Loading...
Minutes-PC 1965/12/06~ ` ; ~r. ; City Hall Anaheim, California December 6, 1965 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION f.. R:~~ .y ;~ ~ • REGULAR MEETING - A regular rneeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P~M,y a quorum being presento PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall~ - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gaue:, Herbst; Perry, Rowiand, HBSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred.~ FRESENT - Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thonpson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Assistant °lanner: Jack Christofferson Planning Commissio~i Secr?tary: Ann Krebs Plann:ng Deparimer:t Stencgrapher: Caroiyn Grogg II~VOCATION - Reve*end David F., Carter, Pastor of Grace Brethren Churchy gave the Invocatior., PLEDGE OF AI.LEGIAD;CE - Comnissione^ .°erry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flaga APPROVAL OF THE MI~UTES •- The Minutes of the rieeting of Novembe: 8., 1965, were held over until December 20, 1965, and the Minutes of the meeting of November 22 were approved as submitted except for the following correction: Page 2837, paragraph 14, "Commissioner .411i•ed o~, ~ CCtdDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC hiEARING. LE GRAND D~ SPENCER, M..D., 1771 West Romneya Drive, PERMIT NO.. 790_ AnaF~eim, Galifornia, and L, J. HALL, i9052 Rocky Ro~d, 5anta Ana, California, CWners; MRe NC CULLOUGH, 649 South Olive, Los Argeles, California. Agent; requesting permission to E5TAELISH A SERVICE STNTION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDEMTIAL Z:7.VF on property described as: An irregul.arly shaped parcei of land situated at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Anahei,:i Boulevard, with frontages of approximately 90 feec on La Palr~a Avenue and 140 feet on Ar-:aheim Boulevard~ and further described as 950 North Anaheir~ Bouievard~ Property presently classifi?d C-3, !-:EAVY CON~ViERCIAL, ZONE„ M~•„ R=y Livir.gstonof Writtier, agent for lia;bci• Service Stations, lessee of subject property, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed service station development, noting he had been conferring with the Traffic and Development Services Departments reiative te the alignment of La Palma Avenue and the ultirnate widening of La Palma Nvenue,%:r.i that the service station building would be :elocated in such a manner *,hat if street widening took place9 there would be no need for relocating said building~ The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether o: not he proposed to con- struct the service station in a similar manner to that at State Coilege Boulevard and Howell. Avenue, since, in their opinion, tr~at service station site would not be compatible to said station site at Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue since this would be the entrance to the City of Anaheim, as well as beir,g in close proximity to~ co~:-rercial deve:opr..ent which had expended considerable money to beautify their structure and its s,~i.e•.:ndinga Mroi_ivinaston then stated rothought had been given to construction of a residential-type service sc~tion such as they were proposing at the corner of Nutwood and Katella Avenues which was a hacienda-type service station since the proposed service sta'.ion site was not in close proximity to residential structures, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that overlays were avail- able for varying s=tbacks of La Palma Avenue and the relocation of the drive approaches for the proposed service station site; that if the Commission considered Finding Noo 3 of the Repori to the Commission relative to the policy statement regarding building setbacks along La Palrna Avenue, between Harbor Boulevard and Pauline Street, and an aerial photograph which he was presenting, these would indicate how these setbacks would affect the residences ' presently existing in the area. 2843 ~ ~ -- ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI(iN, December 6, 1965 2844 CCNDITIONAL USE - Discussion was held by the Commissi~n relative to establishing a policy PERMIT_N0~ 790 for La Palma Avenue, or whethex or not an amendment should be considered (Continued) to the Circulation Element of the General Plan which would establish the ultimate right-of-way for the south side of La Palma Avenue to 53 feeto During the discussion by the Commission it was noted that where the exist- ing mattress factory was located, the street width was only 32~- feet, and that if an amend- ment to the General Plan was approved, this would serve as adequate notice to future develop- ment for La Palma Avenue relative to its ultimate xight-of-way, Mr~ Livingstm again appeared before ~'~e Commission and stated the proposed service station known as the hacienda-type would have a red tile roof, used brick exterior, and the metal being used would be simulated woodo The Commission inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate to construction of a hacienda- ' type service station as was indicated, to which Mro Livingston replied that if the Corr,mission required this, he would so stipulatee No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa ~ Commissioner P.erry offered Resolution No, 1870, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No., 790, subject to relocation of the service station structure to take into consideration the ultimate widening of La Palma Avenue to a 53-foot half width, and the construction of a ttacienda-type structure with a red tile roof, exterior of used brick, and with simulated wood metal structure, as stipulated by the petitioner, and conditions, (See Resolution Book~) On roll cail the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vo±e: AYES: COMMISSICNERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None> ABSENT: COMMIS$IONERS: Allredo ~ VARIANCE N0~ 1751 - PUBLIC HEARING, STANLEY I.. ROSEN, 509 Priscilla Way, Anaheim, California, , Owner; ARTHUR KOVACK, 1442 South Euclid Street, Fullerton, California, REQUIRED REAR YARD, Agent; :equesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REC~UIRED FRQdT YARD, (2) MINIMUM (3) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, AND (4) MINIMUM LOT ARER on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land wit}i a frontage of approximately 112 feet on the east side of Western Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 276 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 549 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 844 South Western Avenue, to develop subject prooerty with i feur single-family residential lots. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, Z~IE~ ~ ~ Mr. Stanley Rosen, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the agent was unable to attend the hearing; that in theory the proposed variance was cimilar to the request for develapment of an apartment house, at which time opposition was expressed by both the Commission and the property owners adjacent to subject property; that because of the size and ~ shape of the parcel, it was physir,ally impossible to develop the property similarly to the adjoining homes because the price of the hcme would have to be in the neighborhood of $80,000 to $100,000; that Western Avenue was beir.g expan9ed to a fcu~•-lzne street; that a dedicated and improved half street could be required to provide access to subject property's four lots, and additional dedication could be acquired at the time the parcel to the south was developed; and that the proposed development H•as a reasonable request subject to the conditions recom- mended by the Interdepartmental Committeeo ~ When the Commission reviewed the plansy it was r~oted the ~ 25-foot private drive, whereas the plot plan indicated a 20 foot drive, a d inqui ed why a difference, te which Mre Rosen replied that the designer had indicated a 25-foot drive ~ could be developeda The Commission al.so informed Mr, Rosen that the City of Anaheim did not accept dedication of a half street. Mr~ Rosen stated that the adjoining parcel to the south would eventually develop, and then ' the balance of the half street could be provided; that the proposed 25-foot road would be an easement aad the plot plan could be amended to indicate 25 feet; further, in response _ to Commissi.on questioning, that although the access road would be a private street, he had discussed with the trash pick••up company the possibility of pick-up along the private street * and was informed this could be accomplished with a 25-foot streeto Further, that the homes -+~ would be individually sold, and in the grant deed it could be indicated maintenace of the private street would be a requirement of the purchase of the home, MINUTES, GIIY PLAAfNING COMMISSION, December 6, 1965 284g VARIANCE N0~ 1751 - Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that s;.:eet cieaning (Continued)~ by the City was not available to private streets and alleys, as a Council policyo ~. ,i ~ Conside*able discussion was then held by the Commission and the petitioner relative to the proposed private streetg the fact that the petitionei was oroposing substandard lotsy that a similar development had been inspected by the Commission on the west side of Western Avenue, north of subject property, and the refuse and debris, together with the excessive amount of asphalt, made the four-unit development undesirableq that the proposed sub- division of subject property would be detrimental to the existing residences in close proximity to subject propertyg that the proposed development was similar to an apartment development; tk~at the Commission could not consider that the property to the south of subject property would develop in the near future in order to consider requiring a half st*eetq that private maintenance of the proposed private drive could not be assured; and that potential home buyers were of +.he opir.ion that street cleaning was a service pr~vided by the City~ Mr~ M~. McGaughy, 910 South Western Avenue, property owner adjacent to the south of subject F*operty, stated he was not in opposition to the petitioner's attempt to develop subject property, but iegardless of the method of development, it was still considered muitiple- family development; that single-family residences were developed for some distance to the north, east and south of subject prope:ty; that he had resided at his present address for more than ten yea~s, and it was hoped he would stili be at his present address for an addi- tional ten years; that the proposed subdivision of subject property ~aould be detrimentai to the single-family residentiai integrity of the area; that no physical change had taken place in the area to warrant consideration of substandard lots which could be considered muitipl2- family developmen.t; that the petiti.oner was requesting five v~:iances from code to permit the proposed subdivision; and that regardless of who handied the property as the developer, ! the residents presently living therey and the prospective owners of subject p:operty, woulc~ ; have to contend with substandard developmento Mr~ T~ C, Donovan, 855 South Western Nvenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated the proposed development could be considered a m~:ltiple-family residential development and would not be an jsset to the area; that he resided across the streec from subject prnpe=ty and had a large~, deep lot ir, which he took great F::de in maintaining as did the other residents in the rea; that the residents of the area should not be subjected to undesirable development in wiich there was a possibility of non-maintenance of a private drive; and that subject property c,ould be developed with two sir.gle-family homes, rather than dividing it into four s~~~;tandard lots„ A showing of hands indicated six persons present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition., A~L*. Roseny in rebuttaly stated he did not feel a 55•-foot wide ?ot with a depth of 275 feet would be an ideal arrangement for developing subject property; that the homes then would face Western Avenue which wou?d be subjected to heavy traffic; that most of the homes in the area did not face Western Avenue; that large rear yards were not used as they formerly were, and it was difficult to maintain such large, deep lots; furthermore, it was proposed to have a 1,600 square foot home on the propertyY and this could not be considered multiple- fami~y residential development. THE HEARING WRS CLOSED. Mro Daws 3.n respor,se to Commission questioning, stated the minimum turning radi.us for fire and trast. trucks was 27 feet9 although for trash trucks a cul-de-sac street 38 feet from curb to curb radius was necessary in order that the truck need not back out from the rear of the cul-de-saco Commissioner Perry noted that in developing certain odd-sha~ed lots in the Hill and Canyon Area because of topography, "flag lots" were approved, and that perhaps subject property could be developed by subdividing into two parcels and providing a narrow, pan-handle fronting on Western Avenue to gain access to the rear of the ~~roperty., Commissioner Camp noted that if the petitioner of subject property would prove up on the reclassification to the R-1 Zone, a planned residential development under the R-1 standards could be deueloped, and the Commission should recognize t:~is fact~ It was aiso noted by the Commission t;~at if subject petition wei•e approved, this would permit a private drive with substanda:d lots and the City would not be able to furnish adequate trash collection and fire protection because it would not be using a private driveo .tx ' 4 . _. _ MINUTESy CITY PLANNING CGMb.~JSI~Jy December 6y 1965 -j ~BM~ VARIMCE N0~ 1751 - Discussion was then heid by the Comnission re:ative to an R-1 PRD and (Continued) the fact that a conditionai use ~~ermit was necessary to permit a PRD on subject property~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission the purpose of the conditional use permit in a planned residential development was ta grant waiver of the standard access and *eview by the City of plans of development to permit less than a standard 60-foot streeto Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1751, seconded by Commissioner Rowland~ The petitioner then reouested that the Commission reconsider subject petition by continuin9 the petition in order that revised plans incorporatinq the suggestions made by the Commission miyht be s~mitted~ After considerabie discussion re'_ative to the means of developing subject property., and whether a co~ditional use permit shouid be advertised, Comn~issioners Nerbs•t and Rowland withdrew their motion and seconri, Commissioner Herbst offered a r~otion to =eopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance _ Noo 175i to the meeting of Jan~.:ary 3Y 1966, in order to dllow the petitioner to submit revised pians incorporating a reduction of si leas: 25% in density., and for the Pianning Staif to determine whether or not the petition should be readver*_ised as ~ conditional use permit~ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICAIIGN - PLBLIC HtARING. ~'AROi.U W, THORNTON; c-'o Leonard Smith Res? ~,statey NO_ 65~66-{ZO_~_ i25-D South Glaudir~a Street, Anaheim, California, Avner; LEONARD SMITH, 125°D South Claudina StreetY Anahei~, C~lifo*ni3, Agent; property described VA4IANCE N0,_ i~50 as~ An irregularly shaped oarcel of iand loca±ed at the nertF,west corner of Valencia Aven:~e and Anaheim Boulevard, with zront~ges of approximately 57 feet on the north side af Vaien::a Avenue and approxima±ely 100 feet on the west side of Anaheim Bouievardy and further described as 10_ West Valencia Auenue. Property presently classified R-lY ONE•F4M1~?ILY RESIDENTIAI., ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATICN: C•1, GENERAI. COMMERCIAI., ZONE ~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF: (i) MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK, (2) MINIMUM ~ REQUIRED LAI~DSCAPING, (3} MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGI.E-FAMILY i;ESIDEPJTI.4L ZCNE, (4) MINIMUM RE(1UIRED PARKING SPACES, .4ND (5) SIX-FOOT M4SONRY WALL EENIND PLAIvTING AREA OPPOSITE A SI~'Gi.E~-FAMII.Y RESIDENTIAL ZONE Mr„ Leon3rd Smith, agent fo: Lhe petitione~, appeared befo:e the Corrnission and reviewed the proposed development9 noting that the existing structsre wouid be removed and a new structure would be constructedg that coR~re*cial developmer:t was occ~~rrinq aiong Anaheim Roulevard, on which subject property sided; that r.o act~~al cleaning or washing of clothing was proposed on subject property - the purpose of the structure would be for the pick-up and delivery of the cleaned garmen*s; tbat the p:oposed st.ucture was utiiizing the best manner of dev~loping subject p~operty because of a•~ailab=e spa~e since the proposed widen- ing of Anaheim Boulevard would drastically reduce the size of the lot; that although a parking waive; was requested, it was feit that wider spaces would be more desirable for the customers and lengthy p3rking would not be necessarv because of a d:ive-up service window; tha.t if the Commission requestec it, ~ six.•-foot m~;son~y wall would be constructed along the ~orth and west property lines- however9 it was impractic~l to construct the six- foot masonry wall along the south property line and it was _equested a waiver of that require- mentg that the driveway space on the westeriy property line was 17 feet which was adequate for two cars to pass; that the height of the structure was on:y 14 feet, but because it was desir- ous to hide the air-ccnditioning facilities, a parapet wall was constructed which increased the width of the structure; that he was unaware additional dedication would be required on Valencia Street; a~d that there would be no noise and dust from the proposed commercial development which would anr,oy the other residents in the areaa Mro Henry Mang, 107 MacArthur Manor, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and prese~ted a petition signed by 41 property owners of Tract No.> 1194 of wt~ich subject property was a part, stating these property owners were opposed to commexcial use of subject property because this was considered spot zoning by the Commission in the past; that the proposed commezcial structure and its uses would create noise and dust, the noise coming from anp air-conditioning facilities; and that the Commission should consider the opposition to the proposed development by denyin9 subject petition. i~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAPiNING COMMiSSIGh, December 6, 1965 ~ 2847 RECLASSIFICATI(Dl - Mr. John Evansy 114 Va?encia Avenue, appeared before the Crnnmission NO,. 65-•66-60 and stated he had resided in the tract since 1949; that when he had purchased the home, a covenant of deed restrictions was filed vn VARIMCE h0„ 1750 subject ~nd ali p*operties within Tract No-~ 1?94 which limited the (Continued) uses of subject property to R•-1, One••Family Residentialy Zone unt.il. 1999g that 98a of the tract has heen maintained as single-family homes, ar.d there wa~ no reason for app=ovinc a corrn,ercial request for subject property; fu;.thermore, that the number of waivers requested would propose a substandard development for subject property, Mre Albert Clancy~ 100 West Va~encia Avenue, appeared before the Cortanissior, and stated that when he kad moved to Anaheim ~.e thought it was the most beautiful city in the world, ard a12 ihe neighbu;s in the trtict had maintained thai~ properties; that he had spent considerable money in beautifyirg hi; hoi;e, which was directiy across the street from sub- ject p-operty; a;~d that the txaffic on Anaheim Boulevard was not that great that it shouid be taken ir.to consideration ;s a determining f~ctor in the Corr,R,ission's 9eliberatior~ of s.:bject petitions. A showing o# h.ar:ds indicated 20 pe~scn= p:esen± in the Council Chambei• op~osing subject petitions, Ms~ Smith, ir, iebuttaiy siated he did not fee: the_e would be any r.oise f:om the aix•- conditioning units since it was p=oposed to have a gas air-conditioner; that the air- conditioning faciiity wou:d be hidden from view fzom the street because of the propased parapet around the structu:et that the cha_acter of Anaheim Bouleva:d was rapidly changing and was high:y traveled -fu=tne:r.:oie, it would be necessary to xiden the stree± to alleviate the traffic p.oblems tnat soi~:e tir..e in the future the Comn:issior: wou.d have to consider taking sir.,:lar action to k~~=_~. beznc *,aken on tlarbor 9ou:ev~~d becr,use o.° the commercial implic3tioras for Araheim P.ouie~~~:d THE HEARING WAS CLOSED_ The Commission was of the op_nion tr.at bec~use t:aific ~x: ~~t:eet was increasing, this did not mean tiie Ccmn,ission SRUUld consider _r;p ce• :a_.za: .~~; o~:• hesv::y t*aveled a_teriai streets; that *F~e hor*~es in t::e tract in wr.ich subject p:operty was ioc~ted were well maintained; ar,d that approval of subject peti.tion wouid set a precedent for deveiopment of the adjoir,ing homes ior conunerci~: uses. Commissioner Herbst offe=ed Resoiucion No-, i87i, Se=ies '_965~-bb, ar.d r,:oved for its passage a~d adoption, seconde3 by Conanissioner Gaue:, to :ecor.~rend. to the City Councii that Petition fcr Reclassificatioc No, 6°. 66•60 be ~?isapproved, based on the f3cc t:~at a precEdent would be set fo= stri~ cor::!r:ercia: de~~e:opneni :n ar~ alea not now sc de•,~eloped; that the proposed develcprr.er.t wou~d be de±ri,~~er*~~i co t~,e sir.g:e• far;?ly ~e=.ieer,t.ai ir,tegrity o` the a~ea; and tnat sub~ect prope=ty sid~C or: ~~i,heim Boule~ard,ar.d no evidence was pzesented which would war_ant the Commission ~avor3bly considering st-ip conrrerri3l developn,ent- ~See. Resoluti.on Book.,~ On roil caii the fo*egoing resol~:*ion was passed ty the ioilowir.g ~ote: AYES: CCiP~MISSIONERS: Car:p, C,auer, ~:erbst, Fe=iy, Rowiand, Mungai? NOES: COMMISSI(X~]ERS: Nor,e ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A'_iied, Commissione* Camp stated that no cortur,ercial zoning existed in ciose proximity and based nis vote on that fract, Commissionei Y,erbst offered Resolution No, i8?2, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by CoT~r~issioner Rowland, to deny °etition for Va:iance No., 1750, based on findings> (See Resoiution Book.) On roll cali the faregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. Herost, Perry, Rowland, Mungall, NGES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ „y, ~.+ ~ f, 'j _ a "~* :, ~ E ~ a' - -- ~ ~ MI~UTES, C:TY PLF~NIIdG COMM,~SIO~, C~ecerber 6~ Fi965 ~ 2848 RECLASSIFICATICt~ PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATE[~ BY TNE CIT'f FL..4NNING COMMISSI~N, 204 East N0. 65•66••62 ___ Linco:n Avenuey Anaheimy Californiag proposing the reciass.ification of prope~ty described as: Two rectangulariy sl~aped parceis of land with a AREA DEVELOPMENT total and con:bined frontage of approximateiy ?22 feet on the east side PL4N N0__25 ~ of ~?arbor Boulev3rd ~ounded on the south by Santa Ana Street, on the north by ~:c:~-lwjy and on ±he east by Heiena St*eet: Parcel No~~ 1~- a rectangul.ariy shaped parcel of :ar.ri with frontages of approximately 318 feet on the south side of B;oadway~ approximately 36i ieet on the west side of Helena Streety approximately 316 feet on the ~iortt, side o* Flr.i St:eet, and approxiR,~tely 361 feet on the east side of H~rbor Boulevai•d; P3rcei No„ 2- an iiz•eguiarly shaped parcei of land with frontages of approxi;nately 316 fe:t on the south side of Elm Street, approxir~ately 351 feet on the wes*_ side of Helena Street, approximately 31o feet on the north ;ide of Santa 9r.a Street, and app: o>:in:ately 36'_ feet on ttie east side of Ha:bor Poulevard, f:•om tt;e R••2, ML'I.TIPL,E•-F.4A1I~'z' RESIDENTIA~, ZC~vE ANU R• 3,, MULTIPLE FAMII.'f RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1. GENERAL COMMERCIAI, ZONF. AREA DE!~EI.OPMENT PLAO' ~0~ 25 encompasses the above described proFertv whicn is necessary in o*der ie considez the po•;sibiiit~- o* C•~, COMMERCI.4I. OFFICE, ZO!~E ;o: subject propertya Assistant P',anne_~ Fr::r.c~s \u~±o p•_eser~ted A.ea De~eiop~~ent Fi%+n ~io, 25 ,~s follow>. 3ac kq:o~rd ar,d Ar~~i ~si .; On October ]9~ :965, ine City Cour,r,zl ~e_d =. pab:ic }:e.arir.g or. the sub~ect of proposed NO FARKING ~~ong ~1~~_boz 5ou1a~:.~_~ f_cr~ Ar.3t~ei~:, 6ou:ev3rd to Ba:i Ro~~l.. 4s a result of tha± .:~eeting, it wa-. de~;de~i to s*.udv :?a~: or noulr~. ~rd ir~ t_wo ~ecrio ~~, with fisst study given ±o tr~e •~_e;: so~~tn of :_inc.o:~: Sve~~ue Ti~e :a: e~ no_ ~.- oF i.zr:~-o:r A•.Ef!UQ wiii ne studied :n tt:e seccnd ser,`_:oi Ir ~ f~:rr.t~e: in~e~:ded te s~udy 're .._st ;ection in pt;ases, wi±!i twe o:: t;~ee t.io~k~ :. ~ ti-.e y'_:en ~etai:ed stu~'~ Previous 4zea Develooce~~ °;a~,; n:~:e co~e_ec ±r:~ b_ock~ izcc~ S~nt~ Fna Street to South Street. Tnia A_e3 Pe:~e:ope:er.± Pi j•: "~c 25 wiii co~•e~ the e,3s± :.de of Na:bor Boulevard fzom Brcadway `o Sar~t:3 tir.a St_eet~ Aithough the foi~owi~:g two ~:~-•3q~=~:ns are f~r:::iar they wi.i; 5e rerea;_eci t~e:e for the s3ke of coi:pieter.ess This study is arot:~er ch~p±er ir, cr.e :ec,,rrent p_ob'sem of Tesidenti~: iots fronting on arteria: stzeets The o.~gina: envi:on~:^er~t ~;ony ;a_bo= 9o~~_e~~~-d when tnese homes were buiit wa; suit3b:e :o: such u;e 7~ine= na~e char.ged; howe~e.~: ~nd sorne *.esidents feel that tre envizonr.-Ent is no longer sui!3b1e for 4~ng.e fsn~i;y use. (IL shouid be emphasized, however, that some resider.ts ~ee: ve:y stror,g,y ic fava- cf iet~ir~ing residenti~l uses even tnough ,oc-ited on an .~rte_ial 1 4iong w~?t~ ;_en:endou= q_owth of 4na}~ein, has Lome greatly increased t"32f1L a_ono ~.arho: Rou'e~ard 4rr_OZdinc :0 the Traffi~ Fr.gineez, the average daiiy tota~ at tne present time is approxima±e;y 2i,000 vehicies winter and 26;000 vehi- cles sum.~ne- with a 50% increase es!iTated in ten ye+_•s !-:a~bor Eouie;a°d is the gatew~y to our important Cor^me=cial Recreat.ion Are~ fron: the no~th It is a Fr?mary arte:ial on the Anahei.~:~ Genera~ P_3r. ar.d a p~im3:y },got;W3y or ±ne O;ange County Mister Pian of Arterial ~ighways. In o:der to handie i~cre.~sing traFfi~ ]oads; it wi.; be r.ecessrry to: 1, Restrict parking along the ~,resent 34 ?5 foot ;aif rigr,i Of•'N3y, o: 2:. Wider, ta the 90 foor ul t?rate : igh±• oi• w.~y c;i:ed fo* o~: tl~e Gener?i t'ian~ Eitner. of thesa r.~e+su.es wiil c:ause dete:io:ation ir. the er.vironr•;er.t foi con~inued single family residential usa. The public nearirgs shoul~ ser~:e Co ~rir,g ou± *he a:ternative preierred by the affected re;idents, Findin ys: lo The enti.e block from Rroacway to Elm SLreets is preser.tly in R••3 Zoni~g Distzict~ The entire binck from Elm S+reet io Santa Ana Street is in R-2 Zoi;ing District~ 2, The General Plan has indica ~d the poter.~ial for medium density residentiai use• Although discussed, no p:ecise changes had been mad~ pending comp:etion of the Anaheim Center City Study, now in progress hy Victor Gruen Associates~. 3. In the entire biock from Broadway to Elm Streets, fourteen of the fifteen parcels in the block presently used for iow den=_ity residential with the remaining parcel being vacant~. , P ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONY December 6, 1965 2849 RECLASSIFICATICN ND.. 65•-66-62 4REA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO„ 25 -(Continued} 4~ In the entire block from Eim to Santa .Ana Streets, thirteen of the fifteen parcels in the block are presently used for low density residential~ Of the remaining two parcels, one parcei is used for a church and the other parcel for medium dencity residential: ~ 5, The existing ;urrounding uses follow: a~ To the north, the block was recently redeveloped and a new bank building erected with off•-street parking~ ~, b,. To the wes.t is located the new Gity Library and the new Police Headquarters~ c, To the east is a church property along Broadway frontage~ The remainder of the two blocks to the east contains ~ixed low density, low medium, and medium density residential~ d„ To the south across the railroad tracks and Santa Ana Street is iocated mixed low density residentia:, industrial, and agricultural uses~ ^ 6, Illustration 10 RECOMMENDED CENTER CITY GENERAL PLAN ;Anaheim Center City Study, Step II Technical Report, Victor Gruen Associates) shows these two blocks as having potential for public or semi-public use,. '., The Circuiation Elert;en± of the Generai Plan shows 45 foot hal' right-of-way required along Harbor Boulevard This wouid mean a dedication of 10,.25 foot width along the two biocks.. 8~, In tre block fron Broadway to Elm Streets, the_e are no buildings within the projected 45 foot half right-of-way 3;ong ~~arbor Bou:evard In t'r~e biock from Elm to 5anta Ana Stleets, the projected righ±•of•way iire cuts ttrocah the fror,t porch of one building and through the front of five bui~dings, Peveiopment Aiternatives: ~ ?,. Ret_aii business use: The two Liocks covered by t^is stLdy are a part of tt~e Central _, Business District of Anaheirc, Studies of the CED defirite.y point out t'~at the need _ downtown is for more :ntesive ~.~se of retaii zoned property but at the same time also poin* out that tne totai ared zored for :etail use shou.d be reduced., There is no demonstrated need for ret3ii u=_e of these biocks and certainly no trend is evident~ ~~ ~ ~. F ~ Ci r`.i ~~ { 2, Medium density,_residentia~ use~ Medium density residenti3l use of these two blocks is in accor.d with the Generai Plan Residential u;e couid serve to supply the customers needed for retail business downtowr~ and wouid help to balance '.he land uses in the downtown ar.ea~ Comparative=y high land prices make this iand use unlikelya 3~ Commercia~ nffice use: C~^siderable downtown area is devoted to F:opo;ed commercial professional Land use on the General Flan, In the Phase II _eport from Uictor Gruen A~ssociates, it is indicated that a lar9e area should be assigned to commercial office uses~ T;~ese two blocks a:e located southeast of the important intersection of Broad- ~Nay and Harbar Houlevard. They are aiso located direciiy across Harbor Boulevard from the new City Libra:y and Police Headquarters, This iocation appears to be E~minently suitable fcr high auaiity commercial office use and as such would be more campatibie with Civic Centez development than medium density residentiai land use~ There are other,•more satisfactozy residentiai locations in the Cent:al Busine~s District i.n quieter, more secluded surroundings, 4~ Public or semi-public use: Public uses including a cultural center would be permitted uses in thE C-0 Zoning District or could be handled with a Conditional Use Permi*, where the specific use is found to be both desirable and compatible in the Civic Center A:eao 5~ Low density residential use: Further use of these properties for low density residen- tial is no longer a suitable or an economic use in these two blocks~ Exhibit "A" shows several features of the two blocks~ The property lines shown are so ir*egular that it would be very difficult to provide an}~ reasonable secondary access aliey within the blocks, In this Civic Center Area, any new development should cer- tainly be above the Code required 20y000 square foot minimum parcel site, Since the :argest existing single parcel (two lots) in the two blocks contains only 14,750 square ~ 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 6, 1965 2850 RECLASSIF:CATIQV N0~ 65-66-62 ' AREA DEVELOPMENI' PLAN NO,. 25 -(Continued) feet, it is obvious that land assembly is necessary to comply with Code requirements~ Ali possible effort should be made to encourage assembly of lots into much larger parcels, since quality of development so often appears to bear a direct relationship to site sizeo It is to be hoped that any new development in these blocks will be on a scale comparable to the civic development to the west across Harbor Boul~~~ardo Developrtient a£ an entire block would not require a secondary access. If we were to let ourseivesgo and dream, we might even conceive of a development of this area in which both blocks would be used or even a development in which both blocks and part or all of the next two blocks to the east might be involved~ Development on such a grand style would then logically result in possibie street vacation and possible street relccation> ~ Recommendations: It is recommended that the Commercial Office potential of these two blocks be recognized and that they therefore be reclassified in their entirety to C-0, Commercial Office Zoning District, At the conclusion of Mr~ Nutto`s presentatien, the Commission inquir ed the reason for proposing C-1, General Commercial, Zone for subject property, to which Mr~ Nutto stated this was proposed in the event the Commission decided alternative uses would be desirable for subject property; that no existing right-of-way to form a secondary access was avail- able; that assembly of several parcels was enc9uraged in order to provide setondary access; and that although C-1, General Com,r.ercial, Zone was advertised, it was recommended by the staff that the Commission consider the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone as being the most appropriate zone for subject prope:ties.. Mr~ Ralph Maas, 207 Camino San Ciemente, San Clemente, owne: of the property at the south- east corner of Harbor Boulevard and B:oadway, appeared before the Commission and stated he had purchased that property tweive years ago, long before the iik :~y and pol?ce department were considered t'or the area on the west side of yarbo: Boulevard, be.'ore the school had purchased the ten acres to the :ear of the :ibraryx that i-om the conunents made by the staff, it seemed it was recoccuriended a high-class development wouid 'oe the most appropriate for subject properties, but that it took money to build an entire block, and he had not been approached by anyone fo,: possibie land assembiy of his property; that it was undeterrrined whether or not the CitK Hall would be located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard between the library and the police department which would be the basic reason for proposing the C-0 Zone, and the bank locating where it was; that he had inquiries from banks, building and loan companies and service station companies relative to his property, but when it was determined the C-0 Zone was necessary, this discouraged them from consider~ng his property; that at no time had he had any remorse in the type of structures he had ~roposed and developed; that if subject property were considered for C-0 rather than the C-1 Zone as had been adver- tised, this wou,ld reduce the potential of resale of their properties; that £rom the experiences of a large office building in the center of the city, commercial office use of subject property could not be supported~ that he was willing to give dedication for his property if he could have zoning on whi.ch be could realize a return for his investment; and that he felt he could not wait ar:cther twenty years for ultimate development of the propertye The Commission iadicated to Mr, Maas that some time ago the Commission had considered establishing a civic district ir order to protect development in the area in close proximity to the new police de~artment and library, whereupon N~, Maas stated the Ci~y. c.ould still control the type of structures for those properties under consideration; that.some temporary use of the propertiescould have beer. afforded with a time :i:itatien a±ta=hed in the event develcp- ment took place in the area in order that the property owners could realize some income from their properties until such time as the C-0 Zone was needed; and that his age, 71, he did not feel he could remain alive long enough to realize the potential gain of his property, Mro Aernard Jordan, 1132 Park Avenue, Vice President and Manager of the United California Bank at the northeast corner of Broadway and Hzrbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and stated he was not representing or speaking in behalf of the bank, but as a pTivate citizen; that he had been interested in urban renewal problems of the downtown Anaheim area for eight ye~s and was the first committee chairman appointed by the Chamber of Commerce and was presently serving his secnnd term as chairman of that committee, although he was not speaking for the Chamt>er of Commerce at this hearing; that a great deal of time, study, and money went into the purchase of the old Marywood School property when the bank decided to buy it; that a great deal of discussion was held with Mre Richard Reese, then Planning Director of the City, the City Manager, Mr, Keith Murdoch, the former Mayor, Rex Coons, the City Attorney, and the present Mayor of the City cf Anaheim, prior to the purchase of their land; that it was no 'AINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 6, i965 2851 RECLASSIFICATICN NOe 65-66-62 AREA DEVELOPMEivT PLAAt N0~ 25 (Continued ) secret it was the bank's desire to continue the development of the balance of the bank c.roperty for high-rise office structures since the bank was assured it was the City's ~ rtent the area be retained for C-0 Zoning; t!~at the report from the Economic Researcb ~ h~sociates indica#ed tha patential economic redevelopment of the Center City Area as the :~:ime spot for C-0 development; that the same report indicatedthere was a need between *}.~ present date and.1980 for 1~ r~iliion squa.re feet of new office building structures, 750,000 square feet.of which was needed ir, the Center City Area; that the bank had been . discu~sing with various developers and construction firms for the development of the ~~~ balance of the bank`s property at the ea:liest possible moment; that as an individual •i interested in the urban r=newal development program, he had repeatedly stated the City could not axpect outsiders to do t;,e work of the represent~ti•res of the City since it .~~ was necessary for the ci~izer.s of th: Cit `o " t'r~emseives up by their bootstraps before it couldabe~expe}nedhtorhaWe outsiders take ~ not?ce of the accomplishments of the individuai prope*ty owne:s o` the Center City Area; i ±hat t.ii, wa; the reason the bank pu:cha;ed twice the amount of pruperty necessa_y since it was felt, and hoped, this would provide a catalyst for deveiopmer,t of the area and starting it as a civic center; that he agreed with Mr, Maas !hat there was no indication ;' the City Hali wou;d be constructed in the near future - howeve_, the City Council had expressed their intentions tha± eventualiy the City ?-~ai: wou:d be cons'.ructed on the ~~" Property betweer, the p--+ poiice ~e ~_ ~mert and the libra.y; that ;:e was ~;c,peiul that as part f oi the redeve_opment of the area, a prograe; for other cuitura~ and civic development along ~ with iine cor.rercial deveiopr..er.t wou:d be p.-ojected 'or the area; 4hat he was not opposed .,~ to *ezonipg the property since the existing zoning of ~:~ulti~:e-faRily deveiopment was not i the proper zone for fu:~~re deveiopc:er,± of the a_ea; and that tte Cor^~ission should give I serious ~-,.i.deration to the Planr,ing Staff reco.r.mandation that the propezty be protected _, for tne `.~-U Zone development rurthe:r.;ore, if the citizens of t!:a City of Anaheim were to be successfu: in the redeveiopner,t of the comnunity, j:: of the citizens must be interested ~ in participating ir. thc redeve~o r, p.ert prog:arr. a= a pziv3te enterprzse, with a major invest- ment being msde by the cornm.~rity, and ±hat the 3rea be r.;aintained in the C-0 Zone~ ~i • NLs, Vivian Eng:etrecht, representing E K. F1eshT,.,n, 3i2 South Na:oor Houlevard, appeared before the Comrrission and sia~ed she aiso o~wned pzoperty at 313 and 315 South Helena Street =J •~ and expressed conce*n that a parce~, the second lot fro~n the corner of 4e1_ena and Broadway, ~ , was resold at a distress saie: ano =ince it had t-3 Zoning, the p~rchaser of the property ~~ _, was proposing to construct a iour-p:2x on the propertv, and inquired of t5e Commission ! _ what the status of this property wou;d b~ if zoning to C-0 took place sic.c.e all the "~ owners were aware the C-0 Zone w~s ~ ProPerty ~i rtent of a fou:-oiex in that a:ea niign~Pbeea~deter~ent factortinlultimate teveiop~r,ent forethe C~-~ Zone ss bein•3 proposec! by the staf. and as concurred in by Mr Jordan. ~ ~ The Com^~ission advised Mrs. Englebrecht tha! since the R-3 Zone was stilA in ef.'ect on the ''~ ~ property oi which she spoke, tne buiider had every right to construct a Four-Niex, provided 1 it was in keeping wit'r, ali the rc,~irements of the R-3 Zone. i Mzs, Englebrecht then stated her client had paid $42,000 :or his property, which was more :i i, per sauare foot than the bank property at cost, and she was mainly concerned w:th the status 1 I of all properties in the area with the p:oposed C-0 Zone and the existing R-3 Zone, ' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thorrpson stated the CoTrrission could :ecommend an urgency ordinance to the C-0 Zone, and aii the owner of subject property needed was to apply for a building permit and develop in acco:dance with the R-3 Si*e Deveiopment Standards, Chsirman b;ungail requested that Deputy City Attorney ?~urman Roberts explain what the State Code provided as far as civic centers were conce:ned Mr~ Roberts ther read from the State Code what was permitted by cities in close proximity to a civic district, further stating the Commission had previously considered the civic district when it was presented ty Mr~ Rees: however, the Commission did not, at that time, adopt the civic center or civic district b,.t held it in abeyance, based on the fact it was not the most appropriate time to consider a civic district.. Mr~ Maas then asked whether the commitment of the present City Council relative to the City Hall being piaced on the site between the police department and the library would hold if new councilmen were elected in the future, since it was quite possible it could be located directly across the street from the existing City Hall --- however, Mr~ Jordan of the United California Bank must have thought of that when the bank was located at its present address at the northeast corner of Harbor and Broadway~ .~ .., _,., - ' , ; , ~ - ~ ~ MINUTFS, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 69 1965 2g52 RECLASSIFICATIGN ~0. 65-66--62 ARFA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO., 25~ (Continuedj Commissionez• Perry said he was not concerned with the feeling of the future City Council or the laws governing a civic disirict~ but he was conside:ably more interestec in the future development of the properties under consideration for compatibility at a later date„ Commissioner Camp stated he concurred with Commissioner Perry, and, further, he felt if any development in the Center City Area were to be a reality as far as high-rise office buildings a~ere concernedy the properties under :onsideration represented the prime loca- tions in the town, and some protection should be afforded these properties for ultimate •eloprrent into the C-0 Zone:, Furthermo:ey if the Commission favorably considered the ~ 1 Zone` this would permit aii types of smail service buildings which would be a"hodge- podge' o, com:.arcial development not compatible with high :~uality office structuresa Com^~:ssioner Rowland stated it was the Cor.~mission'c duty as a Planning CoRUnission to con5ider the :ong :arge pianning of properties for ihe area, and it was their duty to `.ke some leadership in r~air.tair.ing the area as the G-0 Zone fo_* ultimate development in the future.• Mr~ Thor,.psor, ad•.~ised the Cormissior. that upon checking with the Buiiding DepartMent, it had beer determined the bui~dir,g pe:rit had been cleared thro~gh the Development Services Department but had not been iss~ed until special changes had heen made to the plans~ Chairman Mungali stated it was apparent a civic dist:ic~ shou:d be es±ablished and the staff snould be making s~ud:es ~egar~ing it. Commissioner Rowiand stated t::e C 0 Zone wa; ~n exce:ient ~~enicie in providing development standards for the 3*2%f~ and tne sta'f snou:d 't~e ?na.r~cted to study t'ie area involved, THE HE4R?NG WAS CLOSED ,* ~ ~~tx Cor„rnissioner Rowiand offe:ed Reso:u:ion No, i873; Series 19b5-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Corm;issione: Camp, to recommend to the City Councii that ~etition for Reciassification \0 65•66-62 be app.cved Foi t.he C-0 7.oce, s~b~ect to cor,dicions, (See Reso:ution Book ) ' On :oll ca~l the fozegoina sesol:~~ion was passea by the foliowing vote: A'lES: COMMISS.OPiERS: Ca~r,p; Craue:; Herbst, Pe::y, Rowiand, Mungai:: NOES: COPAN!ISSIC~JERS: None.- ABSENT: COMMISSIW ERS: A:=:ed, Commissioner Rowland ofiered a rotion to direct the Planning Staff of the Development Services Depsrtrr.ent to commence study and p*esent Reports and Recomnendations to the Commission rel3tive to the boundaries of the civic district and the proper standards necessa:y for the area, said =eport to be scheduied fo: pubiic hearing upon completion of the report, Cortunissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEP, Commzssione: Herbst offe_ed a motion to hold in abeyance consideration of Area Development P?an No, 25 until such ;,ime as the report f:om the Planning Staff on the civic district was completed, and to readvertise said area deveiopment plan for public hearing to be considered concurrently with the city district repor:*.. Com.^.:issior.e: Camp seconded the motion. MOTIGd CARRIED„ RECLASSIFICATION -?UBLIC HEARING.. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN, 204 East NO_ 5-66-58 ~ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing the reclassification of property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located generally between Orangethorpe Avenue on the south and Orchard Drive on the north and east of Highland Avenue, the southwestern corner of said parcel being approxi- mately 1,179 feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Ave~ue~ The western boundary of said parcel extends northward approximately 280 feet from this point, along the Anaheim city limit boundary line; the northern boundary continues eastward approximately 1,581 feet along ±he Anaheim city boundary line; and the eastern boundary extends southward approximately 350 feet alona ~he Anaheim city boundary lineo Property i~ further described as the rorth- ernmost portion of Northeast No, 3 Annexation fron~ the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-A (.l), AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (OIL) in order to establish an oi1 combining district or overlay oil zone on subject propertya ~, f . . '~I~ '. ~ _ i 'r1INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN, December 6, 1965 ~ 2853 kECLASSIFICATION - Assistarit Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commi.ssion that N0~ 65-66-58 although the Commission had acted upon subject petition at the meeting (Continued) of November 22, 1965, it had been determined upon preparation of the resolution that subject property had been incorrectly advertised since the R-1 Zone was interim zone, and the subsequent zone approved by ordinance by the City Council reclassified subject property to the R-A Zone; therefore, the property had to be readvertised to its proper zoneo No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ THE HEARING WAS CL~ED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1874, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ 65-66-58 be approved~ (See Resolution Book.) On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Alired.. RECESS - Commissioner Perry moved for a ten minute recesso Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTIW CARRIEll. The meeting recessed at 4:00 P~M. RECQdVENE - Chairman Mungali :econvened the meeting at 4:15 P,Ma, all Commissioners with the exception of Commissioner Allred being present, REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RcCOMMENDATICNS ORAfJGE COJNTY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6066, REVISICN N0. 6e SUBDIVIDER: JOHN W. PLOUGH, Box 228, Orange, California~ ENGINEER: Toups Engineerin9, Incorporated, 1801 North College, Santa Ana, Califorr,ia, Subject tract located south of the Riverside Freeway at the intersection of Cerro Vista and Peralta Hills Drive in the Peralta Hills area containing 13-~23 acres, is proposed £or subdivision into 11 :3-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATES, ZONED lots. Assisi:ant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 6066, Revision Noo 6, to the °lanning Commission, noting ti~e location of subject property; that the land use was in accordance with the proposed Hili and Canyon Generai Plan; that Mr~ Krieger, of the Planning Division, had attended a subdivision committee meeting with the Orange County Planning Department to present the City of Anaheim's street standards for the Peralta Hills area; that the City`s R-E Zone had been revised, and the changes noted for the subdivision committee's benefit; that when the Commission, on September 27, 1965, had recom- mended approval of the tract map, the City did not have adopted street standards for the Peralta Hills; and that since these standards were now established the Commission might wish to consider these standards in any action they would take regarding subject tract~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the difference in the street standards teing proposed on the present revision of subject tract, and the fact that City's standards establish a 40-foot right-of-way with a 28-foot paving strip for travel lanes, whereas the County tract proposed a 45-foot cross section. Mro Thompson also advised the Cor,mission that since annexation proceedings for the Peralta Hills area was in process, and subject property was a portion of said area, the Commission may wish to recommend to the City Council that in order to provide for greater flexibility and to r=tain the pr.sent rural characteristics and esthetics, etc,, that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to require that subjPCt tract be approved subject to all streets meeting the City of Anaheim Peralta Hills street standards> Commissioner ~terbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to approve Revision No, 6 of Tentative Map of T:act No, 6066, subject to development of the tract in accordance with the City of Anaheim street standards for the Peraltz Hills, in order to orovide greater flexibility and to retain the present rural characteristics and esthetics of the area, said area presently being under annexation proceedings to the Cityo Commissioner Perry seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED, ~ ~'!, ~ i 1 , ; / MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, December 6, 1965 2gg4 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO.. 2 RECOMMENDATICNS ANI~NDMENT TO RESOLUTIGN NOe 1812, SERIES 1965-66, appi•oving (Continued) Reclassification No~ 65-66-490 The Commission Secretary advised the Commission that subject property was the Wagner-Rio Vista Annexation and the p?tition represented permanent zoning for the propertiec in said annexation; that st the time the resolution was presented, the legal ;? metes and bounds of the property were divided into two parcels, and it was determined by the City Attorney's office it was necessary to delineate the parcels into three separate parcels for an accurate, legal aescription, an~ an ame~~dment to said resolut.ion was 1_ necessary, '~~~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No> 18?5Y Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage 4 and adoption, seconded by Comniissioner Herbst, to amend the legal description of Resolution ~ No., 1812, Series 1965-65, recommending appi•oval of Reclassification No~ 65-66-49 by delineat- ing the legal description into °arcei Nos. i, 2 and 3~ (See Resolution Book„) On roi.l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: F,YES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perrys Rowland, Mungallo -• NOES: COMMISSIONER~: Noneo ARSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ ITEM N0, 3 CCfISIDERATIC~J OF TNE SETBACK POLICY FOR THE PROPcRTIES CN THE SOUTH SIDE OF LA PALMA AVENUE BEIVJEEN HARBOR ROULEVARD AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS TO THE E.4ST, ~~~ ;1 - d * ~,~ .sx Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Comrr,ission that no action had been taken by them ~t the consideration of the service station petition earlier in the hearing and i~~uired whether the Comrtiission was desirous of estaLlishing a setback policy in the eve . a Palma Avenue was widened to 53 feet fror centerline. Office Erigineer Arthur Daw advised the Comn~ission that upon the extension of La Palma ?~enue across the railroad tracks eastariy, it was anticipated traffic would increase considerably and there might be potential commerci~l development aiong the south side of La PaiT,a Avenue because of this increase in traffic, and that Resolution Noo 6i:1, establish.ing the Circuia±ion Elerent of the General Plan did not provide for additional dedication for La Palma Aven~e on the south side and its p*esent width of 32~ feet from centerline of the street was a7.1 that was reouired. Consideratle discussion wes then held by the Comrr.ission relative to whether or not a setback poiicy sho~~ld be established for La !~'alma Avenue, or whether an amendment to the Circuistion Element of the Gene:•31 Fian should take place to establish the ultimate right-of-w.ay~ Upon conclusion of the discussion by the Commission it was determined that La Palma Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard already was designated on the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and directed the Secretary to advertise for pubiic hearing considera- tion of an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to project the ultimate right-of-way of the south side of La Paima Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and the Santa Fe Railroad tracks to the easty said public hearing to be set for .Tanuary 3, 1966. Commissioner Herbst secor~ded the motion., MOTION CARRIED~ ITEM N0~ 4 WORK SESSION QJ THE HARPOR BOULEVARD RECLASSIFICATICN. The Commissio~ held a work session to determine the potential and implications of reciassi- fication of the Harbor Boulevard properties south of Lincoln Avenue to Sall Road with the Development Services Staff~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Nerbst seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED~ The meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.,M, Respectfully ubmitt d, ~G~-~/ ? ANN KREBS, Secre ary ? Anaheim City Planning Commission ~, f ._. ~?1 ' { . ~ ~ ~ \ * ..~Y' f