Loading...
Minutes-PC 1965/06/07~" ~~ ..!' ~ ~. City Hai1 Anaheim, Ca:ifornia June 7; 1955 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE A~'A!~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim Ci`~y P1a~~nin9 Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2 ~00 p~r~~y a quorum beir.g present- PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: N:ngail. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campy GaverY Herbsi, Perry, Ro~.vlar:d~ ABSENT - - COMMISSIONERS~ None. PRESENT • - Zoning Supervisor: Robe.•.t Mickeison Deputy City Attorney: Jerry Brody O::ice Eng3neer; 4rthur Daw Planning Department Stenog*ap?,er: Ca,o~yn GroSc INVOCATIO~' Reverend Floyd Lawson., Mt~ Ca?var y Luthezan C:,urch, gave tre :~,vor.=_tion~ PLEDGL- UF ALIEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of A:legiance tr ;h? Flag~ APPROVAL OF ThF MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of May 24, 1965, were appzoved with the following correction: Page 2598, " paragraoh 7y line 6~ the word rigidiy" shouid be deleted.. TENTATIVE MAP OF •- DEVELOPER: LUSK CORPORATION, i0522 South Santa Ge.-t~udes Avenu~•~ TRACT N0~ 5674, Whittiery Cai~forr.ia.. ENGINEER: Nopen, F:edlund 8 Darbyy Incorporated. REVISION_NO_ i__ 3030 West Mair. Sireet, Alhambra, Ca:ifornia„ Svbject. tractsy iocated south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of the Newport Freeway and north TEnTATIVE MAP OF of Lincoln Averue, and containing approx.imately 43 acres,. are proposed TRACT N0~ 5999 _ for subdivision ir~o 108 R~1, O~E•FAMILY RE~iUENT?9L, Z~NED :ots~ Zoning Supe*visor Robert Mickeison pointed out to the CuRmission the map= of subject tracts thzt were posted on the Chamber waliy not.ing that the previously approved Tentative Tract No~ 56'4 had been divided into the cwo subje~t tra.ts teca~se of the fact that developmer,t was being p;oposed in stages. I Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Pentati~:e Map of Tract ~b,. 5b7a;. Revisio:~ No~ 1, subject to the followir.g Interdepartmental Committze recommendatiunr: (1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than c,^e s.~bdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative fori, :or approval„ (2) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No~ 5999 is gr~ntac: subject to the completion of Reclassification No~ 64-65-87 and Variar.ce No. 1680.. (3) That the alignment of Royal Oak Dri~~e, north of Cre_=cent Dri•.,:, shall. be approved by the Orange County Highway Department~ I (4) That Royal Oak Drive shall be aligned with Pir.ney Drive to the satisfa~tion of , the City Engineer.. (5) That the access to Santa Ana Canyon P.oad shall be approved by the State Divisio~ ' of Highways~ (6) That Spring Hill Drive be designated as a collector street., (7) That Lot ho~ 54, fa. a future street at the east end of Spring Hi:l Drive, be dedicated in fee to the City of Anaheim,. (8) That the drainage be disposed of in a manner satis`ac±ory to the City Engineer, (9) That all grading shall be in conformance to the City of Anaheim's hillside grading ordinance~ •- 2608 - ~ ~ '. ` J _ s~ MINUTESy CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGPIy June 7y 19Fg 25C''. TENTATIVE MAp OF -(10) That '~-act No, 5999 sha~l be recerded and deve~aped prior to TRACT N0~ 5674Y Tra~~ P7~, 5674~ REVISION N0~ 1 TENTATIVE MAP OF ~11) Trat r.;c ~ame of the road de~ignated as "Royal Oak Drive" be ^?'.er.~~;in~d p^ior to recordation of said tract map, TRACT~NO__~9g9 (Contir~ed) (12; Tt.a•c s•:;,ject property snall be developed substantial)y in a`•.:orcJar.ce with plans and specifications on fi:P with the r~ty of Anaheim, ma:ked Eahibit No, i~ (13J Chat sidew3lks be previderi ~long at least one si~9e of Royal ~)ak Roc3ds s~.:bject to the ~.acisfaction of the Cit.;• Engineer ,,:~ (added as additional conditicn of aporova~, by ih~ Planni%.; Commission), - Commissi~>ne: Gauer :;2conded the mocion.. MOTION CARRIED. CoRUniss'.oner C~mp ofre.ed a motion to app:,ove Tentativa Map of Tract No: 599~~, subject to the following Ir,te:departmental Ccmmittee recomme:~datior.s: ~1) That =:;ou;d this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each sub~;v:;-,~,~ thE~reof shall be submi'.±~d ~., «;;~,+ "' ive form for a-~proval. (2) That che ;;~p:~v~t of Tentative M,~p of Tract No~. 5674 is granted subject i~ the completion o'c Reclassification No~ ti4-65-87 an~ Variance No~ 1n80, (3) That adequ~te dedicstion shall be given to Oran;~ Coanty to provide a full street at the south end of Royal 03k Drive, ~4) That Rolling F!:]~ D~i~-; be design3ted as a collector street~ (5) That Lot No. 50 :c ~esi~nated on t`? :ina: tract map as o n~,.-ta:laa.le lot. (6) T!;a.t the dr~inage be disposed of in s~ar;ner satisfactoi~~ to the Cit~ Engineer, ~') Tnat all a:.,~;~~~ shali be in conforma~.:-~ ±~ the City of P.raheim's hillside gradina ordirar.r.e~ ;I ~ ~~) 'Ihai i;sct A~o. 5674 sha11 be xecorded 3nd developed aftar Tract No.. 5999~ (9) That the r.ame of the road designater! __, "Ro al Oak Dr~ve" be determin~d :-ecordation of saici tr3ct m3p, Y prior t~ (10) Tt~at subject property shall be developed suFstan±i~:ly in accordar.ce with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, ,;,:rked Exhibit No~ 1~ (11) That eidewalks be provided ~long ~r. leas~ cne ;ide of Royal Oak Road, subject to the :a',;isfaction of t1e City F.naineer (added as additional cundition of ap~~roval - by the Pianning CoR~rtiission). Commissione:~ A11red seconded the motion~ MOTION CARkIHD. 2oning Supervisor Rebert Mickelson :ead to the Cummissio~ a letter that had been receive;i from the Orange Ur:ifi.ed School District, stati„y their concern ov=r the rtiatter of sido- walxs on Royal Oak Road. , In response to Commission questioningy Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated that the afo.re- , mentioned matters had been brought to the atter~tion of the devCioper who stated that it i +as their intent to instalL sidewalM1s on one side of Royal Oak Road; that it was furthe~r det=rm'.ned that there shc:::~i bc~ a dedic-+tion of 62 feet rather than 60 feet as shown on i the wap which would allow two additiona:. feet to ~ ~'~• ~w st?ted that if the Commission was desirousroflrequiring~thelinstallationcofc3usion, siciev.~al.k along e~e side or Royal Oak Road9 an additiona? condition of approval could be added +:~ provide for such sidewalk and that the width of dedication and section to be reau:;Fd could be left open and subject to the approval of the City Engineer who, in '~ : tvrn, co~ld review the p~ans with the develo~er for the purpose of establishing a definite ~ standard prior to approval by the City Council which could 'ee incorporated at that time., Commissioner Gauer ~:rfered a motian to rescind previous motions and make a new motion to e~prove Tentat~.ve Iract No~ 5674, Revision No~ lY and Tentative Tract ~'o~ 5999, subject :o an addit~ona.l con~ition of app;oval being added to both tracts providing for sidewalk~ alon~ at least one side of Hoyal Oak Road~ subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D i; Comn ssipner Camp secor~ed the motion~ h10TI0N CARRIED, ~:' ,, ~ ~~ 1~.~.~,~~ _~ ~ . ~.A~... _ - - - - - _ ~ V=-~-..~.~ ,,~.~m..~...~ ~a~.._ -- -- . - . `~:, ,: . ~ ~ . ~ i MINUTES~ CITX PLANNING COMMlSSIO~,, June ~, ~965 2610 TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVFLOPER: I.ORE~ D. COVTNGTON, 841 North Narbor Boulevacdv Anaheim; I'RACT N0.~59?6 _ C:3lifornia,. ENG~NEER: Lander Eng:nee:ir.g, 1782 West Liecoln Aven~?., Anaheimy Calif;.~nia~ Subjeet tiact, located easterly of Acacia Street •3nd southeriy :. ' Benmore Lane.; northez•ly of Canfieid '.ane and westerly of Donacy WayY 3nd containing ~;_~ximstely 2~28 scres, is proposed for subdivision into 1Q R-3., MUL'CIPLE• FAMILY RF.SI ~~ •~'~ ~.AL, ZONED lots„ Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickeison pointed out subjec± tract map located on the Chamber waily noting that it was a:;~•-~ubdivision of Tr3ct ~~os„ 5268 and 5270 and that the streets ar,d a;leys woi~ld remain the s;ime with the only change being in the lot width and in response to Commissior.`s puestion conce:n~na whether or not the ozigii;,~i con~itions of approval under - Tentative T;act Nos~ 5268 and 52?0 =ti11 appiied ~f s~bject tract were app:ovedy he stated y. ~.~ that the improvements h~sd been bonded so thai ir.:p,ovemer:ts wou:d be reauired under Tent3tive ~,.j Tract No,. 5976~ Cor+m~ssioner Allred offezed ~:-.oiion to app_ove Tentati.~•e Map of I~xact No~ 5976~ subject ' to the con~'itions i.-rosed ~r.de* Ter.tative Tr~ct= 5268 1nd `,2?0~ CeR~ics?oner Rowland seconded the rot'_or„ MOT?ON r_.ApR.*EP~ RECLASSIFICATION • CO!vTINLED P;;9i_IC t'.FARING BYF.ON 4., AND LL'FTTA F~ DAFII.y 1~u0 Cror.e '. N0.~64 ci~_i27___ Avenue~ AnaheiT•, C~iifo_n~a, Owrers; ~AMES A~ BAKF.R, 4_: 5o~ith Ohio + Street, Ar.aneim, Ca~iforn~,:~, 4ger,t; *eque=_ting a reciassifica~ion to t.`~e G-i, GF.~FRAL. COM.MERCIAL ZONF.; or. property desc*ihed a:; A rec.tsr.aular:y shaped oa;cei of 13rd ioc~ted at the southwes± co:ne: of Harboz Aouievard ~rd South Si~eet:; wiih f_ont,~ges oi ap~-oximate~y i83 feei cr. the we~.t eide of HarLor. Br.ulevard ar.c? app_•ox.irtia±ely 250 feet on the soutt: side of So•~[h 5t^eet, ~rd fu-ther described as 504 West So~~th S~_eet~ !'~opert.y presently class.f_ed R•~.4, AGRICULTtlR.AL, ZOD~F~, Sub~ect pet_t:cr. w~; co~:'.i;.aec From the meetir,g of May s0, :965, :;~ ordei to ailow the petit~~ner time to sub~'.r develop~~ent pl:aas fo* subject property, Zor.ing Supezviso: Robert Micke;son advised ihe Commiss~or that revised olans fo° subject Froperty ;~ad ;io± b?er. recei•.e~~ Mr~ Byror A., P~h:, the pet:tione_. appea~ed before :he Commission to reauest ar. 3oditi.ona; ~;I, 60-d~y exte.;si.on of t_me,. ; A'o one aFOe3.~ed in ocpositior. ~o s~Fject petition: THE I',EAP.ING 'NA~ G_OSED, ,~_.r.,.., i:~< <«.,,.~~ ComTi~;ior,e; r'erry offezed a rr~ot~r,r, to~~ontin~,e subject pei=t:on for 60 d~ys to allow the peti.ti.~r.~~r t~~r.e to sub;n~t re~-i;ed pia;.s '_ndic~tirg the propose~+ deve'_opmer'~ ComnissienF: Gaue~ _~ecor.ded ±he mot:on~ MOT.C`N CARR?ED~ COND:TTQKAI. '.:SE - ~?,BL« ~~F!A?i";t?, FI~W.4R.C I.~WIS AND DA:~';.I~!A M,. .'pNES. 11.('S F:~,~ Kacella PERMIT ~_0., 699_ Av2rue~ Aralie'_T•,, C•a:?.Forr~~ O~n~,er~i Fql~i F'.A:F?Ei,O, ~924 Eis~rc~e Aevrue., ~=:i:~ge, Ca_:ro.~r:'a~~.Aoerts *e-~est~r.g eera:~ssicr ;.c Hs'.~aF:.i=.h :~ co_•p^_.'i^ co•~p;ex co^s~s'.`r.g a:~ Orf_~'.8-.~ wa:e:-~.eu;ir.q,pa:ts rr.~n~.._'actcre,. ir•dust~ial tr~iir.ing,: ~^~ asso;i=.tea acier.t:F~.:~a.ly L,~se:! ,l~cc,~o~'•,c tas± -~rd _~epai~ far,'_ii±.y on Frope:ty des~::bed :i•.• A Tect;~ng'1:ie:'iy : iP°~ Pa•:^ai of ~~r.d of ::Fp:•oxir.:atety ,~04? 3c~ee with,a Pionr.age o1 :~ppro;~:ra,c.v ~.l0 ieet, the west ~c~:rda.y or said rropert~~ beiag ,ipo;ori- mate_y ,20 fee± Ero^~ t.~e -:et e: iir.t e_'' Lew:s Stiee~~ 3•:-+ fuz•~'r,e^ desc-ibed .,; ii Ka±el.la Avei?.,e~ Fr~)per~y ~_esactty c_assi~i~d Vl-•~:y i.IG}:T IKD.SIRIAI. ZOi~~E~ 05 Fa~t 64=~ Paul }'atf?eid~ ~gen~ fo; t!?e cetitionerv appea_ed bs~o^e the Cor;-issica to ;evievr t~e reason for readvt~rtiser:.e~t oi sLbject pet9.t:on which the Cemr.:isszon t~ad p:ev~ously coesidered at cheir May 10, 1965 ^eeting~ stati.na that the r.~a±~.-e oF the proposed bu~ir.e=s had r.ot heen fully exolair,ed at the previow meetir.g~ T~~e agert fJ~ ~:~e: re~riewed the p°oposed chszn cne,a- tion anc+ ueveioF.•~zt 'e~ ±he Comm~ssi.o~4 sta',ino that t`~e p~ocosed ~ubject deve~opr..en: r~oul~ appeal to two gro~:~s of pecpiey or:e bei.na tne c.:stome~ w~.o ha; fleet opesat:o^s and t};at every effox*., wo,:lc1 be Tade to seek ye~~::~y f;eei; :r.air.teran.ce cer.t,:ac~s; fu-~}:era~~hai Anahei~ woui-l be the co~pe:ate he•3daua,,t.er., =.nd th~t twenty-trvo gener3l iocat:or.s were r=oposed throu3houi, weste_n '1;Zited jL]LES„ wit!: `inancing having beer. :.•_anoed for t.he fi.rst ~h*eeo Mro Hatfieid read r.rief e ce.,o~=_ o; ~. ).rt±er *c the Comnissior., o^ file with the L'eveiopn~.ert Services D;pa.ta.ent,, whi!:h ext_3Sr?e~ what the i:,dividu~l te;t a-.d :~ena2'^ r8C'l.it125 ~ere .3r.~ how they would work. ~e ~::rthe- ;t:~tP:; th.~t A7a:it:ir, nad :~eser. crose~ rc= thr~ p.-•ct,o~.e:! ~~~. beC~3USP, of icCatlon., -1zc,, zot:..e.~ ilR~ 9~~?1.'_~~:ii±y„ ~'u_•t~, - ~ ~ e_~,, thai t._e p:•~r.e=~,: ;;r~_3tio- ~~-~ 's~.`~.~~ y'~= _~, ,w~; •y ; .. _ -- ~ ,._--~,~~ . - - -- - _ - cc..,m..- ~ .-.~......~--r.r... ~ ^ ~.. c`1r^`s; " - MINITIES~ CI?Y pL,.ANNING COMh175STOny Ju^? 7~ 1905 26~-~ Ct~RDITIONAL i~SE - vr~uid bE of an extremeiy light servir,e r,ature and wr~uid not convei*_ to PF.RMIT N0~ 699 any heaw type ove~haal opereticny that a 16-houi•y G-•day ope~3ticn was (Continue~ V proposed~ tha`c ~he functior.s to be pesfor.med with:•, subject deveiopment would be (i) waiehousing (which wo;:ld occupy 50SK of the space)~ (2) par±s remanufacture, (3) industr.iai t°aining,, (4) corpc+rate officesv (5j tes: and repais facility~ snd (6; research iaboratoz_zso M~, U~tfield d~scribed each functiony a cepy being submitte~! for z=~'erence pu~Foses~ =urthery tha± the iest fa;:iii?y would be cor~trur,ted first ~r.d would operate for seven months on a trial }asisv at which time com~iitments wculd be made f~; the next ±wo faciiit:es with'_r: a 60-day periody both of which will be ~ocsted in 0_~nge County,j and that as those ~:ere r.earing completior.., they wou'~d begir carload blyinq of parts as econo~ny dir.tated the iatter, Zt wh:ch time ~t~ey wouid con.struct th~ir warehouse~ subsequer.± to tnat, ~'r.e others wo:.ld develop ene every 90 days th_cuch ?97: tntil :'rei° gc~l of 22 locati.ons had ~een _eachede At this poi~t, Mro !~3tfieid p-ese;~ted the Cor^_r.~ss±en with *.wo ch~rts tha~ _e.a'~~i ic zor,ina, Dis:~=sion w=a held ~etween :.`:e CoTCis=_~or ar.d M:•~ Na±fieid,, whe:~u~cn NL•~ Ha;field stated trat ±:.e ~~ses foz w~:~~+ ±ne•: _n`ende~? the r_operty r,ompa-ed ~a~~c-•a~:~: with fi.hcse sti~Lia*.ec' er.. ihe tw~ :.h:~~+, ga ' ,+~x in conclssic..: !N: ,!~~tfle:d st._a±e~ ~e had cor.t~cted two pe_;ons whc wera G•-•. _cu=~v i~ OppOSl±:o- ~r.d h~:d :.:so cor,±ac+ed o~;,cr. pFooie in the ~rea who wo~.id be aff~.tedo He then ~e :^ ar.d : ut~.:zted •~ l.etter cont?zr~ng six sigr.ytures app-ot Ing the r:cFoSed ~seo F?e f~_t~_E; a±~tec he h.ad tn)k~d vr:th M~> B:*rows of Gene: ~~: Food~ C'orporatie^ +~. c had previouc_y - pp~ced ;+: y ch~nge ?.~ zoniuc , ar.d had sir.ce s=;ated ~uL: o B,i_~ows had ee c: jett.ior: to ±te p:oFosed developn:er.ta In respon=_e 'e Co:nTissi.or, c~estior`rg foL, Natf;eld f:°the- .t~±ed jt_=i 3~3 ac_es F:ad bee~ purcF~3sed in Anaheim. PC^ ~YlE rurpo.=.e of iocat~ng a warehci_s~_, the:eby e~ir,ur.atir.q the poss±biiity of ~ w~:eho~~se ~ei.ng cuast,ucted i*~ F;;ri'_r.gton React_ ,nd Costa Me~s, D~scussion was !~:e=d 'o~~ ~he {:or!r.is=i.or, as to the twe o` _epair .vo_k w;~i:h ~:9nt be oer• fo_,T.ed o^ sur;e~t prope.tv3 afte~ wh~oh 1t was det?i~.;r:er ±h.~t on.:Y i3ght reoait woi•k wou:d tske oiace ri~h he~vie_• rep~~•rs, such as hea~ry rr.es~: of t,ar.s~nissior. :eo~ir, being ~efer~ed ?e ~'r,e °eT~:r..~factLr_r.g section of !he ccmpiex wFe~e ~ final deter~-:n=.tior, wo~id be made ::; to t!:e ~c~u31 ;Ep:OV31 erd/or repiacer..en± c.° .. t~an;.r.issior.~ Mro Fred L~w=_:'~ rep=eser:tir.g the Seuthern Pacific Railroad, appe~rec' before the Co~missicr 7.n opoos~ti~~~ t.o t~e F_'oPosed use 'c p:esent a Ta~ ~e }.~d arepared sho~~~~o the a:ea .,. o~est.ier ~nd }`.e rat.:re of its si,*;c~nc':r.gsY ~+a'_i~~:g re w~s desirous o~ ~~.avinq it , : a F~'•t of th.e f?~.e, :nd conc;ading by :•ec~.<estine dr~~=.. of s;:b;ec` petitzor. or. t`.e b~.:-:- :t wou:d be i co~~.e-:::'i: ~lse~ Zon~ng .`:~pB?•ri:C: Fobe°t M'_~!ce.SOf? Z•e::G~ ±O `t;d COIir;~SSJ.OC! ~~ i.Ef,t,er `-o~ N,:~, Aa~rows Gf Gene<al Foods Gorporat;on in ooposi~!on to t^e p:ooosed use~ b3sed on ~he ssTe reason~ ~s stated 3~ , p~~+'~ in~:S ~ee'ir:a, In resporse to M:•, F~::fie~d`s *.e,:di~:g ~t a iette_ he `•.-ad writ*er. to M~o F,o E~ Free*an or the Southern Pscifi:~ Raiiro3dy ~+~,}?~9 tiis w:ili.gzess ±o ;E~:ew wii~: !-.ar. ±he'_^ pro~.^O:ec? p_ans of deve':opmerty Mr~ F;.ee~sn stated he wished ~o ack^ew_edge -ecN~pt ~f tF.~ ie~±e:- and further stated they were sti~<? opposi~g ar.v ~;~r.ge in zoair.a„ T!-!E I-'.EARING WAS CLOSEL', In response to Co~~:?ssier. ccestioniny cor.cezning the oossiwie zor.e subject f+cility couid go in under a ~on~itior.al use aer:~:±3 Mro Mickeison stated he be7ieved i', w3c a pe:nittec use in the C-i Zone by conditional use permity but tha~ :t was r:~the~• Questionable ber,ause of the wording unde~ the Conditional Use Permit section ir. w:;_ch a repair racii±ty was r:ot mentioned; tha: the C-•~ Zcne wovid p*_•obabiy be the most 3pp:icabie zone as a n3tte: of rfght; furtherv that a zone change was not being p:oposed, Juring a discussion between the Corunission, concern was voiced or•er the p_ooesed 16 hours of operation and its effect. on tr.af:ic generated or, K.ateila Aver~le9 plus the fact that the opening of the Angel Stadiun would generate ev~~r. TOTE ca=s on that street; a± such t;me it was decided that Katella Avenue had been tle_=igneC and engineered to carry a greate; amount ef traffic than that which would result from the a6ove rt:entioned c~ncernsa Commissioner Nexbst offered a motion to deny Petition fo= Condit3.ona1 Use Permit Noe 699, seconded by Corrur,issioner Per:y9 based on the fac± that 1 ~ wouid ±er:d to dowr.grade ti:e integrity of the area; that consideration should be gi~Fr. to ±he industries which had considerable ir.ves~^~ents in industrial plants in the area; that a p_ecedent would be set fo_ future sinilar requests; that the proposed use could be con=_idered as heing corrTercia: which depended on commercia: trade; that some of the orooosed use=_ co;ald be considered c , MINUTES~ CITY pLANNING CONN:ISSION, Jane 7y i965 26i2 CO~DITIONAL USE ~ M~-i if tha '-montns trial period proved Favorabiy ~ if not~ the PERMII' N0. 699_ possibility of a garage type operation consistirg of r,eavy .repair work ~ (Continued) might occur; and ±hat it was not compatible with other industrial f development in the areaa The motion lost by a vote of 3 to 4~s followsc AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred9 Herbsty Perryo NOES: COMM7S~IONERSP Campy Gaue~v Rowlandy Mungall~ In voting °'no", Commissioner Camp =_tated he did not feel the integrity of one zone was , any more important than that of another zone; that bakeries in that area were aliowed ; - to seli to the general oubiic and that as far as Southern Pacific was concernedy their •-~~~ land was not necessa*ily heid for i.ndustrial zonings or.ly if their rail were agreed to ,Ef , be used latero ~ '~ Commissioner Gauer in voting "ro" stated he agreed with Commi=_=_icr.e: Cart:p; fu*ther, that ~ another similar situation wouid be coming up for consideratior. shortiy and that, also~ since a join± meet:ng between the City Councfl and Planning Comm'_ssion 1V35 scheduled for ~ ~une 15y 1965,, he stated '_t right ts weil to continue subject peti±ion so trst additional ;i study might be made. ~ ~~ Chairnan Mungali in voting "no°' stated a continuance should be gr.anted fo~ reaui±s of ,I' the jo~c~: mee*ir.g on June 15y and that a comritment had already been rrade to ~'~e people .I in the a=ea and should be adhered too 1 In vo±ing "no"; Corur:issioner Rowiand stated he was not ccnvir.cec~ *hat subject use was `•~ a commercial ope_ ~tior„ `f ~~~ ,~ l ~ , ~ ;~ ,, . . I iarf~•. ~ CoRnissior.e_ Gaue~• cffe-ed a new r!c+_ion *_o%confinue Petitior. fo* Condition~l tlse Fer^~it ,I Noo 699 untii the meeting of June 2i, 1965, to permi~ ±he Com;~issior. ar.d City Co::ncil ; at 3 joi.^.t wo=k sessior or. _ur.e '_5, to set a poiicy =or ',.he Southeast Ir:dusi_iai .Area~ I Comr.!issiore: Rowl:~n~.: secor.ded the motion.~ MOTIO'Q CARRIEP~ Cor..?,issior.er Per:y voted "'co", I ~ COND?TIONAL USE - PUBLIC }-~EARING.. JOSEPH C. HENSLEEy ,iR~, MARIE A. I-fENSLEE, .4ND LESTER PERMIT NO.. 705 C~ MULLIS, SOi East Santa Ana Street, Anaheim9 California, Owners; *equesting permission to es~ablish an automobile body repair shup or, property described 3s: A rectanguiarly shaped parcel of land with a ~ _ frontage of app:oximateiy ?5 feet on the west side of South Rose Sireet and a maximum ~ depth of app_oximateiy 175 feet, the northern boundayo uf s~id property being approximateiy 'j 203 feet south of the cer.teriine of Santa Ana Street., and further descrioed as 515 South ~ Rose Street.. E; r ~ Mr~ Joseph C, laer,sl~e, .?*_•.,, the Fet:tioner, appeared before the Comm_ssion to *ev:ew plins ~=; of development,. 1 No one appeared ir. opposition to subject petition~ TN~ f-lEARI~!G WAS CLOSED ~ i ~ Commissioner .°.owland offered Resolution No. 1652, Series i964-65, and moved for its passage ~ and 3doptionY seconded by Commissioner Gauery to app:ove Petition for Conditional U=e Permit ~ No~ ~05, subject to conditions. (,See Resoiution Book.) ~ rt ~? On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vo+r: ~~~ i 1~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AllredY Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, Perry, Rowland„ ~ IJOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Camp. ; , I CONDITION/iL USE - PUBLIC HEARING,. FLORIENE SANDERSFELD, c~`o MacMahon, Nelson e Tilsor., ~ PERMIT N0~ 707 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim~ Californiay Owner; J. LANE iILSON, 1695 West Crescent Avenuey Aneheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish a restaurant with on-sale beer on property '`.~ described as: A rectangularl.y shaped parcel of land located at the =outheast corner of ` Orange Avenue and Knott Avenue, with frontages of approximately 213 feet on the south side of Orange %.~enue and approximately 293 feet on the east s~de of Knott Avenue, and ~, further describea as ;•t65-A Orange Avenue, , ~ ~j Mr> .7,. Lane TilsonY tne agent, appeared before the Commission to review proposed plans cf ~"~ development, noting tF.at it was proposed to be located in the corner of an existing shopping :; center wh`_ch was generaily surrounded by multi-family development, and that there was an ~ , .. C . rt - ~i ~• . _ . __- ~ ` "' i - -- - ~. g MINUTES, CITf PLANNING COMMISSIONy June 7y 1965 2613 CONDITIONAL USE ~ existing package liquor store and beer bar in the immediate area; PERMIT N0~ 707 also that a,r,izza restaurant with on-saie beer was presentiy located (Continued) in subject shopping centere No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono T[-IE I-fEARING WAS CLOSED„ In response to Commission questioning, Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson stated the junior high school located westerly of subject p:operty was within approxima'.ely 600 - feet of subject property~ ""'~ In res ~:~:: ~ ponse to Commiss=on°s question relative to the type of food p:.oposed to be =erved, ~;f ~ the aqent stated that the main feature would b= "broii your own" si:eaks; furthery that .'I~ the area had been approved by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for beer bar usagea ~~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ 1653, Series 1964~65, and mo~-ed for its passage ;i and adoptio~9 seconded by Commi.ssioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Cond_tior.al Use Permit ! Noo 707y based on the fact that the proposed kitchen would not ailow su:i!cient space ~~ for the adequate preparation of ineals; also, that the proposed on-sale of teer would be ;.~ -~ a bad infiuence on children frequenting the area due to the close proximity o_` a junior i high sc:~ool within 600 feet to the west of subject propertyo (See Resolution Book~) On roll ca?i the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allredy Czmp, Gauery Herbsty Mungail, Perry9 Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIOA'ERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I-IEARING~ ORANGE COUNTY INVESTORS ASSOCIA'fES; 12232 Movius Drive, PERMIT N0, 708 Garden Grove9 California, Owner; T. E. LEWIS, i09G0 Dale Street; Stantonv Californiay Agent; requesting permission to estsblish a convaiescent hospital on property described as: A rz~tangulariy shaped parcei of land with a frontage of approximately 211 feet on the west side ot riarbor 3oulevard and a rt;aximum ';i depth of app:oxinately 236 feet~ the southern boundary of said nropeity being approrimately !~ 465 feet no:±.h of the centeriine of Vermont Avenue, and further described as 861 South - , Harbor Boulevard> Mro T„ E, Lewisy the agent, appeared before the Commission to review subject development, stating they were proposing a type of development which would be in confo:mance with the surrounding a:ea and which would not be in conflict with the multi-.'air.ily deveiopment behind subject property; further, that they were agreeable to limiting ingress and egress from Harbor Boulevard only as recommended~ The agent then stated he would like to inquire about two of the recommended conditions of approval - Conditions Noso 4 and 5- st-~ting that adequate trash storage areas were required under the Hospital Authority of the Statey and that a fire hydrant was presently installed ~t the front of subject property~ A discussion was held in which it was determined that only registered nurses would be employed; that tne development wouid be professionally leased; that a State inspection would occur about once a year; andY finaliy9 that the petitioner stipulated to relocating the proposed structure northerly 4-5 feet to provide for 90-degree pa~kingY with access being limited to and from Harbor Bouleva:d onlyy thereby eliminating access to the resi- dential area westerly of subject property., No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ Cammissioner Herbst offered Resolution No~ 1654, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoptionY seconded by Commissioner Allred, to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 708, subject to conditions and the relocation of subject building northerly 4-5 feet to provide for 9i1-degree parking with access being limited to Harbor Boulevard only, and access to the re.sidential area westerly of subject property being eliminated, as stip~.ated by the agent~ (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando .j - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ * ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~oneo , ~ .~ •_ - i ~ i: MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 7y 1965 26i4 RECESS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten mznutes~ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. NF~TION CARRIED~ The meeting recessed at 3:45 p~m~ RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:00 p~m~, all Commissioners beins present~ CONDITIONAL USE •- PUBLIC I-IEARING~ ROBERT E.. TALLMAN, i059i Paloma Avenue, Garden Grovei PERMIT NO„ 709_ California, Owner; Tf'EONE AND VARONA ftOSEVEAR, 8313 Beethovan DriveY Auena Park, Californiay Agents; requesting permission to establish a chiid day nursery in an existing residential structure on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Caro?eer Lane, with frontages of approximate:y :15 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and approximately 67 feet on the east side of Caroleen Laney the east boundary of said property being approximately 467 feet west of tt-e centerline of Brookhurst Street; ar.d further described as 1771 Caroleen Lane~ Mr., Robert Tailman; ihe petitione:y appeared before the Commission to rev~ew the proposed usey stating that the property across the street was presentiy zoned commer~ial; that he was p.-uFCSing to sell subject property to a person licensed by the State to operate a nursery school~ and that it would be periodically checked by the State; furthe: that ample parkir,g would be provided. In response to Commission questioning; Mr~ Tailman stated that the State required 35 squa*e feet per child be provided which wouid ailow room for 38 children; with the outside fenced in play-ya:d permitting room for 58 children3 but that he was desirous of being licensed for 35-40 children~ He continued to state that approximately three person= would be empioyed, with hours of operation being from 7:00 a:m~ untii 6:00 p.m., and a five-day week with adult supervision being provided at ~il times; furthei•, t'r~at he would not use subject property as a residence E. discussion was heid concerning the souare foot area that would be pro~•ided from which landscaping and parking in front of the premises would be excludFd, at which time the petitioner was advised the City of Anaheim would require a dedication along Katella Avenue for street widening purpuses. The petitioner determined that the dedication would require approximately a 16-foot area which would eliminate the pi•oposed side yard aitogether,, thus only permitting approximately 15 chiidren in order to comply with State r~gulations~ Mrs~ Varona Rosevear, the agent, ir.quire~l if she would be abie to erect a fence, and was advised by Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson that an encroachment permit by the City of Anaheim wouid be necessary prior to erection of any fence, Mrs~ Roy J~ Siegfriedy representative of Katella Park HomeoNners' Association, appeared before the Commission and presented a letter endorsed by 34 residents in the area in opposition.. Mr~ M~ E~ Jones, 1768 Caroleen Lane, appeared in opposition, st3ting that he had the same size house as the petitionery but th:t he fell short of the square foot area of that claimed by the petitioner; alsoy that the house was unsafe because of the fac± ~;~a;•: twa-thirds of the living room walls was compi•ised of glass and that the commercial zoi~~~ a~:oss the street. mentioned previously, was in the City of Garden Grove~ In re: ~ttal, t}ie petitioner stated that a change of zoning was rot being ~.i:•~ceed, oniy a conditi.,,,..1 use permit which would require sidewalks along Caroleen Way a:. a condition of approvai; that his title policy had been the bas'_s for determini.ng the l~,r size to be 67 by 115 feet, with the square foot area for the inte*ior of the hou~~e ha~~inq b~aen verified by a ~~an company~ In response to Mr. Mickelson's question concerning use of ±he garage, the petitioner stated it was proposed to be turned into a classroom~ Mrs~ Rosevear stated that a 6-~ foot chainlink fence would be erected around the play area to provide for the childrens' safety and that a similar fence p:esently existed around the previously mentioned pool next doo:, and that plans had been made to protect the windows from children running into them; further, that she had operated va~•ious other nursery schoo.is in Utah and California in a desirable manner. , TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED„ ~ ~ ' . M._-, ~ MINUTESY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June ?y 1965 2615 e .'"'.~~ y t ~ , ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution YJoo i655, Series 2964-65~ and PERMIT NO., 7C9._. moved for its passage and adoptionY secanded by Commissioner Rowland, (Continued) ±o deny Petition for Cor,ditional Use Permit Noo 709, based on the fact that the g:enting of the proposed use would perm?t an E•ncroachment into a residential area; that the applicani would be al:owed a property right not enjoyed by other property owners in the area; and that it would bE a hazard to the peace; hea?th3 safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim~ (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolutior. was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred; Camp, Gauer~ Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowiando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ FRANK M~DADE AND GENOKEFA H~ M~DADE, 1703 West Crone PERMIT ~0~ ?i0 Avenue9 Anahe?m9 CaliforniaS Owners; requesting permission to establish a real estate-accounting office in an existing resider=iai structure, and to permit the instailation of a lighted roof sign with waiver of - maximum =_ign area on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel cf land located at the r.orthwest corner of Euciid Street and Crone Avenuey wiih frontages of approximately 112 feet or. the west side of Euclid Street and approximately 68 feet on the no:c~. side of Crone Avenue, and further described as 1603 'vVest Crone Avenue and/or 745 South Euciid St:eet, Mr~ Frank McDade3 the petit~oner, appea:ed before the Commission to review the proposed use, stating they vrere desirous of obtaining a perm;t so that their present TV repair shop could be converted into the prooosed use~ Mr~ Cec'_i McCaii, i?:5 Crone .4vc,,ue, ~poeared in opposztion to state that everyone :r his tract had opposed the p*evious variance perm:tting the TV repai: shop and thrt he was:etired and presentiy had one iarge slgn that shined in his house at n~ght; that parking wauld be inadequate; causing Euclid Stxeet to be used as a parkir.g area; ands further~ that he ur.der- stood toilet faciiities did not exist ir t:~e TV :epair shop and none would be app_ovedo In *ebuttai9 M:, McDade s:ated they had previously been g=anted ihe use of their present , sign for the TV repair shop; that the shop was being renovated with toilet facilities to be -! provided; also9 that parking had been adequate for the repair shop untii present, and that - the proposed use would not cause a heavier traffic fiow~ Zoning Super~•isor Robert Micke:sor, submitted a ietter of opposition from the City of Garden Grove~ Mr~ McCall stated the reason a traific problem did not presently ex.ist was the fact that the house had been vacant for some time~ F~1 ?n response to Commission questioning, the petitioner stated he planned to live on subject property, and he intended to operate the proposed use himself rather than leasing it out; that he was presently a substitute teacher and intended to operate the proposed use as a supplement to his income and at su~;h ti.me that the latter should prove to be :nore feasible tha:: teachingy he would then termi~ate the tPaching job„ In respense to Co~unission questioning, Mr~ Mickelson stated the proposed use would quaiiiy as a homeowner`s occupation if the present sign were removed with no sign being permitted anywhere on the structure~ with c~~iy a sign stating the name of the resident living there being permiited, TI-~ FIEARIP;G WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1656, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Al).red, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Ne„ 710 since the Planning Commission had gone on record as denying the previous use of the TV repair shop, and that the proposed use would only be pei•mitted under a homeowner`s occupationy and if granted9 would set a preced?nt for future simiiar requests in the area, (See Resolut~on Book~) ~ Before seconding the motion~ Commissioner Allred inauired of the petit:oner whether or nat ne would be desirous of operating under a homeowner's occupation without any signs beii~g permitted other than the nameplate previously mentioned, at wh?-h time the petit:oner stated he would have to think about it~ ~j _ On roll call the foregoing rssolution was passed by the following vote: ~;~ ~ A1'ES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campy Gauer, Herbst, Mungal~, Perry, Rowiand~ 'f~ ,~x NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ AFsSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo F MINUTES~ C.LTY FLANNIA'G COMMISSIONy June 7, 1965 26i6 VARIANCE_N0~ 1708 - PUBLIC HEpRING~ ANDRE AND cVELYN DOHNT, 731 North Claudina Street, Anaheim, Californiay Owners; KEN GUNTi-IERi 115 East Villa Rita, ia single-family dwelli gbwithCwaivernof~minimum requirednrearrmardlon to construct a as: A rectanguiarly shaped parcel of land with a fronta e of a property described the south side of Janeen Way and a maximum depth of a g PProximateiy 82 feet on boundary of said p:operty being approximately 120 feetPeastmofethe1centerlinehofWLancer Drive which lies =ast of Loara Street, and further described as 1426 Janeen Way~ Mro Ken Gunther9 the agent for the petitioner3 appeared before the Commission to review , the proposed development9 stating they were requesting the waiver of minimum required rear yard for the purpose of installing a poolo E; ~~ No one appeared in o ~ ; , pposit:on to subject petitiono T1-~ I-~ARING WAS CLOSED~ CoRanissioner Camp o:_°ered Resolution No~ 165?9 Series 1964-65~ and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissione: Perryy to approve Petition for Variance Noa 1708, subject to conditions~ (See Resoiution Book~) On roii call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perrys Rowland, NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS~ Nonea VARIANCE N0~ i709 - PUBLIC I-~ARING~ SOU7HEAST MORTGAGE COMPANY, 1801 West Katella Avenuey Anaheim, California, Owners CHARLES R. HILLER, i808 West Lincoln Avenues Anaheimy California9 Agent; requesting a variance to permit the establishment of a drive-in grocery with wa3vers of required number of parking spaces and required local street setback on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Acama Street, with frontages of approximately 50 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue ard approximately 150 feet o~ the west side of Acama Street, the western boundary of szid property being approximately 21i feet east of the centerline of South fsarbor Boulevard, Property presently classified C-is GENERAL COMA~RCIAL; ZONE~ Mr~ Merlin Barth~ representative of the agent's architectural firm, appeared before the Commission to review the proposed use, stating it would be located at a choice location and would draw trade from R-1 and R-2 areas, Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 4:40 p,m~ Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson submitted a letter of opposit±on from the City of Garden C,ro ve : Mro Riley Cruz, one of the owners o: the proposed markets appeared before the Commission to state that Acama Street dead-ends into an existing trailer court to the rear of the proposed store; that landscaping would be provided in the parking area as indicated by the plot map; t that a 65-foot setback from Orangewood Avenue would aid a great deal in having unobstructed i vision of traffic; and, finally, that Acama Street provided access for the apartment dwell- ers located to the rear of the proposed drive-in marketo In response to Commission questioning, Mro Cruz stated that Shell Oil Company, owners of the service station site located on the corner, had been contacted for the purpose of ~ attempting to ~cqui~e a portion of property to provide additional space for the proposed market, but the petitioner was unsuccessful in acquiring additional lando Mro Mickelson advised the Commission that a lot split had not been recorded on subject ~ property; that the lot was really quite large and that it seemed questionable that a ~ hardship was involved by splitting a lot and then asking for a variance because the lot i was too small; that a service station usually requires a~ area approximately 150 feet in size, and that it would have been well if an arrangement could have been resolved with Shell Oil Company to allow additional space for the proposecJ useo Commissioner Rowland stated he would be willing to grant ~he parkins requirement waive:, but not the requested waiver of setback areao '! Commissioner Camp stated that the construction of an attractive building would be an ,-~ , improvement over that which existed directly across the street, and9 also, Acama Street '! was limited as it did ;ot go anywhera and, therefore, would not cause a t*affic hazardo !;I ~~ TI-!E HEA.RING WAS CLOSEDo ,i ~ Comrt:issioner Herbst returned to the Council Chamber at 4:47 p,m, !~ F MINUfESy CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~, June 7y 1965 26i7 VARIANCE_N0~ 1709 - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No., 1658, Series 1964-65, and (Continued) moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allredy to approve Petition for Variance No. 1709y subject to conditions,~ (Sea Resolution Book,) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Camp, Gauer, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Mungalls Perry~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo , ABSTAiN: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst~ ~.,.-:~~ In voting "no"; Commissioner Perry stated he thought the setback should be maintained - ~ ! that if zoning requirements were allowed to relax, the purpose of the City's zoning would .,~~ be defeated. ~ ;. ~ Mr~ Mungall voted "no" for the same reason as that of Commissioner Perry iI ~:~ VARIANCE NO__1710 - PUBLIC HEARING~ CHARLES F~ AND ELMA SPAULDING, 1115 West Broadway, ;i - Ar.aheim, Californiay Owners; requesting permission to develop an apr,rt- ~ ment building with waivers of (1) front yard setback, (2) minimum ;I• required side yard9 (3) location requirements of accessory buildings abutting p~ooerty line, ! and (4) minimum reauired recreation area, on property described as: A rectangulariy shaped ~ parcel of iand with a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the north side of Broadway and a a,~ maximum depth of approximately 158 feet9 the eastern boundary of said property being approxi- ;i mately 193 feet west of the centerline of West Street, and further described as 1115 West jI Broadway, Property presentiy classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE: ;~ Mr~ Charles Spaulding, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to review the proposed '~ development, stating that he had owned the p_operty since 1956, and he was desirous of con•- 'i structing a building similar to that constructec! two doors down the street to the east, ard that it was his opinion all property on the no-th side of the street would eventually be mul.tiple-family development~ ' Commissione* Gauer stated that quite a few problems were being compounded on subject street; €` that the granting of subject petition would set a further precedent in the area, noting that ~;• an entire row of similar ap3rtments existed on that street which did not comply with the R-3 ~.` _ regulations; and that a new ordinance had been written with the intention of eliminating any ;i further violations~ Commissioner Perry expressed concern that the proposed green area would be only ha?f of that required, and that the waiver of minimum required side yard could be permitted. A discussion was held between the Commission and the petitioner in an attempt to work out a feasible means of development other than that proposed, after which it was suggested that a continuance should be granted since the present plans of development were undesirable. Conmissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No, i7i0 to the meeting of July 7, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion: h1CTI0N CARRIED. VARIANCE NOa 1711 - PUBLIC I-~pRING. PETROLEUM FACILITIES, INCORPORATED, STkNDARD OIL, 605 West Olympic, Los Angeles, California, Owner; BILL WINTERBERG, ~ 920 Ar1ee Place, Anaheim~ California, Agent; requesting permission ~ to construct two zoof signs for a service station with waiver of the height and distance ~~ i between roof signs, on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land ; ~ located at the southeast corner of Ball Road ar.~i Dale Avenue, with frontages of approxi- ~ mately 144 feet on Ball Road and approximately 14ti feet on Dale Avenue, and further t described as 2792 West Ball Road~ Property p:esently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, ~~ i ~, Mr~ Bill Winterberg, the agent, appeared before the Commission to in si ns present photographs show•• ~. 9 9 presentiy installed at other ~.,~ations in Anaheim which were similar in nature to ; those being proposed, stating that the two proposed signs would be constructed on canopies; ~ further, that since the two signs were proposed to be located on two difieient streets, : they would not overiap each other from a r,ormal viewing appearance and would tend to give Y. C .~ a better appearance than one large sign on the corner, ~ _ Commissioner Gauer expressed concern over the height waiver because of the fact that the `~ Commission had recently denied similar requests since the recent adoption of the new Sign ~ ~ i~ ~` Ordinance~ f MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 7, 1965 2618 VARIANCE N0~ 1711 - Mr~ Winterberg stated that two representatives of the Standard Gil (Continued) Company had attended the City's Sign Ordinance meetings; that the types of signs being prop~~sed were Standard ail C~mpany's motif; and that an exception should be considered ~~~ause o£ the two separate streets which would require advertising~ In response to Commission quest:o,^.ang, the petitioner 5~tated he would be ag*eeab;e to conform to the height limitation of 25 feet rather than ±hz requested 36 feet, and he thought it would be zgreeable to the othe,r representativ~~s of Standard Oil Company present at the meeting~ ~~ UL*, Earl Lindsayy representative of Stand~3rd Oil Company9 appeared before the Commission to discuss the `easibility of limiting th~zir height to 25 feet, at which time he stated ~ he would be agre~3ble to dc so in order to get both Ball Road and Dale Avenue advertised, Mr~ Winterrerg appeared to state the proposed station would be attractively constructed with an overall appearance which would be more pleasing than that presently existing across the street,which had been referred to earlier in the meeting, No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition~ TI-~ I-~ARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No~ 1711, on the basis that approval of subject petition would not be in compliance with the newly adopted Sign Ordinance and because of the fact that the Commission had denied previous similar requests. Commissioner Nerbst stated that a recent request filed by the Howard Johnson kestaurant and Motel concern9 which requested a waiver from the new Sign Ordinance, had not been denied alto9ether; further, that some consideration should be given to subject request since Standard Oil Company did maintain a clean~ nice appearing station throughout the United States and because of the fact that the type of signs requested had been established as their motif~ Furthery that he thought one big sign would be less appealin9 than the two which were proposed~ Commissioner Perry9 noting from previous actions, stated the City Council required that only one sign be permitted for a station of ihe type being proposed, at which time -. Commissioner Nerbst stated this policy had been discussed at the Sign Ordinance meetings, - and he was of the opinion a company who had statewide facilities as that being proposed should be consideredo '~ Commissioner Gauer withdrew his motion~ CoRUnissionez• Herbst offered Resolution Noo i659, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to approve, in part~ Petition for Variance No~ 1711 - that being the requested waiver of distance, provided that the total square footage of the proposed two signs did not exceed the allowable square foot a:ea permitted under the Sign Ordinance, and for deniai of the requested height waiver since the petitione: j had agreed during the meeting to abide with the Code`s requirement of 25 feet„ (See i Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, MungallY Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONEZS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIO~ERS: Noneo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC i-~ARING~ DAN Eo VAIL, 70-171 Highway 111, Cathedral City, N0~ 64-65-132 California, Owner; EUGENE COLOMAN, 174"i West Lincoln, L-2, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting a reclassification from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-ly GENER.4i COMMERCIAL, ZONE, on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 66 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and a max.imum depth of approximately 27? feet. the s~uthern boundary of said property being approximately 923 feet north of the center- line of Crescent Avenue, and further described as 731 North Euclid Str=et. Mr. Eugene Coloman, the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to review the proposed development, stating that since submission of plans, he had determined the proposed location was too desirable for the type of building he had planned to develop therey and that the location warranted a nicer development~ ~ ~ MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 7, i965 2620 `r. .., ~ , P }~ ~ : i PRECISE ALIGNMENT ~- TI-'F !-IEARING WAS CLO;ED LA PALMA AVENU~ (Continued~~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1561, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, secr,nded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that the Precise Alignment of La Palma Avenue from Jefferson Street on the west to Fee Ana Street on the east, as depicted on Exliibit "A" on file in the Office of the City Engineer be approved, thus reaffirming th? general alignment approved in General Plan Amendment No~ 38, Alternative A ~ (See Resoliition Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~ AYES: CGMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowlandy Mungall, ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ' ABSENT: COMtnfISSIONERS: None~ REPORTS AND - ITEM NO_ i RECOMN~NDATIONS Orange County Conditional Permit No~ i180 - Proposed expansion of an existing church and day school facilities in the A-1, General ~ Agricultural District~ Property located on the west side of Dowl.ing Street, approximately 150 feet north of Lincoln Avenue, in Olive~ Zoning Suoervisor Robert Mickelson reviewed the request for the Commission and noted the general location~ Commissioner Perry offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Conditional Permit Noo ll80o Comrr,issioner Allred seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED„ ITEM NO_~ Expansion of Orange County Use Variance ~'o~ 5553 - C,. V.. Taormina, petitioner •- Proposing to establish a truck storage ya*d with gasoline pump isiands and gasoline starage tanks in connection therewith, at the northwest corner of Blue Gum and Coronado °:.reets in the Northeast Industriai Area of Anaheim~ Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson presented the requested expansion of Orange County Use Variance No~ 5553 ~o the Commission, noting the Zocation and proposed use of subject propertyo Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to require that the proposed expansion of the truck storage yard under Orange County Use Variance No.. 5553 conform to all site development standards of the City of Anaheim M-1, Li9ht Industrial, Zone, as previously recummended at time of origiiial construction of subject property~ Commissioner Camp s~conded the motion. hK1TI0N CARRIED~ ITEM NO., 3 Orange County Planning Commission request for review of a revised development plan fur the Locke Ranch~ * x I: Zoning SuFervisor Robert Mickelson presented a copy of the revised develo,~ment plan for the Locke Ranch to th? Commission with the following findings: (L) Proposal is for a"Pianned Community" as defined in the Orange County Zoning Ccde~ (2) The proposal provides a mixture of land uses including 1. IJeighborhood commercial centers 2~ Elementary school sites 3. A mixture of residential housing types (3) The housing types (as allowed by the County Zoning Code consist of town houses, cluster housing and conventional subdivision~ It will suffice to say that if the density, as generally proposed, were developed it would approximate the density of development evhich is taking place in the hills area (Nohl Ranch) c,: Anaheim. ?he Planning Cormnis:ion cc:ncurred with the Development Services Department Staff's recom- mendation that the Qranc,i: Courity Planning Commission be strongly encouraged to maintain conformance with the Yorba Linda General Plan, when app:oving development proposals of this type, in order to provide adequate public facilities such as schools, parks and highways~ r. r MIVUTESy CITY PLANNIt4G COMMISSION, June 7, 1965 2619 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission stated that the plans of development, as presently N0~ 64-65-132 proposed9 would be a mistake for that particular location, as a new (Continued)~W theatre was presently being constructed immediately across from the proposed site, and that the land couid be better utilized with a different type bui.lding from which the City would benefit~ No ~ne appeared in opposition to subject petition~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo . Commissioner Gauer suggested an extension of time to allow for revised plans, i'~~ Commissioner Camp stated that the property was definitely C-1, and that the applicant '~ ~ shou3d be permitted the right to use any C-1 use on C-1 zoned property,. Commissioner ~erbst offered Resolution No~. 1660, Series i964-65, and ~,oved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, tc r.eco~~,end to the Ci`y Couaci: th3t PEtition for Reciassificatior. No~ 64•-65•-132 be approved, subj?ct to condit:ons (See Resolution 3ook.) On roil cali the fo:egoing resolution was passed 'oy thz foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, ~owland NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ARSENT: CO'uIMISSIONERS: ~~one,. ~~ PRFCISE ALIGNMEiJ'I' PUBLIC HEARING INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CO'MMISSIO~, 204 E3st LA PALMA AVENUE_~ 1_incoln Avenue, Anaheim, Caiifornia, proposing the estabiishment of the precise aiignment of La Palma Avenue from Jef:erson Street on the west to Fee Ana Street (Anaheim City limits) on the east. Planning Supervisor Ronaid Grudzinski reviewed a report to the Commission on tE~e Precise Alignment of La Palma Avenue for the Commission and interested persons, briefLy sta*_ing the previous actions at public hearings of the Commission and the City Cou~ci? in Ge^e:s2 Plan Amendment Ab, 38~ It was further noted that because of the potentiai deue•lopm~nt i~ ~ the Northeast Industrial Area, a p:ecise alignment was necessary for La Palma Ave~uz; that ~ after severai meetings between the Orange County Road Department and the City of Anaheim ~ Public Works and Development Services Departments, it was recommended that a public hear- - ing be set fo; the Commission"s consideration of evidence on the proposed Precise ~+lignment; that the Engineering Department had prepared the Precise Alignment of La Palma Avenue (extended) from Jefferson Street on the west to Fee Ana Stieet (Anaheim City limits) on the east as depicted on Exhibit "A"; and that the Orange County Road Department would proceed with measures for the estabiishment of the Precise Alignment of La Palma from Fee Ana Street easterly to the Imperiai Highway which presently is under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange~ 1 Mr. Howard Crcoke, secretary of the Orange County Water District, appeared before the ' Commission and stated he had been foliowing the procedures of the proposed extension of 4 La Palma Avenue for some time and noticed that the City of Anaheim had ao~Nted the gener~l I alignment similar to that established by the County Road Department; that in his depart•- ~ ment"s consideration of water spreading facilities adjacent to the Santa Ana River, condemnation proceedings had been filed incorporating property southerly and easterly of the proposed a;ignment; that a buffer strip was being established easterly of Jefferson Street so that an overlap or a"no man`s land" wou?d isolate the water spreading facilities from the general pubiic; and that he was urging the Commission to adopt the proposed Precise ~ Alignment in order that accurate iegal descriptions of the proposed water spreading faci.i•• ties, together with their proposed acquisition of the land, could be final:~ed. I j In response to Commission questioning as to the boundaries of the water spreading faciiities, ~ Mr~ Crooke stated that all water spreading would be ~onfined to the south of the ~+ j alignment. proposP. • Mr~ Craig Granger, 125 South Claudina, appeared before the Commission and stated he represented a number of property owners of p;operty through tvhich the proposed Precise Alignment wou:d cross, who were opposed to dedication of their properties for the ultimate right-of-way of La Palma Avenue extended, and were desirous of going on record that any , acquisition for right-of-way for the street would have to be made through condemnation proceedings rather than through any dedication. , 1 Discussion was then held by the Commission to determine the effects of the alignment if the Precise Alignmert were relocated; Mr~ Mickelson stated that if the alignment were relocated, ~~ a considerable portion of the settling basin would be taken, and any further lowering of ~ ~ the proposed curb would reduce the area, since Mr, Crooke stated the settling basin was too small already~ c ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 7, 1965 2621 REPORTS AND ITEM NOo 3 RECOMMENDATIONS - (Continued) Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the revised development plan for the Locke Ranch be considered favorably and that the aforementioned recommendation be made to the Orange County Planning Commission~ ~,ommissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, ITEM NOo 4 proposed Work Session for Consideration of Oil Codeo . Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the first draft of the ~;~~ Oil Code was available for their consideration at a work sessiono E ;i E The Commission directed the Staff to schedule a work session on ~he Oil Code for June 21, r6~~ . 1965, at 7:00 pomo F i f ~~ ~; ITEM N0~ 5 f:) Proposed amendment to Resolution Noo 1631, Series 1964-0_~. ~~ granting in part Variance Noo 1701. -• Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the petit?oner ha~ requested a waiver of number of free-standing signs permitted and that the Commission, in their discussion, did determine the total square foot area in the computation of free-standing signs should include the freeway frontage, but that Resolution Noo 1631, Series 1964-65, dated May 10y 1965, did not indicate the aforementioned; whereas it was determined that an amendment to the resolution would be necessary~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1662, Series 1964-65, to amend Resolution Noo 1631~ Series 1964-65, seconded by Commissioner Camp, by an additional finding, as follows: "That in the computation of the total square foot area and sign location for free-standing sigr.s permitted that the freeway frontage shall be considered as frontage, thereby eliminating the necessity of a waiver from Section 18062o090(b-1) Number of Free-Standing Signs Permitted"o ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, N,ungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~ - / ,~ ~~~,~, n, /~ lru. l~ ,ek 'J C ~ 1 ~ ,t ~ ,: ~ ~ -- ~.. ~ .. i,-~Z[ ~ A0.TOURNMENT - There being no further business to discu ~ G~~~`~ (~~ ~ (,b ~ c+~`' !' offered a motion to adjourn the meeting~CortunissionereHerbstY '~r. ~,~c1 ~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~ ° G~` ' c; ;. The meeting adjourned at 5:42 p.me , ~ Respectfully submitted, ~"QiL-6-~~ / ' / CAROLYN OGG, Secre~~~ P o Tem ~ Anaheim Planning Commi~~sion ~ F __ ~1 ~ ~X"