Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/12/07_. _~._--------- ----._ _ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California December 7, f964 1 ~ A REGULAR Iu~ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI~IINISSION I ~ REGULAR h~ETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Comnission was called ' to order by Chairman Mungall at 2a00 o'clock pem., a quorum being !~ presento ~. PRESENT - CHAIRMANi Mungall. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry9 Rowlanda ~ABSENT - COMMISSIONERSs Noneo PRESENT - Zoning Coordinators Robert Mick~lson Deputy City Attorneys Furman Roberts Office Engineer Representative: Wallace.Crenshaw Planning Cottunission Secreta~y: Ann Krebs ?lanning Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg PLEDGE. OF ~ ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago APPROVAL OF ~THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of November 23, 1964, were approved as submitteda RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGe ANTON Do GEIGER, 7661 Haldor Place, Buena NOo 64-65-56 _ Park9 California, Ownerg JAb¢S Ko SCH(1LER, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agentg property described as: A rectangular CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 292 feet on the west PERMIT NOo 52 side of Velare Street and a depth of approximately269~feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 270 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo &EQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEt ESTABLISH A MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPNfENT WITH WAIVER OF ONE-STORY HEIGEiT iIMITATFON WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONED PROPERTY. Subject.petitions were held over from the meeting of November 23, 1%4, because of a tie voteo ' • Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that an additional fourteen letters of opposition had been received since the Commission had last considered subject petitions, and if additional evidence was needed for the Commission to render a decision, a mation was in order to reopen the hearingo The Commission expressed the opinion that i~ was not necessary to reopen the hearing since all the.Commissioners had been present at the last hearingo '~ ', ' Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the proposed development, noting i that if a lo~ner density were required, this would present less of a hazard•s Commissioner ~ Perry stating that with 18 dwelling units per net residentiai acre with a maximum coverage ~ of 40~~ permitting two-story construction to the rear of subject property no closer than ~ 15Q £eet from the single-family homes on Velare Street, this might be acceptablee Aeputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that if these stipulations•wexe i made, it might present a problem if the petitioner submitted revised•plans.since a higher ~ density might be projectede ! Mr. Mickelson advised the Commission that under the new R-2 Code~ the maximum of dwelling ~ units would be 18 per net residential acre9 but if R-3 Zoning were approved, this could ~i be increased considerably over that which was being proposede ~ Commissioner Camp was of the opinion that since.the Commission had last voted on sub~ect petitions, he had visited the area and had changed his mind relative to the type of density 'I which shoald be permittedq that he was in agreement rlith the statement made by Commissioner "-"" - 2406 - RECLASSIFICATION - A?lred that single-story construction should be made primarily because NOa 64-~~, of the narrow streets, namely Velare and Orange, which would be unable.• to handle the heavier traffic from multiple-family units of two-story CONDITIONAL USE constructione PERMIT N0, 652 i (Continued) Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve Petitiort for Reclassifica- ~ tion Noo 64-65-56, subject to R-2 Zoning with 18 dwelling units per net ! residential acre and one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the !j R-1; further, provided that 21-foot drives be indicated on the planso Commissioner Rowland '' seconded the motiono On roll call the foregoing motion was lost by a vote o: four to two. The Commission failed to offer a second motion, thus the petition would have to be considered again at the meeting of December 21, 1964, because no official action had taken place. ~RECLASSIFICATION ~ ~OKfINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo HOUSTON Jo NICKEN, 721 South Velare Street, NOo 64-65-57 Anaheim, California, Owner; JAIu~S K~ SCHULER, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangular parcel VARIANCH N0~(~7 oi iand with a frontage of approximately 147 feet on the west side of Velare Street and a depth of approximately 263 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately the westerly prolongation of the centerline of Lorena Drive, and further described as 721 Velare Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-•3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RHSIDENTIAL~ ZONEo :~~~;ESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF ONE-STORY }iHIGFif LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONBD PROPHRTYo Sub3ect petitions were held over from the meeting of November 23, 1964, because of a tie voteo Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that fourteen letters of opposition had been received since the last public hearin~a Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1434, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the-C;ty Council that ~ Petition for Reclassification Noe 64-65-57 be approved for R-2, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone, providing one-story construction only, based on the fact that-two-story construction would project an undue burden of traffic on the narrow residential streets~primarily designed ~ for single-family use, and conditionso (See Resolution Booko) . ! On roll. call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Mungall, Perry= Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Gauero ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo Commissioner Camp, in offering the motion, stated that the difference•between the previous reclassification and subject reclassification was the fact that two-story construction was recommended for approval, whereas only single-story construction was recommended for approval on this reclassificationa Commissioner Camp offered Res~lution Noo 143:i, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage` and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1671, based on the fact that single•-story construction was the only feasible method of develop- ing the property in order not to overload the residential streets with added traffic. (See Resolution Book.) On rnll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ~~ _ ~, • . ~_i MINUTES, CITY PLANlVING CQNafISSION, December 7, 1964 2408 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOo 64-6~-41 204 ?~st Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the reclassifi- cation of property described ass All that certain property bounded on the north by the Riverside Freeway9 on the west by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, on the south i~y La Palma Avenue, and on the east by East-~Street and the Orange County Fluod Control ch~:inel, excepting therefrom a 7-acre parcel l.ying immediately north of and adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control retarding basin, sub- ject property further described as Parcels 1, 2, and 3- Parcel 1: A 13.27 acre parcel of land immediately south of and ad~acent to the Riverside Freeway and presently known as Del Este Mobile Home Estates~ Parcel 2: A 4a49 acre parcel of land lying immediateIy south of and'~djacent to the Del Este Mobile Home Estatess Parcel 3c All that property lying within the Orange County Flood Control retarding basin and covering approximately 27 acres, from the M-i, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE for Parcels l.and 2, and R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE for Parcel 3e Sub3ect petition was continued from the meeting of October 19, 1964, in order that reclassi- fication proceedings on the property immediately south of Parcel 2 might have Council actione ; The.property owner of Parcel 2 was not present in the Council Chambera Discussion was then held by the Commissir,n relative to the proposed reclassification of the properties, and the Commission were of the opinion that since the owner of Parcel 2 was reluctant to have a zone chan9e, this might be eliminated from the reclassification proceed- in9s, although the logical classification of the property would be R-3a No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1436, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage ~ and adoption9 secondeci by Commissioner Allred, to recottanend to the City Council that Petiti~n for Reclassification Noe 64-65-41 be appsoved for Parcels 1 and 3, and Parcel 2 to remain in ' its present zoninge (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda DIOESs COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENT: C017MISSIONERS: Nonea RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo SULI.Y-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY, 3000 Eas:t .NOe..b4-65-25 South Street, Long Beach, California, and CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS, a Delaware Corporation, 2730 South Alameda Street, Los Angeles 54, ,• California, Ownersj Do 0. MICHAELS, Pe Oe Box 432, Orange, California, and.Jo LILLYWHITE, P. 0, Box 432, Orange, California, Agents~ requesting that property . described as~ An irregular parcel of land with frontages of 75 feet on the west side of Fee.Ana Street, 620 feet on the east side of Richfield Road, and 187 fe~t on the west side of Richfield Road, said property having a maximum east-west dimension of 2,250 feet,.the southern boundary of said property being the Santa Ana River and the northernmost point.of said property being 1,300 feet south of the centerline of Walnut Street, said property containin9 approximately 40 acres of land, be reclassified from the M-1, LIQ~T INDUSTRIAI., ZONE to the NRC, NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, ZONEo Subject petition was continued from the meetings of September 14, and November 9, 1964, at the iequest of the petitionere - Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the City Council had con- tinued consideration of the NRC Zone until their meeting of January 26, 1965, and since the zone was not an ordinance, subject petition should be continued to a later date. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification Noe 64-65-25 to the meeting of February 1, 1965, in order that some resolution relative to the proposed NRC Zone might be made by the City Councile Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOrI'ION CARRIEDo ~ ~ ~`....__ ... _ - - _ ~ ~ . .. ~ . I . . . . i ' I . ~_ .. .. .. ~.... . . . ..:i.l :a ,n . . . • '-~_._" _. . ... . ... ... .. ..... ... .. ..... ._ ....._.... _._ . . . ... ......_.. . . ,. . ~ • . ~. \~./ . ~ .•~ • • , ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 24D9 1 PUBLIC HEARING, f VARIANCE"N0. 1673 - MARIA G. HERNANDEZ, 1019 North Patt Street, Anaheim, Californfa, Owner; i DWIGHT GIFFEN, 10666 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, California, Ayentf I requesting permission to waive minimum required floor area and minimum I required side yard on property described ass A rectangular parcei of i'ancl with a frontage of 50.feet on the west side of Patt Street and a depth of approximately'134 feet, the southern ~~ boarida'ry of said property being approximately 245 feet north of the centerli~e of La Palma , Ar~enue; and further described as 1019 North Patt Street. Property pres~ntly classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. • j ;~ The Commission, in reviewing the plot plan, noted that if it was necessary to have a five-foot ! side yard similar to that in the R-1 Zone, that the proposed variance could be granted in ~ order that the existing tree might be savedo I No one appeared ir, epposition to sub3ect petitiona THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 1437, Ser3es 1964-65y and moved for its passage and.adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1673 with the finding that the waiver of the minimum required side yard could be reduced to five feet, similar to that of the R-1 Zone, if this was necessary to save the existing tree. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES.s COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS~ Noneo CONDITTONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ RICHARD Go AND MARGUHRITE E. MITCHELL, 1824 West Ocean PHRMIT NOe 654 Front, Newport Beach, Calify Ownerq JAb~S D. PETERSON, 727 Camphor Street, ' Newport Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish a coin-operated car wash on property described as~ A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 100 feet on the east side o# East Street and a depth of 135 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 175 feet noxth of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 110 North East Streeto Property presently classified C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONE, Mr, David.Nlebster, 620 Mar3an Street, appeared before the Commission representing the agent, stating it was similar to that existing at Gilbert and Ball Road~ that a number of units were in operation in Southern California; that the proposed site would offer a facility to many of the apartment dwellers who had no other facili•ties to clean their carse The Commission noted that overlays were presented by the Planning Staff, indicating that the structure could be relocated in order to present a more compatible appearance to the apartment units on the west side of East Streetp and that additional landscaping could be provided to enhance the view of the proposed structuree Mn. Webster stated it was their intention to have a planting area, but they were also open for suggestions for improvementse Discussion was then held by the Cnmmission relative to the overlay suggestions made by the Staff, Mra Allred being of the opinion that the proposed layout was much more feasible than the overlayse Commissioner Rowland noted that the development had 75~ of,the area in driveways and inquired where the proposed landscaping was to be located, to which Mro Webster replied it was planned ta have landscaping between the two curb cuts, The Commission expressed concern because the petitioner was proposing two curb cuts within i a.space of 100 feet onto a busy, secondary thoroughfare which was substandard in sizej that although the Alpha Beta shopping center was located immediately to the east~ they had the , same number of accessways to their property for two acres as the proposed develr~p*nent for one-third acre. No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~0 The Commission inquired of Office Engineer Representative Wallace Crenshaw the reaction of ' ~ the Traffic Engineer to the proposed curb cuts onto East Street~ and was informed by Mr. Crenshaw that no reactinn had been indicated by the Traffic Engineer. i ~ ~ ..~.~....~~_ ~---. • , , ------~- ~ \`~~ - -. .. ~----- ..,_.~,.~,__.____.._._-- _ - . , . ~ . . _ . : . . _ .. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~ecember 7, 1964 2410 CONDITIONAL USE - Further concern was expressed the Commission relative to said curb•cuts, '~ PERMIT NOo 4 and that the Commission felt a finding should be made that the plans (Conti"nued should be subject to review by the Traffic Engineer to determ'ne whether , or not the petitioner should be permitted to have the number of curb cuts ; he was proposingo ' Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 654 ' subject to the Traffic Engineer approving the curb cuts on East Street. The motion was••lost for want of a seconde Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No, 1438, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp~ to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit , No. 654~ with.the ~inding that the Traffic Engineer review the plans and determine whether or not the proposed drives from East Street would have a detrimental effect or~ ttie traff3c on Hast Street, and conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On•roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp9 Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda NOFS~ COMMISSIONERSs Nonea qBSEt~fI'~ COMMISSIONERS: Noneo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. NBIL REITMAN, 1919 East Center Street, Anaheim, N0.•6_ 4'~0 California, Owner~ property described as~ A rectangular parce•I ~: land with a frontage of approximately 116 feet on the north side of Gertter. VARIANCH NOa 1674 Street and a depth of approximately 200 fee~, the western boundary of. subject property being approximately 235 feet east of the centerline of Evelyn Drive> Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE~FAMFLY RESIDEM IAL, and R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONt C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCSi WAIUE THE HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-1 ZONED PROPERTYo Mr, Paul Vander Shans, 4881 Lincolnshire, Buena Park, California, architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed developmento The Commission inquired where the airconditioning ducts would be located, to which Mr. Vander 'r Shans.repiied that these would be located on the roof, but would be concealed behind a parapeta~ i Mrso Lucille Millard, 239 E~elyn Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub- ject petition, stating that the proposed two-story structure would be overlooking her rear ; yard, and the proposed parking would be immediately adjacent to her breakfast room9 and i inquired of the Commission what protection would be offered her if subject petition were approvede The Commission advised Mrse Millard that a six-foot masonry wail would separate the commercial use from the residential usee Mrso Millard further stated that the proposed development would act as a deterrent in the value of sale of a property since two-story commercial construction was being consideredo The Commission reviewed the plans with Mrso Millard~ noting how far the distance was between her property and the proposed two-sto:y office structureo THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1439, Series 1964-65, and moved for~its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-60 be approved, subject to con'itionse (See Reso3ution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESz COMMISSIONHRSs Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Mungail~ Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 1440, Serles 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1674~ subject zo all airconditionin9 facilities being hidden from view from the street, and other conditionse (5ee Resolution Booko) On roll cail the foregofn9 resolution was passed by the following vote~ AYESi COMN!ISSIONERSs Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESe COMMISSIONERSi ,Nene> ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERS~ No~eo ( , ~ ~~ - - _. .. ,..._.._._.__._ _..__..... , _. ._._._____._. __..~_.._ . , ~ . -----~. ~ .. _..-~ ~ ~..'..., - ._ ~ ~ : i ,4~ . :~:~~ . ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2411 I RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ FLORENCE Eo TAYLOR, 501 Arroyo Square, South Pasadena, NOe 64-65-63 California, Owners CHARLES Po TAYLOR, 942 Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, California, Agent~ property described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel ~~ CONDITIONAL USE of land at the south~:est corner of La Palma Avenue and Citron S+.reet, ; PERMIT NOo 657 with frontages of approximately 228 feet on La Palma Avenue and approxi- mately 84 feet on Citron Streeta Property presently classified R-0, ~ OIJE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE. . REQUES'IED CLASSIFICATION: C••1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A COIN-OPERATED CAR WASH AND POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPIu¢NT OF A DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE-UP REFRESHMENT STANDo Mr, Charles P, Taylor, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated ~ he was available to answer question, and that tr~e proposed car wash was similar to the previous request considered by the Commissiona The Commission expressed concern relative to the number of curb breaks'since the petitioner had-proposed a future drive-in restaurant which would also require curb breaks on La Palma Avenueq that an excessive number of curb breaks would be dangerous to the flow of traffic, and that because of the peculiar sloping of subject property, ~f the property were leveled, a xetaining wall would have to be placed to prevent erosiony 3nd inquired of the petitioner what was proposedo Mro Short, the proposed builder of the car wash9 appeared before the Cc;.:mission and s•tated i.t was their.intent tn use the f:ont 125 odd feet, and the rear portion would either be graded and blacktopped or landscapede Mro Virgil Cassia, 901 Autumn, appeared before the Commission and requested clarification of some items that concerried him regarding the proposed car wash: that there was an indica- tion that no supervision would be proposed since this was a coin-operated car wash;.that the operation would be a 24-hour a day, 7-day a week operation, and the noises and~lights from the proposed car wash would be detrimental to the rasidents adjacent to the south of sub3ect propertyy and inquired if there was any limitat;on in the Code which would~prohibit the.operation of the proposed car wash 24 hours a dayo Mro Roberts advised him that the Code did not stipulate the hours of operation, but the section of the Peiial Code relative to excessive noises could be enforced if the noises became detrimentai to the peace, health, ~nd safety of the residential are3~; Mro Caseia stated he had checked three separate coin-operated car wash ope:rations, and it was noted there was considerable noi.se at these operations, and since his G:,perty was less than 50 feet from the proposed car wash, he would recommend that the Commissiorr limit the hours to not later than 11s00 o°clock pame in order that the homeowners in the area might enjoy their rest~ further, if any floodlights were to be erected on the site, that these be directed away from the residential homes, and that the Commission should require plans of the proposed drive-in restaurant in order that it would have a compatible appear- ance to the balance of the areae Mro,Robert Morrow, the developer of the proposed car wash,appeared before the Commission and stated that the lot was 190 feet deep, and the car wash wouid utilize only 125 feets therefore the residences to the rear would be isolated~ and in response to Commission questioning relative to the rear 65 feet, Mre Morrow stated that the present plans did not.indicate any use of the rear portion, but some consideration would be aiven to~the protection of the neighborhood in the proposed developmento Mre Taylor advised the Commission that as far as future development of the drive-in restau- rant was concerned, Condition No. 6 of the Report to the Commission would controlany future dev.elopment since plans would be required to be submitted to the Commission and Counsilo Mro.Harris Beckman, 958 Winter Street, appeared before the Commission and requested some claxification be made relative to the proposed wall, and whether or not the structure would be.enclose~o The.Commiss3on advised Mr. Heckman that a six-foot masonry wall, measured from the highest gxade level, would be required, and that the proposed development wonld have drive-through areas with wails on just two sidese Mrd Beckman then stated that he also objected to approval of a drive-in restaurant for which plans hid not been submitted, and the Commission should consider the car wash only~ and not the approval of any restaurant without plans< . ' .. . , . l , ''':; . ' ~~ ~~ ~_~ ~ ~ , , i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2412 RECLASSIFICATION - Mro William Burrell, 956 North Winter Street, i appeared before the N0. 64-65-63 Commission and stated that he would like to go on record as being in concurrence with Mro Cassia':; opposition in that the conditional j CONDdTIONAL USE use permit shouid be granted for the car wash only, and a separate ~ ~ PERMIT NOo 657 conditional use permit be required at the time the drive-in was proposede , (Continued) THE F~ARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the variation in grade at the rear of the proposed development; that a retaining wall would be required if it was complete~y leve~ed, in addition to the required six-foot wall; that for protection from erosion this might be sloped, planted with a ground-cover, and landscaped, and then only a six-foot masonry wall would be required; further, that consideration should be given to requiring that the Traffic Engineer approve the proposed curb cuts into La Palma Avenue since addi- tional ones would be required if the proposed drive-in restaurant were developed, and that a1~1 ~ighting shouid be reflected away from tlie single-family homeso Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Nao 14419 Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-63 be approved, with the furthe~ recommendatiort that the Traffic Engineer determine the feasibility of permitting the proposed number of curb cuts to.La Palma Avenue, in order to prevent any traffic hazards that the petitioner, if he so desired, instead of blacktopping the rear 65 feet of sub~ect property, could slope the ground and plant ground-cover with additional landscaping in addition to the six-foot masonry wall to the reas of the property, and con!~:tionsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: A12red, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENi: COMMISSIONERS: D!oneo Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1442, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comm3ssioner Perryg to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 657 for the coin-operated car wash only, since plans of devel.opment were not submitted for the proposed drive~-in restauranto (See Resolution Booko) On.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESr COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo BEC.LASSIFICATION •- PUBLIC HEARINGe STANTON NURSERY, INCORPORATED, 3730 West BabL &oad, NOa 64-65-61 Anaheim, California, Owner; MARK T. GUA~INER, 3021 Kallin,.•Long•Seach, California, Agentg property described ass A rectangular parcel of land VARIANCE NOo 1672 with a frontage of approximately 330.feet on the south side of Ball Road and a depih of approximately 607 feet, the eastern boundary of subject TENTATIVE MAP OF property being approximately 132 feet west of the centerline of F.remont TRACT NOo 4239, Street, and further described as 3730 West Ball Roado Property classi- REVISION NOo 1 fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZON£a EiEQUESTED VARIANCEt WAI1/ER OF THE MINIM'.iM RE4UIRED LOT WIDTH AND LO'C AP.EA. Mr. Mark Gumbiner appeared before the Cortuaission as agent for the petitioner and stated that.it was their intent to develop sub,~ect property with Landmark Homes,-slmilar ta those being constructed at Orange and Dale and Orange and Beach Boulevard, and that all but two of._±he lots would be in accordance with the xequirements of square footage, although.only a 60-foot frontage was being proposedo Mr. Eddie Brock, 1219 Fremont Street, appeared before the Commission, stating he was not in opposition to the proposed development since multipie-family development had been denied by both.the Commission and Council previously, but that he was concerned with the excessive amount of traffic which Fremont 5treet would h~ve since the proposed streets would cu3-de- sac at its northerly terminus rather than having access to Ball Road~ that considerable txa,ffic was also received from the Buena Park cul-de-saced streets to the west, and.that duri,ng a peak hour, 145 cars passed his home< The Commission informed Mr. Brock that it was not feasible to have two access points to Ball Road within 300 feet of each other, which would be the case if the proposed 'Berkley Street were extended to Ball Roado ,~ . - ,~----_.~._..~~. `,- ~.~,i." _ ---t--_._.~..__._._.__- , ~ I~._.... - . _ _ - i i 1 ,.. RFCLASSIFICATION - TtiE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo NOe.64-65-61 Commissioner Perry offered Resolution lVoo 1443, Series 1964-65•, and VARIANCE NOa 167 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification TENTATIVE MAP OF Noo 64-65-61 be approvedo (See Resolution Booka) TRACT NOo 4239, REUISION NOa 1 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following~votes Continued AYES: COMMISSIONERSa Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perr.y, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Perry offered Resolut9on Noa 1444~ Series 1964-65, and moved for its passag~e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1672, sub~ect to conditionsa (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~ AYESc COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp~ Gauer, Mungall~ Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo l1BSENT~ COMMISSIONERS: Nonee Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve T=ntative Map of Tract Noo 4239, Revision Noo I, sub3ect to the following conditions: j1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivis;on thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval•a (2) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 4239, Revision Noa 1, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification Noo 64-65-6I and~or Variance Noo 16720 Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, RECESS - Commissloner Perry offered a moiion to recess the meeting for .ten minuteso Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED, RFf:ONUFNF - Chairman Mungali reconvened the meeting at 4e00 o'clock all Commissioners bein p'm`, g present, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARINGa WILLIAM H~ REMLAND, 636 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, NOa_64-65-~q California~ Owner; WILLIAM .?. ~'.7ER, 436 South Glassell, Orange, California, Agentp requesting tt~at property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land lying to the north and the east of the service s.tation site at the northeast corner of Beach Houleverd and Orange Avenue, subject property having frontages of approximately 216 feet on Beach Boulevard and approximately 103 feet on Otange Avenue, the total area of sub,ject property being approximately 1a50 acres, and further described as 514 South Beach Boulevard, be raclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the.C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALy ZONE, to establish a commercial center including a coffee shop and a variety of retail storesa Mro William Elder, agent for ~ihe petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented a colored rendering of the proposed commercial center and reviewed for the Commission the proposed developmento Mro Elder fur;:her stated that signs would be controiled since special style lettering in "relief" waldbe projected for each store, that trees would be placed in the parking area, and parking was separated from the R-1 area to the east and north of sub,ject propertyby the ~troposed single-story developmente Mr, Dominic Freno, 426 South Beach Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and requested clarification on the proposed setback on Beach Boulevard, and inquired whether or not the trees as indicated on the plot plan would block from view the Calico Motel immediately ad~acent to the north of sub3ect propertye The Commission advised Mr, Freno that the setback would be 55 feet, and that the trees as indicated normally were never planted at that size and it would be some time before they were grown to the height indicated on the plot plano THE NEARING WAS CLOSED, . t ` . ~.:.i . _. _ ~ ~_ ~ \/ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2414 RECLASSIFICATTON - Cortunissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1445, Series 1964-65, and moved NOa 4- 5-5 for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowl~nd, to recom- Continued mend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noe 64-65-59 be approved, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) ,. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: . AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowianda • ~ NOHSe COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo LUSK CORPORATION, Po Oe Box 1217, Whittier, California, PERMIT NOo 658 Ownery WILLIAM Do LUSK, P, 0, Box 1217, Whittier, California, Agents ~ requesting permission to establish a church and Christian educational facilities on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land•at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Nohl Canyon Road with frontages of apnroximately 477 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 341 feet on Nohl Canyon Road, ttut total area of said property being approximately 405 acrese Property presently classi- fie~ R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Mre William Lusk, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the area in which the proposed church facilities wouid be located, noting that the architecture of the proposed church would be complimentary to the existing facilities in the area~. Further, the plans submitted were tentative, and no final plans of development would be available for some time, but strict adherence to architectural restrictions required for the.area would be madee It was noted by Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson that two revisions be made to the: recommended conditions of approval; namely, that Condition Noa 1 should be indicated as "a strip of land 52 feet in width for street widening purposes",and the deletion of "from the centerline of the street along "A" street"o TkIE E~ARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1446, Seiies 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 658, subject to conditions and amendment to Condition Noo 1 requiring the dedication for street purposes only, and Condition Noo 9 that final development plans be submitted to Development Review prior io the issuance of a buiiding permito (See Resolution Booka) On rall call the foragoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESa COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Per•ry, Rowlando NQESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEM s CONUAISSIONERS: None o CDNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGa HUGH Ao AND DOROTHY M~ EDMONDSON, 884 South Oakland PERMIT NOe 55 Avenue, Pasadena, California, Ownersf JAMES Pa EDMONDSON, 884 South Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, California, Agent~ requesting permission.to establish a motor lodge with restaurant and cocktail lounge and waiver of..the maximum height limit on property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land at.the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue with frontages of approxi- mately 768 feet on Harbor Boulevard and approximately 635 feet on Manchester Avenue, sub3ect property being bounded on the northeast by the Santa Ana Freeway right-of-way, and contains a.total area of approximately 5a62 acres, and further described as 1380 South Harbor Boulevard. P.roperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NEo Mr, James P, Edmondson, the agen•t, appeared beFore the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that a nationally known restaurant-motel chain would be operating at this location. Zoning '~oordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the results of a meeting between the Traffic Engineer and the architect of the proposed development relative to a change in the traffic pattern, parking Yayout, and access to and from Harbor Boulevard9 said meeting being the result of the recommendation of the Interdepartmental Committee at the time the petition was reviewedo Mr. Edmondson stated that the architect had attended the morning meeting~ that he had only ' one minor suggestion or objection to the report from the Traffic Department, noting that i the architect had agreed to angle parking~ this wquld then reduce the number of parking spaces available~ that it was their desire to retain the 90° parking so that the ten parking ------.. ~.- ---r-- --- - - - -- --- . ~. .- __ ,.- ... .- .._._ . . . , ~ . t ~ ~ i;: . c.''~ ~ .~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2415 CONDITIONAL USE - spaces would not be lost; that the en~rance was so located that patrons PERMIT N0~ 655 would enter from Harbor Boulevard, but would be required to exit to (Continued) Manchester Avenue, and if this were done, then 90° parking would be permissiblee Office Engineer Representative Wallace Crenshaw advised the Commission that if the 90° park- ing was approved~ access to Harbor Boulevard would have to be eliminated on recommendation of the Traffic En9ineer~ . Discussion was held by the Commission, the petitioner, and the Zoning Coordinator relatfve to ingress to and egress from Harbor Boulevard and to subject property, together with the requQSted 90° parkinga The Commission further noted that access t~ Harbor Boulevard could ~ be gained when traffic signals down the street stopped traffic, but that if the Traffic Engineer recor.unended that angle parking be require9 in order to direct the flow of traffic to Manchester Avenue, this could be a condition oi' apprnvalo ; Mr. Wallace Wade, representing the Disneyland Ente:pr;ses, appear.ed before the Commission in opposition to the request for waiver of the heiyht limitation in the Commercial~-Recrea- tion Area noting that after considerable study by the Commission and Council, the height standards had been established permittin9 a maximum of 210 feet above mean sea level for subject property~ that because of the close proximity of the property to the boundaries of ' i Disneyland, if the height limit were waived, this would mean an additional problem of re- ~ establishing a landscaped berm across the streetf that the Disnryland people felt that the ~ height standard was a reasonable one and were basing all their landscaped berms to maintain = the visual illusion within the park~ and any deviation fxom this height standard was being ; strongly objected toe , ; Mr. James Ross, representing the legal staff of Disneyland, commented on the proposed ~ development and the effects it would have on the traffic problems at the intersection of Manchester and harbor; that they have have known of a number of occasions when people had ^' attempted to cross Harbor Boulevard to the Disneyland parking lot, but because of the dangers ; involved in tryina to cross this heavily traveled street, the City .;hould take some considera- ' tion in signalizing the intersection there to permit pedestrian traffic; that the problem ~ had been discussed at the time the employees' entrance area was developed, and at that time , it was not feasible to establish a traffic light because of the excessive speeds in coming over the Harbor Boulevard bridge, creating a backup onto the freeway; and that the proposed signal would be considerably closer to the freeway than the employee parking lot. Mre Ross further suggested that the Commission consider recommending to the Council that the inner lanes be permitted to continue travel, whereas the outside lanes should be reqaired to stop because of inerging traffic, and that if the designer desired to redesign the building, theK could compensate for the loss of one floor by lengthening the structure to '..ake up the reduction in roomso The petitioner stat~d it was difficult to obtain investors without having to face the height restrictions imposed in the Commercial•-Recreation Area; that only a half-floor was possible to be reduced, rather than one full floor< The Commission stated that considerable study had been made by their body and after public hearings, the height standard had been established from which there should be no deviation, and that the petitioner could lengthen the proposed structure to 120 feet, thereby taking care of the reduction in height~ Mr. Edmondson stated that in order to give a proper traffic flow around the b~ilding, the proposed structure was the most adequate they could find, and to elongate a buiiding would create more problems as far as traffic flow was concernedo Mr. Mickelson advised the Commission that in the past signs were not a part of the considera- tion of the Commission in the Commercial•-Recreation Area since penthouses and signs were a permitted thing in the "C" Zones, but the Commercial-Recreation Area was an "R-A" Zone. Mr. Wade stated that from his interpretation of the plans, the top floor was 13 feet, and he was nat attempting to suggest the building design, but was sure the developer could re- develop, incorporating the height standards required by the City~ that development of the berm area in the Disneyland park adjacent to sub~ect property was based on maintaining the height plane guide line of 210 feet above sea level for sub3ect property, and if this.height standard were nat maintained, it would mean a considerable change to the areao THE 1-]EARING WAS CLOSED, .f'" r 1 I !.~ry° . y~ . (. } ~ j ~ . MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2416 CONIIITTONAL IJSE - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1447, Series 1964-65, and P.ERMS_ T_N0. 6 5~ moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to ~ontinued grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 655', contingent upon the approval of exits onto Harbor Boulevard by the Traffic Engineer and ~ that the Commercial-Recreation Area height standard for sub3ect property be maintained~ said height standard to include the proposed sign, and conditions. (See ' Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYESs. COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda NOES: COMMISSIONHRS~ Nonee ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo CONDITIONAL USE - PU6LIC I~ARINGo MAY B. NEIGFIDORS, 540 Pine Way, ELIZABETH N~IGHBORS, PERMIT N0. 656 633 Pine Way, Anaheim, California~ JOSEPH NEIGFIDORS, 827 Rodeo Road, Fulle*tcr,, Ca~i.'crnia, and MARTHA BURNS~ 1215 Bayside Drive, Corona del Mar, Cali•fornia, Ownersf i^uJIS E. DISIN(~R~ 1815 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agentj requesting permission to establish a coin-operated car wash on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 100 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and a depth of approximately 130 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 127 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Street, and further described as 1835-1839 West La Palma Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Mr. Louis Disinger, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed ~ the proposed development noting that ingress would be from La Pa1ma Avenue and traffic exiting onto a dedicated 311ey to the rear of subject property, and then reviewed the existing traffic volume on La Palma Avenue with the projected number of cars utilizing La Palma Avenueo Mr._Ra~ La Pina, 543 Indiana, operator of the U-Tote'm Market at the corner of La Pa.lma Avenue and Onondaga Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub3ect petit:on, stating that the use was an incompatible, harsh use for the area, and if sub3ect petition wexe approved, a masonry wall should be constructed on the easterly sidea The Commission advised Mre Pina that since a resolution of intent to reclassify subject property to the C-1 2one was pending, the Commissfon could not require a masoRry wall to separate the C-1 usesa Mro Pina then stated that he objected to no separation since the proposed use was so different ~ from the existing uses that it would be more desirable to make this physical separation; that ! the area had good potential for a more compatible commercial development than was being pro- ~ posed; that if no separation occurred, this would invite utilizing the two areas for a race- way..for automobiles and motorcycles; that the proposed use would also be incompatible to the ~ proposed Brigham Young college siteo ; • ~ ~ The Commission advised che opposition that since the commercial zone did not provide for i separation between commercial developments, the Commission could :,ut require the petitioner j to construct a masonry wall, but he could, on his own, construct the wall, or erection of ; bumper guards along the property line would resolve utilizing the two areas•for• a racewayo i i Mr. Lynn Thomsen, 420 South Euclid Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub3ect petition, stating that he represented Mr. and Mrsa Foote, property owners of the ~ propexty to the west of subject property; that he also was personaliy objecting because he ' had an interest in the adjacent propertyq that he had been requested by Mr, James Lewis of ~ Brigham Young University to voice the university's opposition to the proposed use of sub~ect ~ property in that it was not in conformity with the type of commercial uses being developed in the area; that very little landscaping was being proposed, and if it were anyth3ng like the existing one at Gilbert and Bail, there would be no la-,dscapings that the proposal to use the alley to the rear would be objectionable to the multiple-family clevelopment to'the '~ rear since their garages fronted on the alley~ that the noises and light emanating from a 24-hour a.day operation would be deirimental to the residents of the mwltip3e-family develop- ' ment~.further, that since very little supervision would be maintained on the proposed use, ~ ttiis would be inviting undesirable elements to infringe on the area, as well as the residential~ area to the rear; and that he was presenting a petition signed by 19 property owners in the area opposing sub~ect petitiono . -• ! In response to Commission questioning, Mre Thomsen stated he represented the property owners ~ of Lot Nos. 30 and 31, and they proposed to utilize the existing residence an the property ` for the present. ~ . • ~ _.`..______ _._..__` .__~...,.... . ..__,.. ~a'~"~_.~ . . . , ~ . ~ , , ` ~y , . ~ ;;'. ~, _ ( ) ~ S ~ ~ MINUiES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 241~ ' CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. David Webster, 610 South Marjan Street, appeared before the~ , PERMIT N0, 656 Commission and stated he would be constructor of the proposed develop- ~ (Continued) ment; that any reference to the Gilbert Street and Ball'Road car wash should not be considered in the Cortunission's consideration of subject i petition since they did not own or operate it~ that landscaping would , be installed in accordance with the recommended landscaping by the City; and that previous '•, U-Tate'm Markets had felt that the type of develoRment they proposed would enhance•their j property rather than detract from it, and it was their intent to construct a six-foot masonry wali along the west property line~ further, that the traffic flow from La Palma Avenue would be no problem, and that the noise factor being objected to would be no more than that emanating from the usual street noises; that it was hoped the proposed develop- ment would be of benefit to the area, rather than detrimental; and since it was a new industry, no experience had been gleaned from anything previously established. Mr, Disinger advised the Commission that at the timp the resolution of intent was passed by the City Council, a time limitation of two years was attached for complying with conditions of this resolution, and the time limitation had almost expirede Mrso Baxnice Douglas, 1823 West Glen Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated she represented herself and her sister; that they wexe the owners and operators of a multiple-family development immediately to the rear of subj~~t property, and they were ob3ecting to the noises and the proposed use because of it not being under supervision; that the noises would be detrimental to the renting of their apartments, and further, due to access to the alley, this would render the garages fronting on the alley almost uselesso Mro Maxk Levinson, 13141 Fairmont Way, Santa Ana, appeared befo:e the Commission and stated the.Garden Grove Planning Department had presented a study to the City Council regarding the sound 1eve1 of the proposed developmenty and it was agreed after this study had been presented that the sound level was so low as not to create any more disttix•bance after midnight than during the dayo TI-lE L-IEARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Roo 1448, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner l+llred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 656, based on the fact that the proposed use was incompatib'le to the cortimercial uses in the area; that the noises emanating from the proposed use would be detrimental ta the existing R-3 uses to the rear of subject propertyy that due to the fact that very little supervision would be given the proposed use, this would be detrimental to the safety of the multiple-family residents to the rear and might present some police problemo (See Resolution Book.) On ~;~oll ca21 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES.: . COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISS IONERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISS IONHRS: Noneo RECHSS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess the meeting until , 7:30 o'clock pome for dinner> Commissioner Rowland seconded the j motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ' The meeting recessed at 5s30 o'clock pomo 1i RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7s20 o'clock pom., ~ all Commissioners bein9 presento i ; REC J.ASSIFICATION ~ - PUBLIC FIEARING. GRACE ELIZABETH DICKERSON, c/o McMahon, Nelson 8 Tilson, i . N0..6A-.65-66 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; NCMAHON, NELSON 8 ~ TILSON, 1695 West Crescent Avenue~ Anaheim~ California, Agent; property I CONDLI'IONAL USE described ass A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of approximatelyj PERMIT N0. 659 370 feet on the north side of Broadway and a depth of approximately 601 feet,' the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 134 feet west of GENERAL• PLAN the center.line of Date Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICUL- Ah~NDNIENT N0. 48 TURAL, ZONE, REQUESTHD CLASSIFICATION: R~2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED ; RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPIu~NT WITH SUBTERRAN~AN PARKING. ' i ~ I ~ _ . ....._ .._ _ _. _., __..._-----'i - (,.~ MINU'LES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 7~ 1964 . 2418 E;EGLASSIFIGATION - ~J~ro Robert McMahony agent for the petitioner, appeared before the N0. 6~-b5-66 Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that these were a"town house" concept with three two-story structures in the CONDIIIONf~L USE center o,f the proposed development~ that it was proposed to•rent the PEI~MIT N0. 659 apartments for $225 p2r month; that a number of the neighbors present in the Council Chamber had 'veen co.;cacted by the developer•and plans GENERAL.PLAN were presented to them to give thea~ an idea and a better understanding AMENDN~NT N~,~}Q of the proposed development; that he had a petition signed by ten (Continued) adjacent property owners which stated they were not in opposition to ~ the proposed developmentf that the property was proposed to be on a long term lease for the land~ and that the architect, Mr. L•ewis Miller, would....d.iscuss the planning concept of the proposed developmento Co:lared•renderings of the proposed development were reviewed by Mro Lewis Miller, the architect, noting that if sub~ect property were developed for single-family purposes, a more crowded con:ept would be presented because garages would be located above ground~ whereas subterra;~ean parking was proposed, and that the proposed development was not designed as a"low rental" type, but designed primariiy for adults~ Mr, Paul Havens, realtor, 1500 East Lincoln Avenue9 appeared before the Commission in opposition to the proposed development, stating that he represented Mrsa Ho E. Botts, owner of the property immediately adjacent to subject property on the east, at 237 Date Street West9 that he felt from his real estate experience, the proposed development was not a compatible use to the R-1 uses established on three sides of subject property~ that the homes would not be obsolete for a number of years to come~ and even though two- story was proposed for the center of the property, this would be an invasion of privacy of the single-family homes in the areaa Mro Sidney Ho Hankins, 223 Wayside Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub,ject petition, stating that a petition had been c:.rculated among the property owners, and .it ::ontained 161 signatures~ that in April of 1963, a similar proposal had been denied by the Planning Commission and withdrawn before it reached the City Council~ that the proposed multiple-family development would be an incompatible use to the R-1 property existing and which had been developed for the past eight years; that at the time the property on Wayside Place was developed, the property owner was given an opportunity to develop her property at the same time so that a development similar to Date Street, East and West, could be incorporated9 but this was not done; that the proposed development v~ould have a density of 14031 units per net residential acre, and although the statement was made that property prices were too high to develop sub,~ect property for single-family pusposes, the single-#amily homes9 in turn9 also had a residential price, and if multiple- family development was approved, this would radically reduce the net value of the single- family homesythat the overcrowded school conditions would not warrant additional students to those narmally expected in a single-family tract9 since this would mean that many more children would be transported from the school district to another school district less crowdedy that the proposed use would create an additional traffic problem to Broadway and present problems for children utilizing Broadway for crossing, since there was only one guarded crossing in the area; that Broadway was constantly patrolled because of.the excessive speed drivers maintained going down the street which acted as a hazard to the children; that it appeared to be the general feeling of ail the property owners that subject property be developed as single-family residential use since the area was pre- dominantly single-familyj and that subject property could be developed similar to th e tract on Wayside Place, thus making the best and highest use of the property, and further making.it compatible with the existing uses in the areao Mr. A. C. Paris, 217 Date Street West,appeared before the Commission, stating he was in favor of the proposed development because of the method of providing playground area, green space, and removing the cars from the street by providing subterranean parking, and since the proposed development was a considerable improvement to that previously. denied by the Commission. Mr. Charles Gross, 225 Wayside Place, appeared before the Commission and inquired what ~ the average floor space of the proposed units would be, to which the architect, Mra Miller, replied the units ranged from 990 to 1,800 square feet, and only two-bedroom units were proposedo ~ i t In xebuttal, Mr. McMahon stated that the present developer was not the same who had the i project in 1963, but the proposed development was a planned unit of developaient, and the ~ density was in conformance with the R-2 Codey that there was no entrance to the building more than 150 feet from the proposed subterranean garages~ that it was very difficult to ~i develop subject property for sing'le-family use~ that the proposed development would have i considerable green and open areas and would be an integral part of the community~ and that ~ the developer was ready to start development upon receiving City approval of the proposed useo ~ \ . ~ ~ , ---- -_ ._.._...__.. .__....r,._.~-, . . . _. _._..... . ~. . . ---.---r . . ~ . ~. ; _ ,. .,. . . •~ ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Ed Slagle, owner of the p*^~~rty on East Lincoln Avenue across NO> 64~65-6~ the street from subject property, advised the Commission that in his opinion the proposed development would be an improvement over u~developed CONDITIONAL USH property. PERMIT N0. 659 - A showing of hands indicated that 30 persons present in the Council GENERAL PLAN Chamber opposed subject petitions, and 9 favored subject petitions. AA~NDN~NT N0a 48 Continued) TF~ 1-IEARING WAS CLOSEDa Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed develop- ment as it pertained to the adjoining properties; that the adjoining single-family homes would have traffic facing them both on their street frontage as well as their rear yard frontagesf that although the development was an unusual concept, it would not be compatible with the area since it was predominantly R-1 in u~e. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1449~ Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-66 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed use was incompatible to the existing R-1 development on the east, west, and south sides of subject property; that the proposed circulation would act as a detriment to the peace~ health, safety and general welfare of the residents already residing ad3acent to subject property~ and that subject property could be deve'loped for s~ngle-family residential sub- divisiono (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foxegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs A?lred~ Camp~ Gauer~ Mungall, Perry~ Rawland. NOES:_. COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSEATI'.i COMMISSIONERS e None o In.offering his "aye" vote, Commissioner Camp stated that although the proposed development ~ was a fine development, this should be located elsewhere since the property on three sides ~ of subject property had been developed for single-family use, and that perhaQs some compromise , could be reached for a icss~r density than was proposed in order that everyone in the area would be more satisfiedo Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1450, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 659. (See Resolution Booko) , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing votea AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTa COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Camp offered Resolu~tion Noa 1451, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ailred, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment Noe 48 be disapprovedo (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allied, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. f,BSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: Noneo AREA DEVELOPN~NT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY T[-lE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ PLAN N0. 8. 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing tt-e reclassi- fication of property described as: All that certain property situated RECLASSIFICATION on the south side of Ball Road; extending from Iris 5treet westerly to ~ N0. 64-65-20 128 feet west of the centerline of Palm Street, and having a maximum depth of approximately 116 feet, from the R-1, ONE-•FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ~ ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZGNEo Subject petition and Area Development Flan were continued from the meetings of August 17 and October 19, 1964, in order to provide the Planning Staff an opportunity to enlarge the ~ study area and for the readvertising of the properties to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, ~ Zone. . i . Zoning Coordinator Robort Mirkelson advised the Commission that the P.rea Development Plan ~ exhibits were on display and would be reviewed if the Commission so desired. ~ ~ . i . r„ -_'~.._.-.'_'---T-----__..-.___..~. . _---"_'-^.'-_---~^_.._...._~.,.,,,,.. . . .. y~ . - , . ~ ! .. -'' ~.'. ~ ~ ~ ..' . . '. ~ : ~ ~... ~i / ' ~ i I \ / V MINUTES~ CITY PLP.YNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 ~ 2420 AREA DHVELOPIu~M - Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the implications of PLAN NOo 8 the pruposed reclassification on the 2,700 homes fronting on major streets in the City of Anaheim; that the complete study should be - RHCLASSIFICATION made of these front-on homes before any reclassification takes place N0. 64-65-~0,~ on the belance of the properties on Ball Road, but if the property (Continued) ownsrs in that area were desirous of reclassification of their proper- ties, they had the prerogative of petitioning individually for their properties~ that a meeting should be held between the Commission and Council to discuss plans and policies relative to resolving the possible commercial usage of all the 2~700 homes fronting on major streets. Mro IJave Davidson, 134 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he was one o£~.the property owners of the property considered in Area Developmant Plan No. 8y that he was opposed to individual reclassification, but if the City found it feasible, development of the entire frontage on Ball Road should be as one effort rather than a piecemeal~attempte The Commission felt that since 2,700 homes were involved in Anaheim, faced with the same problem, and because the Commission was desirous of not having strip comroercial along all these streets, they have attempted previously to try to have any property reclassi- fied to a commercial zone to have the home removed and a commercial structure built, but this had not seemed to be practical as far as the Council was concerned, and the Commission was not anxious to make any decision on the proposed reclassification until a meeting with the City Council to discuss their problems and differences, after which the Commission could continue with work sessions in order to resolve the problemo It was further noted by the Commission that there was a possibility the homes immediately adjacent to the a11ey to the rear of Ball Road might also be involved in the possible rezoning, and because of the magnitude of the problem, this would be setting a precedent for anK future development of the remainder of the homeso Mr, Davidson advised the Commission that in his opinion, he was not personally in favor of a reclassification change~ but if the City saw fit to have the properties zoned for cammercial uses, he felt this should be a;oint venture, and not singlya Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue the hearing of Area Development P1an No. 8 and,Petition for Reclassification Noo 64~65-~20 to the meeting of Februaxy 1, 1965, in order that the Commission might meet 3ointly with the City Council to determine the policy and possible.plans for the 2,700 homes fronting~on and siding-on arterial streets and highways within.the Cityo Commissioner Rowland ~aconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FlEARINGo EDNA Go~ MABEL ANNy JACK M.~ AND BERNARDO M. YORBA~ NO°.64-~5_64 19200 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, California, Owners~ requesting that praperty described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 1,298 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon•.Road~ the eastern boundary of said property extending approximately 323 feet easterly of the.existing Anaheim City boundary and into Orange County territoryy said eastern boundary is approximately the southerly prolongation of the east right-of~r.ay boundary of Imperial Highway, the total area of subject property being approximately 2008 acres and further divided into Portions A and Bs Portion A being approxima`~ely 1503 acres in size and cover- ing the.entire Santa Ana Canyon Road frontage; Portion B being an interior portion approxi- mately 5~5 acres In size, be reclar,sified from the R-0, OPIE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE and 80 AR 10,004 to the C-1~ NHIGHBORHOOD COMN~RCIAL' ZONE for Portion A and the C-0~ COMMHRCIAL OFFICE~ ZONE for Portion Be Mre Hernardo Yorba, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Comnission and stated that three o,f the othar petitioners were present in the Couhcil Chambery that it had beon decided by the petitioners that at the time they had reac4ed the point of not raising orange crops, they..would like to have the prerogative to control development of their properties so that thev would.be proud of any future development, and with this in mind, considerable study had been made of the properties through Economics Research, Boyle Engineering, and consulta- tion with the Planning Staff, the result being the plans presented to the Commission for their considerationy and that if any technical problems were to be resolved, Mrn Roy Seeman of Ba,yle..Engineerin9 wo~ld be available to answer them. Mr. Roy Seeman appeared before the Commission and stated that the oroposed plans were the result.of.considerable study in proposing the best use of the land and tha~ the program set up b.y.t#~e- Yorba family was, in his estimatiun, one of the best he had seeno ~ In reviewin.3 the plans the Commission were of the opinion the plans were the best ever i presented to them and inquired whether the development would be in stages, to which ! Mro Yorba replied this would be the prerogative of the ultimate developer of the property, k but development would follow in general principle as presented to the Commissione ~ ~ i I ' ti' -~ ~ ~ MINiITES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, )ecember 7, 1964 2421 RECLASSIFICATION - In reviewing the recommended conditions the Commission inquired whether NOo 64-65-~4 _ the 56-foot street was standard in the area, to which Mre Mickelson (Continued) replied it was in accordance with the Hillside Grading Ordinance for the area. In discussing Finding Noo 6 of the Report to the Commission, it was noted that Imperial Highway on the General Plan was indicated for 90 feet, whereas the plans proposed an 80-foot wide street, to which Mro Seeman replied t~e street was planned in arcordance with the County requirements as a secondary highway, but there would be no ob~ection to widening this to 90 feet in accordance with the City's requiremento In response to questioning by Mro Seeman relative to the suggested conditions on street lights and street trees, Mro Mickel.son replied these conditions were standard throughout the City and that the lightfng wauld be ornamental lig~ztinga Mro Seeman inquired whether tl,e Yorba family would have complete architectural control re9arding the lighting standardsa Mra Mickelson replied that in the Peralta Hills area the City had inciuded street liqh•ting, but he could not answer for the light division although he was sure some agreement could be reacheda Th2 Commission advised the petitionersthat street trees were a standard condition throughout the City of Anaheim in order to beautify the City, and naturally would be a part of any reclassification petition. No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitione THE }iEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired whether some change should be made relative to requiring the same number of lights in the Hill and Canyon Area as was provided for in the City streets, namely that both sides of the street be lightedo Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff replied that since he had made considerable study on the Hill and Canyon Area, the minimum level of illumination on a cul-de-sac street was one light standard every 150 to 200 feets this was to provide for personal property and traffic safety purposesy that a recent Staff stuc9y in the Peralta Hills area where a very low density development existedylights were required for traffic safety onlyy but where lots were of 10,000 to 12,000 square feet, the same frequency of illumination for the frontages would be required; and that the Lusk development in the Nohl Canyon area projected a special type of iighting which would not cut off the view of the residentso Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 14529 Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissionex Camp, to recoaanend to the City Councii that Petitiori for Reclassification Noo 64-65-64 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cail the foregoing resolut3on was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSa Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERSc None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo RECLA55IFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo WILLIAM AND ORA SMALL, 1632 West Ball Road, Anaheim, NOo 64~65-65 Celifornia, DONALD Lo AND KATHLEEN E, BAUER, 13642 Tahoe Street, Westminster, California, JOHN AND DOROTHY Mo CHRISTOPt~R, 7450 ,7unillo Avenue, Canoga Park, California, Qwnersg JAMES EMMI, 1808 East Common- wealth, Apartment 102y Fullerton, California, Agenty requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 300 feet on the east side of Palm Lane and a depth of approximately 289 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 375 feet south of the centerline o.`• Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ~ODIEe Mr. James Emmi, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated plans were not submitted since the proposed reclassification was in conformance with th e trend of development in the area for multiple-family residential use; that he had done a number of feasibility studies for the development of the area, but at the present time was unable to determine whether or not it would develop for straight R-3 or a PRD developmente Zoning Coordinato.r Robert Mickeison advised the Commission that the new R-3 Zone had the necessary site development ~~andards if the property was to be developed for R-3 purposes, ~ but if the petitioner was desirous of developing for a planned residential development, a i conditional use permit was necessary, and at that time, plans would be presented to the ~ Commissiono _ ._ . _ . _~..,.~....._.-r-. . , .,.,.. :~..~ . _ .. ... _. , . _._-~.-~.~..-....~---r----_.. - .. _ ... . . ._. _ . . _ , _ _.,. , ~ ~ ,j ~ ~ I -~~:-=; ~.- ~ ~ ~ ~) . MINUTES., CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2422 j RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Emmi asked that some clarification be made as to the difference ~ NO.~ 4- - 5 between the planned residential development and an R-3, to which the i Continued Commission replied that the philosophy of a planned residential develop- ment was to provide for a better living environment than normally obtained through a straight R-34 this would provide forlarger open spaces and more green areas. No one appeared in opposition tu subject petition. TI-IE E~ARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the ~ommission relative to the existing palm trees and previous effarts•whicfi had been made by the Council to preserve these palm trees. "-.mmissioner Rowiand offered Resolution No. 1453, Seri~s 1~64-65, and moved for its passage ana .,doption, seconded by Cortunissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition ~ for Reclassification No. 64-65-65 be approved, with a finding that the Commission recommends ~ to t;s City Council that every effort be made to preserve the existing palm trees, the park- ! ing area of subject property on Palm Lane, and the petitioner was to resolve with the ; Engineering Department th: best location for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. (See Resolution ~ Book.) ' , On iall call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESi COMMISSIONERSs Allred; Camp, Gauer, Mungall, perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENii COMMISSIONERSs None. AMENDM'd.NT TO TITLE - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ; EIGHTEEN ANAI-IEIM Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an addition to Title ~ MUNICi?1L CODE 18 by adding Section 18.63 - BILL60ARDS, and the amendment to Section . 18.64 - CONDITIONAL USES, BILLBOARDS. ~ Assistant Planner Jack Christofferson presented 47 colored slides of the various types of ; billboards presently existing in the City and portions of the County. I It was further noted by Mr. Christofferson that 38 of the 97 billboards inventoried in the i city were freeway oriented; that Deputy City Atte:^sy Furman Roberts had drafted an updated i amortization clause to Chapter 4.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, "Outdoor Advertising Signs ~ and Structures - near Freeways". ~ The.proposed ordinance was then reviewed by Mr. Christo~~erson, noting that the ordinance j i previded for the erection ai` billboards by right in the C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1, and M-2 Zones, when located within 200 feet o£ the intersection of major, primary or secondary highways. Potential billboard sites, exclusive of freeway-oriented billboards, wEre indicated on an exhibit. Mr. Christofferson expiained that the intent of the ordinance was to provide a means for permitting billboards by right in certain zones of the Cityj and that the inter- section concept would concentrate billboards where traffic and the intensity of activity is high. '' It was proposed to exclude new billboards in the Center City Area until the conclusion of ! the urban renewai study of the area by Victor Gruen Associates and to prohibit billboards f along Harbor Boulevard and a portion of Katella Avenue, due to the tourist value of these highways which will link the Center City, the Commercial-Recreation area around Disneyland, j the new convent:~.on center, and Anaheim Stadium. ~ Planning Coardinator Allan Shoff at this point advised the Commission that the problem that j the staff.faced was to write an ordinance which would allow billboards in the City bytright ~ in cexta3n zones, and under certain conditions. He further stated that to permit billboards, i for example, only in the C-3 or M-2 Zones would be to effectively prohibit them, since there is so little C-2 or M-2 z.r.~ed land in the City. A second problem, Mr. Shoff pointed out, I was attempting to develop a means of spacing billboards~ that a formula which might regulate I this would tend to be arbitrary and discriminatory; and that the intersection concept achieves 'i this intent, as well as doing it in an equitable manner. The staff had attempted to write an , ordinance. N-r. Shoff stated, which would provide billboard sites which would. be desirable both : from the industry's and from the City's points of view. This resulted in the proposaY to locate them at the intersections of heavily traveled highways, where there was considerable economic ar.tivity. Since considerable advertising was already evident at these locations, I such as flags, banners, and signs at service stations~ it was felt that biliboards could also ~ be a part of this activity and still meet the community appearance ob,~ectives of the City. ~ ~ ~ ...4....~.,_ ___ _... _~._,._. _._ _~~__~__~.__.~...,.,__-..,_._.._ - ~ . ----t ` . , , .: '""ih~ ____---_ .- ~ . . _.._ ~" U MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2423 AA~NDMENT TO TITLE - In response to commentary by the Commission that this would project EIGEII'EEN ANAHEIM approximately 280 such billboards in the City, Mr. Shoff stated that MUNTCIPAL CODE this might be economically possible, but there was always the possi- (Continued bility that the space could not be sold, and that the representative of Fos~,er and Kleiser was better able to answer this since he was more fsmiliar with the economics of the billboard industry. • .\1 ~ In discussion by the Commission it was determined that since a siz2 limitation of 300 square feet was indicated, anything larger than 300 square feet would be required to file a condi- tional use permit at which time it would be considered for approval by the Commission. Mr. Don Davis, of Foster and Kleiser, an outdoor advertising display company, advised the Co;amission that 99~ of the billboards his company had would fall in the "under 300 square foot" category; that those ovar 300 square feet were of varying sizes and were interchange- able within the Countyo He advised that, of the 64 billboards his company had in the City, i only ten were considered to be conforming with the proposed ordinance. ! Mr. Christofferson advised the Commission that although provisions had been made for amortization and removal of the non-conforming billboards, there was some question as to whether the amortization period is sufficiently long; that in order to insure a reasonable amortization period, information would have to be obtained from files in the Building DepartmenL to determine the age of the existing bii.lboards, and that it was recommended that consideration of the billboard ordinance be continued for two weeks to obtain this additional informatione Mr. Reese advised the Commission that the proposed billboard ordinance was written within the confines of the policy set by the City Council and the recent action taken by the State in regard to billboards, and that the amortization periods of three and five years seemed reasonable, but he would like some commentary from Mre Davis. Mr. Davis stated that many of the old billboards were of wood beams and were considerably older than the average, that the newer boards erected had steel beams and posts, and liis concern with the proposed amortization period was based on the fact that since 54 of their present signs were non-conforming, they would have to start on a crash program of repiacing these signs, which he felt would be almost impossible, and that since he had ~ust received the final draft on Friday, he would need some time to check into their problems as they pertained to the amortization period. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that he had prepared a rough draft of the proposed amendment to Chapter 4.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and it would be in order for the Commission to set for public hearing consideration of this change if the Commission considered continuation of the public hearing on the billboard ordinance. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Commission to set for public hearing December 21, 1964, consideration of an amendment to Chapter 4.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code covering billboards along freeways. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Rowl~nd offered a motion to continue the public hearing on the amendment to TitLe 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18a63 and Section 18.64 to the meeting of December 21, 1964. Commissioner Perry seconded the moiion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND ITEM N0, 1 RECOMMENDATIONS - Commercial-Recreation Area Setback Study. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the proposed setback and landscaping.for the street frontages in the Commercial-Recreation Area for the Commission. Upon completion of the discussion ry the Commission relative to the setback study, Commis- sioner Camp offered a motion to conLinue consideration of the establishment of a policy for setbacks and landscaping along the street frontages in the Commercial-Recreation Areaito the meeting of December 21, 1964. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Conuitional Use Permit No. 323. Establish an ambulance sexvice at 1240 North State College Boulevard. Request for extension •~ of time for the operation. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson Advised the Commissien that a request had been rec:eived from the Southland Ambulance Service requesting that an indefinite extension of time for tt•,e existing operation be granted. In res~OOnse to Commission questioning, Mr. Mickelson stated that no complaints had been received during the two years of operation, and that as a conditfon of approval, the peti- tioner was required to submit a request for a continuance of the exiating use. ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ `i MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2424 i 1 REPORTS AND i RECOMA~NDATIONS - ITEM NOa 2 (Continued) ~ ~ I Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant an extension of five years for the operation of an ambUlance service as approved in Conditional Use Permit No. 323, said time limit to expire December 18, 1969. Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ; ITEM N0. 3 ~ Conditional Use Permit Noo 505. Establish a theatre and a ten-story j. office building on the east side of Euclid Avenue northerly of Crescent Avenuea Request for clarification of diligence in pursuing ' authority granted by said con~ztional use permit. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the petitioner of Conditional Use Permit Noo 505 requested clarification on whether or not the diligence in pursuing authority granted by Conditional Use Permit Noe 505 permitted him to continue with plans for the construction of the theatre and office buiiding. Following discussion by the Commission relative to conditions which would have to be met to complete ths action of the Conditional Use Permit, the Commission secretary was directed to advise the petitioner that as long as he was diligently pursuing development of the project and provided that the street light fees were paid, Conditional Use Permit Noe 505 would not be terminatede ITEM NOe 4 Wagner-Rio Vista Urgency Ordinancee Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission an exhibit containing the boundaries of the recent Wa9ner-Rio Vista Annexationo It was noted that the exhibit depicted Tract No. 4716 as an R-1 tract, together with a green area which represented a portion of the proposed Orange F:eeway right-of-way, and a 1078 acre parcel adjacent to the northeasterly corner of Tract Noo 4716 was recommended for R-1 Zone for the tract and R-A Zone for the balanceo Further, the reason the property covering the single-family tract had not been reclassified while the property was in the County was because of the pending annexation. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to advise the City Council that a study had been made and reviewed by tHe Commission in accordance with Code: Section 18.12.030, and recommends to their Body that Exhibit "A" represents the most comparable zoning of the City of Anaheim, namely R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone for Tract Noe 4716, and R-A, Agricultural~ Zone for the easterly portion of the proposed Orange Freeway right-of-way between Wagner Avenue and Ba11 Road, together with a 1.78 acre parcel adjacent to the northeasterly corner of Tract Noa 471E, for the Wagner-Rio Vista Annexatione Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion: MOTION CARRIED, ITEM N0, 5 ORANGE COUMY Conditional Permit No. 1139 - Request to permit the establishment of a business for the excavation, processing and selling of sand in the A1 General Agricultural District on property located on the east side of the Imperial Highway bridge tra~ersing the Santa Ana River approximately 1400 feet northerly of Santa Ana Canyon Road, in the Santa Ana Canyon areao 2oning Coordinator Robert M3ckelson presented Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1139 to the Commission and reviewed the location of the property. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the effect the propasad excavation of sand would have on the percolation of water in the Santa Ana River, and the fact that heavy truck traffic would add a further burden to an almost untenable traffic prob2em at the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and the Imperial Highwaya Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be advised that the City of Anaheim concurs in the protest of the,Orange County Water District that the proposed exca4ation operation might have an adverse af#ect on the percolation of water in the Santa Ana Rivere Further, that the injection of heavy truck traffic to a hazardous intersection of two highways mi9ht create an insurmountable traffic problem, if Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1139 were approved. Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. i ' + ~~~ • . ~.:. _ , -.a. _. .... ~ • ~J ~ ~ . MINUIES,. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2425 REPORTS AND ITHM NOa 6 RECAMN~NDATIONS - Stadium Designation as requested by the Commission to be (Continued placed on the General Plan. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that two exhibits were prepared and were placed alongside the area on the General Plan where the new baseball stadium was being erected; and suggested that the Commission make a selection of the best exhibit. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that all pubiic property be properly delineated on , the G2nerai plan map for which sites had been acquireda , Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to request that the exhibit depicting the diamond with ~. a baseball.superimposed be that which the staff should place on the General Plane Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe ITEM NOe 7 ~ Conditional Use Permit Noo 586e Request for time extension for completion of conditional use permito ~ ; Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commi~sion that a letter requesting a six- month extension of time had been received from the Stanton Community Church, and upon staff investigation it was determined that since the petitioners had completed conditions within the required time, this would be an indication they were diligently pursuing the authority granted them in Conditional Use Permit No. 586e Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to advise the petitioners of Conditional Use Permit No. 586 that since conditions having a time limitation had been complied with, this was an indication that they were diligently pursuing the authority granted them in Conditional Use Permit Noe 586 and, therefore, the petitioners could proceed when they were financially able without any additional extension of time being necessarya Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MUTION CARRIED, ITEM NOo 8 Conditional Use Permit No. 590. Julius Nathano Motel addition at 1836 South Anaheim Boulevardo Request for an extension of timeo Zoning Coardinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a request for an extension of tiroe of 180 days for the completion of conditions in Resolution Noo 1254, Series 1964-65 granting Conditional Use Permit Noo 590 had been received, and that street tree and street lights had not been paida Further, that only 153 days had elapsed since the conditional use permit had been granted. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant an extension of 180 days for the completion of.conditions in Resolution Noa 1254, Series 1964-65 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 590, said time to expire July 7, 1965o Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 9 Resolution of Appreciationa Commissioner Camp offered a motion directing that a resolution be presented to former Commissioner James Chavos in appreciation for services rendered as a member of the Anaheim Planning Commission. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion, all members of the Commission voting "aye" unanimously for the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WI-lEREAS, James F. Chavos has served the citizens of the City of Anaheim as a Member of the City planning Commission from January 30, 1962 throughOctober 26, 1964;~and WHEREAS, his membership on the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim complemented this group of laymen in thP performance of their duties; and E WHHREAS, James F. Chavos h-.s faithfully fulfilled his duties as a member of ~ r' said Planning Commission and has er~leavored to represent and serve the interest of the ~: . peopl2 nf the City of Anaheim at all times. ~ NOW, TI~REFORH, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of ~ Anaheim does hereby express their appreciation for the ser~fces which James F. Chavos as a member of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim in the iriterests of the citizens ~ of the :.ity of Anaheim. • BE IT FURTI-lER RESOLVED that i~is resolution shall be made a matter of record in ~ ' the official minutes of the City Planning C~mmission, and that a copy bo presented to l James F: Chavos in appreciation of his services as a Commissioner of the City Planning ~ Commission of the City of Anaheim. ~ i, ` ~ .._.~._b.._._. ~._._.~._..__...__,..__._._ . ~.. , - .,,., , . ., ,, _ ~ , ~, __. _.~' . __ -~.._ ~ ~ ~ J- . :.: ~ , ~ `i ~ ~c'1 . x~ ~~~.. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES•, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 7, 1964 2426 REPORTS AND ITEM N0. 10 RECOMII~NDATIONS - Southern California Planning Con9ressa Continued Commissioners Perry, Rowland, and Gauer indicated they would attend the Southern California Planning Congress to be held December 10~ 1964, in Glendale, at which time the 1965 officers would be elected~ Commissioner Gauer being a candidate for the presidenc~r. ADJOU,~ RNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to ad3ourn the meetinge Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted; ~~~~ -P/ ANN KREBS, Sec etary Anaheim Plannin9 Commission / ~I ......__~./`