Loading...
Minutes-PC 1965/02/01City Hall Anaheim, California February 1, 1965 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR A~ETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o°clock p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAIJ: Mungalle Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. Commissioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at 2:05 p.m. Commissioner Allred entered the Council Chamber at 2:15 p.m. - Zonin9 Coordinator: Deputy City Attorney: Office Engineer: Planning Commission Secretary: Planning Department Ster.ographer: Robert Mickelson Furman Roberts Arthur Daw Ann Krebs Carolyn Groyg ~- Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, - The Minutes of ±he meeting of January 18, 1965, weie approved as submittedo VARIANCE N0~1679 - PUnLIC HEARINGa ROBEP.T C~ AND A. MpE BROOKS, 1609 Humor Drive, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to waive the minimum required floor area and minimum required side yards on property described as: k rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fror;tage of 50 feet on the east side of Philadelphia Street and a depth of 154 feet, thr~ northern boundary of said property being approximately 308 feet south of the centerlinc of South Street, and further described as 824 South Philadelphia Street, to convert a single-family residence into a two-family residence. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-F;,MILY RE£IDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr, Robert Brooks, the petitioner, apoeared before tt~2 Commission and reviewed the purpose for the conversion of the existing single-family residence, and in respor,se to Commission questioning, stzted that he was aware of the req~irements of improving the structure to meet Building Code requiremQnts, but felt that at least one-half of the exisfiing home would not have the olumbing renovated because it was still in operable condition. h'l~'s= Emma J„ Lawrence, 820 South Philadelphia Street, appeared before the Commission in epposition Lo subject petition and requested clarification of some of the requirements stated in tt~e legal notice, asking the amount of reduction in the required side yard, stating that considerable noise would emanate from the existing building, and that it was requested a six-foot masonry wall be constructed adjacent to her property l.;.ne to reduce said noise and provide her with privacy since one of the exits of the apa:•tme.nt would be facing her propertyo Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised Mrs. Lawrence that since her property and subject property were zoned R-2, a six-foot masonry wall was not required by Code, and that the plans indicated a ten-foot, eight-inch side yard, whereas Code requirements were for a twelve-foot side yard, and that the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 4.15 covering the Penal Code of noise and disturbance of peace in the neighborhood would govern any unnecessary noises she might have, and that the Code did not specify specific hours for access to subject property. Commissioner A.llred entered the Council Chamber at 2:15 p.mo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1508, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No~ 1679, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Booko) .1 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: COIM7ISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. COMMISSIONERS: Noneo COMMISSIONERS: None. COMMISSIONERS: Allrede c F MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February i, 1965 2467 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. RAWLINS INVESTIu~NT CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 2382, N0. 64-65-83 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles 54, California, and ROBERT AND MARY IJEWTON, 411 East 20th Street, Santa Ana, California, Owners; CHARLES B. FRANK, 300 Wilshire, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 45 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 214 feet - subject property is bounded on the west by Mountain View Avenue and on the northeast by Manchester Avenue, and having frontages on these streets of approximately 178 feet and 135 feet respectively, be reciassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-3, 1-~AVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish a service station on subject property. Mr. Lee Schulz, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questionso The Commission noted that subject property and the proposed service station were within 75 feet of an R-A residence, which, in accordance with Code requirements, would mean the filing of a conditional use permit to permit the establishment of a service station within 75 feet of a residence~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that action could be taken on the reclassification, and the Commission might desire to initiate the conditional use permit~ routing it to the City Council to be heard concurrently with the reclassification. No one appeared in oppositior. to subject petition. THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the most appropriate zone for the pro- posed us2, and the Commission was of the opinion that the C-1, General Commercial, Zone with the filing of a conditional use permit was the mest appropriate for sub;ect property. ~'f Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1509, Series 1964-65, ar,d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by CommissS.o~er Perry, to recommend disappro~~l of the requested C-3 Zoning, and in lieu t;iereof, C-1, General Commercial, Zonin9 for 'etition for Reclassi- ~;~ fication No. 64-65-83, si~bject to conditions and the reauirement tha± the petitioner file a conditional use permit to permit the service station within 75 feet of an R-~~ residence. _ , ' (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe~3 by the fo1?o.vin9 vote~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK AND MARGARET MULLER, 6363 Sunset N0. 64-65-54 Boulevard, Hollywood, California, Owners; GORDQN BRO'NN, 17400 Otsego Street, Encino, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangular CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land with a frontage of 122 feet on the south side of Linccin PERMIT N0~ 644 Avenue and a depth of 255 feet, the eastern boundary of subject property being approximately 533 feet west of the centerline of Broadview Street, and further described as 1916 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGHbORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUES7ED CONDITIO~IAL LSE: ESTABLISH A MOTEL~ '~~ Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of November 9, 1964, to allow the petitioner ~~ time to submit revised plans proposing C-1 ~oning for the Lincoln Avenue frontage, and R-1 { for the Embassy Avenue frontage, and to allow time for the Planning Department to re-advertise ;, subject property for C-1 and R-1 Zones. ~~ ~:i No one appeared to represent the petitionero ~ ~i ~~ ~•''~ Mr. Archie Shoemate, 110 South Emerald Pl~ca, appeared before the Commission in opposition ;; to subject petitions, stating that after the last public hearing, the property owners in j .:r the area had a meeting with the petitioner and their representative, and it was their under- standing they would subdivide the property with C-1 f*ontage on the Lincoln Avenue portion , ~ and R-1 on the Embassy Avenue portion; that he was aware the petitioner had not submitted revised plans; that the original plans of development proposed parkin9 along the Embassy .~ ~'~ Avenue fronta9e which would be immediately adjacent to his property; that property values ;;,,a* :~ of adjacent property would be considerably reduced because of commercial encroachment, noise, ,, ~~ lights, and the fact that cars would be parked ten feet from their patios; that. he had been ~ !dINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2468 RECLASSIFICATION - advised that he would receive a substantial profi* if his property N0. 64-65-54 was converted to C-1, but because of deed restrictions in the single- family subdivision i;ract, it was necessary to have the approval of CONDITIONAL USE 51% of the owners ir. thA tract for any change in said deed restriction. PERMIT__N0. 644 (Continued) Two persons indicated their presence in opposition to subject petitions. TI-~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Loning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that since the last public hearing he had contacted the agent for the petitioner relative to revised plans a,d had been informed that the peti.tioner was desirous of having subject petitions considered on ~--=~;~ the plans submitted, and that because of this, the department initiated the C-1 and R-1 ~y , reclassification petition in conformance with the Commission's desire for zoniny of subject ~•.{~ property, Discussio.. was held by the ~ommission, and it was r.oted that the proposed motel would provide a parking lot along the Embassy Avenue frontage which would be a use incompatible with the residential environment of the area; tha;. commercial use for the Lincoln Avenue frontage would be a foregone conclusion, but that no encroachment of commercial uses should _, be permitted in the primarily residential area. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1510, 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. 6A•-65-54 be disapproved, based on the fact that the petitioner had stipulated at the first public hearing that they would develop subject property with C-1 for the Lincoln Avenue frontage and f~•-1 for the Embassy Avenue frontage; tt~at the use was incompatible with the established single-family residential development in the area; that the proposed reclassification would be an encroachment of commercial uses into a residential area; and that the proposed reclassification was not necessary or desirable for the orderl;~ and proper development of the community. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None: ABSEM : CUMMISSIONERS: None, _ Commissioner A11red offered Resolution No: 1511, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Conditicnal Use Permit Noo 6440 (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: rpry~,~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSEM : GOMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSI:"~,^,::'?~N - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TI-~ CITY PLAIJtJING COMMISSION, 204 Lasi NOa 64-65rq1 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land with frontages of 122 feet on the south side VARIANCE N0. 1683 of Lincoln Avenue and 122 feet on the north side of Embassy Avenue, the depth of subject property being approximately 253 feet. Subject property is further divided into Portions A and B: Portion A- being the northerly 135 feet or subject parcel and Portion 9- being the southerly 118 feet, and further described as 1916 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CL.ASSIFICATIOIJ: C-1, NEIGI-IBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE, ON PORTION A. R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, ON PORTION B• PROPOSED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA ON PORTION B. l ~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Co;nmission that subject petitions were F' initiated by the Plannin9 Commission because the property owner was reticent in carrying through the stipulation made at the previous hearing relative to dividing subject property into two portions, developing the northerly, or Lincoln Avenue, frontage for C-1 uses, and the southerly, or Embassy Avenue, frontage for R-1 uses, and that the proposed variance ;~ was to permit the subdivision of the Embassy Avenue portion with 60-foot frontage lots and ~ a square footage of less than 7,200 square feete ~ , I.' * '~ ~ A MINUTES, CITY PiANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2469 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Archie Shoemate, 110 South Emerald Place, appeared befc•re the N0. 64-65-91 Commission and stated he was in favor of the proposed reclassification since this was what had been agreed to by the property owner in a meet- VARIANCE N0. 1683 ing with residents in ±he sin9le-family tract adjacent to the Embassy (Continued Avenue frontage of subject property; that there was no argument relative to permitti.ng C-1 for the Lincoln Avenue frontage because it was felt by the single-family homeowners that the property owner should be able to obtain the maximum for his property fronting on an arterial street; and that it was his desire to have the Commission establish, by resolution, their feelings on subject property since there was no need for establishing commerciai uses on the Embassy P.venue frontage. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to whether or not the Commission should approve reclassification proceedings, It was determined the Commission had done this in other actions relative to the existing service stations and other uses throughout the City, and that this was only a resolution of i~tent, and if approved by the City Council would only require meeting conditions attachej thereto in order to process the property for reclassification, Further, that any favorable action taken on subject petitions would show the Commission`s thinking in preferring ,io encroachment of commerciai uses into the resider.tial integrity of the area~ ; Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that prior to 1958, the Commission was unable to initiate reclassification proceedings, but since then, the ordinance provided for the Commission`s initiating petitions~ setting for public hearing the rezoning of property, and that the p=~perty would not be rezoned until an ordinance was read after all conditions attached thereto had been met. THE HEkRING VJAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No~ 1512, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ 64-65-91 be approved, subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mur.gali, Perry, Rowland> NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ~~~ * ~x Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No~ 1513, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petitior. for Variance Noo 1683, subject to conditions. (aee Resoiutior. Book~) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolut~on was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rcwlande NOES: COMMISSIONERS: lJone. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC ti'EARING. REGI[JA STRICKLIN, 1775 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0~ 668_ California, Owner; SAM NAKAMURA, 9821 Marian Avenue, Anaheim, California, A9ent; requestin~ permission to establish a convalescen{. hospital with waiver of minimum required rear yard on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel or land with a frontage of approximately 133 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a depth of approximately 295 feet, the eastern boundary ef said property being approximately 133 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue, and further described as 3213 West IIall Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICUI.TURAL, ZONE. Mr. Marko Botich, architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions, The Commission noted for the architect that on examination of the plans, it was determined that ihe accessways were minimal; that trash storage areas were inadeqvate, and trash would have to be picked up on the street frontage, which would be a step backwards, Mr. Botich stated that if the Commission felt the plans should be redesigned, this could be done very easily by the reduction of their proposed fi~~e-foot strip of landscaping to three feet, thereby increasing the drive to twenty feet, which would be adequate for access of pickup trucks. A letter from the Hospital Planning Association of Southern California was read to the Commission indicating that there was no need for the proposed convalescent hospital because of an overabundance of existing facilities in Orange County, and Anaheim in particular. 5 [ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2470 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission then stated that economics could not enter into PERMIT N0. 668 the Commission's judgment of the proposed use; only if a land use (Continued) problem existed, this could be considered. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commi.ssion tt~at subject property had a reclassification for C-0 Zoning, but this was rescinded at the request of the petitioner, and that the Commission could recommend to the City Council that Reclassi- fication No. 63-64-145 could be reinstated and re-advertised to be considered with Condi- tionai Use ~ermit No. 668. ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1514, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit `•,i^"~~ No, 668, subject to conditions, and provided that the plans were revised to indicate a minirnum k,~ , twenty-foot accessway by the reduction of the proposed five-foot strip of iandscaping, and ~~~ providing adequate trash pickup. (5ee Resolution Book.) ''~J On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~i ~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Cam~; Gaiier, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, ~., ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ~I . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEAf,i~:,. J05EPH AiJD BARBARA SAHAGEN, 12680 Kona Drive, Garden PERMIT id0_670 Grove, Cai:FO;nia, Owners; requesting permission to establish a hofbrau with on-sal~ ueer on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of iand with a frontage of approximately 144 feet on tl~e west side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of approximately 331 i~et, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 515 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 475 South Brookhurst Street, Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mro H. B~ Lehr, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had a 55-year lease on the property; that he had investigated the proposed operator of the nofbrau and was of tt,e opinion his other operations were operated as a compatible use to the small commercial center; *_hat he had discussed the recommended conditions to approval of the conditional use permit with the lessee, and that ~lthough trash storage areas were provided for the small shopping area, the iessee stated that he would provide his own trash storage area, if this was necessary; and that there was no plan for providing any entertain- ment in this hofbrau. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the agent for the petitioner that if the Director of Public Works deemed the existing trash storage area as adequate, no additional provision ; would be necessary, but ;;hat most of the buildings in the area were developed while ihe ~ property was under the jurisdiction of the County, and that C-1 Zoning had been approved I for subject property without any conditions attached~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 1515, Series 1964-65, and moved fcr its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 670, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) Un roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowl3nd. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: None> i RECLASSIFICATION - COfJTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WTLLIAM J. M~ESSECAR, 446 South Poplar Street, N0. 64-65-71 Brea, California, Owner; SAMUEL HUMPHREY, 1875 Poinsettia, Long Beach, F• I California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel VARIANCE_N0~ 1678 of land with a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a depth of approximately 450 feet, the western boundary of subject property being approximately 454 feet east of the centerline of ;~':~ Brookhurst Street. Subject property is divided into Portions A and B: Portion A- being -~ a rectangular parcel with a frontage of 132 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a depth ~ of approximately 240 feet; Portion B- being approximately 132 feet by 210 feet in size and j- lying immediately south of and adjacent to Portion A, the northern boundary of Portion B ~ * Ueing approximately 270 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently ;~ ~ classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANfJING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2q~1 RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CLF~SSIFICATION: C-2, GENERAL COMMERCItiL, ZONE ON PORTION A. N0. 64-65-71 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE ON PORTION Bo VARIANCE NOo 1678 (Continued) RcQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER ON PORTION B ONLY OF (1) ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONED PROPERTY; (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD; (3) MINIMUM DISTAI~E BETWEEN TWO PARALLEL FACING WALLS OF THE SANfE BUILD- ING; AND (4) MINIMUM WIDTH OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY, to establish a 22-unit apartment development on Portion B, and a restaurant :,;~~ with on-sale liquor and retail stores on Portion A. , ;i _E; , Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of ianuary 4, 1965, to a11ow the petitioner •~~ time to submit revised planso Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a:equest had been received from the petitioner requesting a t~vo-week continuance in order that the plans submitted to the Staff might be reviewed at the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting~ -• Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue the hea:ing of Reclassification No. 64-65-71 and Variance No. 1G78 to the meeting of February 15, 1965, as requested by the petitioner for the submission of revised plans~ Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATIOIJ - PUBLIC HtARING. COSTA MESA SAVINGS 8 LGAN ASSOCIATION, 1859 Newport I~0.~64 65_SE? ~ Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California, Owner; DAVID Wo HOOK, 1766 West Lincoin Avenue, S~~ite A, Anaheim, California, Hgent; property described VARIANCE NO_ 1684 as: k rectangul~:ly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi- mately 385 feet on the west side of :3rookhurst Street and a depth of approximately 3GG feet, the northerr. boundary of said property being approximately 660 feet south of the center~ine of Crescent Avenue, and further described as 411 North Brookhurst Street: Property presentiy c~assified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGF:rORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM I-~IGHT LIMITATION WITHIN ;i0 FEET OF R-A PROPERTY~ - Mr,: David Hook, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the - proposed development, noting that a survey had been conducted which indicated that certain ; retail activities were absent irom the a=ea, and it was proposed to provide these retail services; that about one-third of the proposed office structure had been leased; that they had been unsuccessful in obtaining any firm commitments on the high-rise apartment structure formerly requested; and that it was his understanding that the variance was necessary to provide for the parapet covering the air-conditioning units on the property~ A colored rendering of the proposed retail office b~:lding was viewed by the Commission, which indicated the type of architecture being proposed.. ~oning Coordinator Robert Mickelson, in clarifying the requirement of a variance, stated the petitioner would not have needed the variance for just the parapet te cover the air- conditioning units, but because the proposed structure would be less than two-to-one ratio from the boundaries of the R-A property~ The Commission advised the agent that the plans did not indicate the required thr2e-foot strip of landscaping abutting the sidewalk, to which Mr, Hook replied that it had been his assumption that trees and tree wells were all that were required, but that he would stipulate to revising the plans to include the re~uired three-foot strip of landscaping after it was noted he was providing more than sufficient parking spaceo In response to Commission questioning relative tc the type of drive-in restaurant proposed, Mr. Hook stated it was proposed to have a"Kentucky chicken-type, take-out restaurant"; that no facilities would be available for consummation of the food on the premises; that all orders would be for carry-out only; and that the proposed drive-in restaurant could not be considered in the same category as a normal drive-in restaurant, No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions, ,,~` THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' Mr. Mickelson advised the Commission that it would be wise to keep the variance active in ~ the event the revised plans encroached into the requirement of a two-to-one setback from „~ the R-A Zone, thus making it possible to handle administratively any slight deviation from the present planso F MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 19b5 2472 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1516, Series 1964-65, and NOo 64-65-88 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification VARIANCE NOo 1684 No. 64-65-88 be approved, subject to conditions, and the requirement (Continued) that the proposed drive-in restaurant shall be operated for carry-out service only as stipulated by the petitioner, and the stipulation of a three-foot strig of landscaping along the Brookhurst Street frontageo (See Resolutior. Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1517, Series ]964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1684, : subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONE~tS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IJoneo VARIANCE N0~ 1581 - PiJBLIC HEARING. DO!JALD AND JOANNE PAYNE, 2450 West Transit Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permissior. to waive the minimum required rear yard on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel oi land with a frontage of 60 feet on the south side of Transit Avenue, and a depth of 100 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 274 feet east af the centerline of Monument Street, and further described as 2450 West Transit Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, UNE-FAMILY RESIG::NTIAL, ZONE. Mrs. Joanne Payne, one of the petitioners, app~-ared before the Commission and reviewed the necessity for con=truction of an add~tion to the existing residence, further stating that it was not their ~9esire to have two-story construction since a similar type of addition was permitted in the tract, Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickeison advised the Commission there were a nur~ber of variances granted in the area for similar requests. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition., TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Allred ofiered Resolution No~ 1518, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1681, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: iJone~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ,,{ I RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. H.IRLEY AND BETTY HOSKINS, 205 North State Coliege Boulevard, ~ ~- iUOo 64-65-85 ~ Anaheim, California, and State College Medical Center, 215 North State 3~ ; College Boulavard, Anaheim, California, Owners; HERBERT D. TARLOW, 2008 ~ I CONDITIONAL USE East Lincoln Avenue, Hnaheim, California, Agent; property described as: l, i PERMIT N0. 664 An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately ~,. i 267 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 773 feet, extending westerly to Coffman Street where the frontage is 61 feet. The southeasternmost corner of subject property lies approximately 404 feet north of the centerline of Center Street (measured along the west side of State ;~ College Boulevard). Subject property is further divided into Parcels 1, 2, and 3: ~ Parcel 1- being an irregular parcel with a frontaqe of approximately 105 feet on the west ;` ~ side of State College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approxima~tely 350 ieet, as measured ?,~` alon9 the northern boundary of said Parcel 1~ The southeasternmost corner of subject parcel lies approximately 404 feet north of the centerline of Center Street, as measured along ;~ _ the west side of State College Boulevard; ~!x ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, F?bru.ary 1, 1965 2473 RECLASSIFICATION - Parcel_2 - being an irregular parcel lying immediately north of and N0~ 64~-65•-85 ~ adjacent to Parcel 1 and havin a fronta e of a on the west side of State College Boulevard andParmaximumldepth ofet CONDITIONAL USE approximately 581 feet9 as measured along the northern boundary of PERMTT N0~ 669 said Parcel 2o The southeasternmost corner of sub'ect (Continued approximately 510 feet north of the centerline of CenteraStreet,eas measured along the west side of State College Boulevard; and Parcel 3- being a rectangular parcel of land with a irontage of 61 feet on the east side of Coffman Street and a depth of appl~ximately 2~5 feet~ The northern boundary of said Parcel 3 lies approximately 149 feet south of the centerline cf Cypress Street; , and further described as 205 and 215 North State College Boulevard and 214 North Coffman ,' ~' Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ON PARCEL 1; C-0, COAM~RCIAL ;,~~ ,.,r OFFICE, ZONE ON P.ARCEL 2; AIJD R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE ON PARCEL 30 '~:k ; ~ ;<~{~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-iY NEIGHBORHOOD COMA~RCIAL, ZONE ON PARCEL 1, AND `~j P-1, AUTOMOBILE pqRKING, ZONE ON PARCEL 3~ `~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ~ARCELS 1 AND 2: TO ESTABLISH A MEDICAL CENTER AND HOSPITAL COM.pLcX WITH WAIVcn OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT WITHIN 150 FEET ;~ OF R-A PROPERTY~ Dr~ Herbert Tarlowy agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that the initial phase would have a 50•-bed hospital with facilities to expand to a 200-bed hospital in the future, and wouid facilities in the east Anaheim area where no facilities existede CrPrTarluwfthen~reviewed the location of the various hospitais throughout the city 3nd outlying areas in conjunction with freeway traffic and industrial development as it pertained to accidents., Dra Ta:low furt::er stated ihat ali hospita; facilities would be provided with the exception of "open heart surgery"; that active support had been voiced by the doctors in the area; the area w~s surrounded by C-1 uses; that ambulance service was provided two blocks north- erly o£ subject property; that most of the lots existing on Coffman Street were vacant, and the proposed use of one of the lots would be compiimentary with parking facilities for the hospital providing par.king for 145 cars, and that this iot would be for empleyee pa:king only~ The Commission noted for the igent for the petitioner that parking on Parcel 3 would :equire 60 degzee parking rather than the proposed 90 degree parking to be in compliance with r.he City Coiancii reso=ution on p~rking, and that since the amount of parking being provideci was far above zoning :equirements, the loss in the change of the parking layout would amount to only eight parking spaces~ The Commission further noted that the reauested P-1 Zone permitted multiple•-family residen- tial development; that the Commission might desire limiting the use on subject property to pa*king purposes only; that the Commission might also desire to require a six-foot masonry wall on the north, west, and south property lines to prohibit any vehicular access to and through a residential street; and that six iots northerly of subject property were presently landlocked, heving been provided with an easement for access to Cypress Street, but which couid not be developed for commercial purposes under the present landlocked situationo ~ Dr~ Tarlow stated they were interested in the possibility of expanding the hospital and have discussed with the owners of the parcels in question the possible purchase of the lots. The Commission then suggested the possibility of developing an Area Development Plan to devise some means to protect the landlocked parcels to the north of subject property ir, the event access was not obtainable for them from the property owner presently giving them accesso Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that Condition No~ 4 required that all access rights to Coffman Street be dedicated to the City. Further discussion was held by the Commission relative t~ establishing z parking lot in e residential zoney the requi~emen± of dedicat.ior! ;;;,; access rights, a solid, six-foot masonry wall along the north, west, and south property lines, revision of the proposed parking for Paicel 3, and prohibiting any possible gates being placed in the six-foot masonry wail in order to eliminate parking of cars by the employees or visitors of the hospital in a residential street, since this had been quite a policing problem in the pasto No one appeared in opposition io subject petitions, THE I-fEARING WAS CLOSEDo _..._,z MINtlI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2474 RECLASSIFICATION ~ In discussin9 the possibility of an Area Development Plan with the ',!0~~4~45-85 Commission, Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the C-1 or C-0 Zone required an alley to the rear of the property, CONDITIONAL USE but that the ailey in this instance would serve no purpose since it PERMIT N0~ 564,~ would have no outleta (Continued) The Commission then stated the Area Development Plan should indicate the elimination of an alley requirement as provided by Codeo Commissir,ner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1519, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and ado~tion, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Re~•lassification No~ 64~65-85 be approved, subject to the requirement of a six-foot :••-=~.. masonry wall on the north, west, and south property lines of Parcel 3 prior to the reading 6P of an ordinance of Parcel 3, and conditions> ~ (See Resolution Booko) ,~ On roll cali the foregoing resoiution was passed by the followin vote: ~ 9 ;j i' A1'~S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ 1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ,:~ _ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ i520, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage .I• and adoption, secor,dud by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 669, subject to condi±ions, and the requirement of a six-foot mason~•y wall on the west, `1 north, and south bou~daries of Parcel 3, prior to the reading of an o~dinance reclassifying ~ P3~ce13 to the P-1 Zon~. (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: . i AYES ; CONWiISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOESs GOMMISSIONERS: ~~one~ I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~ i i DIkECTIVE TG TNE PLAN~~ING DEPARTMENI': - Commissioner Row:and offered a motion to direct ~' AREA DEVc1.OPb~NT PLAN the Planning Department to , .__~___----------------------- prepare an Area Develop- . ment Pian for the six landlocked parce7~ r>orth of : the property considered under Reclassification - No, 64-65~-SS to eliminate the possibility of an ;~ ' +iley requirement since the alley would have no particular use~ Commissioner Perry seconded the ~ motion„ MOTION CARRIEll~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-~pRIiJG~ ICI.A AND FRANCIS DOWLING, c/o Miller Investment .~ NO.,r64 65_86____ Company, :040 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owners; :'1 LEROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; i VARIANCE N0,__1682 property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land ap~:oximately ' 9~9 acres in size, having a northern boundar fronta e of a ~ Y g pproximately 539 feet on the sout:; side of Crowther Avenue a•id a south boundary front- age of approximately of 541 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, the northwestern- most corner of said parcel being approximately 841 feet east of the centerline of Dowling ~ Street, as measured along the southern boundary of Crowther Avenue~ Property presently classified R•-A, AGRICULTURAi, ZONE~ REQUESTF.D CLASSIFICATION: R•-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDclJTIAL, ZONE. I I REQUESTcD VARIANCE: WAIVER OF SINGLE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN !50 FEET OF R-A ~ ~ ZONED PROPERTY AND WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED YARD AREAS. i ~ Mr< LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the i proposed development, noting that the City Council had alread a y pproved subject property ~ for R-3 Zoning; that the trend of apartment development now was geared to larger complexes ` I rather than the garden-type apartment criginally approved; that the attorneys for the ;, petitioner were negotiating to terminate the R-3 subdivision tract for the westerly portion of subject property originally approved for R-3 developmenta Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that subject property was •; originally approved for a condominium, later the property was again subdivided into two ; parcels, one C-1 Zone and the other R-3; thaL bo±h the westerly property and the approved ~~ R-3 subdivision to the east are dependent upon circulation ~_ subdivision on sub'ect proposed in the original ] property; and that if the tentative tract were terminated, a ~ ~ serious circulation problem would resulto "'~ A letter of opposition from the City of Placenti.a was iead to the Co~rmission~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - . --- - ~ _ .__ _ ~ ~ • ,. _ -- - .~, _ - a • C MINLRES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~, February 1, 1965 2475 pi.-+~;~ 8:~~ , ~'~ b ri. r~ ~ ~ ,~ 'i f I. I ' ~ * ~ ~ ti ~ i ~ ~ .~ ~ r~c~ d - •-- RECLASSIFICATION •- Mra Rose stated that the petitioner was contemplating the sale of N0~ 64,~5-8~~ portions of his property but would accept the resonsibility of officially terminating the tentative tract approved on subject and VARIANCE_NOa 168~ the abutting property to the westo (Continued) Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that properties to the east and west were dependent upon two stub streets from subject property, as originaily proposed on the tentative tract; that tne Commission should determine if some resolution were made relative to the stub streets as they affected the abutting propertiesq that he had discussed the possibility of termination of ttie tract with the engineer, who stated he had no knowledge of any proposed revisions or termination of the property to the sast under Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5389, but indicated the deve~oper might be agreeable to a revised tentative tract map which would eliminate ail access to subject property, but nothing was received in writing or stated conclusivelyo The Commissior, then reviewed the final tract map on subject property, together with the property to the east originally approved for multiple-family development, and noted the circulation pattern for each were dependent upon each other, and inquired of Mro Daw whether or not any recent plans h°~? been received for the easterly portiono htro Daw stated that nothing had been developed on the property to the east, but a planned unit development was approved, contin9ent upon having access through subject propertye ~r.~a., ~ ,. Mr, Fair'as~s.an, real estate broker, appeared before t;:e Commission and stated he was handling subject propertY3 that he had some knowledge of the property to the east, but was not aware that a street to provide circuiation was proposed since the parcel was not large enough to have a fuily dedicated street~ Mr~ Daw stated that the tract to the east had a 53-foot access road through to subject property, and aii proceedings on the p:operties to the east and west would have to be terminated if s~bject petitions were approved~ ru }, n .; Mr. Fair.ba-~an ;tated he hid not been aware of this access road, that the proposed project was ready for deveiopmer.t, 3nd no pians were a~ai:ab:e t~~ d•~~•-~iop the property to the east and the west„ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated the Commission had the alternative of requiring or :e,;uesting that adjoin?ng property owners invoived in the circu_ation of subject and :~butting properties review the probiems under conside:ation; that the Commission can state tha± subject property couid not be deveioped as proposed uniess proceedings of properties to the east and west were terminated, or revised plans have been submitted, and that the Commission migF.t consider a short continuance for the Planning Department to have a con- ference witti the property owners., The Commission noted that the variance was to request waivei of the required yard areas on all bu± two lotsy and th~t the Staff could h~ve presented a more clear picture relative to the exert waiver req,uirements~ Mr~, Mickelson stated that the petitione: was proposing two-story str~~ctures with access requiring 15-foot side yazds, but proposing only i4 feet, and that some of them were only 19 and 11 feet, whete adjacent to the alley~ Mr~ Rose stated that the design of the structure was in accordance with all R-3 Code requirements„ Mr~ Mickelson then advised the Commission a clarification wouid be made in the next Staff Report if subject petitions were continued., Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the hearing of Reclassification Noo 64-65-86 and Variance No~ 16&2 to the meeting of February 15, 1965, in order to allow the Planning Department time to confer with the adjacent property owners relative to the circulstion problem if subject petition were approved~ Commissiuner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CHRRIED~ ~ ~INUfES, CITY PLANNING COh1MISSION, Feb:uary 1, 1964 2476 RECLASSI:'ICATION ~- CONTINUED PUBLIC H~ARING,. SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY, N0~ 64•65•-25 3000 East South Street, Long Beach, California, and CONSGLIDATE^ ROCK PRODUCTS, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, 2730 South Alameda Street, Los Angeles 54, California, Ownersg D~ 0~ MICHAEL,S, p, p, Box 432, Orange, California, and J. LILL~NHITE, 11511 Prospect, Orange, California, Agents; requesting that propert~~ described as: An irregular parcel of land with frontages of 75 feet on the west side of Fee Ana Streety 620 feet on the east side of Richfield Road, and 187 feet on the west side of Richfield ~oad, said property having a maximum east- west dimension of 2,250 feet, the southern boundary of said oroperty being the Santa Ana River, and the northernmost point of said property being 1,300 feet south of the center- line of Walnut Street, said property containing approximately 40 acres of land, be reclassified from the M-1, LIG}~' INDUSTRIAL., ZONE to the NRC, N4TURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATIQ~, ZONE~ Subject petition was continued from the meetings of September 14, November 9, and December 7, 1964, at the request of the petitioner„ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that since the Commission and Council had not form311y adopted an NRC Zone, subject pe~ition could neither be approved nor disapprovedq that 311 facets of controlling the naturai resources and conservation would be cove:ed under the conditional use permit section and Title 17 of the Anahsim Municipai Code; that the petitioner had already iiled a conditional use permit to be considered by the Commission at the February 15, 1965 meeting; and that it would be in order to terminate all proceedings on subject petition., Co~~issioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that all proceedings on Petition for Recl3ssification No, 64•-65-25 be terminated, based on the fact that the City oi Anaheim did not have a Natural Resources and Censervation Zone, and, therefare, the reclassificat~on could not be granted, Gommissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTI01~ CARRIED~ RECESS - Commissioner Allred offered 3 motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion„ MOTION CARRIED„ The meet:ng recessed at 4.00 o~clock p~m. RECONVENE - Chairm3n Mungali reconvened the meeting at 4:10 o'ciock Commissioners bein. P,.m~~ all g present~ RECLASSIFICATTON - PUBLTC I-~ARTNG., RURRUEL LAND CO.MPANY, P., 0~ Box 1217, Whittier, ~)0 _64_65 87 ___ California, Ownez; WILLIAM D. LUSK, P„ 0. Box 1217, Whittier., California, VARIANCE n~~~ A9ent~ Property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land at __ 1680 the southeast corner of Santa A~a Canyon Road (Riverside Freeway) and Crescent Drive; subject property consists of approximately 42.,6 acres TENTATIVE MAP OF and has a frontage of approximately 295 feet on the south side of the TRACT NO~, 5674___ Sant~ Ana Canyon Road (Riverside Freeway) and extends southerly t~ the ncrlr:arly boundary of the proposed extension of Lincoln Avenuey the eastern boundary of subject parcel lies approximately 2,942 feet Kest ONE-i~AMILY SUBURBAN~fandeRAqahAGRICL'LTURAL~,dZONES,property presently classified R-0, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: r~-1, CNE-FAMIiY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ RFQUESTFp VA4:AP~CE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH~ GEVL-!UFER: LUSK CORPORATIUn~, 10522 Santa Gertrudes AvenUe, Whittier, Caiifornia~ EIJGINEER: Hopen, Hedlund ~nd Darby, Ircorporated, 3030 West Main Street, Alhambra, California, proposi.ng 208 R•-i Zoned lots~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that at the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting innumerable problems were noted in the propesed tract, and it was the recommendation of the Staff that subject petitions and tentative tract be continued until February 15, to resolve all the problems encounteredo Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 64-65-87 and Variance IJoa 1680 and Tentative Map of Tract No~ 5674 to the meeting of February 15, 1965, in order to allow the developer time to revise the tentative tract in conformance with the requirements of the Interdepartmental Committee~ Commissioner Perry seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDo MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2477 CONDITIUNAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING~ CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CUMPANY, PERMIT N0~665_ P, G, Pnx 2950, Terminal Annex, Los Angelesy California, Owner; G~ H~ WEBcH, P, Oo Box 2950, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to expand the operations existing to the south of subject property which involve the excavation, processing, storage, wholesaling, and distribution of sa~~, yravel, and other non-fuel minerals excavated on the premises only on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 419 feet on the west side of Richfield Road, and a maximum depth of approxi- mately 9'16 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 1,090 feet south of the centerline of Wslnut Street~ Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZON,F., M~'o G, H~ Weber, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that ail evidence presented on subject petition had been considered by the Commission at the previous hearing~ that since the Cit~ Counci: had apprcved an ordinance permitting the proposed uses by a condition3l use permit and Title 17, subject petition was in order; and that he would like consideration relative to street lights and street trees being waived temporarily at this time., The Commission noted th3t on their field inspection trip of subject property, the f~nce _ had been viewed as erected, and it was the feeling very iittle irt~rovement could be rr.ade with additionai landscaping~ Mra Weber stated the new ordinance required landscaping on the front of the fence, whereas they preferred to h~ve the landscaping on the inside of the fence a=_ a safety feature, since shrubbery grew at various heights, and this would be a detriment with children in the area jumping from behind the landscape shrubbery~ Mro Weber then p:esent photographs of shrubbery erected in front of the fence, and also shrubbery behind the fence, with the fencing beina on the property line~, It was noted by the Commission that subjec~ property was the oniy oi;e having any improve- ment, and there was a possibiiity that Rich.`ield Road might not be continued across the Santa Ana River~ Mr, Weber further stated it was not his intention to ask for a permanent waiver of the I.andscaping bec3use it was their intent to deveiop this as the street was improved, but he could also see no ie~son for improving the street with curb and gutter because of the uncerteinty as to TUtU:e extension and develupment of Richfield Roada Office Engineer Ar±hur Daw advised the Commission that normaiiy bonds could be posted for streei imprcvement up to six. months, but the Commission might desire to approve a two-yea: bond; that Richfield Road had been abandoned across the river because the Orange County Water District wouid not permit it because of the limitation of the numbPr of streets spanning the river; and that the dedication was indicated as such because un~9e.r Reclassi:~cation No~ 64~65-25 the dedication was recommended forthe ~uily-Miller property, and subject property was adjacent~ Mr~ H, R„ Stokes, attorney for the petitioner, aFPeared before the Commission and stated that since his firm was presently digging in the area under a County permit, with permis- sion to use Fee Ana Street for a two-year period~ that an eight~acre parcei will have been completely dug by that ~ime; that at the time these properties were developed, the holes would not have been fiiled, and dedication for Richfield Road could be required at that time; that with the resolution of intent for tneir property, the L'ity could require dedication foi sireet widening purposes in ±he M-1 Zone; and that the alignment of La Palma E~venue wouid in no way affect subject propertyo Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickeison indicated on the General Pian to the Commission the general alignment of La Palma Avenue~ Mra Victor Peltzer, 7002 South Richfield Road, appeared before the Commission and stated the County required improvements be made north of La Palma on Richfield Road, and the petitioner should likewise be required to dedicate and improveo Considerable discussion was then held between the Commission, Mre Peltzer, the attorney for the petitioner, Mr~ Mickelson, and Mro Daw on the possibility of dedication, street improvement, street lights, and street trees, Mro Daw concluding that if the circulation element of the General Plan were amended to include Richfield Road as an exception, then consideration might be given to waiver of improvements, etco Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that the deeds of easement wouid be required; therefore, it might be difficult to indicate this on the General Plan, and that the posting of a bond was the only solutiono ~. F MINUTES, CITY PLANNIhG COMMISSIO~, February 1, 1965 2478 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr~ Peltzer then stat.ed that the Commission should give consideration PERMIT N0~ 6u5 to setting specific hours of operation, since other similar operations (Continued) approved by t~e County had hours regulated from 7:00 aame to 7:00 p.ma; that subject property was operating until 10:00 pamo; and that the conditional use permit approval could be contingent upon hours of operation~ ~ , `.~ t ~ '* ¢~~ ,~ Liscussion was then heid by the Commission and the attorney for the petitioner relative to hours of operation, and it was finaily determined by stipulation of the attorney for the petitioner that the hours of 6:00 aam~ to 7:00 p~m~, including trucking operations, would be acceptableo THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No> 1521, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Cnnditional Use Permit No~ 665, subject to houzs of operation by stipulation of the peti~ioner of 6:00 a~m~ to ~:00 p~m~, including trucking operations; posting of a two-yee.r bond to insure the street improvements9 that the location of the chainlink fence along tlie property line w~s not to be construed as a policy of the Cortunission, but due to the existing circumstances in the area~ this would be an ~llowable factor; and that subject petition te subject to all reqiiirements of the recently approved ordinance governing natural resources and conserva±ion operations in the conditional use permit section and Title i7„ On roll caii the foregoing reso~iution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEP.S: Aiired~ Camp, G~uer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland„ NOES: COMMISSIOMERS: Dlone, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rone, DIRECTIVE TG TF!E PLAN~'I~!G DEPARTME~!T: - Commissioner Rowland o:fered a motion to direct the Planning Department to review the circulation element of the Generai Plan in the area in which Richfield Road was located, as wel: as subject property in Conditionai Use Permit Noo 665, with the thought of reducing the street width or the possibility of abandonment of said streete Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion,. MOTION CARR IED~ RECESS - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recess tt~e meeting for dinnero Commissioner Perry seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED~ The meeting recessed at 4:55 o'clock p~m. RECONVENE - Chairm~n Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:00 o'ciock p~m~, all Commissioners being present~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC NEARI~.~~ CHRYSLER CORPORATION, c/o MacMahon, Nelson R Tilse~, PERMIT NG~_~71 1965 West• Crescent Avenue, Suite 560, Anaheim, California, Owner; MacMahon, Nelson 8 Til.son, 1965 West Cresr,ent Avenue, Suite 560, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish an educaiiona~ and•;cca'.ionaltraining center, including a residence hall containing 186 two•-room suites on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated north and west of the service station si±e at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Streetg subject propert~ has a total area of approximately 14,4 acres and has frontages of approximately 414 :eet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and approximately 1,165 ;eet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp, and further described as 1111 North Brookhurst Streete Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL. ZONc, Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the agent for the petitioner requesting that all proceedings be terminated with the withdrawal of subject petition, and read the letter of withdrawal to the Commission~ Mr~ Forrest Allen, 2238 West Falmouth, appeared before the Commission representing several groups of property owners in the area opposing subject petition, and submitted petitions signed by 1,429 property owners opposing subject petition. The Commission secretary indicated eighteen letters of opposit~ion had been received on , subject petition~ ~ MINUTES, CITY P~ANNII~G COh1MISSION, February 1, 1965 2479 COIJDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1522, Series 1964-65, and PERMIT N0. 671 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, (Continued) to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 671, based on the fact that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area; that the granting of the conditional use permit would be detrimental to the peace~ health~ safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; that the proposed use would be incompatible to the existing single-family residential development to the north and east of subject property; and that the petitioner requested termination of the petition based on the fact that there was considerable adverse public opinion relative to the proposed use. (See Resolution Book.) .,.,-~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ' ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONHRS: ;Vone. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC i-~ARING~ HUGH B. AND MARTHA V. SPRAGUE, 757 North East Street, N0~ 64-65-89 _ LEONARD L~ AND NELLIE H. EGGLESTON, 755 North East Street, and JOHN G. _, AND ELIZABETH SPIELMAN, 747 North East Street, Anaheim, California, CONDITIO!JAL USE Ownerss PAGEANT REALTY, 2020 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, PERMIT NC. 672 Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the soutnwest corner of North Streei and East Street, with frontages of GEtJERAL PLAN 164 feet on North Street and 225 feet on East Street; subject property AMENDMEM NO., 50 is further divided into Portions A and B: Portion A- being the north 155 feet of subject parcel, and Portion B- being the south 70 feet of AREA DEVELOPA~ NT subject parcel, and further described as 757, 755, and 747 North East PLAN NOa 17 Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQU~STED CLASSIFIC,A7ION: C-i, GENERAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE ON BOTH PORTIONS A AND B. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PORTIOtJ A- ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION AT TI-IE INTERSECTION OF A LOCAL STREET AND A SECONDARY HIGFiVJAY WITHIN 75 FEET OF R-1 PROPERTY; PORTION H- 6VAIVER OF MAXIMUM 1-IEIGHI' LIMIT FOR A PROPOSED ; MARKET WITHIIJ 150 FEET OF R-1 PROPERTY AlJD TO -~ ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVEft OF - MINIMIIM REQUIRED PARKING. Area Development Plan No. 17 encompasses property bounded on the north by North Street, on the east by cast Street, and on the south by Wilhelmina Street. i Mr, Robe~t Ripple, attorney for the agent, appeared before the Commission and stated that at this time the peti~:uners wished ~owithdraw their request for a markei and a walk-up restaurant, but were still desirous of having the Commission consider approval of C-1 for both parcels with the service station on the corner since the elevations were submitted for the service station. Further, that in reviewing the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, his client was opposed to the requirement of a 20-foot alley ~ for the west and south property lines because to require this would be inconsistent with ~ any previous requirements for service stations in the area by the City; that with the dedication of a 20-foot alley, plus the requirement that additional footage be dedicated to the City for street widening of East Street, insufficient property would remain for the construction of the service station; that he had consulted with the Department of Putlic Works relative to the dedication for East Street and had been informed that the i Table of cxceptions of the circulation eiement or" the General Plan approved by ~he City Council in Reso;ution No. 6111, provided dedication of 33 ieet instead of 45 feet fTOm the centerline of Ezst Sti•eet, as recommended by ~h,e Interdepaztmentai Committee; and thai it was his under- ~ s*_anding that the main opposition would be for :he proposed market and walk-up restaurant. The Commission informed tha agent for the petitioners that the Commission had denied i both service stations at North and East Streets, and that with the advent, of La Palma Avenue overcrossing the railroad tracks, the Public Utilities Commission would require that North Street be "dead-ended" at the railroad tracks, thus making North Street a cul-de-sac street just two blocks west of the proposed service station. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission this was the stand the Public Utilities Commission would take, ~nd that they would require that North Street be closed over the railroad tracks if the extension of La Palma Avenue over the railroad tracks were consummated. ,,~'r!~'-,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2480 RECLASSIFTCATION - Mro Andy Anderson, 741 North Rose Street, appeared before the Commission H~o 64-65-89____ and stated his property abutted sub'ect sub'ect ~ ProPerty, and he was opposed to J petitions, although the withdrawal of the walk-up restaurant and CONDITIONAL USE market had eliminated some of his opposition; that he was a firm believer PERMIT NOo 672 in the property owner having the right to develop his property to its highest and best use, provided, however, that he did not interfere GENERAL PLAN adversely with the development or environment of the area in which it ANENDMENT NOa 5~ was located; that from observation he had noted that within an area of one mile on East Street, ten service stat3ons were already in existence, AREA DEVELOPN~M' with an eleventh one having been recently approved; that he doubted PLAN NOa 17 seriously that any other city in the County of Orange would have a (Continuedj-` pr;mary or secondary street with that many service stations within one mile; that if the proposed service station were approved, this would be a further encroachment into the residential integrity of the area, and would have a detrimental aifect on the residential characteristics and value of properties in the area, since the only commercial uses along East Street were service stations, to- gether with two shopping areas at the extreme north and south, extending from Lincoln Avenue northerlyo It was further noted that the petitioner was requesting the Commission to enforce economic obsolescence on the neighbors by the change in character of the use, legislative inaction, and proximity to nuisance if subject petitions were approved; that all the resi- dents and homeowners in the area were concerned and wondered what would happen to their properties as a result of an approval; that a property owner had only one chance to fight before a governing body before the economic obsolescence took place; that the seventeen people owning properties on Rose Street purchased their homes six and one-half years ago, and the last thought that had entered their minds was the possibility this would become a commercial area; and that, therefore, the Commission must decide what the highest and best use of the land was without detrimentally affecting the adjoining property owners in forcing economic ob:solescence on them~ Mr, Robert Brambley, 752 North Bush Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated that in addition to the comments made by Mr, Anderson, it was the duty of the Planning Commission to consider the economic growth of the community in rendering their decision - whether or not proper land use should be considered - or anything else; that a number of the service stations have had a number of lessee operators, and based on statements made by a number of the operators, it was impossible to make a finan- cial ~uccess of the service stations on that streets this, then, meant there was always the possibility of having undesirable elements operating and frequenting these service stations; and that because of the eiforts of the Commission and City Councii, the City of Anaheim had become an economically sound areae Further, the Dunn and Bradstreet rating indicated that service stations and restaurants had the greatest number of business failures of any busi- nesses in the countryo Mre Frederick Jeter, 1028 Eas•c North Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated his property adjoined the proposed service station to the west~ that in his opinion, the appearance of a:esidentiai area should be taken into consideration; that service stations did not add to the livabili:y of a neighborhood, since one could observe from the appearance of many of the service stations in the area they appeared more like a junkyard than a respectable business in the reeidential areas and that as long as these service stations must encroach into residential areas, they should be made to keep the appearance compatible and complimentary to the area. Further, there must be a better use for the property than an ugly service station; therefore, it was important to the residents and homeowners in the area to have some consideration from the City in rendering their decisions. Zoning Coordinator Roberi Mickelson advised the Commission that if the Commission desired, Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski would present the Area Development Plan. The Cormnission advised they preferred to have the Area Development Plan held in abeyance. Chairman Mungali inquired how many persons were present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petitions, and a showing of hands indicated twenty-five persons were present. TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSED. " The Commission then discussed the reque~t of an 2dditional service station on East Street. It was the opinion of the Commission that since they had opposed a number of others on this street, the compatibility of service stations in a residential area was still doubt- ful; that if subject petition were approved, this would mean the breakdown o: another intersec- tion for strip commercial development~ that if La Palma Avenue were to be extended across the railroad tracks, this would mean North Street would no longer be a through street;and , that all the homes along the west side of East Street were well-kept, and no evidence had been presented to indicate any change in approving commercial development for both the ~ east side and west side of East Street. .,~x . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2481 ~• ,.-~s~:~ ~'~ ~ , Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, 1525, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that General i Plan Amendment Noo 50 be disapproved, based on findings•. (See Resolution Book~) _ Commissioner Rowland stated his abstination was based on the fact that there might be a possible conflict of interesto RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1523, Seri?s 1964-65, and N0. 64-65•-89 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification CONDITIOHAL USE Noo 64-65-89 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed use PERMIT'N0. 672 would introduce strip commercial development on the west side of East Street; that when the La Palma Avenue overcrossing was developed, the GEN6RAL PLAN Public Utilities Commission would require that North Street be cul-de- AMENDA~NT N0. 50 saced at the railroad tracks, thereby creating a street that would not be a through street; that the proposed use would be incompatible to yREA DEVELOPIu~NT the area; and that the proposed reclassification was not necessary or PLAN N0. 17 desirable for the orderiy and proper development of the community. (Continued) (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowiande Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1524, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 672. (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the fortgoing resolution was passed by the following voie: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COAIMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland., C j ..A* On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ NOES: COhU~IISSIONERS: IJoneo ABSENT: COh~dISSIUNcRS: IVone~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY T}iE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N0. 64~~5 20____ 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califortiia; proposing that property described as: All that certain property situated on the south side of AREA DEVELOPMEfVT Ball ~oad extending from Iris Street on the east to 128 feet west of PLAN NOWB_ the cenierline of Palm Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 116 feet be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDcNTiAL, and C-0, CON~RCIAL OFEICE, ZUNES to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMA~RCIAL, ZONE, Subject petiiion and Area Development Plan were continued from the meetings of October 19 and December 7, 1964, to allow tha Commission time to meet jointly with the City Council to determine a policy and possible plans for 2,700 homes fronting-on and siding-on arterial streets and highways within the City. Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski reviewed Area Development Plan No. 8 for the Commission, and then inquired whether the Commission was desirous of continuing subject petition and Area Development Plan until a more complete analysis of the front-on and side-an study could be made by the Staff and the Commission. It was further noted that the Commission had recommended disapproval of the C-0 portion of subject properties, but the City Council had approved the r operty based on the fact that it was their opinion the transition period was taking place, and directed the Staff to initiate the studieso The Commission was of the opinion that upon receipt of additional data from the Staff relative to the front-on and side-on study being prepared in conformance with the recommenda- tions of the City Council and the Planning Commission, another work session be scheduled ~ with the City Council to bring them up-to-date on the ro ram bein P 9 g proposed, and for a r. ~ MINUI'ES, CTTy pLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2482 RECLASSIFICATION - firm policy ;tatement to be made by the Council at that time. Further, N0. 64-65-20 that 2,700 homes could not all be converted into commercial uses, although the right to petition for reclassification was never denied AREA DEVELOPMENT any of the property owners. PLAN NOo 8 (Continued) Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to other cities prohibiting commercial uses of residences by requiring the residential structures to be removed, and the construction of adequate commercial facilities with adequate parking; that the existinq residences could not provide adequate parking as required by Code; that to resolve the possibility of excess noises adjoining these arterial streets, it had been recommended by the Commission that block walls be ~ constructed in the front yard similar to those constructed in the rear yard - that this G,TM.~.~ would give additional living area for residents, and might solve some of the problems ~i presently existing for homes on these streetse ~'; ~ : , Chairman Mungall inquired whether any of the property owners for subject petition were ~'{ present, and no one indicated their presence. ~; i Commissioner Camp effered a motion to continue the ji No, 64-65-20 and Area Development Plan No. B to thePmeeting~ofiMarch 1ec1965,finaorder :~ to allow the Staff sufficient time ;,o make a detailed study for possible adoption of a r~~ policy for the entire City, based an the r?commendation at the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council since the Commission was not desirous of taking any ~ action at this time until additional information had been submittede Commissioner Perry ~! seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED, ~~,,~ AREA DEVELOPA~IJT - PUBLIC HEARINGD INITIATED BY THE CITY PLAtJNING COMMISSION 0 PLAN ~'0_ 1~_____ Lincoln Avenue Anaheim California + 2 4 East ; development ;or those properties on~the~eastnsidefofSHarboreBoulevard, ,1 between Santa Ana and Water Streets~ ;~ "Background I '1-I On Janua.y 11, 1965, the Anaheim Planning Commission reviewed Petition for Reclassi- fication Noo 54-65-79, Af'ter rendering decision on said petition, the Commission directed the Plannin9 Department to prepare an Area Deveiopment Plan for the properties on the east ~ side of Harbor Boulevard, between Santa Ana Street and Water Street. ;~ _ The Area Developmeni Plan has been prepared and the results are as follows: ,•~ FINDINGS: ~i 'i lo The subject properties are presently used as low density single-family home sites. -_{ 2~ The land use surrounding subject properties consists of (See Land Use Quarter ~ Section Noo 73), ~ { a. Single-family homes oi medium density to the north, I :~ ! be Low density single•-family homes to the east. r ~ ? i c. A mixture of low density single-family homes and professional offices to the south. d, A mixture of low density single-family homes and professional offices to the west. ~ 3. The homes fronting on the west side of Harbor, directly across from subject properties, are included in Area Development Plan No. 2, which recommended the development of said ,I ; homes for commercial-professional offices and laid down the guidElines for development ~ of a secondary access system ±o serve the properties. ; 4. The General Plar has indicaaed the potential for commercial-professional office use ~- i of the properties fronting along Harbor Boulevard at this location. ~~ 5. The Planning Commission has a g pproved C-0 Zonin on three of the four northernmost parcels. 5. The subject properties are presently developed with curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, and a 4-foot wide parkway~ ~ '' ~ 7. All of the 'f parcels have vehicular access to Harbor Boulevard. However, a 15-foot wide, ~ unpaved alley exists at the rear of subject properties. ihe al.ley extends from Water ;~ 5treet northerly to Santa Ana Street, but the northerly 200 ~ feet of the alley is not ~ dedicatedo This alley could be dedicated and improved to City Standards and adequately ;,,,~. servc subject properties as a means of secondary accesso v I ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February l, 1965 2483 AREA DEVELOPA~NT - (Continued) PLAN N0~ 16 So A line of power poles runs along the westerly boundary of the existing alley. If the alley were widened, dedicated and paved, the City of Anaheim would undertake the responsibility of relocating the poles. 9. Dedication of the ultimate right-of-way for Harbor Boulevard (45 foot half-width) would reduce the front yard an additional 7,75 feet. However, this would still leave a front yard of 12075 feet. 10, After reduction of lot depth for dedication of Harbor Boulevard and the alley, the ~;y~~ lot depths will be 96.98 and the resultant lot sizes will be approximately 4,850 square feeto ~ 11. Code required parking could be provided at the rear of sub'ect garage structures and rear yard walls were removed. ~ properties if the 12o Using the tier of lots fronting on Harbor Boulevard for commercial-p=ofessional office use would allow parking for approximately 1,25G square feet of office space. '~ 13. Using lots fronting on Ha:bor Boulevard for commercial-professional office use and lots fronting on Helena Street for parking would provide: ao 3,000 square feet oc office space if one lot on each street were used. ; b~ 7y250 square feet if two adjacent lots on each street were usedo The width of the lots limits the design of a parking layout~ However, it is possible to acquire a more developable package when more than one frontage lot is used for the development site~ RECOMMENDATIOIJS : 1. That the properties along the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Santa Ana Street and Water Street be considered to have commercial-professional office potential and be developed as depicted on either: ~; _ Exhibit~'A" - Said Exhiioit depicts the use of one tier of lots fronting on Harbor, ultimate dedication for Harbor Boulevard (45 feet from center line), additional 5 feet of dedication for alley, and extension of the alley northerly to Santa Ana Streeto Exhibit "B" - Said Exhibit depicts the use of one tier of lots fronting on Harbor Boulevard and a tier of lots fronting on Harbor Boulevard and a tier of lots front- ing on Helena Street, ultimate dedication for Harbor Boulevard (45 feet from center line), additional 5 feet of dedication for the ailey, extension of the alley north- erly to Santa Ana Street, commercial-professional use of the Harbor frontage properties, with parking on the Nelena Street frontage properties, and a 6-foot high masonry wall with a 3~-foot wide planting strip adjacent to the sidewalk on Helena Street and Water Street sides of the parking area. 2o That at such time as the alley is completed, as recommended, the vehicular access rights to Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana Street, Water S'creet, .3~d Helena Street, except for alley openings, be dedicated to the City o~~ Anaheim~" It was further noted by Mr. Grudzinski that Area Development Plan No< 2 covered properties ; on the west side of Harbor 3oulevard which provided for secondary access on the rear of ~ those properties upon having reached an agreement with the school district for the completion ! of the alley from Watcr to S~,-ita Ana Street, and that the General Plan ro osed ~ office development for those p P professional ~ propertieso Mr. Fred Kirk, owner of property at 525 South Helena Street, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the statements made by Mro Grudzinski~ being of the opinion that Plan "B" was the only ,`easible means of development, but if the Commission was more favorably in- clined to Plan "A", that a six-foot masonry wall be required cn the east side of the alley to separate the commercial uses from the residential usese In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Kirk stated that access to garages for those properties fronting on Helena Street was from Helena Street and not from the alley; -~ therefore, the request for a six-foot masonry wall would be in order. * r. F MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1965 2484 AHEA DEVELOPiu~NT •- (Continued ) PLAN N0~ 16 Mr. Edwin J. Evans, i3352 Heather Circle, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission, stating he represented his parents, Mro and Mrs. A. Vandelden, 541 South Helena Street, and stated that the commentaries made by Mr, Grudzinski weie quite interesting, noting that if development of the parcels was made individually, this would only provide for a 1,250 square foot structure; that it was obvious that the adoption of Plan "A" would limit the development of the properties, but Plan "B" would give adequate parking for the bnilding of commercial structures on the Harbor Boulevard frontage, with parking on the oppo;,ite side of the alley; that the City of Orange was experiencing oroblems in the development of some of their streets because alleys were not provided, and that he --~~ recommended to the Commission that they consider Plan "B" favorablyo i The Commission was of the opinion that it might be advisable to have a land assembly of the small lots because it was aimost irt:possibie to develop the parcels singly because the price oi the :and in that area wouid necessitate having rentals in that area in excess of $400 pei nonth; and that Pian "3" would be an advisable plan to adopt if the Commission were to set ~p ar. a:e3 for redeveiopmei,t for office uses only~ _ Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the City had a Redevelopment Ager.:y; that Plan "B" was a logical choice and would be economically feasible, but consideration should be taken of the fac+: that no parking would be permitted on Harbor Boulevard in the very near future, and +3dditional access to the alley portion should be indicated on an Area Development Plan scmewhere in the middle of the block in order that fullest utilization of the commerciai office use and the parking would be made. Mr„ Aksai Oas, 531 South Hel~~na Street, appeared before the Commission and stated it was very difficult to make any dec~sion on ±ne short presentation made on Area Uevelopment Plan No. l6; that it wouid be wise tor the Commission to consider continua~ion so that all the property owners in the area could give further thought to the plans presented; that in his es±imation, Plan "B" seemed to be the only plan worthy of consideration; th?t since Harbor Boulevard was the main street to Disneyland and was in the heart of . thz proposed Center City Area, redevelopment of those lots fronting on Harbor Boulevard with commercial structures was most practical for the City, as well as investors who would be interested in that area; and that upon development of the Center City Area. ;' this would be one of the most presentabie areas for visitors to the City of Anaheimo _ Mr~ Austin Mosgay, representing J•, C~ Emmons, 546 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and inquired of the Commission whether it was permissihle in the C-0 Zone for parking to be separated from the main building, to which the Commission ~ replied the C•-0 Code permitted off•-site parking within 300 feet of the existing structure; that sever~l stores in ihe City were already providing parking which was not adjacent to the stores'' ioia*.i~~: and inat Area Development Plan No~, 16 was not a reclassification procedure, but was a means of possible development of those properties fronting on Harbor Boulevard, and all property owners adjacent to those properties were notified to voice their sentiments~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that if subject Area Develop- ment Plan were continued, it would mean the plan would not be available for the City Council to consider in conjunction with the recently recommended-for-approval Reclassi- fication Noo 64-65•-79, since the proposed parking lot was less than 20,000 square feet~ Further, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the Commission had not officially seen the rPVised plans on the southwest corner of Santa Street and Harbor Boulevard; that from his understanding the petitioners were proposing to increase in density the us2 of the land, and because of this, could not meet Code requirements for parking - this was basicaliy the reasoi for obtaining the property on the east side of the streeta Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the consideration of Area Development Plan No~ 16 to the meeting of March 1, 1965, in order to allow time for the property owners concerned in said Area Developmert Plan to study the data presented at the hearing. Commissioner Camp seconded tne motione MOTIUN CARRIED. ~ .__ .,, _ -- ,.- -- ....~-- ~- .. ~ __ . ---- - - - __ - , MINUTES, CIIY PLA~NING COMMTSSIO~, February lY 1965 2485 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Noe 598 - Adeline Thompson Fechter, et al. Proposed miniature golf course at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Magnolia Avenue~ Request for approval of additionai plans for the southerly portion of subject property in conformance with Commission Resolution Noo 1270, Series 1964-65, approving Conditional Use Permit No~ 598 on July 20, 1954a Zoning Coordinator Robert tdickelson advised the Commission that a condition of approval of the proposed miniature golf course on property located at the southeast corner of La Palma and Magnolia Avenues was that any development of the southerly portion should have plans reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit; that because of the nature of the development~ there were no structural building permits required for the southerly qortion, therefore, the appiicant had apparently overiooked the requirement to have Commission approval prior to development of that portion; that plans were presented marked Exhibit 1, Revision Noo lq ihat all requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code had been met; and it was recommended the Commission approve the plans for the develop- ment of the southerly portion of subject propertyo Mro Richard Hufft9 1801 North Bush Streety Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission _ and stated that final grading plans would be presented to the Engineering Office for approval, and that the highest point of the grading would be six feet on the southerly boundaries, which were located approximately nine feet from the property line, and then terraced down from that cornero Further, that the church adjacent to the property had requested a six.-foot masonry wall be constructed, which had been doneR that the property to the south had R-3, Muliiple~Family Residential9 Zoning approved, but up until the present time had not had yny deveiopment when it was still C-1 Zoning, which subject property had~ and that, in his opiniony he did not feei the proposed use would be detri- mental to the pzoperty to the south,. Commissioner Gamp offered a motion to jppre~~s pians for the southerly portion of property considered in Conditionai Use Permit No: 598, as required by the City Planning Commission in Resolution No-. 12?0, Series i964•-65, dated July ?0, 1964. Comrt~issioner Allred seconded the motion~ MUTION CARRIED„ ITEM ~'~ 2 Conditional Use Permit No~ 597 - Proposing the establishment ; of a picture projection theater with related shops, displays, _ and incidentel food services, serving customers and guests; aisc requesting waiver of the 35-foot height limitation on property located on West Street, approximately 3CG feet south of Bali Road, Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Conditional Use Permit No~ 597 to the Commission, indicating th~ petitioners requested an extension oi six months for the completion of conditions attached to Resolution No„ 1278, Series 1964-65, granting Conditional l~=e Pernit No, 597 on Juty 20, 1964:, It was further noted for the Commission that Condition Nos„ 1, 2, and 3 had a time limitation of 180 days, and that the dedication, street iight and street tree fees!~ad not been p3id as of this date~ further, that a bond had been mailed to the petitioners for improvement of sidewalks and driveway on West Street September 15y i964, but this had not been returned, and that no previous extensions of time had been requested~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for thecompletion of conditions in Resolution No~ 1278, Series 1964-65, dated July 20, 1964, approving Conditional Use Qermit No~ 597, said time limitation to expire July 20, 1965a Commissioner Alired seconded the motion, h4JTI0N CARRIF~, ~ ITEM N0, 3 ~ Conditional Use Permit Noa 302 - First Christian Church, 2216 East South Street~ Requesting extension of time for the existing useo ' Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson read a request from the East Anaheim Christian Church, signed by Hob Hunt, Chairman oi the Building Committee, requesting a one-year extension of time for the use permit~ed under Conditional Use Permit No. 302, namely, utilization of an existing building for church purposeso It was noted for the Commission that on September 17, ~ 1962, the Commission grant d the use of the existing structure for two years, with the stipu- 3 lation that any additionai time may be granted if the Commission so desired; that a 90-day , extension of time was gran and had expired on December 17, 1964; that dedication had be?n ~ made and improvement bond ha been posted; and that Conditional Use Permit No< 647 was granted a' on IJovember 9, 1964, for devet ent of the permanent church facilities in three successive „~. phases of constructiono ~ " 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February l, 1965 2486 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITcM NO_o 3 (Continued Commissioner ,towland offered a moti~r, io grant a one-year extension of time for the use of the structure located at 2:Io East South Street for church purposesa Commissioner Perry seconded `:~e ma~iono MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0~ 4 Orange County Plan-~ing Commission Communications. Withdrawal of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5757e Proposed location of the school in the Placentia Unified School District in the ~~~ Yorba Linda area~ Proposed precise plan of highway alignment for Orangewood Avenue, located in the City of Urange and the County. I: !: ;.; ~ ~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the communications received from the :~ County of Orange Planning Commission relative to the fact that Teritative Map of Tract '; Noo 5757 had been withdrawn by the subdivider; that the location of a proposed school was '~~ on the northeast side of the Yorba Linda Freeway in the Placentia Unified School District; ,~ and a map of the precise highway alignment of Orangewood Avenue in the City of Orange and ' in the County, were reviewed for the Commission, noting that no action was necessary by ' _, the Commissiono ,• Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to receive and file all Orange County Planning Commission communications~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. : t ITEM NO„ ~ Amendment io the Sign Urdinanc?~ I Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that an amendment to the 1 existing Sign Ordinance was in order, and requested that it be set for public hearing, 'I Commissioner rtowland offered a motion to set for public hearing an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. . Public hearing for said amendment was set for March 1, 1965~ ADJOURNN~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meetinge Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOT?ON CARRIED„ The meeting adjourned at 8:17 o'clock pom~ Respectfully submitted, i / %- ~: ' % .- ~`~'.~.1~-ti~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission ~ •'_'. .~: ~1 ', { F ~ *