Loading...
Minutes-PC 1965/08/16City Hall Anaheim, California August 16, 1965 A REGULAR h~ETING OF THE ANAI-~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISS'LON REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 p.m~, a quorum being present~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowlando ABSEP:T - COMMISSIONERS: All:ed~ PRESF.NT - Zoning Supervisor: Robert Mickelsor. Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Planning Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg INVCCATION - Reverend Clyde E~ Ervin, Wesley Methodist Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, APPROVAL OF TF~ MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of August 2y 1965, were approved with the following correction: Page 2671, paragraph 6, line 4 should read: "that the property had abutted" instead of "butted". VARIANCE N0. 1710 -(:ONTINUED PUBLIC i{EARI~G. CHARLES F. AND ELNL4 SPAULDING, 1115 West Broadway, Anaheimy C'ifornia, Owners; requesting permission to develop an apartmen: ~uilding with waivers of (1) front yard setback; (2) minimum required side yard; (3) location z•equirements of accessory buildings abutting property line; and (4i minimum required recreation areay on property described as: A rectangularly shaped pa*cel of land with a rrontage of approximately 50 feet on the north side of Broadway and a maximum depth of approximately 158 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 193 feet west of the centerline of West Street~ and further described as i115 West Broadway~ Property preser:tly classified R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ Subject petition was continued from the meetings of .June 7 and July 7y 1965, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans., The pe'.itioner was not present at the meetingo Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission ihat revised plans had not been received~ Comm:ssioner Camp offered a motion to continue the public hearing on Petition for ~ariance Noo ;.710 to the meeting of September 27, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner time to submi.i revised plans~ Commissioner Herbst seconded the motior.a MOTION CARRIED~ F L` F; t: '; , ~9 * ~ ,~tx RECLASSIFICATION - CU~TINUED P'IPLIC 1-lEARING., DOYLE 8 SHIELDS DEVELOPMENT COMPA~Y, N0. 65-66-20 INCORPORATED, 831 Sc~.,th Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California., Owner~ Property described as: A t;iangularly shaped parcel r,f VARIANCE N0~ 1720 land located at the intersection of West Street and Manchester Avenue, with frontages of approximately 218 feet on West Street and approximately 250 feet on Manchester Avenue, and further described as 831 South Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZOAlEo REQU~STED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUiRED SETBACK. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of August 2, 1965, at the request of the petitioner to resolve right-of-way problems~ Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that upon contacting the petitioner a request for an additional two-week continuance was made in order to further resolve right-of-way problems~ 2685 r MINUTES, CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, August 16, 1965 , 2686 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue the hearing of N0.~65-66-20 Petitions for Reclassification Noo 65-66-20 and V~riance Noo 1720 to the meeting of August 30, 19659 in order to allow the petitioner VARIANCE N0. 1720 additional time to resolve said right-of-way problems~ Commissioner (Continued)~ Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC i-~ARING~ BARBARA M. VAIL, 70-171 Highway 111, N0. 5_66_~~ Cathedral City, California; PAUL AND HELEN RENN, San Diego County, California; and ALBERT AND MADGE HL'GI-~S, 722-724 IJorth Euclid Street, UARIANCE N0~ 1722 Anaheim, California, Owners; R~ DANIEL OLMSTEAD, JR., P, 0., Box 2004, Fullerton, California, Agent~ Property described as: Parcel 1: A rectangulariy shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 43 feet or. the east side of Euc?id Street and a v:aximum depth of approximately 470 feety Parcel 2: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land, south and adjacent to Parcel 1, with a frontage of approximately 59 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approxiRately 470 fee!, the southern boundary of said par~el being approximately 775 feet nortn of the cer.terline of Crescent Avenue•, Property presently classified R-Ay AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZO~E.. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAI~rEF. OF MINIMUM RF.QUIRED PARKIKG SPACES .4ND REQUIRED SCREEN PLANTING. 5ubject petitions were continued from the meeting of August 2, 19G5, to attempt land assembly of landlocked parcels, Mr. John Zylst-_, =epresenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that since the last meeting they had purchased a portion oi subject property from .Aibert and Madge Nughes which they intended to hoid for future development; that they were still proposing C-1 zoning for said parcel; that they t,ad not been able to purchase the landlocked parcel of lard to the east of subject property, which he pointed out had three different eccess points, namely, the 34-foot road easement to the southy through the 10-foot easement directly through the center of subject property, and through the property to the north; and finally, Lhat h~ wou.d stipulate to the parking being brought up to Code at the time the undeveloped po*tion to the rear was planned for development. Additional discussion was heid betNeen the Commission and Mr. Zyistra relative to right-of- way ~r~blems, In response to Gommission`s questior.ing canr.erning the 3A-foot strip adjacent to the south of subject propertyy Zoning Supervisor ~otert Mickelson ard Office En9ineer Arthur Daw determined that the 34-foot strip was: not a part of ihe original :eclassification for the 260 apartment development to the east, but that the approved F1ans for same showed access through the easement and was aoproved with the condition that the apartments be developed substantially in accordance with pians and ~r:~t in order for the easement to be revoked, the matter would have to be submitted to the Pianning Comm:ssion and/or City Council at a public hearing, Mr~ Zylstra further =_tated that the existing three-story building to the north had a setback of 16 feet from the building to the prope:ty line, and due to the fact that a sign and tree were located in the parking lot to the south, the petitioner's proposed development would have an obstructed view, and, therefore, a six-foot difference ~n setback would not make such a difference in his request for a 10-foot setback~ Mr~ Spehar, owner of the prope:ty adjacent to the north, appeared in opposition to comment on the petitioner s reference to the four-foot setback intrusion into the 20-foot setback; further stating that his property had a 20-foot setback with a four-foot allowance, and that the petitioner's property would have the same which would be included as part of the building, but would not be considered as part of the setback; that the petitioner's development, as propo^.-d, would definitely be an intrusion; further, that if the petitioner were permitted to build to the property line, the light intensity for his office building would be affected since a number of windows were located on the south side. In response to the Commission's questioning concez•ning the attempted land assembly, Mre Spehar stated that the petitioners hao not made him a written offer for the purchase of , the landlocked parcel to the east, but that he was willing to make the same offer to the petitioner that the latter had made to owners of the Hughes property~ - Commissioner Camp stated that it was unfortunate that an agreement on land assembly could ~ . not have been reacher because of the way the parcels in question were situated, but that he ~ di~ not feel it wa~ a function of the Pianning Commission to attempt negotiation for the selling or leasing of land; that this should be left up to the individuals who owned the ~_ property; and that subject proposal should be considered on a basis of land use~ ~ % MINUIES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, August 16, 1965 268~ RECLASSIFICATION - In .rebuttal, Mr~ Zylstra stated that an oral offer of purchase had N0~ ~5-66-23 been made to Mr, Spehar who had not changed his views on price and tha± M*., Spehar would make a 600~ return of his investment if the VARIANCE N0~ 1722 property were purchased on his terms; furthery that Mr., Spehar was (Cor.tinued)~ asking $3000 per square foot ayainst $2,00 per square foot paid to the Hughes family~ Mr. Spehar then stated that the petitioner had to:d him that he intended to lease the Hughes property and would realize what his original investment brought him which was presently $100000 per monthy which figures to be $3~00 per square foot, Ti-~ HEARING WAS CLOSED, ' A discussion was held by the Commission in which it was determined that a 20-foot setback ' shou'_d be maintained in order to align with the existing buiiding on the north, and that perhaps the property owners couid reach an agreement prio: to the public hearing before the City Council on the petitions in about four weeks, Commissioner Perry offered Reso!ution ~o, 1727, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by CoRUr,issioner Rowland, to _~prove Petition for Reclassification No., 65-66-23, subject to conditions and that a 20-foot setback be maintained in order to conform with the property to the north. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resoiution waa passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: CUMMISSION~RS: Campy Gaue=, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred. A discussion was held concerning the parkin9 problem, at which *ime it was pointed out that the petitioner cou!d obtain ±he four :idditionai parking spaces with a slight readjust- ment of the proposed pa:king l~you'_; also, that if the petitioner shouid desire to redesign his proposed buiiding to confo_m wi±h the requi:ed 20-•foot setback, the building might possibly be smalle= in size and would; thereforeY require a lesse= amount of parkin9 spaces to be provided. In relation to the reques•`_ for waiver of screen plantingY it was determined that this related ~ to the rear of subject pr~.~erty and wouid not, therefoze, cause any problem~ " It was also deternined that the six-foot masonry wall reqi!ired by the C-1 zone along the south and east property iines to separate the comme*cial and residential uses should be eliminated. Commissior.er Herbst offered Resolution No.. i728, Series i965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comrr.issioner Camp, to approve Petition for Variance No„ 1722v subject to conditions and that the requirement for a sir-foot masonry wail along the east and south property iines be waived~ (See Resolution Book.) On roll. call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Row?andY Mungall. NOES: COMMISS?ONERS: None~ ABSENI': GOMMISSIONERS: Ailred~ CONDITIONHL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC f-IEARING~ AARON E~ SWAIN, 2029 Harbor Boulevard, PERMIT NO _73q Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to establish a motel and permission for future establishment of a restaurant and cocktail lounge with waiver of minimum lot width on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 555 feet, the southern boundary on Harbor Boulevard being approximately 650 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE„ Said petition was continued from the meeting of August 2, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans~ ~ .~~ •I J - ~~ ~ Mr. Merlin Barth, representative of the architectural, firm, appeared before the Commission and stated he wished to point out that Ntr. A~ E, Swain was the sole owner of ~ubject property which was 232 feet ir. width, and that the proposed development would be an expansion to the existing Peter Pan Motei. In response to the Commission's ouestion, he further stated that * the proposed expansion wouid be one development when finished, with 36 units being proposed at present and 30 units in the future~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOI~i Au9ust 16''1965 ._._~~'i~ . ii ~ ~~ .~ I 2688 CONDITIONAL USE - A discussion was held relative to the future proposed development of PERMIT N0~ 734 a restaurant and cocktail lounge, at which time it was decided that (Continued) the conditional use permit would required that any additionai develop- ment plans be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval~ TI-~ HEARING WAS CLUSED~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1729, Series 1965-66y and moved for its passage and adaption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 734, subject to conditions, and that the request for waiver of minimum lot width be granted since the proposed expansion woulo be considered as one developmenty provided~ however, that any plans of development for the future establishment of a restau- rant and cocktail lounge be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (See Resolution Book.,) On roll call the foregoing rESOlution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ca:r,p, Gauer~ Herbst, Perryi Rowland, Mungall. ~OES: COMMISSIONERS: A~one~ ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: A:ired~ VARIANCE N0~ 1?2b •- PUBLIC HEARING„ ALAN FAINBARG AND SAM GELiERMAN, F 8 G Properties, 406 Westi Fourth Streety Santa Ana, California, Owners; N-Y-E NEON, 14866 East Firestone, La Mirada, California, Agent; requesting per- mission to construct a roof sign with waivers of: (1) maximum height of a roof sign and (2) minimum distance between a roof sign and a free standing sign, on prup~rty described as: An irregularly shaped psrcel of iand located south and east of a service station site located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Drive, with front- ages of approximately 136 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 187 feet on Westchester Drive, and further described as 3240 West Lincoln Avenue, Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ Mr.. T, E, Young, representative of the agent, appeared before the Commission to review subject proposal, stating that the adjacent service station to the north presently had a very large flashing r.eon sign which obstructed the petitioner`s signg that his business sales were 25% lower than that of his other three identical businesses located in Anaheim, and that he was desirous of erectir.g the proposed sign in o:der to allow for adequate identification of the petitioner`s business, and that if his request should be granted, the petitioner would agree to the removal of the existing pole sign on subject property to allow additionai parking space~ In response to Commission questioning, Mr, Young Stated that i:he proposed sign would be 33 feet in height, and that it would ~ot be necessary that the other three stores have roo.° signs since they each had prope. identification~ In answer to an ina~:ry from the audience, Mr„ Young pointed out that the proposed sign would not be fiashing in nature, THE HE.4RTNG WAS CLOSED, A discussion was held by the Commission, at which time it was determined that the petitioner had proven a hardship due to lack of proper identification as shown in a rendering presented to them by Mro Young., Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No~ 1730, Series 1965-66; and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to approve Petition for Variance No~ 1726, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowiand, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo '`~ a ~ ~ ,,~ ~~ ; i r.: f~ ~ °E , _ ._ ~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 16,`1965 2689 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I-~ARING~ LEO FREEDMANY Lessee, 2018 Coldwater Canyon, Beverly PERMIT N0~ ?35_ Hills, California; Oo L~ CHANDLER, 901 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Ageni; requesting permission tc establish a 22-story, high- rise office building on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land locateu at the southwest corner of Freedman Way and Manchester Avenue, with frontages of approximately 230 feet on Freedman Way, approximately 447 feet on Manchester Avenue, and approximately 201 feet on Haster Street~ Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~ No one appeared to represent the petitionero ~ . Commissioner Gauer ofiered a motion to continue the public hearing to the meeting of ~~~ August 30, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner or his representative to appeare Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ~ I , Later in the meeting, Mra Le~~ Freedman, the petitioner, entered the Council Chambers~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to rescind his previous motion and to consider subject petition at public hearing this date~ Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ _ Mr~ Leo Freedman, the petitionery appeared before the Commission to submit a rendering of the proposed development and to review his plans for subject property~ Considerable discussion was heid between the Commission, the petitionery and staff concern- ing (1) lack of plot plan and elevations and a basis for requiring said olans in conjunction with a conditional use permit in the Commercial~-Recreation Area; (2) established height standard policy in the Commerciai•-Recreation Area; (3) the requirement that non•-related structures in the Commercial-Recreation Area along freeway irontage roads shall be national headquarters office structures; (4) lack of information to determine adequate parking facili- ties and the possible off-•ramp from tne Santa Ana Freeway which might extend through subject property; (5) requirement of the highway rights•-of-way for H3ster Street and Manchester Avenue; and (7) substitute plans submitted for 26-story structure not applicable to subject property, In response to Commission questioning concerning the possibie off-ramp from the freeway, Offi~e Engineer Arthur Daw replied that after recent discussion with representatives of the State Division of Highways, it was determined that the latter were only studying the ~~ proposal and had no definite plans at the presenty and that additional studies would be '_j condu.ted which might require as long as five years to complete~ The Commission then requested that the petitioner submit a plot plan and elevations of what he proposed for subject property in order that adequate information might be available to present a compiete report to the Commission~ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue public hearing of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 735 to the meeting of August 30, 1965, in oraer to allow time for the petitioner to submit a plot plan and elevations of the proposed development, said plans to be submitted b~ August 20, 1965, in order for the Interdepartmental Committee to review and make recommendations, Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten mir~utes~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ The meeting recessed at 4:04 P,M~ RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:15 P..M~, all Commissioners being present~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ ROY FIELD, 115 East Ellsworth Streety Anaheim, California, PERMIT NO_ 736 Owner; requesting permission to establish a one-operator beauty shop in an ~ existing apartment structure on property described as: A rectang~larly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest cosner of Claudina Street and Ellsworth Street, with frontages of approximately 110 feet on Claudina Street and approxi- mately 155 feet on Ellsworth Street, znd further described as 121 East Ellsworth Str^et. Property presently classified P-1, AUTUMOBILE PARKING, ZONE,. '~j Mra Roy Field, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to review subject proposal, :'~ noting that adequate parking would be provided; also, that Condition No. 1, if approved, would not apply since he was not the owner of the corner lot on Claudina and Ellsworth Streets~ i , ~ ~ Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that apparently an error on the part ~~,atY of the staff t~ad been made since the petitioner's application did not indicate subject lot as ~ being owned by Mr~ Field~ E MINUTES, CITY PLANN:NG COMMISSION; August 169 1965 2690 CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ PERMIT NO~~_ (Continued) TFiE l~ARING W,1S CLOSEDo ~~~~ ;I ~~ ;~~ F~}i ~ ~ Cortunissioner Perry offered Resolution No~ 1731, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to approve Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No~ 736, subject to conditions, deleting Condition No.. 1~ (See Resolution Book,) On roll call the foregoing r2solution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMb1ISSI~NERS: Allred~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC NEARING„ H.AROLD E„ RICE AND JAMES Wa SCNIviIDT, 14930 East Imperial PERMIT N0~??9_ Nighway, La Mirada, California, Owner; ROY P~ IIARNES, 2546 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish a restaurant with a cocktail lounge on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the east side of Dowling Street, with a frontage of approxi- mately 132 feet on Dowling Street and a maximum depth of approx.imately 277 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 530 feet north of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue, and further desc:ibed as ]340 North Dowling Street~ Property presently classified i,•-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE . Mr.. Roy F, Barnes, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to review subject development, stating that plenty of parking spece would be available, and that the petitioner was agreeabie to the conditions of app:oval, and in response to Commission questioningy stated that while he did not have interior layout p13ns avaiiable at present, a person would not be requirea to pass through the cockiaii lounge in order to enter the restaurant~ No one appeazed in opposition to subject petition. Tf~ !-tEARinG WAS CLOSED Commissioner Camp offe:ed Resolution No. 1732y Series 1965 t•6, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Com~nissioner Perry, to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit Ne~ 739, subject ±o conditions, (See Resolution Book„) Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickeisor~, in :esponse to an inquiry fiom the agent relative to Condit?on No~ ?, expi3ined tnst Reclassification No, 61-62•-69(17) was presently pending in the Northeast Industria~ Area :eouiring the petitioner to comply w:th the conditions of approva: outlined in the staff report; further, that the above mentioned condition would not cause a delay in construction, Mr. Mickelson further stated that Coniition No, 7 should have an addition made to it, reading as follows: "prior to final building inspection"~ In :el~tion to Condition No:, 2 of the staff reporty Mr, Mickelson 3dvised that the latter should be eiiminated since the City Council policy in this area had changed since this requirement had been establishedY and that the petitioner did have landscaping in front of his building, Commissioner Camp amended his motion and deleted Condition No. 2, based on data submitted~ Commissioner Perry concurred in the deletion. On roil cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall„ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING,. CALVIN PEBLEY, 923 East Arlee Place, ARLEE INDUSTRIAL PERM:T NO__742 COMPANY, 920 East Arlee Place, WARREN W~ JAYCOX, 918 East Vermont Hvenue, Anaheim, California, and PARKS PROPEkTIES, INCORPORATED, C~0 C~ B. LEFLER, 2975 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California, Owners; JIM ROE, 923 East Arlee Place, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to permit the operation of an existing sign assembling plant on property described as: An irregularly shaped Farcel of land with a fronta~e of appruximately 300 feet on the south side of East 4ermont Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 759 feet, the easternmost boundary of subject property being approximately 488 feet west of the centerline of East Street~ Property presently classified M-1, iIGHT INDI,.,TRIAL, ZONE,. E ~~ , f MINUTES, CITY PLAN~~ING COMMISSION,~ August 169 1965 2691 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr~ Jim Roe, the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, PERMIT N0~ 742 and in response to questioning9 stated that subject operation would have (Continued) a six•-:oot fence around itY a portion of which was already existing; that approxirnately 25% of the fabrication work was performed outside, that be- ing the heavier steel welding which was impossible to be performed inside the building, and that additional build=ng space had been acquired~ Mr„ Alan Orsborny Developmen~ 5ervices Director, in presenting data concerning subject petitiony stated that discussions had been held between the petitioner and members of the Development Services Department, at which time it was determined it would be impractical for the petitioner to construct a separate building in order to permit the expansion since their present operation would not support such an investment; that in order to enable the petitioner to remain in the community, they were asked to work with the staff and to enclose their entire operation with a six.-foot masonry wall rather than a chainlink fence and to conduct as much work as possible within an enclosed building; further, that they had cooperated in every instance 2nd that he would, therefore, recommend approval of subject petition~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.. TF~ I-~ARING WAS CL05ED. C~mmissioner Perry offered Resolution No., 1733, Se:ies 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Campy to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 742; subjec± to conditions and a six.-foot masonry wa11 being installed enclosing the existing operation and that by findingy the requi*ed 50-foot setback may be reduced to 20 feet to allow a unisorm setback alona the south side of Vermont Avenue~ (See Resolution Book,l On roll call the iorepoing reso2ution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYFS: COMMISSIOMERS: Camp, G~L:ery Herbst, Perry, Rowlandy Mungail, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NpnN, ABSENT: COAIMISSIONERS: Allred~ RECLASSIFICATION •- PU9iIC HEARING,. FTH4BELLE REES, 502 Victor AvenueS Anaheim, California, N0. 65 66 26~_ Owr.e:; MATTf~W KURILICh, JR.., 505 East Commonwealth, Suite i, Fullerton, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly s;,aped pa:cel of land iocated at the southwest corner of Victor Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, with frontages of approximately i05 feet on North Harbor Boulevard and approximately 70 feet on Victor AvenueY and further described as 502 ;'ictor Avenue, be re- ciassified from the R-i, ONE~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, to the C-1, GENERAL COMh~ RCIAL, ZONE., Mr~ Matthew Kurilicn, Jr,, the aqent; appeared before the Commission to review the proposed use of the property, =_tating that the owner had been unable to rent the addition proposed fer use and had decided to try a beauty shop for which she had found a manager; further, that there was no known opposition to the proposed reclassification. In response to Commission questioning, Mr, Kurilich stated that it was proposed to have a one, two; or perhaps three chair operaticn at the max?mum; and that the addition would be used for beauty shop purposes only„ He furtl7er stated that prior to fiiing subject petition, he understood the area was proposed for commercial zoning on the Genera: Plan~ PJo one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED~ Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that Condition No, 4 of the Report to the Commission rould be recommended in a finding to the City Council; that the City Council, as a condition of granting the temporary encroachment into the ultimate right~of-way of Harbor Boulevard, require the petitioner to sign a hold harmless agreement ex.empting the City from any damages resulting from the relocation of the structure which would be encroaching into the right-of-way at the time Harbor Bo~levard was proposed to be widened, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No~ 1734, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition ior Reclassification No~ 65-66-26 be approved, subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Campy Gauer, Fierbst, P~rry, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: PJone~ ABSENT: COMMISSI(yJERS: Allred~ ~ ..~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August. 16, 1965 , 2692 RECLASSIFICATION ~- Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Development Services NU~ 65- 6-~ 26 i staff to prepare an area development plan incorporating a depth of three (Continued) lots from Harbor Boulevard fronting on Victor and Julianna Streetsy and that the property owners of property encompassed in s~id plan be contacted regarding their desires for ultimate development of thPir property Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~ In response to the agent's inquiryy it was pointed out that the study would not affect the request, if it were approvedo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ INITIATED BY TI-IE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 2(;4 East ~~ ~„r~~ 65-66-27 _ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYy 816 West 5th St*eet, Los Angeles, California, Owner; property t , CONDITIONAL USE described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at tha south- ~ PERMIT N0. 734 west corner of Ar.ahein Boulevard and Winston Road, with frontages of ~ approximately 140 feet on Anaheim Roulevard and approximately 166 feet on Winston Road~ Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND NOT AT TFL°_ INTERSECTION OF 1W0 ARTERIALSe tJo one appeared to represent the property owner, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition„ TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Periy offered Resolution No., 1735, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Recl2ssificat;on No 65-66-27 be approved, unconditionally~ (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: _~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Hzrbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.. - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None: ABSENT: COMMISSIO~'ERS: Allred., Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution ~o~ 1736, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and ~doption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe ??4, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book,) On roll call the fo~egoing *esolution was passed by the following vote: AXES: COMMISS:ONERS: Campy Cauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~ NGES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ I RECiASSIFICATION -- PUBLIC t~ARING~ INITIATED BY TI-IE CITY PLANNIIJG COMMISSION, 204 East ~ NO_ 65~b6 28 Lincoln Avenue, Ansheim, California; MARGARET E, JOHNSTON, 1024 lkest ~ Sycamore, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly ~ CONDIIIONAL USE shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard PERMIT NO„ 738 _ and Vermont Avenuey with frontages of approximately 108 feet on Hnaheim I` Boulevard and approximately 144 feet on Vermont Avenue~ Property presently ~ classified C-3, HEAVY COMNIERCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to service station sites or any G1 use. PROPOSED CLASSIFICAI'ION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZO~E~ PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT TI-IE OPERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIA: 75 FEET OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND ., ' - NOT AT Tl-IE INTERSECTION OF 'I1N0 ARTERIALS,. ~~ No one appeared to represent the property owner. ~-' No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono ~ TI-~ !-fEARING WAS CL05ED~ I ~ * ;~ i ~ , C ~i MINUTES, CITY PL9NNING COMMISSION~ August 169 1965 2693 RECLASSIFICATION -• Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1737, Series 1465-66, and N0~ 65-66-28 ` moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification CONDITIGNAI USE No~ 65~-66-28 be approvedy unconditionally~ (See Resolution Booko) PERMIT NO,: 738 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo , Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No~ I738, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~y~') and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbsty to approve Petition for Conditional Use ;i Permit No, 738, unconditionally~ (See Resolution Book~) i t , I ;` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer~ Nerbst, Perry, Rowiand, Mungall~ NOF;: COMMISSIONERS: None.~ 4E~SENT: COMMISSIODIERS: Alired~ RECLASSI~ICATION •- PUBLIC f-~ARI~G, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMN,ISSION, 204 East N0~ 65_66~-29 W Lincoln Avenue, Ansheim, California; E. LEWIS JOHNSON, 10230 Cole Roady Whittier, California, Owner; proposing that property described as: An irreguiariy shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and ~Jinston Foad, with frontages ~f approximately 175 feet on South Anaheim Bouievard and aFproximately 140 feet on Winston Road, be reclassified irom the G-3, HEAVS' CON~h~RCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to service station sites cr any C~1 use, to the C-1, GENE4AL COMMERCIAI_, ZONE~ Mrs, Ruth N.ohenh3us; purported property owner of subject property, ad~~ised the Commission that she had assumed she aire~dy had commercial zoning and inquired about the reason for the pzoposed reclassifica~ion. Tne Commission advised her that property had been zoned for C-3 zoning, deed restricted to a service station or any C-1 use, and that the Anaheim Municipai Code now permitted service stations in the C•i zone, which in effect subject property had, but in order -_ to have prope* zoring on ali properties in the City, the City had embarked on a rezoning project to place aii properties in their most appropriate zone~ ~o one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE 1-IEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Herbst ofrered Resolution No, 1739, Series 1965•-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ 65-•66•-29 be approved, unconditionally~ ~;ee Resolution Book~) On roll cal: the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, HerbstY Perry, Rowland, Mungall., NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred,. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 16, 1965 2694 RECESS: Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinnero Commissioner Gauer secunded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ The meeting recessed at 4:45 pom~ RECONVENE: Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p~m~, ali Commissioners with the exception of Commissioner Allred being presento RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC F~ARING~ GRIFFITH BROTf-~RS, 887 South Anaheim N0~ 65~66 22 Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner~ Property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately CONDITIONAL USE 823 Eeet on the west side of Ninth Street, the western boundary of PERMIT N0~733 said property being adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control channel~ and the southern boundary being approximately 464 feet north of the centerline of Kimberly Avenue,~ Property presently classified R~A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A MULTIPLE•-FAMiLY PLANNcD RESIDEDJTIAL DEVELOPMENTo Subject petitions were cohtinued from tne meeting of August 2, 1965, at the request of the petitioner to allow time to submit revised plans~ The Commission secretary read a request from the petitioner indicating an additional two weeks" continuance was needed to resoive problems relative io encroachmen~ into the power line easement on the southerly boundary of subject property. Mrs~ Eleanore Lee, 1434 Kimberly Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and presented a petition signed by 189 property owners opposing subject petitions and stated that the majority of the residents of the area was opposed to the apartments because of the increase in traff±c which would jeopardize the chiidren using Ninth Street as a side- walk; that the schools would be overtaxed with an additional enrollment because no projec- tion was indicated on the General Plan to warrant consideration of additional school facilities; that pazking on the street was already overtaxed and the propoposed apari,ments would add to an untenab:e pa:king situation; and that the area proposed by the City for a neighborhood park wa=. inadequate in size - furthe;more, it was dangerous to propose a park under high-•tension wire=.. Five persons indicated thei: presence in the Council Chamber opposing subject petitions~ Mr~ John Cremmiel. 14i2 Kimberly Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated the Com~ission and City Council had disapproved a previous request for multiple- iamily development, based on the fact that the area was presently overcrowded with apart- ment development, and the park and school facilities would not accommodate the additional influx of children: It was also ~oted the City Council had disapproved the petition because the City was contemplatina the acquisition of subject property for a neighborhood park, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue public hearing of Petitions for Reclassification No. 65-66-22 and Conditional Use Permit No, 733 to the meeting of August 30, 1965, to allow time for the petitioner to resolve development problems~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEll~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC F~ ARING. D. M~ CHRISTENSEN, 16371 Lakemont Lane, Huntington PERMIT N0, 740_ Beach, California, Owner; CHARLES D'AGOSTINO, 1692 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; :equesting permission to establish a hofbrau with on-sale beer on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcei of land of approximately 1~77 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenuey with a frontage of approximately 180 feet on Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth uf approximately 427 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 770 feet east of the centerline of E:~st Street, and further described as 1287-B East Lincoln Avenue~ Property presently classified C-lY GENERAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE. Mro Charles D'Agostinoy agent for the petitionery appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed developmeniy noting it would be a"serve yourself steak house" and would be similar to the ope:ation at 1652 West Lincoln Avenueo - Mro Arthur Lu~eyy .4ssistant to the President of Alpha Beta Markets, appeared before the ~ Commission in oppositiony and stated he represented the supermarket in the commercial ~ development and were opposed to a hofbrau in the neighborhood shopping centery since this was an inappropriate use for the area and would be an undesirable influence on , women and children frequer.ting the shopping areao MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy August 169 1965 2695 CONDITIONAL USE •- THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ PERMIT N0~ 740 (Continued) Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the close proximity of a public and a private elementary school, together with two churches; that children freauented the shopping area because of the "Jack-in-the- Box" :estaurant3 and that the family bflliard center and the slot~-racing operation were in close proximity within said shoppin9 ceatery which would make the use proposed incompatible with tt.e .ses in the 3re~~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noa 1740Y Series i965-66~ and moved for its passage and adoptiony ~econded by Commissioner Gauery to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No~ 740, based on the fact that the use was incompatible to the area; that it would be an undue influence on child:en freqLenting the shopping area; and that two schools and two churches we~e within close p:oxir,~ity oi subject property, (See Resolution Booko) On rol'_ ca~i tre foregoing :esolution was passed by the folic~ving vote: AYESs COMMISSIGNERS° Caap, Gauer, Nerbst~ Perry, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONFRS: ~`one~ ABSENIa COMMISSIONERS: A:ired~ RECLASSiFiCATION •- PUBLIC I-~ARI~G. ELEANORE GIBLIN, 616 South Euclid Street (Parcel No~ 1); NO:,.~S•_~(~,gl____ KAY LOPIN, 1872 Janet±e Lane (Parcel No~ 2); BERT BOYNTON, 626 South Euciid Street (°arcel No~ 3); DON VAN DUSON, 700 South ~uclid Street CONDITIONAL USE (Parcei No~ 4); and TI-IELMA R., HAREy 706 South Euclid Street (Parcel No. 5), PERMIT NO,._741__ Anaheim, Cali.'ornia; Owners; TF+ELMA R. NARE.: 706 Sou~h Euclid Street, Anaheim; California, Ager.t~ Property described as: Parcel No_ 1: A rectanau:sriy shaped pa*cel of '_and iocated on ths east side of Euclid Streety with a irontage of app:oximately 64 feet on Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approximateiy 100 feet; the southe:n boundary of said property being app;oximately 288 feet north of the center~ine of Alort;ar Avenue; Parcei No~2: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land loca±ed sout}; oi and sd~acent to Parcei No, lY with app:oximate equal frontage on Euclid Street and a rax:mum depth of Parcel No~ 1; Pa~cel No_ 3: A rectangularly shaped parcel of 13nd located app~ox=mately 64 feet south of the southez•n boundary of Parcel lJo~ 2, with approx.im3te epuai frontage on Euciid Street and a maximum depth as indicated in Parcels Nos~ i and 2; Parr_el No_ 4: A rectangulariy shaped parcei of land located on the southeast corner oi Euciid Street and Aiomar Avenue, with a frontage of approximately 62 feet on Euclid Street =nd a maximum dep*_h of app:oximate'_y i00 feet~ and Parcel No__5: A rectangu- iarly shaped pa~cel o: lend :ocated south o.' and adjacent to P3rce1 Mc,, 4y with a frontage of app~oximately 60 feet on Euc~iid Street and a maximum depth of approximateiy 100 feet - and fuzther described as 6i6~ 6^0, 626Y 700., 3nd 70ti South Euclid Street, Property R•esently classified R•-i, ONE~~FAMIi~ RES?DENTIAL, ZONE., REQUESTED CLASSIr'ICATIO~: G Oi COMA~RCIAL OFFICE, ZONE~ REQUFS TED CONDITIONAL 'USE; PEP.MIT TI-~ USE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRICTURES AS OFFICESo Ati*so Thelma HareY agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the basis fo: requesting C•-0 zor.;ng, r.oting the increase in Zraffic on Euclid Street made res~dential use of the prope:ty undesirable; that the City Council had granted C-0 zoning to two parceis adjacent to subject properiy; that the proposed uses of the residential structures would not be detrimer.tal to the City; that the homes would be landscaped and painted, thus enhancing tneir appearance in the City; and that all but one of the petitioners were present in the Cour,cil Chamber to make statements and had indicated their agreement to complying with the conditions recommendedy if subject petitions were approved~ Mrs~ Elea~ore Giblin., 616 South Euclid Street, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and xeviewed the proposed use of her structure, noting she would pick up and deliver all materials; that parking space would not be a problem because her custoraers would not be coming to her place of business; that her property was adjacent to a commercial- professional building to the north; and that the use would not contribute to an increase in the existing traffic, ~ Mr~ I,ert Boynton, 626 South Euclid Street, another of the petitionersy appeared before the Comr,ission and stated he was the second person to purchase a house in the existing tract; ±t,at he thought at th~ time of purchasing the home the area would be an ideal location to rear his familyy but did not foresee within eleven years that e four•-lane street would be formed from an orange grove; that he had small children who could not play in the front yard because of the heavy traffic and were forced to play in the rear yardy or in the alley; that the condition of the alley was deplorable, but it was up to the adjacent property owners to clean up and maintain the aliey; and that if high-~rise buildings continued to be built in the area, the heavy traffic would create a hazard to the children living on the street~ MIhUTES; ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy August 16y 1965 2696 ,-~ ~ ,. :~~ ,~ 1 ~ ! -. RECLASSIFICATION - NL~ W~ T~ Fi.:nigany 605 Alvy Streety appeared in opposition and stated h0~ 65-66-31 r that the property owners were no longer opposed to office use of the buildingsy but were showing considerabie concern r.egarding the possi- CONDITIONAI: USE bility the alley would be used by large delivery trucks,and debris PERMIT N0~741 _ wouid be placed i~ the alley wh:ch would add to the present deplorable (Continued) state of ihe alley; that the ambulance service at the northeas~ corner of Euclid Street and Alomar was stili there, althouah the City had in- formed the owner of the ambulance service he would have ~co cease and desist the opPration; that the ambulance was parked in such a position that it created a traffic hazard for motorists attempting io see whether traffic was clear coming from the northerly end of Eur.lid Street; and that if the Commission considered subject petitions favorab~y, some ;rc~_sior. should be made to have dedication of the access rights to the alley to protect the ~=opariies and Iives of the children living in homes adjacent to the east of the a~iiey, tvl:s~ Pauiir:e PerryY 631 r\ivy Streety appea:ed beiore the Commission in opposition and stated that the residenti~: p;ope:ty owners bounding on the east of the aiiey had ded3- caied as r~uch ~:operLy :or the ailey as p_~operiies fronting on Euclid Street; that her ci~':.iy did no~ use the a'_ley ~or anyti~ina but :rash pick-up; that the residents abutting to the east of the a;.;ey shouid have some r.ig~_t in the use of the aliey if ~~~jec± prope_ties were to be rezoned for commerc~al pu.poses; fu_ther,; the^e were a number of e~:pty CEti.cE~s :r the office buiiding irrneciateZy adjacen± to the north of Mrs~ Giblin°s property; aod the u+ilization of these eT:p,~y cffices rather than proposing the u~e of ~he resider.ces for oftice u_e wculd ba more prac±ica?.; and that i.' r.o controls were set for the use of the a~~ey ~y the proposed comr.;ercia: and existing ~es?den~ia: p~opertiesy seric :s t_affzc p=ob~er:., cou'_d reault,~ Mr,. Don l'an Duson, 70G Sou'•.h tuclid St_eet, ^r~ ~~ +he peti~~~nez•s; apee~.ed befo~e the Commission and st3'ed it was ;;o:e er.or.omicai to conve:t their existing s±,uctu_es th3n to try tc sent space '_n the exist:ng office buiiding; th-~t the people were not afraid of the present reqLest, b~t fe:red what would happen in the future; tnat he had aiso i purchased his home ir. i95? w;tn n,: :nter,tion of askzng for ?ny zoning; and that the p~oposed cenversion of the ex.istir.o homes had such smail squa:e footage, it seemed ~ reasonable ±o assume the offices wouid be smali -therefore no probl.em =hc~iid exist as ; to the use of the aiiey for p.arkino purposes., since ihis was against the law„ ;i In rebuttal, klrs.. Hare stated tn= problem of trash from the co-.rerciel structu:es wouid be h3ndied by the reo~:izemeni that adequate trash storage areas te censt*ucted.. ar.d that _ the ailey wou:d, in facty be widened since parking would be p:oposed to the rear of the existing structures~ .3nd the proposed sp3ces would seldom be completeiy filled~ Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickeison read from Tit:e 18, Section 18,38, the requi:ements of the C•-0 zone a:.d the use of residentiai structures ar.d emphasized that the combi~ed commercial and resident~:~~ ,;se of the property was p;ohibited by the Code. TF?E HEARING WAS CLOSED, Discussion was held br the Commission as to their previou; action or, the -djacent p•.operties' reouest for reclassification,. Commissioner Perry offered a ir~otion to recommend to the City Counci; that Petition for Reclassification ~'0 65-66-31 be disapproved, based on the fact that reclassification of subject properties would set a precedent for strip commercia~ deveiopment on a major street~ Commissionei• Herbst seconded the motiono On roll cail Commissioners Gauer, He*bst, and Ferry voted "~ye"; Commissior.ers Camp9 Rowland, and Mungall voted "no", The vote failed to carry by a majority of the voting Comrnission,. Com~nissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassificatior. No~ 65-66-31 be approvedy subject to cenditionso Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ On roll call the foregoing moiion failed tc carry because of a tie voteo Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts then advised the Commission in the interest of the property owners and the opposition, that subject reclassification and conditional use permit would be held over for a period of no more than forty days until a majority decision was reached by the Commission, and that Petitions for Reclassification Noo 65-66-31 and Conditional Use Permit Noe 741 would again be voted on at the next meeting of the Commissiony although the hearing need not be reopened, said meeting being August 30, 1965~ -~ MINUTES, CITY PLANI~ING COMMISSION, August 16y 1965 269~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARING„ CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Detroit 31, Michigany Owner; N0~ 65-¢6,~-32 M~: CUTCf-IEN, BLACK, VERLEGER 8 SHEA, Attention: John Leary, 615 South Flower Street9 Los Angeles, California, 90017, Agent; requesting that (~NERAL PLAN property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated AMENDMEivT N0~ 60 north and west of the service station site at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street, subject property having a total area of approximately 14~4 acres and frontages of approximately 414 feet on the west side of B:ookhurst Street and approximately 1,165 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp, and further described as 1111 North Brookhu:st Streety be reclassified from the R-Ay AGRICUI.TURAL, C-1, GENERAL COMMHRCIAL, and C•-2y GENERAL COMNERCIAL, ZONES to the M-ly LIGHT INDUSTRIALy ZONEY to establish an electrical, electronic, o= electromechanical operation in existi~g structures on subject property~ ' Mr,. John Leary, attorney tor. the petitionery appeared before the Commission and reviewed wha~ was proposed for the existing s±ructures on subject property, A review of the basis for est~bli=h:ng the Chrysl~r Training Center was also presented, A review of the deed restrictions a, deve?oped by the Deveiopment Services Department and the City Attorney°s Office was acceptab_e to the prospective owr~er, Mr. Leary sta±ed, and would be made part of the record and b~nding on the buyer; that off-site improvem?r.ts, such as street widen- ing of Brookhurst St:eet, wes proposed; that the existing structures would be adeouate for the proposed use; that the existing landscaped setback would adequately shield the R•-1 homes and act as a buffer; that if the uses which could be estabiished in the exist- ing zones were utilized; a much heavier use of the property could result; that one of the requirements of the recommended conditions was dedication of all access rights to Rhodes 4venue and a modified cul-de-sac for said street at its i.erm:nus on the east boundary of subject prope:ty; and that the r.umber of peopie proposed to be employed would be similar *o the number which had used the Chrys!er facilities in the past. In noting the advantages to the City of Anaheim, it was stated by Mr, Lea:y that the nucrber o£ fami?ies which might move to the City would be 200, and tne taxes and dollar spending would gre3tly benefit the Citv. In respor.se to Commission q~estioning, Mz~ Leary stated the number o.' persons who might be empioyed wouid te *epiacement of any employee not desiring to transfer from Pasadena with the companyy to the City of Anaheim ~ Mr, F. G. Allen, 2238 Faimouth Avenue, appeared before the Corrmission in opposition and _ stated that },_s p:operty abutted subject property to the north~ that approximately thirty persons were present in the Council Chamber opposir.g sub?ect petition, and many more would have appeared except for the unfc:tunate events which occurred in Southe*n California during the past sever.si d.~ys; that the proposed use would be setting a precedent for industriai deveioomer.t r.orti~ of tne Santa .Ar.a Freeway; ±hat to grar,t subject petition I wouid be invitino other ~r,deve:oped parcelsto re:~u?e.t M 1 zoning, tnus making ihe area incompatible to the existing and estabiished residentiai uses; that property at La Palma and Crescent was undeveioped and was adjacent to cor.dominium-type 3partmentsy and the p:oposed M•-i zone would reduce the value of those apartments; th.st the attorney for the petitione.r stated there wou:d not be an increase in the number of people using the exist- ing structures, but this was a matter of conjecture; that the noises em~nating from the i proposed use wouid be detrimental to the peace, heaith, and safety of the residents i because manufacturing concerns, at one time or another., had second shifts, and noises ~ would be amplified in the stil: of the evening hours; that he could not see any advantage to proposing that Brookhurst Street be widened, since imme~iately after approaching the overpass of the freeway, the street was reduced considerab?y, and at was a known fact the o•~erpass would not be widened; that the agent For the petitioner stated the building was ~ not in ~se for nine monthsy but considerable noise and activity emanated from that build- ing during this time; that the advantages gained from the proposed use of subject property would be to the City~ but detrimentai to the immediate residents in the area; that the ~ property owners were also concerned that residential streets would be subjected to industrial i traffic, namely Rhodes, Falmouth, Grayson and Ventura Streets, and would constitute a hazard ~ to the children in the area; that upon being contacted by a member of the Development Services ' Department he was informed that any of his objections could be controlied by the recordation of deed restrictions, but in his estimati.on, this wouid be a foothoid to permit further industrialization of the area and reduce the residential integrity and environment, as well as reduce the existing ar.d potential value of the homes; and that the area could be developed for single-family residential use~ ~ ~ Mr~ Sa Fo Remaisj 2291 West Rhodes Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and reviewed previous ~onirc~ requests for subject property, noting when the Chrysler Corporation _ Tr-ai~ing Center was approved for subject property, the Chrys:er people promised they would be there to stay; that the proposed industrial use was incompatible to the existing R-1 * homes since it would present noise to the rear yards of many of the residences who had „i~ been in the area ten years, and these property owners wouid have a difficult ~ime selling MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN9 August 16S 1965 2698 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - their homes; and that the City had promised no other use would be NU~65-66•~32 ___ projected for subject property~ GENERAL PLAN Mr, Ben Schroedery President of the Chamber of Commerce, appeared 4N~NDMEN"f N0~ 60 before the Commission in favor of suhject petition, and stated that (Continued~~ the Planning and Zoning Committee of the Chamber af Commerce had asked him to make a t~ip to the Pasadena facilities of the Circle Seal Company to determine whether or not it would be a desirable operation for the area, or a desirable industry for the City, and upon inspection made by him it was determined that the proposed use was a clean and noiseless operation and would be an asset to the City; however, the report had not been submitted to the Board of Directors by the Planning and Zoning Committee9 but at the next meeting this wouid be done, recommending that ihe industry would be compatible to the area in the existing structures. In rebuttaly Mr~ Leary stated that there was very little property which could be considered potential indust-ia: property; that the deed restrictions specifically stated no noise must xeach the residents of the area from the proposed use; that the Interdepartmental Committee recommended that access rights, together with construction of a modified cui~de-sac to khodes Avenue, be ~o~ditiors o.' approval~ that Mr~ Allen had qualified his statement the property would be ~ep:eciate in value in the minds of the peopie, rather than actually depreci3te on the ma~ket; and that if a promise had been made to the property owners :elative to no charge in the use of the property, this could not have been done because it ~Nas not made a part of ihe approval o.' the existing use~ TNE F'~.AR:NG WAS CLOS[D. Coc^T~~sior.er Perry expressed the opinion that the proposed use would benefit the City by the number of families that would move into the City since it was obvious many of the present employees weuld not like to com~~ute each day from Pssadena. Com~nissioner Camp stated that by Sta±e iaw, the City could not ~~f:eeze~~ existing zoning on any proGerty, and if a promise was made, this could not be considered valid or legal, and that one of the things ~o take into consideration was the fact the use of the property undez its present "C" zone could have a more detrimental effect on the residences to the north than that being proposed, and the buildings were already in existence; therefore, any industrial uses would be somewhat limited, and the noise emansting from the proposed use would be not as intense as though chiidren were piaying in the rear ya*ds~ Commissioner Gauer stated he had been on the Commission for a considerable time and remembered the many zoning requests for subject property; that 3t the time the Chrysler Corporation request for a*raining center w.~s presented,. it was decided the proposed structures and the method of landscaping of the property was a desirable u;e for the property and recommended its approval; that the buildings ~i;•~ady in existence were of a highiy desi:•able appe3rance, and commercial zoning p:•esent:y existing on the property, if developed to its highest use, couid be a lipuo: store or a Lofbrau which could be more detrimentai or degrading than the oroposed use; that the petit?oner did not p:opose to alter existing structures; thai the pioposed industrial use would be the type many cities would welcome; thaty in his opinion~ the proposed use was similar to that fo:merly estab- lished by the Chrysie: Corporation; that when he visited Toronto, Canada; msny industrial parks were adjacent to R~-1 and R•-3 developments, such as I.B.,M., and Schaeffer Pen Company, and the residents w~:r, p~~rr.ha<<~ 'heir property there were proud of their development, even though it was adjscent to industrial parks, and that attractive, large homes had been built adjacent to the industrial property on the east side of Ray~ond Street in Fullerton which seems to have been maintained 3nd were desired by the pur.chasers at the time of development,. Commissior.er Herbst inquired what the distance was between the existing structures and the R-1 property lines, to which Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickeison replied that 121 feet existed easterly and 86 feet existed northerly~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts was then asked to explain the necessary procedure which the petitioner would have to follow if amendments to the proposed deed restrictions were :equested in the future, to which Mr~ Roberts replied that steps would be similar to that of any zoning action - namely, public hearing before the Commission and City Council, at which time interested property owners could express their opinions. In response to Commission questioning, Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that if Brookhurst Street were widenedy th~ee travel lanes and one parking lane were pro- posed; that curbs and gutters a~d sidewalks would be installed and a center divider would be proposed in the street widening program; further~ when street widening took place~ the Texaco Refining Company would be contacted fo: relocation of their diive aprons, snd a dedication of the additional footage required to correspond with the street widening program~. ~ ' i MIAUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSIONy August 16y 1965 2699 f ~ RECLASSIFICATION •- Commissioner Rowland was also of the opinion that the use of the N0, 65-66-32 _ build~ngs and the iand would be similar to that used by the Chrysier people~ CiEA]F~tA~ ?lA~ AMENDP~NT ~~0~ 6C In response to questioning by Mr., Allen relative to the suggested (Continited) conditions of approval, Mr~ Daw stated that all access rights to Rhodes Avenue would have to be dedicated to the City •- this meant no cars irom the industrial development could use R.hodes Avenue; furthermaze, a modified cui-de-sac would prevent any ingress or egress from Rhodes Avenue to the industria~ property, Commissioner Herbst offered Reso:ution No, 1;41y Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoptlon, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to th~• City Council that Petition fox Reclassification ~o, 05-66-32 be approved, subject to the filing of deed restrictions as stipUiated in the findings of the Report to the Commission, and conditionsy based on the fact th3t the pzoposed use would be an asset to the City and would eventually be for the betterment of the sdjacent property owners; that the ~se proposed was the best offered;and that the-property and structures which we:e zoned C-1 and C 2 cou:d be developed for a heavier use than that being proposed. ~See Resolution Hook ) On roll cail the foregoirg resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONF.RS: Camp, Gauer, Nerbst, PerryY Rowl~nd, Mungall,. NOtS: COMMISSIONERS: None.. 4BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A;lred. Commissior.e: Rowiar,d offered Resolution No. _742; Se:ies 19b5-6b, and r~oved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to tne City Counc:l that General Plan Acendmer.t No. 60 be disapproved ar.d ~efe;red to the De~•eiopmert Se:vice= Department for annuai review, (See Resolutior. Rook.1 On roli call the fo:egoLng z•esoiut=or was passed by the foiiowing vote: AYES~ COMMISSTONERS: Camp, G~uer, Herbst, Pe:ry, Row'an~', Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIODiERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .411red 4MENDMENT TO TITLE i? AND TITLE 18 PU3LIC 1-~EARI\'G. INITI.4TEC RY TFt CIT~ PLANNING OF ?F±E ANAF{EIM NUNICIPAL CODE_____ COMMISSION, 204 East Lircoln Avenue, Anaheim, Caiiforni3, p:oposir.g to amerd T~tle l?, Chapter 17 i2,0i1 Dri!ling and Production Requ:ations reiating to safe±y, 3nd ~:nen~a,ne~:t 'o Titie .8 by the add'_tion of Chapt=z i8 58, Oii ProductionY covering land use in the l'i*yo uf Anaheim. Associate Planner Ronaid Thorz,pson reviewed for the Commissior. the recommended amendments to the prelimina:y draft oi amendment to Title 17, Chapter 17.12 and the amendment to Title 18, by the addition of Chapter 18.58, noting that the culmination of the proposed draft was as a result of seve:al work sessions with the Commission and a final work session at which members of the oi: industry, developersy interested property owners, and the Commission discussed the pro~osed regulations~ Mr~ Louis Ch3ppelear, Nanager of the Tectmical Services Deo~rtment of Western Oii and Gas Association, indicated his presence and app*oval of the p~oposed amendments to Title 17 and Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,. h1r~ Merrill Butler, President of Butle:-Narbour Developmer.t Company; indicated his presence in the Council Chamber and his approval of the proposed amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Anaheim Municipa? Code~ No one appeared in opposition. Tf-lE HFARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No 1743, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage i:; and adoption, seconded by Cormnissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that ~.~ Titie 17, Chapter 17.12, Oil Drilling and Production Re9ulations relative to safety be amended, and the amendment to Title 18, by the addition of Chaptez i8.58, Oil Production, ~ - governiny lend use as depicted in Exhibits "A" and "B" be approved. (See Resolution Book~,) xn ~~j ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: ~~ ~* AYES: COMMISSION~RS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. ~`~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ i~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ F "~ ~ MINUTES, ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au9ust 16, 1965 ~ 2700 AIU~NDhie.NT T0 1"ITLE 17 AND TITLE 18 - Mr„ Chappelear complimented Mr~ Thompson on his OF TF~ ANAF~IM MU~ICIPAI. CODE M_` manner of presenting and his knowledge of oil (Cbntiriued) drilling requirementsy and stated it was a plsasure working with him during the past several months. tZEPORTS ANC • ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use PPrmit No. 675 - Consolidated Rock Products Company ~ Sully-Miller Contracting Company •- Request for an extension of time for completion of conditions„ Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson advised the Commission a letter had been received from Consolidated Rock Products Company requesting a 130-day tirae extension for the compietion of conditions in the Comrnission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 675 in Resolution No. 1543, Series 1964-65, dated March 1, 1965, It was further noted by Mr., Mickelson that discussions had been held between various departments of the City and the representatives ot Consolidated Rock Products Company relstive ±o ±he possible abandonment of Richfield Road, and it was recommended the requestfor *_he 180•-day extension of time wou!d be needed in order that it may be ascertained whether or not street improvements would be required aiong Richfield Road and the payment of street -, light and street tree fees: Commissioner Camp offered a motion to g*ant a 180-day ±ime extension for the completion of eonditions yianting Conditional Use Permit No. 675, said 180 days to expire February 27, 1966. Commissioner Nerbst seconded the motion., MQTION CARRIED~ ITEM ~~0 2 0=~nge County Case PJo~, ZC65•-42 (Sectional District 'dap 1-4-10) - Fropooing a change in zone from ±he A,, General Agr?cultural District to the M-1, Light Industrial Uist*ict, certain property located at the northwest corner of Blue Gum and Co:onado S`_:,~ats in the east Anaheim azea Zoning Superviaor Ropert hiickel>on presented to the Comrtission Urange County Case No~ ZCGS•-42 and reviewed the iocation of subject property, together with the existing use of ; the prope.ty, namely the use being a truck storaqe yard with incidentai repair work; that -_ the purpose of the rec:3ssiiication petition was to place the proper zoning on subject property since the use had been established in Orange County Use Variance No. 5553, which had been reviewed by the Commission Akay 10, 1965, at which time the Commission had reconr mended to the Citv Councii the said use variance be approved s~ibject to conformance with all site development stand~_ds of the City of Anaheim in the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone, which included a 5?-foot dedication for B:ue Gum Street, 32•foot dedication for Coronado Street for street widening purposes, 50-foot building landscaped settack, and the anclosure of the truck storage ya:d with a six•foot masonry wall to shield from view any storage of ~ trucks and parts. It was also noted *hat the City Council on May 11, 1965, concurred with ~ the recommendations of the Planning Commission and submitted a letter to the Orange County Planning Commission advising them of the recommendations~ ~ Coamissioner Camp offered a motion to :ecommend to the City Council that tha Oranqe County I Planninq Commission be urged to favorably consider Orange County Case No, ZC55-42, estab- lishing property loceted at the northwest corner of Blue Gum and Coronado Streets in its most appropriate zone, nameiy M-1, Light Industrial District, since the use was established in Or3nge County Use Va:iance No~ 5553; further that it also be recommended that subject property be m;aintained in accordance with the site development standards of the City of ! Maheim`s M-1, Light Indusirial, Zone and providing a 53-foot street dedication for Blue ; Gum Street and a 32-foot dedication for Coronado Street for street widening purposes; a ~ 50•-foot building setback with landscaping; and the enclosure of the truck storage yard with I a s:x•-foot masonry wall, in order that any future development of the undeveloped portion or ~ any re-use of the develo ed Orange County Use Variance No~r5553 mightbconfurm~withYthersiteedevelopment standardsUOfer l the M-1 Zone uses established in this area~ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ ~ MOTION CARRIEp„ ~ ~' .ax ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 16, 1965 / 2701 REPOftTS AND - ITtM N0~3 BEELUnf1+~~iDATEONS Conditional Use Permit Noo 331 - Request for amendment to the (Continued) hofbrau and restaurant established at the southwest corner of Savanna and Knott Streets - to eliminate the cc•king facilities required under Resolution No~ 560, Series 1962~-63 in approving Conditional Use Permit Noo 3310 Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission subject property and the request by the petitioner, noting that in granting Conditional Use Permit No~ 331 on December 10, 1962, the only reference to cooking facilities was subject to development in accordance with plans submitted, and at the time the Commission was granting hofbraus, one of the requirements was the provision of kitchen facilities. ~ Discussion was held by the Commission reiative to their origin3l approval ot subject ' p.ef.ition, Commissi.oner Camp offered a motion to deny the request of the petitioner of Conditional Use Permit No, 33i for the elimination of kitchen facilities based on the fact that the Commission was of the opinion kitchen facilities were necessary in the operation of a hofbrau~ Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED ITEM N0. 4 Conditional Use Permit No~ 359 •- Request for approval of amendment to piot pians for the extension of the existing coffee shop to encroach into the front setback along Katella Avenue. Mr~ Nielser,, =epresenting ~d:, Richa:d Duffy, owner of tne ~olly Roger Inn; appeared before the Conmission 3nd outlined the p:oposed extension of ±he coEfee shop within five feet of the sidewalk, snd submitLed a colored rendering indicating what was pro- posed_ Zoni:g Supervisor Robert Mickelson reviewed the study made by the staff relative to the proposed addition to the coffee shop, noting the addition rep*esented an encroachment of eight feet into the existing 20•foot landscaped setback established along Katella Avenue ..in..accordance with the Planning Commission and City Council policy fox the Disneyland Area; that the appiicant was now reque;ting permission to expand the dining area to with- ~I` in five feet of the Katella Avenue property line; that an investSgation of the plans submitted to the department revealed that with the addition, 191 parking spaces would be !I required and the p P i petitioner ro osed 189 usable spaces; and that upon investigation, it i: appeared the additional spaces needed could be added without difficulty~ ~ Mr. Nielsen continued that whet was being attempted in the extension of the coffee shop was to construct a sidewalk cafe with scre2ned windows in the summer and enclosed in the winter. I'he Commission reviewed the plans submitted and also the rendering the representative of the petitionei presen±ed to the Commission. i Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve the revision of plans incorporating the addition of the coffee shop to encroach within five feet of the sidewalk along Katella I Avenue~ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~ ITEM N0,_ 5 Study of the Ya:d Requirements in the R•-2 and R•-3 Zonesa Zoning Supervisor Robert Mickelson reviewed the report presen±ed to the Commission previouslyy noting that upon con.'erring with the deve2opers and sketching pian=.,most of the properties proposed for development with encroachment into the yard requirement were resolvedy but that many developers preferred to fi;e a variance rather than revise their stereotype plans for the property under consideration, Considerable discussion i~~as then -.eld between the Commission and Mr„ Mickelson, with the following facts being sammarized: 1~ Existing setback requirements and the physical development resulting from these reauirements in the R•-2 and R~-3 zones„ ~3 2o Effects on parcels having 40-50 unitss with recreational-leisure area planned for f~ ' the center of the development~ which would not require the same type of setbacks y~ * as a PRD, except for light and veniilation~ :~~ t MINUTES, CITY PL.ANNING COMMISSION, Augus± ib,'1965 2~p2 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO.. 5 (Continued) 3o Walkways through the wall area of the "U"-shaped building in order to gain access to the recreation area would probably create three or more structures, thereby bringin9 the development under the jurisdiction of the PRD regulations~ 4~ Standards work well for PRD, but not as well for that standard R-3 tract deveiopment, 5~ Possibility of providing bachelor apartments of less than 700 square feeto 6~ Long, narrow lots in the ce;ter city area may not be as easy to deveiopy but this could be administered within the department (authority already granted by City Council poli~y), 7o Typical three-unit, two bedroom apartment development cannot be built upon a 7200 square foot lot in the R-2 zone and still provide adequate open space and parking :equirements, especialiy when single-stnry 3s required because of the close proximity of R-1 p*operty, 8o Difficuit to build large, two-story type development under present R-3 re~uire- ments because standards require side and rear yards which make it hard to assemble 3n ~~ccessway with a central recreation area, 9. Code specifications for others, since Commission in favor of open space, could be considered adequate with a very few exceptionsy since it seemed that many developers were more p:one to filing a variance rather then take their stereotype plot plans and trying to re~~ise them to fit the lot in question.. Solution: 1~ Consider estabiishing a.nax.imum yard based on the perceniage of depth or width of the lot to take into cunsideration developments with deep lots and those with wide lots (or both) allowing minimum yard at side iot line and leaving the recreation area ?n the center~ 2, Developing ±hese pa*cels in the R-2 or R-~3 zone is more tenabie than strip commerciai deveiopment- 3~ Land as.sembly of the narrow, deep lots was determined to be impracticaly becauce deveiopment was dependent upon acquiring several pa;cels and this put the pre>sure on the prospective developer of one parcel in having to meet the price asked for by the othei• property owne:(s). Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of the R•-2 ~and R-3 zone yard r.equirement, to the meeting of September 13~ 1965, in o:dez• t.hat the staff might be able to prepare additional data basing the yard requirements on the width or the depth of the lots in question, rather than on the size of the structure,. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting~ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED, The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m~ ~ `t~ i; r. i:i~ - '1 * n'~ ~~ `•' I ,r j `~ .~ ... d __ ._. Respectfully submitted, ~ /~-o_~ ANN KREBS, Secretar~~~y- ~ = Anaheim Planning Commission i ~. -~s:~ " R ,~ . ~. r