Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/11/23\ 1 ~~ . . . , . . ., .;~ r I ~ ~ fA' .~ ' ' ~ ~ ~i7.ty HaiZ Anaheim, Cplifor.nia November ~3, 19ci4 A REGULAR Iu~ETING OF TE~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COhaIISSION REGULAR Iu~BTING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called i to order by Chairman Mungall at 2s00 o'clock P,Me, a quorum being ~ present. _ ' _ j PRESENT - CHAIRMANs Mungall. - COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp~ Gauer, Perry, Rowlande ' . ; ABSENT - COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ! j PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt ~ Associate Plannore Robert Mickelson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts I, Office Engineer Representativee Wallace Cre'nshaw ; Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs j Planning Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg ~ PI.SDC~ OF • ~ ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led the Pledge of Allegtance to the Flag. i APPROVAL OF ; THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 1964, were approved as ; ~ submittedo 1 + RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. VILLA ENTERPRISES,.1405 East Chapman Avenue, N0. 64-65-17 Orange, California, Owner; CLIFF ANDERSON9 1405.East Chapman Avenue, Oransa, California, Agent~ property descr.ibed as: A rectangular parcel VARIANCH N0. 1657 of land with a frontage of 75 feet on the°south side of Vermont Avenue ' and a depth of 224 feet, the western boundary of said property being GENERAL PLAN approximately 312 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and AMENDNIHNT N0. 32 further described as 400 West Vermont Avenueo Property classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONB< . I2EQUESTED VARIANCEe WAIVE ONE-STORY HEIGFiT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-1 PROPERTY~ WAIVE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING AND ERECTION OF CARPORTS IN LIEll ~ GARAGES. Sub~ect petitions were continued from the meetings of l:ugust 17 and 31, and September 28, ~ 1964„ to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans ot developmente , i Mr.•Clifford Anderson~ representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and '~ reviewed th~ numerous attempts made to present plans of development for sub~~ct property, ~ which would be in conformance with the Commission's desires and the petition!;r's desireso ~ It was fu:ther notod that a five-unit apartment dwelling was locatod to the east of sub3ect ~ property, aud a home and greenhouses were located immediately west of sub~ect property, with ~ the Orange County Agricultural Offices located to the southe ; Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the suggested :.hanges to the plans which were.made on Augvst 17, 1964y that at that time, single-story-constructian v~as recommended to the petitioner, whereas two-story construction was being proposeda Zonin~3 Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the ol.ans before them were ident~ical to those which were presented when subjec# p~tition was first filed, and a reduction af the units was the only thing which had occurred in the development-from the original 14 to the present 10-unit, two-story apartment buildingo ~ The Commission, upon reviewing the plans, advised the representative for the petitioner that.the basis for the Commi;,sion's recommendation of one-story conatruction was because sub~ect property was surrounded by R-1 devel.opment, whereas the multiple-family development to the east was not, and that the 5-unit apartment dwelling to the east was also single- story'.construction~ thtit although it was possible the area in which sub3ect property was located would sometime in the future be developed for multiple-family development, two-story ~ -2394- i f,~, -----,.-- .------ -. - -. ~ . `~.T....__, ._ _. .. ___._ ., ~ . , .. ;,,c . ~ K`;' . ~~ ~, „ ~.... _. .. • . , ._~ r . , ', U . ~ 0 ,.. . A~INIiTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 23, 1964 2395 RECIASSIFICATION - construction was not desirable because of inadec~uate parking facilities~ N0. b4-65-17 and that sub~ect plans also indicated inadequate parking facilities, tooe.her with a 15-foot access driveo • VARIANCE N0. 1657 The Commission further stated that in the past ti~ey have approved waivers ~ ; GENERAL PLAN of Code requirements in the redevelopment•of• oide~•aieas, but that sub~ect ~ Ah~NDN~NT N0. property did not qualify as such; rather it was underdeveloped, instead of Continued oldero '. ~ , ~~ ;' No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionse ~ • THF. HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the Ctty Counci~f that Petition for ~ Reclassification Noe 64-65-17 be disapproved, based on the fact tha~t.the petitioner had ' ~~ • been.advised that revised plans be submitted indicating one-story construction, since it ! was ad~acent to R-1 Zoning, and that after several continuances, this was not followed i ~ through in the planso The motion lost for want of a second. T.he Commission further discussed subject petition, noting that•i•t•-could be approved subject ; to development with single-story construction; that if this were~done, the request for waiver of the height limitation and the parking wo~ld not be neeessaiys and if this were granted, this would then pro3ect substandard R-3 development in an area primarily developed " for single-family use. ; Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noa 1423, Series 1964-65y~and moved for its passage j and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to tHe~City Council that i Petition for Reclassification Noa 64-65-17 be approved for one-9~ory construction only, based on the fact that it was adjacent to R-1 development and zon3nq, and conditions. i (See Resolution Booke) Chi rall call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: I AYES~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda NOES.e COMMISSIONHRS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: None. : I • Cammissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1424, Series 1964-65, a~ moved fnr its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1657, based on the fact that subject property should be developed for single-story only, and if this were done, the request for waiver of the required pa-rking would not be necessary, and the request for carports in lieu of garages was now permissible in•the R-3 Zonea (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYES.~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall~ Perry, Rowlanda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee - ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1425, Series 1964-65, and moved for its.passage ' and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer~ to recommend to the City Council that ~ieneral i Plan Amendment No. 32 be disapproved, and that it be considered at the Annual Revier~ of •the ~ General Plan. (See Resolution Book<) ; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passeo by the following vote: i AYESZ COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rowland. ' NOESe COMMISSIONERS~ Noneo ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERSe None. ~.; ~ ~ ~ . t~) MEAIUTES, CITY PLANI~ING COMMISSION, November 23, 1964 2396 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo FANNY SH(7NALTER~ c~o DECON CORPORATION, ~ NOo 63-64-8 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, OwneTj DECON CORPORATION, 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent~ property~described GOND3TS~NRL USE' as: An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 1,266 feet on PERMIfi"NO'. ~150 the westerly side of the Riverside Freeway, the westernmost boundary of "'~ subject property•being 5~O feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street~ said property being further described as PORTION N0.'1 and PORTION N0. 2s PORTION NOo 1 being located in the City of Anaheim, PORTION N0. 2 being located in the County of Orange. Property presently classified as R-A, AGRICULTIJRAL, ZONE. REQlJES7ED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RflSIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITYONAL USE: ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULT.T.PLE-FAMILY PLANNED • RESIDHNTIAL DEVELOPA~N'I WITH CARPORTS; WAIVE ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONa Suhject petitions were continued from the meetings of July 22, August 19, September 16, October 28~ December 23, 1963, and January 20, March 30, and May 25, 1964, in order that the petitioner might have sufficient time to subroit revised plans incorporating suggestions made by the Commissiono Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the•developer requesting that sub~ect petitions be terminated, but that in accordance with the exhibit on the east wall, sub3ect property was a small, crescent-shaped parcet now zoned R-A~ that since subject petition had been filed, the westerly portion of the property had been annexed into the City and was classified in the R-2 Zone, and that if the Commis- sion desired, consideration of termination of Portion 29 and the recommendation of rezoning to R-2 fa~ Portion 1, would effect "zoning housekeeping", and that the conditional use perrnit could be terminated because plans submitted were no longer applicableo No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitionsa THE FIEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1426, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Portion No. 1 0£ sub3ect property be reclassified to the R-2, Multiple-Family Ftesidential, Zone, and all proceedings on Portion Noe 2 be terminated due to the fact that subject•property was annexed into the City and was reclassified into the R-2 Zonea (See Resolution Booko) On.roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allredy Camp, Gauer' Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda NOES: COMMISSIONERSt Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Norieo Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 45~, as requested by the petitioner> Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOIION CARRIED. VARIANCE NOo 1670 - PUBLIC HEARINGo JOE LOPEZ, 731 North Philadelphia Street, Anak~eim, . California~ Owner~ requesting pe~mission to waive the minimum required ~ floor area, minimum required park3ng spaces, and minimum di~tance be.tween buildings on property described as~ A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 52 feet on the west sida of Philadelphia Street and a depth of approximately 155 feet, the northern boundary c: said property being approximately 337 feet south of the centerline of Nox.th-Street, and further described as 731 North Philadelphia Streeta Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZG~JEe The petitioner was not present to answer questionse Mrs. Lila Hood, 732 North Philadelphia Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition t0 subjeat petition, stating she was opposed to waiver of the parking requirements since ~ the easterly portion of the street adjacent to sub~ect property had a fire hydrant which~ ; eliminated two parking spacesf that because of this limitation of parking, her guests_:were deprived of parking in front of her homef that many of the apartments in the area did not have gar=:~es and used the street for parking purposes~ and that if subject petition were appxoved,.the Commission should consider requiring that adequate parking be provided £or tha pxoposed additions to sub~ect property. Mr. Herbert Epperson, 719 North Philadelphia Street, appeared before the Commission and ~ stated he was in favor of the proposed development, since in tha near future he proposed ' to request apartments constructed over garages~ that if the petitioner presented plans, 1~ 'r __....__.~.......~-.._ ~ -- _ ~_ ~ S i ~U ~ ~ 1 , '~ I ~F . ' ~ } t ~. _ __ -aa ~'__"""'__.. V `• MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMANISSION, November 23, 1964 23~}7 VARIANC6~ NE3: 1670 - this would solve any parking problems, or the petitioner coutd constsuct (Continued)"" a fence far enough within the area to prov:de parking from the alleyo The Commission reviewed the plans and werp of the opinion it was not necessary to have the presence of the petitioner, since subject pet~tion could be approved subject to conditionso THE HEA.~ING WAS CLOSEDa Commissioner Rowland offered Resol~ition Noo 1427, Series 1964-65, and moved fcir fts passage , arad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1670, , ~ but denying the request. for waiver of the minimum *equired parking, and inste~ad that ~' Condition ;Joa 7 be amended to read "provided, however, that three covered parking spaces ; shall be provided"> (See Resolution Booke) j On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungail, Perry, Rowlanda NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo • ABSEM : COMMISSIONERSs None~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBI.IC HEARINGo J. RICHARD HUFFMAN, 2500 West Qrangethorpe, Suite J, PEH1~.tT NOo 650 Fullerton, California, Own~;; ANTHONY DE PIANO, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent~ requesting permission to permit on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant and amendment to C-1 deed r.estrictions of business and professional uses only as declared in Reclassification Noo 62-63-75 on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 142 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of apprcximately 185 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Avenue, and further descrioed as 1750 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified C-', NEI~-IBOR.YOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONE9 deed restricted to business and prafessional uses onlye Mro J. Richard HuffmanY the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the pxoposed request for on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with the existing restauranto Zoning Coordinator Martin Kseidt advised the Commission tha~ if appro~~al of an amendment to the C-1 deed restrictions on sub3ect property was to be made, it was recommended it be made as a separate motion from subject petitiono No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TIiE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noa 1428, Series 1964•-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Potition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 650, sub~ect to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votec AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NQESa_. COMMISSIONER~: None. ABSENT: COMMISSTONERSs Noneo Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend tr the City Council that C-~ deed restric- tions filed on subjeci property under Reclassification Noo 62-63-75 be amended to provide £Dr on-saie of beer an~i wine in con3unction with a restaurant approved~undex Conditional U~e Permit Noe 650. Commissioner Camo seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING~ INI'fIATED BY THE CIT~ ~LANNING COMMISSION~ NOe 64-65-49 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; MARY La FITZ, 1127 White Sails Way~ Corona del Mar, i.alifornia, and LAND ESTATES, INCORPORATED, CONDITIONAL USE 1100 East Clark, Santa Maria, California~ Owners~ proposing the recla=si- PERMIT N0, 639 fication of property described as: A rectangular parcel of land at the .- southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street,rand further described as Parcels 1 and 2- Parcel 1: A rectangular paxcel at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst SLreet with frontages of approximately 120 feet on Lincol^ Avenue and approximately 150 feet on Brookhurst Street; Parcel 2e A rectangular parcel lying immediately west of and adjacent to Parcel 1, said Parcel 2 having a frontage of 70 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 150 feet, the east- ern boundary of said Parcel 2 being app~oximately 18Q feet west of the centerline of Brook~ hurst Street. Property presently clsssified - Parcel 1: R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE; Parcel 2: C-3, HEAVY COMN~RCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to the operation of the existing muifler shop, or ~ny C-1 usea _., ` -.~~_ . , ~,.~. -- ._ ..._,.T.- - - -- --r-_---_ . , _ ,.. . . , ~ ~ ~ ~ / -~ RECIASSIFICATION - PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONs Parcels 1 and 2- C-1, N£•IGMBORHOOD COMh~RCIAL, i NQo 64-65-49 20NEa CONDITIONAL USE PROPOSED CQNDITIONAL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF EXISTING MUFFLER SHOP AS PERMIT NOo ¢,39 A CONFORMING USH IN THE C-1 ZONE. ! (Continued) . Subject petitions were continued from the meeting'of October 26, 1964, ; ~ in order to allow the Planning Department and the~City Attorney's office ~ time ~a reso2ve any legal problems whlch might be encoun~tered in the propos~:l reclassifica- ~ tion and to contact property owners of subject properties> ; Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the findings and conditions of the Report to the ~ ~ i Commission relative to permitting a muffler shop operation in the C-1 Zoneo ~ No one was ~ ~ ' present to represent the property ownerso ~ ; ~ ; No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso 9 ; c 1 ~ Tt~..1~ARING WAS CLOSEDo ~ i ? 1 Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1429, Series 1964-65, and moved for. its passage ~ ~: and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition y ~ for Reclassification Noo 64-65-49 be approved, contingent upon the granting of Conditional ~ Use Permit Noe 6390 (See Resolution Booko) ~ ; . ~ ~ On.rall call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: fi ; , ~ AYESs. COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rowlando ; ; NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ; ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo i Gommissioner Camp offered Resalutior~ Noa 1a30, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage ~ .; and adoption, sECOnded by Comn;ission~^ ~'srry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ; Noe 639~ sub~ect to conditions and thE finding that the conditional use permit was granted ' in order to permit the sale and installation of automotive seat coversy muf#1ers~ and ~ + accessories on the property classified in the C-1 Zoneo (See Resolution Booke) ~I ~ ~ On roll call i;he foregoing resolution was passed by the following votea ;• • ~ ~ ! ~ AYESt. COMMISSIONERS: Allred9 Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando i ~ NOES:. COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSEN'I: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo • ~ i RE~LASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ ANTON Do GL-IG'ER9 7661 Haldor Place, Bwena°~Park, ~ ~ NOe 64-65-56 ,_,_ California, Owner; JAN~S Ko SCEIULER, 914 East Katella Avenne, Anaheim, ~ ! California, Agent~ property described as: A rectangular~parcei of land ' COIQDITIONAL USE with a frontage of approximately 292 feet on the west side of Velare ~ '~ PERMIT NOo 652 Street and a depth of approximately 269 feet~ the northern boundary of said property being approximately 270 feet south of the centerline of ' ~ Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo ~ ~ i ~ R6Q.UESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. ~ ~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ~ ~ ? WITH WAIVER OF ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN.150 FEET ~ ~ OF R-A ZONED PROPERTYo i ' S James.F~:huler a ent for the ~ ~ , g petitioner, appeared before the Cor.mdssion and stated that ~ adequate parking would be provided, and that the carports would be finished as required ~ ~ by the City of Anaheime ~ ~ ~ In response to Commission questioning, Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the ~ ~ Commission that the parcel of property to the south of sub~ect property had been recommended ; ~ for denial by the Planning Commission, but upon public hearing by the City Council, had been ~ ~ approued for R-3 Zoning, provided that the easterly 150 feet would be single-story construc- ~ tion, and that if the Commission considered subject petition favorably, it could be recom- mended for approval conditionally by the requirement of recommended conditions or revised plans•c~uld be requestedo ~ Mr. Schuler then stated that in his sstimation the proposed development was not too dense; ~ ~ that.large units wer¢ being provided, as well as adequate recreation area, and that it ' a included pa•tios with each dwelling unito il I ~ ; ~ ~ 'i , '- .....~.~, ----,~ _. , . , .: -,... . ., .. .,,.~_,,,,,...~. -. , . , , s . I@- _. ~._~._ l ------ . ~ L.~ , .. _ . ; ~ I ,-;;., ~ `~ MINIiTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 23, 1964 RECIASSIFICATION NOo..64-65-56 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 5 Continued 2399 The Commission discussed the land use symbol of~the°General Plan, noting that it had been amended to reflect 18 dwelling units per net residential acre, or low-medium density; that the proposed development was 25 times as dense as the property developed to the east; that all the deep lots on the west side of Ve?are Street were developable for R-i usesf and that it was not the Cortunission's feeling that the entire area would be developable for R-3 uses. While the Commission was reviewing the plans, Mro Kreidt noted for the Commission that single-story construction was proposed for the front 90 feet, that coupled with the 60-foot width of .e street~ comprised the 150 feet within R-1 development; that the low-medium designation on the General Plan would be consistent with the action taken by the City Council on.another parcel on Velare Street; that sub~ect planned residentiai••development was 15% over the standard set in the planned residential development standards'recently adopted by the-Commission and Council; and that the accessways were inadequate for the-t•rash trucks ta turn arounde Mrse Lexis Kaufman, 803 South Velare Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub3ect petitions, stating that all the R-1 property owners were aware the west side of Velaro Street would be developed foz other than R-2,, but felt that for proper transition, single-story should be the only thing permissible on those properties; that the safety factax with additional traffic from all the apartment dwellings, if two-story•construction were permitted, would be greatly increased since the entire area to the east was developed for single-family residential purposess that a letter she had received from the Magnolia School District indicated that higher density for sub~ect property would add to the burden of the alxeady overloaded schoolsq and that she had a petition of opposition signed by 29 property owners opposing the waiver of the one-story height limitation,•even though it was 150.-feet from R-1 Zoned propertyo Mrse John Corey, 813 South Velare Street, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated she also concurred with the statements made by Mrso Kaufman, and was unable to understand why R~-3 Zoning was permiti;ed for the first parcel of property submitted for reclassification a few months ago.> Mr,.Albert Gudes, 8001 Cactus Circle, Buena Park, appeared before the Commiss~-on, stating his pxoperty had recently been retioned to R-3 and was l.ocated on Velare Stree~, and that he was in favor of subject petitions, and the petitions which would be considered followinge Further, that construction on his property would be started as soon as he was able to obtain a loan•for the construction of the`,apartmentso Mro Gudes, in reviewing subject petitions, stated the petitioner had 79,000 square feet with 38,000 to be used for dwelling,unit purposes, and the 38,000 square feet was 1,000 square feet less than that permitted by the R-2q that the prpposed plan was similar to one he ~ras proposing to constr.uctg i:hat he was desirous of seeing the west side of Velare Street improved; and that he could not see how the Commission could consider recommending R-2 2oning for subject property since his property had been rezoned to R-3 by the Councila A letter of opposition from Sto Paul's Presbyterian Church was read to the Commissiono THE FiEARING WAS CLOSED, Considorable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the definition of a "planned residential development" as it pertained to subject petitions, and the thought was expressed that R-2 Zoning could be recommended to the City Council with the require- ment that adequate circulation be provided~ and that the development should have no more than 18 dwelling units per net residentiai acreo Mr. Schuler then askod ahether he couid appear again although the hearing was closed, to which Chairman Mungall stated they would listen to further commentso Mr. Schuler asked for an interpretation of the meaning of a"planned residential develop- ment" and whether or not subject petition could have been considered as ~ straight R-3o Associate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that sub~ect petition had been ~ filed.as a straight R-3 without a conditional use permits that upon review of the pians, ! it was determined by the department that the plans re~resented a planned residential i development, and the agent was advised to file a conditional use permit in order that he would not be held up for further advertising if the Commission determined the development ; was a planned residential development, and it was not a reflection on Mre Schuler since on.many occasions the Staff had advised the petitioners a conditional use permit was i recommended to be filed with the reclassificationo • ~ ' • I. i Mr. Kreidt stated it would be up to the Commission to decide whether or not sub3ect develop- ment was a planned residential developmente ~ \ , i i ~ i ~,, -----~- -- -- - --- - - .~, i r i ~ i 1~ ,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 23, 1964 2400 RECIASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland stated there wexe a number of facets to what N0..64-65-56 constituted a"single building"; that there were definite limits in the building code which determined if a structu.re proposed was one or CONDITIONAL USE more buildings, there was a special requirement of a fire wall upon PERMIT NOa 5 this determination; that the building code was a part of the Anaheim (Continued Municipal Code, and the Commission and Planning Department should use that to assist them in sesolving some of these problemso Daputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that in his interpretationy where more than nne main entrance was provided, this would be considered a separate building, even though it was developed under one roofq that a more strict interpretation of that might be con- sidered if one took into consfderation the size of the lot~ that the deep lots must have adequate access, and that this wouid be one way in which the building code might be of help to resolve the interpretationa In response to Commission questioningy Mro Roberts stated that the size of one structure could be 69000 square feet without the requirement of a fire wallo Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Gouncil that Petition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-56 be approved, sub3ect i;o single-story construction within 150 ieet of the R-~1 Zone to the east; that a minimum 21~foot drive for vehicular clearance be providedq that development of sub~ect property be 18 dwelling units per net residential acre, and should have a 40% coverage9 further9 that R-2 Zoning should be applieda On roll call the foregoing motion was ~~oted as foliows: AYLS: COMMISSIONERSs C3mp, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSTONERS: A?lred, Gauer, Mungallo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo In qualifyin~ his vote, Commissioner Allred stated that even though he was nat•sure multiple- family dev:;lopment should. be proposed for subject interjoining properties, if •it was approved, it should be for single-story construction only for the entire area, primarily because of the access to the area from Orange Avenue which was considerably narrower than other streets, and that if Orange Avenue were a 90-foot street and Velare Street were also,a 90-foot street, this would reduce the traffic problem, Commissioner Perry then offered a motion to co~tinue the voting the Petitions for Reciassi- fication Noo 64-65-56 and Conditional Use Permit Noa 652 to the meeting of December 7, 1964, as the.first item on the agenda in order that the Commission might vote again on the petitionso Coaomissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~ @ECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ HOUSTON J~ NICKENS, 721 South Vel~re Street, Anaheim9 NOo 6a-65-57 Cal~fornia, Ownerq JAMES Kn SCHULERY 9I4 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agenty property described as: A rectangular parcel of land VARIANCE NOo 1671 with a frontage of approximately 147 feet on the west side of Vel~re Street and a depth of approximately 263 feet, the northern bounda::~~ of said proper~:y being approximately the westerly prolongation of the centerline of Lorena Drive, and further described as 721 Velare Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ 20NEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R«3~ MULTIPLE-FAMIT,Y RESIDENTIAL.~ ZONE4 F?EQUESTED VARIANCEs WAIVER OF ONE~STORY HEIGHT LIMITA?ION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONED PROPERTY~ Zoning.Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the plans for subject develop- ment were standard R-3 developmento Mre James K: Schuler, agent for the petitiotier, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the.pr.oposed development and further advised that the plan could provide for a 21-foot drive as well.as a 27-foot turning radius~ M~c.s. Lewis Kaufman, 803 5outh Velare Street, appeared before the Commission and stated her opposition was the same as previously stated in Reclassification Noo 64-65-56s that she was opposed to the waiver of the one-story height limitation, and asked that copies.of the petition of opposition be submitted for subject petition also~ Dis.cussion w3s then held by the Commission relative to voting on subject petition; that with churches located adjacent to subject properties along Magnolia Avenue, that perhaps an orderly transition of these properties would enable property owners to develop their propertiss if two-story were permitted ad~acent to the church properties and single-story ad~acent to Velare Streeto It was further noted by the Commission that a number of denials had been l , , . _ ._.._ _..~.,..~........._...r _ __ ; , ,. , ; ~_ , ;.. , . .. ... _. _.._..~.., ~ ~ L~ MINl1T~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 23, 1964 2401 RECLASSIFICATION - made on tCie properties undar consideration for multiple-family develop- NOo 64~~5-57 ment~ although the Council had recently approved R-3 for or.e of the properties, the R-3 Zoni.ng for Webster Street required 18 ua3ts per net VARIANEE N~o 1671 residential acreo Cont~inued ) Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Peti,tion for Reclassi- fication Noe 64-65-57, recommending to the City Council that R-2 Zoning, in addition to one-story height limitation, be applied to subject petition, based on the fact that heavier density for Velare Street and Orange Avenue would create traffic hazards for residential properties easterly of subject property, and by reducing it to one story, this would make a more livable environm~nt for the R-1 properties to the easto On roll call the foregoing motion was voted as follows: AYESa~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Gauer, Rowlando NOESa COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Mungali, Perryo pBSENTs COMMISSIONERSe Nonee Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the voting consideration of Petitions for Reclassification Noe 64-65-57 and Variance Noa 1671 to the meeting of December 7, 1964, to he considered following Reclassification Noo 64-65-56o Commissioner Allred secbnded the mat3oAo MOTION CARRIHDa CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC FiHARINGa NICHOLAS Jo DOVALIS, 930 South Magnoli,s Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 651 California, Owne*x JAN~S M. LEIGH, 11312 Brookhurst Street, Garden C~ove~ California9 Agent; re4~iesting permission to permit on-sale beer on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 273 feet on the east side of Magnolia Street and a depth of approximately 244 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 159 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road~ and further described as 918 01B" South Magnolia Streeto Mra Nicholas Dovalis, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the pro- posed use in the existing neighborhood shopping area, stating that if it was the desire of the Commission9 a door would be provided although it was their intent to use that area for a eerving window~ that an agreement had been reached with the restaurant adJoining the proposed beer bar for the serving of #oods that the proposed lessee of the beer bar was, in his estimation, of impeccable character, that he had operated a liquor store in con3unc- tion with a small grocery store and had never had any problems with children relative to that operatione The Commission advised the petitioner that the slot~car racin9 track in the area was frequented by teenagers, and any undue influence of the on-sale of alcoholic beverages would be detrimentale Mr, James Leigh, agent for the petitioner and proposed lessee of the beer bar, appeared before the Commission and'reviewed his operation in Garden Grove, noting they catered to couples, and the operation was also located in a shopping area; that he had never had any problems with the police department or the A,BoCo; that it was his intent to operate it as,a.neighborhood bar only,providing meals for families until 8:00 o'clock pemo, and that children would be required to be accompanied by parents before they were servedo Mrs..June Cofield, 2574 West Heffron Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, stating that her property was located only 50 feet from the proposed bar; that she had never voiced any opposition to the commercial development prior to this since the petitioner had bsen very cooperative with the single-family residential develop- ment adjoining his property; that a number of children were in the residences immediately ad3acert to the shopping center and would be unduly influenced by patrons frequenting the beer baro Mr. Forrest Taylor, 2578 West Heffron Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub~ect petition, and stated he was even closer to the proposed bar than Mrs. Cofieldy that he had a petition signed by 26 property owners in opposition, and that in his opinion~ because.of the close proximity of Magnolia High School and the fact that tte neighborhood commercial operation was a smali neighborhood store, the operation of a beer bar would intexfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property owners in the area, and hoped the Commission would cnnsider denial of subject petitione Mrs. Carl Leigh, wife of the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated.she had a petition in favor of the proposed beer bar, signed by 14 adjoining tenantsj ''`. ` that in the operation of the bar in Garden Grove she and her husband had never had any '"~°""~ txr~uble! that a six-foot wall was constructed between the cortunercial use and residen•tial homes~ and that she would operate the bar during the day and her husband would operate it at nighte THE HEARING WAS CLQSEDe ..~ ~ __._. _ . ~ ,. , :: . , .. . _~ . . , . , . ~ : •; ~ : ' _ _ _ ...~ ~ ~ I MIIZUTES, CITY PLANNING COMWIISSION~ November 23, 1964 2402 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission revier~ad the close proximity of the school and the PERMIT-NOo 51 small neighborhood commercial operation presently existing, and Continued further expressed the opinion that they did not doubt the fact that . the proposed operators were of good character, but because of teenagers patronizing the slot-car race track' an establishment selling on-sale beer would have a detrimental influence on teenagerso Commiss3oner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1431, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 651, based on the fact that a neighborhood shopping center was not the area in which to place a beer barf that the propqsed use would have a detrimental effect on teenagers frequenting a slot-car xace track operation in the commercial center; that Magnolia High School was in close proximity tc ::ubject property;~and that children would be intermingling with patrons of the beer bar at the time they used the walk-up restaurant facilitiese (See Resolution Booko) On.roll~call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando IdQES.z . COMMISSIONERS e None o ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo REGLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC FIEARINGo STEHLY PROPERTIES, et al, 1336 South Brookhurst N0. b3-64-122 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; A. Jo LITTMAN, 181i West•Katella ......,.' Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property~described as: GENERAL PLAN An irregulariy shaped parcel of land with a frontage of appraximately A(u~NDN~+M N0. 23 1,281 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of approxi- mately 1,300 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approxi- • -._. mately 427 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue, be reclassi- fied from the R-A, AGRTCULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, Sub~ect petition and General Plan Amendment were continued from the meetings of June 8, July 8, August 3, and September 14, 1964~ to allow time for the petitioner to•submit revised planse . Zoning.Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the agent for the petitioner, requesting that subject petition be terminated, based on.the fact that he was unable to obtain any extension of the escrow time from the owners of the propertya Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Petition for Reclassi- fication Noe 63-64-122 as requesi;ed by the petitioner, said termination to be made with- out prejudicee Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No< 1432, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry~ to recommend to the City Council that General P1aa.Amendment No. 23 be disapproved, and that it be recommended that said amendmen•~, be considered at the Annual Review of the General Plano (See Resolution Booke) On ~011 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall~ Perry, Rowlande NQESi COMMISSIONERS: Nonee AHSENT: COMMISSIONHRSs None> .. .. ... .... RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY Tk~ CITY PLANNING CONIMISSION, 204 East N0. 6G-65-58 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiae proposing the reclassifi.sation - of property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with•a frontage _, of 120 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue and a dep~h•of 185 feet, the eastern boundary of said pro;:-:;v being approximately 533 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Street, and further described as 1593 West Cerritos Avenue, from the R-A, AGRICUL?URAL, ZONE, to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEa Owner of the propertys Mrs. Callye Baumberger. • I Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that sub~ect petition was initiated after the Commission had deleted the requirement for R-1 Zoning at the time Variance Noe 1539 was reconsidered. ~ No one appeared in opposition to siib3ect petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe RECIASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1433, Series 1964-65, and NOe 8 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, Conti~wed to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification . No. 64-65-58 be approved, sub~ect to conditionse (S•ee Resolution Booke) ITEM N0. 1 Planning Study No. 75-113-1 - Proposed extension of north-south alley located easterly of State College Boulevard between Virginia Avanue and Westport Drivee Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the existing land use map was on display on the east wall, together with the proposed recommended changes to land use at the time the remaining R-1 parcel fronting on State College Boulevard southerly of Westport Drive was developede Exhibit "R" indicated the extension of the alley thsough the center of Lot Noe 3 of Tract Noa 2688, and the planning study report as submitted by Ronald Grudzinski, Associate Planner, recommended that at the time the north~south alley was constructed bisecting Lot Noo 3 of Tract Noe 2668, the east-west sections of the alleys be abandoned by the Cityo Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Planning Study Noo Z5-113-1, Exhibit "B" be adopted as the best possible method of developing properties adjacent to five lots recently approved for C-1 under Reclassification Noo 64-65~23 for the ultimate extension of the existing alley through Lot Noo 3 of Tract Noo 2688 at the time owners of that property were desirous of developing the large parcel for other than its ~xisting usee Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOe 2 General Plan Amendment Noe 47 - Designation of Douglas and Cerritos Avenues as secondary highways between Sunki.st Street and the Santa Ana River south of the railroad trackso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that subject General Plan Amend- ment should be advertised for public hearing before the Commission by a directive by the Commissiono Commissioner Rowland offered a motion directing the Planning Department to set for public hearing December 21, 1964, General Plan Amendment Noo 47 covering the consideration of Douglas and Cerritos A.venues as second'ary highways between Sunkist Street and the Santz Ana River southerly of the Southern Pacific railroad trackso Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOo 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 566 - Leisure Care of Anaheim, Incorporated, 3067 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California - Property located northerly of La Palma Avenue and ea;,terly of West Streeto Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a request for a three months' extension of time on Conditional Use Permit Noo 566 had been submitted by Mr. James J, Woods, representing Leisure Care of Anaheim, Incorporated, noting that upon checking the property~ the petitioner wa~ in the process of filing e building permit, and the request for an exten= sion was in ordere Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a 180-day extension of time for_completion of conditions in Resolution No. 1161, Series 1963-64, approving Conditional Use Permit Noe 566, expiration of said extension of time being May 11, 1965a Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ITEM NOe 4 Orange County Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5019a Subject t at the southeast corner of Blue Gum and Coronado Streets 7e6 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 14 M-1~ Light District lots. 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed Orange County Tentative Map of Tract Noa 5019~ for the creation of 15 M-1 lots at the southeast corner of Coronado and Hlue Gum Streets in the northeast industrial areae ~ ~~ ct~- - MINUTES~ CITY PLAN[~ING COMMISSION, `':~w;;~?:er 23, 1964 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 4(C=;~~cfs~~.~y_~~ ~ _ .e 2404 ~ The Commissir•-~ .!;ct~-„rr: ;.~ :: 12ck of secondary circulation fn the ~ proposed subd,'.k= : ic•::. 4 I~ Commissioner Rowland offered a moi:.,;e. tc,u~e the City Council be encouraged to •recommend ~ to.the Orange County Planning Commission the approval of Tentative Map of Tract~ Noe 5019 I provided~ however, that an alley system be incorporated in tt~e development of the tract. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motione MOTION G.^.RRIED. ITEM NOo 5 Orange County Case No> 851 (Sectional District Maps 3-4-9, Exhibit I~ 4-4-9, Exhibit H~ 9-4-9, Exhihit D, and 10-4-9, Exhibit C)~proposing the reclassification of certain property located on the south side of the Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Crescent Drive in the Santa Ana Canyon area by Alfred Lutkin, et al from the E-1 "Estates" District - to the E-4-12,000 "Small Estates" Districta - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed xeclassification from the one acre E-1 "Estates" District to the E-4~ 12,000 square foot lots proposed in the Peralta Hills a.seao . The following report, which was prepared by Ronald Th~~mpson, Assistant Planner, was reviewed by the Commissions ~ Projected Residential Projected Population Developmenty dwelling at saturationa Zonina units at saturation (1) E-1, Acre 315 1100 (2) E-4, 12,000 (current request) 580 2000 ~ (3) E-4, 12,000 12,000 4200 Under acre zoning (1) above, the area schools wouid have to provide facilities•for approximately 360 students; the need would be approximately double under (2) abovej and approximately four times as great if the entire area were to develop at E-4, 12,OOOo It..should be noted that any change in oolicy or an increase in student population could be handled within the framework of the Hill and Canyon General Plane During the Yorba Linda Annexation, ~he City's policy was to determine the zoning in accoxdance with the wishes of the majority of the residents. Based on the recent dis- aussions and correspondence with various Pe..ralta.HilHs residents, the Plann:sig, Engineering and Public Works Departments have currently initiated stud3es relative to development standasds for this area because of the possible annexation to the City of-Anaheimo The primary.purpose of these studies is to recommend development standards that would.not be detrimental to the City, but would meet the overall ob3ective of retaining the rural character and uniqueness of this area. These studies, which will be presented to the City Manager in the near future~ have been entirely based on the retention of the exist- ing one acre zoning for this areae Idz..Congar Thomsen, an associate of the petitioner Alfred Lutkin, appeared before the Commission and requested that the proposed zone change be recommended for approvalo Mr. Roland Krueger, 181~2 Peralta Hills Drive, president of the Peralta Hills Homeowners Assaciation, appeared before the Commission and stated his oppositions to the proposed pe.titio~. . The Commission discussed the City's past policy statements relative to the retention of one acre zoning in the Peralta Hills area, in the event the area were to com~ under the 1urisdiction of the City of Anaheim. ' Commissioner Camp offered a motion that the City Council be encouraycd to recommend to the Oran.ge County Planning Commission the retention of the one acre minimum on property being considered in Orange County Case Noe 651, based on the following: 1. The City of Anaheim verbally committed themselves to maintaining the one-acre zoning restriction in the Peralta Hills area prior to the election on.the Yorba Linda annexationa 2. That a R-E~ Residential Estates. Zone was prepared by the Planning Commission ~ and Staff, under the direction of the City Council, to apply to the Peralta Hills area at such time as it is annexed to the Citye ' ~ -----: - -. - ..... ._. ,,, ,~~ ,, ~ ,.-~ - ;, ~ ,. ~ • ~ ~ ~ . . , .., . : _. _ , . - :: : ~.. . , . . C _ ~ d .~ ~ . ~ . . .. MIMITES-, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 23, 1964 2405 REPORTS AND RECOA~NDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 (Continued) 3. -That modified street standards are being prepared for adoption and application to the Peralta Hills area for. the purpose of maintaining the suburban estates character of the areae Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO e 6 A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION A RESOLUTION OF Tf~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXPRESSING APPRECIATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MARTIN Ao KREIDT FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WHEREAS, MARTIN A. KREIDT has been a member of the Planning Department a£.the City of Anaheim for approximately four years~ and WHEREAS, Mr. Kreidt is voluntarily leaving the service of the City of Anahe3m-to assume the duties of employment in private industry; and WI~REAS, during said years of service to the City Mre Kreidt has served as Zoning Coordinator and adviser to the Pianning Commission of the City of Anaheim and has performed such advisory duties faithfully and well~ and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim is deeply appreciative of the services performed by Mro Kreidt. NOW, THEAEFORE, HE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of.Anaheim that the appreci.ation and gratitude of the Planning Cor.unission be conveyed and expressed to MARTIN A. KREIDT for his many years of faithful and loyal service to the City of Anaheim and the Planning Commi~~ion, and that a copy of this resolution be placed in the minutes of the ?ianning Commission and a copy presented to Mr. Kreidte On roll call the foregoing Resolution of Appreciation was approved UNANIMOUSLY by..Commissioners Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, and Rowlande ADJOURNMEM - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to ad3ourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:40 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ciyr~-t/ %~~%1~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission - ~ . • ~ ~ • ~ _._ _ • - - -- -~ _._~ . , .. . , ~~ _. ..., , -. •.` ' :;:~. ~~_ _ - - _ - ---