to the south~ West, and esat of aub~eat property, stating tl.iat the prop:,;., oxners were opposed to multiple family development of sub~eot property beaause 1) it was not in oonformanoe qith the existing land use in the ar~e; 2) it was not in the best interest oP the City of Anaheim and the residents ad~eaent to and in the immediete vioinity oY sub~eot property; and 3) It ~as not in oonformanoe with the f3enerel Plan of the City oP Anaheim. b[r. 3tephens further requested thet if the Copomi.ssion plaaned to oontinuc+ sub~eot petition, that it be saheduled Por the e~ening sessian, so that the property owners oould appear in peraon to voiae their opposition. Co~isaioner Rowland uPfered a motion to aontinue the publia hearing on Reolasaifioation i No. 63-64-122 and (3eneral Plan Amendment No. 23 to the meeting of August 3, 1964 to be soheduled at the evening aesaion, or the last itom on the aPternoon sessioa if no evening l seseion is planned to allovr the petitioner time to submit development plans. Co~issio~ie.r j (iauer seoonded the motion. ~[OTIOM OARRIIua. ~ CONDITIONAL II3~ - f:0'N'TINUED PUB[:tC HEARINa. wILaIA MIIS~{, 1028 West Ball Road. Anaheim, ~ P~R1Qfi N0. 587 Callfornia, Oauer; MII,TON FRP~AN, MAROQ. HOTICH, D~"'TD aOLLINS, JA~IS~ MO YPAId~RS, 1333 3outh Euolid 3treet, Anaheim~ Calii..rnie, Agents; requeating j permission to E3TABLT3H A 160-Yoot liigh hotel with the Yollowing integrated ; uses: 5peoislty shops, oonvention faoilities, lanei, ioe-r3.nk, transportation oPYioes~ bank, ' bi•okerage oPYioes,restaurant, ooYfer~ ahop, other esaooiated and integrated aervioea and a ~ perking struature on sub~eot prope,-ty. Property preaently olassiPied as R-A, Residential- j llgrioultural, Zone. ~ ~ ___ __~_ _ . . ~ __...., _ . ._. _...___ __. ....---._. ...__ __. .. .._----- -_. y., ._,_,_.w----~~ . _.__-- -----. _..-,,_ dt~ , ~ _ i - '~ ) ~ ~-/ MI.N61`ES, CIfiY PLANZTIN(3 COMIiI33I0N, 7uly 8. 1964 u81 CONnI'TIONAL U3E - 2oning Coordinaiar Yartin Breidt adrised the Cammissioa tbat a letter had p~ERMIT N0. 587 been reaeived Yrom the property o~ners rsvising their original request, and (Continued) that Finding No. 3 of the Report to 'ti~e Ca~ission depiated the revised request for aonditional use. ~[r. D[arko Botioh, arohiteat 4or the develcpment, appeared beYore the Co~ission and stated he vas availeble to answer questions. Mr. greidt asked that the Commisaion require that the parS3ng proposed be veriYied for 1.500 spaaes by stall total, to whiah b[r. ~oLiah replied he ~ou3d La-e tha infor~tioa availabla to be attaohed to the ezhibite. '."he Co~tission disaussec? the traYPio problem wbi-ch mi8ht ocaur at the Hall Roed ofP-ramp, and inquired hor thia would be resolved. 1[r. Sreidt statqd that aacess to the Frontage Road ~ou1d be prohibite3, trat a revisioa ~ould be needed whersby the tra~fio vay ~oul@ be eliminated an Revision lfo. a, ~xhibit No. 1. Offiae Enginaer Arthur DaW in rosponse to Cc+mmission questioning, stated tha.t at the time th3 original petition on sub3eut property ~ss revieasd a Find.ing ~as mede that the 3tate ~ould have full oontrol ovsr trafYio on ths off-ramp, but that since tbat time tTne 3tate had inPormed the Gity Engineer that the City ~ould havs to dste~ins shether or not a drivs ~ould be per- mitted~ and since the 7nterdepeatmental Co~ittse ~ tdiis infor~atian evailable they had renou~ended that eaoess to the Frontage Road bs prohibi~.sd at :Yiat point. tpon revieWing the revised plans, the Go~issian ~ 03 the opiaiou that ingress from the road ~vou13 be permissible, but thst egrass should be prohibitsd. ;vir. Hreidt then stated that the Co~issioa might rish to s~end Coadition Ro. ZI to have it sub~eot to the approval of the ~ity ffigineer. Mr. Daa then stated that traYfia at this point ~as di~cussed vith the 'i~'affia Sngineer, that it was felt that if the petitioner felt it ~ould bs necsssary to ?osve an acaess drive from the oYf-remp that 3avorable aonsidsration might be given to requiring edditional dedioation t,o permit a right-tarn lane only, that this ~ou1d relieve the bac~ up oa the Free*sy travel lane. Mr. Sotioh stated he was in agreement tc cuasult ~ith ~e ~giaeering Department to resolve auy traYfia problam emanating Yrom the off-ramp, tbat it ras aece~sar9 to have aoaess from the off-ramp, and that the problem of additional dediaazion of lend ~oula not be a problem. Ea response to Oo~i.ssion questioning, li.. Ba~ stated ~hat the ~i.dth of the off-ramp vould be 60 feet, that no plans were antioapted Yor ~idsning this, ba:'the=e Rss e. plan to have a signel light at the off remp street, and at such ti~ as the ultieste i~prwement vas inatalled it might be neoessary to pro3eat oae leae to the ac;rth Pad t~o lanes ta the south £rom the frontage Road. No one appearad in opposition. TFlE HH',ARIN(3 WAS CL05PD. mlr. Kreidt advised the Co~aiasion that iP sub3ect petit3on *as apprm-ed, thet the petitioners requeatod that Conditional IIse Permit No. 512, originally apprcved in ileaember, 1963 and in February, 1964 by the Oo~ission and Council~ be ter~ina~~.ed ~ea ~o~it3.ona1 .rise Permit No. 587 beaeme eYfeative and binding upon the le.ad. ; Co~missioner Perry offered Rasolution Aio. 1238, ~eries 1964-65, aaa moved for its passage and adoption, seoonded by Comiss3oaar Chavos to grsat Petitioal ~or Coaditiooal IIse Permit No. 587~ sub~eat tc± d.-elopment of the satellite buildiags to be concarrent or snbseqneut to the devel- ppmen!. oP the tiotel, in order tha•~ the iatent of the I~ad iTse Pc1iaY oY the Go~eroial- Reareatioa Area might be substantiated, aad Yui't1;er that socess Proa the Frontage Roed be sub~eat to the approvel of the City Enginer, and conditions.(See AesoZntion Hook) On roll asll the foregoing resolution ras passed b7 'tL~ Yolloricg •::1te~: AYEB: CO1~I3SIONIDPS: Allred, Chavos, Geuer. 14uiga1l, P+HrrY. 8o~land- NOE~: COE~[I9SIONH~3: None. ABS~EN'P: 001~6ISSIOHICRB: Gamp. ~-----......--___.. ._ ._ . __. . _.__ ___ _ -- ----- - - ~ , ---.__ _ ._--- ~ ~ ~LIIZU~E3~ CITY FLANN'INt3 CO~SSIOSQ, July 8, 1964 ~ 2182 ~'E{~1ATION OF - Comcmissioner Rowland ofPered Reaolution No. 1239. ~eries 1964-65, and moved CONDITTONAL tt~ for its passege and adoptiono seoonded by Co~i.asioner Allred to reaomma~end PEfi~Q'F N0. 51'2 to tha City Counoil that Conditional gae Permit No. 512 be tsx~atineted at suoh time as Conditional Use Permit No. 587 benomes effeotive and binding on the land, besed on the faot ~:.ac the Qo~i.ssion's approval oY Conditional Use Pex~it No. 587 supsrseded Conditional Use Permit No. 512, and for whiah renised development plans have inooi•porated additional land, together with the fa~. •,hat the petitioner hss requested said termination.~See Resolution Book) On ro11 oall the foregoing resolution vras passed by the following vote: A'YE3: CO~IIfl:3ST0t~ti.8: Allred, Chavos, Qauer, 1[ungall, Perry, Rotland. NOEB: CW~OCTS~IOD~RB: 13one. ABS`~t7`F: CODQJ2SS.~OT~~[S: Oemp. ~AT'I+~E 1~AP OF -• DEV'ELOPEA: SAI~IS3URY DEYEIDPI~I'~ OOMPANY, 1343 VPest Valenoia Drive, `.IA~^vI N0. 5684 Fullerton., California; ENGINFiGR.: MoDaniel Engiaeering Company, 222 East '-r~_ Linooln Avenue, Anaheim„ California. Sub~eat trant, looated on the west side cf L'oara 3trest approain+ately 461 feet south of OrangeWOOd Avenue an3 aovering approaimately 1.5 aor.es, is proposed Po: subdivision into 5 R•-1, One Family Residentiel, Zoned lots. ' Zoning Coordinator lilrar~tin Bi•eidt reviewed for the Commission satioa taken previously by both the Coomnission and Cit,p Counail on sub~eat property, further noting that a planning study had been presented at the publio hearing whioh indioated how sub~eot property aould be developed as e sing.l5 family subdivisionn and thst subjeat traot vuas similar in design to the planning study. Mr. A. R. MoDaniel9 engineerp ?_ndiaeted his prx~senoe to answer questions. Coa¢nissione: RoWland offered a motion to approve T`entative Map of Traot No. 5684, sub~eat to the follovring aonditions: 1. That should this subd.ivision be developed as more than one subdivision, eeoh sub- divieion thereof shall he submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That 3treet "A" shall be developed ~vith a full roadwsy 36 Peet wide vrlth aurb and gutte.r. 3. `1`hat a one-Yoot hol.ding strip along the north side of Street "A" will be permitted and sha11 be designatsd as Lot "A". 4. That a prsd.etermined prioe for L~t "A" shall be aalaulated and an agraement £or dediaation entered into between the Developar and the Oitq of Anaheim prior to approval of the final traat map. ~'he ooet of Lot "A" shall inalude land and a proportioaate share of the underground utilities and street improvements. 5. That Street "A" shall be reoorded as Lorane YPay. Co~issioner (iauer aeoonded the mo:,ion. M6'.IIOH CARRIED. AF~A T7EVFILOFl~EN~ - PUBT~TC HEARTNa. 'INfiIT'IA'~ED BY TIit~," CTfiY PLAI~iII~ COI~CISSIOAi, 204 East P7~ATt N0. 10 Linooln Avanue, Anaheim, California for property on the pest 31de of "'"' Lemon Street betWeen Anaheim BoulPVar3 ead Romneya Drive. RPCLASSIFIC~'; ...,N - CONTTNUED FUBI.~TC FIDARIN(3. MAI~Y a• (iONZALES, P. 0. BO% 353, Woodlake, N0. 63-64-125 Californie, Gvner; S. ORAIG GRAIN(3~R, 125 3outh Claudina Street, Aneheim, CaliYornia, Agdnt= requesting that property desoribed as: An irregular peroel of land with a frontage of 92 feet on the west side o~ Lemon Street and a depth of Y20 feet, the southerly boundary of asid property being 150 feet northerly of the aenterline of Anaheim Boulevard, and further desaribed as 1115 North Ismoa Street, be reolassiYied Yrom the P-lo AUTOMOBTLE PARB7NG, Z02~~ to the C-2, (3FAID~iAL CO!l6~IIt0IAL, ZOTID to ESTABLI5Ii A S~RVICF7 3TATTON ON 3UBdL1CT PROP~RTY. RECLA38IFICATION •- CONTINUID PUHI~IC HEAF{IN(3. J'OE A~ CANO, 937 North Cleudina Street, Anaheim, N0. 63-60.-124 CeliYornia, O~vner; ALBEF~P A. ;~.~COUA, 817 North ClemFintine Street, Ansheim~ California, Agent; requesting that property desoribed as: A reatangularly sheped paroel of land rrith a frontage oP 40 4eet on the oest side of Lemoa Street and a depth oP 130 feet. the northern boundary o.i sa3d property boing approaimately 525 Peet south of the oenterline of Romneya Drive, and further desaribed as 1129 North Lemon 3treet, be reolasaiPied Pronn the R-3, ~CUIIL`TPI+'~ FAMILY RESTDIDNT7AL, ZONE, to the 0-2, ~II~RAL OO~fEEtOIAL, ZO?i~. i ~ ------....__._ -;~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION' July 89 1964 2183 qREA DEVELOPMEDfI' - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt requested that the Commission consider PLAN N0~ 10 Aiea Development Pian Noo 10, Reclassification Noo 63-64-125 and Reclas- sification Noo 63-64-124 at one time since both properties were atfected RECLASSIFICATION by the Area Development Plan~ N~-64-1~~ Reclassification No~ 63-64-124 was continued from th~ meeting of June 8, RECLASSIFICATION 1964, and Reclassification Noo 63-64-125 was continued from the meeting N0~ 63- 4-1 4 of June 22, 1964, in order to ailow the Planning Department sufficient (Continued) time to prepare the Aren Development Plano Associate Planner Ronald Grudtinski presented Area Development Plan No> l0e BACKGROUND: I;~ Ji~ne, 1964, the Planning Commission received two requests concerning commercial use of property along the west side of Lemon 5treet between Anaheim Boulevard and Romneya Driveo One request was for a reclassification (63-64-124) from R-3y Multiple-Family Residential, Zone to the C~2, General Commercial, Zoney to establish an existing barber shop and a beaut~+ shop as a conforming usee The other request was for a reclassificat~on (63-b4-i25) of property from the P-1~ Automobile Parking, Zone to the C~2, General Commercial, Zone, ~o establish a service station at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Streeto These requests brought to light problems associated with a number of properties fronting on the west side of Lemon Street between Anaheim Eoulevard and Romneya Driveo Area Develop- ment Plan Noo i0 was prepared, and the results are as follows: FINDINGSs (1) These properties are in an area which has been designaite~i ''Professional Office" on the General Plan9 and nothing substantial has transpiresi which would indicate a need for a change in this designationo (2) A majority of the parcels could not singly develop for ~ommercial office use because their size is below the 20,000 square foot minimum required by the C-0 Zoneo An Area Development Plan must be prepared (Code requirement) prior to development of suhstandard size parcels under C-0 Zoninga (3) The north-south alley serving the properties is not dedicated~ consequently9 access, maintenance, and service could become a problem in the iutur~e (4) The City has been requested to abandon the east~west alley which runs parallel to Maheim Boulevard between Lemon and Parry~ and also serves these pzopertieso (See Exhibit "°A")~ If this alley were to be abandoned, the sub3ect properties' only access would t,e from Lemon Street„ ~ (5) When Lemon Street i~ widened to its fuil arteriai highway width of 90 feet, many of the buildings exist~~~g on the sub,~ect properties will fall within the new right-of•- way and will have to be altered or removed; consequently, the structures existing on sub3ect properties are not considered permanent nor the development ultimat^o (6) When the properties are developed for Commercial-Professional use, they wil'1 need the service of an alley to provide access to parking on the rear of the lots and secondary circulation to the p operty~ The parcels, in some cases, are not wide ennugh to provide a driveway from Lemon Street to the rear of the parcel. (7) The Park and Recreation Department and the Engineering Department have been studying properties owned by the City directly wast of sub,ject properties for use as a paved parking area for the Municipal Court and a turfed recreation and overflow parkinq area~ Both departments have included the norl.h-south alley property within the boundaries of their study area and have utilized the alley for service to the parking aseao (S) The parcel of proaerty designated as the north-south all~y is presently owned by the State of Californiao Said parcel uecame the property of the State because of delinquent taxes~ The property should be offered for sale within the very near future because the State offers delinquent tax property for sale after holding it for five yearsa The State acquired the property in 1960o When such properties are offered fur sale, the City in which they are located ;ias first right of acquisitiono ~ ~ } I 1j ) b v i / .\ ~ - , .. . . .~ __._.,-.'- - ..._...._.. _. ..___ ~ ~ .._.__..... . __. _._. _ .._ _. _ _ . - .... _. . . ___,____ . . .. ..... , ..._ ~ . ~ S ~ : .. _.~ ~ I ; ~ ' ~ ~ . MINUfES~ CIYY PLANNING COMMISSIONy July 8, 1964 2184 AREA DEVELOPGIIENT"= (9) Two sma11 parcels of property directly north of the north-south PLAN.NOo 10- alley property are owned by the City of Anaheim~ These parcels • lie in the path of the logical northerly extension of subject RECLASSIFICATION aliey to Romneya Driveo ~ N0. 63-64-2Y5 ~ (10) The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the alley situation and RECLASSIFICATION has made the following points: • N0. 63-64-1 4 Continued • ao The north-south alley if extended to Romneya Drive could adequately serve as secondary access for the parcels of property fronting on Lemona bo The portion ot' the east-west alley between Lemon and the north-south alley will cause serious congestion and conflfct if retai~ed~ This access point is too close to the inter- section of Lemon Street and Ar.eheim Boulevard and could possibly serve as ~ by-pass for the Lemon-Anaheim Boulevard intersection~ (11) The westerly section, of the east-•west alley, from the north-south alley to Parry Avenue is necessary as an integral part of the secondary circulation system serving 6oth the Lemon Street-Anaheim Boulevard frontage properties and the proposed court's parking lot-recreation area~ IlQTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS IF AREA.DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVEDo (I) .That the Lemon Street frontage properties, with the exception of the northwest corner o£ Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street, be reaffirmed as having commercial~profes- sional office potential and that all pro~erty be rec:assified to the Commercial Office Zone,.and developed in accordance witt~ alI provisior.s of said Code,. (A statement o£ intent would be adequate; however, if thP Commission would desire to initiate Commer- cial Office Zoning on the property in question for a subsequent meeting, this could be accomplished independently of the action on the Area Development Plan and Reclas- sification Nos~ 63~64-124 and 63-64-1250) (2) That the City of Anaheim :~cquire the parcel of property described as the north-south ailey and improve and extend sai@ alley northerly to Romneya Driveo Said improve- ment will provide secondary access to the court°s parking area and the Lemon Street- Maheim Houlevard frontage propertieso (3) That the westerly section, of the east-west alley, from the north•-south alley to Parry Street be retained as a necessary element of the secondary circulation system serving the court's parking area and frontage properties on Lemon Street and Anaheim Souleva:do (4) That the easterly section, of the east•-west alley, from the north-south alley to Lemon Street be abandonede (5) That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim s strip o~ land 45 feet in width, from the centerline of the street, along Lemon Street~ for street widening pvrposeso (6) That the owners of subjec± property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet in width, from the centerline of the street, along Romneya IJrive, fo: street widening purposeso (7) That the owners of subject property sha11 pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2000 per front foot along Romneya Drive and Lemon Street, for street lighting purposeso (8) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Romneya Drive and Lemon Str?et, for tree planting purposeso (9) ;hat. trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file in the office of the Director of Public Workse (10) That street improvement plans shall be prepared and all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Romneya Drive, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be completed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans ~ ; \ ,_ - ~ - ~._ _...... .__. __ ..._______ _. _.._._ -- ._..__.._..,ffi~ I • . ~~ -.. ~ ~ _ .. MINUTESy CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July Sy 1964 2185 AREA DEVELOPMENI" - and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; PLAN_NO., 10 _ and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the instal- RHCLASSIEICATION lation of said engineering requirementso N0~ 63~64-125 (11) That the sidewalks shall be installed along Lemon Street, as RECLASSIFICATION required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard NOo 63-64-124_ _ plans and specifications on file in the office of the City (Continued) Engineero Mro GrudzinsY_i9during his presentation of Area Development Plan No> 10, indicated the properties under consideration and the location of the proposed abandonment of an alley, indicating the abandonment of the easterly portion of the alley northerly of Anaheim . Boi~levard was recommended by the Traffic Engineer to prevent hazardous traffic conditions at art intersection which presently had a large volume of traffico Discussion was held by the Commission as to the steps necessary to recommend to the City Council that the north-south alley adjacent to the Lemon Street frontage and between the recently acquired property wester~y of the private alley be purchased by the Cityo Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission a statement of intent hy the Commission to the Council would be all that would be necessaryo Mr~ Albert Marcoux, agent for the petition of Reclassification Noo 63-64-124, appeared be- fore the Coromission, reviewinq the proposed development of said reclassification, and stated the church existing adjacent to subiect property would be there for a long time because it was recently remodeled and was being used for youth activities; that most of the parcels in the Area Development Plan would not me2t the required 20,000 square feet; that it was ~m- perative abandonment or the aliey should be only the easterly portion, since access rights to Lemon Street would be required, leaving all the properties on the west side oi Lemon Street without any access except to the <3z;ey t.o the west of subject properties; and in response to Commission questioning, stated the structu=e indicated in red on the Area Cavelopment..Plan Land Use Map would be used at the present time on a temporary basis, but at the time the balance of the property wa~s improved, this would be removed; that no drive existed to ~ubject propertyy although there was a curb break; and that if the Commission was desirvus of having the structure relocated9 they were wi.lling to do soo Mro [Creidt advisod the Com~ission that since the prope:iy owner expr.essed a willingness to relocatp ~,he building to the west9 this might alter the conditions in that the existing drive would not have to be removed, since there would be no means of access to the rear, and this, then9 could be used for parking facilities; that the Right~of-Way Division had checked all p.roperties concerned re2ative to any easements for the alley and was unable to find.any; that the appea:ance and condition of Lemon Street prior to industrial develcp- ment on the east side of the street had a detrimental effect on the development of other properties; that since the industrial properties had improved their properties and construct- ed additions and the east side of Lemon Street had been improved by the City9 the potential of the we5t side of Lemon Street became considerably greater; and that the exhibit indicated the potential the City sees for the area; although most of the property was under City owner- shipy. to the west of Parry Avenuey no completion date had been scheduled for the parking areaa A yentleman in the audience stated he had been operating a plumbing shop in the R-3 Zone for the past ten years, and said the use was granted through a variance, and he opposed the recommendation of the Pianning Department that ihe west side of Lemon Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Romneya Drive, be reclassified to the C-0 Zone, since his shop wouid be incom- patible to that zoneo Mro Kreidt then stated tha- with the completion and use of the Municipal Courts in close proximity to the Area Deve~opment Pian properties, it was felt the highest and best use for the property would be for bu~iness and office use, and that the Area Development Plan was not a reclassification petition, bui was a plan to in~;icate how subject and abutting properties could be developed at the time the property owners were ready to utilize their pxoperties for their hlghest and best usea Mro Ea W> Stinson, 1i21 North Lemon Street, appeared beforP the Commission and stated his property was immediately adjacent to the property under consideration on Re.lassification Noo 63-64-125; that the area, in his estimation, was in need of some form of a renewai project; that the east side of north Lemon St^eet was now adeqaately developed with indus- trial property; and that he was in favoz• of an overall plan of rezoning of property, but his only objection has been the possibility of abandonment of the entire alley to the west of the properties under consideration in Area Development Plan No, 14~ __.-------------- -. _- ..- - --- -- ----- - •-- - - _ _ ---.___ -- ----- - -,-------__._ ~i '. ~l i . , __ _i.... _~..~..w~..~.~._---- - -:. _... . L~ ~ ~ ""I":;7;ESy CI;^' FI,.",:°~Iiv`G COir'uni~SIOi~~ 3uiy o~ i9o4 2186 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Mr, Craig Grainger, in response to questioning, stipulated he was in PLAN NO,, 10___r__r_ agreement to the Commission's reclassifyin9 the properties for C-2 ~_i the southe.rly portion and C-0 on the northerly portion under considera- RECLASSIFICATION ti'cn in Reclassification Noe 63-64~125; and that all the structures N0~ 63-6 -12 existing on the C-0 portion of the property would be removed prior to final building inspection of the service stationa RECLASSIFICATION N0~ 53-64-1 4 Mr, Roberts then explained in order that the existing beauty and barber (Continued shop might be able to function in the C-0 Zone, it would be necessary to have a variance from the section which governed the permitted uses in ' the zone, since a beauty and barber shop were not an integral part of a large office complexo Mro Kreidt read a letter from interested property owners, inciuding the petitioner of Reclas- sification Noo 63-64-124, in which their indication was that the C-0 Zone was not desi.^able to their proposPd uses of their propertieso Mro Kreidt further stated that if the Commission so desired, they could initiate a variance to be scheduled for the August 3, 1964, meeting9 and this would then be forwarded to the City Counr,il in time to consider the variance and reclassification at one hearinqe Mro Kreidt further advised the Commissien a leqai description of the two parcels under consideration in Reclassification Noo 63-64-125 being divided into two zones would be necessary in order to process the resolution if the Cortunission so desired, to have C-0 Zoning for the northerly portiono Mro Cxrainger advised the Commission this legal description would be available within ten dayso THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissi.oner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1240, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Comm?ssioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noa 63~-64-125 be approved for C-2, General Commercial, ZonP on Portion "A", and C-0, Commercial Off3ce9 Zone on Poxtion "B", and that the structures on Portion "B" were to be removed prior '.:o final building inspeci:ion of the service station, as stipulated by the petitioner, and conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On roZl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos9 Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campa Commissioner Perry o£fered Resolution Noo 1241y Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ 63-64~•124 be approved for C-0, Commercial Office, Zone and further subject to approv~i of a variance to establish an exis+.ing barber and beauty shop as a con- forming use in the C-0 Zone, and conditionso (See Resolution Book~) ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gau?r, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Camp, ' Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to initiate a variance to establish an existing barber and beauty shop as a conforming use in the C-0 Zone on the property considered for raclassification in Reclassification Noo 63-64-1249 said variance to be scheduled for the meeting of August 3, 1964o Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOT'ION CARRIED~ The Commission continued d3scussion relative to Area Development Plan Noe 10, noting it would be desirable to initiate reclassification proceedings for all the properties between P.naheim.Boulevard and Romneya Drive on the west side of Lemon Street to C-0, Camnercial Office, Zone,_and that it might be well for the Commission to continue consideration of Area Develop- meni: Plan Noo 10 to the meeting in which the reclassification procaedings of the properties were to he ~;,nsideredo ~'hs Conunission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether or not the existing otumbing shop should also be set for :~^~~sideration under a variance sl.nce it was a non- c~nforming use in the C-0 Z~ne; that •the owner of the ~lumbing shop had indicated the use ha~9 been granted thrc ~r~ a variance, and h~e was operating, since 1954, in the R-3 Zone, ai~a ~.~d received a business license approving the use. ~ ~' RECOMMr.NDATD~ TO - Commissioner Perry offer~a motion to ,ecommend to tne C~ Council 2187 E Tt?~ C:TY COUNCIL t.hat. an encroachment waiver for thz cist~ng porch ~n px•~perty r.c.nsidered ~ in nBCiassification Nao 63~64•-72.~'.:e^,,ar_:~d ur.t;l euah •LiT.e ac. tt~e City ~ AREA DEVELOF4IFM' widened I.emon Street~ C~rTiS:'I.G!7:1 ~i„vos seconded themutionoMOTIUNCARRIED~ ? PLAN N0~ 10 ~ Mr~ Roberts ;iated `~e ti~ouid :~a•ve to m~.{.a some investigation on the j RFCLASSIFICATIG^' variance ~he plumbing sho~ ,i=cper.ty owner stated he received permission ~ NOr§3-64-~25 __ :c: operate; whether or r.o•: i•r. was a legal use at the time 1t was zoned, and that it would ••~t be r,ec~~;,sary for the Commission to withhold reclas- ~ RECLASSIFICATION sification proceF,dings unti'~ i~.: determined whether this ~aas a ~:~n-conform- ' NOo ~ 4-1~4 _ ing or legal useo E Conti~~ued ~ ~ Commissioner Gauear offered a motion to direct the Planning Degartment I to initiate reclos~ific3t.ior. proceedin!js for the properties along tne ~ west side of Lemon Street betwe~an ke;m~leya Lr'ive and Anahe_m Boulev~.~, said reclassific,~.+.ioi: E proceedings to be set for the m;:etin~ of Asyu>t 3, 1964~ Cortu~i:s:.ioner Allred second~d i:he $ motior_~ MOTIOIv CARRIEDo Cortmissioner Gaue; offered a motion to ?'80~'iFil the hearino, and cor,tinue Araa Development Plan Noo 10 to th~ meeting of Augiist ?. 1964, to be hea•rd concurrently with the reclassif:•• cation proceed?r.gs oi `.~ie propertjas on thr; west side of Lemot~ ~treet, LetwEPn Anaheim Boulevard and Romneyti Dr3•ve, and *.:`.r varia~.~ce to establish anexis+•i;~y barber 4nd beauty shop as a conforming useo Comm~ss?c;~er A:lred. seconded the motiono MOTION CARRJED~ CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PllBLIC HEARING~ TITLE INSURANCE AIVD TRUST COMFANY, S00 North PERMIT NO~,~,@8 Main Street, Sant~ Ana9 Califori~ia, Owner; COUNTY OF ORAi.GE, Court House, Santa Ana, California, Agentq requesiing per~.nission to establi.sh a refuse transfer staticn on propbrty ~::scribzd ase all that certain nr.c~erty si.tuated an the south side of Ka±ella Avenue, r:ith a frontage of' 208 feet on Katella Avsnue and bounded or the east by the /+naheim City i.~ndary, the south ~=y the Atcidson, Topeka and Santa Fe Rai7.ruad R3gh±-of-Way, a~d or the ~rest by the Or.ange ~re~way P.ight-of=Way, the total <~ze~ ~f ssid property bning ar.proxima•cely 804 acreso Pror~rty presently r,)asslfied as M-•1, I,IG:-!7' 1NDllSTRIAL, ZOr~Eo Subject p~~•:ition was ccntimied fr:m the n•sating of June 229 196a, to allow time for 'the Traf°ic E~ gi•~~ ,~ : io nake a stu(;y ~:f tha axaa~ Mr~ Ao ~e Kochs County Roa~i Comi!~~issioner,9 appe~red before thF~ Commission, stating the Orange County Flood Contr^~i Districi: owned ail the property easterly c+f subject property, and ine Orange County P.;,ad llepart~rent had been ,olanning the proposed refuse transfer stetion .`or a considerable length o£ tima at the locationo In response to Commission ruest:oni~~g, he further ~tatEd the alternate s:ie proposed would require a feasib!lity study; that this had 7ot been comple~ed~ and reported to trie Board of Supervisors, t,u+, a few iac+.s were known, c~ainly that. 200,000 yacds o: sand had been removedy that a c~nsiderab;s. deficiency existed9 and in order to be abie to use this property9 it wc:~ld need a ~60,OOit to 170,000 yards•of new mate=~ia1 which was r;ot avaiiable to fill the ho1e; ~i11a;, ihere was no excavation material avaiiable within one and a half miles of the si:e, an~: t~k4.ng into cons3dexation the number of yards of fill aequirec:, its transportation9 and relocation, the estima~ed ccst would be ~pprox,m~te:y $25G9Q00 moreo Cummissi.oner Gauer stated +.hat a:though he was not prbsent at the pre~~ious hearin99 it ~v3s his opinion that since th~e proprseo baseball staaium would be locatFd imr.:adiately to the west of the~freeway adjo:;ent to subject aropertyY tl~e use of the area had been changed; tha: even though the refuse transfer station would be a permitted use in the M-1 Zona, it would be ir.compatible to the new u,e ir. ±he area~ M;~o Kuch sta•ted ~he l~nd was properly zoned; that the 'reeway riould act as a barrier between se jecL prop~rty and tu^ proposed stadium; L:..+: bocause of the railroady the freeway would be _.~proximately 30 feet higher +.han the present grade lev,l, and the height would be similar to that of the Orange Drivs-In southerly of subject properi.yo Discnssion was hc~lu by the Commission relative to the facts presented by t~le County and the' compatib_l.t'v of ths propos~ad refuse transfer station to the new baseball stadium; that tha property adjac,ent tr, the stadium v~oi~ld then become considerably more valuable, and a greater loss wculd be noted if the refuse transfer site were approved; and further inquired of Mro Koch the reason for the CounLy's desire to locate the refuse transfer station on sub~ect propertyo !~1ro Koch stated it wa~ the most centra_ly located, and would bring about a considerable savings to t2~e cities mo would be using the facility, in costs of transferring trash coliected throughout t}ie citie~•: that the net savings per ton was 42~; that as collections norther:y of Lincoln Avenue were mac:r., the ssvings was nil~ and that although the figures he had quoi:ed were estimates, a com,~lete report would be submitted to the Board of Super-- visors whi~h would have more accurat:~ figuresa --....... _.... ..__ ,. ____ ...__ ___....__.. _ .. _.-._ ..__ ~ ... ..__.._ -~~ ~ . ... _ .___ ~ _~._.---_._.._.._.....~,......~.,.4___...~__ .~~~ . \-, ~ ~ MIWTES, CITY PLANNING COMMT5SION, Juiy 8, 1964 21gg CONDITIONAL 'JSE - Mro Calvin Wo Stovzr, 317 Jacaranda, Orange, appeared before the PERMIT N0~ 588 Commission and stated he owned the property northeast of subject (Continued) M property, consisting of l04 acres; that the figures quoted by Mro Koch were inaccurate since he was in the construction business, and it did not cost $io50 a yard to haul dirt or fill a mile; that his property was not for sale, and he intended to keep it as it presently exis•ied, at all costs. Mro Bruce Sumnery the attorney representing Mrso Ruth Heinrichs, appeared befora the Com- mission and stated that although the Title Insurance and Trust Company was listed as the petitioner, this was done only because a trust had been established; that it was assumed because of the establishment of the basebal2 stadium, the proposed use would not be the highest and•best use; that they had received a number of in:~uiries for subject property for a hotei;-that if the proposed refuse transfer station were approved, this would work a hardship on the property owners, as well as the City; that the freeway could not be considered _~;.~t~~:~_ bazrier because it would affect all properties immediately ad,jacent to it and would prohibit any of the property owners from realizing the potential develop- ment of their propertye Mro Edgar po Smi±h, owner of the prope~±y appz•oximately 1,500 feet west of subject property, aFpeared before the Cor.unission in oppositton to subject petition, stating the proposed use w~uld greatly reduce the retaii pTi;.e c` his p.roperty in the event he had any intention of s211ing; that it would further be detrimental to allow a refuse station adjacent to a $20,000,000 faciiity; that he had personall~ investigated the other refuse transfer stations and found fiies, flying debrie9 and paper, and a general untidiness in the station, and tt;at the proposed use wculd have an undesirable effect on the land immediately adjacent, as wc:.l as the owners of subject propertyo Mro Herbert Dougiasy 10611 South Douglas Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he and Fis f:.the:~ owned tnirty acres on the north side of Katella, di:ectly acr~ss from the subject propexty; that he concurred in alI the statements made by Mr~ S~mner, and wish to add a few more: that a ready~•mix company existed in the area, which was a heavy use for the property;at the time it was approved by the County, he had opposed it; that the pro- posed use would be incompatible because of the additional traffic it would place on Katella Aven~~e; and that in his opinion9 it would be moze practical to propose a more compatible use to the proposed basebaii ~;tadium than a refuse transfer station~ In rebuttai, Mr, Koch statcd Mro Smith°s opposition could not be consiaered valid because he wsa not in close proximity tu the pruposed refuse transfer station; that Mro Douglas stat~~ ±he tra:fic on Kateli= would be affectc-d, but that they proposed to use Douglas Strr,;;; to gain access ±o the pr~~o~sed transfer station; and that he was of the opinion the s~~bjec~ r,=operty was the only Narcel in th~ City of Anaheim east of the proposed freeway9 and ali the o2her wes in the CoLntyo Mre Kreidt ac'.visecl the Cor.mission that accor~~ing to the Land Use and Zoning Map, the property had b~en reciassifieci to the M•-1, Li~3ht Industrial9 Zone under Reciassification Noo ~9-60-230 THF. HEARING WAS CLOSEu. Discussion was held by the :oi.~~~is~ion as to the proposed use; that in the opinion oi some of the Commissioners, it v:a; the responsibility of the City Council to decide the compati- bility of the refus~ trer.~fer statien to the proposed basebail stadiums that the character of that pa.rt of the City had been changed because of the proposed stadium; and that some study .<;hould be given the area to determine whether or not the industrial designation for ttie area would be coinnatible to tlie use being proposed to be establishedo Commis~a.oner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1242, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, sacondad by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Ccnditional Use Per~it No> 588, ba~ed on ~he fact that the psoposed use would not be complementary to the proposed baseball stadium, as w~:ll as the potential growth of adjacent properties for light industrial use; that given a proximity of subject property to the Orange Fr•eeway Katella Avenue Off-ramp, the proposed use does iiot c~nstitute the highest and best use of the property; and the proposed use would aciversely affect land uses and growth and development of the areao (See Resolution Eooko). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs C6MMISST~NERS: A11rEd, Ghavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESa r,~~h+.MISSIONERS: None~ ABSEM': COMMIS510NERS~ C~mpo ~~,,,.,~.-~ Co~mr,; ~sicmex• G!-~•,~n:; left •;h> Coun:,i~ Jhe.mber at 4:20 ~omo ~ . ~ ; e i Ft 1 ~ '` i ~ ~ € .____--- -'.'-. . .. .._... _. .. _..._ __.....__..... _ . . _ ....... _ .... __.. .. _..... . ..._. ..... _ _.. ..__ "--_. . ~ _ . .. - r~ . - .. ~. . -~E~i ~ . EL.._~___. .. --- - -~ ~ - ~--._..._ l ~ ~ MINIJTES9 CIlY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 89 1964 2189 GENERAL PLAN - CONfINUE6 PUBLIC FiEARiNGo IPIITIATED BY T1iE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, AMF.NDMEPii' N0~ 16 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an amendment ~ to the Circulation Element of th~ General Plan for Manchester Avenue easterly fr.om Harbor Boulevardo Subject Generai Plan Amendment was continued from the meetings of April 13 and June S~ 1964, to allow more time for the Enginec-ring Department to complete their study of the areao Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed realignment of Manchester Avenue, together with the report of a sti~dy made by the City Engineer's department relati•re to the cost factor which the Commission requested, notably that for the north side the arquisiti'on of land and pavin7 Nould amount to $4'I35, whereas for the south side the acquisition of land and removal of the existing improvements~ including tanks and power poles, and the construction of new improvements would be $10,045o Alternative plans of General Plan Amendment Noo 16 were also presented; namely, that dedication for the north side of Man- chester Avenue would be 45 feet with a building setback 257 feet frcm ~he centerline and the south side to remain as it presently existeds that the amendment be made to both the General l'lan Circulation E'ement and list of exceptionse No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect General Plan Amendmenta THE HFARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Gauer affered Resolution Noo 12a3, Series 1964~-65, and moved for its pas~age and adoption9 second~9 by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendmsnt No~ 16 be amended in accordance with Exhibit "A"; that the list of exceptions be amended in accordance with Exhibit °'C"9 basing this on the recommendations of the City Engineero (See Resolution Booko) On ro21 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votea AYES~ COMNiISSIQNERS: Ailred, Gauery Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESe COMMISSIONE?Ss Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp~ Chavoso RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-1rARING~ GIACOMO AND AGOSTINA LUGARO, 532 North Magnolia Avenue, N0~ 64-65-3 Ansheim9 California, Owners; Craig Greinger, 125 South Claudina Street~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: a xectangularly shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Crescent Avenue~ with frontages of 150 feet on Magnolia Street and 147 feet on Crescent Avenue9 be reclassified from the C••19 NEIGHBGRHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE, LIMITED, to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALy ZONE9 UNLIMITED, to ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION on subject propertyo Mro Graingery agent for ±he petitiorer, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the deed restrictions placed on subject property at the time it was reclassified to the C~-1 Zone; that it had been requested by the City Attorney that thP City Council render an interpretation of this, and the City Council stated that since the restrictions were placed on them to expire in 19'75, a~d the petitioner requested this be deleted, it was required that a new petition be filed Ly the petitioner, requesting the unlimited C-1 Zoning; furthex, Mro ~rainger noted that the C-1 Zone permitted a service station, and the proposed service station site was more than 75 feet from a single-°amily residenceo Mro Grainger stated that if the Commission had any auestions regarding the arc.hitecture of the proposed service station, Mro F;lisony architect fo: Standard Oil Company, would answer the auestions~ The Commission discussed the possibility of having a more compatible architecture for the service station since subject prope*ty had singleWfamily re~idences to the east. and north, but the agent £or the petitioner felt the proposed service station on subject property would be located in an area which had comme~cial development as well as residential develop- mento Mr, Joseph Roasano 612 North Magnolia Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject pstit=on, stating his singlP-family rtome was across Crescent Avenue from subject property; that there were three homes fronting Magnolia Street with an alley; that they had been attemptin9 to sell their hoRes beca~~se of the heavy trafffic on N4ignolia, but were unable to do so because prospective buyers felt these was too much noise; ~~hat if the ~ Commission approved a service station, this would add to the difficulty in selling the homes f since more `_raffic and the addiiion of lights would be pro3ecting from the service station; ~ ! I i ; 4 ~ 1 ' i ~ . . ...._ ~ - . _~_._._- --~ --..._ __.._-- ---.__._ _.. _ __._ _ _ ---- - -.-..-- ..__ ._.,._ ~.~ ~i . ~ ~, ,~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY ~LANNING COMMISSION, July 8y 1964 ~ 2190 RECLASSIFICATION - that it was considerably more desirable to have commercial development NOo_64•65-3 for the property9 sS.nce this would also make it more feasible to develop (Continued his pxoperty sor commercial purposeso THE HEARING WAS CL05EDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1244, Series 1964-659 and moved for its passage and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Allred~ to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noa (i4-65-3 be disapproved based on the fact that the light and noise oi the proposed service station would be incompatible with the single-family residentia2 environment to the east and north; that the proposed reclassification of the property was not necessary or desirable; that the proposed service station would compound the hazardous walking conditions for the chiidren using the intersection fro:.~ the school; and that the requested amendment to the deed restrictions be deniedo (See Resolution Booke) rJn roll c~li the foregoing reso'lution was ;~assed by the following vote: AYES: CONLMISSIONERS: Ailred9 Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES; COMMISSIONERSs Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp9 Chavoso CONDITIONAL USF. w PUBLIC I-IEARING„ ELIZABETH LANCASTER, 235 South Beach Boulevard, PERMIT N0~_557 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING T4.4ILER PARK on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 600 feet by 660 feet, tha southern boundary of sazd pxoperty being 660 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue9 the eastern boundary being ~'30 feet west of the centerline oi Beach Boulevardo P:operty presently classified as R~A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL9 ZONE„ Elizabeth Lanca~ter~ the petitioner, appeared before th~ Commission and reviewed the proposed expansion of an axisting trailer park, stating that the orange qruves on the nine acres would be deteriorating and dying because they had lost the irrigation facilities for the orange oroveq ihat she had signatures of property owner~ within 300 feet of the property approving the proposed use; that the proposed expansion would be substantially above the minim~m requirement for trailer parks as presented in the proposed Trailer Park Ordinance; that the flood control channei to the south would be a natural barrier to any existing development souther'ly; that the proposed lots would be almost as wide as City lots si.nce it was proposed to have 65 foot trailers on these lots; that the proposed trail~~r expan9ior woul.d be for adult families, rather than families with children; and in response to Commiss3on questioning, stated loss of the irrigation faciliti.es was due to the fact o° the deveiep~r.ent of the Baker. property, and they were unable to irrigate the rear portion of the nine a~:,c-~., ;ind upon inquiry of the City Engineer, she had been advised water would k~ ,~v»il.:~l~'.~s fo: the front. three acres for irrigation purposeso Mra Arthur Raivley, 304 South Grand Avenue9 appeared be£ore the Commission in opposition to the proposed deveiopment9 and inquired of the petitioner how many additional trailers were bei.ng proposedy and was informed 89 additional trailers would be placed on subject propertyo Mr~ Rawley then quoted from the California Code on trailers, noting that setbacks and wa11s and landscapings would be requiredq that a wali would be an absolute necessity because presently the children were u~~ng the orange gi•ove and would probably trespass into the trailer par.ke Commissioner Chavos returned to the Councll Chamber at 4:42 pamo The Commissfon advised Mro Rawley that the preoosed Trailer Park Ordinance required thai: a six~£oot masonry wail be constructed to separate a trailer park from other residential useso Mr, Rawley trien stated the Code required the trailers to be not less than five feet from the rear pro~,erty line, and th~t the height of the trailers would permit people to look through their windows at the homes on the other side of the wallo Mr~~Lancaster then stated most trai?~rs did not have windows at the rear of the trailers; thac two trailers would be p7.aced on i:he City-sized lots, since most trailers were at least 30 feet wide, and any intrusion inzo the single-family homes cou~d be remedied by the planting of landscapingo Mro Rawley then continued this would project approximately 180 people into the area, and since the abutting property to the west was low density, and subject property was projected for low density on the General Plan, in his estimation the trailer park would not be in conformanceg that traffic to and from the trailer park might be using the stub street to the west, and if the trailer park were approved, the Commission should require a11 traffic be from Beac;h Boulevard; that a traffic hazard might exist if only one exit was proposed ~A..`---,----r-_ -_ ------.._....____ ~. 1 . . . . . _..__ . . ._. , r.. .~ _._.___ : ~. . .' ~~iK ~ MINUTESy CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, July B, 1964 2191 CONDITIONAL USE - for the trailer park; and that no reclassification was being proposed PERMIT N0~ 557 in order to affect the General Plan, since a trailer park was a permitted (Continued) use in ti~e R4A Zone, and he was cpp~sed to the proposed use without any reclassification proceedingso Mro John Lovejoy, 3i00 Lindar,ita Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated he had a petition signed by 308 persons opposing the expansion of the tr.~i~,er park, and many of the people who had signed his petition stated they had signed a~ia~;;: ~heet of paper for Mrs~ Lancaster, and did not know what they were signing; that the ~ignatures on his petition represented a11 the property owners in the tract to the west of subject property; that he was opposed to any ingress or egress of Vallejo Lane from the expanded trailer park; that a six-foot masonry wall would be insufficient to protect the families in the single-family development; that he was not opposed to trailers, as such, but~ielt a batter use of the property coiild be projected, rather than the proposed trailex park; that when property was zoned R•-A, a lower fee was charged for taxes than for commercial or R•-3 properties, and in his estimation, backing up trailers to R-1 property was an undesirable and incompatible use~ The Commissiun was advised by the Commission Secretary that 125 letters of oppositiun had been received~ Twenty persons in the Council Chamber indicated their presence in opposition to the proposed expansion of a traiZe* park~ Mrs~ Lancaster then stated multiple•-family development had been approved to the north and northeast and to the southwest of her property; that she had attempted to adhere to all requirements of the proposed Trailer Park Ordinance, and met ail the State Code require- ments; that trailer parks were also taxed for schools and although not being used for R-A purposes, were sti21 being tax.ed :t; trailer parks; that she had an agreement with Mro Brock to pass through his pJOperty to gain access to the rear property; that a gravel road presently existed :o the existing trailer park, and this wou?d be expand~d; and she would sti.oulate ~ccess would be only to Beach Boulevard~ Mrs~ Lancaster further =tated the trash being burned at the southerly end of the property was trash she normslly picked up as debris thrown into the orange grove, and a commer.cia2 trash pick~vp service was provided for the trailer park residentso THE HEARING 6VAS CLOSED~. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No~ 1245, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoptiony seconded by Gommissioner Allred9 to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No~ 557~ subject to cor,ditionsy and the stipulation that the petitioner wouid provide access only from Beach 9oulevnrdo (See Resolution Booko) On ro'L1 cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSEM: COMMISSIONERS: Campo ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chavoso RECLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC HEARING~ EDYVARD E„ FISHER, STUART Lo JOHNSON, AND YHLi .AND NO__ 4••65-1 r_ CLADA M~ PLETZ, 125 East Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; I.E ROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Suite 586, Anaiieim, California, VARIANC~ NG~ 164'1 Agent; property described as: A rectangular'ty shaped par~al of land with a frontage of 176 feet on the west side of Knot1: Avenue and a depth of 465 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approxi- mately 660 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenueo Property presen:ly classified R-A, RESIDEM'IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R~3, MULTIPLE~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVEk OF ONE-STORY t~IGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R~A ZONED PROPERTY; PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORTS IN LIEU OF GARAGES; AND WAIVE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD„ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that as a result of the Report to the Commission, the agent for the petitioner had submitted revised elev~~ions and plans as of this date which had nut been reviewed by the Staff or the Interdepartmental Committee, and represented just an overlay on the existing plot planso __. .r._ __...__._..- -r_. ._._ __ ....__ _ __..__.. - __...... _ . ..., i ; ~' ~ . S ~ PAIMUTES9. CITY PLANNING C01~WISSION, July 6, 1964 \ J 2192 RECLASSIFECATION - Mro LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission N. p~ 6q-65-1 _~ and explained to the Commission what the proposed overlay would meana VARIAI~E NO_ 1~47 Mro Kreidt further stated that in order subject property be developed (Continued) with every dwelling unit as proposed within the Code recently approved by the Commission, the plan would have to be revisedq the proposed plan could not be developed as engineered to the overlay; that if the Commis- sion did not wish to consider additional streets, perhaps they would consider the plan as submitted~~ Discussion held by the Commission noted ~they were desirous of having as many of the require- ments of the recently reccmrr~ended-for•-a~p~ova'1 R-3 Code amendment,andthatthe proposed develop- ment could not meet these because of the primary circulation~ Mr~ Rose stated that the overlay indicated how the property could be developed, and that some 3mbiguity existed in the present zone~ The Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the Code, noting that the existing Code requires where development is proposed of one building or one lot, the Commission has interpreted that to mean where three to six stxuctures are proposed on one lot, it shall be considered a pianned residential developmentq and requested that the City Attosney's office give an explanationo Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated a building could not be considered a single building merely by the joining of the roof lines if it £ur,ctione~ as z separate building with separate entrances; that it couid only be construed as one building if there were only one entrance; that subject petition cannot be considered a standazd R-3 because a subdivision map would be required; and that the petitioner felt there was only one build- ing, in his estimationo Mro Rose then stated the areas between the structures were considered passage:vays; that in his estimation the proposed development was designed to meet the present R-3 Code; that the waiver of the side yard requirement of 7~ feet was only for the rear 25% of the property because it was his desire to place the carports a2ong the property line; that the proposed property was one building with an entrance and exit on the first floor only; tt.at the present developers had been attempting to negotiate with the property owner to the north in order to develop both properties as one parcel, but were unable to obtain any cooperation from this property ownr•r; that the proposed development was then planned, since they were unab2e to obtain the p:operty to the north; and tk;at the pass~geuvays wvuld not be needed to assume that two very large structures wexe developed on either side of the passagewayso Mr, Kreidt•thc~n advised the Commission a similar development on the east side of Knott Avenue, south ~~f Orange, was approved within the past year, which permitted the develop- ment with an a.lley for circulation purposes, and it was determined this was an incompatibl~ situation because when cars parked in the alley, ingress and egress was almost impossible in a 21-foot al.ley~ Discussion wa~ held by the Commission :elative to whether or not the proposed development was u„e ~iructure or two large structuresq that in order to determine whether this was two structuresy it would hava to be subdivided internally from the ground to the ~oof to qualify fo* this type of construction; that this type of construr,tion was defined in the Auilding Code for requirements of fire walis;anr?thnievenifthe Commission did consider. the proposed development one structure, s further problem relative to how the units could be related to the main street still existed~ Mro Roberts then stated the question before the Commission was whether or not to construe the proposed development as one building; that the question was presented at the In±er- departmentai Comriittee, and it was fE?t that the City services of fire protec±ion, trash, etc~, could be provided by the City~ Mr~ Rose, in response to Commission questioning, sta~ed adequate circulation was being provided by a 14--foot clearance and a 28-foot turnaround areay that the majority of the units would be one-bedroom units since there seemed to be an overabund~~~ce of two and three-bedroom apartments; and that it was the developer°s intent to construct on subject property without projecting anything for the property •to the north since the property owner was reliictant to enter into any ~areement with the deveioper> Mro Kreidt then stated that since a multiple-family development existed to the south, the developer might be able to contact that property owner and propose the removal of the exist- ing block wall and construct a street with a modified cul•-de-sac at the rear between these two properties, but this would have to be a decision bEtween private property ownerso ._-•---___..~_._...~___._. _._.. ..__ ...... ...._.__.._ ........ ....._....._.._-----...-----_. -~ _ ._air . ~ t~'r 1 1 r `; . , ~ s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .7uly 8, i964 2193 RECT.ASSIFICATION •- Mro K;eidt further continued that the reaction of the City Council to N0~ 64-65~1 resolving circulation problems for deep lot areas was reflected in a recent petition denied by the Commission and approved by the City VARIANCE NO.. 1~,47 Council, in which the Council felt it was not their desire to penalize (Continued~ one property owner in order to orovide access to an adjoining ~ro~eTty owner when he planned to developy and he was mentinning this to i.t~e Commission in fairness to t'~e petitioner, since some attempt was being made to obtain more setback area, since this was the first petition appearing before the Commission since the Commission had recommended for approval a revision to the R-3, Multiple- Family Zoneo The Commission advised Mro Rose that althougi: he was proposing to qualify within the standard R-3 Codey these standards which he had complied with were inadequate to provide a proper living environment; and thatafter a survey of all the properties, the 25-foot drive was a physical possibility, but in rea'lity was impractical, because of the possibility of cars parking in the drivewayo Mro Rose stated that since the Commission understood the problem for combining subject and the abutting property to the northy it was his desire the Commission cansider the plans as presented„ Mro Kseidt advised Mr~ Rose to propose a 54-foot street was only a partial requirement, since only at the time the property to the north was developed, would the 54-foot street be requiredo THE l-IEARING WAS CLOSED~ Ciscuss3on held by the Commission indicated that subject property was ideally suited for multiple•-family development; that it should be considered by the Commission to be held over for =evised plans9 and since the petitioner stated he was desirous to have the Commission consider the p3anssubmitted, and the plans submitted were undesirable in the Commission°s estimation, 'they had no aiternative but to recommend denialo Mro Kreidt stated to the Commission t:tat one of the recommendations, if subject petition were approved, would be that subject property be developed in accordance with standards submitted to the City Counci'l, and that since subject petition would be scheduled for public hearing after the City Councii considered the amendments to the Multiple-Family Zone, at that time the Council could determine whethex• the plans which the Commission had to consider were in conformance with the C~deo Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-i and Variance Noa 1647 to the meeting of August 3, 1964~ After considerable discussion by the Commission relative to requirement of revised plans indicating better circulation, and the petitioner's request that the Commission consider the pians submitted, Commissioner Perry's motion lost for want of a secondo Commissioner Rowiand offered Resoiution Noo 1246, Series 1964-65, and moved for i±s passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Reclas- sification No~ 64-65^~1 be disapproved9 based on the fact that the proposed development did not offer the proper level of living environment and was inconsistent with the Planning Commission`s recommended amendments to the existing R-3, Multiple-Family ~esidential, Zone, and, further, that although the Commission ~+sked the petitioner to submit revised plans incorporating suggeste~l changes, the petitioner stated it would be impractical to prepare revised plans, and reyuested the Commission to act on plans which had been submitteda (See Resolution Booko) On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONBRS~ Allred, Chavos, Gauery Mungall, Perr.y, Rowiand~ NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSEPR': COMMISSIONERSs Campo Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1247, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1647, based on findingso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution waspassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland< NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSEM': COMMISSIONERS: Campo i 1 ._._..~___. _. ~4 t ' .~ l ~' ~ MINUIES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July B, 1964 2194 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT Lo WETZLER, 1218 Eisner Place, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 592 California, Dwner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP, DRI11E-IN RESTAURANf on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 211 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a depth of approximately 277 feet, the western boundary of said property bein9 approxi- mately.259 fr:et east of the centerline of Beach Boulevardo Property presently classified C-1, NEIGHBOi2H00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ Mro Stephen Gallagherappeared before the Commission and stated he represented the petitioner who was unaware this was to l,e considered by the Commission and was presently in the East; that he had no authority to agree to any recommendations made in the Report to the Commis- sion, and that it was his understanding that the proposed lease indicates there were 240 parking spaces provided for the entire shopping centera Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that if the Commission felt an Orange Julius walk-up restaurant was considered desirable for the area, consideration should be given to the future parking requirements for the shopping area as it developeda Mro Rousseau, Western ilistrict Real Estate Manager of the Orange Julius Company, appeared before the Commission and stated they had developments at the World's Fair in New York, in Buena Park, and the La Mirada Shoppin9 Center, and that the proposed development would be located sufficiently far away from the liquor store not to be objectionableo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TIiE f~ARING WAS CLOSED< Mro Kreidt further stated the parking was not a major consideration, but the Commission might wish to give consideration to the future development of the shopping center as a wholeo Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1248, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 592, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEN'I: COMMISSIONERS: Campo RECESS - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recess the meeting to 7:30 o'clock pomo Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe The meeting recessed at 5:50 o'clock pem. RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall ~econvened the meeting at 7:45 o'clock pomo, all Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioner Campa (The public hearing on the Commercial R~creation Land Use Palicy change to the height standard may be fo~nd at the last portion of the Minuteso) RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC [-IEARING. GORDON L. HODGES, 18681 Crescent Drive, Anaheim, ' N0. 64-65-2 California, and KENT F. CAMPBELL, 1204 Dale Street, Anaheim, California, ~ Owners; LANCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 841 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, ~ GENERAL PLAN California, Agent; requesting that property described ass A rectangularly ~ AMENDMEN't' N0. 27 shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of Dale Avenue and Ball Road ~ with frontages of 299 feet on Dale Avenue and 324 feet on Ball Road, sa_d ~ property being further divided into Portions "A" and "B", Portion "A" ~ being a rectangularly shaped portion at the southeast corner of Dale Avenue and Ball Road ~ with irontages of 169 feet on Dale Avenue and 173 feet on Ball Road; Portion "B" being the remainir;~ "L" shaped portion lying directly east and south of Portion "A" atid having front- ~ ages of i51 feet on Ball Road and 130 feet on Dale Avenue, and further described as 2780 West Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE for Portion "A" and C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE for Portion "B" to develop subject property with a PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING ON PORTION "B" and a SERVIC~ STAT~ON ON PORTION "A". t Mr. ~6a-~r~en Smith, architect of the development, appeared before the Commission and reviewed i F 0 I J~~ . . . _ - --------- " ._.'.-----._--. _.._...-"-----.._'_--.-'.- ....~...._.~...._..._. '- ~--".'-----'- ~ ,.. .... . . ._~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , . ~ i • 1 _ :~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 8, 1964 2195 i RECLASSIFICATION - the proposed development, noting that the service statio~ site was N0. 6~, 4-65~ not finalized as to its lessee, but Standard Oil Company had shown an interest in the pr~~ertyo • GENERAL PLAN AMEN~NT N0. 7 Mr. Smith presented colored senderings of tF:e proposed medical build- i (Continued ing, noting that it was two at,ories ir construction and would provide facilities for 19 to 25 ~hys#xians, and in response to Commission questioning, stated the a,ir conditioning would consist of individual units within each sui ^, with a large one propc~sed for the roof which would be enclosed, making it invisible from the street. No one appeared in opposition to sv~,~ject petitione THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the circulation problem, noting that the Traffic Engineer had requested a reduction in the number of access points on both Dale Avenue and Ball Roado The Commission further discussed the circulation problem with the architect, inquiring whether or not he would favorably consider working with the Planning Staff to improve the traffic circulation by eliminating access points, to which the architect agreed, but stated it was his desire to maintain a landscaped portion between the medical building and the service station site to physically separate these two facilitieso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment exhibits with the Commission, together with the alternatives presented in the Report to the Com- missiona Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the implication of the proposed business-professional office in the area in which it was located, and it was felt no change should be made to the General Plan and each request submitted for property in close proximity to Ball and Dale would be considered on its own merits, and arzy further recommendation as to a change in the General Plan could be made at the Annual Review~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1249, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-2 be approved, subject to conditions and the stipulation by the petitioner that access to Ball Road and Dale Avenue would be in conformance with recommendations of the Traffic Engineer. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: 3 , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, R~ungall, Perry, Rawl2ndo i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campe ; 7 k Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1250, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage i and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that f General Plan Amendment Noa 27 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed reclas- ~ sification change in land use in the area in which subject property is located did not ~ warrant a change in the General Plan. (See Resolution Booke) '+ i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votez ; i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ~ ABSEAif: COMMISSIONERS: Camp> ! CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CURTIS Wo REEDY, c~o James E. Walker, ~ PERMIT N0. 577 206 West 4th Street, Santa Ana, California, CRENSHAW CARPET CENTER, ~ INCORPORATED AND MARVIN B. KAPELUS, 8447 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Owners; JACK KNIGHTON OR DALE JANNINaS, 2199 Temple Avenue, Signal Hill, California, Agents; reyuesting permission to ESTABLISH A rZESTAURANT i WHICH CONSISTS OF 21 COMMON EATING CONCESSIONS WITH A COMMON DINING AREA AND A COCKTAIL LOUNGE on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 336 feet ~ on the north side of Katella Avenue and a depth of 615 feet, the easternmost boundary of ~; said property being approximately 1,322 feet west of the centerline of Haster Street. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June S, 1964, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit revised development plans to conform with the petition submitted, ~ and for the Planning Department to readvertise subject petition to include waiver of the ~ height limitation. ) r ~ i .. .__..~__ ---- - - ----'--` -"-- ----'-------~--- ~ --- -- _.____..-------, . / ~~, ~. ~ ~ ~ _. _--- . . ~ . . ~-~-.. . _ . ._~._. ~ i • ~ : ~ . __ .. _ _. ~ MINUTES~ GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 C~ 2196 CONDITIONAL USE - Mro Jack Knighton, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commis- PERMIT N0. 577 sion and reviewed the proposed development, noting it would be similar (Continued) to the one constructed in San Mateo, and a-iother being constructed in Las Vegas, but on a larger scale to that presently constructed in Buena Park; that this would not be just a sandwich bar, but would include all types of foods of various countries; that four different materials had been considered for the towers, such as Fiberglas and metal and stucco; that these towers would house the air conditioning units, and the height of the structures would be approximately that same height as Melodyland Theatere Mr> Leo Freedman, representing the Melodyland Theater, appeared before the Commission and stated he was•not opposed to the proposed development, but wouZd request that the Commission require a 60-foot dedicated street through subject property from Katella Avenue northerly to the parking lot of Melodyland Theater; that at the time Melodyland Theater was being con- structed, fill dirt was required, and the property ownersof the subject property stated they planned to have a street through the center of the property, and the ground was excavated with a rolled curb to conform to a street at the time the builders of :~ielodyland used the fill dirt; that this street was necessary to facilitate the heavy traffic coming from the Melodyland Theater which had access only to Harbor Boulevard, and more adequate access should be provided to Katella Avenue. Mr. Knighton then advised the Commission the purported street was actually an easement granted by the property owner so that the property could be subdivided to give the present property owners access from their landlocked properties, and he did not feel they should be penalized by requiring a dedicated street through the center of the property to serve the ad,jacent property owner to the northa Mr. Freedman then stated he had been advised by Mro Franklin, the previous owner, the street would be located down the center of the property to serve the property owners on either side, and that in his opinion, 3,200 people visiting Meiodyland in a day was not in the interest of one person, but would facilitate and aid these people in leaving the theater grounds~ The Commission inquired of Office Engineer Arthur Daw what the Engineering Department°s opinion was regarding a street through subject propertya Mro Daw replied a discussion was held at the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting relative to requiring a street; that under normal cot~ditions a street would have gone through the westerly portion of the property with development of Zeyn and Clementine Streets; that at the time Melodyland Theater was constrUCted,.information had been received the property owner o~ subject property intended to subdivide the property with a street through the center; that no plans had been submitted; the problem of circulation was discussed with the Traffic Enganeer, and it was felt that with the prop~sed development of the property, a street was not a critical ppint to serve the Melodyland Theater; therefore, no recommendatio~ of a street was made in the Interdepart- mental Committeeo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt further reviewed the Interdepartmental Committee discussion, stating the Committee was fully aware of Mr. Freedman's request for a street; that this was thoroughly discussed with the Traffic Engineer, and it was his statement no sta:•eet was needed because of the proposed usee Mr. Daw stated if the program of develooment of Zeyn or Clementir.e Street had been formalized, the actual location of the street would have been on the westerly portion rather than down the cer.ter of the property, and that if the Commission •r+as desirous of having a street through subject property, it could be placed on either the easterly or westerly side of the property~ Mr. Freedman then stated that as a condition of approval of Melodyland Theater he was required to dedicate and construct a 60-foot street to Clemeni.~ne, and that it was originally discussed that subject property develop with a street .~lso~ Mr. Knighton stated that the series of lots as laid out along the private road would go through the middle of the property, but if the Commission desired a road there~ this should extend northerly thr.ough the Melodyland property to Freedman Waye Mr. Freedman then stated this proposed street would interfere with Melodyland Theater~ Mr. John Shannon, 11602 Stewar~ Drive, Garden Grove, a real estate agent, appeared before the Commission and stated the easement referred to was never proposed for anything except as a private street; that there were eight different people who had easement rights on this private street, arid it would be very difficult to obtain agreements from all property owners whc had easements on these streets; that an easement existed on the easterly side owned by the same property owner, and this easement would be abandoned because of access to the private street. ~. ~ _.__.. - ~.. . . . f ~ / ' . ' .~1 '... \.'' . ' ' ° ,4'•~L ~~. .. J ' .... t ..., ' I . `-~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8~ 1564 ~. ;~ , i ~ 2197 CONDITIONAL USE ='Ihe Commission expreased the thought that the existing easement would PERMIT N0. 577 b~come null and voide • (Continued Mr. Knighton stated that to require a street through the center of subject oroperty would depreciate the value of the land and void the land use be- ing proposeda ~ Cortunissioner Gauer expressed the thought that if this street were located on the east side of the property, the proposed de~•elopment would lose 51 parking spaceso Mro Freedman stated he had been attem~ting to cooperate with the Disneyland people by avoid- ing excessive traffic and to allevia•te any traffic hazard by the construction of Freedman Way, and it was his feeling Melodyland should hav~ a similar protection or cooperation from the subject propertyo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission xelative to further study being m~de on the Circulation Element to substantiate whether or not the Commission should require add'ational access through subject property; whether or not the proposed use would b~ what was desiratle for the area; that the Commission should view other similar developments in Buena Park before maki~~g a decision; that the Circulation Element should be resolved between the property owners of Melodyland and subject property, so that a mutual l~enefit would be derived; and that the Commission should continue subject petition. Mr. Knighton advised the Commission he had slides ryhich could be presented to the Commission showing•the development in San Mateo, and if the C~mmission was desirous of viewing these, he would be glad to bring them for their viewing, either privately or at a public hearing. The Commission directed Mro Kreidt to make arrangements to hav~ Mr. Kni~hton present his slides of the.development in 8an Mateo at the morning review sessian of the August 3 meetingo Commissioner Perry offered a moti~n to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 577 to the meeting of August 3, 1964, requesting that a Planning Study of the area be made with a possible street going through the subject property or along the east side of the p•roperty, for additional information from the 7raffic Engineer regarding ingress and egress from Melodyland,.and to view the slides suggested by the agent for the petitioner for Commission reviewe Commissioner Roh:and seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDo GE~VERAL PLAN - COMINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATE~ BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AMENDMENT N~ 0. 21 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to the Circulation Element by proposing the establishment of Clementine Street and Freedman Way as collector streetso Subject General Plan Amendment was continued from the meetings of June 8 and 22, 1964, await- ing action on the abandonment proceedin9s for Alro Street. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that they might wish to consider General Plan Amendment No, 21 at the same time as Conditional Use Permit Noa 577, since the Circulation Element might be affected,if the Commission deems it necessary to propose a street on subject propertye Commissioner Rowland o!fe~~ed a motion to continue General Plan Amendmer.t Noo 21 to the meeting of August 3, i964, in order that it might be heard concu~rently with Conditional Use pesmit.Noa 577. Commiss'ioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIG HEARING. KENNETH K. KIMES, 2215 Victoria Drive, &anta Ana~ PERMIT ~10. 591 Calit~rnia, Owner; JOHN MIHALIK, c/o Valcar of California, I~corporated, 901 North Sepulveda, E1 Segundo~ California~ Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PUBLIC AUTOMOBILE REN'IAL AGENCY IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING MOTEL on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 170 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 601 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 878 feet north of the centerline of Freedman Way, and further described as 1544 Soutfi Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mr. John Mihalik, authorized agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed th~ proposed use of subject property, noting that approximately 12 cars would be parked in the rental spaces, and there was a possibility that up :0 20 cars would be avail- able for rental purposes, and that adequate facilities for parking were available on subject property. ~_.~ --_-____ __ ------ ---- -------...;.--------- ---r~ . ~ . . , - . ~ , :~ . ~ ~ ;, ~ ,~` '. ,. t ~' ~ ~ E i i ~ t ~~ `3~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 ~ 2198 CONDITIONAL USE. - Discussion was held by t~'~e Commission, noting the c.mpatibility of the PERMIT NOe 591 proposed use with the Disneyland area, and that other hotels and motels (Continued had a similar useo No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CL~SEDo The Commission inquired of the petitioner whetner h? would stipulate to no maintenance to be done on subject property, to which the ayent for the petitioner replied in the affirma- tiveo The Commission further discussed tha possibilit; of limiting the number of cars to be parked on tF.a property, and f:nally resclved that parkir,g of rental cars should be limited to the ar~ount of space available after the motel facilities had met Codeo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1251, Series 1964-65, and moved ior its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 591, subject to conditions and the stipulation that no maintenance of vehicles would be performed on subject property,and the requirement that tha matel meet all Code parking requirements for their use and any available space remaining would be used by the car rental agencyo (See Resolutior: Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolutio~ was passed b;~ the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEDTI': COMMISSIONERS: Campo RECLASSIFICATION ~ LOLA M~ AND JAMES A~ GOSLIIVE and LYLE Ba MITCHELL, 1404 West Bay Avenue, lVO~ 63-64-103 Nawport Beach, California, Owners3 THOMAS Ro COUGHLIN, KRIC Enterprises, Incorporated, 405-A West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agento VARIANCE N0~ 1 48 Property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 660 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth TENTATIVE MAP OF of approximately 640 feet. the northern boundary of said property bein9 TRACT N0~ 5688 approximately 660 feet south of the centeriir.e of Orangewood Avenue, the total area of said property being approximately 9.4 acres, and further divided ir.to Portions "A", "B"~ and "C"a PORTION "A" - C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONING requested, having a frontage of 470 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 320 feet, the northerly boundary of said portion being approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue; PORTION "B" - C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONING requested, having a frontage oi ehproximately 190 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 320 feet, the northern boundary of said portion being adjacent to and coinciding with the southern boundary of the aforementioned Portion "A"; PORT30N "C" - R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONING requested, lying directly west of and adjacent to Portions "A" and "B", having an eastern boundary of 660 feet ar.d said eastern boundary of Portion "C" coinciding with the western boundary of Portions "A" and "B", the depth of said Portion "C" being approximately 320 feet from the western boundary of Portions "A" and "B", the northein boundary of sa:.u Portion "C" being approxinately 660 feet south of the center.line of Orangewood Avenue; and further described as 2177 :outh Harbor Boulevarde Present classification of property: R-A~ RESIDE[~TfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION "A": C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE. PORTION "B": C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONEo PORTION "C"s R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo REQU.ESTED VARIANCE: PORTION "A": WHIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING AREA, PORTION "C": WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND WAIVER OF N~INIMUM LOT AREA PER DYJELLING UNITa Subject tract, located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard approximately 650 f~et south of Orangewood Avenue and covering approximately 9.4 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 1 C-0, Commercial Office, 1 C-3, Heavy Commercial, and 6 R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zoned lotso Mr. Thomas R. Coughlin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stating that the architect for the development would answer any technical questions because he had the contact with the Planning Department. ~ ~ t ; ~ t 1 l -- ------...._-- _... _._.__. .___..___...~__... .__..__.._..__~__ _ ... __ _ .__. -------- --- _ ~_-____ . -~IA ~~ ~ . _ . _ , i ' ~ _. i. l ~' O MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 2199 RECLASSIFICATION - Colored renderings were then submitted indicating the proposed use, and N0~ 63-64-103 it was further noted tha~t the requ~st proposed a restaurant on Portion "B", but this had been changed to a bank buildinge The multiple-family VARIANCH N0. 1548 development was then reviewed on the colored rendering indicating where the recreational facilities and the parking areas would be located. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOe 5688 Mr. Rice, architect for the development, appeared before the Commission (Continued) and noted that the Report to the Commission indicated that the C-0 portion had 13 extra parking spaces which could be ~:sed by the C-3 portion, and that the purpose for requesting C-3 Zaning for that portion of the property was because an automotive center was being proposedo The Commission reviewed the proposed development and compared it with the findings presented in the Report to the Commission. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission numerous conferences had been held with the architect and developer of subject property, and they had been apprised of the items on the proposed development which failed to meet Code, together with rec~mmended requirements which would make the proposed development a more compatible living environment for the R,3 portion, whica wou!d nrovide adeq'~ate circulation 3nd preseni: proper setbacks to coincide with the other setbacks in the areao Considerable disc~~ssion was held between the Commission and the architect of the development relative to_the recommended changes to the proposed development, relative to the d.;ns'_~y, proposing access through the commercial property from the residential use, and that although this may have happened in the past, the Commission was not desirous of compounding a short- coming on development principles~ Upon questioning by the Commission relative to continuance of subject petitions in order to revise the plans in conformance with the recommended changes, the architer,t stated the owner of the propert~ hsd it in escrow and did not wish to tie it up for any longer than necessaryo The Commission advised the architect that the prc~osed development was of such magnitude that a hasty decision or hasty plans would not be beneficial to either the developer or the City, and by presenting revisions, the extension of time would help rather than hinder the development, and present a safer investment for the developero Mr. Rice.advised the Commission that discussions had been held with the Planning Department since April on the proposed development, and it was his feeling the proposed development was not being done in hasteo The Commission advised the architect the purpose of the Commission was to consider all com- munity factors, the use being proposed, and the nature of the community in which it was being projected,. and it was the aim of the Commission and City Council to maintain orderly develop- ment in the community as far as it was possible to do so, and that what the Commission was requesti~g was that the agent and the developer consider and be concerned with having as attractive a development as possib).e which would be an asset to the Cityo ~ Mro Kreidt advised the Commission that Associate Planner Robert Mickelson had been working with the.develcper and had advised him the developer was trying to maintain the Los Angeles standards rather than conforming hith the Anaheim standards, and that he hao indicated the ~ density to the: people, on reviewing their plans, and this was the reason they were requesting a variance from the Code requirements for densitye The Commission expressed concern that a ~0-foot alley separated the commercial from the residential.development, and from a traffic standpoint this was ra~her hazardous if children were to resicie in the residential development~ Mr. Rice advised the Commission the original plans had indicated a different method of circu- lation, but.that the Staii nad recommen~3ed an a12ey ba used for both commercia2 and residential usee The C~mmission advised the architect that pr~posing an alley to service both a residential and commercial development had been found unfeasible, and gave an instance vi Euclid and Ball Road, whereby trucks were utilizing the alley for delivery and trash truck pick-up was , also involved, as well as passenger cars leaving the R-3 propertya The Commission also stated they had recently adopted by resolution, and recortunended to the City Council, revisions to the R-2, R-3~ and PRD sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code,and the proposed'development would not meet these standards, and that the Commission •das of the opinion ~ that in order to substantiate their requiring revisions to these sections of the Code, any ~ subsequent plans should in essence conform to this, although not officiaily ac'opted by the ~ City Councile ~ '~ l '.~ ...~_ ___.{___.___'_'_'_ .______.____...__..' , __..~ _ . . ~ .~.~. ."_ .~_ . . . . T ~. . ~ I / 1 ~ ~ MINUTES, C.ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 22u~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mro Rice stated the Report to the Commission recommended 64-foot wide N0. 63-64-103 streets, and it was his opinion this was requesting something of him which was not in conformance with existing streets ad,jacent to subject VARIANCE-NOe•1648 propertyo TE6TfATIVE MAP OF Mro Kreidt stated that the recommendation for 64-foot wide street was TRACT N0. 5 88 ~t the request of the Engineering Department and the Director of Public Continued ~ Workso THH HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-103 and Variance No. 1648, together with Tentative Map of Tract Noe 5688, to the meeting of August 17, 1964, fcr the submission of revised plans incorporating the recommended findings in the Report to the Commission. Commissioner Allred seconded the motione The agent for the petitioner and the architect requested that the Commission consider them again, and asked that the Commission render their decision on the plans as presented because of the time element factor in reference to the escrow agreemente Commissioners Chavos and Allred withdrew their motion for continuancee The Commission again pointed out the shortcomings of the proposed development, and were of the opinion these should be remedied prior to being submitted to the City Council. The agent and architect again reiterated the request to consider the plans as submitteda THH HEARING WAS AGAIN CLOSEDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1252, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoptinn, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-103 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed devel- opment exceeds the existing R-3 standards; that it did not meet the recently recommended amendments to the R-3 Zonef that upon being requested to subR~.t revised plans, the agent for the petitioner requested the Commission consider plans as submittedo (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer~ Mungall, Perryo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlande ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campe Commissioner Rowland qualified his "NO" vote by stating that the Commission should explore every available means to present a set of plans of development to the City Council which they feel will be more compatible rather than recommending denial and then having revised plans submitted to the Council which the Commission will not again be able to review, and that in the'interest of the community as a whole, petitions should be required to meet Code so that a more compatible living environment may 4e maintainedo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1253, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Variance No~ 1646, based on the fact that the requested variance had no basis because the hardship had been created by the petitionery and. the petitioner requested consideration of subject petition on plans presented. (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Camp< Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 56£38 based on the fact that the reclassification proceedings had been recommended for denial, and development ~f the Tract was contingent upon the Petition for Reclassification being approved> Commis- sioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo After the Commission had recommended disapproval of subject petitions to the City Council by resolution, the representatives of the petitioner and developer asked the Commission to con- sider the petitions favorably if they agreed to 64-foot streets, 66 2~3% parking for the C-3 portion, elimination of the bachelor apartments which would lasve the R-3 portion short of only one•parking~space, and that the only request for waiver under the variance would be ""' i the density requiremento I t { ~ y I F ~ ~ M ~ ,, ' ~ , _ __.._ _.... _. ~~ _ _ . . ..~ . ~ ._.__.._'_'__'___~. _........---r..._~, ~ . . . . ... - N . . ' ~ ~. . . . ._' . ~ ~ • - : :.~ ~ ~ iAI~fES, CITY PIAlaiFNG COMMISSION, July 8~ 1964 2201 ~CdASSYFICIleFON - The Co~i.ssion informed the representatives that pl.ans would have to NDm 63-E~Q-103 be revised to indicate these changes and that the Commission•had been attempting to have the petitioner agree to all these changes as VARIAi~.e ~. I648 vrell as a reduction in the density in recommending that subject petitions be continued before the hearing was closed, but that since the petitioner T'ttr11ATYVc 61AP OF rrould not agree, therefore, the Commission recommended denial, and no TBACI 2~Ds 5~88 further action could be takeno (Cantinued) C~li~IYYOi:AL tl5E - PEJBLIC HEARINGo JULIUS NATHAN, 1220 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Pr'~LIY l80. 590 Calitornia, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL ANil WAIVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LAND6CAPING on property described•as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately I10 ffeet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard (Los Angeles Street) and a depth of approxi- ~tr.e~y 120 €eet, the restern~ost corner of said property being approximately 440 feet south of :.he centeF3ine of Katella Avenue, measured along the eastern right-of-way of Anaheim 3ouievard, and f~rther described as 1836 South Anaheim Boulevardo Property presently clas- sified as b[-F, LFGIiT INDUSTRIAL AND P-L, PARKING LAND6CAPING, ZONESa LEsm Juli~us lYathan, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed request £or expansian of an existins motel and waiver of the required landscaping in the 19-1 ared P-L Zoness and further requested that the Commission consider requesting that street i~sovements he deZayed until such time as the City proposes improvements for the entire faontage oi Rr-aheim Boulevardo Ihe Ca~mission advised the petitioner that a bond could be posted for street improvements ateich .oulc insure their installation at the time the City planned general improvements far t3ee entire street~ !tr= list~rzn tnen stated he was concerned with the recommendations of the Report to the Com- ~ission relative to a reduction to units to provide parking facilities, as well as land- scapi~3= Zonir~ Coox<finator AAartin Kreidt advised the Commission the plans presented did not provide sufficient teErning radius to enter the parking spaces; that the recommendation of 9096 of a aeduc~ion ef tt:e number of units was based on the fact that if 90° parking was provided~ t.t~e lar~dsca~i~ adjacent to the right-of-way line would be reduced to two feet in width; acad that the aiternate method would provide 60° angle parking, but would also reduce the n.~er o€ eaiits by two, and permit the seven feet of landscaping to be installedo Itsa 3o1m-e ~rint, designer of the proposed addition, appeared before the Commission and s~z~eci :.i~eat similar parking had been used on subject property for some time, and no problem h~ ~een presented, therefore the 90° parking was drawn on the existing planso, Discassioen~ras then heZd by the Commission relative to the adequacy of the parking and the iondscapi~3, and it was then determined these plans were revised to indicate a different paricareg I~F^:at with 1>ndscaping more closely related to requirements of approximately three fee~, and ~~u~ curb.landscaping should then be planted at three to four feet in height to stnie3d ~he ~a.:king areao Q;fice Eclgineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that with the additional dedication of ~0 €ee~. tiae existing sign on subject property would be within the new right-of-way line and avecid be an encroachment, and it was recommended if this encroachment was permissible, to reco~ecad to t:~e City Council, under separate motion, the granting of the encroachment I of fhe sign into the altimate right-of-way line until street widening took place, at which , time it r~l~ be ret~oved e Ca~issaoner Bnwland offered Resalution No. 1254, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage arn3 adopt~.on, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Fetition for Conditional Use Permit tDo. 590, subject to revision of the parking area and landscaping to be dcsigned to more closely relate to the requirements, with a six inch curb,and landscaping p?anted at three or four feet in height, and conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call ~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYsS: C06DlISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. A-~: (XkdVlISSIOIV'ERS: Noneo ABSF.ddf: C060iISSIONERS: Camp. ~"'~"'~ 6~CESS - Chaarman Mungall declared a recess at 9s25 o'clock pama, , ~ reconvening the meeting at 9:39 o'clock p<mo t f i c ; ~ f , ~ 1 ~- ~ •-~ ----~- - ---------__.._._.._._,.,- - - _ _ . .._.~_._._, ~ . ~ , _ .----- . - - ~ ._ ~ - ; - '~ i J ' ' '1 \ .: ~~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 CONDITIONAL USE - RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT NOe 590 TFIE CITY COUNCILa (Continued) 2202 Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that when the dedication of the ultimate right~of-way fo: property considered under Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 590 was made, that ~n encroachment be permitted for the existing sign which would be located in the ultimate right-of-way until such time as the street was to be widened, when it wouid subsequently be removede Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC f~ARINGo R. S. HOYT, JR., 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 589 California, Ownerf requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOTIVE MUFFLER SHOP on property described as: A triangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 94 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of 139 feet, the northeastern boundary of said property being adjacent to and coinciding with the southwestern boundary of the Santa Ana Freeway, and further des- cribed as 1455 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEo No one was present to represent the petitionero Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the existing structure would be removed and that the proposed use would be compatible to the areae No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission reviewed the plans and €elt that adequate trash storage should be provided to eliminate ar~ unkempt appearance of the property with oId mufflers stored on the premisesa Commissioner Perry offer.ed Resolution Noo 1255, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 589, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: f AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMNIISSIONERS: Noneo ; ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Camp. GENERAL PLAN - CONI'INUED PUBLIC F~ARING. Property located in the general vicinity AMENDMENT NOe 26 of Western Avenue and Ball Road, recommended for C~0 COMN~RCIAL OFFICE, ZONE, and recommended for approval to the City Council under Reclassi- fication Noo 63-64-1450 Subject General Plan Amendment was continued from the meeting ~f June 22, 1964, in orcic•r to allow the Plannir.g Department time to prepare an additional exhibit indicating commercial- professional use for the property approved under Reclassification No. b3-64-1450 Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented the additional exhibit to the Planning Commission for their perusal, and further noted Planning Study 39-6-4 had been updatnd to indicate the property approved ~nder Reclassification Pdoo 63-64-145 for C-0 Zoningo Mr. Kreidt ! further recommended to the Commission that General Plan Amendment No. 26 be recommended for denial since ~he Commission's Land Use Policy in the vicinity of Ba12 Road and Western ! Avenue was substantiated in Planning Study 39-4-2, together with the history of zoning actions in the vicinity of this intersectiona THE HEARING WA5 CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolutian Noe 1256, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that~Generai Plan Amendment Noa 26 be disapproved, based on the fact that the Coimnission's Land Use Policy in the vicinity of Ball Road and Western Avenue had been substantiated in Planning Study Noo 39-4-2, and that the history of the zoning actions in the vicinity of this intersection was • , reflected on said plannin9 studye (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: CONN7ISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campa ~ I /~ ; __~_....___. __... - ---------- ---_ --- - - _ ------._-- ----- s- ----- = ~..~. __ _-.~ , ~ ~. _. ~ . . 1 ~ ~ A -.:.~ i I ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMAIISSION, July B, 1964 2203 AMENAI~IENT TO TE~ - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANANEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amend- ment to Ci~apter 18.08 by the addition of Section 18.OBo605, Planned Residential Developmenta Zoning Cuordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed 3mendment, noting this had been reviewed by the Commission at the time the Planned Residential Development Section of the Anaheim Municipal Code was recommended for approval to the City Council at the meeting of June 22, 1964. Mre Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1257, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18008, Definitions, be amended by the addition of Section 180080605, Planned Residential Development -"A residential development of thsee or more main buildings, and substantially incorporating the site planning principles of Section 18a65o010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code"o (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campo REPORTS AND •- ITEM N0~1 RECOMMENDATIONS Northeast Noe 3 - Comparable zoning recommendationo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the area map covering the Northeast Noe 3e Said map indicated the existing County zoning for these properties and the comparable City of Anaheim zoning. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to advise the City Council that a study had been made and reviewed by the Commission, in accordance with Code: Section 18012.030, and recommends to their Body that Exhibit "A" represents the most comparable zoning of the City of Anaheim as it applies to properties covezed in the Northeast Noo 3o Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDa ITEM NOe lA Yorba Annexation - Comparable zoning recommendationo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the area map covering the Yorba Annexation. Said map indicated the existing County zoning for these properties and the comparable City of Anaheim zoning. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to advise the City Council that a study had been made and reviewed by the Commission, in accordance with Code: Section 18o12a030, and recommends to their Body that Exhibit "A" represents the most comparable zoning of the City of Anaheim as it applies to properties covered in the Yorba Annexation. Com~nissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0~_2 Variance No. 1372 - R. E. Williams, 1829 South Mountain View Avenue; reques~ to continue use of an existing residence for the establish- ment of an office and outdoor storage of equipment and vehiclese Zor.ing Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that upon addressing a letter to the property owner of subject property indicating the three year period of time granted for use of subject property would expire on June 26, 1964, Mre Williams had submitted a letter requesting an extension of time for this variance be granted in order to permit the continued use of the property for office and storage of equipmento Commissioner Rowland offered a motier. to grant an extension of time for the use of the property considered in Variance No. 1372 for use as an office and outdoor storage of equip- ment and vehicles for a period of one year, said extension of time to expire on June 26, 1965a Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. i ___._. ___..____ _ _._._ _.-- ~ • ----------- -- ..._.... _ . _. ..__--- h .r~. ~. ./' .._.._'__" _ ___~ . , i i • 1 -.~ V ~ ~ ~~ MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 2204 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 3 ~RECOMM1~NDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Noo 515, Clarence E, and Jane A, Pettit; request for six months' extension of time to establish a dog kennel at 3640 Savanna Street for compliance with conditions of ' approvale 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read to the Commission the petitioner's request, together with recommendations by the City Engineer's office and the Planning Department, Development Review, noting that dedication had not been made and a bond had not been posted, that street lighting fees had no~k been paid, and that a record of survey had not been recordeda Commissioner Gauer offered a motioa to grant an extension of of conditions attached to Resolution Noe 999, Series 1963-64, for the use of the property located at 3640 Savanna Si:reet as of conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Noo 515, mber 23, 1G64o Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiona six months for the completion granted rnr•~December 23, 1963, a dog kennel for the completion said expiration of t.ime being MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM N0. 4 Request for joint work session with the City Council before Council action on the proposed amendments to the Anaheim Municipal Codea issioner Rowland offered a motion to request that the City Council consider scheduling int work session with the Planning Commission to review the background and hi~tory tive to Resolution Noso 1233, 1234, 1235, and 1236, Series 1963-64, recommending to City Council amendments to Section 18016, R-A, Residential Agricultural~ Zone; Section B, R-29 Two-Family Residential, Zone; Section 18032, Multiple-Family Residential, 2one; the addition of Secti~n 18a65, PRD, Planned Residential Devel~pment, Said work session e scl~eduled in the 2vening prior to the City Council action at a public hearing of the ~sed amendmentse Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOo 5 Reclassification Noo 63-64~10; classification of property zoned P-1 and R-i to R-3, northerly of Midway Drive, east of the Santa Ana Freewayo ig Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that since subject petition had considered in two portions, and that Portion "A" had no conditions attached to it, ight be in order for the Commission to recommend to the City Council that the Ordinance ~ad on Portion "A" reclassifying said property to the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, issioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Portion "A" of ~ssification Noo 63-64-10 have an Ordinance read on that portion since no conditions to be met for said propertya Commissioner Allred seconded the motiona MOTION [ED, / / ~~ MINIlfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 2195 AMENDMENT TO COMA~RCIAL - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TE~ ANA[-IEIM CITY PLANNING RECREATION AREA POLICY COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing to review engineering and economic data related to the amendment of the C-R, Commercial-Recreation Area Land Use Policy to provide :or height standardso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented a brief t~istory of the Commercial-Recreation Land Use Policy adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Councilo Mro Ettinger, Director of Marketing of Disneylan~i, appeared before the Commission and advised the Commission the only evidence being submitted to be heard at this public hear- ing in addition to that presented at the meeting at the City Library with the Planning Commission, City Council, representatives of the Anaheim Visitors and Convention Bureau, the Chamber of Crmmerce, and the representatives of Disneyland wPre postcard photographs similar to those which could be purchased at Disneylando Mr. Ettinger then introduced Mro Harrison Pricee Mr, Harrison Price, Vice President of Economics Research Associates, appeared before the Commission and reviewed an economic analysis report entitled "The Economic Impact of the Disneyland Recreation Complex on the City of Anaheim"e Mr. Price noted that as the title implies, the report derives a measurement of the economic benefits accruing to the City of Anaheim due to the Disney~and park and its satellite attractions and services. The total area-wide impact was noted as being much larger than indicated in the report since the report was concerned only with the effects dispersed within the city limits of Anaheim. Mr, Price reviewed highlights of the report: 1~ The 1955 through 1964 economic impact on the City of Anaheim alone was approximately 5560 milliono 2e The present annual ecanomic impact on the City of Anaheim alone is slightly above $60 million~ 3e The Disneyland park, a cormnercial-recreation enterprise, constitutes a"basic generator" type use, ivea, a basic industry or importer of visitors and outside moneyo The Melodyland Theatre was noted as the only other "basic generator" type use in the C-R area, the remaining uses being classified as satellite or service facilities which cater to the needs of visitors, This class of enterprise generates an economic multiplier of 12 which is substantially greater than that of surrounding satellite uses or other types of industrye Thus the analysis indicated that the $46 million private investment in the park brought 12 times that ~mount of economic activity to the City of Anaheim in its first decade of operationo It was also noted that it is the investment in the park, and not the peripheral investments in hotels, motels, restaurants, etco, which has generated the largest part of the 12 times multiplier mentioned aboveo Approximately 80 to 85 percent of the total impact was derived directly from the park, the remainder from satellite developmentso Mr, Price noted that a conclusion of the report was from a community standpoint, the high- est and best use of land in the C-R area is for the commercial-recreation or basic generator type developments which serve to draw visitors to the Anaheim area, and that the total economic effect is so large and so dispersed in the community that the primary beneficiary of the activity is the entire populationo Under these circumstances, he felt that the public interest was served by enhancing and encouraging expansion of the basic recreation and economic generating developments since expansion of this base directly profits the entire stream of economic activity in all of Anaheim, Mr. Price also noted that there are values which accrue to the City of Anaheim due to the Disneyland facility which are not measurable in dollar incrementse ~Disneyland has helped Maheim become the most important community focus in the County in many segments of•economic lifee The success of the Melodyland Theatre and the support for the new convention facility would be dramatically diminished without Disneylanda The City of Anaheim has also•become known throughout the United States and in distant parts of the world due to the unique attrac- tion. Even in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Anaheim is set apart from other Orange County communities due to its being a center of attractive hotels, motels and restaurantso In addition, there are residential and commercial properties outside of the recreation industry which were undoubtedly built because of the recreation stimulus of the Disneyland complex. ~ Mr. Price concluded that "the economic contribution thus made by Disneyland through the prestige it lends is not entirely measurable, but it is clear that the park is the center - not only eco~Emically but psychologically - of a large portion of Anaheim's reputation and favorable ~ge". ' It was r}~ted that copies of the Economic Impact Report were available at the City Library and in the% ffice of the Planning Director of the City of Anaheim for reference. ' I ~ . . . . .. _ ...._._ _. _ _ .._ . ~ ~ ~ ~ j: ~``~._.... „ _ --- - - . ,. _____._.~-.,--- .-- ~.~ P -~ . ~ ~ r, ~ ,...:r <, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 2195-a ~ ; 4 ' ~ Atu¢NDN~Nf TO CUMN~RCIAL - (Continued; ~ RECREATION AREA POLICY ~ Mr. Ettinger then appeared and revi~,zv_c: a~ssr.;:;:~:::e!opments and their master plan for ~ ~ lands'which Disneyland owned or con+rr~: _•^~`; ~..~-:~::~ ~ht~ Ceuncil had asked that they prepare. f Mr, Ettinger reviewed two exhibits whici: icn~ti<;ated the present and poteritial future develop~ ~ ment of Disneyland. The exhibit entitled "PresenL Development" indicated those areas utilized • for (1)• recreation areas available to the public; ~2) service areas including admin~stration ! and~inaintenance offices~ warehouses, and employee parking, ~3) public paiking areas, and (4) undeveloped holdingso The present recreation areas include ~ost ef ttie lands within the ; peripheral berm plus the miniature golf course and driving range nortli bf Cerritos Avenue. The'exhibit entitled "Potential Future Development" also indicated recieatian, service, and ~ parking areas. In addition, potential expansion areas for recreati"onal development were P indicated for those areas presently Mithin the berm now occupied by administrative offices and warehouse and maintenance facilitieso The latter area was referred to as the future "Edison Square"e Potential recreation expansion areas outside the ber'm'~i'riclude the present Pony Farm and service areas north of Winston Road, the "Hol:dayland"~area, the ~resent emplnyee parking lot on West Street and the approximately 40-acre area between West and Walnut Streets north of Cerritos Avenueo Mr, Ettinger emphasized that the nature of the developmPnt which can take place within these expansion areas is directly dependent upon the type of environment Disneyland can project for the future, and that the height standards would be one of ~he prime factors taken into con- sideratione Mr, Ettinger then stated he would like to give a liti.ie background relating to the firture development of Disneyland. He noted that Disneyland was one of seven divisions of Walt Disney Productions, and that last year the parent company had a gr~ss income in excess of $81,000,000 of which Disneyland produced 29~. He noted that the company was in the ~i~eatricai, motion picture and television business in the United States and abroad; in the music business, s in the character merchandise business, and in the sports business.s and that this year a related 1 activity was being operated at the World's Fair in New York Citya ' From the corporate management point of view, Mr. Ettinger continued, the demands for capital investment in any and all of these divisions must be looked at not just one year, bvt five and ten years ahead; that the investment is based on its opportunities for appreciation; that in the case of Disneyland again, the potential is still extremely high from an investment point of view for a good return to the stockholders, but that the question of what kinds and how much new development would be budgeted for the Disneyland division would be determined by the action taken by the Citye ; Mr. Ettinger stressed the fundamental concept of what was different about Disneyiand, whyan . amusement park of this nature was so different from anything else in the world, and that the % fundamental difference was the world of illusion which had been created within the•parka• He ~ noted that this was the only park in the world which had generated an entire industry as inci- dental businesses, such as lodging, eating facilities, etce~ that the park's uniqueness had made it more than an amusement park, which was why many people made their vacation headquarters in.the area, visited the park, and then made side trips around Southern California. I Mr. Ettin9er then stated Mre John Wise, engineer, would present the Engineering Feasibility ' Study as it related to the height. Mr. John Wise, engineer for the Disneyland operation, appeared before the Commission and ; stated the engineering studies were made at the request of the City Councila He noted that ; in the past the height sta•ndards were discussed on an individual basis as requests came be£ore • tk~e Councilf that the ste:dy being presented reflected height data on a 360° sweep around the ; entire propertye It was decided to consider the views from the ground level assembl.y areas _ only and not from any of the elevated structures. These locations would be located with;n the park proper, inside of the berm area, and areas known to be available to the public, where the public could assemble in large masses, said areas being the locations where the greatest nuwber o£ photographs were taken. ' The engineering study was intended to iridicate those points at which high rise structures outside the peripheral berm would be visible from various points within the parkd The first study was based on the present berm height and height of plantinge A second study tndicated the increased height of screening based on a projected five year growth of planting p1us a substantial reworking of the easterly berm and screening to pull in the easterly height planes to more closely correspond to those on the north, south and west. Each height plane line indicated on the exhibits represented the connection of a series of points in the air at which high rise structures would be visible from the critical view areas within the Disneyland park. , ~ ' k ` ~ ~ .ra _._._.._ ._ . , ....._._. _ • .~__.. _..._ _ --,~' ~ ~ _ _... a ~ I I I . ' i . i <_> ~ ~ `~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8~ 1964 2195-b A6~NbMENT TO COMMERCIAL - (Continued) ~ RECREATION ARHA POLICY When the Council conducted their field studie~ and observed a balloon in the air at a pro- ; posed heigtit, they were in effect viewing a single point on the height plane linee The t exhibits'indicats this type of information but on a 360° view basis. Thus by viewing the exhibits, all of the points at which a balloon or structure of any type would be vistble - from within the park in 1970 (five year growth) can be determined. The height numbers indicated on the lines are indicative of the number of feet above the plaza elevation, not necessarily the height of a structuree As an exampTe, the plaza eleva- tion is 135 feet above mean sea levele The 100 foot height plane line indicates the conAec- tian of those points in the air which are 235 feet above mean sea levelo The actual height that a stxucture might be permitted at any point on the 100 foot height plane line would, therefore, be measured from the 235 foot point above mean sea level to the finished ground level of the subject propertyo Mra Wise continued by stating the study did not indicate the effect of lights at night om high structures~ that the projected figures and pictures were taken only during the daytime; that this was a very important factor to consider since the visibility of elevated structures at night was considerably morea The future expansion areas representing some 60 acres which were indicated on the previous exhibit were not conside:ed because it was not known at this time what could be planned for that areao Mro Ettinger again appeared before the Commission and presented colored picture postcards as.:a resuit of a request at the work session held at the library, and stated these ptcture postcards represented the most popular areas in the park~ that 607 million had been purchased last year; this was for evidence and represented the visual illusions and the effect which motivated their purchaseo A souvenir booklet was also submitted as evidence, of which 580,000 were sold in the park last year, further illustrating the illusions within Disneylando The protection of the investment made in creating these illusions was their basic reason for concern over the height standards in the commercial-recreation areao Mro Ettinger then advised the Commission the Disneyland presentatic~n of the height study was concluded unless the Commission desired to ask additional questionse Chairman Mungall inquired if any one in the audience desired to speak on the subject, and if they did, to come before the podium and present thelr viewso Mre Fritz Stratlin of the firm of Conn and Tucker, attorneys, appeared before the Commission, stating he represented property owners owning approximately 50 acres of property in the 1,000- acre commercial-recreation area~ that those he represented wished to psotest this type of zoning plan; that the proposed zoning ordinance, if adopted, would be arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of due process of law~ that this would be taking property without giving due compensation~ that it was realized Disneyland has spent a great deal of their money in the area, but that zoning should not protect one property owner against the rights of others; that the Commission should protect the rights of all people, since these people had equal rights by law except for special zoning laws; that presently the law existed for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, not for the benefit of one property owner over the other~ that many of these people were here long before Disneyland came to the area; that thesa property owners held on to their land, paid taxes, and now felt the highest and best use for the property would be high rise structures~ this was illustrated by the recent r:.~uest by the Sheraton Hotel for 22 stories; that there were other potential high rise buildings be- ing.projected for the area, not because Disneyland was there, but because of the growing of Snuthern California; the need was there because of the shortage of land and the growing popula- tion of Southern California; although Disneyland may have contributed a great deal to Anaheim, this is not a valid reason or the purpose of the zoning lawsf that it was the feeling of the people he represented that the area should be zoned for high rise structures at some time irr the futuref that the previous presentations were rather arbitrary, and protected only.the Disneyland peoole and did not basic2.lly protect all the property owners in the areai and it should have a unitorm application of all the zoning laws~ any other plan would be an invalid application of zoning and planning laws of the United States, and further that the protest was based on the belief that the Planning Commission will not abuse their powers and wi~l re,~ect the plan as presented which differentiates one property owner from others. The Commission requested that the properties he represented be indicated on the map, and a list of property owners he represented who were protesting the~ height standards be submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Stratlin stated he would submit this list of names. Mr. Clyde Sloan appeared before the Commission and stated he was one of the property owners. in the Disneyland ax~a, and read an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal relative to the . Disney representatives planning a similar amusement center in St. Louis, adjacent to the water- front, said center would be complete some time in 1966 or 1967, and inquired what effect this would h~ve on the future development of Disneyland in Anaheime ~ ~ ~r :: ~ ---------- ------ , --~ ~ -: --'~ _----..._-- ---- - .. ~ . . 4~ _. ' .. '_ . . . ~ .. . ~: ". . _ .-~.~. ~~.. ...- . .::: . '"'.._'. .. ' _ I . ' . . ' . ~ . . ' 4 \ i ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN~ July S~ 1964 AIufENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL - (Continued) RECREATION AREA POLICY Mr, Ettinger stated he would be glad to answer that ttie inateTial presented at this hearing was bythe City Council~ that the Disneyland people the studies for review at this hearing. ~ 2195-c these questions, but first wished to clarify not a plan, but was a height study requested had worked with the City staff to prepare Mr: Ettinger further continued that from a purely business point of view, the parent company ' was constantly'looking to new and different ideas for family entertainment since this was thefr business, and that Sto Louis was one of the opportunities for capital investment di~versifications outside of the Disneyland areao ' Mr; Price, in presenting economic research data for the possible effects on the attendance of the Sto Louis project, stated that the attraction in Sto Louis was an entirely different type of attraction, in his considered judgment, and would not have any bearing on visitors . to D3sneylando Mr, Carl Hays, 1211 Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and stated he was one of -the owners of a parcel of land on the east side of the freeway~ that he was pro-Disneyland sirtce it represented progress in the City, but when Disneyland in his mincl was running contrary ~ to progress, perhaps a screen around Disneyland would be more effective than limiting the uses of the land; that it was the principie that was bothering him since he owned the land before. Disneyland came to this area, and now it became less valuable to him. Mr, Hays presented a letter signed by himself, Mro Wiliiam Hutton, and Mro Jessie Hays, { owners of the Triple H Land Company, which was made a part of the record of the hearingo Mro Jack Shapiro appeared before the Commission and stated he was an attorney, and also an ; owner of 37 acres of land at Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street, just outside of the commercial- ; recreation area under discussiono Mre Shapiro stated that in his opinion 8 to 12 stories is ; "high rise"; that Beverly Hiils, where development is as fine as anywhere in Southern California,~ 8 stories has been the height limitation for high rise structures, and Bev.erly Hills, because ; of that had become a well regulated and well zoned city; that because of this, it has become i some of the most expensive land in Southern California, and one of the reasons for that was ~ because the Planning Commission and the City Council have been able to withstand the short- sighted wishes of some owners of propertyo a i Mr. Shapiro further stated he "did not feel it would be beneficial to those who own land in Anaheim to see the nature of the Disneyland area change~ that he had thought a great deal about ? it.; that he had a great deal at stake, probably as much as any man; that even though in the i short run it may benefit his property to have economic value that may seem to come from a 24 ; to 32-story building, he did not think in the long run that type of development on his part i would be as beneficial, but would be shortsighted as some of the thinking today~ that he had R not found it necessary to go above the height the Commission had originally indicated to get.. : the proper economic return on the land in the area; that he would not go into that facet now, ! but if the occasion did arise, he had facts and figures to support this statement, and anyone ~ in the room who was conversant with real estate values could testify as well"o ~ Mr. Shapiro then stated he "was glad the Ste Louis project was brought before the public a hearing, because he thought it was a very important question~ that he was quite concerned ~ where Disneyland went in the future with more than its capital, because he thought capital was easy to acquire~ he was more concerned where the Disneyland people would go with their brains, their ideas, their thinking and their heart in projecting the plans and for looking ~' into the future; that it was of great concern wnen these people would start thinking of Sto I Louis, and was wondering what Anaheim could give Disneyland in the way of environment that i would make them select Anaheim over the Sto Louis' of the futurej that he became quite worried ~ -vhen all the speakers coming to the podium made the statement that yes, they liked what Disney- ~ land had done for the City, but now they stood to make a big profit immediately and would argue ; to make that profit inunediately~ that the City Fathers had guided the whole area very intel- '~ ligently and that people must vieN proposals m~ch more objectivelyy that this was a great concern that the Disneyland parent cc~poration should be encouraged to think in terms of -• Disneyland as the 'apple of their eye'S that the area would not end up as a second or third- ~ rate park which it could very easily become if it were ne9lected; that if the Disneyland area were neglected for two years, it would become similar to what happened to Freedom Land in New. York - a blight would appear on the scene since it did not take very long for deterioration to set ins that he hoped the leadership of this corporation would never feel that Disneyland : wa~'no longer important and start looking elsewhere for a development or a more worthwhile building or a new enterprise"a Mre Stratlin again appeared and stated that if Disneyland wished to protect their space, they could buy afr rights or other properties, or do something in some other way, but the property ; owners in the commercial-recreation area should not be expected to have zoning laws used for ~ one private individual, and this was what a number of the property owners were concerned abouto ~ ~ .~ .:a- ._.. . _ . .. _ _ __._... . _ _ _ _ _ _. ------~, ' r~T ~ . ___ _ -- ~ _,~ ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 8, 1964 AMEHDMENT TO ~OMA~RCIAL - (Continued) REGHEATION ARHA POLICY 2195-d Mr, Clarence Mauerhan appeared before the Commission and stated he owned approximately 20 acres of'land, consisting of two parcels, that the property was on short term lease to Disneyland, and that he would hate to be held to ~~:eight which might affect the use of the propertyo Commissioner Rowland stated that a number of comments made by interested persons in the audience relative to the height study would have to be clarified; that the statistics and data prepared by the Disneyland people were comp3led at the request of the City of Anaheim; that the economic survey was made at the request of the City; that everyone was vitall~ coFlCerned by an effect this might have~ that height limits in almost every community in the world were established based on protecting the property owners against each other; that the pr.esent commercial-recreation area, since it was in the R-A Zone, had a height limit of 35 feet existing and has been existing for some time~ that all this information should be brought out to help the City best understand the situation on neight standards and high rise; that no one seemed to appreciate what Disneyland has done for the area; and that this is a special type of :.;'ustry for the area, and to eliminate it would be shortsightednesse Commissioner Gauer stated that on a recent trip to Toronto a man had stated he knew where Di•sr~eyland was, but did not realize it was in Anaheim; that a point should be stressed that the Disneyland people had spent a considerable amount of money on the berm around the park since they wanted to serve within the park an illusion of another worid; that many cities throughout the worlci had height restrictions, and that he had travelled in many countries and states, and almost all oi them seemed to have height limitationsa Up until recent2y the buildings in London had a height limitation; the City of Beverly Hills has an 8-stary he.ight limitation~ that up until recently the City of Los Angeles had a height limitation of 13 stnries because of earthquakesy that all of the people had to realize the concept of Disne~ .+ :i was trying to create an illusion of another worlds a great deal of money was spent to cr~..te this illusion and to make it a fact so that people in the park would be relieved from any exterior view of "today land"y that he, for one, felt a height standard should be ba~rd around Disneyland to protect that area and would not infringe on the rights of other peuple by so doing~ that it was up to the City to respect and preserve this area which was a very valuable, attractive addition to the City, and there could be found no equal in any part of the world to the Disneyland area~ and that, therefore, the height limitation should be made to preserve the illusions within Disneylando Commissioner Perry stated many cities were trying to obtain good industry to help +he tax base, but Disneyland was the biggest and greatest industry which could be found anywhereo He noted that 240 people staying overnight for a year i~ the area would bring an economic impact to the City equal to a million-dollar industrial payrolla Commissioner Allred then stated that regarding the protection of one property owner over another - this happened constantly; we do this in.the industrial area when we prevent residential development since the two are incompatible to each other, although Disneyland did not have this same problem; that the height study and statistics were presented to be used as a gLide, and that it added up to one thing which was, did the intrusion hurt Disney- land? - and the answer is it was necessary to preserve the illusion of an "out of this world" atmosphere; that any intrusion not good for Disneyland would eventually not be good for all incidental uses around the periphery of Disneylando Commissioner Allred expressed the opinion that although all development in the commercial~ recreation area was by the granting of a conditional use permit, it seems everyone wanted to go a little bit highez•, and 3udgment should be made on each individual basis with standards adopted as a backgroundo Commissioner Chavos stated some form of a scale should be adopted so that the people who wish to sell their property would know how they could develop the property, and this scale should be to the benefit of all the property owners, similar to the study presented by the Disneyland people, which showed a very precise pattern, and that to leave it in doubt whether this would be granted in the future or not was erroneouse Coimnissioner Rowland stated before the Commission could adopt or recommend adoption, it should be a finding that 'it was in the interest of the general welfare of the City that the. Disneyland investment should be protected and encouraged to expande Commissioner Chavos then stated if a height limit was established, this would give the green light to all the people and would indicate everyone was protected for any future expansion, j bU.t to leave it in doubt, even though a 35-foot height limitatlon presently existed, was not ~ protecting anyone. He noted the City had an ordinance which required apartments to be single- ( story within 150 feet of single-family homes, and if this could be required of apartmants, ; why couldn't it be done for a protection for the commercial-recreation areao ; ___._.--.,> .. ------~------•------_..._- ------- _ . _......_------- . - --.iCl@A r ~ . .. . . I ' .. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1964 2195-e ~ AM6NDMEM' TO COMMERCIAL - (Continued) RECREATION AREA POLICY It was further noted by Commissioner Row~~nd that si~~ce all petitions in the commercial- rec~eation area must file under a conditionai use permit, it was then possible to propose conditions and requirements to place the burden of proof on the petitioner as to the compati- bility, whether oi not any intrusion existed, and that the Commission should make certa'xn this opportunity would still be open to them in considering any petition or type of develop- ment in the commercial-recreation areao Chairman Mungall. stated that at the time the Disneyland people came to puichase their property, it was decided by the Planning Commfssion all property remain in the R-A Zone~ that every use be by means of a varianceo The Commission was now faced with recommending findings to the City Council to establish height standards for the commercial-recreation areao THE }IEARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue public hearing of the Commercial-Recreation Land Use Policy on height standards to the meeting of August 17, 1964, to allow the staff sufficient time to obtain additional data and complete the study of the area. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. ADJWRNN~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Chavos seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourn?d at 12:07 o'clock AoMa Respectfully submitted, ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission : e 4~. . ~ yV'