Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/01/17~ i ,. ~ 1 _i J City Hail Anaheim, California January 17, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim Ci~y Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being ~ present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst~ Perry, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furm~n Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Zoning Division Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg INVOCATION - Reverend Walter Vernon, Pastor of the First Congregational Church, gave the Invocation. `; PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPRUV.4L OF - The Minutes of the meeting of January 3, 1966, were approved as THE MINUTES submitted. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HARRY AND LILLIAN f;HAM, 1320 Ridg~aview PERMIT N0. 799 Terrace, Fullerton, California, Owners; DAVID D. WEBSTER, 620 South Marjan Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ', ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING - SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage - of approximately 75 feet on the east side of East Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the southern boundary of subject property being approximately ,'I 275 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 120 North .~ r~ East Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ..~ Mr. Harry Sham, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission to express opposi- tion to the requirement of 12 additional feet for street widening purposes of East Street because this would create an undesirable type of commercial development by a reducti~n of the depth of the lots;that the City could, at any future date, request additional dedica- tion for street widenina purposes, and, in his opinion, this was confiscation by coercion of property in order to get a building permit. i I~~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission and the petitioner that the reason and theory behind the City's requiring an additional dedication of the property owner desiring to develop his property was because uses established on East Street when . the street width was originally determined now project a heavier flow of traffic than was anticipated, and court cases in the County of Los Angeles upheld the City's request ~ for dedication of property bec.,~use it was necessary to have adequate traffic flow, and requests for said dedication were deemed f:yir, based on the fact that the property owner I: would also benefit from the street widening; furthermore, projections for widths of ~ streets that were made a number of years ago v~ere no longer applicable because of the ~' heavier traific - therefore, in order to handle this heavier flow of traffic, the City i=• + is justitied in reGuiring the additional 12 feet, even though the property owner had C-1 zoning. In response to a statement made L-y Mr. Sham that taxes were paid on the portion of property dedicated to the City for streets, Mr. Rob; ts stated he had discussed this matter with the County Assessor and had been advised taxes were based on property lines inside the sidewalk '~ and not as part of t':e street; therefore, no taxes,as the petitioner stated,were assessed him for the street. ~ * ... .. _ ,.. ._ 2888 . .*x ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COmMISSION, January 17, 1966 ' 2889 CONDIT30NAI. USE - Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the property PERMIT N0. 799 fronting on East Street did not have street improvements, such as curbs (Continued) and gutters or sidewalks, and the half street now paved was only 15 feet; that the Engineering Office was working on a project for street widening of East Street to 26 feet in the developed areas, and where development had not occurred, it was intended to widen the street to provide for a parking lane in addition to the two travel lanes for each direction of traffic flow. Continued discussion was held by the Commission and the petitioner regarding street dedication, the Commission noting that requests for additional property for street widen- ing purposes was one of the things property owners had to pay for progress. ~~ The Commission then reviewed the plans presented by the petitioner and noted the staff's ~ , recommendations indicated parking requirements could be provided if a change was made in the plot plan. The suggested ideas presented by the staff were also reviewed. It was ~ also noted the petitioner was proposing two access roads to the property which was contrary to requirements of the Traffic Engineer, Mr, Ken Erown, realtor representing the lessee of subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated that when the plans were first submitted by the Taco Bell Company, _ the 12-foot dedication was not considered and adequate parking was provided; however, since an additional 12 feet w~s required for street widening purposes, he felt the City should consider the proposed parking as adequate and waive the additional two parking spaces required< The Commission informed Mra Brown that parking in commercial areas, particularly the type of facility proposed, had always been critical, and if the Com~nission did not require that parking requirements be met, except in cases where the property was "odd shaped", any deviation would be detrimental to the citizens of the Citye Mr. Brown then stated that additional parking might be acquired from the property to the north; however, no plans of development were available, and he could i~ot say what future parking requirements would be for that property, It was noted by the Commission that adaquate Narking could be provided if the lessee relocated the structure and elimir,ated one access drive since this was requested by the Traffic Engineer; that the preser.t access drive did not provide for complete maneuverabilit , in the parking area. Y Mro Brown stated that the lessee preferred to have the structure in the center of the property; however, if the City required that Code parkir.g requirements be met, the struc- ture would be relocateda ~ A drawing of how the structure might be relocated was submitted for the petitioner to reviewe The Commission then informed Mr. Brown that the plan presented by the staff represented a method of development so that adequate parking could be provided; however, there were many ways of developing the property and s;.ill complyi~g with the Code parking requirements. Mr. Brown then stated that i: the staff recommended layout could be presented to the Taco Bell repres,~ntatives, he ~ould then inform them parking requirements must be met, and he would lat~r ~ubmit revi:ed drawings which indicated compliance with the requirements. Zo~~ir~g Supervisor Ronald Ii:ompson advised the Commission the layout could be used by placing the structure either t~ the nor±h or south of the proposed location. Mre Sham again stressed the fact that he was concerned with the future development of the vacant parce.l since he would be required to dedicate an additional 12 feet. The Commission advised the petitioner that the Commission had to decide on land use and had three choices in rendering a decision: i) to approve subject petition, subject to recommended conditions made by the staff; 2) to disapprove subject petition; and 3) the petitioner wit!~draw his petition. However, anything the Commission required in their resolution of approval was subject te review by the City Council, and if the petitioner de~ired to app~al the Commission's action to the City Council, this was his prerogative by filing a letter of appeal with the City Clerk and submitting a$50 appeal fee. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE FIEARING WAS CLOSED. F MINUTES, GITY PLANNING COmMISSION, January 17, 1966 2890 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No> 1902, ~eries 1965-66, and PERMIT N0, 749 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, (Continued) to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 799, subject to conditions, the relocation of the structure in order to meet Code parking requirements, as stipulated by the petitioner, and that a finding be made that the staff recommended layout was only a sugyested plan which indicated to the Commission that Code parking co~~ld be met if the petitioner relocated the structure, thus demonstrating the petitioner had no claim to hardship which could be proven in granting any waiver of the parking requirements, and that the request for waiver of the required parking spaces was denieda (See Resolution Booko) ~~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMM~SSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo f ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee VARIANCE N0~ 1755 - PUBLIC HEARING. W< D~ GRESCNNER~ E. W~ GRESCHNER, ROBERT BUCHHEIM~ Mo K. BUCHHEIM, H~ STEINBRINK, AND R. STEINBRINK, 1905 East 17th Street, -. Santa Ana, California, Owners; CLINT SULLIVAN, 2905 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE OF A CONFORMING PUILbING on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 320 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximaLeiy 600 feet, the easteriy line of subject parcel being approximatel~ 720 feet west of the centerline of Lewis Street, and further described as 509 East Katelia Avem~e., Property presently ciassified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Mr, Edward Lindskog, engineer for the proposed development, appeared before the Commission representing the petitioners and stated that the pro~osed structure would be of "tilt up" concrete, and the only metal used would be for downspouts and gutters, and that the build- ings would be used for warehousing purposes for the existing useo . The Commission noted that the parking layout was facing the freeway on-ra~-; that it would be necessary to reorient the building and parking layout so as to utilize :ne new street; that the petitioner had adequate space withir, the parking area to comply with the M-1 site ;~ development standards for landscaping; and thati if the new street is constructed, land- _ scaping would enhance the proposed development, Mre Lindskog co~curred in the Commission's statement of adequate space and landscaping. ,:~ ~ 3 ~ ~ d * ~~ .,LY Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the parking area need nat be reduced to prcvide for the landscapingo It was noted by the Commission that the circulation proposed near the entrance was inadequate. The representative for the petitioner then advised the Commission that the traffic pattern would have to be redesigned to provide for better access to a new street. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE HEARING WAS CiOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1903, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adop~ion, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Varianee Noe 1755, subject to conditions and the provision that the front building setback and parking area shall conform with the site development standards of the M-1 Zone for landscaping, and that if the petitioner desires access to the existing street (Katella Way to the southwest), that an additicnal dedication of 9 feet would be necessary to permit street widening of Katella Way prior to issuance of a construction permit fcr the driveway approach. (See Resolutior. Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISGIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. APSE~T: COMMISSIONERS: None. r . ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLAtdNING COMMISSION, Janua:y 17, 1966 ~~ 2gg1 RECLASSIFICATIOPI - PUBLIC HEARING. MELVIN AND DONNA SCHARNWEBER, P. 0. Box 241, Sloat, NOo 65-66-67 Califorriia, Owners; COLDWELL, BANKER 8 COMPANY, 900 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel of land with a frontage of app~oximately 330 feet on PERMIT N0~ 796 the west side ~f Haster Street and having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 615 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 652 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue. rroperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLF-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~?I , REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN EXISI'ING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT c AS A CONFORMiNG USE IN THE R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Zoning ~upervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that no plans of development were necessary because the existing planned residential development has been completed for some time, and that it had been established under a variance. The petitioner was not present to answer questions. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to Commission questioning as to the reason wE~y the petitioner initiated the petition, Mr< Thompson stated that although the varianc~ granted the proposed use, the condit' ~^s attached to the variance were never completed, and when the petitioner had appliei to the Building Department for approvai .,r expansion, it was determined ha did not t~ave the proper zoning, and the City Attorney advised the petitioner to pay the street light fees ar.' commence proceedings for reclassification of the property to bring it in as a conforming use in the R-3 Code requirements. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1904, Series ]965-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by ~ommissioner Alired, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ 65-66-67 be approved, unconditi~r~ally. (See Resolution Book.) On roll Call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1905, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comr,issioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Condit+_onal Use Permit No. 796, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMN,ISSIONERS: Nonee RECLASSIF.=ClcTION - PUBLIC HEARINGe ORANGETHORPE PARK, 405 Union Bank Building, Orange, NOe 65-66-78 California, Owner~ RICHARD T. BROWN, 1535 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, VARIANCE IQO. 1756 California, Agent; property described as: An irregulaxly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 403 feet on the noa~th side of TENTATIVE MAP OF Orangethorpe Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximatEly 1,170 TRACT N0. 6143 feet, the easterly line of subject property being approximately 900 feet GENERAL PLAN west of the centerl. ie of Dowling Avenue. Property presently classified AMENDMENT N0. ?7. C-1, GENERAL CGMMERCIAL, and R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONES. _ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIkL~ ZONE. %~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF: (1) MAXIMUM S:'RUCTURE HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ~ ZONE, AND (2) REQUIRED ALLEY AT REAR OF MULTIPLE-FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. :~ , + ~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: BAYPORT FIIJANCIAL CORPORATION, 1535 East 17th Street, '~ ~ Santa Ana, California. ENGINEER: McDaniel Engineering Company, 1 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing subdivision ^ ~ of subject property into 36 R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zoned r! ' i lots. F .~ MI~UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 17, 1966 2892 r. ' , ~~~ ~. ~~ fj ~;~ I. r-I ~ ~I i _ i9 a ~i ~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-66-78 VARIANCE N0. 1756 TENTATIVE MQP OF TRACT N0. 6143 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0, 71 -(Continued) Mr. Richard Brown, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the zoning on subject property and the projected use of the property as depicted on the General Plan. The established uses in close proximity to subject property, including that withi.n the boundary of the City of Placentia, were also reviewed, noting that the property to the east had been approved for R-3 development by the City Council some time ago, .~~~ Mr. Brown also reviewed the proposed development, indicating the structures would be similar to that established in the City and the County. Plans and photographs of the ~ developments were presented to the Commission for their review. Mre Brown, answering the Commission's questions, stated that the structures would be four- unit residential developR~ents and would be sold for approximately $60,000; that the build- ings would have 4,250 square feet with tile roofs being provided; and that the request for the alley waiver was based on the fact that the size of the property did not permit develop- I.; ment of the property to its fullest potential. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that in reviewing the tract map it was determined an alley could not be provided along the east of five lots because said lots were placed along a cul-de-sac, and the north end had shallow, 90-foot lots, and because of this shallow depth, there was inadequate room to provide an alley at the rear; further- more, the iraffic Engineer had reviewed the alley provision in conjunction with the variance and had determined the provisions for trash pick-up were adequate. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that a telepY..one call from Mre Harmon of the City of Placentia Planning Department was received opposing R-3 develop- ment for subject property, based on the fact that the Cities of Anaheim and Placentia had prior agreements to retain the area for M-1 purposes; furthermore, the Santa Fe Railroad was planning to build a spur line into the City of Placentia industrial land. A letter from the City Council of the City of Placentia was read, in which they also opposed R-3 zoning for subject property. Mr. Brown, in rebuttal, stated that the City of Placentia ha~: zoned a portion of their industrial property for residential purposes in close proximity so that the opposition to the proposed reclassification petition should not be considered valid. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Conditional Use Permit No, 372 had been approved on a portion of subject property for a sports center, and that the plans of development no longer applied; therefore, the Commission might wish to consider terminating the conditional use permit. Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 1906, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-78 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Rowland, Mungall, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Perry. ABSENT: CONSAISSIONERS: None. Commissioners Herbst and Perry in voting "NO" stated they were opposed to further deteriora- tion of the Dlortheast Industrial Area by approving multiple-family development; ti~at by approving multiple-family development, this would tend to eliminate construction of railroad spurs to have access to the industrial property; that the flow of traffic in the area would be great..ly disrupted because of dual movement of traffic to the residences and industrial development; and that subject property is developable for industrial uses. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1907, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1756, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONL'dISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: CGMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Perry. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER5: None. f ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONiMISSION, January 17, 1966 " 2893 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-6f,-•78 VARIAN~t N0. 17~6 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6143 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 71 -~Continued) Commissinner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 614a, subject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each ~ubdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6143 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No, 65-66•-78 and~or Variance No. 1756. 3. lhat the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley open:.ngs, to Orangethorpe Avenue, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 4. Tha•~ a predetermined price for Lots A, B, E and F shall be caiculated and an agreement for dedication entered into between the Developer and the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map. The cost of Lots A, B, E and F shall include land and a proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvementse 5o That Lots C and D shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim in fee, 6. ihat in accordance with City Council Policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the southerly property line separating Lot Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 36 and Orangethorpe Avenue, except that Corner Lot No. 1 shall be stepped down to a height of 30 inches in the front yard setbacke Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation faciiities, shall be installed in the uncemented porti.on of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superin- tendent of Parkway Maintenanceo Following install.ation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscapingo 7. That the minimum cul-de-sac opening shall be 64 feet wide. 8> That any air~onditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view from abutting streets. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEC, Commissioners Herbst and Perry voted "~0", Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1908, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No~ 71 be disapproved. On roll call the foregoing resolutior. was passed by the following vote: kYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEMT: COMMISSIONERS: None~ Corisiderable discussion was ihen held by the Commission relative to sending a written request to the City Council to review the entire Northeast Industrial Area to consider a change in the M-1, Light Industrial boundaries by designating Urangethorpe Avenue as the ~outherly boundary of anythir,g other than industrial development in the area. Commissioner Flerbst expressed concern regarding any further intrusion into the Northeast Industrial Area since the Ciiy has not held a firm line for industrial development of that area, and by so doing had discouraged industries from developing because of the residential intrusion; that he based this on statements made to him by various potential developers. Commissioner Herl;st offered a motion to rescind the action on recommending denial for : General itdllf~mendment PJo~ 71~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~,~~ Commissicner rierost offered Resolutio;~ No. ~908, 5eries 1955-65, end moved for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by CoTJnissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that General ~~ Pian Amend~uert Pio. 71, Er.hil,it "B", be approved as an acceptab1e alternative Y.o current ~,~ •~ polic;es ;:s illustrated on ihe General Plan. (See Resolution Booko) ~`1 ~ On roll cali the for~going resolution was passed by the fol'.owiny vote: j AYES: CUNLdISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: CGh'~dI~~IOIdcRS: PJone. ~~ ~ APSEP]T: ~u~ro1h115S10N~RS: None. F MIhJUTES, CIIY PLANP7ING CONu.iISSION, January 17, 1966 ? 2894 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-66-78 VARIANCE N0. 1756 t'ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6143 GENERAL.PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 71 - (Continued) Commissioner Herbst stated that if the City Council concurred in this General Plan Amendment, this would reduce speculation of the property southerly of Orangethorpe Avenue for other than industrial purposes. VARIANCE N0. 1754 - PUBLiC HeARINGa INITIATED BY THE CIlY COUNCIL, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, ~alifornia; proposing to waive the maximum structure height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 64 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 97 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 160 feet north of the center- line of Alomar Avenue, and further described as 624 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. William Procopio, 617 Fann Place, owner of subject property, appeared before the _, . Commission and stated that when the original reclassification of subject property was approved by ~he Citv Council, it was based on the fact that the existing structure would be utilized; however, upon obtaining estimates for conversion of the existing structure for its use as a dental office. the cost became prohibitive, and it was decided that a new structure on the existing site would be more appropriate, and upon presenting the plans to the Council, it had been determined a waiver of the side yard requirements of the C-0 Zone was necessa:yo The Commission discussed the plans which were presented by the petitioner, and it was determined development of the property with a commercial structure was more in conformance with the Commission`s consideration of conversion of residential structures for commercial purposes than was originally p:oposed~ . , ne appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSHD. ' Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No, 1909, Series 1905-66, and moved for its passage . and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1754, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONtRS: Rowlando ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~ Commissioner Rowland in voting "NG" stated no hardship had been proven by the property owner relative to the variance on the side yard setback, and that the construction of a building could be accomplished and still conform with site development standards of the C-0 Zonee RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEkRING. INITIATED 8Y TIiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N0. 65-66-65 __ 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: Portion No. 1 of the La Palma-Rio Vista Annexation, and further described as follows: A rectangularly shaped parcel nf land at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Sunkist Street and having frontages of approximately 663 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 220 feet on Sunkist Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENcRAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued :rom the meeting of December 20, 1965, in order to allow time for the Development Services s+aff to present more detailed information regarding the neighborhood commercial zoning previously granted to the property owner by the County, and to determine whether or not deed restrictions should be placed on subject property if a C-! Zone was recor,~mended for approval. :~ y~ ~ ~'.i .~x Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the staff's research was indicated ir finding No, 3; however, if C-1 Zoning were approved, this would mean subject property co~.:ld be developed with the 67 uses permitted by right in thE C-1 Zone, and, in addition, 30 more uses permitted in the C-O Zone. , ti ~, ' F MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 17, 1966 28g5 RECT:ASSIFICATION - Previous action by the Planning Commission and City Council on the NOe 65-66-65 reclassification ofsubject property while under thejurisdiction of the (Continued) County was also reviewed. It was also noted by Mr. Thompson that the City Council Policy No. 525 indicated that since the City had ~?veloped site development standards in the C-1 Zone, this obviated the necessitiy for the filing of deed restrictions except in those cases which limited the height of structures on commercial properties. Mrs. Rolland Holm, 2515 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before th? Commission in opposition and stated that all the single-family hcmeowners and residents of the area were quite ; ~~~~ perturbed that the Commission mi9ht consider C-1 Zoning for subject property since the , commercial development would be located in `.he heart of a residential area; thzt a petition 4 ~ signed by 146 property owners was being submitted to the Commission in which all expressed ,'~~ opposition to the proposed C-1 commercial zoning since adequate restrictions were not avail- able to control uses which could be established in this residential area; furthermore, the ~,, preperty was developable for single-family residential use in line with the proposals of ~I the General Plane ~j Mrs, Holm then reviewed the characterisiics of the area in which the Commission was pro- ~:~ posing commercial zoning, noting that the only exception to R-1 development was the school immediately to the south of subject property and t;~e trailer park to the north; that the ,`i nearest commercial property was located on State College Boulevard, approximately one-half ~ mile to the west and Rio Visia Street to the east; and that the property owners wanted to sl know if commercial development would take place on subject property since they were not ;•,; interested in maintaining their homes at their present level if a threat of possible strip I commercial development along La Palma Avenue was facing them constantly. Mrs. Hoim then noted that when subject property was considered by the County for commercial zoning, none of the property owners had been notified except through posting of the property (~aid notice obviously having been destroyed because no one had seen it) and publishing in the newspaper; t.hat the scheduling of the petitic~ ,: ~ at a most inopportune time, being around Christmas, and th~ first notice all the pr~..;_ty owners had received individually had been the request for a variance for a change in the size of the sign and hours of operation which had been established in the reclassification of the property by the County; that the property owners had expressed their displeasure to the County concerning the manner of rezoning the property, whereupon the County Planning Commission stated that at the previous public hearing they had expressed surprise that no opposition was presented at the reclassi- fication proceedings; and that a number of restrictions had been placed on the property from that normally permitted in the neighborhood commercial zone. Mrsa Holm then stated that because subject property was in close proximity to the school and park, the residents of ihe area were concerned that the general commercial zone proposed would permit many ob~ectionable and undesirable uses which might have an undue influence on the children; that many uses would be a blight t~ the residential integrity of the area; and that an example of many of these undesirable uses which mignt be established could be noted along State College Boulevard. Responding to Commission Guestioning, Mrs, Holm stated that some of the businesses permitted by the County might be acceptable to the neighbors; however, if there was a choice, the neighbors preferred that the area be developed for residential purposes. Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission yuestioning, stated that the Union Oil Company had purchased or leased a 150 by 150-foot portion of the property at the southeast corner; how- ever, a building permit was never issued by the County or by the City of Anaheim. The action take~ by the Planning Commission and the City Council on the zoning petition before the County was also reviewed by Mr, Thompson. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that street plans for subject property had been processed through the Engineering Department. Fifteen persons psesent in tne Council Chamber indicated their opposition to subject petition. Mr. Lewis Weir, attorney representing the Union Oil Company, appeared before the ~ommission and reviewed the reG~~est made to the Coun*y Planning Comrtiission at the time subject property was under the jurisdic±.ion of the County; that a delay had occurred in buildin9 the service >tation because t.he clients wanted to wait until the street was widened, and since a bridge was being pi~nred over the Riverside Freeway, the service station would serve the local residents only; inat a lot split h~~ been recorded so that the parcel on which the service station was proposed would be a 15~- ; 150-foot parcel owned by the Union Oil Company; that after the var.iance was heard by ?he ~ounty Planning Commission, his clients had agreed to abide by the original hours of operation and the restriction of the sign; and that. the proposed service station would be residential in ctiaracter and would be an asset to the area. ,... _,..,_.. _.,~„__~_..>_. .___„ ., . ~ _ _ y • :.. . _ -....."°°'~ MINUTES, CI?Y PLANNING COMmISSION, January 17, 1966 } 2896 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Ann Olson, 520 Cherry Tree Lane, appeared before the Commission NOe 65-66-65 in opposition, and stated that the East Anaheim area was now more than (Continued) adequately served with service stations and that the proposed service station would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the area. THE HEAR.ING WAS CLOSED. The Commission then reviewed the recoii~ended uses which were permitted by the zoning approved fox subject property while under the jurisdiction of the County, with the Commission indicating that the off-sale liquor use could not be permitted within close proximity of the school; that because the County had granted commercial zoning on subject property~ the Canmission was placed in a difficult position since any adverse decision might have an e.ffect o~ the stability of future annexations to the City and with residential property owners opposing the commercial zoning again~ the Commission would be placed in an unfavorable position~ that since the property had been subdivided, and a service station was being proposed, a recommendation for subdivision of the property into R-1 lots for the balance adjacent tu the service station would not be good planning; and that perhaps deed restrictions might be placed on the property limiting the number of uses, as well as the hours of operation, thus makinq the uses less objectionable to the residents of the area. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission and the interested persons in the Council Chamber that although the City might impose deed restrictions, the enforcing of these deed restrictzons was a civil matter through a court of law, and that the City Attorney`s Office would not enforce these deed restrictions. The Commission noted that if the Homeowners Association was active, their attorney could have more influence in insuring that these deed restrictions were not violated, since a court of law would review this type of suit in a more serious light; furthermore, anyone proposing to operate any commercial development would be apprised of the fact there were deed restrictions, since these would appear on the title report of the property. Mr> Thompson then advised the Commission that siyns should be taken into consideration because the existing C-1 Zone sign requirements might not apply to subject property. Mrsa Holm then stated that even before the permitted zone with deed restrictions was thirty days old, the property owner had requested a variance from these restrictions, and that it was her hope some help could have been received from the City which could enforce these restrictions. ~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1910, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-65 be approved, subject to conditions, and the filing of deed restrictions i i ' 1 m tin che uses to retail bak 9 ery shops, barber shops, beauty shops, dru stores rocer stores hardware st 9 ~ 9 y , ores, pick-up agencies for laundries to repair and dryclean, self-service laundromats, meat markets, variety stores, and automobile service stations, together with a limitation of hours of operation to be between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.Mo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution w~s passed by the following vote: ~ r. , r ~' _ ~a * r, ~ ~ E:~ i .-1 ~ •~ . ~ ' " AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATI03J - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 20Q East NOo 65-66-73 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: An i.rregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of State College CONDITIONAL USE Boulevard and Placentia Avenue and having frontages of approximately 131 PERMIT N0. 801 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 95 feet on Placentia Avenue, the southerly boundary of subject parcel being the north side of Balsam Avenue. Property presently classified C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to a service station or any C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, or R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTTAL, ZONE use. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF AN R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that subject petitions were part of the City's overall plan of reclassifying properties into a most appropriate zone. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~.~nISSION, January 17, 1966 ~ 2897 RECLASSZFICATION - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. N0. 65-66-73 Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1911, Series 1965-66, and CONDITIONAL USE moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, PERMIT N0. 801 to recommend to the City C~uncil that Petition for Reclassification (Cor.tii7ued) No. 65-66-73 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSICNERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1912, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 801, establishing an existing service station within 75 feet of an R-3 Zone, unconditionally (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COAIMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COI+4A1ISS30NERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CIT1' PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 65-66-74 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that property described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner oi Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street and having frontages of approximately 165 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 207 feet on Sunkist Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing service station as a conforming use in the C-1 Zone. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the existing service station was established under Conditional Use Permit No. 525. No one apaeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1913, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Gouncil that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-74 be approved, unconditionally, establishing an existing service station in its most appropriate zonee (See Resol.::;,9on Book.) Un roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the• followin~ vote: AYES: CONLNISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 65-66-75 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the sputhwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street and having frontages of approximately 135 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 130 feet on Rio Vista Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing service station as a conforming ;:,e in the C-1 Zone. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the existing service station was established under Conditional Use Per:nit Noo 236. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. 1'HE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1914, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification fJo. 65-66-75 be approved, unconditionally, establishing an existing service station in its most appropriate zone. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the ~oregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ i 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COn~MISSION, January 17, 1966 2898 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CCMMISSION, 204 East NOa 65-66-76 Lincnln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing thet property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard with frontages of approximately 150 feet on Ball Road and approximately 150 feet on State College Boulevard be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing service station as a conforming use in the C-1 Zone. ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the existing service station was established under Conditional Use Permit No. 123. ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1915, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-76 be approved, unconditionally, establishing an existing service station as a conformi:,g use in the C-1 Zone. (See Resolution Book.) _ On roll call the foregoing resolutior, was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nones ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 65-66-77 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposir.g that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street and having frontages of approximately 148 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 130 feet on Rio Vista Street be reclassified froR, the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, in order to establish an existing service station as a conforming use in the C-1 Zone. ' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the existing service station ; was established under Conditional Use Permit No. 256. ' Mrs. Charles Nealey, 502 South Stehley Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that she opposed granting C-1 zoning for that property on the southeast corner of Rio Vista Street and Lincoln Avenue without giving the adjoining property owners an opportunity to review plans of development for the vacant property~ The Commission advised Mrs. Nealey ihat subject petition was for the service station property only, and it was not their i~tent to reclassify the 2.86-acre vacant parcel northerly of the single-family tract on the east side of Rio Vista Street~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 1- ,~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1916, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passa~e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-77 be approved, unconditionally, establishing an existing service station in the most appropriate zuneo (See Resolution Book.) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. F,BSENT: CAMMISSIUNERS: None. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, 204 East AMENDMENT N0. 70 Lincoln Hvenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to the Circulation Element Mighway Rights-of-Way of the General Plan to include Muller Street and Crescent Way as collector streets thereto, said streets being northerly of Lincoln Nvenue, southerly of the Santa Ana Freeway, and westerly of Euclid Street. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment to the _ Circulation Element Highway Rights-of-Way which would project Muller Street and Crescent ~ Way as collector streets rather than local streets, based on the fact that upon a study ~ ~. r k _~ f MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, January 17, 1966 2g99 GENERAL PLAN qMENDMENT NO 70 -(Continued) ~• '°~~ $! ~ . /.3 ~ conducted by the Traffic Engineer the type of quantity of traffic using said streets indicated they acted as collector streets rather than local streets; that with the multiple-family development occurring near M-1 uses, it would be necessary to have adequate circulation for it and the existing industrial development in the area. It was noted the streets were now 60-foot dedication, providing a 12-foot parkway and a 36-foot wide street; that if the City projected this for a collector street, the street could be widened to 40 feet, taking a portion of the parkway and enlarging the travel lanes to provide four travel lanes for the street, prohibiting parking - therefore, no additional dedication would be required of the existing developments; however, in order to require the building setback to be uniform along collector streets in an industrial zone, streets must be so designated on the Circulation Element to provide for adequate setbacks - however, the designation of a local street did not require this. In response to Commission questioning relative to the expense which might be incurred in the event the City decided to add the additional 4 feet Lo provide for four 10-foot travel lanes, Mr. Krieger stated that where curbs and gutters were in, no expense would : be charged to the property owner, based on a City policy which indicated that where property was already developed with curbs and gutters, the City would assume the cost of relocation of the curbs and gutters. The Commission stressed that although the streets would be designated as collector streets on the General Plan, the City should advise the the developer of any proposed development adjacent to said streets that parking was prohibited due to the fact that the width of the street only provided for travel lanes. Mro Kreiger stated that there was a possibility if prohibition of parking was desired, a public hearing might be necessary, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1917, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co:nmissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General •~~, Plun Amendment No. 70 be approved, designating Muller Street and Crescent Way as collector ;I streets on the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way as depicted oa Exhibit "A". _ ;i (See Resolution Booko) On roll ca11 the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NUES: CUMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. w ~ STREET NAME CNAMGE - PUALIC HEaRING. INITIHTED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East BATAVIA STREET TO Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing a name change of RIVEr~UALE AVENUE Batavia Street to Riverdale Avenue within the boundaries of the City of Hnaheim, generally located south of the Santa Ana River, west of Jefferson Street to the City of Orange boundary lines, and easterly to the A~iaheim city limits within the recent Johnson Annexation on the east~ Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed the location of the propased street name change as depicted on the map on the Council Chamber wall, noting that the City of Orange had already changed Batavia Street to r~iverdale Avenue within their city limits, and for continuity of a street name, the Street Naming Committee of the County deemed it advisable that the City of Anaheim consider a similar name change for Batavia Street within the city limits, said street running parallel with the south boundary of the Santa Ana River. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CII~SED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1918, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Councif that a street name change L= made changing Ratavia Street to Riverdale Avenue within the boundaries of the Cit}- o! Anaheim~located southerly o; the Santa Ana River, extending from the boundary lines of the City of Urange westerly of Jefferson Street to the City of Anaheim easterly boundary lines within the recent Jolinson Hnnexation. (See Resolution Rook.) On ro!1 czll the fore9oina resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CL`t~iMISSIUNERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NUES: CGNMISSIUNEP.S: Nor.e. ABSENT: CGh~1MISSIUNERS: None. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COmMISSION, January 17, 1966 2900 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 ' RECAMMENDATIONS Consideration of elimination of the P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zone within the City boundaries. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the basis for the establish- ment of the P-L Zone, noting that when they were estabiished, the City did not have site development standards for the M-1 and M-2 Zones in the City, in 1957; that the zone applied to major, primary and secondary arterials; that in 1960 the City Council amended the P-L Zone for Lewis Street and Cerritos Avenue, providing for a 25-foot zone which would be entirely landscapede Furthermore, in 1959, a reclassification was initiated by the Commission which established a 50-foot P-L Zone for Broadway, Lincoln Avenue and Loara Street; that ~ some deviation was noted for Loara Street which was a local street, and the M-1 Zone pro- vided for 25-foot setback on a local or collector street; that in 1962 the M-1 and M-2 Zones ' were established with site development standards providing for a 50-foot building setback along arterials and a 25-foot setback along collector streets; and that the developers of industrial property had three alternatives in the 50-foot setback for the provision of parking and landscaping - namely, 20 feet of landscaping witti 30 feet provided for parking; 50 feet of landscaping; or the front 10 feet, plus 2% of the parking area landscaped. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the advantages of the elimination of the P-L Zone, and the fact that considerable property would be under consideration, and it might be necessary to hold several public hearings. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson stated that if the Commission favorably considered setting for public hearing the possibility of elimination of the P-L Zone, this could be done in the 9eographical area, Mr. Roberts then stated it could be done in ten basic areas; however, Loara Street, Lewis Street and Cerritos Avenue s}iould !:_ handled separately from all other streets because they require add;tional study~ Dep~ty City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that complete description of the properties was necessary when advertising for public hearing in order that the adjacent property owners might be fully aware of the properties under consideration for change in zone. Commissioner fierbst offered a motion to set for public hearing consideration of elimination of the P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zone, said public hearin9 to be set at the discretion of the staff of tF~ Development Services Departmente Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. NIJTION Cr,"RIED. ITEM N0. 2 Conditional Use Permit No. 690 - Request for an extension of time for establishment of a three-story office building, restaurant and motel located on the north side o: Katella Avenue, easterly of State College Boulevard. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter requesting an extension of time for the completion of conditions in Commission's Resolution Noo 1700, Series 1965-66, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 690, was received from the new owners of the property, in which the pet:tioner states that due to extenuating circumstances, such as completion of plans and proper financing by a qualified lender, a request for a 180-day extension of time for completion of conditions was necessary, and this was the first request for an extension of time by ihe petitionere Commissioner Gauer offered a rrotion to grant the request of the new property owner of property considered under Conditional Use Permit No. 690, requestin9 an extension of 180 days for the completion of conditions in Resolution No. 1700, Series 1965-66, granted by the Commission oi~ July 19, 1965, said time extension to expire July 13, 1966. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MJTIUN CARRIED. ,!x ~ . _ ~ .' MINUI'ES, CI'IY PLRNNING COMMISSION, January 17, 1966 `• 2901 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3 RECAMMENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No. 5674 - Request from Boisseranc and (Continued) Manassero to permit the continued use of a farm labor camp and a farm implement storage area in the A1(0) General Agricultural (Oil Production) District at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Richfield Road east of Atwood. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented to the Commission Orange County Use Variance No. 5674, and re~iewed the proposed continued use and the location of subject property. It was also noted that the use was established in 1960 and had been approved for a period of three years, and that the continual use of the property for an additional three years ' - was granted in 1463. However, the present request did not indicate a specified amount of .~=~;~ time for the use. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orar.ge County Planning Commission be urged to approve Orange County Use Variance No. 5674 for a maximum period of three years. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NG. 4 Orange County Use Variance No. 5678 - Request from J. D. Williamson , to permit the establishment of a real estate office, par::ing in connection therewith in the front half of a parcel, and a sign greater than the permitted area allowed in the RP Residential Professional District on the east side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 800 feet north of Lincoln Avenue. Zoning Super.visor Ronald Thompson presented to ;,he Commission Orange County Use Variance No. 5678, noting the location of subject property and the request of the petitioner to utilize an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage for a real estate officee It was also noted thai subject property had been used previously as a telephone answering service, real estate office and insurance office, that the parking area was already blacktopped, and thai the size of sign permitted was two square feet, whereas the petitioner was proposing a 4-foot by 4-foot sign painted on the office window which .i faces Brookhurst Streeto ` It was noted by Mr. Thompson that upon contacting the Orange County Planning Department, ; the staff was advised that the County would require that the petitioner dedicate 60 feet from the centerline of the street for street widening purposes, and that when sufficient _~ property was dedicated, the street would be widened. The Commission discussed the existing uses and the proposed use, together with the signs also existing in close proximity to subject property. Commissioner Camp offe*ed a motiun to recommend to the City Council that the Orang? County Planning Commission 9rant Orange County Use Variance No. 5678, subject to requiring dedi- cation of Brookhurst Street to 60 feet from the centerline of the street fo* street widen- ing purposes, and that the requested sign was generally in conformance with existing signs in the area. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. NF~TION CARRIED. ' ITEM N0. 5 ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 722 - Speech and language therapy clinic ~ at 241 South Loara Street - Resolution No. 1701, Series 1965-66, dated July 29, 1965 - Request for 180-day extension of time for completion of conditions. i Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thoir.pson reviewed the request from Mrs. Gladys Gleason, Assistant Director of the Speech and Language Development Center proposed to be located at 241 South ; Loara Street, for an extension of time for the completion of conditions, and a request for I waiver of the bond requirement to insure completion of the street improvements, such as i curbs and gutters. ~ A report from the Zoning Division indicated that tht owner had not dedicated 32 feet from , the centerline along Loara Street; that street improvement plans were being drawn relative to construction of curbs and gutters, but were not completed; that the street light and street tree fees were paid; and that the petitioner, due to circumstances beyond her control, was unable to complete the conditions, based on the fact that the day after the Commission had granted subject petition, the property went into probate court which delayed the escrow until December 28, 1965. Commissioner Rowiand offered a motion to grant the request for the 180-day extension of - time for the completion of conditions in Commission Resolution No. 1701, Series 1965-66, ~, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 722 for the establishment of a speech and language ,,,~ therapy clinic; however, waiver of the bond requirement was denieda Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. Ah~TIOPd CARRIED. "r ., - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 17, 1966 l 2902 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 6 RECAMMENbATIONS Special field trip to consider a future proposed developmente (Continued) Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Attorney Harry Knisely, representing a development group who proposed to construct an establishment known as "Never on Friday" club which would be a private type of club with high density, multiple-family, small apartments - however, it did not conform with the City of Anaheim's R-3 Code standards, wanted the staff and Commission to view a similar installa- tion in Torrance, and the trip would be made on Thursday, January 20, at 9:00 A.M., and if any of the Commissioners were interested, to be present in the department at that time. ITEM TYJ. 7 Reclassiiication No. 65-66-50 - Proposing the construction of two- story, multiple-family residential development on the eastesly portion and the C-1, General Commercial, Zone on the westerly portion of property located at approximately 650 feet south of the centerline of Broadway, on the east side of Euclid Street - Amendment to legal description. The Commission Secretary advised the Commission it was necessary to amend the legal description noted as Exhibit "A", the amended legal description indicating the metes and bounds of the individual parcels for separate reclassifications of C-1 and R-3 in order that said metes and bounds might be reflected in the resolution of intent of the City Councilo Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1920, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that amendment to the legal description of Commission Resolution Noe 1853, Series 1965-66, dated December 2, 1965, be approved as follows: "PARCEL NOa 1: The north half of the west haif of the south half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 16, i'ownship 4 South, Range 10 West, being Lot 13 of Helen and Lynch's Subdivision of the west half of Section 16, Towns~ip 4 South, Range 10 West, of the San Bernardino Meridian, i.n tha City oi Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 442, page 158 of Deeds in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California; EXCEPT the easterly 426 feet thereof. "PARCEL N0. 2: The easterly 426 f.eet of the following described land: Th= north half of the west half of the south half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Secticn ~6, Tcwnship 4 South, Range 10 West, being Lot 13 of Helen and Lynch's Subdivision of the west half of Section 16, Township 4 South, Range 10 West, of the San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Anaheim, Councy of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 442, page 158 of Deeds in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California." (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ITEM N0. 8 Reclassification No, 64-65-127 - Amendment to legal description of Resolution Noo 1821, Series 1965-66, recommending approval for C-0, Commercial Office, Zone. The Commission Secretary advised the Commission an amendment was necessary to define the metes and bounds of the property under consideration in Reclassification No. 64-65-127. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1919, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that amend- ment to the legal description of Commission Resolution No. 1821, Series 1965-66, dated October 25, 1965, recommend'zng app*oval for C-0 Zone for Reclassification No. 64-65-127, be approved as follows: .,d ~ MINUTES, CITy PLANNING COMMISSION, January 17, 1966 ~ ' 2903 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0, 8-(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS "The easterly 210.00 feet of Lot 4 of the Orchard Park Tract, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, page 6 of Miscel~aneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. "EXCEPTING THEREFROM the southerly 125.00 feet. "ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the northerly 5.25 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Anaheim for widening of South Street by deed recorded December 9, 1912, in Book 224, page 110 of deeds." (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMM1ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rcwland, Mungall. NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMM?;SIONERS: None, ABSTAIN: COMMISSIG:JERS: Camp. ITEM NOo 9 Sign Ordinance Review. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that on October 5, 1965, the City Council directed the Planning Division to review the Sign Ordinance in order to determine if revisions v.~re necessary since the City Council felt there were an excessive number of variance requests from the requirements oi the Sign Ordinance, and as a result of this request a study was made which Assistant Planner Francis Nutto had prepared and submitted to the Commission in their agenda packets prior to the presentation of his study to the City Council, in order that the Commission migiit have an opportunity to maka some recommendation to the City Council (said Sign Ordinance review on file in the Development Services-Planning Division for future reference). Summarization of this report indicated that 16 variance requests for waiver of the Sign Ordinance had been processed since the ordinance became effective March 1, 1965: 11 of these items requested waiv?r of the height of free-standing or roof signs, and 4 items affected service stations, requesting waiver of distance between signs. Since the major number of variance requests asked for waiver of the height of a sign and the distance between signs, this was reviewed in detail. Three alternative suggestions were then presented to the Cor.mission which represented the manner in which the Sign Ordinance could be amended. Also, a graph attached to the report depictina, the present and the proposed maximum height allowable was reviewed. Finally, a fourth alternative was presented which would relieve the Planning Commission and City Council of the burden of hearing minor variance requests by allowing administra- tive judgment under specific conditions within accepted bounds of the Code maximum standards, which could be used along with, or in place of, the previously suggested revisions. The Commission, in reviewing the presentation made by Mr. Nutto, inquired what percentage of the~number of sign permits did the variance requests represent. Mr. Nutto replied that 6,~ of the total sign permits required variance petitions. The Commission expressed concern that if the Sign Ordinance was liberalized, there was alv~ays the chance that sign requests would continue to be subject to variance requests; that the Sign Urdinance opened 174 areas in t:ie City where signs were permitted, and if additional lowering of the existing standards was permiti:ed, the Sign Ordinance would become ineffective. Cc ~~nissioner Gauer stated he had read in a recent article that one city had declared a moratorium on signs; furthermore, a pattern was being established by the White House reiative to the beautification and control of signs, and the examples presented by the Government would eventually pay off when the builders of signs realized that problems they would be facing had been brought upon themselves; and that, in his opinion, he did not waRt the City to backtrack on their Sign Orainance since censiderable time, effort, and thought had been spent by the Commission,City Council, and staff to effectuate an ordinance which the sign people, at tt,at time, had advised the Commission could be 'lived with". ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 17, 1966 ,2904 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0, 9-(Continued) REQ~MMENDATIOPJS Fu:ther discussion was held by the Commission, at which time they expressed the desire to give the Sign Ordinance at least a year before any change in the ordinance should be considered; furthermore, the staff was directed to present the report which the Commission had reviewed to the City Council, emphasizing in their presentation the actual nercentage of sign variances granted in comparison to the sign permits granted within that period of time, and upon the City Council's review of the evidence, they could direct the Commission to further consider any change in the ordinance because, as was pxeviously indicated, a seven-month trial period was insufficient to adequately determine whether or not the Sign Ordinance, as adopted, was too stringent. The Commission also directed the staff to re-analyze the variance requests to determine whether or not there were repetitions by a firm or firms for these sign requests, and that t.he City Council should be apprised of this fact also. Discussion was also held by the Commission on the fourth alternative, it being noted that although in theory the administration of minor requests might be practical, there was no line which could be determined where the administrative prerogative began and ended, thus any sign request might be granted which actually should have been denied. However, if adequate controls could be formulated to reduce the number of sign requests which the Commission might have to consider, this would relieve the Commission to devote more time to long-range planningo Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that if a reduction in the standards was being considered, further consideration should be given to the fact that if this portion of Title i8 were granted, or amended, what pro~f was there 'that similar requests for waiver from all Code requirements would not be made~ Mre Grudzinski and Mr~ Nutto then asked the Commission to give some type of a recommenda- tion to the City Council relative to the recemmendations made by the staff; however, the Commission was of the opinion that no decision should be made until the City Council had been fully apprised of the r.eport, and directed the staff to emphasize the number of i sign vari~nce requests considered by the City Council and the Planning Commission in comparison with the number of signs permitted, and at ~e present time, no administrative decision should be made relative to signs. Furthermore, the Sign Ordinance should be tested for at least a year before the City could determine whether or not its effective- ness as an ordinance could be maintained without any change in its requirementse ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. Id~TION CARRIc'D. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PeMo Respectfully submitted, ~n~:~~~~.-~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ y:~ • _ ••¢~` ~ * ~: _ , ~x i, : ,I.