Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/08/17 I . ~ ~ ' :,; r . ~..f ~ ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall Anaheim, Cali#ornia August 17, 1964 REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Piannirrg•Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2a00 o'clock p.me, a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMANs Mungall. . COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. ABSF.AIT - COh1MISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos. PRESENT - Zoning Coordinators Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineers Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretarys Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Floyd Lawson, Pastor of Mt, Calvary Lutheran Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ` ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of July 20, 1964, were approved as submittedo ' RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo Eo Fo HEACOCK, 1701 West L3~cola-Avenue, N0. 64-65-4 Anaheim, California, Owner; JOHN F< SWINT, 707 West North Street, . Anaheim, California, Agent; property described ass An irregularly VARIANCE NOe 1650 shaped parcel of land bounded on the west by Manchester Avenue and on the east by Thalia Street, with frontages of 273 feet on.the east side of Manchester Avenue and approximately 205 feet on the west side of Thalia Street, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 187 feet, measured at right angles, south of the centerline of Center Street. Property presently classified C-2, GHNERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~\ ~ ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ 20NE. REQUESTED VAR:ANCE: REDI)CTION OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND BUILDING SETBACK. Subject petitions wexe continued from the meeting of July 20, 1964, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans. A l,etter was read to the Commission in which the petitioner requested that Pe.titions ~or Reclassification Noe 64-65-4 and Variance Noo 1650 be terminated. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that all {~roceedings on.Peti~tions for Reclassification No. 64-65-4 and Variance No. 1650 be terminated as re- quested by the petitionere Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTIOII CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGe E. B. AND MARY Eo DAVIS~ H. L< AND MARGARET PERMIT NOa 594 Ro HICKS, AND GEORGE L. HARTMAN, c~o Towne Real Estate, 12262 Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; LEROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California~ Agent~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN BO-UNIT MOTEL on property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 200 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of.,275 feet, the southeTn boundary of said property being approximately 752 feet north of.the centerline of Orange Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petitian was continued from the meeting of July 20, 1964, in order to allow the petii:~oner sufficier.t time to submit revised plans. Zonfng Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that revised plans fiad'not been svbmitted for consideration. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 594 to the meeting of September 14, 1964. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. - 2260 - __._~~.__.._.__-._.----~ ________.~_-^-.--- ---•-_...~ .• . . ._ _ . , _.._.__. ~ . . .. _ _ _.' . _' . ' ~ _ , y ~_~ ~, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 17~ 1964 2261 CONDITIQNAL USE - PUBLIC I-IEARING. JESSIE G. DYER, 755 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 60B California~ Owner; ARTHUR Wo GRAY, JR., 914 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH A ONE-CHAIR BEAUTY SHOP IN AN EXISTING RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fron~age of 51 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 109 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approxi,mately 79 feet south of the centerline of North Street, and further described as 755 North Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified &-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo blr. Arthur Gray, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use on subject property, noting that the petitioner was~desirous of utilizing a portion of the existing residence without any exterior modificatian~ that detail plans indicated a one-chair operation and adequate off-street parking would be provided, said parki~g being provided at the rear, adjacent to the alley; that the recommended conditions, i£ approved, were acceptable to the petitioner, including, if the Commission desired, a small sign placed flush on the exterior of the building rather than a free-st'anding sign; that as.part of the petition, a document had been submitted indicating eleven property owners in the 700 block of Harbor Boulevard, as well as a number of persons in the 800 block, had indicated no opposition to the proposed one-chair beauty shop; that the peti- tioner had been a beauty shop operator for seven or eight years; and that the proposed use would be consistent with the change taking place on Harbor Boulevard. A letter of opposition and a letter of approval were read to the Commission. _ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to this being the first request for a breakdown in residential uses of Harbor Boulevard extending from North Street to Sycamore Street; that a commercial request had recently been denied by the Commission on Harbor Baulevard; that if subject petition were approved, this would be setting a precedent and the pattern of requests for commercial uses in that area; that the City had 2,700 homes fronti.ng on arterial streets and highways which could similarly request commercial zoning if...thi.s was a pattern of development; that because of the special equipmerrt needed to operate the beauty shop, this prohibited permitting this as a home occupationg and that subject property was surrounded on the north, south, east and west with single-family residential developmenta Comnissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1295, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 608, based on the fact that this would set a precedent for strip commercial development in an area predominantly residential; that it would not be compatible to the existing uses in the area at the present time; and that to grant the proposed use would set a precedent for commercial development fronting on arterial streets and highways throughout the Citye (See Resolution Booke) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. }~B.SENTi COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavoso RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETER LOIu~ARDI, 723 North Philadelphi,a Street, Anaheim, NDo 64-65-16 California, Owner; S. Ho PRICE, 723 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent and Purchasero Property describad ass A rectangularly CONDITIONAL USE shapefl parcel of land with a frontage of 62 feet on the north side of PERMIT N0. 611 La Palma Avenue and a depth of approximately 108 feet, the western bound- ary of said property being approximately 203 feet east of the centerline of Citron Street, and further described as 723 West La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. . REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A GIFT AND ANTIQUE SHOP IN AN EXISTdNG RESIDENCE WITH WAIVER OF TI~ MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING. Mr. Sam Price, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was his hope to establish a gift shop to augment a teacher's salary, whic~ was his main profes- sion; that one room would be occupied for the sale of gift and antique items~and would be operated by his wife; that dedication had aiready been made on this property, and street improvements, such as curbs and gutters, had been installed, and the area rias being used as a parking space by employees of the commercial establishments to the west of sub~ect property; that since the pending C-1, General Commercial, 2one was pending before the T__ ___---.-._..._-------___..__._....._---•-------__~_----~-~-----• ,_._... ~ ___.~-.. _..__. . ._ ...~., , . ... i .. . ... , :~~ ~ . , ~~ , 2262 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 August 17~ 1964 SECLASSIFICATION - City Council, it was necessary that he request C-2•zoning for the N4. 64-•65-16 proposed use, and that it was his opinion the-ad~acent.properties fronting on La Palma Avenue to Citron Street sh~uld be reclassified CONDITIONAL llSE to the C-1 Zone, and in response to Commission questioning, stated PERMIT N0. 11 that two previous conditional use permits had been filed by previous (Continued owners, and he was present owner of subject propertya No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions: TEIE I~IEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed use and previous uses approved under conditional use permit, namely a nursery and a speech and language guidance center. Mr. Price further advised the Commission that if subject petitions were approved, Condi- tional Use Permit No. 498, granted for the speech and language guidance center could be terminatedo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that if subject petition were appraved, the Commission might wish to terminate Conditional Use Permit~No. 233 since ~he.use.for the nursery no longer existed, and conditions had not been mete Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1296, Series 1964-55, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noa 64-65-16 be approved, subject to conditions, and the finding that the petitioner stipulated that Conditionai Use Permit No. 498 be terminated if the reciassification were approved. (See Resolution Book.) On._roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perryo NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTe COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavoso ABSTAINs COMMISSIONERS: Rowlande Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1297, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 611, subject to conditionsa (See Reso'lution Booko) On..roll call the foregoing resolution was paseed by the following vote: AYESs . COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENTe COMMISSIONERSs ABSTAINe COMMISSIONERS: TERMINATION OF CONDITION.4L USE.PERMIT N0. 233 Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry. Noneo Allred, Chavos. Rowland. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1308, Ssries 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Conditional Use Permit Noe 233 be terminated, based on the fact that conditions had not been met and a verbal request by the original petitioner to terminate said petition because of financial circumstances. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESt_ COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer~ Mu~gall, Perrya NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONBRSa Allred, Chavos. ABSTAINs COMMISSIONERSa Rowlande --.. .~ - -- -i--- - -------- --- . . ~ ~l . ~ ; ~ ~ o. „.1 ....... _ . .._. ... _ .... _... . _.._ .. ~___~__ ......... . .. ._~~_'.__~l .__..'.._"__. ~._ ~ .~ • . MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 17, 1964 2263 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MARCUS A. GARTNER, 1233 North Harbor Bou2evard, PERMIT N0. 609 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING USED CAR LOT on property described ass A rectangularly - shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 100 feet on the west side af Hasbor Boulevard and a depth of 150 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 352 feet north of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described as 1233 North Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NEo Mr. Marcus Gartner, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that because of the traffic problem on Harbor Boulevard, they had moved elsewhere; that the property had been used in the past for the manufacture of awnings, and tt~at the proposed use would be beneficial to the City~ that the existing home would be removed, but the building at the rear of the property would remain; and the property would be used by the existing used car lot to the south of subject property. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE.HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1298, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 609, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution Nas passed by the following vote: AYESi COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer, Mungai.,., Perry, Rowland. N,OES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENi.s COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Chavose VARIANCE NOo 1656 - PUBLIC HEARINGa DON AND CLARA CLINKINBEARD, 1223 North italston Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requestin9 permiss.'.on to ERECT A 5-FOOT, 4-INCH BLOCK WALL WITHIN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD on property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 78-feet on the west side of Ralston Street and a depth of 97 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 286 feet north of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described as 1223.North Ralston Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. Don Clinkinbeard, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated they had construr,ted the masonry wall before they realized they were in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code, that a building permit had been issued by the Building Department, and that subject petition was filed rather than tearing down the existing wallo The.Commission commented that the wall added to the appearance of the existing homeo Mr. Clinkinbeard stated they were not desirous of having a 6-foot wall, but v-anted to have it conform with the walls existing on their neighbor's propertyo No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1299, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1656, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On rol.7. call tl~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. plOESs. COMMISSIONERS: Nonee 68SENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos. VARIANCE N0. 1655 - PUBLIC HEARING. TILLMAN AND MARY LOU BROWN, 2256 Coronet.Drive, Anaheim, California, Ouvners; requesting permission to ERECT A 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL WITHIN TEiE REQUIRED SIDE YARD on property described ast A rectartgularly shaped parcel of land at the southwest corner of Coronet Drive and Siesta Streets having frontages of 102 feet on Coronet Drive and 66 feet on Siesta Street~ and ftirttrer described as 2256 Coronet Drivee Property presently classified R=T, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEAFTIAL, ZONE. H~r,.Tillman Brown, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated that since the tract in which subject property was located was developed eight years ago, at least half of the homes had relocated their fences to the side yard; that although his address was indicated as Coronet Drive, he actually had a Siesta Street address because ~ ~ . ~. _ . _ _ . ____._ ~.-.__.--- ------- ---• _ _ _ _ .. __ .._~ , ' ~.. . ~_~ ~: .. • MIDiIlfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 17, 1964 2264 VARIANCE NOe 1655 - of the corner lotf that it was his desire to construct the 6-foot , (Continued) masonry wall at the highest grade level since there was-a consider- able drop from the house to the sidewalke The Commission discussed with the petitioner the fact that a corner cut-off would be required to eliminate a blind approach from the adjacent property owner's drivewaye The petitioner then reviewed the plan and the corrections made on the plan and indicated this would be acceptable, in fact it would be better, since he would be able-to landscape better .that way. Mr.. A. S. Tait, 1318 Siesta Street, appeared before the Commission and asked to ; review .the plans before he voiced any objection, and inquired of the Commission whether his view would be blocked, and was informed by the Commission that one of the conditions of approval wa,, that a corner cut-off be provided. Mr. Tait then stated he had no ob3ec- tion to the proposed masonry wallo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED< Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 1300, Series 1964-65, and maved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1655, subject to providing a 5-foot corner setback as indicated on Exhibit Noe 1, and conditions. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution v~as passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NDESc COMMISSIONERS: Noneo 6BSENT~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Chavose CONIIITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EMPIRE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, PERMIT N0. 607 Van Nuys, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE RECREATION AREA ON LOT N0. 1 OF TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4230~ _ further described as a rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a front- age of approximately 332 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth•of approxi- mately 1,274 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH. Mr...Howard Fry, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission•and stated he.,was..available to answer questions. The Commission, upon reviewing the proposed plans, inquired of the petitioner whether or_not.it was proposed to move in a small structure into the recreational areaa Mr, Alfred Edalsohn, agent for the petitioner, a~peared before the Commission and stated the structure being moved to subject property was a sales office located on Harbcr Boule- vard and was 35-feet by 20-feet in size and was constructed as a commercial buildinge Discussion was then held between the Commission and Mre Fry relative to who would maintain cwnexship and who would also maintain the recreational area if the multiple-£amily units were sold offo Mr. Fry stated they had been attempting to develop subject and abutting properties, but were unable to reach an agreement with the property owner to the east~ that presently there was no plan for sale of these multiple-family dwelling unitss and that the property was under one ownership presently. The..Commission expressed concern with approving the proposed recreation area without any qpvenants, conditions and restrictions, in the event the individual lots were•sold off; that_this had happensd in the past, and althoL~h the petitioner had stated it was their intent.to retain subject property under one ownership, the lot on which the proposed recreational area was proposed to be located could be sold off and living units constructed an...it, unless something was provided for before this resale, since no provision would be made for recreational area for the entire multiple-family development of 27 R-3 lots, and that there might be a hazard in the maintenance of the recreational area unleas some arranqements were made, in the event individual lots were resold. ~ Deputy.Gity Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that under a conditional use permit the Commission could require the submission of CC&R's; that the•basic•puipose of the CCBR's was for the maintenance of the common area~ thatin a planned residential develop- ment by its physical nature, could designate not a buildable site, but this was a different type of developmenta _ ....,-. - ~ ~ , - .__.. ._.~j , ~ _ .. . . _ ' ~ ' ~- 1 I ' . ~~ . 1 ` i ~. ~ . ~. WINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 17, 1964 - 2265 aCONDI'fIONAL USE - The Commission then stated that perhaps the CCBR's +~ere not the PERMIT N0~ 07 appropriate vehiclej that there was no serious problem presently Continued because of statements made by the petitioner, but•that in the future, if lots were resold, there might be a maintenance problem or the re^ sale of the recreational area to construct living units. Discussion was then held by the Co:nmission relative to a similar lot situation southerly of BroadHay near the park in which a lot had been left out of the subdivision for recrea- tional purposes and problems had been encounterede Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the develop~.r had given the lat to •the property owners who had never developed it for recreational ~~urposeso Later the-lot v~as sold off for a private development for recreational purpose:~, and that if subject petition was considered favorably by the Commvssion, a finding could be made that.the petitioner stipulated the intent of the recreational area was to serve residents and the owners of the tract, and not for the general public. AOr.so A. W, Phfeil, 3064 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission aad stated shewas owner of the property adjoining subject prepertys that herhome~would be immediately ~idj.acent to the proposed recreational area, to which she objected; that one of her ques- tions was the maintenance of the propesty of which the recreational area would consists that..she was concerned the vacant building would be m~aved on to sub~ect-property and building would not commence :or an indefinite period; that many homes in the area had been-left abandoned and provided children with an area that could be entered and damaged; that at the time the Commission approved the subject property, the common•green and recreational area was proposed for the center of the property with a street around the periphery of the property; that the proposed recreational area would be a hazard since many of the homes would be 1,000 feet away frnm the area; that in a11 fairness"to those who.planned to live there, it was suggested the Commission require the recreational area in.the center of the proposed development; and further inquired of the petitioner who intended to maintain the recreational area and when did they plan to construct on sub~ect proper•tyo , Mr.;Fry replied the property would be maintained by the owners as though by a private owner; that the proposed building would not be moved in until the development was almost completed; that as far as the location of the arra was concerned, it was felt the recrea- tional area would separate the commercial area from the living area; and that a fence wauld be constructed around the pool; and, further, that plans for the development were in the Building Department, and construction would be started within 60 dayso Mrs. Phfeil then stated with a development of 124 units, and the play area being so far away from many of the units, there would be little supervision, and it would be very noisy,.to which she would objecto lulr, Edalsohn stated the landscaping plans had been drawn by a landscape architect who indicated the lot size was adequate, together with the building, to provide sufficient recreational area; that no badminton courts were proposed, although a shuffleboard area was indicated; that the recreational building would consist of one large room and one small room, together with bathroom facilitiesa Mrso Phfeil then stated they were not contemplating selling their property, although theyseemedto be forced into the possible sale, and that since no definite interest had been shown, no plans of development of theix property were indicated for the future. FHE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ?'he.Commission noted the plans indicated a 4~-foot chainlink fence separating the swimming area from the balance of the recreational area, and a 5-foot fence was the minimum reGuired, and further, a block wall along one portion of subject property was also 4-feet, 6-inches and should be a minimun of 6 feet. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1301, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 607, subject to construction of a chainlink fence to 5 feet in height, and a bI"ock wall around the periphery of subject property a minimum of 6 feet in heighta (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~Ss COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos. _~ __._ _._._~_~_.__...__. .._._._..._._. ___._.- .-----..___._.__.__ ~ y i ~ ' _.. ... __. _ . -- -_- ~ _- ----- __ - ~ _.L__.._ . _. l` 1 ~J' MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONWITSSION, August 17, 1964 ~ 2266 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 63-64-139 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property descri~ed ass ~ A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the northeast corner of Ball CONDITIONAL USE Road and Western Avenue, with frontages of 125 feet on Ball Road and PERMIT N0. 581 approximately 130 feet on Western Avenuee Property presently classi- fied C-3, IiEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONs C-i~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF AN R-A RESIDENCE. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that subject petitions had originally been considered by the Cot~nission, and at the time the City Council was scheduled to hear them it was determined they had been misadvertised for the Commission hearing; therefore, these were again before the C~mmission for consideration correctly advertised for the northeast corner rather than L~e so~.~theast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionae THE I~ARING NAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1302, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer~ to recommend to ~he City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-139 be approved unconditionallye (See Resolution Book.) On rall call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol?oW~~; vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando N~Ss COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavosa Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1303, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 581, unconditionallye (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSI061ERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Nllred, Chavos~ :.,~ ~ ; ; RECLASSIFICATION - PllBLIC HEARINGe DON C. GUNNELL, 18021 Santa Clara Street,,Santa Ana, NOe.64-65-19 California, Owner; So W. FARRELL, 1551 Beacon Street,•Anaheitn, California, Agent~ property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land with CONAITIONAL USE a frontage of approximately 295 feet on the east side of Edclid Street PERMIT NOe 614 and a depth of 209 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 396 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, GENEEtAL PLAN and further described as 2050 South Euclid Streete Pr.operty presently AMHNDMENT N0. 33 classified R-A, RESIDEMIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs C-0~ COMMERCIAL OFFICE~ 20I~o REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEe ESTABLISH A CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL WITH A M~DICAL BUILDING TO BE ESTABLISHED AT A FUTURE DATEa N(r~.5, N~~ Farrell, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissiort and reviewed the pxoFosed development, together with its l~catione ~,_.Richard McDonald, 2031 Lida Lane, appeared before the Commission in~conditional opposi- tion~ stating that his property was immediately to the east of subject-property~ and his main.objection to the proposed development was the commercial infringement of•single-family hemes.to the east; that if the Commission would restrict this to single-story and the build- ing relocated a minimum of 20 feet from the east property line~ there v~ould be no objection~ that he realized development on the property could be less desirable than that being presented but that the single-family homeowners were concerned their privacy would be invaded by two- story. development adjacent to their rear yards, and that some protection should be afforded the single-family homeownerso Mro Harry Wilson~ 1681 Tonia Place, appeared in conditional opposition, stating his property was immediately adjacent to the three rooms proposed to be located within ten feet of the property line; that he was happy to see the plans indicated single-story constructions '' \ _ _- ~ _ -~ _._.-r----- ~_.___--_~ _---------~ •-----~ ~ ..._ _ ..~.---- . . e' -- - . _ . • . _ ° , ~ t ' ' :,~ _ (~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 17, 1964 226~ B~CLASSI~'ICATION - that if air conditioning units were located within ten feet of his plQw._64-65-19 home, he would object because these were quite noisy, and requested that these be relocated a minimum of twenty feet; that if these build- CONDITIONAL USE ings were located too close to his property line~ the value of his PERMIT NOo 614 property would be considerably red~ced; that subject proparty had an additional 3~- acres and the buildings could be relocated so that the GENERAL PLAN investment of the single-family homeowners would not be in 3eopardyo AMENDMENT NOo 33 (Continued The Commission indicated that with a little bit of designing, the rooms could be relocated or removed, since a considerable amount of land was still available for expansion, and informed Mre Wilson the City Council required a 6-foot masonry wall to separate the commercial development from the residential develop- ment, and that the City Council policy required a 6-foot masonry wall be measured from the highest grade level of subject or adjacent propertieso , Mre Fred Foster, 1680 Tonia Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating he.had just heard the proposed medical building would be two-story; that he generally ob~,ected to the proposed development because the General Plan indicated low density resi- dential development for subject property, which he desired it remain; that if subject development were approved, this would open the balance of the property southerly for commercial purposeso E~s. Do Le Biggs, 1674 Tonia Place, appeared before the Commission and stated that although she had-not seen the plans, it was her understanding that Tonia Place would be cul-de-saced into subject property, and she was hoping no commercial traffic would be using the single- family development to the east; that she was under the impression the medical building and hospital would be two-story construction, and expressed apposition to that, since the homes in the single-family development to the east were rather ar.pensive, and i£ subject petition was considered favorably by the Commission, it be limited to single-story construction for any pxesent and future ~evelopmento Mrse Richard Rowen, 2057 Lida Lane, appeared before the Commission %;.~3 stated her main objection was to two-story construction, that she was not opposed to the proposed hospital, and that others who had appeared before her expressed her other objectionso Mra Jerry Huff, 1669 Tonia Place, appeared before the Commission and stated he would be in favor of the proposrd development provided it was limited to single-story•construction onlyo Mr0. Farrell, in rebuttal, stated that he wished ta clarify the assumption.the opposition made; that there was no intent to build two-story construction now or in the future, and that he would so stipulate this; that the reason he w^s representing the petitioner was because he had drawn plans for similar developments, and all he had ever drawn were single- story structures, and that the medical building would also be single-story constructiono Ma, Farreli further continued that the reason for the bedrooms being that close~to the east property line was because of the location of the nurses' station; that it was their i,ntent.to put up a wall, but did not feel th8 people would care to have a wall too close to their property to the east; that it was possible this particular wing could be relocated westerly; that on the south side of the property an easement existed which was planned to be used as a drive, and since no home could be built there, this would be •the only feasible thing to put on it; that another easement existed to the north, which they also planned to use as a drive; and in response to Commission questioning relaiive to relocation of the ~oxtion, stated he would be willing to relocate the boundary of the easterly structure twenty feet from the east property lineo In response to questioning by the opposition, the Commission stated no restrictions would be imposed qn the residential property to the east other than the normal required for residential puipbses, and that because the hospital was bein9 located to the•west would not create any further restrictionso A,..showing of hands indicated that all property owners adjacent to subject property to the east were present in the Council Chambero THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ Discussion held by the Commission noted no plans of development for the medical building had been s omitted, and if any future development plans for said building were presented, they~should be submitted to the Commission for Report and Recommendations to~tfte Councilo Commissioner Perry offered :~esolution Noa 1304, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to rccommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-19 be approved, sub3ect to the relocation of the structure to be a minimum of twenty feet from the easterly property 1i~e, limitation of all construc- tion to single-story in height, present and future, and development plans for the proposed _ -.__________,--------~__. ~- ~------•------ ~: , - e 1 • ~/ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' i MTNUTES•y CITY PLANNING COMNIIISSION, Augcst 17, 1964 2268 RECLASSFFICATION - medical building to be submitted to the i.ommission for Report and NOo 64-65-19 Recommendations, and conditionso (See Resolution Booko) CONDITIONAL USE On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo-liowing vote: PERMIT N0. 614 AYESs COAMi1ISSI0NERSs Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda GENERAL PLAN PIOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ~ AMENDMENT_NOa 3~ ABSENTs COh9a1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Chavoso (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1305, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional-Use Permit No. 614, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booka) On roll•call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT.s COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1306, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to reco~end to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 33, Exhibit "A", be approved. (5ee Resolution Booko) C1i roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs CON9ulISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOESt COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIOIVERSs Allred, Chavoso E~CLASSiFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo VILLA ENfERPRISES, 1405 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, NOo_6A-65-17 California, Owner; CLIFF ANDERSON, 1405 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped VARIA~ICE NOa 1657 parcel of land with a frontage of 75 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue and a depth of 224 feet, the western boundary of said property GENERAL PLAN being approximately 312 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, AMENDNfENT NOo 32 and further described as 400 West Vermont Avenuee Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOAIEe REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, Z02~. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF OAIEE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-1 PROPERTY~ WAIVE NiINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING~ AND ERECTION OF CARPOR'IS IN LIEU OF GARA(~S. No.one appeared to represent the petitionere Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter from the agent for the petitioner, request- ing.a..continuance of two weeks for submission of revised planse Mr..W..Se Griffiths, 406 West Vermont Avenue, eppeared before the Co~ission in opposition to.subject petition, stating he was immediately west of subject property; stating that the buildings in that area were not set back in accordance with City requirements; that the proposed development would be within two feet of his home which would cut off the air and circulation and would deprive him of his privacy; that there was no reason for apartments in.this area with so much other vacant land; that the request for waiver of the required parking should not be granted because Vermont Street was one of the worst streets for he.avy traffic, and perking on the street would create an additional .*.azard; that the pro- posed development would change the concept of the entire area if approved; that he had owned his..property for the past nine years and it was his intention to stay there the rest of his life, but this would be impossible if two-story construction were permitted within two feet of...his pzoperty; that he could not replace his home under 325,000, and he woul~ be unable to move his home; that subject property had originally been sold with the intent of moving one home on it but this has never occurred, and now they rere requesting two-story apart- ments~..that the plans indicated only an eight-foot setback from the property line; and that if the parking were waived, he would not have access to his driveway at any timeo The Commission advised Mro Griffiths it was the policy of the Comnission that sevised ~ plans must be submitted one week prior to Commission hearings that the petitioner had , xequested a continuance for submission of the revised plans; and that if he ~rished to 1 know whether the Commission would consider this at the next meeting, he could call the ! Planning Department, and they would inform him whether revised plans had been submittedo ; ~ i { ! , 1 . . ,______ _______ ~~____ , .~ . . , i ~ . :I ,_ . .. ( ~, ~ ~ ~-INUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 17~ 1964 2269 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission discussed the requested waivers of single-story within NOo..64-65-17 150 feet of R-1 and the minimum required parking; that these requests were an insult to the OrdinancPo 1[ARIANCE NOe 1657 Mre Griffiths then stated that part of the property to the west had GENERAL PLAN once been commercial, but according to the map, the Cortwission stated ANIHNDMENT NOa 32 this was not possible, unless it was under the variance that was (Continued) indicated theree . Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue the hearing of Petitions for Reclassification Noo 64-65-17 and Variance No. 1657, together with General Plan Amend- ment Noo 32 to the meeting of August 31, 1964, as requested by the petitioner for submission of.revised planso Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo RECESS - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner, to reconvene at 7:00 o'clock pemo Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3s50 o'clock pom. RECONVEAIEE •c - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7s00 o'c•lock p.ma, all Commissioners being present with the excer:tion of Commissioners ~ Allred and Chavoso '.' CONUAERCIAL . - CON'fINUED PUBLIC HEARINGa INITIATED BY TIiE ANAHEIM PI.ANNTNG CONWIISSION, RECREATION PREA 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider amendments to POLICY . the Commercial Recreation Area policy to provide for height standardso 1 Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that Planning Dire~tor Richard Reese had req~aested the Commission continue subject public hearing until the meei'_ng,of August 24 at 7:00 o'clock pomo, so that it might be considered~alone. Comm~ssioner Camp offered a motion to continue ~ublic hearing on the Commercial Recreation policy to provide for height standards to the meeting of August 24, 1964, at~7:00 o'clock pomo Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLTC I~ARINGo INITIATED BY TI~ ANAI~IM PLANNING COMMISSION, P:.AN NOe 8. 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing development , plans for the south side of Ball Road between Harbor Boulevard and ~ Iris Streeto ~ Associate Pianner Ronald Gr~adzinski presented Area Development Plan No. 8 as follows: BACKC~ROUND:, ' The properti.es with which Area Development Plan No. 8 are concerned are located on the south side of Ball Road between Harbor Boulevard and Anaheim Buulevardo The properties became the subject of an Area Development Plan when petitions for Reclassification Noa 63-64-121 for C-0, Commercial Office zoning and Conditional Use Permit Noo 57~ for the establishment of a loan broker's office in a residential structure were filed with the Planning Departmento PROBLEM: Sub3pct property of said reclassification and conditional use permit is one of a number of r~sidential parcels thsoughout the city which front on arterial highwayse ~Owners of such.lots are faced with variovs land use and economic pressures which cause them to attempt to.develop their resid~ential properties for a more intense use such as multiple- family or commercia~e In mar~y cases, such attempts are merely speculation and have no discernable~intent in terms ,~f actuai physical developmento In either case, the City is faced with the problem of determining on a City-wide scale what,ultimate use such residential properties should achievee Therefore, the Planning Depastment is presently engaged in a City-wide program designed to analyze the many "res~dential-lot-fronting-on-arterial-highway"situations existing throughout the Citya Area~Development Plan No. 8 is part of that program, and the results are as follows: FINDINGS: ' (1) The sub~ect properties, excepting one vacant parcel, are presently developed for low-density single-family residential usea I .__.__ __.r~... _.__ _. _..,._.___._._._ __.__~._...:----- ---_._._. ~d , ._._. -._.-- ~ . . ;, t i i • ] _ - . . _ LL~ . y ` j, ° ~ ~ i ;~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 17~ 1964 2270 - AREA DEIIELOPMEM - (Continued) ' PLAN, N0. 8 n ~ (2) .'Ihe land use surrounding subject properties consists of: • ao A large area of low-density single-family residences to the south. ! ,bo Commercial usas to the east and west. , ~ .c. A anixture of agriculture, low-density, single-family homes, and various ~ commercial uses to the north. (3) The subject properties all front on Ball Road, however, the parce~s which were developed as part of single-family tracts do not have access to Ball Roado :.Vehicular access is provided to said parcels through the vse of a~leyso.The :alleys are 20 feet in width at the rear of the parcelso (See Exhibit A)~. The existing alleys are "dead-end" and if a more intense use of the property than ,single-family residences is anticipated, the alleys should be developed to ,provide "through" circulation for vehicular access, trash collection~ and fire protectiono (4), A phys3cal inventory~of subject properties is depicted on Exhibit Aa The parcels have been developed with curbs and gutters. P.11 the parcels, except 2, have been ~develoFed with sidewalks and street trees. Utility poles and fire hydrant loca- tions are depicted on Exhibit A. An open surface drainage structure exists between . the two lots just east of Claremont Street. (5)~ The subject properties were examined by the Planning Commission at their meeting ;of June 8, 1964a At that time the Commission felt that development of subject properties for commercial purposes was premature and incompatible with the single- ~ famiLK development in the areae (6). The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's comments at the Courx:il .meeting of July 14, 1964o The Council did not agree with the Commission and stated that they felt that the commercial development proposal (Reclassification ;63-64-121 and Conditional Use Permit Noe 576) was not premature andr further, that.subject properties should be developed for commercial purposese The Council :a1so directed the Planning Department to complete Area Development Plan No. 8 indicating subject properties as an area of commercial professiona~ office use and to initiate such actions necessary to incorporate subject properties in the C-0, Commercial Office, Zoneo The.Council did not indicate the specific;limits of the area to be included in the directed reclassificatione (7) . A stable, well kept, low-density single-family residential area abuts subject ,propex:ty on the southo Any extension of commercial use past the frontage properties ,.could have the effect of encouraging commercial use of pzoperty south of Barry Street and Margate Drive. Such an encouragement would have detrimental effect upon the }residehtial area by creating commercial traffic on residential streetse Consequently, commercial uses should be oriented to Ball Road and limited to parcels fronting on •Ball Road. RECOMMk~NDATIONSs (1) ,That the subject properties of Area Development Plan Noo 8 be reclassified from ~the R-A,Residential Agricultural, and the R-1, Single-Family Residential, Zones to the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone as depicted on Exhibit Bo , (2) That the alleys at the rear of subject properties be developed as depicted on ;Exhibit B or in such other fashion which would provide through circulation for ;vehicles, trash collection and fire protectiona ~ Upon~presentation of the Area Development Plan, the Commission inquired whether or not all ~he lots had access to the alley to the south and whether the garages wer~ aiso located.with access to the south alleyf that the two lots on Harbor Boulevard and the one on Barry Street were under one ownership; and that if commercial development were proposed on the westerly propesties, this might cause an encroachment of commercial uses,into Barry Street. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advfseci the Commission that the area shown in grey indi~ated the least amount of extensive zoning which might be incorporated on•sub3ect propprtiese. • Mr. H. H. Onken, 123 Margate Drive, appeared before the Commission and inquired why ~ commercial developmeni: Nas proposed to the alley; that this would create a l;ardship to ~ the property owners to the south of the alley sinc9 they also used this alley for access. ; I . -------------_.,r . i • ; '. ., ~ ~.?~ ~ ~! MINUTHS~ CITY PLANNINu COMMISSION~ August 17, 1964 2271 ' ~ . AREA,DEVELOPME Kf - (Continued) ; PLAN, NO.o 8 ~ The Gommiss~ion advised Mr. Onken that the Planning Commission had not made any decision relative ta commercial development on Ball Road, that the Nrea Development Plan had been ' prepared at the request of the City Council, upon approval of the petition recommended for denial by the Commission, and that if this commercial development were permitted to encroach southerly of the alley, this might present further commercial encroachment into the entire R-1 tract southeriy of subject properties. h1rs..Anton Geiger, 7761 Haldor, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission and stated she Was in :favor of the proposed commercial development, and that she had moved from • the drea because of the traffic on Ball Road. ' Mr. Jo Miller, 302 Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he appeared in beha,lf of .the property owner of the previous reclassification for Commercial Office Zone; that traffic was the greatest problem as far as the single-family residence was concerned, with.22,000 cars using Ball Road daily; that the street was potential commercial, and presently there was little chance of selling or renting the homes for residential use; that many of the homeowners had moved from the area because of the traffic noise; and stated he was in favor of the proposed Commercial Office Zoning. Mro ~, R. Doty, 144 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated that because of the heavy traffic it was necessary to have commercial zoning for the property; that of the ;ten properties fronting on Ball Road, five still lived there and five have moved away, and that the property could not be rented or sold for residential puxposesa ; A showing of hands indicated that all the property owners fronting on Ball Road were present in the Council Chambera No one appeared in oppositiono THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. Discvssion was held by the Commission relative to the Area Development Plan presented to them; that according to State Code, the Planning Commission could not be concerned with economics, but land use only; that in previous hearings before the Commission, data had been submitted to the Commission indicating 2,700 homes fronted on arterial streets and highways in the City of Anaheim, and to propose conunercial development along these streets would prevent any commercial development occurring in the existing downtown area, and it was hoped highrise, commercial buildings would be developed; that prime examples of the incorapatibility of commer.:ial uses of existing residences could be noted on Brookhurst Street north of Lincoln Avenue; that subject properties had access rights dedicated to Ball Road and had no access other than through the alley; that the lots were too small to provide a parking area for the Commercial Office Zone; that the traffic generated on Ball Road would not assist the commercial development of these properties if approved~ ~hat the Commercial Office Zone had been established to provide for proper development in the district, and now ~eemed to be developing as a zone in which all t•~pes of commercial development were indicateds that the C-0 Zone would be iR jeopard.y if all small res:idential lots were processed through this zone, and this was not a realistic appreach ta the problem; that the C-1 Zone required 5096 of the land available-for park- ing puxposes For the tenants and customers, and the lots could not provide such parkingf that although the Commission had denied a previous petition for C-0 in the area covered by the Area Development Plan, this was prior tc the Council's approving a breakdown in this_axea, and the Commission wuuld have to decide the best possible solucion for develop- ment in the.area~ that a previous reclassification at Magnolia and Ba11 Road had proposed the remnval.of two structures and the rentention of one of the R-1 structures for commer- cial de.velopment, and this had never materialized; that s land assembly program might have to be initiated by the property owners to develop the properties for C-1 use; and that i# the Commission were to adhere to their previous thinking relative to the C-0 Zone, subject properties would not be desirablea . Mro Kreidt then asked the Commission for their thinking in the applicability of the C-0 Zone to suhject property as indicated in Section 18.38.040, since this type of a request would be coming up consistently on other similar front-on and side-on parcelso Commissioner Rowland stated that the C-0 Zone, Section 18.380040 was appiicable to any places potentially desirable for office space or the location was des3rable;•that the use of a home on an arterial street was not applicable for office spaces that commercial areas should be given an opportunity to grow as commercial development, rather than de- generating residential areaso ~ Commissioner Perry, in sighting an area close by which had a terrific volume of traffic~ i referred to Third Street in Beverly Hills which had beautiful homes fronting on this ~ f heavily traveled street; that the conversion of hAm~~ on a hpav~~,y traveled street was I ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ i ~ r , ' ~ -- __- __ -- -- -- -- -- --- -, -------~.~.._..~_. .._ .--- .-_~_._-._ ., r , , _ ._._. _.___. . _ _ ._ . _ - ~ _. ._ __ ~~ ? ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLAN~ING CONaIISSION~ August 17, 1964 22~2 :, AREA.DE.VELGPMENf - (Continued) PLAN N0. 8 not solving a problem because the City was faced with heavy automobile traffic due to the lack of public transportationo ; Mr. Nliller then stated he was not referring to autoroobile traffic but to the trucks and ~ motQrcycles•using Ball Road all hours of the day and night~ and he had discussed this problem with the Police Department ten years ago and had been disregarded with reference to traffic problems there, and that Ball Road would be one of the few roads available to ~ the new baseball stadium from. the freewaye The Commission advised Mr. Miller that although they appreciated the problem the property owners .there had, ~chis problem also faced many other homes within +he Ctty; that the City could not be upgraded from any blight area if all homes fronting on arterial streets and highwaKs were turned into commercial developments; that although problems did face the property owners on Ball Road, to resolve their area would not solve other areas, but would create additional blight to the City, and would be harmful to the adjacent property owners presentl~~ developed as single-family homes; and the C-0 Zone was pr~imarily drafted to incorporate the properties surrounding the Civic Center. Further-discussion by the Commission was held relative to alternate plan of development for the..properties under consideration in Area Development Plan No. 8, noting~that in- sufficient study had been done on the project; that the Commission and the Planning Department should consider spending more time since this would possibly set.a pattern of development for the remaining 2,700 front-on and side-on homes on arterial streets and highways; and that the study area should be enlarged, indicating the possibility of incoip.orating Barry Avenue into the study,and a firm recommendation should be made by the Commission to the Council on subject area study. Mr. Kreidt then stated that the Staff had been working on a pilot st~dy of front-on and side-on homes and were using the Brookhurst-Euclid area; that the problems and diff~- culties encountered in evaluating these homes would be surrnnarized and would be available for the Cortanission's consideration by October 12, and mfght assist the Commission~in their decision on the area under consideration this eveninge Discussion held by the Commission relative to the proposed study indicated consideration should be given to areas similar to those on State College Boulevard near Underwood Drive; that nf the seven parcels original:•~ approved for commercial development, three had-been abandoned and never developed; that this was a good illustration this type of plan did not.work; that the traffic was a magor factor to consider in discussion of conversion of residences to cor.;mercial purposes since the traffic yenerated on Ball Road would not be condusive to making commercial developments fronting on that street successful; that there was a possibility some consideration might be given to requiring trucks and heavy vehicles using other than Sall Road from the sand pits on to the freeway; and that per- haps the..study being made by the Planning Department might give some idea as•to a possible solution to the problemsencountered on Ba11 Roade Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Area Development P1an.Noo 8 to the meeting of October 12, 1964, in order to receiva information orr the pilot study of front-on and side-on homes on arterial streets and highways presently undar study by the Planning Departmento Commissioner Rowla~d seconded the mQtion.. MOTIDN CARRIEDo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TE~ CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 64-65-20 Lincoln .Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing~that prdperty described as: All that certain property situated on the south side of Ba11 Road extending from Iris Street westerly to 128 feet west of the centerline of Palm Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 116 feet, excepting therefrom a 64-foot by 96-foot lot having an eastern boundary 164 feet west of the centerline of Claremont Street be reclassifi~ed from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE for..deuelopment of existing single-family hcmes into office use. 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that subject petition was initiated at.the request of the City Council at the time they requested that Area Development Plan No..B be completeda Commissioner Camp o:fered a motion to continue the public hearing of Reclassification No. 64-65~20 to the meeting of October 12, 1964, in order that it might• be heard in con- 3unction with Area Development Plan No. 8. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. . -----------~. a ~ ~ i , • ~ 1 i ~ ~ . ._... ; ' ..... _. , ~ ~ ~ MIN,UTES~ CTTY PLANNING COtvL'NISSION~ August 17~ 1964 2273 RECLASSIFIGATION - PUBLIC HEARENG. ?ABLO Y. AND LAURA Ko 170MINGUE2, 1523 East Santa N0~.64-65-15 Ana Stx•eet, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAN~S A. NOBLE, JR.~ _.... Z621 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Age~~t; property described CUNDITIONAL USE as: An "L" shaped parcel of land ad3acent to the service statioa proPerty PERFhIT N0. 61U at the southeast corner of Ball Road and State C~llege Boulevard, said property having frontages of approximately 457 feet on Ball Road and GENERAL.P~.AN approximately 457 feet on State College Boulevard. Property presently AMENDMENT N0~ 31 classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEa RHQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD CONWIERCIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL US'e: ESTABLISH A MOTOR HOTEL~ EXECUTIVE SUITHS, RESTAURANT, COCKTAIL LOUNGE, AND RELATED SHOPSo ,Vlr. James Noble, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that they proposed to cater to the business person who needed accommodations by the week rather than by the day; that ample parking was provided; and in sesponse to Commission questioning, stated the executive suites provided kitchens because in a similar operation they had in San Clemente, considerable business was lost because kitchen facilities were not provided for the winter guests; that motor hoteZ needs varied in•different areas; that they had consistentiy received inquiries for large units with kitchen facilities for people visiting for a week to a month or more who did not desire to lease apartments; that the proposed executive suites were a very valuable and necessary part of a successful motor hotelj that a similar operation was located in~ Downey on Rosemead in which the developers built a series of suites as large as three bedrooms within three miles of the North American facilities; that North American had leased these for their inspectors and visitors to the facilities from the East; and that it was hoped the proposed development would provide a similar service to the industrial 3 development in which it was locatedo t The Commission noted they had a similar request a few years ago, and upon completion and operation of the motel development, the operators found that because of the government's = restriction on personal expenses of defense contract employees, their hoped-for resource ? had diminished, and later came in for a request for multiple-family zoning; and that this = mighi be a wedge in the door for multiple-family development in that area which was con- ~ sidered prime industrial lando " Deputy.City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that as a motel they woUld be requ2red ta ;. charge a 4~ room tax, no matter how long the person stayed in the rooms; that no relief ' could be granted unless the property was reclassified to multiple-family development or ' R-3 Zoningo L~iscussion held by the Commission noted that multiple-family development had previously ' bc~en requested on subject property, that the proposed development was similar to multiple- family development since kitchens were included, and that possibiy multiple-family zoning would again be requested by the petitioner if the proposed use was not considered favorably by .the .~ommission. Zoniny Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that if the proposed motel executive suites were approved, this might constitute multiple-family zoning, and as a result the General Plan would have to be amended; that this would have considerable ef£ect on the industrial land use to the South~~st Industrial Area if muitiple-family development was approved on subject property; this might encourage multiple-family develop- ment southerly to Winston Road and easterly to the proposed Orange Freeway; that many in- dus,txial developments were existing in the area, and it had been the Commission's viewpoint that residential uses were incompatible tc industrial areas. Mr. Don T.eacher, 1621 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission, stating he was ane of the developers of the proposed motor hotel complex; that one thing he adshed to bring to the Commission's attention was the fact they had been in the motel operating business for some time, that this was nothing new to them; they had found they had many ~equests-for executive suites during the off-season by numerous Canadians coming down to Southern.California to piay golf, who spent one to four months of the winter in the area; that.ki.tchen facilities were requested, although often they were not used; that in one of their_developments they had not provided kitchens for the large suites and, consequently, lost this business which, in turn, was taken up by the apartments in the area; that.these residents-in the motels spent $300 to $400 a month for r~nt, rqnuiring maid service and similar services commensurate to that type of rental; that this was the type.of seruice they..p,roposed for subject property; that there was a big need for luxury type suitea in the area; and that cookino, facilities were necessary to be used if desirede The Commission expressed concern that the proposed executive suites were not motel units • but were apartments; that the ectablishment of apartme~l~s i~ an industrial area would open the area for furtt~ar multiple-family developmept to the east of subject prpperty; ; ~ ~ t . i , / ,.., .:. . _ ~ _ .- _ _. --. .- - _ ___------~_ _.__-_, ~ . _ ,i~' ~ ' ~. _. _ - ~_ ~ ~ MINUTFS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 17, 1964 ~ 2274 RECIASSIFFCATION - that a motel was a permissible use in the industrial area,•ss such, NO~...64-{,5~15 but not for large 1,000 to 1,100 square foot apartmentso CONDI.iIONAL USE Commissioner Rowland stated that as an architect, he had been personally PERMIi N0~ 610 i.nvolved with 22 motels; that they had never been requested to design kitchen facilities in the motels, and though some of the rooms.were GE[~IERAL PLAN large with double doors, they were operated as a motel prifnarily. Ah~NDMENf N0. 31 (Continued Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to proposing M-1 for the property since all requests made in the petition could be accomplished in the M-1 Zone through a conditional use permit. ~ Mr.-Kreidt then stated that it might be accomplished~ depending upon the Commission's definitiorr of "motel units"e The Commission then questioned the agent for the petitioner relative to his feelings for M~1 Zoning for subject propertyo The agent then said he was willing to go along with thisf thereupon he was informed that-because the zoning had not been advertised, this would have to be readvertised by the-Planning Commissiono The Cocnmission thEn requested that a planning study be made to insure the integrity~of the Southeast Industriai Area to maintain it for industrial purposese The Commission, upon reviewing all the plans, indicated the plans would have to be revised to eliminate a majority of the access areas to State College Boulevard and Ball Road, there being six on State College Boulevard and five on Ball Road; that the traffic from these streets would not permit that many access points, and suggested the petitioner con- tact.the Traffic Engineer or the Interdepartmental Committee relative to reduction of these access pointso The agent for the petitioner then agreed to meet with the Traffic Engineer to resalve the access problemo The Commission reminded the agent for the petitioner that any change of plans would have to be submi.tted to the Planning Department by August 19 in order to be considered at the August 31 meeting. • No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was continued by the Commission, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, and Mr. Kreidt relative to the proposed development's concept; the fact that the room tax imposed on motels would apply regardless of the short or long term basis of rental period~ that most.apartments leased by the month and no relief could be gained from the 4~ tax because it.was based on a short term rental periode Commissi.oner Rowland expressed concern that the proposed development was diametrically opposite of the Commission's thinking as they requested the Planning Staff to interpret because,..in fact, this proposed development was a form of apartments~ that if-traffic on Ball Road was as heavy as had previously been indicated at the public hearing, perhaps the executive suites should be oriented to State College Boulevard rather than Ba11•Road sinc~ the patrons of the executive suites would stay a longer time than those in-•the usual mote.le Mr. Camp stated that when the Orange Freeway was completed, the traffic chaxacteristics of Ball Road-would be completely changed, and there was a possibility State College•Seulevard would then have more traffica Mra_Noble-stated it was felt State College Boulevard would have more traffic becau~e of the proposed baseball stadium, and this was the reasoning for locating it on Ba11~Road. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 64-65-15 and Variance No. 610, together with General Plan Amendment No. 31 to~the meeting of August 31, 1964, in order to allow the Planning Department.time to readvertise subject petitions, proposing rezoning subject property to the M-1, Light industrial, Zone and for the petitioner to confer with the Traffic Engineer.relative to reduction of access points on State College Boulevard and Ball Road, together with revision of plans indicating same. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _ --------~--_.._._...._._.__.,-~ .~.__ _ - >---~---- - -. . . ~ ~ , ~ -- -- _ . ~ - i. ) ~ . ~ ' ', ~ ~ MINUTES, GI'IY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 17, 1964 2275 ' ~ RECLASSIFiCATION - PUBLIC EIEARING. JOHN F. AND MARY R. KIRSCH~ RICHARD G. AND PATRICIA i N0..64~6~-18 KAMPLING, 2240 East South Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; CENTRAL ' I MANAGEINEM COMPANY, 1905 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, Caiifornia, Agent; ~ COI~ITIONAL USE property described ase An irregularly shaped parcel of lartd•wi~•a ? PERMIT•N0. 613 frontage of 205 feet on the south side of South Street and-a•maximum ! depth of approximately 1,294 feet, the westernmost boundary of said ~ ' GENERAL PLAN property being approximately 661 feet east of the centerline-of State ~ ~ AMENDMENT ~JO. 19 College Boulevard, and fu~ther described as 2240 East South Streeta ; j Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. ~ ; REVISION N0. 2 ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-2~ TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. ~ ~ TRACT N0, 5611 REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE- 5 ; FA~fILY PLANNED RESIDEMIAL DEVELOPN~M } WITH ASSOCIATED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND WAIVER OF THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS: ~ (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT, REAR~ AND SIDE ± YARDS; (2) MINIMUM LOT SIZE; AND (3) MINI- ~ MUM DISTANCE BETWEEN MAIN AND ACCESSaRY j BUILDINGS. ~ Subject tract, located on the south side of South Street, approximately 1,116 feet east of State College Boulevard and covering approximately 14.7 acres, is proposed for sub- ~ division into 84 R-2, Two-Family Residential, Zoned lots. ~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that upon review of the t~ntative ~ tract at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting it was noted to the engineers that they were praposing substandard streets, at which time they stated they would request a continu- ance of subject petitions, ; ; Eighteen property owners were present in the Council Chamber opposing the proposed develop- ~ ' ment. , ~ Mrso.~ohn Thompson, 533 South Mencos Avenue~ appeared before the Commission and stated that ' because of the park and school commitments and the school bond issue, the proposed develop- } ~ ment would create additional parks shortage; that ~e had lived in the vicinity of Euclid i and Ba11 Road and had taiked with the school officials who indicated the number of->transient { people 3n-the area which had many apartment buildings, and it was noted 52~ of the children ; attended Palm Lane School from the apartments, who were never there more than five months~ I that..a new Sunkist Junior High School and a high school would be opened shortly, and the ' school requirements were based on nro~ectior. of the aast Anahaim a*pa fer lor~-d~r.si ; f- --- residential development; that at the time this was considered by the City Coartcil, the 3 petitioners were well aware of the opposition presented at the Councii meeting; that 115 people in that area who were all homeowners had appeared before the Council at the ttme the original General Plan Amendment was con^idered, and considerable opposition was then presented to request the General Plan be designated for low-density residential use of 1 the proper,ties under consideration. 1 Mro Ray Stotts, 2228 East Standish Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated all ` the people living in that area had moved from the west side of Anaheim because they.did i not..wish to live in an area being developed for multiple-family residential usee The Commission advised the opposition that since the engineers had been advised the.. tentative tract had proposed substandard streets, the Commiss3on was obligated to con~inue sub,~ect pe.titions until revised plans were submitted, and that the petitions would be con- tinued to an evening meeting so that all interested property owners could be in attendance. Commissi.on.er Perry offered a motion to continue public hearing of Petitions for Reclassifi- cation No.. 64-65-18 and Conditional Use Permit No. 613, together with General Pian Amendment No. 19 and Revision No. 2 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5611 to the 7:00 o'clock p.ma meet- ing of September 28, 1964, in order that a revised tentative map incorporating~standard streets might be submitted, and, further, that the petitioner be informed to have a repre- sentative appear at the Commission hearing in order that questions might be answered; further, that action wouid take place at said hearing by the Commission. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. ~ i ~ ~ I I , ,' . .. . . .T'-~-'-- . . . . _, _._ ; - ------ ---- --- - ---..------ - _. - --- ---.__~_--_._... _.._.___~___ ._~ . ~ 1 : . , • ~ . . . ' . ~ ~~- .~...~..._. '. • ~ . -'-. . .. . _ i ~ • • . _ _ ... . . _ _ __._.._ . ~ :.. ~ . ... "'___.._. .. ... __..._.._._._._1 ~.~.__......_.._ _.. . ` ~~~ ~ • ~; MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, August 17, 1964 2276 ; CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LEE SYMONDS, 1236 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 615 California, and EDWIN AND ELIZABETH KETTLER, 501 West Ba11 Road, - Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to EXPAND AN ~ EXISTING SMALL EQUIPMEM' RENTAL, SALES YARD AND REPAIR SERVICE FACILITIES on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 75 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of approximately 210 feet extending to the cul- de^sac of Fahrion Place, the western boundary of said property being approximately 806 feet east of tMe centerline of East Street. Property presently classified C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD CONWIERCIAL-, ZONE and R-2, TWO~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr:~.Lee Symonds, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that all that was proposed was to place under cover ail the equipment presently located o~t- side~ that the proposed extension of the use would then coincide with the ad,3acent Anaheim Auto Parts to the west, and extending the rear more southerly 23 feets and- further, in response to Commission questioning, stated he proposed to purchase•a 23-foot strip adjacent to Fahrion Place; that he had an easement along the rear of the property; that he thought he had commercial zoning, but upon application for a building permit, was advised a portion of the property was zo;~ed R-2; that Mra Kettler had also thought the property was C-1 when he built an office building there; that the entrance to the apart- ment house was on the west side of this office building; and that it was his intent to generally clean up the place, piant landscaping, and fence in the property along Fahrion Place and blacktopo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to permitting access to Fahrion Place from a commercial establishment; whether or not the petitioner should dedicate access rights to Fahrion Place for the 14-foot strip of land; that a chainlink fence should be constructed along Fahrion Place to prohibit the racing of cars into the residential area, No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitione THH HEARING WAS CLOSHD. Discussion held by the Commission relative to requiring sidewalks on Fahrion Place determined that since the petitioner was recjuired to dedicate access rights to Fahrion Place and would construct a chainlink fence, the sidewalk would not be required. Cortunissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1307, Series 1964-65, and moved for•its passage ~ . and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~ •• ~ .. .. ~ ' No. 615, subjec~; to dedication o° the 2ccess rights to the easterly 14 feet to Fahrion ' -•°- •~""'Ylace, construction of a chainlink fence alang Fahrian Piace, blacktopping the 14-foot R dedicated portion as indicated on the plan, and conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~ On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONHRSs None. ABSENT= COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos. ~ REPORTS AND = ITEM N0. 1 ~ RECOMMENDATIONS Termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 233, Child care nursery located at 723 West La Palma Avenue. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that since the proposed child care nursery granted under Conditional Use Permit No. 233 was not exercised because of financial problems which the petitioners had, a verbal request had been made to the - Planning.Department that said petition be terminated. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1308, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to recommend to the City Council that Condi- tional Use Permit No. 233 be terminated, based on the fact that the petitioner requested said termination. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONHRS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. i ~ ~ I , / ~- -~,___._. __ ~ . ~ :~ ~~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 17, 1964 2277 REPORTS-AND - ITEM N0. 2 RECAMMENDATIONS Planning Study Noe 73-28-1 - ' • West side of Velare Street, south of Orange Rvenue and east of Magnoliao Zoning Coordinator Martin (Creidt advised the Commission that Planning Study Noo 73-28-1 was being updated by the Planning Staff at the request of the City Councils that said plan covered the deep lot properties on the west side of Velare Streets they request that suggested development plans for these deep lots be prepared and submitted to the Commission; that at this time it was the desire of the Staff to obtain any comments from the Commission in order that these might be incorporated; that the Commission might wish to recommend or consider single-story construction and architecturaJ, compatibility with the single-family residences to the south and east of subject propertyo The Commission reviewed the location of sub3ect property on the General Plan map, noting its proximity to single-family homes to the east and south, several churches to the wESt, and deep lots adjacent to the west, and inquired what recommendation the Tiaffic Engineer had given relative ta nroviding adequate circulation. Mro Kreidt stated a modified cul-de-sac had been recommended if R-2 Zoning were approved; that secondary access to individual lots could be provided with a hammerhead at the rear to provide for trash pick-up and fire protection, for adequate turn-around and circulationo The Commission then recommended that only one-story development should be considered, i.hat plans oi development should havF ^*~hitectural compatibility with the single-family homes immediately adjacent to subject property, and that some provision should be made for a recreational areae TEMPORARY An70URNMEM - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to August 24, 1964, at 7:00 o'clock p.me, to consider the Commercial Recreation Area Haight Standardso Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9s00 o'clock pomo .. ,~ Respectfully submitted, l/(~it~/t/ /~~rZE%Zr'~/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission _ . _ .. _ ~.__._.~___._-._ _ .. . _ ...._ ._ ...._ _ __._ . . ........ - - ------ .._. _ . . ._ ,. .~__.--- - ~_. .._~ ; , N"([_ . . ..