The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1966/02/16. ~~ j ~ City Hall Anaheim, California February 16, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ . REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o`clock P.M., a quorum being present. PP.ESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall, - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Zoning Division Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg 1NVOCATION - Dean Humbert, Pastor of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, gave the Invocatione PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner kowland led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag~ APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of January 31, 1966, were approved THE MINUTES as submittedo CONDITIONAL USc - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL BANK OF PERMIT N0. 802 PITTSBURGH, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvar.ia, Owner; NORMAN SHAPIRO, 1107 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; property VARIANCE N0, 1757 described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land (approximateiy 323 feet on the north and south and approximately 660 feet on the east and west), the northerly boundary being approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Or~ngewood Avenue and the easterly boundary being approximately 360 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard; subject property includes the land now occupied by the southerly portion of Mallul Drive and the westerly portion of Wilken Way~ Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEN- TiAL, ZONE Resolution of Intent pending), REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: eSTABLISH A 3-STORY, 248-UNIT, MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDEtJ- TIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT FLOOR AREA, (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGS~(4) LIVING UNITS NOT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A DEDICATED STREET~ AND (5) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. REQUESTED VARIANCE: PERMIT COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN A PROPOSED R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of January 31, 1966, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans~ f'1; ~ ~ t~ ~ Mre Harry Knisely, attorney acting for the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed new concept of a planned residential development oriented to young, single, adult people; that the land use had been estabiished for multiple- family resideniial development on subject property in the approval of a previous reclassifica- tion; that the City would not be setting a precedent for similar uses throughout the City because one had already been es+ ;;hed on West Lincoln Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street; that the proposed development ~ ~ow take care of a third segment of the population, namely the single, young adul. •. ~outhern California had provided for the elderly by such developments as Leisure N, .nd Sun City, and the family man was also provided with single-famil~• homes and apartm~ with three and four bedrooms; however, the needs of the single person were entirely diifi ~nt, and all that was necessary was a small apartment furnished in impeccable taste and adequate recrea~zon facilities with a club°like surrounding. 2918 r .. ~i ~ MrNUTES, CITY PLANNING COrv,n~ISSION, February 16, 1966 2919 CONDITIONAL USE - Mro Knisely also stated that Mra Hogeman, founder and presi~dent of PERMIT N0~ 802 the Never on Friday Club; would be available to answer questions after the staff presented slides of the existing development in VARIANCE N0~ 1757 Torrancea (Continued) .4ssociate Planner Jack Ghristofferson presented colored slides of a similar facility in the city of Tcrrance, wnich indicated both the outside and the ir,side views, together with court views and views of the dinit~g area and the recreational facilities. Mro Knisely then stated the pictures indicated what was proposed for subject property; that the development in Torrance was completed in March of 1965 and was 100% occupied with a waiting list for membership in the club; that the residents of the small apartments had pride of ownership or residence, because after almost a year of occupancy, the apart- ments were almost spotless, and that the development offered the young, single adults a place to meet and have social times, rather th~,~ a tavern,:or companionship, and a large space was not necessary as long as the furnish~ngs provided a high quality living environment~ Mr., Knisely then stated he had circulated a petition among the various hotel and motel areas around Disneyland who indicated the type and quality of persons who would be resid- ing in the proposed development would be an asset to the community. The brochure presented to the Commission was also reviewed by Mro Knisely which indicated the minimum age of inembership was 21, and the maximum age was 36 years; that the salaries of the people involved were over $675 a month per male occupant and over $450 per female occupant; that those residents in the Torrance development had an average of 303 years of college, with many of them having Masters Degrees and some were working for their poctorate Degreeso Mr, Richard Hogeman, 6718 East Ocean Avenue, Long Beach, appeared before the Commission and stated~the "Never on Friday Club" had a 24,000 membership, the club having been started in Long Beach and had many branches throughout Southern California; that the California theme type of club was proposed to provide good clean fun for single people in an orderly fashion, starting with Friday dances at the better hotels at which suit and tie were required, and various similar types of entertainment throughout Southern California, and this had now been extended into a travel program and recently into the living facilities type of club, since a great demand had been evidenced by requests at the headquarters; that a full•-time soci~l director would be employed; that the club activities would be constantly supervised; that its success had been proven by the amount of publicity and coverage in magazines and tele- vision; that the reason Anaheim had been selected was because Orange County had a member- ship of between 7,000 and 8,000 people and of that membership 3,000 to 4,000 in the general area being considered for the new d2velopment; that the new location was ideal because of other entertainment activities within close proximity; that his connection with the project would be mar~agement, and he had had considerable experience within the last three years supervising the membership oi 24,000 young people; that many of the hotel management people had complimented the membership of the "Never on Friday Club" because of their behavior in group participation of sociai events, and this was due to the fact that the membership was limited to mature adults and was constantly under supervisione Mr. Hogeman, in response to Commission questioninq, stated he had been contracted for the proposed development as manager for a specified time; that after a member hsd reached the maximum age of 36, he was not automatically asked to resign because age, after all, wo~.ld take care of participation in the activities the club provided; that the undesirables were generally v~eeded out; that the club was not concern~d with the "urder 21" group because they were mu~e irresponsible, and at various functions guards were at the entrance to check identification, and anyone under 21 would not be allnwed to participate in these functions; ihst an attempt had been made to establish a standard, and if inembers met this standard, they were permitted to remain regardless of whether or not they were 36; and aithough they had two married couples in the membership, this was rare because marsied couples usually had other interests after marriage; and that he wished, again, to stress the fact that proper management of the proposed development would reassure any qualms the Commission might have about the operation of the proposed development. Mr. Knisely again appeared before the Commission and si;ated that although Mro Hogeman had not mentioned that he had not originally started out to provide living facilities for the "Never on Friday Club", this was an end result o_' demands from the members, and that authori- ties and sociologists concur the type of environment proposed was healthy, and a psychiatrist from the City of Orange had made ti~e trip to Torrance with the ciCy staff to view the project there and had recommended it as a good mental therapy, ~ ~ , M?NUTES, CITY PLANNING CGmMISSION, February 16, 1966 2920 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Rowland exprESSed concern regarding the possibxlity of PERMIT f90~ 802 a change in management which would render the proposed ~eveiopmert somewhat ineffective because the success of the developr,.~nt was based ' VARIANCE NO., 1757 on proper management. (Continued) ~ Nc one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso THE HEARING WAS CIASEDe The Commission noted that the Report to the Commission had indicated a shortage of parking . spaces, and sinc~ young people had cars of their own, this would indicate a shortage of 34 ~:~ units to that permissible under the R-3 Code; that adequate parking should be provided '; because of the number of people who would be using the facilities. I ;-~; Mra Knisely stated that members ~vere permitted to have only one 9uest at a time at the ~' recreational facilities, and that an additional 20 feet had been acqui.red since the peti- tion had heen submitted to the Commission which would provide for additional parkingo It 'i was also noted that in the subterranean parking garages the gzrages did not have pos*,s, ~ so that the 9-foot, 4-inch by 20•-foot parking spaces were readily accessible and easil•;• :,~ maneuveTed; furthermore, some places had tandem parkinge ~~~ , Commissioner Gamp indicated he had had an opportunity to visit the Torrance facility, and he had particularly noticed the parking structure, noting that one :ide of the parking :1 I structure was providing tandem parking, or one car behind the other, and that some spaces had a car and a boat stored there~ A discussion was held by the Commission regarding 1) whether or not the proposed use could be considered an R-3 land use or a hotel operation; 2) adequate parking within Code require- ments if it was determined to be an R-3 land use; 3) the success of the propc;ed operation was dependent upon good management; 4) whether cr not the bachelor~-type apartments, if not successful, would turn into substandard R-3 dwelling units; 5) possibiiity that the proposed use could fill a void for more homogenous residential environment for single people; 6) location of the proposed use within the periphery of the Commercial-Recreation Nrea ba~king onto school grounds and having motels to the north and south of it would not set a precedent for similar requests in the City; 7) basic concern of the Commission as to iand use i,, com- pliance with Code pa*king requirements~ Commissioner Camp stated he had had the same misgivings as some of the other Commissionere; however, after having visited the Torrance project and reviewing its method of ope~ation, he was of the opinion that project was one of the finest types of development and ma~egement he had ever seen; that the land use in the area had been established by ~ previ~» s resolu- tion of intent, and whether it was a hotel or motel operation, it wuuld s,.?11 :it into the Commercial-Recreation Area - however, he also felt more parking should !e provi.ded, and then inquired of the attorney for the petitioners whether or ~ot they could pro~~ide more pa.king. Mro Knisely, after consultation witn his clients, stated that parking in accordance with the R-3 Code requirements could be met for off-street parking, or 310 par':ing spaces for 248 units. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that it was his opinion the conditianal use permit was the appropriate vehicle for the proposed use; however, the variance was necessary for the building site area and commercial uses of two unite sirce these were not permitted by authority of Section 18.64.070, and that the conditi~nal uses permitted boarding houses, fraternities, and sororities which had similar connotations as the proposed use - however, the use could not be considered a motel-hotel use since their definition indicated a transient use of the rooms for short periods of stay. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission he wishes to stress the r~quiremen`. of a 60-foot wide dedicated street rather than the 54-foot wide street propose~ in order that parking lanes could be provided along said streeto Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noa 1933, Series 1965-66, and moved for i,.s passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 802, sub;;ect to conditions and the requirement that parking be in accordance with t.i,~~ R-3 Code as stipulated by the petitioner, namely 14 parking spaces per dweiling unit, ±,~: deveiopment to be in accordance with Plot 1 of the plans~ (See Resolution Book.) ~:j` On roll call the fore oin resolution was ~ g g passed by the following vote: ~, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungalle * NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ;-j _ ABSEi1T: COMMISSIUNERS: Allredo ~ .. ) MINUTES, CITY RLANNING C~.~.~vIISSION, February 16, 1966 2cy21 CONDITIONAL USE - Commi~sioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1934, Series 1965-66, and PERMIT NOa 802 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition fo~ Variance No. 1757, subject to conditions. VARIANCE NOo 1757 (See Resolution Booke) (Conti~ued) ~ On ro.ll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: O~MMISSIONERS: Allreda ,,,_~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: R. J. BERRY, 4514 West 3rd Street, Santa Ana, California. ~i '$ TRACT NO__6163 _ ENGINEER: Raab and Boyer Engineering Company, 1731 South Euclid Street, r Suite A, pnaheim, ~aliforniaa Subject tract, located northerly of Orange 's~ Avenue and easterly of Western Avenue and containing approximately 3,1 ~ acres is proposed for subdi~iision into 12 R-1, ONc-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lotse I A letter was r.ead to the L'ommission ir.om the engineer requesting a four-week continuance in ~ order to permit further investigatior, of the possibility of providing access to thP land- '~ _ locked parcel to the east and possible acquisition of said property. ~. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract ~.~ Noe 6163 to the meeting of March 14, 1966, as requested by the engineer of the tracto Commissioner Camp seconded the motion> MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATI9N - PUBI.:C HEARING. D. WILKERSON, 894 South Knott Street, B. L. WILKERSON, N0, 65-66-83__~ 900 South K~ott Street, D. J. MOORE, 906 South Knott Street, and D. H. MC CONNELL, 9.i0 South Knott Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; TENTATIVE MAP OF NpRMAN SHAPIRO, 1107 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; TRACT N0,~6146 _ requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 2~ acres (approximately 264 feet by 420 feet), the southerly boundary being approximately 396 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and the westerly boundary bei.ng approximately 240 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ~ to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, _ Subject tract, loc~ted no~therly of Ball Road, easterly of Knott Street, and westerly of Glen Holly Drive and cont.aining approximately 2.5 acres is proposed for subdivision into 12 R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lots„ ~i The agent for the petitioner indicated his presence to ar.swer questionsa Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission Finding No, 2 of the Report •~ ' to the Commission relative to a condition "prior to the recordation of a final tract map". !~ 4 No one appeared in ~ osition to sub ect ;; P j petitionso F, i THE HEARING WAS CIASED. ~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1935, Series 1965-66, and muved for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recomme~~d to the City Council that ~ Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-83 be approved, subject to conditions. (See ~' ' Resolution Book.) ~ , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: j AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, tierbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungali. ( NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. i Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noa 6146, subject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be develuped as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in ientative form for approval. -+` ~ 2. That the approvai of Tentative Map of Tract No~ 6146 is granted subject to the ~j ~ approval of Reclassification No. 65-66-830 ~.i `~ ; 3o That a variance shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim to pnr.:T~it ~'.~ ~ four R-A Zoned parcels of less than one acre in area, prior to the receraatior, nf a ~~ ~ final tract map. "~ Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~ ~' ~ i , ~ ,, -_ , :: . :... <..,_.._:_. .. . _. .ti _ ~ _ --- _ _ _ ._ . ^ ,. ,.:; - UINUT~S~ CITY PLANNING OUMMISSION~ February 16~ 19b6 2g>2 Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 2:55 P~M~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West Common- ~ PERN;T N0. 806 wealth A~enue, Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUJR on property described as: An irregularly snaped parcel (containing approximately 7 acres) lying f east and north of a parcel of land (approximately 150 feet by 150 feet) situated at the , northeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard, subject property having frontages ~ ; of approximately 763 feet on the north side of Ball Road and approximately 250 feet on the ezst side of State College Boulevardg subject property is par±ially bounded on the north by . : Almont Avenuee Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mro Henry Fredricks, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the location of the proposed restaurant, further noting that plans were being finalized for development of the commercial stores easterly, whereas the restaurant would be located on the westerly portion of the property; that the motif for the development would be Spanish architecture; that the restaurant would be two stories with banquet rooms on the second floor and the main dining room on the first f~oor and would seat approximately 200 persons; and that the two-story structure ~vould be abutting apartments to the north which were separated by a six-foot masonry wall. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. 0.~~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1936, Series 1965-66, and moved fur its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 805, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. CONDITIONAL USE - PUELIC HEARING, GARY MC CONNELL, 2742 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite M, PERMIT NOo 807_ Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH TWO WALK-UP RESTAURANTS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 146 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 276 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 205 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue~ Property presently classified C-1, GENERRL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Gary McConnell, the petitioner, appeared befcre the Commission and ieviewed the proposed development, noting that Winchell's Donut House h.~d leased the proposed structures and would operate a donut shop in one structure and would sublease the other structure for a taco r.estaurant; that the food served by the taco restaurant was not prepared on the premises and only had to be heai:ed on steam tables - therefore there was no necessity for large kitchen facilities; and that tF,e property now had excess fill from the service station at the southeast corner of Dale Av~nue and Ball Road which wouid have to be removed when con- struction began. The Commission noted t.hat the proposed elevations of the two restaurants were very dissimilar and ,.ould not be an asset to the new ft-3 development to the east because of the architecture and color proposed; that the uses proposed wouid add traffic to the residential cevelopment to the east; furthermore, the hours of operation mia~t be detrimental to the peace and health of the residents of the area. The petitioner noted that the caco restaurant would have hours of operation from 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 PoM~ and the donut shop would open earli?r, and that the R-3 development was oriented to the street to the east and backed up to subj ~ property. The l;ommission further noted that the petitioner was proposing two 13-foot drives within 2~0 feet of Dale Avenue, which the Traffic Engineer recommended for one curb opening only; that there was a possibility the property to the rear would become landlocked; and that subject petition and the subse~uent petition would propose three restaurants on a one-acre parcel - said usas did not seem to be the highest and best use for subject property~ Zoning ~ervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the C-1 Zone site development ~ standa- . required screen planting where adjacent to residential uses, and three feet ~f ~ landsc~;~.,. on the Ball Road frantage, plus 2% in the parking area. _ _ __ .... __~ ._ .. _. : . - - - ~_ • ~ , .~.. _ ._ - 1 14?NUTES, CITY PLANNING GuMMISSION, February 16, 1966 2g2g ~ONDITIGNAL USE - Commissioner Rowland expressed concern ihat the combined usP:~ of subject PERMIT N0~ 807 property would create a hardship in the development of the rear portion (Continued) for compatible uses, and the proposed uses did not seem t~ be architectur- ally compatible. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE HEARING WAS CIASED. ~ . Commissioner Herbst offered a motio~ to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 807, based on the fact that the location of the structures was not the best design and might be detrimental to the area; that the location of the buildings would landlock the rear portion of the property, making it difficult for any future development of the area; and that the proposed development would create a problem for the health and welfare of the residential development to the easte Commissionex Perry seconded the motion. After a considerable discussion by the Commission a vote was taken by all Commissioners present to deny subject petitiono -.~ Discussion was then again held, and after w~ighing all the factors involved, all Commissioners H~ithdrew their votes of denial and directed that the petitioner consult with the Plannin9 Staff and have his designer submit revised plans which would be more compatible to the area; furthermore, development should consist of proposed structures for the rear portion so that a landlocked parcel did not exist. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Condi- tional Use Permit No. 807 to the meating of March 14, 1966, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans incorporating all the recommendations made by the Commission, Commissioner Herbst secorided the motion. M~TION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GARY MC f:ONNELL, 2742 West 0*angethorpe Avenue, Suite M, PERMIT_N0~ 808_ Fullerton, Caiifornia, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISFI A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR (BEER) on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 146 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 276 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 205 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue~ Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr, Gary McConnell, the owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject petition was a third restaurant proposed for subject property; that he would attempt to ~ reach a cooperative agreement with the service station to the west in order to provide ~ for circulation to Dale Avenue for the southerly portion of subject property, and inquired y of the Comrission what their recommendations were regarding the proposed development.. t i The Commission advised the petitioner to revise plans that would incorporate a 21-foot center drive, indicate screen planting ~djacent to the R-3 development to the east, provide for the minimum required landscaping along the dall Road frontage, submission of revised plans which indicated the floor plan which the Commission was unable to note in the plans presented to the Commission, and further consideration of the parcel to the rear of the three restaurants so that the property southerly would not be considered landlock 9, there- by being detrimental to the balance of the area, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a six-foot masonry wall already existed on the R-3 property; therefore there was no need for an additional wall - however, the screen landscaping would be necessary. Comn,_.:~s~c~ier Perry off?red a motion to continue the hearing of Petitior for Conditional Use Permi'; IJ-?, 808 to the meeting of March 14, 1966, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit rc.;ised plans indicating adequate cir.culation, screen planting, and develepment plans for the rear portion of subject property. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. - ~ - , ., ., . _. ,. . __~.~_.... ~. . M . ~ ....-, _ -,-.-~.,. - -- - -. ~ ^ _ _ ~ , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN, February 16, 1966 242q ~ COhDITTONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGe ANDREN Mo ZUHICK, 519 North Dale Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 809 California, Owner; V~RNON T. NORMINTON, 1591 Mells Lane, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A l~JFBRAU 'NITH ON-SALE :~ER IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of app:oximately 120 feet on the ~outh side of ~~inston Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 107 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approxi- mately 225 feet west of the cF~+arline of Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 120-122 Winston Roade Property presentiy classified C-i, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, 7_ONE, _ Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 3:25 P~M. -=~;~ Mre Harry Knisely, attorney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and !~ , stated that upon reviewing the pxoposed development and subject property, he had contacted i~ the petitioner and advised him the plans as submitted would not be acceptable, and the I petitioner agreed that wnat was proposed was not representative of what he had planned, and, therefore, requested the Commission continue subject petition for four weeks for the i submission of revised plans. Two letters of opposition were read to the Commission. Mra Don Hohenhaus, cwner of property at 129-B Winston Road, appeared before the Commission and stated that one of the letters of opposition was from him, which stated the intended use of the building at the time it was erected was for commercial uses, and the proposed use would not be compatible with the area in which it was proposed to be located since there was no chanye in the land use in the area to justify the proposed use; that the proposed hofbrau or similarly licensed premises would adversely affect the adjoining land use and would be detrimental to the peace, safety, and genera? welfare of the adjoining residents, and that he was sure the Commission's decision would reflect the best judgment for use of subject property. "A*s~ Margaret E, Lenney, 139 Winston Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the proposed hofbrau, stating that although all of the property east of Iris Street was zoned for commercial uses, it was developed for apartments which were rented by elderly people; that the proposed hofbrau was located in a residential area, and the normal opera- tion of the premises would interfere with the residential integrity of the area; that the ~~, proposed use would increase traffic on the street and would be dan3erous to the children, _ ranging in age from kindergarten to high school who used the crosswalk at Winston Road and _ Iris Street, as well as waiting at that corner for their school bus; that many elderly people also utilized this crosswalk going to the market; that the petitioner was proposing a waiver of the number of parking spaces, and since this area was already overburdened with a shortage of parking spaces, this would mean customers of the tavern would park in front of the apartments which would g:eatiy inconvenience their tenants; that the apartments on Winston Road were one story, low-density, beautifully landscaped, garden-type apartments; that a more logical location for the proposed use would be approximately two blocks south of Winston Road on Anaheim Boulevard and not located in a residential area; that the apart- ments on Guinida Lane had so~ne of their bedrooms within 20 feet of the proposed use which would be detrimental to the health of the residents because of the hours of operation of i the proposed use; and that although she agreed that a petitioner had to have some rights, I the proposed use would be detrimental to the other residents and property owners in the areao Copies of the petitions of the various property owners along Iris Street and Winston Road were submitted for the petition file, said petitions having been addressed to the Dep~rt- ment of Alc~:holic Beverage Control opposing the proposed hofbrau within 350 feet of Paul Revere School~ Commissioner Camp cffered a motion to continue the t;~aring of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 809 to the meeting of March 14, 1966, in order to ailow the petitioner time to submit revised plans. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion.: AA~TION CAE2RIED. CONDITIONAL USE •- PUB[.IC HEARING. NICI-DLAS J. DOVALIS, 930 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 810 California, Owner; JOSEPH AND ETHEL CASAGRANDE, 6(j58 Atoll Street, Van Nuys, California, Agents; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CONVALESCENT I-DSPITAL WII'H WAIVtR OF BUILDING HEIGNT LIMITATION on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 117 feet on the north side of West Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 344 feet, the easterly boundary of subjecL property being approximately 835 feet west of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3615 G~est Ball Roado PTOperty presently classified C-1, GENERAL CAMMERCIA~~ ZONE. " A letter from the petiti.oner requesting a continuance of time to February 28, 1966, was ~ read to the Commission. ` 'i ! . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, February 16, 1966 ~ 2925 CONDITIONAL USE - Associate Planner Jac4 Christofferson advised the Commission that the PERMIT N0, 810 time request was adequate since only a small change in the elevation ~(Continued) was necessary to eliminate the 11-foot access drive and to provide the location of trash storage arease p. ,T~T ~ ~.'f { 1~ ~~ ~x Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the hearing of Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 810 to the meeting of February 28, 1966, in order to allow the petitioner time to s~bmit revised plans. Conunissioner Herbst seconded the motion~ MpTION CARRiED. CANDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LAWRENCE A. MUCKENTHALER, ET AL, 1530 Avalencia, PERMIT NOW811 Fullerton, California, Owner; FRED TINTHOFF, 2100 East Pacific Coast Highway, Wilmington, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SERVICE SI'ATION WITHIN 75 FEET UF R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONED PROPERTY AND NOT AT THE INTERSECTION OF'IWO ARTERIAL STREETS on property described as~: An irregularly sheped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of Loara Street and Crescent Avenue, and having frontaqes of approximately 150 feet on Loara Street and aHproximately 151 feet on Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr., Lawrence Muckenthaler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had sold a portion of his property for the postoffice to the north; that he had set his sights high to establish a commercial development which would be complimentary to the area; that the service station would not genprate any more traffic than was already evidenced by the shopping center on the opposite side of the street; that service stations were now being built everywhere,and the architecture would be compatible and acceptable to the area in which it was proposed to be located; that he plannec~ for additional development for the vacant parcels to the north and west of subject property - however, it was felt a service station was a good investment for the northwest corner of Crescent and Loara., A letter of opposition was read to the Commission opposing the proposed service station site adjacent to developed properties, with the feeling that the service station would be a detrimental use for the area and was not the highest and best use for the property. Mr. Muckenthaler, in rebuttal, stated he had sold the property to the man opposing the service statior, site, and that his property was located approximately 300 feet from the proposed site. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion there was no demonstrated need for service stations on a residential street; that the street known as Loara Street was primarily residential northerly of Crescent Avenue, as well as on the easterly side, southerly of Crescent; that streets which were not designed for commercial arer~s were not construct~d to provide for commercial traffic, and in keeping with the Commission's policy which was stated in the service station st~ndard requiremen~s, service stations should be loca+ed at the intersec- tion of two arterials, whereas Loaia Street was considered a collector street~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1937, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No~ 811, based on the fact that the Code raquires service stations be located at the inter- section of two arterials, whereas Loara Street north of Crescent Avenue was a collector street; that the use would be established in close proximity t.o numerous residential uses and would be detrimental to the development of adjacent properties for commercial purposes such as had been estabiished in the area since the proposed service station would establish an undesirable traffic hazard because of its close proximity to the residential uses and the school~ (See Resolution Buoko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIO~ERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK DOYLE AND LAWREN~E SHIELDS, 1333 South Euclid PERMIT N0, 812 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM H. KUNZ, Box 3565 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permiss?on to ESTABLISH WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUMLBB~LLBOA DTAREAHon pr~operty describedTasSECAI0~i0n 1WOriRTshaAed TREETS of land located at the intersection of West Street and Manchester Avenue9and havingpfrontages westPsideloftManche8tzreAvenueheand5further~describedrast831dSouth~Manchester5Avenue,on the Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZUN~. A letter from the petitioners was read to the Commission in which a rey~e:t for termination of all proceedings was requested on subject petitione . _..,_y F MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 16, 1966 2g26 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on PERMIT NOo 812 Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 812 as requested by the petitioners. (Continued) Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. COND'.TIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PALLMALL PROPERTIES, INCORPORA2ED, 1200 West Broadway, PERMIT NOo 813 Anaheim, California, Owner; WILLIAM 'rINDLEY, 2141 West La Palma Avenue, Suite 1, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting ,permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land bounded on the north by Glenwood Avenue, on the west by East Street, and on the south by Sycamore Street, and having a maximum depth of approximately 243 £eet as measured from East Stree~. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZONE~ Mr, VJilliam Findley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. The Commission reviewed the plans and noted the petitioner would have to dedicate ~:dditional footage in order to comply with the recent amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and inquired of Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson whether or not there would be adequate building setback. Mra Thompson stated that because of the request for additional dedication, and the fact that subject property was already being developed for the reclassification it was approved for, an 8-foot building setback from East Street was ail that was now being proposed, whereas it was originally 20 feet. Comm°_ssioner Camp stated that because of the change in City policy relative to street widen- ing, waiver of the parking spaces in subject petition was necessary because the street widen- ing reduced the number of parking spaces originally proposed~ Mrs, Randy Smith, 618 Elmwood Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, stating that any restaurant serving beer could turn into a"beer bar"; that subject property was located in the center of a residential area; that with the elimination of parking on East Street, cars from the commercial development would be parking on the residential str~et; that they were having a difficult time trying to provide adequate exit for the cars in tt~e tract because of the circulation; that she was sure the petitioner was sincere in his inten- tions to establish the proposed Mexican restaurant with on-sale beer - however, if economics were in such a state, the petitioner could revise his plans and construct a bar rather than a restaurant; that the corner on which the proposed restau:ant and sale of beer was to be located was also the corner where children waited for and got off of buses to and from school; that East Street would be used to handle the traffic for the new stadium and the oropcsed use would add more traffic to the area; that the circulation of the tract in which she was living was such that a circular route had to be taken in order to gain exit from the tract; ~nd further, in response to Commission questioning, stated she opposed the sale of beer ir~ con- junction with the restaurant since it was proposed to be located in the center of a residential area. The Commission r,oted the petitioner was proposing to develop with considerable area for kitchen requirements; that the conditional u~e permit was necessary in order to operate the proposed use; and that the parking shortage occurred because of the requirement for additional street dedication~ Mr, i•o B. Morley, 515 North East Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that although the proposed restaurant woUld be an asset to the area, the request for serving of beer might have a detrimental effect on the area because of the possibility of it being diverted into a bar; that with other commercial stores proposed for subject property, the use might be detrimental to the small commercial area; and that in his opinion, the proposed on-sale beer was what he was objecting to primarily. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that at ~uch time as the project for street widening purposes on ~ast Street takes place, the existing curbs and gutters would be reloca±ed to pe;rnit full dedication of the street, thereby providing for on-street parking on the east side of East Street, with th? possibiliiy of providir.g six or seven additional parking spaces. Mro Findley, in rebuttai, stated the pians did not indicate any counter space or bar or stools; that the operator of the restaurant catered to a family-type business, and the sale of beer was only incidental to the serving of food; that the hours of operation would be from 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.; and that he could not see where the proposed structure would be used as a tavern. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, February 16, 1966 2927 ~ ~'l; ~~ ~ ' i~~ ~~ i , .,~~ ~ ~' - •- CONDITIONAL USE - Discussion was held by the Commission whether or not to make a finding PERMIT NOo 813 that the petitioner stipulated to the servino, of alcoholic beverages (Continued) with meals as an incidental use, and any remodeling or changes in plans which might indicate a bar or stool facilities would have to be subrc~itLed to the Commission and/or City Council for approval pri~r to issuanc~ of a building permit in order to control the layout of the area. 'Ihe petitioner stipulated to the on-sale of beer as an incidental use, and that it would be served with food cnly. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1938, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passege and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 813, with waiver of the required parking and the requirement that if the petit:~ner proposed any change in plans which would indicate a ba:r and stools, such plans be submitted to the Commission for review and consideration of appraval prior ta the issuance of a build- ing permit. (See Resolution Book.) Gn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny v^,te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gaiier, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. CANDI;IONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LUSK CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 1217, Whi.ttier, Caiifornia, PERMIT NU_ 814 Owner; WILLIAM D. LUSK, P, 0, Box 1217, Whittier, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH AND RELATED FACILITIES on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcei o: land of approxi- mately 405 acres with a fronta9e of approximately 316 feet on the wes~ side of. Villareal Drive and having a maximum depth of approximately 940 feet, the northe:Iy tr,undary of sub- ject property being approximately 375 feet south of the centerline of I.incoln Avenue. Mr. Wiiliam Klussman, representing the Lusk Corporation, appeared before the Commission and stated subject property was in escrow with the Pre<~yterian Ch~rch for purchase by the Church in the Nohl Ranch area and would be compatible and complimentary to the a*ea. Mr. Klussman also stated a representative of the church was ~.resent in the e•:ent the Commission wisiied to have questions answered relative ~o the elevation and plot plans. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1939, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 814, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMlAISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred. RECESS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess the meeting for 15 minutes. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. Ah~TION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3:59 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:10 P.M., all Commissioners with the exception of Comm~SSioner Allred being present. -- _.-- _.., .. ,,,_ ~ ~ ~ h'INUTES, CITY PiAplNING COmMISSION, February 16, 196f, 2q2g VARIANCE NOo 1760 - PUBLIC HEARINGa LINCOLN SQtJA"E, c/o Weger Comp~ny, Incorporated, 8879 West Pico Boulevard. Lv., Ar~yelas, Califorr.:a, Owner; SID BLP.IR, c/o Cox Neon Corporation, i7;i ~?;•rt Road, Mentebeilo, !'a?~fornia, Aga~t; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) NUMBFR OF FP.~°-;TH~d;,c;.IG SIGNS PERMITTED, (2) HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN, AND (3) LOCATION OF 1-REF. ~TI,p1~Il~li SIGId on property described as: An irre9ulariy shaped pazce? ~f lan:; situata•~ ~, ,~ southeast corner of Lincoln Nvenue and Empire Si.reet and havfng fro,tages of ~~rcox~m,,tzly 263 feat on Lincoln Avenue and appreximat~~ly 130 feet on Empire Street. !•'roF-erty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAI., ZONEo Mr. Sid Blair, agent for the petitioner, ar.~eared before th? Commissi,;~:i and ststed the sign prnposed for Winchell's I~~nut House wa, one that was stanriard th:cughout Southern :::)iFOrnia; that because the Anaheim MuniciF>al Code permitted only one f:oe-standing ;ign on a parcel of land, the propo;~ed waiver was being requested; th2t. the Winchell's Do~~ut House was allowed in several ot:~er sho•,.~,~ing centers with a sim'lar sign, and the LL:3S~ Winchell's Donut House had siqned with tt~e petitioner wa~ contingent upon having tt~e :;ign in the area as proposed on the ~;~lans. I'he Commission noted the proposed sign v~as two feet h:yner t.han was nermitted by the ~ign ordinance, and the height of the s?yn was ~ot nece~sary •i,~r special id~>ntity, The agent for th~: petitioner t`~e^ stated that because of ?.hc r:yUire~~,ar.t. of the 35-fo~t setback aiong Lincol~ Av2nue, i~ was necessary to have a s~ecial sign foi• the donut shop for identity; that stud~a; had beEn ;nade of the signing of various pro~er~ies and a need was indicated for separate signing for the donut shop~ The Commission noted that signi~:~,as proposed,was urnecessary because i;npul:;e buying could not b~ considered for the propos.ed donut shop ~^d +hat proof of hardship in the request for waiver of the sign ordinance had. not b:-~^ ~ubmitted, Mr Blair then stated that ;.he other stor~~ in the shopp?ng ~er,te: whei~ they si~n their leases wot:ld be required tu have their si.,ns integrated w~tnin one common sign, how~ver, tfie Winchell donut shop hjd a leas~ contingent upon approva: oi a separate =?~n, and tha.~ simiiar ~eqi~ests for sign varia•~ces had be~an approved in the past. Nc one appeared :n oppoaition to s~:~j~~ct aeiition. Tlic HE ,R~'•~ . ':'iA5 CUJSED~ Disc~ssion was held by the Comrtiission relative to the proposed request of sign~ng oi subject property with two signs within less than 300 feet, since subject pro^erty was rather smai:, being les.s than 250 feet in length along Lincoln Ave~iue, ~r;:~ le=s than an acre in sizey and if the sign request wa> granted, this would be yr~_ntina a p:ivilege not enjoved by other properties in close proximity, or any prospective lessee; of the other c~mrnercial stores in this shopping cer.cer, and no hardship had bean proven ~het the sign wjs necessary in order to enjoy the same property right ~- o*_her.s bv` no*. offoid=d the petitioner. " ' Commissioner R~~uiland offered Re~olution No~ 1940, Series 19f,~-66, ar~d moved for i'.s passage and adoption, ~•econded by Cemmissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Vari;,nr,e No, 17c0. based on tha fact i.i,at no hardship had been proven by the petitior~e* of ±.~,, r.ece5sity in: two seo:~ate signs; that ;he approval of the proposed ~ign wai~er would set a pr~cedPr~t. fvr similar requests for sig~s in smal~ shopp'ny centers; and that t;,F re.{~~ested variance was not nec?ssary for tn? utilization ar.;i enjoyme~t of a substantial property right possessed by others in the areao (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was Y'~""~ by the following vote: AYE~: COMMISSIONi:RS: Camp, Gauer, Y,erh;;., Pe:ry, Rowland, Nungall~ WE'' Ci.!MMISSIONEn:.: None. ABSENT• CCMNISSIONERS; All:ed, -.=-a.s.v~.~ -- _ - "'a..,""'.-.~ „ ~ rrc ~: ~ A ~ \ MINUIES, i;IIY PLPNNING COMMISSION, February 16, 1966 2929 RcCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING„ AMERIGO CEROLINI AND STEVE KIRLRKITSIS, 316 South NOa 65-66-84 Euclid Street, A~aheim, Ca).ifornia, Owners; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly sha ed of approximately 78 feet on the south sideeof~KatellawAve~uefandthaving a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 429 feet east of the centerline of Lewis Street, and further described as 1010 East Katella Avenue, be reclassified from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND P-L, !~A;~KING- LANDSCAPING, ZpNES to the C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish a liquor store and restaurant with•bar on subject property„ Mro Amerigo Cerolini, one of the property owners, appeared before the Commission and state~i he was available to answer questions, and then in response to Commission question- ing, stated because he was proposing a liquor store which of necessity rr~ade it necessary that it be located closer to the traffic, it was proposed to reclassify ttie property to the ~-2 Zone in order to have no setback from the property line. It was noted by the Commission that the proposed reclass;fication would be located between two established industrial complexes, and to waive the 50-foot setback :~equirement in the M-1 Zone would be setting a precedent for the industrial area. Mrs, Dorothy Fulmer, designer of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and stated that because a request for reclassificat:ion to the C-2 Zone was being considered by the Commissi~n, the plans as presented complied nith C-2 requirements. Associate Pl~nner Jack Christofferson advised tne Ccmniission that if subject petition were approved, the p~ans N•ere in conformance with the C-2 '^~P„ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition„ THE HEARING WAS rI,~SED. Discussion was heid by `he Comr.iission relative to the proposed use, and it was determined that the zoning request would be sput zoning in the middle of industrial property and would havs an adverse effect on fut~re industriai development in the area, and that the setback prooosal would be detr;•,ental to the existinq industrial property., Commissione* Herbst offere~ Resol.ution No„ 1941, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 65-66-84 be disappFOVed, 6ased on the fact that the proposed c:om- me*cial use of subject propert,y would create commercial traffic in an industrial area which has been developed with industiial complexes to the east and west; that it was proposPd ±o be located in the center of an existing ir,dustrial development; that the commercial use would adversely affect the uotentiai growth arn;; continued developmeni of the properties in close proximity fo_ ir.Justrial ourposes; an~1 that the proposrd recl.assification of subject oroperty was net n•~~:;assary or desirable :or tnc~ ordezly and p:oper development of the community. (See R~-SCJ.ution Book.) Un roll call the foregoi.~g resolution w<is passed by the fo'lowing vote: AYES: C~MMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Nernst, Ferry, Row;and, Mun,c,a11, ~ NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None, i AbS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: F~llred. J ~ RECLASSIi-ICATION - PUBLIC HEHRING. J~HN ;,; S:r3P,I',~, 332 Soutn Nestern ~venue, Anaheim, ; P10= 65-66-85~~ California, Owner; JON~ 'r, i;AIN, 7179 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, `i Calif;,rnia, Agent; requestirn3 th~t pi•operty described as: An irregularly ~ij shaped parcel of land locateci at the southwest corner of Rome Avenue and Magnolia Avenue and having frontages of approximately 65 feet on Magnolia Avenue and approxi- i~ mately 120 feet on Rome Avenue, and further described as 805 South Magnolia Avenue, be re- ; classified from the R-1, ONE-FA,NILY RESIDENTIF.L, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL CqAM1ERCIAL, ZONE. i Mr. John F. Kain, agent for the petitioner a , oroposing to develop subject ' PAe~red before the Commission and stated he was combine sub'ect ProFerty as an office for. himself, ~nd that he did not wish to J prnperty with the two additional offices which had a corner loto The Commiss;on advised the agent for the pei.itioner that the City, in Reclassification Dlo~ , 60-61-44,had established standards for d~velopment of the parcelson the west sid? of Magnolia Nvenue for commercial pur,~oses by ;and assem6ly witti the removal of one structure and remodel- ing o: the two existinc 5tructures for commercial purroses; furthermore, that the rear 20 feet , of the property wo~ld have to be dedicated to the City for alley purposes and to supply * secondary access since all access rights to Pdagnolia Avenue would have to be dedicateda It ~ was alsa noted by the Commi,sion that only ti~ree .lots under said reclassification had ~een MLNU?ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 16, 1966 2930 4ECLASSIFICATION - developed and that was for a service station site at the corner of ~0, 65-66-85 __ Bal~ Road and Magnolia Avenuee (Continued) The agent for the petitioner stated he would be willing to dedicate for an alley to the weste Office Engir•eer Arthur Daw advised the Commissi.on that full dedication of the 20 feet would be necessary from subject Froperty to serve as secondary access since access to Magnolia Avenue would be prohibited, thus having only access from the alley to Rome Avenue or to Ball Road if said alley was extended. Mrse A~ J~ Letellier, 2568 Wes: Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated it was quite disturbing to have constant repetition of reclassification fcr Magnolia Avenue property; that she had p~~zchased her property in 1956 and had owned her home there since, and she could sea no reason for changing the environment of the area from residential to strip commercial which was along Magnolia Avenue since there were other areas in the City . more suitable ior commercial development, Mrso Ka L. Jahnke, 2579 West Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated the reclassification of subject praperty would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and would permit existing homes to be used for offices, and a situation similar to that on North Brookhurst Street would result which would be detrimental to the entire area. Mr~ Cornelius Madigan, 813 South Magnolia Avenue, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition, stating he was using his home as an office and parking was not permitted along Magnolia Aver~~:e in front of their homes, and it was difficult te sell a home because of its undesirability for residential purposes, and all property owners along Magnolia Avenue had the same problem. Mr~ Kair, in rebut~al, stated th~t in his opinion, subject and abutting properties would eventually be reciassified to C~-1, and if subject petition was a~proved, this might set a pattern of development for the remaining parcels a?ong Magnolia Avenu?, Two letters of opposition were read to tne Commission. THE HEARING wAS CLGSEDo Discussion was tield by.the Commission relative to the reclassification which established a plan of development for the R-1 paz,;els on the west side of Magnolia Avenue between Rome Avenue and Ball Road, and since that plan of development had been established in 1961, only three lots had been developed for the approveti use, namely the service station si±e, and all others had not exerciced the rights granted them under t.he C-1 Zone. Commissioner Rowland offered Resoiution No~ 1942, Seri.es 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ 65-66-85 be disapproved, based on the fact that this would be spot zoning of individual lots; that the City had established a policy for development of the area by land assembly of th:ee or more '_~ts in a previous reclassification and development shou:d be in accordance with that; furthermore, that in the land assembly, a requirement that the rear 20 feet shovld be dedicated to tlie City of Anaheim to p.:ovide secondary alley access for said propertyg ar.d that if subject petition were approved, ihis would establish a precedent for developmen~ of single lots for the entire block in which subject property n~as located, thus creating strip commercial uses of existing homes which would be detrimental to the ar~aa (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, RoNland, Mungallo NOES: COMMISSiONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONEAS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WALTER HEMPHILL, 951 North Gilbert Street, Anaheim, N0. 65-66-86 California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcei of land situated at the southwest corner of Gilbert Street ard Rainbow AvenuP and having frontages of approximately 178 feet on Gilbert Street and approximately 19G feet on Rainbow Avenue, and further described as 951 North Gilbert Street, he reclassified f~o~, the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE co the R-1, ONE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LONE. ,`a ~ Associate Planner Jar,k Christofferson advised the Commission that the proposed reclassifica- ~ tion was a requirement of a variance ,j .t~ that the bond for street irt:provementsghadtbeenYfiledcwithSthenRightrof WaytDepartmentand ., ~ F , MT_NUTES, CITY PIANNING WMMISSION, February 16, 1.966 2931 P: , ~-^=~~ ~ RECLASSIFI~ATIOh - No one appeared to represent the petitioner~ N0. 65-66-86 (Continued) No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEAkING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer o`.fered Resolution Noo 1943, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by CommissionPr Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-86 be approvedo (See Resolution Book„) On roll call the fore9oing re~olution was passea by the following vote: i+YES: !:ON4NISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Ro~vland, Mungalle NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEAR1NGo BETTY M. BRAK'~~ER ANll JACK H„ BURGESS, c/o J. Vincent, , NO~E5=66_87____ 401 West Sth StrePt, Santa Ana, California, Owners; EIJGENE HANCOCK, JR,, 9778 Kateila Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: CONDITIONAL USE A sectangularl~~ shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of South PERMIT N0.~8i5_ Street and State Coliege Boulevard, and having frontages of approximately 300 feet on ~outh Street and approximately 148 feet on S{:ate College GENERAL. PLAN Boulevarde Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE„ AMENDMENT_NO__72 REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT A SERUJCE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF R-A ZONED PROPERTY AND NOT AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARCERIAL STREETS.. V~ ` t { t, I 1 .~ Mr~ Duane Stout, representing the petitiorers, appeared before the Cortwiission and stated the service station would be the first portion of construction, and the cemmerciai shops would follow; that discussions hac' been held with representatives of the Tic To~ Markets who seemed interested in the construction of a small market, and the Richfield Oil Company had expressed interest in deve':oping the service station site; that the proposed reclassi- fication would improve the area and remove many of the large trees which were creatir.y a traf`i.c problem because of poor visibility; that children using South Street to go to school were less iikely to be injured if clear vision was attained for traffic along State College Boulevard; that with the opening of the stadium the Richfield Oil Company felt it was neces- sary to have a service station located in the general vicinity of the area because their nearest service station was 1~ miles to the north; and further, in response to Commission questioning, stated that South Street was not a collector street east of State College Boulevard - however it was a collector street west of State College Boalevarda Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the statement made by the representa- tive of the petitioner was correct, and it was propesed to have four travel lanes for South Street at a futur.e date which would indicate it was a secondary highway ~lassification. Mr, Stout then stated that the p.-titioner had canvassed the area to determine whether the proposed 3evelopment would be acceptable to the iesidents of the area and had received favczaui2 comments. Krso Mary Smedley, 2109 East South Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that although she realized the intersection of South Street and 5tate College Boule- v:rd was a dangerous corner, to grant the proposed commercial use on subject property would set a precedant for the v3cant parcels to the south and east of subject property; that the area was ba<ically residential in character; that all the property owners had purchased their homes on the assumption the area would remain residential; that many children crossed the area to go to school, and this would add more traffic hazards to the chiidren with the service station and commercial uses on the balance of the prop?rty; and that the property values of their homes would be greatly reduced if commercial uses were estab~ished on subject property. The Cort~nission advised the opposition the vacant parcel to the east was owned by the Mormon Church, and it was anticipated this would be developed for church purposes in the future. Mr. R. Croft, 638 South State College Bou~~vard, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition and stated the proposed service station would provide for better visi- bility along State College Houlevardo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. t f ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ' MINUTES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 16~ 1966 2932 ! P.ECLASSIFICATION - A colored rendering N135 submitted by the petitioner, 3t which time he E *VJ~ 65_66 87_~ indicated a similar station was located in Yorba Linda,. ~ • CONDITIONAL USE The Commission disc~ssed the use; established northerly and southerly PERMIT NO> 815 of subject property, noting thAt approval oi subject petition would set a pattern of development for the vatant parcels to the south; that GENERAL pLAN it was hardly likely because of the size and shape ~f the parcels that AMENDMENT N0~ 72 single•-family residential uses would be established alo:ia State College , (Continued) Boulevard since the lot sizes might be substandard and homes would have ~ to face on State College Boulevard rath~r than backing on and having '^~~ access rights dedicated for State College Boul~.vard. ~~ Commissio~er Rowland stated a ain there coulrl be stri co:nmercial deveio ment for g p p proper'.ies :j~ along State College Boulevard, both southerly and northerly ot sub~ect property, although `' those northerly of subject property were developed for single-fami:y homes. ~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised Ytie Commission that the General Plan Amend- ~ R.ert No, 72 exhib~t war~ posted on the ieft wa:l of the Council Chamber ir. conjuncticn with I subject pe'~itions. 'i Commissioner Perry expressed concern there was a possibility of establishing strip ~~~ commercial uses for the homes northerly, and the situation similar to that on North I Brookhurst Street might result with commercial use of the residential structures. ~1 Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny Petition for Reclassificati~n No. 65-66-87; `i however, the motion lost for want of a second~ ~ ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1944, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage I I and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to reco~r~rend to the City Council that Petition for Reciassification No. 65•-66-87 be ap~roved~ subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Book.) I ~~ On roll call the fore9oing reso~u*~~~ was passed by the following vote: I ~ AYES: COMMISS?ONERS: Camp, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIOtJERS: Gauer~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ ,~ - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1945, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~ and adopt:on, secanded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use j Permit Noa 815, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~- I ~i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: '`~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst. ~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. i~ ~j Commissioner Rowland offe:ed Resolution No. 1946, Series 1965-50, and moved for its passage ~J and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that General ~ Plan Amendment Noo 72 be disapproved and referred to annual review for future cnnsideration, ~ (See Resolution Boo~e) On roll call the foregoing re=olution was passed by the following vote: ~ ; ~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mun9ali„ ' NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ~~ ~q ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrede .~ _ i~ ~ r' 3 ~ E -~ ~dINUiES, CITY PL4NNING CUMMISSION, February 16y 1966 2933 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RECAMN~cNDATIONS TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0~ 6182 DEVELOPER: BRYAN I~DUSTkIAL PROPERTIES, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, California. ENGI~'EER: McDaniel Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the north side of OrangethorFe, east of Lemon Street and containing 14~583 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 17 M-1, Light Industrial, Zoned lots. Associate C'lanner Jack Christofferson presented Tentative Map of Tract No~ 6182 to the Commission noting the location of subject property, and the fact that the tract was a resubdivision of a previously approved tract map, which realigned the lot lines to conform with the existing structures on the property~ Of;ice Engineer Arthur Daw advised ±}-~e Commission that all engineering requirements had been complied with in the approval of Tract Noo 4961, which was recorded November 4, 1964g therefore, no conditions would be recoRmended in the approval of subject tract. Commissione,r Perry offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6182, uncondition- allyo Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ Iu1~TI0N CARRIED. ITEM N0~ 2 Walnut Canyon Reservoir Annexation - Interim Zoning Associate Pianner Ma:vin Krieger reviewed for the C!~mrnission the annexation of property in Walnut Canyon, ~.overing property owned by the Ci~y of Anaheim on which is located the Walnut Canyon Reservoir~ It was noted that the existing zoning i~; the County was A1, Residential Agricultural, and that ihe comparabie zoning in the City would be R•-A, Agricultui•a], Zone, Commissioner C~mp offered a motion to recomme~d to the City Council the City R-A,Agricultural, Zone as the comparable zone approp*ia`,e as an interim zone for the area knoan as the Walnut Ganyon Annexation. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARAIED, I TEM NO .. 3 Rinker Nnnexation - Interim Zoning _ Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission the proposed annexation of _ property iocated imirediately to the east of the northerly portion of the Northeast No~ 3 Annexation comprising 18.37 acres~ that the existino County A1, Residential Agricultural District on subject property was comparable to the City of Anaheim R-A, Agricultural, Zone; and that two oil wells have been abandoned, and the area is no longer being used for oil production. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the City's R-A, Agricultural, Zone was the comparable zoning to that in the County of Orange for the establishment of interim zoning in the Rinker Annexation. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM N0. 4 Proposed amendment to the C-1, General Commercial, Zone regarding 6-foot masonry walls abutticg r~sidential zor.es~ Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission the background information regarding the City Counc 1's request for study with the oossibility of an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Co~. ,egarding 6-foot masonry walis adjacent to residential zones and/or commercial shopping facilities., A1r: Kriege~ ~:so noted that if the Commission concurred in tne recommendations oi the staff, the •~mendment be set for public hearing. C:ommissioner Rowland oftered a motion to direct the Com~~~ssion Secretary to set for public hearing on M~rch 14, 1966, at 2:OC o`clock P.M. consideration of an amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18a40, C-1, Genera] Commercial, Zone, Section 18,40..070(6) 'rVALLS., Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MUTIOiJ CARRIED. `- _ , - -- - ... -~--....,..^.. . . . ~' .. , - r P~'INUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, February 16, 1966 ?934 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOa 5 _ RECOMMENDATIONS Potential Sites for Batch Plants and M-2 Uses (Continued)~ Assistant Flanner Charles Roberts presented the following study: "RE: Potentiai Sites for Batch Plants and M-2 Uses The purpose of this study was to investigate the character~stics of batch plants and to determine possibie locations where this type of use would not be too offensive to surround- ing uses> While batch plants are the main topic for consideration, it is very possible . that the locations discussed below cculd accommodate M-2 uses as well. i^-~'-~~ , Basically, a batch plant is a facility where materials necessary to the manufacture of :~ , concrete are assembled and, as needed, mixtures are loaded into mixer trucks for mixing and transportation to a jobo Batch plants have been set up on the same site as, and operated in conjunction with, sand and gravel operations and have also been established as individual operations at separate locations~ Where both a sand and g:~vel ,r,lant and a batching operation are located on the same site, most of the necessary materials are extracted and processed at that location and the dry cement is the only product that is transported to the planto On the other hand, however, where a batch plant is set up as an independent operation, it is necessary to have all of the rock, sand and cement transported to the site~ Generally speaking, batch plants spring up in areas where a great deal of construction activity is expected or is underway. In talking with people in the industry, it seems that one of the primary considerations given to selecting a batch plant sit.e is to find a location that is within reasonable distance of, or centrally located between both the material source and the actual construction site, Site area needs for individuai batch plants range from approximately 2 to 2~S acres for a i portable type operation with a sinqle loading, si.ngle silo/hopper set-up, to app~~ximately ; 5 acres or more for the more permanent double loading, quadruple silo-hopper set-up, :~ (The phraseology used to describe the different set-ups is that of tha author and not necessarily used within the industry,) A conservative estimate at the length of time a •-~ batching operation may be in one location would be a minimum of one year for a portable ' operation, to a minimum of three to five years for the more permanent faciiityo However, _ in speaking with the people at Consolidated Rock, it seems that the majority of their _ operations have been in existence for 15 years or soe I While rail transportation was once used to a fair extent, the industry seems t~ rely primarily upon trucking transportation now~ Therefore, another prime consideration for a location is a site's proximity to adequate road facilities. The use of conveyor belts and closed hoppers has been a considerable aid in reducing the amount of dust. created by this type of operation~ Although the Air Pollution Control District h.:s been very active in keepinq tabs on the dust situation, the fact still remains that ba~.ch plants are a dusty business., The yard and roadways within the site are usually not pave~ and with heavy truck traffic constantly movinc in and out of tY~e site, dust is naturally being created.. In addition to the dust facto:-, the noise created by the trucks and other equipment would seem to make the use incompat.:ble with a residential area especially. Dick Turner, County Coordinator with the Orange County Planning Uepartment, stated that approval of a use variance is necessary to establish a batch plant within the County's jurisdiction. He also stated that the number of requests for this type of business has decreased considerably in recent years. It seems t,~,t batch plants are a very competitive type business and most of the larger sand and grave~ operators have the industry pretty well tied up, Of particular concern to the City when considering a request for a batch plant in a parti- cular location is, how will the use affect adjacent land uses? The amounts of noise, dust, odor and vibrations would probably be the determining factors. Truck traffic and operating machinery will naturally create considerable noise. Dust conditions as mentioned above could certainly create discord and discontent if the site is very close to a residential or commercial area and also some industrial uses„ Since the prevailing winds in the Anaheim area are 9enerally westerly an~ sou;.hwesterly, except when we have a 5anta Ana wind condition, it would be best not to permit such a plant immediately west of a residen- tial or commercial areao ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 16, 1966 2935 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - lTEM NO> 5(Continued Since the majority of the central and western parts of the City are already developed pri~arily with residential and commercial uses, it seems that the most logicai locations for batch plants would be in the eastern and northeastern areas of the City, more speci- fically in the Southeast and Northeast Industrial Areas. Both of these geographical areas border upon the Santa Ana River which should provide an adequate buffer between any in- compatible useso In the Southeast Industrial Area there are two basic areas which could possibly serve as satisfactory locationso One area lies between Katella Avenue and the A.T. 8 S.F.R.R., and the other is between Katella Avenue and Ball Road, Both locations are immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana River and at the present time are still under County jurisdiction. When the Orange Freeway is completed, these pote~itial locations will be bordered on the east by a natural 5uffe: •- the Santa ~na River, and on the west by a man-made buffer - the Orange Freeway, These buffer elements should help to lessen any undesirable effects that are characteristic of a ~atch plant. Hewever, ~vhen considering these sites, it becomes necessary to give very serious thought to the visual effects that this use might present to spectators within th? stadium and to those people traveling along the Orange Freeway~ The freewey will be elevated beginring southerly of the AoT, 8 S,FeR.R, and will remain above grade to a puint between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road,. The elevated fraeway should provide at least a partiai screening effect from the stadium, But the view from the freeway could be rather unsightly unless further screening measures are undertaken. 'f large trees were planted along the boundary line sepa:at';ng a batct~ing operation from the freeway, the visual effect should De greatly improved, not only when viewiny the si'~e from the freeway but from the stadium as ~elle In the Northeast Industiial Area also, the Santa Ana River provides a seemingly adequate buffer between the residential uses on the south bank and the industrial area on the north banke At the present time, there are sand and gravel, and batch plant operations in exist- ence immediately adjacent to the north shore of the river, With the openiny of La Palma Avenue easterly to Imperial Hiqhway, additional riverfront acreage will become available with easy access to these road facilities,. But rather than consider the entire depth between La Palma Avenue extension and the river for batch plants or similar uses, it may be wise to consider the La Palma Avenue frontage to a depth of perhaps 400 feet, to be prime locations for M-1 usese If the front 400 feet sou±h of La Paima Avenue is retained for permitted M-1 uses, this would leave up to 400 feet adjacent to the river that could be used for batch p:ants ~r other heavy industrial uses. Also, ~ny M-1 uses that might be established along La Falma Avenue would serve as a visual screen between the highway and the batch plant facilities. Another reason why this area lends itself favorably to these types of uses is the fact that there are a number of large eucalyptus wind breaks already standing. These trees could serve not oniy as a deterrentto dust spreading but as a visual screen as well. When the existing sand and gravel operations are r,oncluded, it may be p~ssible to use the remaining pits for batching activity, at least temporarily. However, in speaking with Mr. John Collier, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, ii has been determined that the area west of Richfield Road has been designated, not only by the City, but the wunty as well, for potential recreational facilities~ These facilities would be used in conjunction with the proposed Urange County Water District settling basino Therefore, if the recreational projects are to be completed as proposed, any batch plants should be restricted to the area east of Richiield Road. Another area that has been proposed for recreational facilities and has been excluded as potential batch plant sit?s is the area adjacent tc the river ar.d extending northerly from Ball Road to the Riverside Freeway.," Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the appropriateness of a1loNing b..tch plants in the.Southeast Industrial Area between the proposed Orange Freeway and the Santa Ana River.. It was the feeling of the Commission that since only eleven acres of prime M-2 property is now available for sale in the City, the Southeast Industrial Area e-,sterly of the Orange Freeway is an ideal location foi• expandin9 the M-2, Heavy Industrial, ?~ne. This was predicated on the fact that a natural buffer would exist with the proposed freeway on the west and the Santa Ana River on the east~ It was also noted that because of the prime industrial areas existing in the Northeast Industrial Area, batch plants should be limited to that area as near the river as possible, ' preferably 40~ feet south of La Palma Avenue and easterly of Richfield Road, because noises, * dust, dirt, incompatible structures, and heavy truck traffic, might be detrimental to the ,,tx future development of the industrial area. i " ~ hiINUTES, CITY~PLANNING CUMMISSION, February 15, 1966 2936 REPORTS AND RE~MMENDATIONS - ITF~I NO ~ 5 Cr,ntinued ) Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that if any batch plants are to be considered and approved by the City Council or recommended to the Orange County Planning Commission, these should only be located in the Northeast Industrial Area, easterly of Richfield Road, at least 400 feet south of La Palma Avenue, and as near as possible to the Santa Ana River, because of the noise, dust, dirt, types of structures, and heavy truck traffic whicn might have a detrimental effect on any potential industrial development along La Palma Avenueo Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MDTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 6 Joint Session of the Planning Commission and Urban Renewal Advisory Committee for an up-to-date report on the Center City study. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that. a joint study session had been scheduled for the Commission and the Urban Renewal Advisory Committee to present an up-to-date report on the Center City study, said session to begin approximately 8:00 P.M. immediately after the Commission's consideration of public hearings on February 28, 1966. ITEM N0. 7 Communication from the City of Westminster recommending a street name change for Knott Avenue to Goldenwest Streeto A letter addressed to the City Council, in turn referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation, from the City of Westminster urging the City Council to consider a street name change of Knott Avenue to Goldenwest Street within the City of Anaheim`s boundaries, was presented to the Commission by Associate Planner Jack Christofferson. Mr. Christofferson also reviewed the history cf the original name of Knott Avenue, and the length of time for said name; thai the City of Garden Grove had qone on record for retain- ing Knott Avenue; that the City of Stanton had received and filed a similar request; and that the City of Buena Park ihrough the City Council on February 8, 1966, had denied the request for a change in the name of Knott Avenue and had further directed that a letter be sent to the City of Westminster requesting that their c4ty change the name of Goldenwest Street to Knott Avenue. Discussion was held as to the length of time each street had been named within the boundaries of the various cities, and Che significance of Knott P.venue to the history of recreation facilities within the City of Anaheim~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the City of Westminster's request for a street name change of Knott Avenue to Goldenwest Street be denied, and the City of Westminster be urged to change the street name ot Goidenwest Street to Knott Avenue, because of the historical background to said street name. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion, ANJTION CARRIEU~ ITEM N0. 8 Reclassification No. 65-66-48 - Grace Dickerson, petitioner, proposed R-2, Multiple-Family Planned Residential Development on property un the north side of Broadway between Wayside Place and Date Street - revised plans. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for ihe Commission the City Council action at the last adjourned public hearing of the proposed R-2, Planned Residential Development for the Dickerson property. It was state,9 that the City Council suggested to the petitioner that the Council would consider revised p:.ans, and ~hat such revised plans should be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for report prior to City Council consideration~ It was further noted that the petitioner had met s?yeral times with thr Development Services Department to work out the most satisfactory site plan, and that the latest revision was received too late to be considered by the Planning Commission at their January 31st meeting. It was also noted that the densiiy of the proposed development would be 9.5 units per net residential acre, with a coverage of 31~1%• Adequate parking ~•~~~ also indicated for the project. Discussion was held by the Co~mission, at which time the Commission re-affirmed their previous recommendation that the subject proper±y should be developed for single-family ~ residential use. , Commiss~oner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that it is the opinion of the Planning Commissipn that property under consideration by the City Council in Reclassifica- R tion No. 65-66-48, known as the Dickerson property, remains more suitable for single-family „~ resident=al development; however, if the City Council determines that the higher density is justified, the revised site plan represents probably the least disruptive pattern for R-2 Planned Residential Development for the property. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. ' MOTION CARRIED. ~. e ..' 1 1.INUI'E5, CITY-PL/4NNING COMMISSION, February 16, 1966 2937 REPORTS AND - ITF1d NO e 9 RECOMMENDATIONS Amendment to legal description of Resolution No. 1911, Sera.es 1965-66, (Continued) recommending approval of Reclassification No. 65-60-73; and Resoli~tion No. 1912, Series 1965-60, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 801, on January 17, 1966. E Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Cemmission th~ir actior. of January 17, f 1966, in approving Reclassification hoo 65-66-73 and Conditior~al Use Permit Dlo. 801, said petitions having been initiated by the Commission in the Zong range program of placing developed properties in their most appropriate zones. It was r.ote~J ,that Fight-of-Way, , Division of Engineering Department had submitted a legal description for the resol~tions - which was in error; however, the property had been correctly advert.ised in the legal notice ..,:a+17~;. placed in the "Bulletin", and it was necessary for the Comm9ssior~ to amend the legal des- j~ criptions of Resolution Noso 1911 ar.d 1:2, Series I965-66 reflpcting the correct metes and ;~,~~ bounds of said propertyo ,~` ; Commissioner Rowland offe:ed Resolution No. 1947, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that the I ( j legal descr4ption be amended in Resolution No. 1911, Series 1965-66, in which the Commission j recommended to the City Council approval of Reclassification No. 65-66-73 as follows: 1 '~ "Lot 1, Tract 3370, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 144, pages 7 and ~,~~ S of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Oranc,e County, California. RI "Excepting therefrom those portions lyi.ng within the right of way of State College Boulevard and Placentia Avenue." (See Resolution Book On roll cal~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Nerbst, pe:ry, Rowland, Nungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1948, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to amend the legal description in Resolution No. 19).2, Series 1965-66, which granted Conditional Use Permit No. 801, as follows: '~Lot 1, Tract 3370, as shown on a Map recorded in flook 144, pages 7 and 8 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, Califorr.ia. "Excepting therefrom those poriions lying within the right of viay of St~t;• College Boulevard and Placentia Avenuea" (See Reso:ution 9ooke) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NGES: COAM7ISSIONERS: None. ABScNT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ADJO~RVMENT - There being no fur±her business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIcD. The meeting adjourned at 5:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C~~-~/ f~~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~}~ * ~' t ~ ~. ~ ,._.~ ~