Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/08/31~~ ~ • c~ty ~ii Maheim, California August 31, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF TEL= ANAHEIM CITY PLANHING COi91ISSI0N REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Co~ission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock p.m., a quorum being present, PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo - COMMISSIONERSs C3mp, Chavos, Gauer, Pe:ry, Rorland, ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allredo PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorney: Jerry Brody Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Planning Department Stenographer: Corinne (ialvan INVOCATION - Reverend Herbert Kluck, Zion Lutheran Church, gave the i.nvocationo PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Piedge of A:legiance to the Flag, APPROVAL OF TI-1E MINUTES •• The Minutes of the meeting of August 3, 1964, rrere approved with the following correction: Page 2230, third from last paragraph, first line should read: "In response to Com~ission questioning relative to Fire Zone Two,...o~Nre Shoffeo" and A~.igust 17, 1964, approved as submitted, RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HL•ARING. VILLA ENfERPRISES, 1405 East Chapm~.~. ~,venue, N0~ 64-65-17 ' Orange, California, Owner; CLIFf AI3DERS~1, 1405 East Chapman Ave7ue, Orange, Calitornia, Agent; property described as: A rectangulariy shaped VARIANCE N0~ 1 57 parcel of land with a frontage of 75 feet on she south side of Vermont Avenue and a depth of 224 feet, the western boundary of said pra~erty GEtIERAL PLAN being approximately 312 feet east o£ the centerline of ti3rbor Boulevard, AMENDMENT N0. 32 and further described as 400 West Vermont Avenuee Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOA~. Subject peti.tion was continued from the meeting of Au9ust 17, 1964, to allaw the petitioner time to submit a revised plan of dcveiopmento Mr. Clifford Anderson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and stated that upon reading the Report to the Commission, he woi~ld like to have additional time to revise the planso The Commission advised the agent that although the area in vrhich subject property might be considered for potential multiple-family development, they were opposed to trro-story con- struction where property is surrounded on three sides with single-fsmily residential develop- ment; that the proposed location of the garages in the front yard xould 'a4 consi3ered detri- mental to the area; and that recommendations of the Report to the Commission, togettier with those pointed out by the Commission should be taken into consideratio~n srhen revised plans are submitted for Commission consideratione Commissi.oner Chavos offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noe 64-65-17 and Variance Noo 1657, together with General Plan Amendment No> 32 to the meeting of Septem- ber 28, 1964, in order to allow the pe~itionQ: time to submit revised plans incorporating all the sugges':ed chang~s, Commissionex Carop sece^ded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo - 2278 - ~ __.Y ~ .. _ j , I . ' ~ ~~ . . . . .~-.... ' . ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ L,'1 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 31~ 1964 _227g UARIANCE'PO'o 1658 - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING'COMMISSION, 204 £ast Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim, Californias propo=irg a variance to permit an 8-foot wall and a parking-storage area to encroach 21 feet into the required 25-foot Parking-Landscaping Zone established on Cerritos Avenue on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontaqe of 480 feet on tfie south side of Cerritos Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet, the eastern boundazy. of said praperty being approximately 730 feet west of the"centerline of State Col'lege Boulevardo Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING~ ZONEo ' Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that subject petition was initiated on the recommendation of the Administrative Office and •~he Planning Department as part of the City's pregram for recruiting industrial development in the Southeast Industrial Areae The owner of subject property was not present in the Council Chambere Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the pie-shaped parcel to the east~not being included in the petition being considered by the Commission; that as a part of the record it could be made a recommendation that upon development of the property to the east that a similar waiver from Code requirements could be granted because of the size and shape of the parcel of land; and upon being advised~by Deputy City Attorney Jerry Brody that the Commission could not grant a waiver on the parcel to the eastn it was decided that it be made a finding of the resolutiono Mro Kreidt then stated t:+at as a finding, it could be made a Commission policy on the area havrng a similar site development probleme In response to Commission questioning, Mro Kreidt stated it was the opinion of the Ctty Engineer's Office that because of the size and shape of the parcel under consideration~ it would be difficult to develop the property with the required 25-foot P-L Zone enforced, and that at the request of the Admini'strative Office, the Commission was considering thiso No one appe~red in opposition to subj~ct petitione THE HEARING wAS CLOSEDo The Commission discussed the possibility of initiating similar proceedings for thE pie- J shaped parcel easterly of subject property and was of the opinion that at the time develop- ~~ ment of the property took place9 a similar request couid be considered by the Commissione ; Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1309, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1658, sub3ect to conditionsa (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COUpufISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos9 Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CI"r IiANNING COMAM1ISSION, 204 East H0. 64-65-22 Lincoln Avenue, Rr.aheim~ California; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land at the northwes., corner of La Palma Avenue (Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp) and Brookhurst Street, and having frontages of 564 feet on Brookhurst Street and approximately 1,316 feet on La Palma Avenue ar.d the Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp, said land having a total area of approximately 15 acres and further divided into Portions "A" and "B"s Portion "A" - being the 150-foot by 150-foot sesvice station site at the norttiwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street aed Portion "B" - being the remaining 14.35 acres of the aforedescribed Lande Classification of propertys Portion "A" - C-2~ GEN~RAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEe Portion "B" - R-A, RESIDENTI~L AGRICULTURAL, C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AND C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCTAL, ZONES. Pr.oposed classification: Portion "A" - C-1, NEIGEIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEo Portion "B" - C-0~ COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. A lette.• was read to the Commission from interested property owners, of which subject property wa~.a part, requesting that subject petition be continued until a representative c ould appear at a putlic hearingo The Commission discussed requested infc*s~ation relative to abandonment of Rhodes Street, which according to the map, dead-ends et the Chrysler Research Cpntere , . __._ -~- ~---.,._._._-----~__~ __~.~~. ~. ~ . -. ---~ , ~ ------------- ~,_~ ~ MINF7I'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1~64 `• 1 ~ . . 2280 REGLASSIFICATION'= Engineer Arthur Daw stated that all maps wh'ich they had reviewed N0. 64-§5=22' indicated Rhodes Street was a dedicaiad street, and insofar as the (Coritinued) Engineering Department was concerned, there had never been•any consideration given to abandonment of the streete In-response to Commic•:ion questioning relative to information being available relative to abandonment at the time the Chrysler Research Division applied for permit to use subject property, Zoning Coordinator Martin Kre~.dt re:plied the Director of Public Works had re- quested a search be made relative to tL~s possible abandonment since there seemed to be some doubt as to its actual abandonme.~t. Mr> Daw ~hen stated he would pursue this topic further with the Hngineering Divisi.on and would have the information available for the Commission at the next hearing of subject pat4tiono Mr. Kreidt stated the Commission could approve subject petition subject to City Council's approval of the abandonment and dedication of access rights to Rhodes Street. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE•HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the possibility of continuance of subject petition as requested by persons purchasing subject property, and that it might be in order to continue the petition since this would ailow the Engineering Department sufficient time to •research the records for information relative to the abandonment of Rhodes Street> Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Rcclas- sification Noe 64-65-22 to the meeting of September 28, 1964, in order tc allow t?me for the property owners to be represented and for the Engineering Division to make a search of records relative to previous abandonment of Rhodes Streeto Commission Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIFu~ CONDITIONAL USE ~ PUBLIC FIEARING. MAX AND HFLEN PROVISOR, SHEILA R. CHASIN, AND ARNOLD PERMIT N0. 617 Ja PROVISOR, Trustee, ;:731 Camden Avenue9 Los Angeles, California, Owners; requesting perr,:ission to ESTABLISH A HOFBRAU AND AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER, AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR on property described ass An irregular parcel of land adjacent to the service station at the northwest corner of :iall Road and Knott Avenue and having frontages of ?80 feat on Ball Road and 210 feet on Knott Avenuea Property prr.sently classified C-1, NEIGI-BORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Max Provisor, developer of the propert~•, appeared before the Commission and stated subject prc,~arty was be:ng developed with 25 stores; that considerable money would be spent to beautify by landscaping their property; and further reviewed the proposed develop- ment, noting one would be a pizza parlor serving beer, the second would be a steak house serving liquor, and the third would be a small 16-foot wide beer parlor selling beer r.nd serving sandwiches, and that by placing the landscaping as indicated on the exhibits, this would reduce the "asphalt jungle" type of developmento In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Provisor stated all air conditioning units would be within the stores and would be a service provided by the developere Upon reviewing the plans presented, the Commission inquired of the petitioner the reason far.prop:,~ing three different types of services adjacent to one another since the Italian- t}rpe restaurant could provide for the serving of beero Mr. Provisor stated the pizza parlor would be a family-type service and would not be cendusive to customers who were desirous of drinking beer onlyv Mrs. Helen West, 916 South Knott, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the proposed beer parlor~ stating it was not a desirable use co have the sale of beer and liquor onl~• in the neighborhood shopping center~ that if the petitioner proposed.to attract a high type of clientele to the steak house and the pizza parlor, the proposed beer bar adjacent to it would not ~e compatible; that if the petitioner intended to have tenants spend between 530,000 and $40,000 for the proposed type of restaurant, this should be at a different locati.on, such as Lincoln Avenueo The agent for the petitioner stated plans had been drawn for a high-class restaurant; that a lease had~bee'n••signed for its development, and discussion had been held with the fixture representativesrelative to placing fixtures in said restaurants, and this was an indication the lessee felt the location was a desirable one. _ ..__ .._ _ _ .._. _ _ _ _ _, ,~~--, , - , . : . ,. "~ ~ -- _ __._ . ~ ~ ~ , • _... . MZNI3IES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31~ 19t;4 2~81 CONDITIONAZ U5E - Upon reviewing the plans, the Commission inquired of the petitioner~ PERNtIT'NO°•5 7" what was proposed as noted on the plans as a"food stand"~ to which (Conti:riuECl') Mre Provisor stated a request had been received"for the dispensing.~f hamburgers, and was just under consideration, but no firm lease had been signedo Dis~ussion was then held by the Commission relative to the pxoposed beex• bar being an incotopat3ble'use adjacent to a family-type restaurant since the proposed hofbrau•was•a misncmer because the petitioner proposed a small bar-type facility and showed no kitchen facil'it3es whatsoevers that the proposed hofbrau was located in a neighbarhood shopping cerrter which catered to many fa~nilies with children passing by the proposed b~r daily and.would be an undesirable influence to the childreno The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Jerry Brody whether or not the Commission could approve a portion of subject petition and deny another portion, to which Mre Brody re.plied in the affirmativeo Mr, Provisor then stated that the Farmers' Market in Los Angeles had a number of restau- rants in the shopping area and similar types of bars were located in close proximity. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1310, Series 1964~65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditiortal Use•Permit No. 617 on tne Italian restaurant with on-sale beer and a restaurant witE~ on- sale liquor only, and to deny the request for the establishment of a hofbrau, based on the fact that it would not be a compatible use to the family-type restaurants in close proximity to the beer-bar, and conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs Cvn'~~ISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMM:'SSIONERSs Allredv RECL.ASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo DONALD Do AND HUGENE Wa WELLS, P, Oe Box 128, + N, 0•.64-65-13 Corona Del Max•, California, Owners; property described as: Arr irregular ~ parcel of land adjacent to the service station prope:ty at the south- VARId1NCE NOa 1 5~3 east corner of Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue, with frontages of 480 feet on Brookhurst Street and 30 feet on Orange Avenue, and•further GENERAL PLAN described as 610 South Brookhurst Streete Property presently class3- AMENGMENT N0. a0 fied R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe , REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIUN: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCEs ALLOW FENCH TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN PUBLIC RIGIif-OF-WAY AND WAIVE REQUIRED PARKING, Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of August 3, 1964, to allow sufficient time for the ps±.iti.-.~~er i~ submit revised planse Mro Donald Wells, c• ~f the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated he was availabl,e to ana .~c any questions the Commission might have, and that the architect for the development, i~,r: Willim Bacon, was also present to answer questionso The Commission noted for the petitioner that the revised plans indicated a 3-foot strip af landscaping in ±r~e ultimate right-of-way on Brookhurst Streeto Zoning Coordinai,or 1dar~in Kreidt advised the Commission another revised~plan had 'ueen submitted to the~ Planning Department, but it had been received too late for consideration by the Interdepartmental Committee for review, and that the present plan indicated a 60- foot setback, but a 3-foot strip of landscaping still existed in the ultimate setback. The Commission again voiced the City's policy of not permittin9 encroachments in the '~ ultimate right-of-way since the City would assume a certain amount of responsibility and liability for the developmento ' ~ Mr., Bacon, the architect for the development, presented revised plans to the Coaunission~ noting the 3-foot decorative fence was i'~elocated at the property line. Mr. Kreidt again advised the Commission that since the plan had not been reviewed by the I Interdepartmental Committee, it had not been stamped in as accepted by the Planning ~ Department, or submitted to the Commission for their consideration. ~ . J _ _. __ _ ..__.__ -- _. ..__..~' ~....~T-~---- - __... _ -. .. . -~ ~ ~ ~, _ . . _ . _ ~ . ': ~ ~ MI!)UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 • 2282 9ECLASSIFICATION - The Commission in reviewing the revised plans as submitted with the NOo 64-65-13 petition and those submitted by the architect at the meeting noted that prior to the Commission's request for revisfon of the pians,-the YARFkNCE N0a 1653 petitioner was 54 spaces short of parking facilities; that the revi.sed - plan indicated an increase in the shortage of parking facilitieso , GENE[tAL PLAH AMEND~MENT NOe 30 Mre Bacon stated the change had been made to accommodate the potentfal TContinued) customers of the shopping areae In discussing the adjacent service station, the Commiss3~r. inquired of tHe petitioner whethpr a masonry wall was being proposed around the pe,rimeter of the service station, and was advised this would not be done. In.response to Commission questioning relative to the petitioner resolving the shortage af parking facilities, Mro Wells stated it was the feeling of the architect and the ~etitioners that with the proposed type of development, since no supermarkets were being incorporated, the amount o£ pa*king space would be adequate, and that the largest shop being proposed for this shopping center would have no more than 2,000 square feete Commissioner Rowland, further questioning the petitioner relative to parking, stated his line of reasoning relative to providing less than minimum for parking requireraents for small shops would seemed contrary to evidence, since thsre would be considerably more people employed by the individual shops than employed by one large shopo Mrd Wells stated an easement for ingress to the parking area was in effect on the east por~ion of subject property; that the 30-foot easement bQlonged to themselves, and the 20-£oot easement was the property of the neighbors, and there was no indication of abandonment of this easement and was a pa:t of the title report submitted with the petitiono Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the shortage of parking space as noted by the Commi~sion for the petitioner; that all evidence presented in statistics by the Planning Staff indicated required parking was necessary9 and no information had been received which would indicate the Commission's in2erpretation of these requirements be waivede The Commission further advised the petitioner it would be necessary to meet minimum parking requirement~ before sub~ect petitionscould be considered for approval and sug- gested to the petitioner that revisions be made to incorporate adequate parking facilitiese Mre Wells said it was their intent to build up the stature of Brookhurst Street by the p,roposed development, and that similar uses in the area were not required to have ~the sama parking requirementse 'Ihe Commission advised the petitioner the properties on the west side of Brookhurst Stneet were considered in the County and development in that area was not considered top qualityo Further, in response to Commission questioning, Mro Wells stated that since the City was requiring a two-way a11ey, the architect had attempted to present alternate layout plans, and that submitted was the most feasible to serve both the City's and their needs, and the only way to provide adequate parking would be to reduce the number of rental spaces,but that.economics would not perroit this. The Commission noted that in order to provide adequate parking, the petitioner would have to reduce his existing structure froro 47,633 square feet renting area to 45,000 square feeta By this reduction adequate parking could be providede The petitioner then stated that reduction would have to be made on the second story, to which the Commission replied it would be necessary to reduce the square footage of-the actual size of the buildinge Further discussion relative to parking requirementss the Commission made statements to the petitioner noting that recent changes had been made to parking requirA!~ents for a particular type of operation, and that all evidence in ttre past had indicated parking had been a probiem in the City for a number of yearse Mr..We.lls stated the Town and Country Shopping Center in Palo Alto had similar pa:king xequirements as was proposed in the development which were less restrictive, and that t~ e pr.opose~d development would lend some character to the shopping area being proposeda It was noted by the Commission that the City of Anaheim's parking req~irementswere less restrictive than other cities, and it was felt by the Commission the minimum parking requirement was exceptionally importanta i __.. ._.- , __._.._. _ . ~ ' _ _ - -- __.~~ t ... . (~~..~ . . .. • MINIffES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31~ 1964 2283 A,ECLASSIFICATION"- Commissioner Camp stated that if the Commission continually waived NOa•64-65-13 minimum parking requirements in commercial develop~nents, this would set a pattern for similar requests on waiver of oarking in anycomnaer- VARIANCE N0. ~3 cial development being proposed in the Citye GENERAL PLAN Commissioner Perry was in concurrence with Commissioner Camp's state- Ab1ENDMENT NOo 30 ment relative to the Commission's exceptance to'required park4ng (Continued) facilities, and that if this were to be a fact, 't'he Commission should revise the Ordinance to incorporate the reduction of parking require- ments~ and suggested the Commission continue subject petition until adequate parking facilities were provided through redesign of the developmente In response to questioning by Mro Kreidt, Mro Wells stated the proposed structurc~•would be built behind the 12-foot portion of the overhang~ The Commission in response to a Guestion presented to them by Mr. Wells relative to the proposed C-1 Zone stated that parking requirements would have to be based on the existing zone since the C-1 Zone passed by the Commission had not been considered by the City Council and was not an Ordinanceo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED< Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification Noo 64-65-13 and Variance Noo 1653, together with General Plan Amendment Noe 30 to the meeting of September 28, 1964, in order that the petitioner might submit a revised plan indicating the parking proposed met the Code requirements, and that no encroachment would be indicated in the ultimate xight-of-way of Srookhurst Streete Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUBD PUBLIC FIEARING~ WILLIAM G. MCMANUS, 101 Ocean Avenue, PERMIT NO.; 0~5_ Apartment K-4y Santa Monica, California, Owner; BILL FINDLEY, 9421. Thistle Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK~-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED PARKING on property de.scribed as: A rec+,angular parcel of land with a frontage of 70 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 275 feet~ the southern boundary of said property being 320 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenueo Property presently classified C-1, NHIGFIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetir~g of August 3, 1964, in order that the~• petitioner might be present to answer questions the Commiss:on might haveo Mro William Findley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questionso In response to Commission questioning, Mra Findley stated the develeper proposed to develop the rear portion of subject property at some future date for small offices, and that the area would be sufficient to provide for a 2,000 square foot buildable siteo It was noted by the Commission upon review of the plans that the structure could be re- locat~ to provide for adequate parking~ that although a 20-foot setback was desirable for the area, the petitioner was proposing 15 feet, with 6 feet o:~ landscapinge No one else appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TI~ FIE4,RING WAS CLOSED~ The Commission in reviewing the quarter section map indicating the setbacks for the areas adjacent to subject property noted a varying setbackf that although one of the property awners immediately adjacent to subject property requested the setback be in conformance with his property, the Commission was hesitant to do so because the new C-1 Code established a.10-foot landscaped setback, and that since the petitioner had sufficient space available, no waiver of the minimum required parking should be made3 further, that since no development plans were presented for the rear 110 feet, if subject petition were granted, that it•be a matter of record no hardship be claimed in developing the rear portion by the Commission's apg:oval of the development of the front portion of subject property9 since the rear portion would be a landlocked parcel, and upon its being presented to the petitioner, he stated it was his plan to construct an office building on the rear portione . .i .. . . - . . ~ . . ~ . ~ .. . . .~ ~ I / CONDITIONAL'USE = Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1311,~Series 1964-6~, and PERh4IT"NOa ~05 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co.aunissioner Rowiand, (Contin'ued)~ to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Nbo 505, subject to conditions and the requirement that parking be in accordanc~ with all provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the finding th~t the granting of this petition should not be used in later claim of hardship in deNehoping of the re~r portion of the property since there was adequate land foT developme~`s of the proposed use, and the petitioner was made aware of the possibility of the rear portion being landiockeda (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CON4dISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSION£RS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONF.RS: Allredo RECf..ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ FREDRICKS DEVELOPN~NT CORPORATION, 524 West H0~ ~4_-65-23,____ Commonwealth, Fullerton, California, Owner; LEE °. ORH AND HENRY Ao FREDRICKS, 524 West Commonwealth~ Fullerton~ California~ Agents; GENER/,L PLAN requesting that property described as: Three parcels - Parcel Noe 1 AN~NDMENT NC~ 36 having a frontage of 150 feet on the east side of State College Boule- . vard and a depth of 104 feet, the southern boundary being 345 feet r,:.rih of the centerline of Virginia Avenue; Parcel Noo 2 located at the noitheast corner of State Coilege Boulevard and Vir9inia Avenue and having frontages of 215 feet on State College Boulevard and 104 feet on Virginia Avenue; and Parcel• Noe 3 located at the southeast corner af State College Boulevard and Virginia Avenue9 and having f.r.ontages of 138 feet on State College Boulevard and 100 feet on Virginia Avenue, be re- cias's'ified from the Rm3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGI-1BORHOOD COM- MERCIAL, ZONH to develop subject property with professional offices, service businesses and retai2 storeso Mro Lee Orr, representing the Fredricks Development Corpo=ation, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, stating they were in concurrence with the recommendations of the Report to the Commiss3on with the exception they would prefer having the revision mad:~ to the required minimum 10-foot landscape setback on State Cellege Aouleva.r~ ir. order to provide for a wider landscaped area adjacent to the resi- dential developmar.`. 3~aving access on Virginia Avenue; that because of the additional 3-foat dedicatic~ ~or ~he ultimate seiback of State College Boulevard, this would~be necessaryo Discussion held by the Commission relative to the alleys bsing adjacent to residential development and the possibility commercial deve2opment might park in these alleys, it might be in order for the Commission to recommend abandonment of these alleys take place at the time the Lot Noo 3 of Tract Noo 2588 was developed as indicated in the Staff Reporto Mr. Orr stated he had contacted the owner of Lot No, 3, Tract Noo 2588, and the property owner seemed to be receptive to development of her property but was unable to do so at this time because of legal problems, but would later request commercial zoningo Discussion wa~ held by the Commission relative to extending the stub-end alleys of the north-south alleys easterly of subject property through Lot Noo 3, if this was developed for commercial use, and the possibility of abandonment of the exist:~ig east-west alle.ys adjacent to Lot No< 30 In resp~nse to Commission questioning, Mre Orr stated the single-family home owners to the east were not utilizing the alley for access to their garages; that it was their hope to channel traffic from the commercial development on to State College Poulevard by not providing access to the alley and to utilize Virginia Street. Commissioner Camp stated that since Lot No. 3 was not a part of the subject petitian, as a matter of record it could be indicated that through a Planning Study for the ultimate cevelopment of the property the alley could be extended through the adjoining property for access to State College Boulevard, and abandonment of the alley for access to commercial traf£ic. The Commission then discussed the re;~.:ired 10-foot setback, noting that commercial uses on the west side of State College Boulevard were required to have a 10-foot setback, and it was felt this landscaped setback would enhance sub3ect propertya Mro Orr then stated the setback would be more than 10 feet and would 13 feet, and the commercial development northerly of subject propexty had only a setback of 6 to 7 feet. I ~ _....`_~_~-.- _.._ . _.,_,__ _. ' ' ~---- _ _.-, , , ;. . _.._. ~j ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 2285 RECLASSFFICATION - Mr. Orr further stated the proposed development indicated a-presentable N0. 64-65-23 buffer zone on the rear of the property which should be taken into consideration in the overall esthetics of the lando G@NERAL PLAN AA~NDMENT N0. 3 Mr. Robert Croft, 638 South State College Boulevard, appeared before (Continued the Commission and stated he was in favor of the proposed development and was hoping the ten properties southerly would also be developed fox• commercial use; that a petition had been denied by both the Commission and the Council without prejudiceo The Commission advised Mr. Croft that the proposed development of sub3ect property was an indication of how land assembly could be developed; that the land was vacant at the time, and the plans of development submitted for Commission consideration were commercial structures, whereas in their petition for reclassification of single-family homes, no plans of development or land assembly was proposed, except utilization of existing R-1 homes for commercial use. It was noted by the Commission that in the land assembly of subject properties, adequate parking was provided, whereas the properties to the south could not provide adequate park- ing without land assembly~ because of inadequate access in the rear. No one appeared In opposition to sub~ect Fetition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion held by the Commission relative to requirement of a 10-foot setback from the highwayright-of••way as compared to that requested by the petitioner~ the Commission noting that at the time the Orange Freeway was developed, there was a possibility State College Boulevard might not be widened to its ultimate 106-foot width, and that the Orange Fseeway would absorb considerable traffic from State College Boulevardo Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1312, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and..adoption, seconded by Coromissioner Perry, to recortunend to the City Council that Peti- t.ioa for Reclassification Noe 64-65~-23 be approved, subject to the condition of a 10-foot landscaped setback on State College Boulevard frontage and based on the fact that su~ject property was a land assembly of vacant property ac:ross the street from existing commercial development, and presented adequate land to develop said properties into an acceptable commercial development with sufficient parkinga (See Resolution Booka) On rall call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENT:. COMMISf;ICNERS: Allred. Commissioner Chavo~; offered Resolution No. 1313, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, szconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment Noa 36, Exhibit "A" be approvedo (See Resolution Booko) On xoll call the foregoin_y resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOPIERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEI1Ts COMMISSIONERS: Allred. P.LANSIING STUDY - Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to direct the Planning Department N.0...75-113-1 to prepare Planning Study No. 75-113-1 incorporating the extension nf t~,e north-south alleys across Lot No. 3 of Tract Noa 2688, so that.~at ~uch time as said Lot Noo 3 of Tract Noe 2688 is developed for commercial use, said north-south alleyscan bisect the property~ and that the exist- in9 east-west alleys adjacent to said parcel extending to Reseda Street be recommended for abandonment by the City of Anaheim for the purpose of discouraging commercial <raff~c from use of the residential streets to the east. ---- _. -- - -- -•- -------•. ,.. , . ~ . F - ' . . . . .. .. .. . - .. - , - . . ~ . .. . . ,. ...::'?, . I • . ~ j . _ .. . ...:1 , . . r ~`.:~ ~ ~ MINU'CES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 31, 1964 2286 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ DRo J~EPH TSEU, 3326 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, ; N0, 64-65-24 California, Owner; property described a~s An "L" ~haped parcel-of•. - land with a frontage oE 171 feet on thc .vest side of Dale Street and GONDITIQNAL USE a depth of 376 feet, the northern boundary of said property being PERMIT N0, 619 1,020 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ' GENERAL PLAN ANIHNDMENT N0. 37 REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ' REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A SINGLE-STORY MOLTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH CAR- PORTS; WAIVER OF REQUIRED REAR YARD. Mr. George Jeffers, designer of the proposed development., ap~eared before the Commission to.xepresent the petitioner, and stated he was in concurrence with the Planning Depart- ment's recommendations, but was of the opinion he had designed the developmenL with a total coverage of 40~; that subject property was not developed for R-1 because t~e peti- tioner was not desirous of selling land, but wished to develap it for lease purposes, and the prospective bvyers were not desirous of purchasing R-1 property without owning the ~ land on-which the structure was located. ; The Commission informed the agent for the petitioner that multiple-family development ~ was not in close proximity to any portion of subject property, that suliject property was ~ completely surrounded by single-family residential development, and that a 25-foot ease- ` ment existed along the south property lineo ~ 9 Mr. Thomas Brown, 324 Coolidge Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he represent- + ed six property owners in the Council Chamber opposing subject petitions~ that he would ~~ present a petition signed by 38 propexty owners opposirig subject petittons; that subject ; property was surrounded by R-1, and no hardship for development could be claimad by the '- petitioner because subject property had recently been purchased, and no multiple-family ? development had occurred in the a:eao f Mr.. Brown further stated no complete notice of consideration of a General Plan A.,~e~idment to the specific area was advertised, although it was pointed out to him the notice fndicated on the first line that said General Plan Amendment was under consideration, but not by its specific number and areae THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Coaunission that an overlay was prepared by the Plannzng Department indicating how subjeci. property could be subdivided into R~1 lots with ultimate deve3opment of a street with the southerly property for further extension of R-1 when the R-A parcel to the south was developed. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1314, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- tion.for Reclassification Noo 64-65-24 be disapproved, based on the fact that subject property was completely surrounded by R-1; that it would be detrimental to the health and welfare of the single-family homeowners in close proximity to subje:t property; that sub,ject property was developable for single-family residentiai subdivision; and that the proposed developm^nt would be incompatible to existing R-1 residential useso {See Resolution Book.) On xoll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, G3uer, Mungall, Perrf, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allredo Upon hearing the vote for denial by the Commission, Mre Jeffers advised the Commission that the petitioner requested consideration of recommending R-1, One-Family, Zone for subjac.t property to facilitate reclassification prnceedings on the propertyo On being questioned by the Commission relative to the legality of recommending single- family residential development for subject property to the Council, Deputy City Attorney Jerry Brody advised the Commission that as part of their resolution of denial, a finding could be made that the petitioner requested the Commission recommend R-1, One-Fami~ly Resi- dent'ial, Zone for subject property. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to amend the pr~vious resolution by the addition of a recommendation to the City Council that they consi.der R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone as.a compatible zone for subject property, and that development of subject property be subjec+. to the filing of a final tract map indicating single-family subdivision develop- mente Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. i 1 ~ - --. r~<•-.:-:_ -..------__. _w _ ._~. ......~ , _ : , ;. : t ~ ,I I . ,;i . , ~ , ~ 4~ ~ ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 2287 I RECLASSII~ICATION - Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1315, Series 1964-65, and NOe 64-65-24 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 619, based on the fact CONDITIONAL USE that subject property could be developed for single-family subdivision, PERMIT NOo 619 and the proposed use wouid be incompatible to the existing uses in the areaa (See Resolution Buok.) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 37 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo7.lowing vote: (Continued AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allredo Cortunissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 4:10 pamo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1316, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment Noa 37 be disapprovedo (See Resolutio.~ Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo~ring vote: A1'ESa COMMISSIOPdERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowle,ndo NOES: COMMISSIOIdERS: Noneo ABSE6TI': GAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavoso CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIR~G~ CARL Wa MONTGOMERY, 544 East Mar Vista, Whittier, PERMIT NO„ 618 California, Ownery DAVID So COLLINS9 1077 West Ball Road~ Anaheim~ California, Agentq requesting permission TO USE PROPERTY FOR TI-IE WHOLESALE STORAGE OF PETROLEUM AND ITS FLUID PRODUCTS WITHIN 330 FEET OF A SCHOOL SITE on property described as: An irregular parcel of land at the intersection of Hessel Avenue and Santa Ana Street, witli frontages of approximately 80 feet on the west side of Hessel Avenue and 30 feat at the stub end of Adams Street, the northern boundary of said property being 385 feet south of the center- line of Broadway, and further described as 1500 West Broadwayo Property presently clas- sified M-1, LIGFIf INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE, Commissioner Ghavos returned to the Council Chanber at 4:15 pomo Mr, David Collins, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use nf subject property, noting that it was compatible to the existing ~:ses in the area; that the trucks would back up and deliver the petroleum products on Sar,t:a Ana Street; that it was hoped this would reactivate industrial development in the area; and that in reference to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, requested con- sideration for the posting of a bond in lieu of requirement of dedication and improvement of Hessel Avenue, said bond to guarantee the improvement when the balance of the properties on the street were improved, since there had been some discussion relative to the abandon- ment of Hessel Avenue and the proposed use would be the third parc~l which would be using Adams Streat for accesso Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response ±o Commission questioning, stated that after the Interdepartmental Committee had reviewed subject petition, the Engineering Department had made a study of the area, and it was noted a small 30-foot "L" shaped parcel through subject property had a right-of-way dedicated and was abandoned in 1924y that he did not know why ', Adams Street at this point had not been abandoned, and this wr~~ild be referred to the Project Engineer for possible abandonment; and that the posting of a bond was permitted oniy for six months,with the option of r~newal at the expiration of said six monthso i Mr. Larry Condon, 1422 Park Avenue, represe~iting Renbar, Incorporated, appeared before the Commission and stated he was not in opposition to the proposed use; that it was his desire to see development of the property with structures to the south; that if subject property were to dedicate and round out the stub end of Santa Ana Street, this would a£ford better access and prevent possible accidents, before using Hessel Avenue to Santa Ana Street; and that it was hoped the Commission would recommend a stop sign being placed at a strategic point to warn motorists a stop sign was located at Santa Ana Streete No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione TF1E FiEARING WAS CLOSEDa Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the possible abandonment of Hessel AVenue, and were informed by Mro Daw this would not happens that some improvement and ~ --- ----i--__~..___... . __ _. __~...._, . - .- , ~: -. -- . - _.. MINUTES, CIT.Y•.ELANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 2288 CONDITIONAI: USE - ~ossibie dedication of the stub end of Santa Ana Street to Hessel PERMIT NO° 618 Avenue would add considerably to relieving a traffic problem at that (Continued) co:ner; and that perhaps the problems presented relative ta providing a modified curve at Hessel and Santa Ana Street, together with a traffic sign,warning motorists of a stop sign, should be presented to the Director of Public Works and the Traffic Engineero Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1317, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoptiori, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 618, subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, and if approved by the City Engineer, a two-y~?r bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim posted to guarantee the installation of the engineering requfrementso (See Resolution Book.) ~Jn roll call. the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEDTI's .COMMISSIOAERS: Allrede CONDITIONAI, USE - PUBLIC I-~ARING~ ROHERT B. AND MARX LOU BURPCINS, 2168 West Ball Road, PERMIT NOW~1~ Anaheim, California, Owners; PEDRO MORENO, 2920 Cridge Street, Riverside, California, Agent9 requesting permission TO ESTABT.ISH A.CHURCH WITH EDUCATIONAL RUILDINGS on property described. as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 98 feet o~ the north side of Orange Avenue and a depth of 425 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being 126 feet wast of the centerline of Fann Streeto Property presently classified R-A, RESIDEMIAI. AGRICULTURAL, ZONEa No one was present to represent the petitionero Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the hearing on Conditio~al Use Permit Noo 612 for eight weekso Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTIOH.CAd6IEDo CONDITIONAL U5E - PUBLIC HEARINGo ANAHEIM FRIENDS CHURCH, 1503 West Katella Avenue, PERMIT N0~ (,~ Anaheim, California, Ownerq requesting permission TO EXPAND CHURCH SCHOOL FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH; WAIVE REQUIRED ]iEIGHT LIMITATION TO ALLGN CONSTRUCTION OF A FREE-STANDING CROSS on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land at the northwest corner of Ninth Street and Katella Aver~ue, with frontages rF 200 feet on Ninth Street and 152 feet on Katella Avenue, and further described as 1501 West nateila Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, RESIQENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Mra Sydney.Sibrande, representing the Friends Church, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development and the reasons for expansion of the church school faci- litieso Mr. Sibrande further requested consideration of the required block wall along the north property line sir.:e the home adjoining the church property to the noath.was the church parsunage, and the. separation of the parsonage from the church would create a hardship, since acc~ss between the two structures was moro~ desirable, and that the required biock wall along the west property line adjacent to potential commercial development was also requested to be waived, but that the masonry wall along the single-family residences of the tract to the northwest would be constructed, but they would be willing to erect a grapestake fence 31ong the west boundary of subject propertyo ' Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the church property abutted property recently recommended for approval to C-1, owned by M^e Knisely on which an Ordinance for C-1 classiFication had not been read, and, therefore, a block wall for separation of the two or a grapestake fence was unnecessary. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the type of free-standing cross and the lighting on it, and the petitioner advised the Commission the cross would be unlighted, but would be spntlighted from the base. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Camp.offered Resolution No. 1319, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption,.seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 620, subject..to conditions and the deletion of the requirement of a block wall on the ' north property line, but t5e requirement of a wall on Lots Nos. 14 and 15 of the singie- ~~~ family tract..to the northwest. (See Resolution Baok.) ~ On roll cal2 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i AYES: COMMISSIGi.cRSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Ro~land~ ~ NOES: COMh1ISSIQNER_r None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allr~~, ABSTnI;~i COMMISSIONERS: Perrye ~ ~,~r ., ~ .,.. _ _ . .. _ . - __ -- ,.~ _. _ __. .. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMh1ISSI0N, August 31, 1964 2289 RECESS - Commissioner perry offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner and reconvene at 7:00 o'clock p.mo Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting recessed at 5s12 o'clock pem. ~ RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:07 o'clock pamo, Commissioners Allred, Perry, and Rowland being absent. CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Mungall advised the Commission that the petitioners on PERMIT N0, 612 Conditional Use Permit Noe 612 had requested consideration of re- opening the hearing in order to hear subject petition at this time rather than an eight-weeks' continuance since they were under the assumption the hearing would be considered in the evening, and had not appeared for the afternoon sessi~no Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and consider Conditional Use Permit Noe 612 at this timeo Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. Mro George Lederman and Mr. George Mattis, zepresentatives of the Southern California Baptist Church Confeience, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting it was their intent to develop the property in accordance with plans presentedo The Commission advised the agent for the petitioners the plans indicated t}ie church was proposed for location within ten feet of the residential property line, and Code require- ment was fifteen feet from the property lineo The agent for the peti.tionersadvised the Commission they were in agreement this could be relocated fifteen feet by the modification of the building to conform with the Code re- quired setbacko No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1318, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 612, subject to conditions< (See Resolution Booka) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungalle NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEKf: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Perry, Rowlande ~t ~ L ~ c /~i~~J ~G CONDITIONAL USE ORGE PAGE, ET A, 730 Sarbonne Road, Los Angeles 24, California, Owner; PERMIT NO,. 616_ JOHN Jo MAGRANN, M. Do, 172 North Tustin Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATELY OPERATED AMUSEN~Nf PARK AND GENERAL PLAN COAM~RCIAL-RECREATIONAL FACILITY, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWINGs WORLD TRADE AMENDMENT NOa 34 AND INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITSy CULTURAI, SHGWS AND EXHIBITS; RETAIL AND WHOLESALE T[-fEME MERCHANDISING, INCLUDING ON-SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGESq HO'fELf TELEVISION STUDIO; 600-FOOT HIGH OBSERVATION TOWER AND ROTATING RESTAURANT~ AND AN INSTITUIE OF ORIENTAL AND OCCIDENI'AL STUDIBS WITH 14~DI'TATION CHM'ER AND DORMITORY on property described as: An irregular parcel.of land adjacent to the Southern Counties Gas Company property at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, with frontages of approximately 1,015 feet on Katella Avenue and 675 feet on State College Boulevard; said property contains approximately 53 acres of lando Property presently c:assified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONES. Mrse Elizabeth McCarter, representing the founder and developer of the proposed Orient~ Dro John Magrann, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that brochures had been submitted to the Commission indicating numerous .Oriental countries were interested in the proposed development~ that 55 acres were proposed with 10 of these 55 acres being projected for recreational purposes in the general theme of the developmentt that the proposed development would be similar to an industrial and +.rade exhibit such as held in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Franciscos that the pro- posed development was compatible to the existing zoning in the area~ that presently six divisions were being proposed with the most recent entries being Korea and Polynesia; that elevations and plans were not presented for the Commission's consideration because the individual countries concerned were desirous of having their own architects design the ~ , ; ___._ _---._._..._~ _ _... __ __ .._ ---- -~-__.t-~----__ _ . . ---~ ~ ._: ~_ ;~ ~ e MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 31~ 1964 2290 CONDITIONAL USE - plansy and that drawings would be presented by Dro Magrann following PERMIT NOo 616 the completion of her presentationa GE[dERAL PLAN Dr. John Magrann, developer of the proposed Orient, appeared before the AMENDMENT N0a 3a Commission and presented the first schematic of the development as it (Continued) was originally proposed for Ball Road and West Street and stated detailed plans could have been presented on the new Orient, but if no tenants were available, detailed plans were superfluous; that originally ~he Sabu Department Stare had presented the Orient plans; that Mro Richard Tom was the third archi- tect on the Orient concept; that when the governments of India and Korea had contacted them, it was necessary to look for an a.^ea that had more than 30 acres on which the originalOrient was proposed; and that the scope of the project far exceeded the original request, and therefore no detailed plans were submittedo Mrs. McCarter again appeared and stated that a reception was held for the various countries interested in the development, namely the Consul~ Generals of India and Korea, the Vice- Consul of Japan, four representatives of the Republic of China approved by the Consul•- General of San Francisco, together with members of civic organizations, the City Council and the Commission; that the reception to the proposed concept was far beyond their expecta- tions~ that interest in the development by the various countries was indicative of these countries' interest in expanding their businesses, and this could be a reciprocal business trade of American business as well; that the exhibits presented indicated the varying steps taken by various architects in developing the Orient concept; that a top amusement company would operate the ten-acre amusement park~ that small and medium commercial sales would indicate the old and new of each country represented in the developments that it was pro- ' posed to have a television program originating from the Orient which would be televised to the entire country, and varying themes and programs of the countries, simiiar to the Orange Blossom Festival and similar festivals of the various Oriental countries wouid be televised; , that through this medium of advertising, uses of the hotel and motel facilities in the City would be exercised during the off-seasong that the trade exhibit proposed would be permanent- ly housed in the Orient development in Anaheim; that the impact on the °'cold war" from this proposed development by an exchange of industrial and trade exhibits and ideas would be far reachingg and that the primary importance of the exhibits would be to promote worid tradeo Mrso McCarter further stated that commercial enterprises would include restaurants~ possib~y a hotel, small and medium commercial sales within each countryg that the Magic Carpet ride was considered to be industrial in its basic concept, although being classified in the amuse- , ment area; that it was anticipated numerous exhibits presen•tly shown at the New York World's Fair by the various interested countries would be transported to the Orient, and that because ~, of the excellence of the management team of the proposed Orient and the favorak~le reaction and enthusiasm of the foreign nations, considerable benefits could be derived for world trade and communicationo In response to Commission questioning relative to the "Magic Carpet", Mrse McCarter stated it was proposed by the Westinghouse people to eventually sell the Magic Carpet to the Orient, but meanwhile they would be financing it and lease back on an amortized basis, and that through admission for rides on the Magic Carpet, this would eventually be owned by the Orient; ' that arrangements had been made to require Nayment of the ftrst and last years of rental by i the various people interested in the Orient in order to assure the success of the proposed development; and that the possible hotel being su39ested was due to the fact the Indian group ~ was interested in the establishment of a hotel and presently planned to call it "The Hotel ~ Calcutta"a 1 Dr. Magrann then stated he would speak again only if there were any objections, since he ; had complete faith in the real estate department handling all phases of the developmente i Mr. William P, Hogaboom, attorney representing the present leaseholders of the original Orient on Ba11.Road and West Street, appeared before the Commission and stated his objection i was not to the.concept of the Orient, but its location; that despite the very able presenta- ~ tion and amount of. work expended, the Commission must decide whether or not the proposed y location was a desirable one for the City; that the proposed use through the filing of a ! conditional use pexmit in the M-1 Zone was questioned as to the wisdom of establishing another commexcial-recreation axea within the industrial development surroundin9 subject ! property since the existing commercial-•recreation a:ea established by the City had approxi- ' mately 800 acres available for development and should be located in that areao Mr, E. U, Barrows, Manager of the General Foods Corporation located on the north side of Katella Avenue, across from the proposed Orient project, 3ppeared before the Commission aiid stated he was opposed to the location of the Orient in the industrial area, but not to the Orient cancept as presentedo Mr. A, To Freeman, representing the Southern Pacific Railroad, appeared before the Commis- sion and stated the railroad he represented owned the largest single industrial land in ~ ~ / . f _, _ _ .. _ ~ -------~----- --- --~- - _ __ _ _.. _ _._ ~.......-.~.._.__ _____._... - -...._~ . ~ ~_-,._ . _ _ . ~ .- , i • l -..,~ t'~ ~ -j ;,~ . ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITX PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 31, 1964 2291 ( i CONDITIONAL FJSE - Anaheim and Orange County; that the proposed development was an encroach- } PERMIT NOo 616 ment of non~-industrial use into an industrial area and would deter any ~ future development of the area for industrial purposes if approved; and i U'ENERAL PLAN that the Commission should seriously consider maintaining the Southeast j AMENDMEM N0~ 34 Industrial Area for the purpose it was originally set for. ~ (Continued) i In response to Commission questioning relative to At#orney William € Hogaboom's representation, i+u•o Hogaboom stated he represented the owners ~ of the plan approved by the Commission and City Councilj that the plan was still in the planning stages and was still planning to be developed. In rebuttal, Dro 'ulagrann stated the five-page Report to the Planning Commission relative to protection-of the Southeast Industrial Area was important, but it should not be treated as a"sacred cow"; that the future of the Southeast Industrial Area should be reconsidered by the City for.other than industrial development; that the proposed development would be one of the outstanding projects in California; that his real Pstate agents had spent con- siderable time trying to assemble adequate acreage for the proposed development after the original area at West and Ball Road was considered inadequate, stating they had attempted , to obtain the land where the proposed Sheraton Hotel was to be located, the land being considered for the convention facilities, the property behind the Harris Restaurant at ~ Harbor Boulevaxd and Katella Avenue, as we11 as property located to the rear of the Charter House Hotel on Harbor Boulevard; that they Were unable to assemble sufficient land at accept- able prices,.except for that on which the development was proposed to be located; that they had recently.received an offer from a nearby city for the Orient, consisting of 80 acres, but he was more desirous of developing in Anaheim~ that they had been in contact with the Falstaff Brewery people relative to obtaining their property, but had been told that with the advent of the Angels to the City, property in the Southeast Industrial Area no longer was suitable for industrial development and should be commercials that Mrs. McCarter had contacted the Sauthern California Gas Company who would lease 2,000 to 5,000 square feet in the proposed developments that the Southern Counties Gas Company had been approached, that the Orowheat Company had alsn been approached, as well as General Foods, and no position - had been expressed by any of thase contactedo Further, Dr. Magrann stated there was a possibility Anaheim needed a larger commercial- recreation area, and could be compared with Miami Beach in the futuref that the proposed baseball stadiuro had taken 140 acres of the Southeast Industrial Area for commexcial- recreation purposes~ whereas they proposed only 10 acresf that he did not artticipate the 8,000 people attending the Orient facilities would create a traffic problem in comparison ;. with the 42,000 the stadium might have, since these B,000 people would be spread over a period of ten to twelve hours, instead of the two to three hour period of attendance at the baseball park~ and that the amount of attrition of land in the Southeast Industrial Area would be only ten acres since the other uses were permitted uses as stipulated in Section 18e52v020, 030, 040, and 050 of the Anaheim Municipal Codeo Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the Amendment to the General Plan exhibits, Cwnmissioner Gauer requesting that the stadium area be identified as such with an overlay of possibly a baseball on the area~ waiving the blue designation on the General Plan mapo Commissioner Gauer further stated it was his feeling that with the acquisition of the taseball stadium of 140 acres, a change in land use had taken place, and that pos- sibly the Commission might consider extension of the commercial-recreation area designation with Katella Avenue being the northerly boundary separating the commercial-recreation area from ihe industrial areao Chairman Mungall was of the opinion that +here was considerable land available for commercial-I recreation purposes in the commercial-recrea~ion area south of Katella Avenue, and no exten- sion of the commercial-recreation area should be made at this time to the Southeast Industrial~, Area. Commissioner Camp stated that with the proposed Orient and the baseball stadium site, with the possibility of using the Falstaff Brewery property by the Orient, very little acreage was left between Katella Avenue and Oran9ewood Avenue for industrial purposesa Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that clarification should be made relative to the_proposed 650-foot tower restaurant as indicated in the petition•since this had been advertisedf further •that the sketch presented by the petitioners indicated the proposed Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies was pro~ected for the ad3oining property and was not advertised with this petitiono Mrs. McCarter appeared and stated the tower restaurant was being withdrawn from the project~ that although the Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies was pro~ected for the Falstaff property and negotiations were still being made for that prouerty, it was the desire of tre developer to have this property also incorporated in the approval of the petition. ~_ ~__.___._-~-____ --.----__.._.--.-.--.---------__.___._._--- ~ ., __ . _.. ---- .... --_. .._ _... - . , a i • ~~ ) ~ , • . MINUTES, CTT1E PLANNFNG COMMISSION~ August 31, 1964 2292 CONDITIONAL USE •~ Mro Kreidt advised Mrso McCarter that the Commission could only approve PERMIT NOe 6~6 the property which had been advertiseda GENERAL PLAN Deputy City A~torney Jerry Brody a;;v=sed the C~mmission that since the AA~NDIu1ENT N0~ 34 Commission c~:,nsisted of nine members, and only four were present, (Continued although a quorum was present in the afternoon session and this being an adjourned afternoon session, evidence could be heard, but no action could be taken by the Commission unless five members were present to constitute the quorum. Concern was then expressed by the Cortunission that previous decisions had been made relative to only four members voting or being present at the meeting, at which time Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts had advised this was in conformance with the Ordinance, to which Mr. Brody stated he had been in conference with City Attorney Joseph Geis'ler and had been informed that officially the Cortunission still had a membership of niney therefore a quorum consisted of five memberse Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the acquisition of property for the stadium by.the City Council, with key decisions being made by tie Council relative to any further development ir. the Southeast Industrial Area for industrial purposesg that the Commission has always maintained the Southeast Industrial Area should be retained for industrial development as being one of the prime areas in Orange County due to its prox- imity to the freeways and railroad facilities; that considerable speculation seemed to be generated from the proposed development since no firm commitments had been made by interested parties, and the Commission had approved the previous Orient at Ball and West Street which presented more detailed ideas and concepts; and that many o.r~blems entered into the Commis- sion's consideration of the proposed development, and studies s:~ould be made before any decision was senderedo Commissioner Chavos.stated the Orient project approved by the Commission and Council at Ball Road and West Street did not have precise plans, but was approved beca~se the concept was in keeping with.the commercial•-recreation are2 in which it was proposed to be located, whereas the propased development was being located in the Southeast Industrial Area for which detailed plans were always required, and by approval of the proposed development, in reality, would give approval of a concept for which final plans would never be pxesented to the Commissiony and it had been the policy of the Commission to require precise plans of other developers in the past9 but that the basic consideration of the Commission should be whether or not the proposed development was acceptable to the Southeast Industriai Area. The Commission asked that expression be made by persons in attendance relative to-opposition by industry in the area, or what their thinking was regarding the proposed developmento Mr. Freeman stated he did not oppose the project personally, only that he felt i.t was being proposed for the wrong area~ that from experience, industrial development in Anaheim was successful only because he was able to tell people from the East that the Southeast Indus- trial Area was.guar~nteed for industrial property and was protected as such, and if the proposed development was approved, this would add to the deterioration of the 5outheast Industrial Area since he had previously opposed the Mexican restaurant in the Southeast Industriai Area, and the integrity of all the industrial area in Anaheim would be at stakeo Mro Freeman further continued that in the past he had never experienced any problems with t}ie City, but the proposed development, in his interpretation, was not anindustrialdevelop- ment complex or concept. Mrs. McCarter sta.ted that the Commission must keep in mind that only a small portion of the project was proposed for recreational purposes; that the previous Orient had a 30-acre portion on lease, and only 10 acres were for sale~ that when the Orient p*oject became known, the sale price of the 1U acres rose to a point where their economists felt it was impossi'.,le to p~oject economically as part of the development; that the leases were taken to a friend, Mre. Richard Steve Barber, one of the head attorneys of the Ti•ust Department of the First Western Sank, because she and Mra McCarter felt there was something lacking in the leases, and from Mr. Barber's statement, he felt no one would lend money on the leases for construction, and the holders of the leases would be looking at orange trees for the next sixty-five yearse Mrs. McCarter continued that the E.R.A. Report submitted to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and quoted in the Real Estate Profession and Builders News Magazine stated that industrial land was divided into four catagories: (1) manufacturing~ (2) distribution, wholesale and trade, (3) communications, transportation and utilities, and (4) construction; that the proposed development qualified under all four catagories -~~nder communications because of the television station) under tran:portation because of the transportation exhibit proposed by Westingliouse~ under wholesale and trade since many of these would be trade exhibits; and that the project qualified under utilities since the Southern California I , M'~-. --_ _ __----•---------___--___.__. ~~; . .------- _ _. ..._ _.____ . -e... ..- . -:_.~ ~ ~ . _ ~V ~ , . MINUTES, CITY P3.A~NNI~1G CON:'AISSION~ August 31~ 1964 2293 CONDITIONAL USE. - Gas Company proposed to have an exhibit show3ng the new process to PERMIT NOo 616 which they expect industrial visitors from all over the world; .that in Dr. Magrann's presentation of the hunt for land, he was not exag- GENHRAL PLAN gerating the difficulty in assemblying available lands that the Ah~NDMENT NOo,~ petitioner had a considerable investment in this land, and Anaheim (Continued had investment in the proposed projectss that their optionswould expire in a certain length of time~ that their option had been in the offices of the Falstaff Company prior to the time the property was taken off the market, and this would also happen,to the 55 acres they presently have under optione Mr, Barrows stated that General Foods was not objecting to the project, that they had not been contacted, and they were looking f~ir information, but in his opinion, the development should be located in other than the #ndustrial area, Mr. Richard Tom, architect for the original Orient at Ball Road and VVest Street,appeared before the Commission and stated he had a written agreement with Dr~ Magx~•~rt dated Octoberl, i 1963; that the_exhibits of the project would be used only by written consen: of the architect. , The C;ommission stated, in their opinion, the differences between the architect a~d the ~ developer were..of a personal nature and should not be considered at the Commission hearing ; since this was land use onlye , In response to Commission questioning, Mrsa McCarter stated they had contacted International Harvester, Jaycox, Orowheat, Southern Counties Gas Company, and two trips were made to the Falstaff Brewery in St. Louis, and no one seemed to ob3ecto Commissioner Camp again asked that the City Attorney render an opinion relative to requiring a quorumo Mr, Brody then stated he had been in contact again with the City Attorney, and while the ~ four members of the Commission might be considered legally sufficient in view of the fact a quorum was present in the afternoon, it was his opinion that since there might be some ~ question in the action by the Commission~ it be necessary that five members be present in the event some interested party might take exception and question the le9ality of any voting I the Commission might make on the petitiono TF1E E~ARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner.Camp offered a motion to delay any action for two weeks due to the City Attorney's ruling a quorum of five should be presento Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission the tape would be made available to the Commissioners who were absent from the hearing in order to facilitate the decision of the Comnission at the next hearing, and it would be the first item on the agenda for the September 14th meetin9o Mro Kreidt further stated that a baseball symbol would be developed for the General Plan map, Commissioner Gauer stated that the General Plan map should have the stadium property out- lined to be more specific with a.baseball symbol without a change of colore Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to request the Staff to make a change to the General. Plan map indicating the outline of the proposed stadium site, together with a baseball symbol depicted on the blue coloring of the araaa Commissioner Chavos seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Camp said he had been under the impression for the past two months that the presence of four Commissioners was considered a quorum, and any action that had been taken by the Commission with less than the legal quorum should be reviewed to determine whether or not these decisions would hold up in court< Mr. Brod~ stated he would attempt to determine whether all the action taken by the Commis- sion in the pxevious months was acceptable. Further discussion was heid by the Commission, noting the Commission would be meeting with the City Council on September 1, and perhaps this could be broached to them at that time to amend the Ordinance to incorporate a membership of seven for the Planning Commission. Commi~ssioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to September 1, 1964 at 7:00 o'clock p.m. to meet in a joint session with the City Councile Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 8:45 pom. ~ ~~~__--_ ,_ _ __.~- , - . , ~ ~ ; _ _ ___...____-_ ~ . ~ __._.. ~ • , . -- ; i • ~ .- ~ ~ . MINUTES~ CITY P.LANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 2294 CONDITIONAL USE -•Commissioner Mungall inquired whether the Commission wished to PERMIT N0. 616 consider the balance of the agenda by reconvening. GENERAL PLAN Commissioner (%amp offered a motion to set aside his previous motion AMENDN~NT N0. 34 to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Chavos secondad the motione (Continued) MOTION CARRIEDo RECLASSIFICATION - COMINUED PUBLIC I-IEARINGa PABLO V. AND LAURA K. DOMINGUEZ, 1523 East NOo 64-65-15 Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMES Ao NOBLE, JRo, 1621 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, Ca;.ifornia, Agent; property described CONDITIONAL USE as: An "L" shaped parcel of land adjacent to the service station property PERMIT N0~ 610 at the southeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard, said property having frontages of approximately 457 feet on Ball Road and GENERAL PLAN approximately 457 feet on State College Boulevardo Property presently AA~NDN~NT N0. 31 classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE,s ESTABLISH A MOTOR HOTEL, EXECUTIVE SUITES, RESTAURANT, COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND RELATED SHOPSo Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of August 17, 1964, in order to provide the Planning Department an opportunity to readvertise subject property for M-1 Zoning, and to provide the petitioner an opportunity to confer with the Traffic Engineer in order to reduce the number of access points to State College Boulevard.and Ball Road, and to prepare revised plans incorporating said changeso Zonin9 Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission revised plans had not been submittedo i Mr~ James Nob1e, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had met with the Traffic Engineer of the City and had agreed with him three access points to Ball Road and State College Boulevard would be permissible since the change involved in ~ the plans was so minor, no revised plans were submitted, but this could be made a condition of approval. In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Noble stated he had stipulated at the previous meeting the proposed development would be opeaated as a motel; that the units would be subject to the motel-hotel tax; that in past experience some motel units were requested with kitchen facilities for temporary use of families being transferred by companies to the West Coast, or by winter visitors to the Southland~ that a copy of the Report to the , Commission was received, and he was agreeable to all the recommended conditions of approval; that it was his understanding that because of a technicality, it was readvertised for M-i Zoning and was concerned that the Report to the Commission indicated objection to the execu- tive suites, and these should be reduced in size to 350 square feet, to which he was opposed~ and that the requirementsof landscaping and setback in the M-1 Zone would create a hardship as far as they were concerned since the plan presented was not designed to include thisy and that he thought the requirement of the 6-foot masonry wall for the east and southerly boundaries of subject property were only part of the original= request for C-1 Zoning, and should not be considered if subject property were developed in the M-1 Zoneo Mr. Kreidt stated the 6-foot masonry wall was a carry-over from the original request for ~ C-1 Zoning, and that on the landscapir.g, it could be computed at 10% plus 2;K within the setback requiremento Mr. H, Eo Freeman, representing the Southern Pacific Railroa@, appeared before the Commis- i sion in opposition to the proposed development, stating a letter had been addressed to the ; Commission stating his ob~~'ections,~and requested that the letter be reado ~ The Commission Secretary read a letter of opposition signed by Mr~ R. McClelland, General Industrial Agent of the Southern Pacific Company, Pacific Electric Railway Company, oppos- , ing the proposed motel-hotel, restaurant, cocktail lounge, and related shops, stating this was an infringement on the industrial uses of the area, would be an incompatible use and would be a constant.source of irritation and dissatisfaction to both the property owners and their tenaats, and that they had been working for a num~ber of years to actively promote industrial development in the Southeast Industrial Area of Anaheim and had been successful in locating many substantial industries in that area, and in his opinion, by approving the uses of subject petition, it would seriously reduce the amount of industrial property being held for that purpose, and have an impact on the zoning of the entire suirounding area which would jeopardize tne City's planned industrial use of the areae ., _ ___ _. _ . _. _ _,_,_ .. - ---•---_ _ -- - - - , __ _ ._~ ~-- . ~ . .. _ ; 1 ~ 1 _ ..~:.....j MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 7295 RECLASSIFICATION•.- Mr. Freeman then continued as a~eprese~~,~•:%L'° "~~ ~:he company, considerable NOa 64-65-15 concern was being expressed by the ero~.:i~r: r~! r.;w `-~- ': psbperty for other uses immediately south of subject prop:-~r?1~< =*'~ `'.'~~~ ne looked forward to CONDITIONAL USE continued protection of the SoUtheast 3r.::::;t~.~^" ?rc:a by the City for PERMIT N0. 610 devclopment as industrial purposeso C~NERAL PLAN A letter from the Neville Chemical Company was :ead to the Commission AMENDMENT N0. 31 indicating their opposition to the proposed erosion of the Southeast (Continued~- . Industrial Area. In rebuttal, Mro Noble stated he could appreciate the opposition to other encroachments in the industrial area, but that the proposed use was on the fringe of ~he industrial area and would be complementary, as well as being permissible in the industrial area; that the City of Commerce had a five-story hotel building known as The Hyatt House in the center of the industriai area adjacent to the freeway, and the success of this business was immeasurable and had no deterring effects on industrial development of property immediately adjacent to The Hyatt Houseo TfiH I-IEARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the compatibility of the proposed use in conjunction with the Southeast Industrial Area, noting similar uses in the City of Commerce adjacent to large industrial developments, Commissioner Rowland expressed extreme concern the proposed development might r: construed to be multiple-family development and would ultimately deteriorate all proper!les to the south and east of subject property for multiple-family residential use, which, in his opinion, was an incompatible use to the industrial development already established theree Commissioner Camp stated that if the motel units were approved, he would like to have some definit~ expression as to how these could be legally required to be used as motel units rather than projection for multiple-family use, since subject property was requesting in- dustrial zoning, and at the previous hearing the Commission had expressed their only opposi- tion would be to the request for commercial zoningo Commissioner Rowland then stated the outward appearance of the property would be the only indication to passersby as to the ultimate development of vacant land, and that he was firmly opposed to the proposed executive suites because they represented apartments, rather than motel units. '~ Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to their request for revised plans indicating the relocation of the executive suites to the State College Boulevaxd side and to provide circu?ation in accordance with requirements of the Traffic Engineer, Mro Noble statpd he had discussed the possibility of relocation of th~ executive suites to the State Coll~?ge Boulevard side with Mr. Granzow, the Traffic Engineer, and he was of the opinion State (:ollege Boulevard was considerably heavier in traffic volume than Ball Road, even after the Orange Freeway was completed, and Ball Road traffic would never be more than two-thirds tiiat of the State College Boulevard traffic, and since this was an opinion of the Traffic Engineer, and the revision of plans would only indicate a reduction in ac~•ess points, he felt revised plans would not be necessaryo Mr. Kreidt then reviewed the General Plan exhibits indicating multiple-family development on one from State Colle9e to the river, with Cerritos Avenue bein9 the southerly boundary or the railroad tracks as indicated on the other ~_xhibit, and that these exhibits had been prepared on the assumption the.Commission would consider the executive suites as apartments. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to a change in General Plan designation, and it was the opinion this remain as M-1 only and designation of the motels, regardless of size, could be controlled by requirement of weekly rental and payment of room taxo Mra Kreidt stated that a study of the various hotels and motels in the City indicated that the Disneyland Hotel had 380 square-foot units, and there were 97 of these, this representing the majority of the large unitse Commissioner Camp stated his main concern was the Commission had given the impression thai: approval would be given on the proposed development provided industrial zoning was granted, and if the Commission did not maintain the impression they had given people, this would reduce the effectiveness of the Commissio~~ by an indication the Commission did not mean what they saide , Commissioner Gauer stated that most of the land to the east of sub3ect property was located in the County, but the proposed development would have definite impiications on the County development for industrial purposes of property under their jurisdictione ---_ _ r-.~ ---- ~---- _ __~_. ~_.. .. ~ . ~ i --' /r - __ ._. . ~ t~ . . . ~,l ~ ~`; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 31~ 1964 2296 RECLASSIFICATION•~ Commissioner Rowland expressed concern that the 41 executive suites NOo 64-65-15 _ might have such an impact on 1.00 acres of land that the City would be engulfed with requests for multiple-family zoning on the remainder of CONDITIONAL USE the property fronting on the south side of Ball Road for multiple-family PERMIT N0, 614 developmente GENERAL PLAN Commissioner Gauer also ex~ressed cencern that if the executive units AMENDN~N'I NOo 31 were approved as submitted, this might be an entering wedge into the (Continued) deterioration of the M-1 Zone, and it was the desire of the Commission to limit any accassory units in the M-1 Zone to moteis, rather than developments that could be construed as multiple-family development. In response to•Commission questionin9 relative to the stipulaticn that all motel units would not exceed 688 square feet, Mre Don Peecher, one of the agents for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that by reducing the square footage of the motel units, the Commission would be reducing the proposed development from a deluxe motel to an ordinary motel~ that the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York had apartments that were up to 2~500 square feet, and it was not his desire a stipulation be made to a 688-square foot development for each motel unit; that by requiring all units to be the same, the Commission was projecting many families to look elsewhere for facilities to take care of entire families; and they were proposing 160 regular size units with only one-fifth of the units being ex.ecutive suites, . and some of their clients would be of the better class and would require large sui~cese Considerab2e discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the validity of requiring 686 square feet or less for the entire developmente f~ Deputy City Attorney Jerry Brody, in clarifying hoa the City would enforce the use of sub~ect ~ property as a motel, stated advertising the motel as apartments would be prohibited, and all ~ signs would be required to be removed, with the stipulation that if not removed within a , time, the motel operator's license could be revoked; that the 4~ room tax would apply~ that in the pas+. the City has brought suit against individual motel operators for the nature of their advertising and their operation, when it was obvious they had been operating as other than a motelq that legally some action could be taken, and the City would be, in fact, in a ~ position to take legal action by revocation of the business license if necessary, and these ; proceedings would be initiated upon investigation by the License Department upon an individual ' complaint requesta ' In response to Cowaission questioning relative to a lease be afforded the operator of the ' motel by the City Council, Mre Brody stated the operator would be required to request a ~hange of zone before the Commission and the City Councilti that the City had legal authority ! to rE~nove the license and to bring action against any violation of this license~ which would ! be sufficient protection to maintain the proposed development as a motel, although the property: owner had a right.to request rezoning of the property through the usual procedures of filing a'. petitiona Commissioner Rowland offered a moti~n to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ; Reclassification Noe 64-65-15 be approved, subject to the reduction of the executive suites ~ to 688 square feet and sub~ect to the Traffic Engineer's recommendations for access to State Coilege Boulevard and Ball Road< Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono ' On roll call the.foregoing motion failed to carry by a vote of three against and two foro Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ! Reclassification..No. 64-65-15 be approved. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiortr sub,ject to conditionso ' ; On roll call the foregoing resolution failed to carry by a vote of four for and one against, I Commfssioners Gauer and Mungall stating they w~re voting for the development primarily because I it would be operated and taxed as a motel and allowable in the industrial areaa- Commissioner Rowland voted "NO"~ stating that to grant subject petition would be permitted the breakdown of the Southeast Industrial Area, and he, for one, would never vote for any- thing which would dei:eriorate the Southeast Industr.ial Area. Chairman Mungall..then stated that the voting on the Petitions for Reclassification No. 54-65-15 and Conditional Use Permit No. 610, and General Plan Amendment Noe 31 would be held over to the meeting of September 14, for a roll call, said roll call to be the-second item on the aftesnoon agenda. Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission the tape recordings of the hearings would be available for the Commissioners who were not present at the public hearing in order to facilitate voting on the petitionse . ,._ -------- ----~--,---.-,^_~ , .. . .. ___._ ~ . ~ ,. 1~ i • ! i __~i~ ~~ _. . _.__...__S C.~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 22p~ itECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I~ARINGo FED-MART CORPORATION, 5Q0 North Muller, Anaheim, NOo 64-65-21 California, Owner~ reQuesting that property described as: A rectangular ~ parcel of land with a frontage of 580 feet on the east side of Muller TEMATIVE MAP OF Street and a depth of 450 feet, the southern boundary of said property TRACT NOa 56 3 being 900 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the M-ly LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE, to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESI- C,ENERAL PLAN DENTIAL, ZOI~lE to develop subject property into.8 R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY AMENDIuIENT NOe 35 RESIUENTIAL, ZONED lotsa DEVELOPER: NEWMAN AND ASSOCIATES, 5378 Village Road, Long Beach 8, Califo*nia. ENGINEER: NC DANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lipcoln Avenue~ Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the east side of Muller Avenu~ approximately ?00 feet north of Lincoln Avenue and contain- ing approximately six acres, is proposed for subdivision into 8 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lots. Mr. Robert Drendel,. representing Newman and Associates, developers of the tract, appeared befoie the Commission and reviewed the proposed development of sub3ect property, noting that Fed-Mart had purchased the property originaily for warehouse facilities, but because I of the traffic in the area and the change of character of the neighborhood, it was found i impractical to use the property for the warehAUSe anticipated, and facilities were found ; elsewhere before subject property was up for consideration for multiple•-family residential ~ useo i ~ In response to Commission questioning relative to the location of the proposed warehouse { south of Ball Road on State College Boulevard, it was noted the petitioners were aware that , the Angel Stadium was proposed for the site prior to their plans for development of the j warehouse facilities; that subject property would be changing in character, and the value ~ of the property would considerably increase to that in the Southeast Industrial Area; that ~ the developers of.the other industrial properties in the area in ciose proximity to subject ~ property had developed warehouse facilities without any leases of the propertiesj that ~ Mr, Muller, the developer of the industrial properties immediately adjacent to subject property~was f~nancially able to withstand any reversals in the .rental and development-of ~ I the properties, whexeas this was not so as far as the owner of subject property was concernedo' ; !Nr. Wayne Gallagher, representing the Richfield Oil Corporation, appeared before th2 Commis- i sion in opposition to sub3ect petition and stated the company he represer~ted had expended , over five million dol~ars on the development of their research center on the assurance that subject ans3 abutting properties would be developed for industrial purposess that they conducted ;'~ research experiments of petroleum and considerable noises emanated from their research center at times because of the testing of various motors and fuelsf i:hat this would create an unsatis- i factory situatio~ if multiple-family development was approved in close proximity to their establishment and would further reduce any enlargement of their existing development, a2though ~ the company had current plans for expansion of the facilities on the drawing boards and would be expend:rig one million dollarsq and that he had talked with the U. So Borax people relative to the proposed development, and they had expressed the desire to have him represerrt them in opposition to the.proposed multiple-family residential zoning. Mr, John Williams, District Engineer for Richfield Oil Corporation, appeared before the ! Commission and reviewed for the Commission the various operations on truck engines and ~ automobiles in their. testing of petroleum products, noting that some of these testing opera- ~ tions were run on the basis of seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day~ throttling tt~a i en9ines up to 50 m11es an hour~ and because of these various tests, considerable noises , wuuld be emanating from the equipment which would be objectionable anci detrimental as far l as noises and odors were concerned to any residential uses ad3acent to their property, and y they had been modifyiny their operation for some time because of complaints from people some i distance away fxom their developmentj further, that the General Plan Amendment indicated i that if subject petition were approved, multiple-family development would be pro~ected for ( most of the existing industrial area and would be detrimental to any future expansion of ~ their operation. ~ Mre William Cate, employed by the Richfieid Oil Corporation, appeared before the Commission ; and stated he had worked closely with the City and Muller Brothers in developing a former ' orange grove in,ta an outstanding industrial area; that Richfield Oil Corporation had develop- ' ed in the area because of the assurance this would be maintained for industrial uses in the future~ and the investment made on their existing development~ together with any projected investment would be m~''•.ried if the character of ~he industrial area were changed, and they would resist any erosi of the industrial arEa by the proposed classification because the ~ area contained a number of substantial investments in addition to their own, which weze be- ; ing used for industrial purposese In rebuttal, Mr. Drendel stated that because of the econc;nic changes in the area, the Fed- ' Mart people were left with land which could not easily be moved for industrial purposeF, I~ a~a mttlt.inlw-famiiv develooment existed to the southeast of sub~ect property, and that it i ~ I ! / .,.,__....~_.__.... _ , . ____~_..., -~----•_....__..__.__ . ._..~.._.. .• \) \\ ~ ~ ' ~ ~/ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COH4AISSION~ August 31~ 1964 ~98 RECLASSIFICATION - was his opinion subject property could not be used for light industrial N0. 64-65-21 •purposes much longer since they had received very few offers in ~the past ferr years for use of the property they held for industrial purposeso TENfA'IIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 5693 ' Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the proposed development and its impact on the Northcentral Industr3al Area and the GENERAL PLAN developments presently existing in the area, noting that considerable pM~NDMENT N0. 35 small industrial development had occurred on Muller Avenue, in additton (Continued) to the U. So Borax Company and the Richfield Oil Corporation, and inquired ' of the petitioner why the Fed-Mart peopie located their warehouse facili- ties in another areao Mr, Drendel stated land values in the area had changed considerably; that the industriai property they purchased in the Southeast Industrial Area was more reasonable~ that certain sections of Anaheim had become islands because of the dense growth of commercial, profes- sional office and multiple-family residential uses and changed the area in which subject property was located; therefore the property was no longer valuable for industrial usea Further, that the heavy flow of traffic on :.;.~coln Avenue and Euclid Street was detrimental to providing adequate circulation for the trucks bringing supplies to the wareho~~seo Mre Gallagher again appeared before the Commission and stated he wished to clarify some.of the statements made relative to their productf that they were in the business to perfect the product which woUld be purchased in the future{ that any future development p~lanned for their research cenier would be dependent upon compatibility of adjoining uses, and the re- search of the oil products and related fields on the property made it imperative the existing zoning remaine TEiE f~ARING WAS CL06EDo The Commission expressed sL:~rise that the Fed-Mart people were proposing multiple-family ~ residential use while going into the Southeast Industrial Area to develop their warehouse ~ facilitiesy that no chan ,e in the character and development of the area had taken Flace to ~ warrant the change of the zoning; that subject property was completely surrounded by indus- trial uses; and-the proposed use would be totally incompatibleo ~ Commissioner Gauer o£fered Resolution Noo 1320, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Cortmissioner ~amp, to xecommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-21 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed multiple I family residential use would be incompatible to the existing weli~established industrial uses in close proximity to subject property; that the proposed development was completely surrounded; by industrial property and would represent a compiete breakdown of the Northcentral Industrial~ Area; fhat no physical change had taken place in the area to warrant a change of zone for ! subject property. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cali the foregoing ;esolution w3s passed by the following vote: AYES: CQMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowlande NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENI': COARr1ISSI0NERS: Allred~ Perryo ' Commissioner Rowiand oifered Resolution Noo 1321, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No~ 35 be disapprovede (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoi~g resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COAWIISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos3 Gauer, Mungall, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEN'I': COA4VIISSIOt1ERS: Allred, Perry. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5693, based on the fact that reclassification proceedings had been recommended for deniol, and sub~ect tract was proposed for development if said reclassification was approvedo Commissioner Chavos seconded the cnotiona MOTION CRRRIED. I ! ~ ~ . :~ ~ . 1 ' , , - . _ ___._ __~.- . --- ~ ____ -- _ _~ , _ . . ~ ----- . ..__.~~ t~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CaMMISSION~ August 31, 1964 2299 REPORTS AND •- ITEM NOa 1 RECOMM~NDATIONS City of Buena Park Zone Change ::,.. Z-279, prooosing reclassification from R-1, ~ne Family Resider.tia~l to R-2, High Density Multiple Residential on property located on the stub end of Savanna Street between the flood control channel and the Pacific Electric Raiiroad right-of-way immediately adjacent to the Anaheim city limits. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented the City of Buena Park's proposed Zone Change No. Z-279 to the Commission and reviewed the location of subject property and the proposed zoning, noting that the proposed zoning was comparable to the City of Anaheim R-3, Multipie- Family Residential, Zone. The Commission reviewed the recently approved zone change by the City Council for the estahlishment of a R-2, subdivision of dupiex homes on the south side of Savanna Street in close proximity to subject propertye Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the Di~ector of Public Morks had recently initiated improvement p]ans for Savanna Street of sewers, street widening and improvements, and that water from Savanna Street would be draining onto subject property in Buena Parke Commissioner Camp offered a mution to recommend to the City Council that the City of Buena Park be encouraged to develop subject property with zoning comparable to that of the City af Maheim, and further, that the City Engineer recommends that all drainage be discharged into the flood controi channele Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ITEM NOD ~ Conditional Use Permit Noo 549 - Orangethorpe =:='~strial Park, 420 Beverly Drive, Beveriy Hills, California, ~:~:Yers, requesting approval of revised plans - property located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, easterly of the railroad tracks in the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZO,.~Se Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt present2d revised plans of Conditional Use Permit Noo 549 I for the Commission's consideration, noting that at the previous request for approval of revised plans, the originally approved restaurant had been removed, and the proposed development was substantially in accordance with the previous ones approved by the Com- missiono Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Revision Noo 2, Exhibits Nose 1 and 2, of Conditional Use Permit No. 549e Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, ITEM NOo 3 Orange County Use Variance No. 5408 - Located on the north side of Miraloma Avenue adjacent to the Anaheim City limits in the Northeast Industrial Area, and proposing to establish a truck storage yarde Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Orange County Use Variance Noo 5408 to the Como~ission, and reviewed the location of subject property and its proposed useo l.t.was further noted by Mr. Kreidt that the County's master plan of streets and highways propose 80 feet of right-o£-way for Miraloma Aver.ue, whereas the City's General Plan- Circulation Element proposes 90 feet of right-of-way; further that the proposed use could be allowed in the City's M-1 Zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, that the site be enclosed with a solid 6-foot masonry wall, that said wall be set back f.ifty feet from the planned highway right-of-way providing a landscaping strip of 20 feet i.n t!-:~ front 20 feet and the rear 30 feet to be used for parking purposeso Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the County be-encouraged to require that subject property be developed in accordance with the City's Site Development Standards for the M-1, Light Industrial, Zonee Co~issioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM N0. 4 A letter from the Anaheim Ready Mix Company. A.letter was read to the Commission from the Anaheim Ready Mix Company indicating their ~ approval of the development of the Anaheim baseball stadium and to indicate their apprecia- tion and evidencs of this approval, they were p~oposing to provide additional landscaping and improvements to enhance their property so tt,at it would be complementary to the proposed stadium. i ~_ ___- - _- ::~-~ . ; ---- .-- . . ~ (l MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 2300 REP~RTS AND - ITEM N0. 4-(Continued) RECOAM~NDATIONS Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to submit a letter of appreciation to the Anaheim Ready Mix Company for their interest in beautifying the propesties susrounding the proposed baseball stadium with a copy of the Commission's comments to the City Council, together with the letter sent by thE Anaheim Ready Mix Companyo Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOo 5 Variance Noo 1635 - Request for waiver of the conditions attached in the approval of the variance in Resolution Noo 1164, Series 1963-640 Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed a request made to the City Council by Mr. Nelson Endicott, the petitioner of Variance Noo 1635 for waiver of Conditions Noso 2, 3, and 4 of.Resolution Noe 1164, granted May 11, 1964, for street improvements or a bond in lieu thereof, street light and street feese • A report by the Engineering Division was also read to the Commission as follows: 1. .Uasiance Noo 1185, approved by Planning Commission on January 4, 1960, with no action~ by City Councile This action was subject to conditions, including the payment of the street lighting fee, preparation of street pians, posting cf bond and installation of improvementse These canditions were waived on February 6, 1960~ per memo from the City Manager, copy attached, due to the improbability of early changes and the creation of other problemso ~ 2a. Conditional use Permit Noo 416y approved for dog kennels for a two year period by~the Planning Commission on May 13, 1963, with no action by City Council on June 4, 19630 The Interdepartmental Committee recommended certain conditions, including payment of the street lighting fee and the preparation of street improvements, posting a bond and installation of improvementso ?he Planning Commission did not adopt the above recom- mendations on basis of the action taken on Variance Noe 1185, but did include a finding "That the payment of stzeet lights and the installation of street improvements, or the posting of a bond thereof, may be a condition of approval of any request for an extension of-time fcr the proposed use of subject property as a dag kennel"o i ~ 3a Variance Noa 1611, approved by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1963, with no action by the City Council on December 31, 1963o This action was subject to conditions, including the payment of the street lighting fee, preparation of street plans, posting. of a bond and installation.-of•impr~v.ementsa The applicant appealed these conditions to the City Council and on January 28, 1964, obtained a waiver of the street lighting fee but was required to post a two year bond for the street improvementsa (A $1,500v00 cash bond was posted on April 14, 19640) It was reasoned by the City Councii that in 1960, it was considered impractical to require street improvements on the adjacent property; however the situation has changed and within the next two or three years, the actual si:reet improvements are likely to be installeda 4, Conditional Use Permit Noa 515, approved by Planning Commission on January 2, 1964, with no action.by the City Council on January 14, 1964o This action was subject to conditions9 including the payment of the street lighting fee, preparation of street plans, posting of bond and installation of improvements. These conditions have not been waived by~the City Council. It is to be noted that as of this date the street lighting fee has not been paid and a bond has not been posted. 5. Reclassification Noo 63-64-60 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 504 were filed for R-3 and ~ a planned residential development. The Planning Commission denied both actions on December 6, 1963. The City Council denied the C.U,P. on January 7, 1964, and on Febru- ary 4, 19649 granted the reclass for R-2 Zoning, subject to the filing and recording o£ a final tract map. This action was completed by Ordinance Noo 2005, dated June 9, 1964e Tract Noo 5529 was recorded and a portion of the improvements required are street•improve- ments and street lights. As of this date the improvements are 40~ completedo 6. Variance Noa 1635, approved by the Planning Commission on May 21~ 1464, with no action by the City Council on June 3, 1964. This action was subject to conditions, including the payment of the street lighting and street tree fees, preparation of street pians, posting of a bond and instailation oi improvements< The street tree fee is a recent requirement and for the sub~ect property would amount to $17e70. ' It.is.apparent from the above resume that the City Council believes this area will be improved in the near future and therefore has not waived the conditions pertaining to street lightirsg ' fee and street improvements on the most recent zoning actionso It is, therefore, reasonable ~ not to waive these conditions of Variance No. 1635, the latest zoning action, as requested by ~ Mr. Endicotto ' 1 ~.. ._ __r.__- - -_-_--- ,~ i1N~ '~-._._...-- :-. . __ . ~ ~ ... . .~ _~ -- _._ t--' ~ e , ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 31, 1964 2301~ ~ s i REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe 5-(Continued) RECOM&~NDATIONS Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that waiver of Conditions Nos. 2, 3, and 4, of Resolution No. 1164, Series 1963-64~ dated , 1Nay 11, 1964, not be granted, based on the fact that previous zoning actions were required to comply with similar conditions, and further, based on the data submitted by the City Engineer recommending that waiver not be granted. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motione ldOTION•CARRIED, TEMPORARY ADJOURNIu~M - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting ; to September 1, 1964, to meet in joint session with the City Council at 7:00 o'clock p.m. Commissioner Gauer seconded the ; motiono M~I'ION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ' ~~ J ~ ~~ ~ ANN KREBS, Secre ary • Anaheim Planning Commission i