The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1965/02/15City Hall Anaheim, California February 15, 1965 A REGULAR A~ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR It~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 ~- CNAIRMAN: Mungail~ ~`~ - COMMISSIONERS: Campj Gauer, Perry, Rowland~ i ~ ~ ABSENT •- COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ PRESENT ~ Zoning Coo~dinator: Robert Mickelson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Enqineers Arthur Daw Pianning Co7vmission Secretary: Ann Krebs °lanning Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg iNVCCATION - ComTZSSione~ Gauer 9ave the invocation~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perr~ led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of February 1, 1965, were approved as submitted, with the following correction: Page 2475, Paragraphs 5 3nd 7s the name should read "Fairbairn"~ CONDITIO~!AL USE - PUALIC f'EARI~G,. EL VEE, INCORPORATED, 200 West Midway Drive, Anaheim, ?ERMIT N0~ 673 Californi3v Owner~ I.. V., BOSTWICK, 200 West Midway Drive, Anaheim, Caiifornia9 Age;itg requesting permission to expand a tra~ler park on prope:ty described asa A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the southwest corner of Midway Drive and Zeyn Street, with frontages of approximately 114 feet on Midw~y Dzive and appzoximately 50 feet on Zeyn Street, and further described as i439 Sout:~ Zeyn Street:. Prope*ty presently classified R-i, ONE-FAIu~ILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE A1r„ I,~ V., Bostwick, 10FI1: FOS the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development~ In response to Comn;ission questioning relative to complying with conditions ai;tached in ' Reclassification No, 63•-64-i0~ on which a resolution of intent was approved by the City Council fo~ R-3, Muitipie-Family Residential, Za;e, for subject and adjoining properties,the a9ent sta~ed th.at his zeouest was for a~,se permit; that simila: uses were approved for subject and adjoining properties while subject property was under the jurisdiction of the County; and that 3 letter from his atto:ney exp:ained his position on the reclassificatione Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickeison reviewed the previous ection under Reclassification Noa 63-64-10, and read all correspondence from the petitioner°s attorney relative to the history of the trailer park when Conditional Use Permits Nos~ 349 and 457 had been con- sidered k~y the Commission~ Discussion was held by the Co;r,mission :elative to approving a use while subject prope_~y was still classified R-ii Singie-Family Residential, Zone; that since the reclassification for the property had not been completed, the Commission could not grant subject petition, since the C:.ty of Anaheim Cude would not permit trailer park use of R-1 property. iI ~ Mr. Mickelson further reviewed all the conditions of the resolution of intent for Reclassification Noo 63-64•-10, noting that mainly the dedication oi ~didway Drive and i~s improvement were requirede a Further discussion between the Commission and the agent for the petitioner was held relative to tht conditions ar.d the proposed use, the Commission noting that Mro Bostwick had appeared before the Commission a number of times, and the Commission had explained the requirements for reclassification in order to establish a non-conforming use in its most appropriate zonea It was further noted by the Commission that since the petitioner's ~ property and the adjoining properties had beer annexed into the City, the petitioner had acauired five lots which he had improved for trailer park use, but nad not reclassified the propertye ' -2487- ~ MINUTES, CITY PiANNI.NG COMMISSIONy February 159 :965 2488 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr, Mickelson advised the Commission that a letter from Attorney PERMIT N0~73 Heinley, representing the two property owners adjacent to the property (Continued) under consideration, indicated no opposition to reclassification in order that the records might be clear, but that approval of establish- ing a non-conforming use by conditional use permit would be opposedo Mro Bostwick was of the opinion that the reclassification was initiated in order to place the apartment development adjacent to the freeway frontage in the R-3 Zone, and incorporated his properties in these reclassification proceedings. , No one appeared in opposition to subject petition< " i"-~`'~, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ ~~~ ~ Conmissioner ?erry offered Resolution Noo 1527, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage ~`i and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Conditional Use Permit No, 673, contingent upon the petitioner compieting all conditions of Reclassification Noo 63-64-10 ~'.'i or the subnission and approval of a new reciassification petition for subject property{ ;; further9 that the conditional use p~rmit was aiso contingent upon the development of the -` property in accordance witli plans submittedo (See Resolution Booko) I~.~ ML*o Bostwick, in a•_kir,g ±he Co:r~;ission to cl.arify the approval of conditional use permit~ , was informed that the conditionai use permi± would apply to the pro~erty in question, and ~~ not 31i ihe prope:ties proposed for reclassification under Reclassification Noo 63-64•-10; ,'1 that any subseq::en*_ pa:cels wnich wo~:id be developed for trailer park use would be re- ~~,i ^~ui:ed to f~le a conditional .~se pern'.t.; pro•ided, however,, that the parcels were reclassi- f-ed to ±ne R-? Zone~ ;I ',^i On roii call the Foregoing reso:otior w3; Fassed by the following vote: '~ APESs C0~4MTSSIONERS: Ca;t,p.: '?:•~~e*; Mung3il, Perry, Rowlando ~. ; ; NOES: C0~4MISSIONER5: D'one, ;i AASEtJT; COMMISSIONERSs A11red, L Commissioner Camp left the Councii Chamber at 2:22 p,m~ -_I CONDITIO~AL i~SE •- PL'EI.IC HEARIIdG, ORANGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 6363 Wilshire PERMIT ~!0, (~'4_ Bo~..evardy I.os Angeles9 California, Owner; LOUIS WALTER, 1810 South Santa Fe, Comptony Cali.`ornia, Agent; requesting permission to establish a wax n:useum on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 243 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of approximateiy 40G ieety the northern boundary of said parcel being approximately 265 feet south of the cen*.erline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1850 South Harbor Boulevardo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~ Mr: Louis ~Naiter, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stating he was President of the International U~ax Museum Company; that their display was presently i on exhibit at tte New York World's Fairs and upon the closing of the World's Fair in the i Fall, the exhibit would be o:ough~ to southern California, and it was found that Anaheim ~ was the most desirable place to establish the wax museum~ In response to Commission questioning3 Mr~ Walter stated the proposed display would have . famous paintings,religious pictures9 and famous personages; that the building would be renovated ir; tne interiory ind it was planned to improve the outside with possibly a ~ facia frontege and sign, ' No one appeared in opposition to s~'~ject petition< I~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ ~ The Commission reviewed the proposed use9 noting that no plans were submitted, although it was proposed not to change the exterior of the develu~ment, and that the proposed use was in accordanc• with the Commercial-Recreation Areaa Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commisaion that any advertising signs ti~e petitioner proposed to ins~all would have to be in accordance with commercial signs permitted under the Sign Ordinance~ - Mro ~Nalter then stated he would submit plans of the proposed sign and would abide with ~ the required Sign Ordinancee Y~ . . .. .~ ... , . ... .. . . - -'- . ..._. .~_.~..._:. - . . ,- . __. ,.z . ~ ~: ~ ..: . . . ... . . ._,.. . _ ._.. _^:~--'-. - . ' --' ~ ' ~i.. , . a ~ MTNUTESS CITY PLAI~~IIf!G COMMISSION, February 15, 1965 2489 CONDITIORAL USE - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1528, Series 1964-65, PERMIT .NO_ 674_ and moved for. its psssage and adoption9 seco~ided by Commissioner (Continued) Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 674, subject to condiiions~ (See Resoiution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was Fassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauery Mungali, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~~one~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Camp~ ;. ,-~-,-. RECI.ASSIFICATION •- PUBLIC NEARI~G~ PAUL Y.~ nDID CLADA M,. PLETZ, 3302 West Ball Road, _~.__.~---- ~;~ l'- NO_ 64•- 5-9 Ansheimy Californiay Owners; CHARLES R~ FRANK 8 ASSOCIATES, 300 Wiishire, Suite 12, Anaheim, California, Agent, requesting that ',~~ property described as: A rectan ularl sha ed ,;~ a fronta e of a } g Y P parcel of land with ~ ~ 9 pproxima`eiy i00 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of app~oximateiv 250 feet, the eastern boundary of said parcel being proximately 325 21 ~ feet west of the centerline of Loara Street, and further described e. 1630 Wes* Lincoln :~ Avenue, be reclassified from t:te R~-A, AGRICULTURAi, ZONE, to the C-3, HEAVY CC?AMERCIAL, ~' ZOR~E, io establish addition3i p3rking facil:'ties for an automobile agency and a~u=ed car "~ sales io't,. `!. i Mr, Cha,ies Frank9 3gent for the pe=itioner, appeared before the Commission and stated ~ the McCoy Motor Sales needed addi.tionai space for display and parkin ab~e to acG~ire s~tjec± p:opert for that 9 Purposes and were `~ Y pGrpose; further, that he was in agreement •t wi.th the requzred condiiions of app~ov-si I ,~ No one appea*ed in opposi±io~, io subject pe~ition. j TNE HF.ARING W4S ~LOSED~ i Com~:,issioner G.~uer offered Resolutior, No. 1529Y Series i964•-65Y and moved for its passage :I and e~'op`.i.on; ser,er.aed by Co~missione~ P,owl~nd~ to recom~,end to the City Council that Petit?on fo•r Reclassifica±ior No, 64 65•-92 i;e approved, subject to conditions~ (See Resoiution Book „ ~ _ On roil C31: thE foregoing reso:ution was passed by the following vote: ,I 41'ES~ COMMISSIONF.RSY Gauer, Mungal!3 Pe,-rY9 Rowland~ ' NOES? COMMISSIO~ERS: ~~lone . j ARSEM : COMMISSIO~'ERSs 9lired, Camp,. VARIAnI~E r!0_ i685 •- P!~BLIi, HEARI~!G. FOREST iAW~ CEA~TEkY AS~CCIATION, 1712 South Glendale 4venuey Giendaiey California, Owner; requE~sting permission to waive the number of f:ee•-standir.g signs permitted and waive permitted loc3tion of free••standing signs foi• a proposed sign to be located in the center of Romneya Drive (a private sireeti i.~~.n.ediately west of Euclid Street on property described as: Two rectangulariy shaped parceis of land with a total and combined frontage of approximately 924 feet on the west sid= of Euclid Street south of the Riverside Freeway, Parcel 1•- being approximaiely 528 feet by 1,597 feet in size and having a northern boundary coinciding with the centerline of Romneya llrive (a private street), and Parcel 2- being approx.im3tely 396 fe~t by 937 feet in size and having a southern boundary coinciding wi~h the centerline er Romneya D;ive (a ~rivate street)e Property presently classi:ied C••l9 GENERAL COMMERCIAl., and R-3, MUL.TIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEM IAL, ZONES> _ Mr~ John So Garroway, engineer of the medical center, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed location of the sign, noting that extensive landscaping and irc~F:ove;nent would be placed on subject property also adjoininq the sign; further, that the _equested sign was not a new one, but was only for relocation, and in accordance with the existing Sign Ordinance, it w.- necessary to request a waiver of the number of free-st.;nding signs since it did ne~ ~' Code; that they had had difficulty in people being abie to loc~te the huspitai; ano ~ght that having the sign located at a more strategic point would assisi th~:,:; Furtt,t.,, it was his feeling the sign would not inter- fere with the flow of traffic on Romneya Uzive, a private street, The Commission then discussed the proaezties on the no.rth and south sides of th? private street, noting the Interdepartmental Committee was opposed to locating a private sign in the ultimate right-of••way of a street on which the petitioner had originally presented an offer of dedication, but which had not, as yet, been accepted by the City; that the proposed sign wouid be a hazard to heavy traffic, especially when ambulances ~.vould be using the emergency en±rance~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLAR~!ING COMMISSION; Febsu~ry 15y 1965 2490 VARIAhJCE ~0.. ~~8~ •- In response to Commission puestioningY Mro Garroway stated the (Continued)~ location of tne proposed sign had been recommended by thE srchitect as being a most ar~enable change and would be complementary to the f3cilitiess and that both the +ichitect and the en9ineer had surveyed the area and were of the opinion ihe proposed location would not interfere with traffico Office Engineer Arthur D3w advised the Commission that a~ the time subject petition had been r~viewed at the Interdep3rtmental Committee Meeting, the previous action of dedication of Romneya Drive was revie~ve:-~ for the meMbeis9 although the termination of the private street w3s within subject property, and the dedication had not been accepted by the City, it was the feeling of the Pub~ic Works Director that the proposed location of the sign would not be acceptabie by the City~ Comr,issioner Camp returned to the Councii Chamber at 2:33 pamo Mr~ Thomas Antionyy architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was his opinion ~tl:e proposed loc3tion wouid not be hazardeus to traffic, although the Commission seemed to be of the opi~:ion ±hat a hazard was being created, and he would respect any reco~r.mendation the Conrnissi.on night have~ ~ Discussion was then heid by tne Conunission .;elative to the relocation of the existing sign, noting that the City wou~d not permit the location of pri:ate signs in an ultimate public :ight•of••way., and su~gested the petitioner might place the sign on the southwest cozner of Romneys Dri~-e and Euciid Street since this would accomplish the purpose of the _elocation of the sign~ Deputy City 4ttozney Furm~n Roberts stated tr.at ~nder tiie present Sign Ordinance and Title _2 ib. pe:mission wou~d h~ve io be obtsined from the City Council to place a sign in a oubiic or fuT~.re ~ ight ~of-w~y, A1o one appea.ed in opposition tc subject petiiion. THE NEARING WAS CLOSED. : Conmissione- Ga~ez offered Resoiut:on No. 1530Y Series 1964•-65, and moved for its passage and adopt:on~ seconded by Comrt~issioner Perry, to g:ant Petition for Variance No. 1685, '. for the relcc~tion of !he exis±ing sign to either the southwest or northwest cor.ner of -_ the vacant propertyg ~';:rirer, ti~at the proposed relocation of the present sign which exzsts 3; 3 r,c;i confermino use•, does not constitLte setting a precedent for similar :ea~~ests fox reloc3tion of signs i.r. the futuie~ (See Resolution Booke) On roii c-~:i tr.e fo~eyoir~o _esoiui~on W!35 passed by the following vote: A~YES~ "OMMISSIONEkS: Gauer, Mangal.., Perryy Rowland, NOES: C~~MMISSIO~'ERS: i one, , ABSENTs C0:4MISSIOr'ERS: Allred~ ~ APST4I~; COMHISSIONERS: Cart:p, ~ I RECIASSIFICATIQN -~UPIIC HEARIi~G. ESTATE OF JONNA K., WARE, ROBERT K: WARE, EXECUTOR, ;.I n0"-Q4_65 93__A_ 720 Flighway 395, Fal_brook, California, Owner; STEPI-~N F. GALLAGF~R, i0,; ~~or:h Claudina St:eet, Suite 305, Anaheim, California, Agent„ '~ARIAPICF. N0, 1686 ~'roperty deseribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the • ~ southwesi cornez of Magnolia Street and Rowland Avenue, with frontages ~ GE~'ERAL PI.AN of apr~oximately i00 feet on Magnolia Str~~at and approximately 104 feet t: An~n~nr~.r!r N0.__51_ on Rowland Avenue, Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY '~i ; RESIDEN~'~Ai, ZONE:; I RFQUESTHD CLASSIFICATIOC;: C-1, GEI~ERAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE~ i REQUES7'ED VARIA!~'CE: WAIVER OF MI!~IMUM REQUIRED SETBACK ON A LOCAL STREET~ , Mro Ro W,. Middiebrooky repr?senting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the E Cortunission and :eviewed the proposed development, noting t4.a°, apartments weze located k~ r easterly, e school io the south, and commercial developmer,t to the north, and that the ~ proposed use was the most compatible use for the size of the propert and uses established in close Y+ given its location ~~'- ~ proximity to subject propertyo 'F~~ ~ ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions~ I TI-'F F~ARING WA5 CLOSED~ ~~ R ?.~ ~ I e MI~UTES, CITY PL.A.Nn'I.~~G COMMISSIO.N, February 15, 1965 2491 RECLASSIFICATION •- Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the N0,_64-65•_~?_____ piot plan l:ad two areas which did not conform with Code requirements; nameiyy that the C-1 Zone required a planting strip to screen the VARIARCE HO~, 1~8~ commerciai development from adjacent residential property, such as a Fedge or t~ees~ that ~f this was provided, adequate room would still C£NERAL pLAN be avsilable for angle parking; further~ that a six-foot masonry wall AMENDIu~~7 n!0_ 51 should be co~scructed on the west proper•ty line and stepped down in (Continued) the front 25 ieet to provide adequate view of traffic; also as a find- ingy the Gode reyuired where a p~rking area w3s adjacent, withi.~ 200 `ee+., to :esidentiai p:opertyy that a six-foot masonry wall would also be required, b~~t this wou_d ae more of s hazard than a benefit to any residential development on the east side oi Euclid Street, because it would not offer a clear view of oncoming traffic to the motorist leav ,;g the parking area of the proposed development~ Con;missioner Rowland offered Resoiution No: ?531, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoptiona seconded by Cornr.issioner Camp„ to recommend to the City Council that Petition 2or Reclassific:itior No: 64••G5~93 be app:oved, subject to a six-foot masonry wall on the south snd west property ?ines; wiih th.e w~il be?ng stepped down to 42 inches in the front 25 feet of the Rowi.~nd Avenue and Euc'_id Street frontages, and that waiver of the r.equired wail where adj3cent to residentia; property is waived adjacent to the Euclid Street frontage ir, c-r3e: to offer a c:ear; unobst.-ucted view o.° onr,oming traffic from the exiting of the proposed deve:opment~ (See 7esolutio~ Book.~) On roii caii the foregoing iesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES. COMNISSIONERS: Campy Gauer, Mungali~ Perry, Rowl~nd, NOF.S~ COMMISSIO'~!ERS: ~'one- APSENTe COMMISSIO^.'ERS: .4_i:ec' , CoRUrissioner Rowland offe:ed Reso:uticn l~o, :532, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adopt~ony seconded by Corr~,issioner CaR;p, to grant Petition for Variance No, 1686, s~~bject to conditions (See Resoiu*.ion Pook,) On roil cal~ the forego:r:g resoiution was p~ssed by the foliowing vote: A~'ES: CUMN!ISSIONERS: Ca;;py Gaue_; Mungai~, Perry, Rowland, NOES: COMMISSIO~'ERS : t~'one . ARSEIJf c CONN,ISSIONERS s A;1. od., Commiss±one~ ~erry ofFered Resoiution No, ~533, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and 3dODC10.'1y seconded by Commissior,er Gauer~ to recommend to the City Council that General °iar .4R,endme;it No_ 5i be di.s~Fproved and referred for consider.ation at the Annual Review~ ~See Resoiution Pook.; ; On roii cali t're fo*egoing _eso_ution w3s passed by the following vote: AYES= COM,MISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NQES : COMMISSIO~!ERS ~ ;;one ~ AF~ENT~ COMMISSIC!QERS: Alired: I RF..;LASSIFICATIO~! - CODJTI~IUED p~:BI.IC HEARING, WILi.IAM J: N~SSECAR, 446 South Poplar ~!0.=-~=2r71___~ Street, Brea, Ca~ifornia; Owner; SAMUEL HUMPI-~2EY, 1875 Poinsettia, Long Beach, California, Agent~ Property described as: A rectangularly ' VARIA\Cr N0~;~7g shaped percei oi ;and with a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the ~ south side of Ball Road and a de th of a ~••i, western boundar of sub'ect P PFr~" mately 450 feet, the Y ] property beir^ approximately 454 feet east ~ of the centeriir~e of Brooknurst Street; subject property is turt;~~r divioed into Portiens j A and B: Portion A- being a rectangular parcel with a frontaye of 132 feet on the south ! side of Ball Road and a depti~ of approximately 240 feet; Portic.n ~- being approximately i 132 feet by 210 feet in size and iyina immediately south of and adjacent to Portion A; the northern boundary of °ortion B being approximateiy 270 feet south cf the centerline of Ball Road. :ioperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REOUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C•-2, (~tJERAL COMA~RCIAL, ZONE ON PORTION A~ R-3, MUI.TIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEI~1'IqL, ZOIJE ON PORTION Be REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF TyE FOLLOWING CODE PROVISIONS ON PORTION B ONLY: (1) OR'~-STORY NEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A PROPERTYt ` (2) MIA~IMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARDS; (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO PAR/~L1.EL FACI~'G WALLS OF Tf-IE SAME BUILDING; AND (4) MINIMUM 1~ WIDi ~' OF PEDESTRIAR~ ACCESSWAYe f~ d Sub;er,t pet~-:ons were continued fro~n the meetings of January 4 and February 1, 1965, at :,~ ; the request oi the petitioner i;~ order to submit revised plans~ i . . ,~ , ~.~ ~~t:.---..__.x.~~.:,~.~_~ _ _ ~ E ~ ~ ~ _ ._ _-~ , - „ - - .. - - ~- f MINUTES, CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSIOi;., February 15, 196` 2492 RECLASSIFICATION - Mro Sart.uei Humphz•ey, ager~t for the ~etitioner, appeared before the --~---.._____ N0,~64- 5•-71 Comm3ssion ar,d stated he was available to answer questionse VARIAnCE NO_ 16'8 The Conmission, in x•eviewing the revised plans, noted the requested waivex•s for min~imum required side yards, minimum distance between parallel ~3cing w:~lls of the same building, and minimum width of pedestrian accessway were no :onge* necessary bec3use the rev?sed plans had eliminated these requests. It was fur±her r.oted that Pc-+.ion A had been reduced by 20 fe+~', and the 20 feet he.d been added tu Portion P, and inauired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether or not subject petitiorswou~d have to be readvertised •~o consider the reduction and increase in the two portions~ Mr~ Roberts advised the Commission that since the proposed R-3 Zone was being increased, and the C-2 Zone was being decreaseds and the former being a lesser zone~ it would not be necessary fcr the Co~rmission to readvertise subject petitions, but that it should be recommended to the Ci~y Councii tnat in order to be heard before the Council, it be readvertised with the new bounda:ies, ' The agent for the petitione: ad~•ised the Commission that since the plans had been revised, they were ready to proceed with d~aveiopment of the property and were not desirous of . having readvert:sing of the property, if this couid be avoided~ Mr~ Roberts then stated that although this would be advertised with the new boundaries by the C3ty Coancii, this woald not guarantee the petitioner it would be free from any ie9ai ,3ttsrhment, and th3t the CoR~mission couldy by finding, indicate to the City Councii that recomn.~~nd?~i 3~,p;o~~=1 w3; contingent upon the City Council's having considered the revised p;.ans and 'having been .eg31iY advertised., No one ~ppeared in opposition to sub,~,ect petitions. T~E !-F.AR:.VG W9S CI.OSED Comrrissione: Perry offered Resoiation No., i5°4, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and .adoFtion, seconded bv Cem~:issioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that °etition fo: Recl=,ss?fir.ation No: 64 65-7i be app;ovedY subject to the boundaries of ths ~ recised p?ans wh'_cr~ rec~uced `_ne G-2 portion by 20 feet~ and increased the R-3 portion by ~ 20 feet3 fur±~:ez, th,~t a findinc be rrade that the Commission deemed that the change in - zone bound~ries from `hat o:iginal:y advertised was a lesser zone than originally requested, - thereby eiimin3ting rhe necessity for 3:e3dvertisement of the property for Commission cor.siderationi however; it was ihe _•ecomrt~endation of the Commission that the City Clerk adver±ise for City Co~ncil hea:in9 the new boundaries for tiie two portions in accordance ~ with p~ans, r,ame~v, 220 feet for Poztion A and 229 80 feet for Portion B, and conditionso I (,See Resolution Hook ; Gn roil cali the fo-egc~:,g resoi.ution wes passed by the following vote: AfES: COMNISSIONERS: Cart~p, Gauer, Munyail, Perry~ Rowland< NOES: COMM7SSI0~!ERS: Mone, ABSENT: COMNISSIUP'eRS: Aj;red> CoR~nissioner Camp effered Resoiution N_., 15359 Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and ~option, seconded by Corturissioner Rowland, to grant in part Petition for Variance Noa 16~8, for the waiver of the height limitation only, since the revised plans eliminated any need for the othe: ~eq~.ested w~ivers, and subject to coudit:ons. (5ee Resolution Book~) On roil call tne foregoing resoiution was ressed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gaue*, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando tJOES: COMN.SSIONERS: i~:onea Ai3SENT: COMMISSIO~!ERS: Ailred~ n- RF.CLASSIrICATIOlJ - CONTItJUED P~1R1.IC f'.FARING~ IOLA AIJD FRAA~CIS DcIWLING, c/o Miller -~ ~2__~M_~ !J0~ 4- 5•-8 Investment Company, 1040 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners~ LEROY ROSE9 600 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Aqent; VFRIANCE N0. 168~ property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land approxi- ;~ mately 9,9 acres in size, having a northern boundary frontage of epproximately 539 feet on the south side of Crowther Avenue and a . south Uoundary frontage ~f approximately 541 feet un the north side of Orangethorpe ~j - Hven~e, ~he northwesternmost coi•ner of said parcel being approximately 841 feet east j ~ of che centerline of Dowling Street, as measured along the southern boundary of Crowther '~ ~. Avenue, Property presently ciassified R-A, AGRICULTUR/,L, ZONE. _. . ,.,... .__..__, . _. _ . _ - ~ - ---- ---- - ~ ' ~ .~ ~'Sj' ` MINJTES9 CITY PLA~'NID!G COMMISSIOVy February 15, 1965 2493 RECLASSIFICATIO~ - REQUESTED CI.ASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIFLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEa NO__f~4 °65 ~8~~---- REQUESTED VARIAPCF: WAIVER OF SINGLE~STORY I-IEIGHT LIMITATION WITNIN VARIA~~CE NO., 1682 150 FEET OF R-A ZOi~ED PROPERTY AND WAIVER OF (Continued) ~~ MI~!IMUM REQUIRED YARD AREAS~ ~::b;ect petitions were continued from the meeiing of February 1, 1965, in order to allow time to c.ontact the property o:.,~eis in the immediate vicinity because of possible conFlict of ~irculatior,s prob~ems of adjoining properties in conjunction with subject petitions, Mr~ Randall Fairbsirn appeared befoze the Commissiony represeni:ing the petitioner, stating that some problem had developed bec3use of a:eciprocal agreement fr~r the street pattern with tne properties tc the east and west; that he had contacted the adjacent property cwners and w~s hopef~_ they wouid appear at the hearing todayf that the property owner to ~he east h3d ,advised ti~r; the proposed development of their property was no longer vaiid; tnat he ha~+ r,~nt3cted tne p7ope~ty owner to the west, but they were re?uctant to agree or disagi•ee with the p:ooose~ deveiopment or withdraw th=ir plans of development which had been tied in w.ith ~ ientative tract map~ and that as a condition of approval, he would obtsin signatures oi ihe pzoperty owners for withdrawal of their developments, and thi~ couid be stipuiated to st the ~equest of the City Attorney's office~ The Commission rev?ewed the `_ime limitations of the proposed developments to the east and westy it was noted 3 six•-montii time 1:.7~ita+.ion fcr the property to the east had expired in Septertioer of ;964, 3nd no addition33 extension of time had been requested; that the ti~e limit3tion oF the prope.ty to the west wouid expire later on in the year, si.nce the oet:tioner hs~ ~e?uested a yea:s' exter:sion of time on Tract No~ 5385~ ?t w.is ~~~-cher no*.ed by Lhe Cort~;:issior that the pioposed development v+as a self-contained unii,. whe;eas those or, the e:3st and west weze deveioped contingent upon subject property e~o•.:~:ir:g s_cess *o: ~hese prope:ties,. M,, Fai:tai_n s*sted he had bee~~ ~neb:e to obtain any concrete commitment from the F.opez~ty owners zeiative !o witt;dr-~w~~ of tt;e:, petitions. Depucy City A*_to--~ey ~u.:n~n Roberts ad~~ised the Commission that a definite commitment of ~ signed ie*_te:: :e.^.uesting withdraw~: of the zeclassification or tentative tract wouid bs necessary 'rom the owners of inte_est in ~he preperties, and that a letter of intent to wz~hdriw wss ins~.`fir.ieni. FurtherY 3n response to ht;, F.3i,-oairr`s ;uestioning -=_ince subject development was a se:f conta.ned one; the :~djo'_ning p:operty owners would have to submit revised plans - Mi. Robe:ts st~ted thjt if the tentative tz3ct was fiied in final form and approved by the City Cour.ci:, there would be some question under the Subdivision T:3ct Map Act whether or not subiect petition could be approved ~nd developed because of previous commitments th=ouqh tentat:ve maps fiied. Zoning Coordinato~ Robezt !vlickelson :evieweo for the Commission the previous tract actions `or sub,7ect and 3djcinin9 properties, noting that both tracts were filed ~nd approved contiriger.t upon each other reing developed., Corsiderable discussion was ther :eid between the Commission, the representative of the developery a~~d Uffice Engineei Arthur Daw relative to providing access contingent upon the tracts to the west beiry developed~ It was noted that since oniy one o{ the Dowling brothers pzesently indicated interest in the property, the tract map could ba withdrawno Mr, I.eRoy Rose, a:chitect ior ihe developmenty reviewed the plans for the Commission upon r.eing questioned ~bout the possibiiity of revision to delete the waiver of the minimum required yard areas, and stated this could be accomplished by relocation, whereupon the Commission stated that since the plans for subject property could be revised to provide adequate yard areas, the oniy waiver they would presently consider would be the height li.mitation„ Mro Mickelson advised the Commission that the maximum coverage in the R-3 Zone was 55%; tha± the petitioner proposed 52% on the easterly and 49% on the westerly portions., 1: ,~ . ! ' a • ,~ , ; , ,~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ . .. No one :~ppeared in opposition to subject petitions~ TF'~. HEARING WAS CI.OSED„ ~ MINUTES~ CITY FLA.R~ING CUMMISSION, February 15 19 , 65 RECLASSIFICATIO~ - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution N NO_ 6a-69~ 86 49 ~ oa 1536, Series 1964-65 and __ moved for its passage and adoptiun, seconded by Commissioner Perr to recommend to the Cit C VARIAN y, y ouncil that Petition for Reclassification Cg Np~~82 No~ 64~-65•-86 be approved, contingent u (Continued) pon the submission of letters of withdrawal of reciassification Petitions f ea t s and west of subject or the properties to the initiated b the Property~ said letters of withdrawal shall t t -, be he City Counci: prior to conside~ationPof sub1Yect of subject property and submitted to of the recommended conditions be amended to indicateethat~ Code would b f e i ~ ~ all Code requirements of e necessary in ~ne submission of any revised plans for the the R-3 conditionso (See Resolutio B id k s n oo ,,) e yards, an~ ,: ~~~ ., ' ' On roli c~ll the foregoing resolution was p3ssed by the followin vot ' ~Y~ ~ ,~ ~ g e: AYES: NOESs ~~~ISSIONERS: Camp, Ga~er, Mungali, Perry, Rowland COM,MISSIU NERS ; ,~ , aa . . : None. °,BSENT: CO~iMISSIO~JERS: A~l:ed~ '.'~~ '^~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1537, Series 1964-65 passage and adoption s a d ~'~a ~ ' 2 i• , , n moved for its econded by Co~nmissioner Gauer to No, 1682, for the one-story height limitatio ~ grant Petition for Variance suU - ?, n only, based on the fact that plans for ject property could be revised to eliminate the re side •.~a:ds a d t ~ 'if~ : , ques n for waiver of the required conditions~ (See Resoiution Bock,) ;~ ' ~~ On roii cai;. the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: `x ~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cart~p, Gauei•; Munga].], Perry, Rowland NOc"Ss COMMISSIO~'ERS 4 '~S' ::-Q ~ .~ : ! AESENT: COMMISSIONFRS; 41need, ~{ ;~' RECLqSSIFICATIOA~ • pIiBLIC 1-E4RIIQG. BURRUEL LANp COMPqNy, P, 0, Box 1217, VJhitt~er, 'I `1`~=_~4=65=~?_____ C~iifo.nl?i Owne=t WIL.LIAM D_ LUSK, ?~ 0., Box 1217, Whittier, i Cali;o:nia, Agenti property described as: An irregularly shaped ? VARIANCE_Np__;~80 p3:ce~ op 13nd at the southeast corner of ~=_nta Ana Canyon Road r ~ ~' TENTATIVE MqP p~ ofl~e=;ide =reeway) and Crescent Drive; subject ' ;; TRACT ~!0_ ~ PF~oximately 42 6 acres ~nd has a frontage ofraperty consists -- 5~_~?___ 295 Feei un the south side of the Santa Ana Canyon RoadX(Riverside ;• _:s Freeway) 3nd extends southerly to the northerly boundar of he ` pro•- posed ex~ension of Lincoln Avenue; the eastern boundaryYof subject ~~ ' pro ezt P~rce! lies ~ppiox_mr••~ely 2,9q2 feet west of the Anahei^~ City boundary, ;~ ; P y presen±,y classi`ied R~•0, ONE-FqMILY SUBURBAt~, and R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONESo ;I i ~ ~r=h RFQUESTED C1.ASSIFICATION; ~..ls p~~E_FAMIL~ RESIDEWTIAL, 20NE, ;~ ; REQUESTED VARI4!vCEs WAIbER OF MIMIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTHS„ '~i i''i Subject tract, located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Can on ~,`: Drive ar,d covering approximateiy 42..6 acres, is Y Road and Crescent Or,e-Fami;y Residenti~i, Zoned lots, Proposed for subdivision into 108 R-1, I Sub~ect petitions were contir~ued from the meeting of February 1, 1965, at the re uest of ~ ~'" the pet:tioner, q Mr~ William Lusk, agent for the , petitioner, appoared before the Commission, reviewing the , proposed de~:e.opmentY noting there would be large homes and lots in the develoFment; that a condominium was proposed to the east of subject !~- ment to the west of subject property, and the Peralta Hills develo - to the prope:ty, and the proposed development wouid act as a b~~fferP ~ properties to the wesi., ~ , i. ~ ~'~'~ L~~sk further noted that P.oyai Oak Ro3d Nould be a secondary highwa considerably heavy traffic~ :hat it was proposed to extend Royal Oak Road ,~ and terminate Crescent Aver..= where it abu± Y 9enerating ~ thzre were no street connec..ons with the Peralta~liills~aareaafromisubjecturthertnoted ~ property. Mre L.usk then reviewed the i-~ts on which he was requesting a waiver of the frontage, noting that these pzoperties had to be clevelop~d with :onsiderable care because of `.~' topoqraphy, and that seven iots were covered under the proposed request for waiver~ '<~' _ It w„ noted by the Commission ihat Royal Oak Road would be extended southerly to ~ Lincoln Avenue, ~ ~ `~ * No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. i~ E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1965 2495 RECLASSIFICATION - TIiE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ NO,. 64-65-87 Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1538, Series 1964-65, and VARIANCE NOa 1680 moved for its passage and adoption, s econded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City C ouncil that Petition :or Reclassification TENTATIVE MAP OF Noo 64-65-87 be approved, subject to con~'~tionse (See Resolution Book.) TRACT_NOo 5674 (Continued) ~ On roll call the ioregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COA4MISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer~ Mungall, Perry~ Rowlando NOESs C07dMISSIONERSs None. ~ ARSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ , Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ 1539, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passao~ and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Perrys to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1680, subject to canditionso !See Resolution Booko) On roli cali the foregoing resoiu±ion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. • NOES: COMMISSIONERSs i~or~e~ ABSENT: . COMMISSIONERS: Ailredo Commissioner Perry offered a moiion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5674, subject to the following conditions: (i) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivisior thereof shail be submi.tted in tentative form for approvale (2) That. the 3pprova: of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5674 is granted subject to the approval of Reciassiiication Noa 64-65~87 and Variance Noe 1600. (3) That the alignment oi Royal Oak Road, north of Crescent Drive, shail be approved by ;.he Oz•ange County Hiyhway Gepartment.~ (It is the subdivider's intent to abandon a poi±ion of Crescent Drive after Royal Oak Road is improved,) " (4) That adequate dedication be obt3ined for Royal Oak Road from the parcel to the -. west or th~t Royai ~ak ~o~d be realigned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer~ (5) Tnat the access to Sant~ Ana Canyon Road be approved by the State Division of Highwayso (6) That Rolling Nil: Diive and Spr.ing Hiil Drive be desi9nated as collector streets~ f?) That the dr-3inage be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineero (8) That l..oi No~ 110 be designated on the Final Tract Map as a non-buildable lot~ (9) That Let No„ l09; for a future street at the east end of Spring Hi:l Drive, be deleted and not si:own on the Final Tract kapa (10) That Lincoln Avenue be dedicated to its full width of 60 feet and be fully improved~ (11) That all g:ading shall he in conformance to the City of Anaheim`s hillside gz3ding ordinance, (12; That Roy~~ Oak Road be recorded as Pinney Driveo (13) That Hill View Road be recorded as Honeywood Lane. (14j That Fern Hill L.ane be recorded as I'ern Haven Lane. Commissiones• Gauer seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED. s~~ ,+; ~ ~~ * ;~j :; ~ .. ..-:. :..~. ..., , ...__~;_ ,. ~. < -- ---:-~.r~ - ~ -- _ ___ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1965 2qg6 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PIIBLIC F~FRIIJ~, SULLY•-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY, P. 0. Box 43::~ f. PER,`_tIf N0~675_ Orange, California, Owner; requesting permission to produce and ` manufacture mir~eral .3ggregates for building and road construct`.~^ ~ on propercy described as: An irregularly shaped parcel r,; '..~i~.i wi•`:-, .~rontages of approximately ?5 ieet on the west side of Fee Ana Street, approx;;,i+te',y 620 feet on the east side of Richfieid Road, 3nd approximatPl,• 1'd7 ;eE; on ~:•= ~N65L side of Richfield Road, Si~bject property hac a maximum ea;t•-west ~imEnsi;.~~ o: a~p-~xi- mateiy 2;250 feet :~nd contains approximately ~C acres oi lando Suh_iect ;~ropeTty is 5ounded ori t~e south by the Santa Ana River ;+ril +.i~~ northernmost houndar~• l:~:s approxi- mately 1,180 feet south of tiie centerline of Walnut Streeto Pron•:rty pre::s~r:`.',y classified !d•-19 LIGI-I!' INDUST:tIAL, ZO'dE ~ . -~,--- ~"° ,1 ~~ Zoning Coordi.nator Robe;t Micke~,or rEViewed for the Commission the purpose of the proposed ~ conditional se ~ermit, .ind thr; f~ct that a letter had been received frov~ the petitior.=r ,''d requestirn, ~ tNO xr2e:c exterrion of time, due to the fact that tti~, app?ic:in`,s would be out ~ of toW~~ i No one appe=_re.' ir copositiur. to subject petition, ;1. ' Corr~missioner Cs•::;.~ oifeied a rtict:on to contirue the pubiic heari.ng cf Ccnditional Us~e •_~ Fermit Vo~ 675 ;~ -.h~ .,~eeting of M3rch ., 196~, a~_ `he request o•; : ne p~atitioner~ ~ ~ , Co:~^~issicrier Rowl~nc seconded the mo*ion lAOTI~JN I.~RRIED~ RECLASSIFTCATIQ~' Fi1BIIC F~EARI~:u. ~~;EWPURT CONSTRUCTION COA",PA~Y. Attention: D~ L.~ Bren, ~0 ,~-7_~5 90 ____ 505 No~tr, 3Uth S±reet, Newport Eeach, California, Owner; JAMES TOEPFER AND ~YIiI~ REILi~, 505 ^~orth 30th Street, Newp.rt Beach, California, Agents; reques+.ing ~hat p:operty described as: Parcel 1- P.;; i:_egularly shaoed p~zcel of iand wicn 3 front~ye of approximately 1,185 feet on the we;: side of Imperi.a_ ~';at~,w.:yy, ~nd 3 maximum depth of approximateiy 25G feet~ measured at right angles to Imoeri-~: t~ig:~wsy~ the so~ihern boundary of said parcel coincides with *'. north boundary ~f the Santa A~3 ~~alJ.ey irri-ga~ior~ c~na~ v:iiich _~ns adjacenc to the nortn side of Santa An~ Canye~ Ro~d; said p.~rcei con'ains approx.iT~tely 5.8 acresa Parcel ?• An irzegularly shaped pazcEl of ~~nd with e fzontage of appr-;,ir~,ate~y :,165 fee'_ on th~ east siae of Imperial Highway snd a maximum daptii of spproximstelv 325 feet, measured at -agi~t angles to Tmperial F.ighwayq the southern boundary of said ~3rc?1 coin;:des tivi.th ti~e ~oi `.h houndary of the ' S.=.nta Ana Val!ey ir~igation c~nai which r.v~= adj cenr. to t;~e nort!: =i~~ of Santa Ana Canyon - Road; s~id pa.*cel cont~ins approxi;~atai• ..res - be reclassi.'.ied .`rom the °-A, AGRICULTUitAL, ' ZOAJE to che L i, GENL-RAL CONJ~RCIAL, -~i;:::~ to establish a comniarcial•-prcfessional complex, M,,, lames Toepfer, ~gent iur tne petitioner, apraared be~fore the Commissio~ and stated h= wa= in ag_eement witr the recommendatior. of tne Interdepartmental Committee that subject petition be ccn*.inved tiL~~ Tuepfer further reviewed the histcry of the property and the zoning wh~;~ s~.~'.•ect property was unde_ t.he jurisdiction oi the Coun±y, noting that tne ?ienning Cor,n:iasion hed apprc:-=!i C~1 Zoning, but before the Board of Supervisors had confi.red the recommend~tior. oF the Planning Commission, s~.bject property had been annexec. into the City, the*e6y neyatiny the 3ctior. ~` the Orar.qe County Planning Commis•,ion; thac :ie was aw:ie the ?~ill ~nd Canyon tirea study was to be completed by the Staff, and it ;~as i his understendir,9 thi=_ wo~ld be firished by Novenber, and in the meantime, he had contacted I the DepartmenT of highw3ys :ei3cive to the exact location of ±he fxEeway, and had met with Mr~ Hoshamoto at ieast six ~i:nes, but I:ad be?n unat:a to ootain any concre+e information in over nine months~ and tha~ nc r:~d f:i~:d ~bject petition after co~siderable discussir,~ with PLanning Coozdinato^ A'_:at~ :;i~cii, Kr~ :oepfer fur~hex• r~viewed ihe proposeo deveiopment, noting that it Nas thei: plan to fiave che development sir~~;_=r to ~i~e "Tavn and Co~ntry" in Orange,with early-California architec- tureq th3t he s~as coyniz~nt of the freeway problem, and, therefore, t~e had no opposition to the sug~estion by the Staff :or a continuence to :=solve the freeway problem. The :'~,:missi.o;, advie.ed the agent `or ~he p~e*_itioner i;^.c if architectural pl~ns were drar~ witho~t a precis~ freeway a:ig~me~"., cons~derable money would be expended, and probably ?and use, if a pruper aiignmer.i was not a•~ailabie tc~ him. ~ M:~~ !',epfer stated he r~as aware tne situation x~garding the freeway was in a"state of limbo"; tl-,:t i.: could not 3scertair. *_he value i,!vcl•ved, but for o~ er a period of ni~~a months he was unabia io ~btai.n any information from the S~~teo Office Engineer Ar:hur Daw, in response to Commission ques°~oning re'.ative to an~ precise plans, advised the Commissiu~ the Engineering Cep~:tment had only preliminary plans of the , freeway; that no plans of the separation oc an in'archai~ge had bean submitted, but it was ~ possible that at least one•-half of the pioperty would be taken up H•~tn the Freeway acquisi- tion; and that since he was noL ~:esent at eny of thr meetings with the State Highway "~ Department, he could not ascer*.ain whether a ninet y-~ay continuation wauld be sufficient~ ~.~ o~:~~.~r -.e~;.. - , ,- - - - - - -....~_ ~2~ ~li.. , . M1fJUTES, CITY PLANNIIIG COMMISSIQN, February 15, 1965 2497 itECLASS7FICATION ~ Mr~ Toepfer then stated he had no objection to warking with the N0~ 64-6`_.~~-90 _ Commission and Planning Department in ti•ying to obtain a commitment (Continueul from the Stateo No one appeared in opposition to subject retition. CemmissionPr F'err?~ offe;cs a motion to continue the hearing of Reclassificat: ~ No> 64-65-90 ':o t~= meeting of May 24y 1965, in order to allow the petiti.onPr cime to reso~ve probiems on the ultimate location o: the interchan9e of the Rive.rside Fr~eway ond Imperial Hi~;hway, Commissioner Camp seconded the mcCione MOTION CARRIEDo ~;,;:~J STREET NAME CNANGE - PUr-LIC NFARING. INITIATED BY TF~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ;~ < • 204 East L:rcoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing a name ~i~ change for 5avoy Place located south of Broadway, east of Magnolia F= Avenue, and Wainut Street located between Jefferson Street and ~~ Rictifieid R~sd in the east Anaheim areao Zoning Coo<dinator Rob,:t Mickeison reviewed for the Commission the history of having two streets within t`~e City with similar names, noting that Tract Noo 2205, located - ncrthwesterly of the i~tersection of State Colieoe Boulevard and South Street had been appr~ -ed and reco:d~s: in Septembery :954, and :•~e of the streets in the tract was desig- ns+.ed as Savoy Avem:a, and on Dece:^ce= 5, i963, Tract Noo 5262, located between Orange Avenu~~ and Broad~vay east of Daie Streei was approved and recorded, and that a small cui••de•sac ~treet in this tzact l:ad been designated as Savoy Place; that since many people f~i?ed ~o give comp:eie ~tree*. names when addressing a letter, usually omit;'~y the "aven~a", "st_e~t", "n'.~ e", etco; the pos;, office personnel was having difficulties in detetmiring *c ~Niicn route tr.e lette.~s shouid be assignedq and that upon checking with Prooe~•ty M=_ii:~ena*~ce sect_or, of Pubi?c Worl;s, i} was determined that Tract Noo 5262 was pseser.tly unde~ :onstruction and st~ee~ sigr.s ha~? not as yet been posted; therefore, it was reco:nr~endea that Savoy F~ace be changed to Druiy P~ace. No ane appe3red i•, opposition: THE HEARING WAS CLOSED: :I Gommissioner Rowland offer~d Resolution No~ 1540, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage ar;d adoptiun, secon~~.9 by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council '~ that Savey Pl.~ce, located sa:;th cf Broadway between Dale and Magnolia Avenues, be re- ~ named to rnury P;acey based on evidence submitted by the Planning Departmer.t. (See I Resolvt:on ~looko) On r.oil cal; tt,e foregoiny zesoiution was passed :,y the following vote: AYES: COMM~SS70F°ERS: Csmp, G3uer, M~;nyaii: ?erry, Rowlar;l. NOcS: CC!viMISSIQNERS: ~~ione~ p ABSEM': CL'MMISS~=^'E'!S~ Ailred, Zoning Cor,rcin3tor Robe_t Micke:son aclvised the Commis~ion that ir. one of t.he i•ec?nt annexations~the property in che Northeast Indust:ial ~rea-one of the sC~eets was named '~Jalnut St.:eet, ~nd this made it conflicting with the pzesent street r.amed 'Nalnut StreFt or the periphery of the Cence= City 4iea which extended fron. Lir.co;•n Avenue ±o the City Iimit, and th3t sirce the Cizy h;+d approved ~he general align:neni: e'r I.: Palrr,a Avenue, which would e~;en'.:a,.iv 3iign into Wainut S±reet, therefore eliroinatirg thc. mejo~it.y ef :h3t ~iree±. in the f.rt,,ie, a;mal': section weste:ly from Ricnfi=)d Rr.~3~ rould still bear the ~ame of 'Naln~+. Streat, and '_o avoid any com°'_;.ct of or~~b?ems wi±h the post GrF1C2 relative to two st:ee:.s within the s~~rr,e city having the same rame, it was recom- mendCd th3t the Wa;nut St:ee_ in the east Anaheim ar?a oe changed to Manzanita Road~ ' Di.scussion was then he?d by ,:he Commission relative to th= advisab~lity of using Manzanita Road since it wes somewhat difficult to s~?il and pronounce, and it was suggested the re-•naming o* Walnu! Stree± be continued for tw~ ~,aeeks, ancl reyuested the Planning Deps:tment to submit additicnal names for considr~ration t,y the Commission~ Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue the public hearing on the re-naniing of Walnut Street to the meetiny oi Ma~ch 1; 1965, to allow time to submit adoitional names for Cornmission ~onsideration.. Gommissioner Rowland secorded the motion~ MOTION CFcZRIED„ ~ ._.._.: _ • - ~-~.:: ;. ... _ `- _ .. ~T~~7-~-~' --- - ~...~ ~e~....,~.~.~..v.-~~...e `~....~.w;., - - - °-.n...-~... "'_ ~~~,,. ,I~A*'a;. MINUTES, CITY PLAN~ING COMMISSTO~, February 15, 1965 2498 Afv1EP1DW~NT TO RESOLUTION - PUBLIC HEARINGo ~F IMENT 6 R-:>:35 by the addition of :ondition requiring the payment of tree fees to plant and maintain treES in the parkway in the streets in the ~Vortheast Industrial Area. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson re~+iewed for the Commission conditions of Resolution of Intent Noo 62R-335, noting it was adopted by the City Council prior to the parkway tree proyram estat~~.ished by the City, and recommended that the ~ommission consider the provision of street tree i°ees in recommending this to the City Council, sincn payment of street tree fees wc::ld be a*_equirement prior tc the reclassification of a;~y fndustrial property in the Northeast Industriai Area~ '~" _, Interested persons in the Counci? Chamber inquired as to clarification of the proposed tree fee conditiono i i ~, The Commission then reviewed the history of the street tree program and the fact that ~ properties covered in ~esolution of Intent 62R-335 did not provide for street tree fees ~ at that time~ TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSFD~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1541y Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage , and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Resolution of Intent Noo 62R-335 be amended to ;nclude tne following condition: "That the owners of property encompassed in Reclass:.fication No> 61-62-69, shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee in the amount specified by the City Council to cover the cost of the planting and main- tenance of trees in the parkway fronting said property, where adjacent to an existing or proposed street or highway in the Northeast. Industrial Area". (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resoi~tion was passed by the follow:~ig vote: AYE5: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIO~ERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allreda , ADOPTION OE PRECISE ALIGhPofENi I'~R - PUBLIC HEAnI1~G. INITIA'i5D BY THE CITY PLANN7NG _, JEFFERSON AND LIA'DA VISTA _STREEI_S COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing ti.~ precise alignment of Jefferson and Linda Vista Stre~ between Orangethorpe and La Palma Avenues„ Associate Planner Ronald Grudzins~~i reviewed the •~roposed precise alignment of Jefferson and Linda Vista St:eets for the Gommission, notin9 that in July of 1964, the Commission had approved the general alignmenty that the City Ceuncil had concurred w;th the Commission's generai a?.ignment of these streets and had recommended to the Orange County Planning Commis- sion tha.+. the qeneral aliynment be adopted; fur•ther, that the Orange County Board of Super- visors had adopted ~he precise ali9nment as indicated; and that the only exception on being r2viewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments of tne City of Anaheim was the fact the street width was propused for 100 feet, whereas the City of Anaheim's requirement was lOti feet, but that the centerline remain the samee i ~ Mr. Grudzinski further stated that since th? precise alignment advertised was in concurrence with the Orange County Board of Supervisor`s action, it was :el+ 'this was the normal manner of procedure for establishing the precise alignment of Jefferson and Linda Vista Streets. ! in response to Commission questioning relative to the basic reason for calling this the "Jeffersor, alignment", Mr. Grudzinski stated that since the County had referred to the i precise alignment, the name was carried on as far as the City of Anahei~r was concerned, I but that no specific name had been chosen. i A man in the Council Ch3rc~ber advised the C,-~mission that Jefferson Street extended throug:~ to Yorba Linda Eoulevard, although northerly of Orangewood Avenue it appeared to be just a local street~ It was noted by the Commission thai; if a name change was in order, it could be advertised at a later date since the existir,g hearing was for the establishment of th~ precise align- ment of these two streets. ' Mre Hudson Saffell, 2080 Placentia, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Commission in opposition , to subject precise aligrment, stating that he and a partner, Mr. McAdam owned property on ~~ the southeast corner of Jefferson and Walnut Streets; that if the proposed alignment were established, his property would suffer a loss because it would eliminate suitable frontage I F MINUTES, CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSION, FEbruary 15, 1965 2499 ADOPTION OF PRECISE A.:IGNN~IJT FOR JEFFERSON AND LINDA V?STA STREETS -(Continued) of ~he prope~ty since at the time they purchased the property, they were under the assumption that they would have access ',;o both Walnut Street and Jefferson Street, and that although he had no definite plans for the use of that intersection, development with industrial purposes or sale of the pro;~erty for said purposes would be difficult if the Commission's action took place, The Conmission advised Mro Saffell that the frontage on Walnut Street would remain the same, but there would be some alteration to the Jefferson Street frontage, and a study would have ,~~~ ta be made to determine whether or not the triangular portion would be abandoned, and Walnut ~4 Street would be stub~ended at ~hs terminaLion adjacent to the Jefferson Street alignmente :~~ , ;, Mr~ Saffell stated he was only interested in protectin9 his frontage interest, anr' he was ~~ not generaily opposed to the Jefferson-I.inda Vista precise alignment. Mro Roy Soiomon, 219 West Hardy Street, In9lewood, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that in addition to a iot tc the west of the proposed alignment, a small corner would remain after the precise alignment cut across the eastern section of ' his p•roperty, rendering tliai section almost valueless for development; that he had received a notice from the Orange County Board of Supervisors relative to their meeting and had attended it, but before he could understand all the proceedings, the action had taken place relative to the precise aiignmenty and inquired why the Commission had no~ considered a layout of the alignment in grid squares from north to south and east to west to eliminate the hisection of his properiy so thar a portion of it was rendered useless for sale for industrial. purposes: The Commission 3dvised Mr. Soiomon that at the General Plan amendment hear:ng, three plans were submitted, and from evidence submitted to the Commission, it was felt one plan offered the least amount of damage to properties in thet area and was favored by tlle Road Commission as weil as tFe Engineering Department. Mr~ 5am Nurwitz~ 100 VJPSt Chaprr,an, Orange, appeared before thP Commission in opposition to the proposed alignment, staiing that his property would be completely bisected by the proposed .?efferson alignment, since this wouid mean he would lose approximately 25% of his property for development; that he was in favorof using the grid squar~ plan of alignment, namely, extendina Jefferson to La Palma and then routing the traffic on Wainut Street westerly to Linda Vista S~reet - this, then, would offer the least amount of loss of potential development of industrial property in the area for all concerned; that he had purchased the property many yeazsagoin anticip~tionthe property would have considerable value, and he had not received a notice from the Board of Supervisors relative to the hearing, at which time the IIoard of Supervisors adopted the precise alignment; and that although the City had adopted a general alignman±, it was not too late to correct an error, and he knew Supervisor Phillips wouid have concerned himself considerably more with the precise alignment if his attention had been drawn to it by the property owners involved The Comrrission, in reviewir,y the precise alignment, stated limited access was available to provide streets crossing the Santa Ana River; that the proposed alignment would cross the railroad tracks at a less strategic point and would also be a shorter route to facili- tate the fiow of traffic, since a 90 degree intersection would deter an ev=n flow of traffic. Mr, Hurwitz then stated ti:at che future flow of traffic was only one factor-the Commission should take in±o consideration the ~.~~r•ing of the property owners; that it would be some years before the widening oi .Teffer. ~~ Street took place; that Walnut Street dead-ended at Autonetics; that Walnui, Street might be consi9ered an impoztant street to provide another access poir.t for employees of Autonetics; t:~at the railroad tracks must be con- sidered because it would be impossib!e to move them eut of their existing area; and that he felt the proposed precise alignment was not taking the property owners in the area into consideration by bisecting their lande ~ Mr> Don Burgess, Planning Engineer for the Countv of Orange Road Department, appeared before the Commissicn and stated the opposition came as a complete surprise; that it was his impression the many difficulties had been resoived by the Anaheim Plar.ning Commission and the Orange County Planning Commission before the County started consideration of the ' adoption of the precise alignment before the Board of Supervisors; that the przcise align- ment had been under discussion and survey with the City of Anaheim for four years; that because the City, in the pasc, was not in agreement with the County findings, any improve- ment of Jefferson Street had been by-passed; that Jefferson Street was considered a primary * road in the County and could never meet the projected traffic impact. from the Riverside ~ Freeway intersection; thaL ihere were only a certain number of points vahere roads could MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1965 2500 ADOPTION OF PRECISE ALIGNN~NT FOR JEFFERSON AhD LINDA VISTA STREETS -(Continued) cross the river; that the proposed alignment would connect with Rose Drive in Yorba Linda and Tustin Avenue in Orange on the south; that purtions of Rose Drive were presently under construction; and any continuation of improvements of Jefferson :,tra~t would be held in abeyance until consideraiion was made favorable as far as the pro;-i,ed or any other alignment was concernedo Mre Hurwitz then stated, in f~is opinion, the property owners were being penalized and asked too great a price to ~r~~•ide an even flow of traffic, and it would destroy the property value of the industr':al ~*operty in the areae in response to questioning by Mre Solomon relative to the suggested plans, Mr. Grudzinski advise~ the Com~ission that three alternatives were presented at the general alignment Generai Plan public hesring; that before the Planning Commission had considered the general alignment, the County Road ilepartment had been contacted to make a study on the possible location of the curve north of Orangethorpe; that the northerly curve would pass through existing oil fields and grades which would be an exorbitant cost to pay for providing the alignment throuqh the oil fieldsf that the other alternative provided for a junction of the alignment of Mira~uma Street and the railroad t:acks at a triangular section which would also be prohibitive for routing traffic; tha± the proposed precise alignment would provide the least expensive and affect fewer property owners to carry tt,e projected traffic volume and to function as a primary highways that all this information had been presented to the Commission and Councii, and that th~ design study would coincide with the genera~ alignmen*_~ Mra Donald Pierotti, 501 Si. John Way, Placentia, appeared before the Commission and stated he owned property at the juncture of the proposed alignment and the existing Jefferson Street, and he assumed the reason for utilization of the curve at that point was because he had dedicated 53 feet of his land at the tim•~ he had considered industrial development of his property; that he had never requested this property be returned to him since the industrial plans did not materialize; that the traffic flow from and to Auto- netics during certain hours of the day was almost unbearable; that La Palma Avenue and Jefferson St*eet sho:~:d be designed to carry the traffic; and that provision should be made for additional streets, ratner than the relocation of existing old streets. Considerable discussion was neld by the Commission relative to all the opposition being presented at this heariny, when less opposition had been presented at the ~eneral Plan hearing; that the proposed al:gnment was not sacred and could be reconsidered; that re- gardless of what plan was adopted eventually, and developed, property owners in that area wouid be affected adverseiy; tnat the proposed precise alignment affected the fewestnumber of people in the area; that other streets in the area had originally been considered to align with streets to the souihy but changes i~ad been made because of studies and concern of the property ownersy and valid consideration should be given to the concern of the property owners~ It was iurther recommended by the Commission that the property owners opposing the precise alignmeni should contact the County Supervisor of their district to n.ake known t~~eir feelings :eyarding the alignment, and to determine what his position might be ssfar tis *_he reconsideration by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, After some discussion by ~he Commission relative to reconsldering General Plan Amendment No~ 20 for the generai aiiynment of Jefferson and Lind.: Vista Streets and requesting that the Staff present additional information, Commissioner ~owland offered a motion to continue the public hearing of th~ adoption of the precise alignment of .Jefferson and Linda Vista Streets be*ween Orangethorpe and La Palma Avenues to the meeti;ig of Aprii 26, 1965, to allow time for the Staff co assemble all documentary evidence and contact the County relative to any -~~ditional evidence that might substantiate or invalidate the precise alignment study, Further, ihat. the Planning Department re-advertise General Plan Ai.iend- n,ent Noo 20 for public hearing Lo reconsider the general alignment of Jefferson and Linda Vista Streets, said rehearing to be scheduled concurrently with the precise alignment on Aprii 26, 1965„ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5:35 p.m. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION9 February 15~ 1965 2501 REPORTS AND •- ITEM N0._ 1 RECOMN~NDATIOA!S Reclassification Noe 64•-65-66 and Condit~onal Use Permit No. 659 - Grace Elizabeth Dickerson, Petitioner - Consideration of revised plans~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission past action on Reclassi- fication Noo 64-65•-66 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 659, noting that since the Commission had made their recommendation of disapprovai to the City Council revised plans were sub- mitteda Further, because said plans were substantially changed from those originally submitted, the Council had referred the plans to the Commission for reoort and recommendationo Mro Robert MacMahon~ agent for the petitioner, advised the Commission that in addition to s reduction of one~-third of tne original density proposed, that the Council had requested tt~at the agent explore the possibility of having an access to Lincoln Avenuz to offset having traffic from the proposed d~velopment use Broadway exclusively; that a stud.y had been made and it was determined that access could be provided to Lincoln Avenue, but this was not indicated u:~ the revised plans, The Commission then reviewed the revised plans and noted that although a substantial change was evident, nothing h3d been done to alleviate an untenable condition of subjecting the single-family residents to the east and west of the proposed development to traffic noises at the front and rear of their properties; that subject property was developable for R-1 subdivision using the lot widths and square footage of adjacent properties; and if any consideration shouid be made, ihe residents of the area sf~uld be present to indicate their opinion of the revised plans., Deputy City Attorney Furman Zoberts advised the Commission that a public hearing was not necessary in complying witil che State °lanning Act; and that the Commission being a recommending body cou:d sunmit any recommendation to the City Council on a reclassificationo Co~~issior.e: Perry offered a motion to advise the City Council that the Commission had reviewed the revised plans oF Reciassification No~ 64-65-66 and Conditional Use Permit No:, 659y that the Commission`s pzincipie objection to the propused development had not changed with the re~ised pi~~is, because the singie-family residents to ~he east and west wou?d stii: be s~bjected ;o street traffic noises on the front and rear of their properties, since the street fer :he pzoposed developmen± was proposed for the periphery of the develop- mentg and that sub;ect piopertv, in the Commission's opinion, was developable for R-1 sub- division, Cor,~missi~ne~ Rowiand seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ ITEM R~0 _2 L.~ P31ma•-Rio 4'ista Annexation. Zoning Coordinator Rcbert Micke?son p~esented to the Commission a map depicting the most recently proposed i.a F3ima-Rio 1~ista Annexation, noting that if the annexation took effect, this would eliminate some of ±he irregular boundaries presently existing in the City between the Riverside Freeway and the Santa Ana River~ Commissioner Camp offered a inotion to recommend to the City Council that the La Palma-Rio Vista Annexation be considered favorsblyo Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. I7'EM NG_ 3 Orange •^_ ~:nty Conditional Permit Noo 1151 - Establishment of a contra~~t^r~s stc:ano y=_rd ?~~ location of an office trailer in the M-: i,:.rjht Industrial, District~ Property located on the west sic ~~f Taylor Street, approximately 180 feet north of `~Nalnut S•.i•~Pt. in the Atwood area. Zoning Coordinator Robert !:.ickelson reviewed the location of subject property and the uses .resently establishe~ i.n the area, noting that the use waspermitted by cenditional use permit in the M-1 Z;,ne in the City of Anaheim; that the use is presently establishPd on the property; arid if sub;cct property were within the City of Anaheim, a six-:oot masonry wall would be required, rather than the proposed six-fcot high chainlink fence. The Commission noted that ihe use was estabiished under Conditional Permit No. 1075 in Uecember of 1963, and would be a continued use; therefore, no action was required by the Commission, and directed that Conditional Permit No, 1151 be received and filed, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANhING COMMISSIOR, February 15, 1965 C ;,-y~~ :d~ I i. ! 2502 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO., 4 RECOMt~ ~DATIONS Orange ~o•~n*_y Case Noo 880 (Sectional District Map 13-4-10, (Continue~~ Exhibit "B") opposing a change from the A-1, General Agricultural, District to the 100-C1•-10,000 "Locai Business District" - Property lur,ated on the northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street in the east Anaheim area~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the location of subject property, noting it was at the edge of the prcposed off-ramp of the future Orange Freeway, the site being the approximate size o; a service stationo The Commission directed that Orange County Case No~ 880 be received and filed with no action taken by the Commission~ ITEM NO.W5 Conditionai Use Permit Noo 665 - Consolidated Rock Products Companyo I Zaning Goordinato: Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a request had been received from Consolidated Rock Products Gompany regarding the restudy of Richf~eld Road south of Walnut Street be made wi.ih r,r.e view of possibly reducing the street from an arterial highway ~ to a local street, since Richfield Road was not permitted to have a cross-over of the Santa I Ana Rivero ~ Mr, Mickelson further advised the Commission that when the presentation and adoption of the general alignment of La Pa'!ma .Avenue was reviewed by the Commission and recommended ' for approval to the Counci:, Richfield Road was indicated as a coilector street southerl;i of La Paima Aver,ue; thezefores the reauirement of street dedication in the resolution approving Conditional Use Permi.t No, 665 should be amended to reduce it from 45 feet from the centerl=ne to 32 feet, Commissioner Rowland offered 2eso~ution Noo 1542, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comm!ssioner Camp, to amend ConditYon Noo 1 of Resolution Noo 1521, Series 1964•-65, g:anting Conditional Use Permit Noo 665, to read, "That the owners of subject property sh3ii deed tc the City of Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet in width, from the centerline of the streety along Richfield Road, for street widening purposes"e (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Munga:'_, Perry, Rowlando NOES: CCIMNISSIOP~ERS: None . ABSEN'I: COMMISSIO~'ERS: Ailredy Gaue:. ITEM ~_'.0__Q Conditionii lise Pe:mit No~ 654 - Automatic car wash located on the ; east side of F.ast Street north of Lincoln Avenueo Zoning Coordinator RoberC Nickelsor advised the Comrr~ission that a letter requesting terminaiion of a11 proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No~ 654 for an automatic car wash ~orth, oi ti~e ~o;the3st ca ne: of l.i~coln 4venue ard E~SL Street had been received~ Mr. Mickelson furthe: ad~:ised the Conurission that the petitioner had already paid the street light and streec tre? fees, and since this was part of the condition of approval, the petitioner would be required to iequest refund of these fees through the City Council. Discussion was then heid by the Cortunission, and it was determined not to take action on the termination of Conditionai Use Permit No~ 654, but to let it terminate automatically by the expiration of the time limit3tion~ ~ ~; {I ,. i ~ I ADJOURNMENT - There being no further Lusiness to di.scuss, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:45 pom~ Respectfully submitted, ~% 1~7~'~~~~_~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commi~sion _~ __,z ~ ._. ~~ J; ~x