Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/03/28~ ~ ~ ~ ; a i _ _t .~ ` , City Hall Anaheim, California March 28, 1966 A RFGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4 ~ 4 REGULAR 'NEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order. by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o`clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ~ PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zo~ing Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ' ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 1966, were approved with the THE MINUTES following correction: page 2965, paragraph 8, "Commissioner Rowland I abstained from votin~". CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GARY MC CONNELL, 2742 West Orangethorpe Avenue, PERMIT N0. 807 Suite M, Fuilerton, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABI.ISH TWO Yr'ALK-UP RESTAURANTS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fronta9e 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, ZOD!E. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of February 16 and March 14, 1966, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Zoning Supervisor Ronald 'fhompson advised the Commission that the petitioner hzd requpsted an additional extension of time to submit revised plans. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 807 to the meeting of April 25, 1966, in order that adequate time may be had to complete revised plans. Commissio~er Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUF'~ PUBLIC HEARING. GARY MC CONNfLL, 2742 West Orangethorpe Avenue, ='eRMIT N0. 808 Suite M, Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISI~ A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUUR (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 h~ving a mar.imum depth of approximately 276 feet, the westerly boundary cf subject property being approxi.mately 205 feet east of the center- line of Dale Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of February 1~ and March 14, 1966, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the petitioner had requested an additional extension of time to submit revised plans. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue public hearing on Conditional Us2 Permit [Jo. 808 to the meeting of Apri] 25, 1966, in order that a~equate time may be had io compl2te revised plans. Commissioner Herbst seconded the m~tion. MOTION CARRIED. Y; . ~~ ~ Cj _ ~~ * ` .~x ~~~ i1 i 1 ~ ~-~. - ..ti 2979 ~. E ~ .. , ~ MINUTES, CIlY PLANNING C01:_.iSSION, March 28, 1966 /2980 VARIANCE N0. 1767 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DOUGLAS T. MC DONALD, 6872 Via Sola Circle, Buena Park, California, Owner; requesting permission to waive: (1) MINIMUM SIDE YARD AND (2) MINIMUM FRONT YARD on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land approximately 134 feet by 34 feet, situated tanyent to and southeasterly of the cul-de-sac of Via Sola Circle, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 630 feet west of the centerline of Knott St.reet, in order to permit the construction of a single-family residence. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICUI.TURAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of Nlarch 14, 1966, in order to allow time for the staff to determine the owners of the remaining narrow parcels and for consultation with the City Mana9er and the City of Buena Park. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a survey was made to ascertain the ownership af the other narrow parcels, and ir_ was determined that all but one of the parcels was owned by adjoining property owners in Buena Park; that the remaining parcel was owned by the owners of the R-3 development along Del Monte Drive in the City of Anaheim, ~pon which they had constructed a masonry wall; and that the sta:f had heid several conversa- tions with the Buena Park Planning Department - however, no official action had been received ~ from the Buena Park Planning Commission or the City Council. Nc one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the many problems which might occur because utilities would have to be served by the City of Buena Park, and the property owner would have a Buena Park address, although technically in the City of Anaheim; that the parcel was too narrow to provide adeq::ate space to construct a home; and that even if subject petition were approved, the final determination as to utilities and access would have to be made by the City of Buena Park. Commissioner A11red offered Resolution No. 1983, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passaye and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1767, based on the fact ±hat the parcel was too ~arrow to develop for an R-1 home; that the approval ; by the Buena Park City Council was necessary in order to obtain utilities,which might create -_ some hardship; and that the petitioner, although `.echnically in the City of Anaheim, would have a Buena Park address which might also create problems in services for the property. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired of the Commission whether or not the staff should continue to contact the Buena Park Plannin9 Department relative to the possibzlity of the annexation oi the nari•ow parcels since they were already owned by adja~ent property owners residing in Buena f-ark. Chairman Camp stated that any further action reaarding subject property should be made by the petitioner; however, the staff could contact the petitioner and tell him to discuss his problems with the City of Buena Park. ' CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC NEARING. RAYh10ND B. TERRY, 2910 Blueridge, Orange, ~.;a)ifornia, ~ PERMIT N0. 827 Owner; RICHARD WAL5WORTH, 1122 West Collins Avenue, Orange, ~:,.lifornia, ' Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISN A WALK-UP RESTAURArdT WITH i WAiVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK LANDSCAPING on property described as: ~ A rectangularly shaped parcel of laiid with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and having a maxiRUm depth of approximately 150 feet~ the easterly boundary of subject property being approx~mately 560 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 711 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZUNE. - ,~ Mr. Richard Walsworth, anent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the developaz and prospective new ownez• of subject pioperty was present to answer any i' questions the Commission might have. ~ ~~ ~ ~ E MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COI~~.~iSSION, March 28, 1966 '29g1 CONDITIONAL USE - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Conaitional PERMIT N0. 827 Use Permit No. 787 encompassing subject and several other parcels for the (Continued) expansion of an existing motel and the establishment of a restau~ant was not being exercised. Mr. Robert McKay, representing the Taco Bell Company, appr~ared before the Commission and stated it was their intent to construct an ornamental masonry wall in the area marked on Katella Avenue; that the proposed restaurant would add a needed facility to the Disneyland area; that the development was decided to be the best use of subject property after numerous conferences between the owner and himself; that the owner of the motel was not desirous of exercising the right granted under the previous conditional use permit; that the proposed - development would eliminate an eyesore by dedication of the strip of land on which telephone ,,,_;;j~~ poles were located and which extended into the public right-of-way; and that it was their I i intent to save as many of the large trees on subject property as possible for an esthetic '~ appearance~ I Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not legal action was pending on subject property between the agent for the petitioner of the previous conditional use permit and the owner of ~he property, whereupon Mro McKay stated, to his knowledge, or the petitioner's, there was no legal action pending; and that the plans for the restaurant and the expansion of the motel had been abandoned because it was not economically feasible for it to be developede Mr~ C~ Fred Thierbach, 7l5 West Katella Avenue, owner of the 30-u~it motel immediately adjacent to subject property, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he was opposed to the proposed development and the request for waiver of the required 10-foot landscaping setback; that the proposed development was located within a few hundred feet of the Convention Center and was not a desirable development at the front door of the center; that it would not serve the visitors to Disneyland, but would act as "teenage hangout" which, in turn, would discourage tourists from patronizing the motels in close proximity to subject property; that subject property could be developed with a much more attractive use than proposed, and to grant subject petition just to obtain the dedication and street im- provements was an insufficient reason; that the proposed development would not add materially to the area, but would detract from the substantial investments of properties in the area; that the request for waiver of the landscaped setback would be contrary to the requirements of the other developments in the area since at a hearing several months ago, a similar re- quest had been denied, and to grant this would be granting a privilege he did not enjoy; and that no procf ef hardship had been presented to substantiate the Commission's considera- tion of granting the waiver. ~~ Mr. McKay, in rebuttal, stated the Taco Bell Company operated ten to twelve similar establish- ments in Southern California; that their standards were very high; that there was no meeting place on subject property where teenagers could congreaate, creating the so-called "hangout"; that he did not feel there were that many rowdy youngsters in the area; that many :amili?s with small children would rather purchzse tar.os which they could take to their motels and eat at a considerably lower price than if they had g~r.e to a restaurant for expensive meals; and that if the Commission required a setback to be in accordance with that previously estab- lished, after consultation with the architect, it was deterrnined this could be done. THE HEARING WAS CLGSED. ~ Ctc.-c~i ~ k-7 Commissioner ~ stated the reason he was desirous of determiry23 whether legal action was pending on subject property was because he had received an inquiry from Dr. Fisher, the owner of the motel,who had advised him he had taken legal action against Mr. Terry; however, because of business out of town, he was unable to be present at the Commission hea:;.ng, and that he was desirous of havin9 any problems involved on subject property clarified - whether or not the difticulty was with the title, the development, or oCherwise, Mr. McKay then stated he had talked with Mr. Terry that morning, but he had not informed him there was any legal action pending on subject property; that Dr. Fisher and Mr. Terry had always had a gooci relationship, and after Dr. Fisher had informed Mr. Terry it was not economicaily feasible to consummate the deal, Mr. Terry had tri~d to negotiate f~r another development. Chairman Camp stat~d that the legal action on subject property should be considered a private matter and had no bearing on whether or not the proposed use was a good la~d use. Mr. McKay then stated that after Dr. Fisher had indicated he was no longer i.nterested, Mr. Terry and he had attempted to find a more feasible use for subject property, and the pruposed use was considered the most acr.eptable. Furthermore, Mr. Thierbach had opposed the motel-restaurant operation previously considered by the Commissionj ~tf~~..,,, ~{ ~~~~ C 67227~2 G¢ ~.cws.~ ~ ~ ~ -, 1 MINUTES, C11Y PLANNING CC `ISSION, March 28, 1966 2982 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission discussed the compatibility of the proposed use, its PERMIT NG. 827 proximity to the Convention Center, the attractive developments in (Continued) existence in close proximity to subject property, and the proposed land use for subject property. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1984, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner A11red, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 827 on the basis that the proposed land use would be detrimental to Lhe development already established in~close proxi!nity; that it would have a deleterious effect on the Convention Center since it was located almost at the front door of the center; and that the requested wa_ae:, if granted, would set an undesirable precedent and a pattern of development for the Commercial-Recreation Area~ (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passec~ by the following vo*e: AYES: COAMAISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONEkS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIUNAL USE - U~~BLIC HEARING. LINCOL~ PLAZA DEVELOPMENT COMP:INY, Clifford Hemmerling, PERMIT N0. 829 Lessee, 615 South Elower Street, Los Angeles, California; JOHN A. JOHNSON, 9330 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, California, Ayent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH ON-SALc LIQUOR IN A RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of Broadway and Euclid Street and having frontages of approximately 460 feet on Euclid Street and approximately 610 feet on Broadway, and further described as 287 South Euclid Street. rroperty presently classified C-1, GcNERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, Mr. Allen Johnson, representing the Foodmaker Corporation and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~wTission and stated that the proposed restaurant was located on property already zoned C-1; that a bar was proposed for the restaurant, but the restaurant would be a family-type restaurant and the bar would have no stools as similar cocktail lounges had., Commissioner Gauer asked for clarification of the bar proposed, ar.~ whether or not this ` was just a service bar for the waitresses to pick up the drinks that were ordered, or ~ would liquor be served to the pa•;rons;that in his opinion, there seemed to be two standards as far as the A~B~C. was concerned regarding the prohibition oF children under eighteen at _ bars, whereas they were allowed in a restaurant where liquor was also served and no signing of the prupert.y indicated children were not permitted to patronize the establishment. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that where the serving of liquor was incidental to the serving of food, ti~e AeB.C. Board allowed children; however, where the serving of food was ir,cidental to the serving o~ liquor, children under eighteen were prohibited: Cummissioner Ga~er then stated tt~at the serving bar should be screened from view from the dining are3 with some kind of an ornamental screening. Mr. Johnson stated he would prefer not to be required to screen the area so that it would ~ not have the appearance of a bar. i ~ The Commission further noted that one of the requirements for the Howard Johnson rest.aurant at Lincoln and Wilshire Avenues was the screening of the serving bar so that the liquor bottles stored on the shelves would not be visible to people who did not like any zeminder i of liquor, and could keep chil.dren from being subjected to an undesirable influence so early in life~ Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the effects of open service bars on diners in a restaurar.t, and upon its conclusion, asked the petitioner whether or not he had bars similar to th~t proposed in their other restaurants, whereupon the agent replied they operated over 200 restaurants which did not have any facilities for the serving of liquor - however, the area in which the proposed restaurant was located seemed to warrant the serving of l:quor, and that although no stools were proposed for the service bar, if customers came over to order a drink, they were served, and the drink could be cortsumed at the b~r. ,~ The Commission felt the City Planning Commission and the City Council should establish a policy to require a complete separation of a bar at which liquor was being served, and if ;~ _ the bar was a service bar for waitresses to pick up their orders, these bars should be screened with ornamental screening from the main dining area in order to eliminate the ,~ ~ objectionable sigtit of bottles from the view of children and people who were opposed to ~~' the sight of liquor..r,,~. ~, .`?z 1 j , F,c _C/. C.~,.~,.. ~ ~ ~ , ~ L , -. `~ «<~u_. ~c~.~~., .~L i, n-( Lff ( 'e ~ ILC L L -M1 < < C .~I Ia! / -i [ ( ~. . ~ /t i e.-. ~ .. .e -,~~LG:._ ,~ <~ 1 ~ • . .. . ~ i f . ~/ ~ ) _ '" ..~ Z ~«, ` u . - L'-!;~ } e~.i (~~ /~i[rt.... ~.<< }~~~~/LL /' ~ ~~ i JC i < < ~.. ! / ` `~ !t-~~c~ . . _ . -~ ~L .. C... .,~ ii, .~• ~ . l ~ '_t t~..~ f c L Ii. , ..:. ~,• ... .. ~ ~ . !i.(~., .1 e1 ~~ .~.i'Z~ ~ f _ y/ ~,< ./ 5',r, . c . . r . ~ r ~~_ : : C: ,~~ ii/ . . - _ ;% ~ ~ . , _ . '~_. ~. . ; ~~; ~. t ; ". ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CGi._dlSSION, March 28, 1906 ` i; r ~d i ~ ~~ , ~" ~ '' ,~ a~ ~~ ,~ ~ , , k:~ ~~ . CONDITIONAL USE - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. PERMIT N0. 829 2983 (Continued) The Commission then stated that since the petitioner had indicated customers would be served from the proposed bar, although said bar did not provide seats, it should be separated from the restaurant. Cortunissioner Mungall offered Resoiution No. 1985, Series 1965-06, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Pe:~mit No. 829, subjec.t to conditions, provided, however, that the proposed bar shall be separated from the main dining area by a wall if it is to be used to serve customers at the bar, and if it were to be used by the waitresses as a service bar, that it be screened from view of the dining area with an ornamental screen. (See Res~li:tic; Book,) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungail, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo REQUEST FOR SPECIAL - Ccmmissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the staff to draft POLICY STATEMENT_~ a policy statement which could be adopted by the Commission and iecommended for adoption to the City Council which would reqttire any bar located in a restaurant to be completely separated with a wall from the main dining area, and also with a separate entrance, and if the bar was only a service bar, it would be separated from the main dining area with an ornamentai screen. Commissioner "7unga1l seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO.,_1774 - PUBLIC HEARING. GULF OIL CURPc~RATION, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, California, Owner; GENERAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY, P. 0. Box 5639, Buena Park, Califurnia, Agent; requesting permission to waive: (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS PERMI;7ED, (2) MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT, (3) MAXIMUM PERNITTED SIGN AREA, AND (4) WAIVER OF SIGN LOCATION on property described as: Hn irregu- larly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner oi La Palma /~venue and Dowlinc Avenue and having frontages of approx.imately 150 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 150 feet on Dowling Avenue, and further described as 3105 East La Palma Avenue. Progerty presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSI~RIAL, AND P-L, ~ARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONES. Mr. Don Fink, representinq the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated additional identification was necessary for the ~ervice station ope:ators in ordei to be successful and remain in business, and that the other three service storions at the intersection of Dowling and La Palma Avenues had similar signing and also had freeway-oriented signs~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that the maximum limitation for signs on subject property was 53 feet and was based on the half-wirith of the st:eet and distance from an R-A structure. The C~mmission inquired how the location and hei.ght of the sign was determined, whereupon Mr~ Fi.nk stated this was derived from line-of-sight studies made by Shell Oil Company. The Commission was of the opinion that if customers could not be attracted to a station with a 53-foot sign, then no matter how high the sign was approved, these customers would never be brought iny that the Sign Ordinance had been written after considerable disCUSSion with the sign people, as well as the various oil companies, and approval of deviations from these requirements would render the Sign Ordinance ineffective; and that although a service station was a permit`~d use in the M-1 Zone, it was important that all sign regulations in the M-1 Zone be str:.ctly enforced~ It was also noted by the Commission that if the oil cc: ~anies would spend as much time in the selection of the site of a proposed service statior. .3s they did on the types c~f signs that were necessary, the success of the service station would be greatly assisted. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ThN Commission in reviewing the land use of subject. and abutting properties noted tltiat the Gulf Uil Corporation had established their service station at that intersection after the adoption of the Sign Ordinance in December of 1964; that the sign limitations of the Sign Ordinance were reviewed by the oil industry, and waiver of the Sign Ordinance would be P '. • f MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~..:~~SSION, March 28, 1966 2984 VARI.4NCE N0. 1774 - inconsistent with the requirements made of other properties developed (Continued) after the Sign Ordinance was adopted; that the petitioner had not shown a hardship existed in land use; and i:hat although service stations were permitted in the M-1 Zone, any waiver of the Sign Ordinance would set an undesirable precedent for similar requests for signing in the M-~ ~one. Commissioner Rowiand offered Resolution No. 1986, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co.mmissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1774, based on the fact that tne height of signs in the M-1 Zone as depicted in the Sign Ordinance was adequate to provide signing for subject property; that to permit the requested waiver would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests in the M-1 Zone; and that the petitioner had shown no hardship existed to warrant deviation from the Sign Ordinance. ~ (See Resolution Book.) On roii call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY'_'S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMIdISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: C0~+IMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0~ 1775 - PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES WAGNER ENTERPRISES, 9777 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; C. F. MUELLER, 9726 Klingerman Street, 5outh E1 Monte, California, Agent; requesting permission to waive: (i) MINIMUM REQUIRED DISTANCE BE'IWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) SIGN LOCATION on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of Glen Avenue and Euclid Street and having frontages of approximately 140 fee* on Glen Avenue and approximately 240 feet on Euclid Street, and further described as 1139 North Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~o one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one a~peared in opposition to subject petition, THE NEARiNG WHS CLGSELI. The Commission noted that on field observation in the morning, subject property already had an illuminated arrow and directional sign to the entrance of the carwash, that the existing lights on subject property appeared to be in violation of code requirement, and inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furrnan Robzrts whether or nct this could be termed "spot" or "flashing" lights, and whether the foot lambexts for the sign was within code requirements. Mr, Roberts stated this would have to be checked with the Building Department since there was a possibility they may have had the correct foot lamberts at the time of the installa- tion; however, ;,:~P foot l~mberts in the lamps might have been chan9ed since the Building Department haU 9ivcn their final inspection, and that he wculd make the inquiry of the Building Departme~: relative to this. It was also noted by the Commission that the petitioner had, upon their inspection, more signs than code permitted in the paaking area; that there •..as a possibility because the carwash had twelve gas pumps,the site development standards of the service station should be adhered to relative to sign size and firE protection, etc. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that it could direct the staff to study the problem relative to the combined uses of a carwash and pumping of gas since the definition of a service station was considerably broader in uses than appear to be apparent in the pumping of gas and carwashes~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1987, Series 1965-66, and m:;ved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Fetition for Uariance No. 1775, based on the fact that no proof was presented that a hardship existec! in tha signing of subject property; that sutject propezty already had adequate directional signs; and that if the location of the proposed sign we:e approved, a hardship might exist in the devalop- ment of the commercial property to the west of subject property. {See Resolution Booko) On roll call the Soregoi,~q resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ I AYES: CUMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Gauer, Nerbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. , ` ABSEIVT: COMMISSIONERS: None. 9 w ~' ~ ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C0, :SSION, March 28, 19ti6 2985 DIRECTTttE TO THE STAFF - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion tu direct the staff to REGARDING COMBINATION prepare a study to determine whethcr or not in the approval CARWASH AND GASOLINE of carwashr•s with gasoline pumps that the signing and land- PUMPS scaping and requirements of the service station standards should :;~ly to the combination carwash and ~as pumping facilities of a c.arwash. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. M:)IION (;ARRIED. VARIANCF N0, ~'/76 - PUBLIC HE;r?ING. UOYLE & S;iiELDS REALTY COMPANY, 1333 Souf`; F~~ctid Street, Anaheim, ~alifornia, O~vner; E. BRIESEMEISTER, c/o Heath 8 Co., 32:?5 Lacy Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to waive: (L) NIMRER OF FREe-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) LOGATION OF FREE-STANbING SIGN on property described ,.,;. r~, recta~.7ular~.y ~:haped parcel of lar.,: with a frontage of approxirr,ately 340 feet on the east sioe of E.•'tid Street and ~~a•;ing a maximum depth of approxim~t~ly 264 feet, the southerly boun~~..,~y of suUjec± propert~~ being approximately 200 fPet north o3 the centerline oi Ball Road. :_onf~rtv presently classified C-1, GENc,iAL CUhiMERCIf,L, ZONE. Commission.:r !',llred left +.he Council Chamber a~ ;;25 Y..M. ""r~ ~ehn Rosebtra. associate with t.he oH~rator c: +.t,~ ~r,gfEe shop on Ball Rozd, k;~~~~~„ as the ~Hires Res`.~ur.•it, appeared be~~re th~ Commiss,ion and reviewed the reason for zequest- ir.•~ the free-sta,u'~.,,g sign on subject property which was in close proximity and located nn th~ Euclid Street frontage of an adjoir,~ng sho~,ping center, and concl~aded that because of the~ necessity for makina ~ le:t turn into Rall Roed, consideraE?e business was lost (because of customers not being .Na--~ it was nec=ssary to turn on Ball Road in order to gain access to the restaurant proper). The Commission expressed concern that granting subject sign variance would create a "cluttered" appearance on the small shopping cp;tar to the north with requests for indi- vidual idertif~c:tion of each store; that thz pr~posed sign was located approximately 148 'set westeriy of the property line of the exis*ing restaurant; that on Hugust 2, 1965, the Cor,uni:.:ion granted Variance No~ 17~1 permitting t~e location of a Free••standing sign adjacent to the west property line of the Spires Restaurant in order thai, identificatior. might be projer.ted toward the shopping center northerly; and that the petitioner had :~ot proven a hardship that additional signing was necessary in order to enjo; the same pr;~perty rights enjcyed by adjoining property owners~ No one appeared ir opposiiion to subject petition. THE N:ARING WAS CLOSED. ~~,m;,is;;u„er He:bst o:;fered Resolution Nc. 1988, Series 1965-66, and moved ior its passage ind adoption, seconded uy Commissioner Periv, t.o c~eny Petition for Variance No~ 1776, based or. th~ f~;t t:;at the proposed sig;i rvas !ocated .:pproximately 14' f~~t from the pioperty it was proposed to ad~•crti~e, thus makiny t a d`.recti.onal sign, not permitted by code; that the gianting of subiect petition o;ould set. an undesiraole precedent for sim::~i =ian requests and for requests !o advertise indi~idu~l, cc~unerci~i enterprises within a shopping cer.ter; ar.d that the er.ia Eng s-gn on the Spires ~iestau:a:,t prope.rty was adequate signing rnr the busine~s, and ne hards;~ip was proven to indicate otherwise. (See Resolution Book.; On ro11 call the foreguing zesolution was passed by the foilow~ng vete: AYES: COMMISSIONERSr Gauer, Herbst, Mlungall, Perry, Rowl?nd. ~amp. NOcS: COMMISSIONERS: i:one, ABSENT: CUMMISSIONtRS: Allrea. VAR1kNCE N0. 1777 - PUBLIC HEHRING. ti '/EE, INCORP03ATED, 200 Wes~ Mio,vay Drive, Anahe`.:;. California, Ovr.~~r; L. V. 60S7VJICK., c/o E1 Vee, In,.orpor3ced, 200 W=st Midway Drive, F,naheim, Californi.,, Age,~c; requesting ,.ezmission to EXPAND AN EXISTING TRAILER PARK ~,; oroperty described as: F; rectangularly sh3ped Farcel of land with a frontage of approxin:ately 50 feet on the west side of Lemon Stree~ ar~ having a maximum depth of approximately 11~, fe~•±, the ~ortherly ooundary of cubject prnpeit.Y '.~cing approximately 178 feet south of the cent.;r.line of `•1idw~;~ Drive, and further de~cribed as 1451 South Lemon Streat. Property presen•_ly cl;:ssifiPd R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDF,t';IAL, ZONE. Commissioner Allred returne~ to the Counci Chamber at 3:30 P..r.t. Mr. L. V. Sostwick, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the i:ommission ~nd indicated his presence tu answer questions the Commission might havee { ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C0, :SSIJ!!, :~arch 28, 1966 2986 VARIANCE N0. 1777 - In respors~ to Co.:;~ission questioning, the agent stated that the (t;ontinued) proposed trailer `.~rk would be an extension o' the existing one alrea;iy located on the street. No one appearad '..n opposition to suhject pe.*.,ition. THE HEARING WAS GiASED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolutio~ No~ 1989, S~rie~ 1965-66, and moved for its passaae and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer., to grant Peti*.ion for Variance No. 1777, sub;ect tc conditions. (See Resolutien Book.) r. ,~~ ;~; ~ ~ , i , ~~ '. ~ ; ~ R On ro~'. call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the follo.vii. ,ote: AYES: C'JMMISST.'~NE.^.c; At L ~c1~ Ga';c? , N~r.bst~ h:ungall ~ Perry~ ROwla~ d~ Camp. NOES: COh1MIS:iZC~^:c;:S: :Jone. ABSF.N:. COMMISS?C,~~";;5: ;!one. VAR?ANC~ N0~ ]778 - PJPLIC HEASING. LU5K CURPORATION, P. ~_ ~iox 1217 Perry Annex, tiittier, Co).ifornia, Owner; reqi~estin; ?ermission to NAIVE MINIMUM R;QUIRED FRONC SETBA~K (Tp pERMIT A VP.f?IABLE FRONT SETBACK) on property descriF.ed as: An ir•rQgularly shaped par: 1 of land borc:~~red on the east by Royal ~ak Road, on the south by Gatev.ood Lane, and on the north by Cres!ent llrive; subject property t.aving a maxir.um depth of app*oximately 800 feet as measure~ eaesterly from Royal Oak Road. ~rope-ty ~resently classified R-A, AGRICULi;1RAL, ZONE. Mr. Gary M~~rrili, representing the Lusk Corpor:tion, appeared befo,re the Commission and 5tated thai. with the hilLside terrain it had been ~ifficult to develop the homes to orovide all the hom•:owners wi±li a vie~w, and the requF.;te~ variance for a variable setback wculd give the ma~imwr, view to the potential homeowners, as we11 as widen the side yard and r~ve larger rear yards, a~,d ;hat ~eve'.oprt~ent would be in acco.rdance with the Hil'side Gradinc~ Urdinance establisi~e~ n~~ the City rela ve to any slupe projections. ~ No one appca~ed in oppc:;iti.,i~ to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS l'LUSED~ Cor.imissicr.er A12red offered Resoiution No. 1990, Series 1965-66, ..nd moved for its passage and adop}ion, seconded by Commissi.oner Mun~•al;. to grant Petitio~i for Variance No. 1778, subjer.t t~ conditions., (See Resol;~tion B~~k.) On roll ca1., the fcregoing resolution was passed by the followin~; vote: HYES: CUAdMiSSIONEkS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mu~.gall, Perry, Row_an~, Camp. N~ES: ."0!~`fAISSIONEkS: None. 4BSENT: ;~i.!MISSIONERS: None. RECLkSSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ X.YZ INVL-STMENT r'UND, Lessee, 5152 5each 6oulevard, N0. 65~-66~?9 __ Buena Park, Califc~r~ia; lviARJORIE S. CkMPBELL, 4301 West Commonw~alth, Suite H, Fullertor., California, kgent; property described as: An CONDITIG.~nL USE irrayularly s5aped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately P~4MIT N0. 828 150 feet on the wes: side of Aaach Bc~ulevard and having a maximum depth of approxir.~ately 165 iee:, the southe:ly boundary of subject property hei~g approximately fi50 feet nortn of ihe centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classiiied is-A, AGnICi'LTURAL, ZONE. RF.QUESTED CLAS~ FICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCI~L, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO ESTABLISH A WALK-UP i~ESTAI~RANT WTT:-1 WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJA:,ENT TO R-A PRUPERTY. Mrs. Marjorie Campbell, agert for the petitioner, appeared before tlie Commissio~ and st:ated the petitioner held a 99-year lease on eight acres, of which subject property was a pa:t; that the petitioner had agreed to provide the 2% landscaping in the pa:king area - how~=ver, a waiver was :equest~d of the reouired masonry wali and screen landscaping on the south property line abutting property which was presently zoned R-A, but which in her estimation would eventually be classified C-1; that the trailer park was to be loca±ed along the nortli and west property lines; and that the access road along the r,orth property line would be shai•ed between the restaurant and trailer park. i . _ ...,.; , : ~ ..:._. _ .r .~ M .,,._ . ,~ ~,~: ~ ~ , . _ . . V ' - , ~ ~.~.~ :~,,,:..~~.r..,~v.~~„~:.;,^,:;a: MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIJG COWL.:iSSION, March 28, 1966 298~ RECLASSIFICkTION - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that trailer NO~Fi5-66-99 parks were requi.red by State ordinance to construct a 6-foot masonry wall around the periphery of a trailer pa•rk. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 828 ~';cussion was held by the Cortanission regarding the request for waiver (Continued) of the wall and landscaping, it being determinad that the petitioner could post a bond to insure construction of ihe wal~ and plan.ting the required landscaping in the event the property to the south did not develop for commercial purposes. It was noted ~y Associate Planner Jack Christofferson for the Commission's consideration the fact that the plans indicated a free-standing sigr., as well as a roof sign, and '.f the Commission considered subject petitiorsfavorably, the roof sign would have to e~ waived since this was not advertised, The Commission inquired of the agent whether or not the p~rapet could be relocated, thereby providing for relocation of the roof sign to conform as a wall sign. The agent, after consulting with the arcl~itect, stated the parapet hid the airconditioning facilities; however, it could be chang=d to provide for the roo; sign being integrated as a wall sign~ No onE, appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE H=ARIIJG WAS CLOSED. Comm'~ssioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1991, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- tion for Reclassification No.. 65-66-99 be approved, subject to cor~ditions, and the provision that any airconditioning facilitizs shall be properly shielded from view from abutting streets~ (See Resolution Bo~k.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONEHS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COAIMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. -_ Commissioner Herbst offered Resol~ition Noe 1992, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, se~onded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 828, subject to the posting of a bond to insure the installation of the required 6-foot masonry wail and screen landscapir~g along the south property line, relocation of the roof sign in order that it be made an integral part of the parapet as a wall sign, and further, that any air~onditioning facil~ties be properly shielded from view frorn abutting streets, and ~urther conditions~ (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the fcregoing resolution was passed by the following vcte: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: None. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: None. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess for ten minutes. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 7he meeting recessed at 3:55 P.M. RECONVENc - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:05 P.M., all Commissioners bein~ present. ~~~ ~ ~x P 5 1 ) MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CU...iSSION~ March 28, 1966 2988 GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEAf,ING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CONA4ISSION, AA1°NDMENT N0. 74 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califarnia; propcsing an amendment to the Circulation Element - Highway Rig';,s-of-Way of the General Plan to establish the width of the south side of La Palma Avenue betweer. Anaheir Boulevard on the east and Harbor Boulevard on the west as 53 feet. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented General Plan Amendment No. 74 to the P~anning Commission and reviewed the action taken by the Commission on General Plan Amendment No. 73 which covered the area on the south side of La Palma Avenue from Anaheim Boulevard easterly to the railroad tracks east of Pauline Street. Mr. Krieger also noted that the General Plan Circulation Element - Hiqhway P,ights-of-Way presently designates La Palma Avenue, within the area under conside~ation, to be a primary highway with an exception for the south side of La Palma Avenue betweer, Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard. It was explained that La Palma Avenue would become a major east-west r.oute from the City of Lakewood ;o and through the Northeast Industrial Area extending to the Imperial Freeway on the east, and that with the completion or the Riverside Freeway overpass and the section of La Palma Avenue between Pauline Street and East Street, a trafric flow would be developed that wouid exceed the existing carrKing capacity of La Palma Avenue. It was further explained that in considerin9 the results of N~idenir.g on the south side of the street, a study was made of the fsasibility of utilizing a por±ion of La Pa~ma P~rk on the north side of La ~alma Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Lemon Street in lieu of re- quiring the 20~5-foot dedication or~ the south side in this particular area. A report from the Pa.rk and R?creation Department indicates a minimum expenditure of $276,000 as the dedication, if taken irom the north side, would pass through a portion oi the existing grandstand. it was further explained that the util~zation of the portion of the La Palma Park property would require the offsetting of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and, as such, is r.ot in .:onformance with the exi.sting policy of the City, in that the jogging ,:: moving of the centerline of t.t,e street presents problems in aligning traffic flow and, in the opinion ef the Traffic Enginee~, would create traffic hazards in addition to the necessity of main- taining an equality in dedication requirements. The report from the P,rk and kacreation Department further explained that tn> shifting of the centerline and the subsequent utilization of a pc,rtion of ~he park would further create a ' prob~em in that the La Paima Park stad:um is the heaviest used facility in the entire park ~ system - it is utilized from February 1 to November 15 for baseball, as well as the dressinq ; rooms being used for football during the football season. The Traffic Engineer was availabie for comment and question, and Chairman Camp asked that the persons who were present in the Council Chamber, as weli as those who were affected in the prop~sed amendment, be informe' as to what the approximate time street widening would talce effect. affic En3ineer Ed Granzow advised the Commission that no positive dates could be given, bit that upon the com~letion of that portion of La Palma Avenue between Pauline to East i St:eet, the Public Utility Commission ordered the North Street railroad crossing closed, ~ and that upon the closing of IJorth Street, there would be an immediate shiftin9 of some 6,000 cars per day to La Palma Avenue. The present traffic count west of Harbor Boulevard ~' on La Palma was more than 16,000 cars per day, and that the count could rise conceivably ~ to 12,000 cars per day east of Harbor Boulevard on the opening of the La Palma Avenue P extension. ~, Mr. Granzow further explained that with the openi.ng of the La Palma Avenue extension, and the opening of the freeway c~~erpass, La Palma Avenue would become an alternate route for N the freeway, ~ ~ Mr. Krieger furth~er advised that the study had revealed that an approximate value of the parcels on the south side of the street from Harbor Boulevard to Lemon, opposite the park, , ; was $264,875 exclusive of any c~;,ts necessary in moving tanks or pumps on the service station ~ at the southeast corner or Harbor and La Palmao A striping plan for La Palma Avenue as it ~ now exists was shown as an exhibito ~ ~ Mr. Granzow explained that approximately four lanes of traffic could be placed upon La Palma as it now stood; utilizing parking in some places and deleting parking in others. A discussion was held as to ttie possibility of utilizing diagonal parking for the park, ' and Mr. Granzow explained that diagonal parking would eliminate the use of gas tax funds for street construction. Mrs. Catherine White of 102-i06 West La Palma Avenue, the owner of a mattress factory front- ~' ing on La Palma Avenue a ~ owners. ~ PPeared and presented a petition of opposition :igned by 24 property '~: ~ MINUTES, CITY PLRNNING CO,..iSSION, March 28, 1966 ~ 2989 GENERAL PLAtJ AMENDMENT NO 74 (Continued) There were 16 interested persons present in the Council Chamber. Mrs. White explained that two years ago, when she had filed a petition to permit expansion of her r*~attress factory, she had been assured the street widening would not take place on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and that she had spent considerable money in the ex.pansion. She furth~r stated that the property owners felt the additional land needed for street widen- : ing should be taken from the pa. .. Mrs. White further explained that many of the property owners affected were elderly co~~les living on fixed incomes who had resided on t,he south side of La Palma many years, and since it was evident the expansion of the street would take a portion of the homes represented, they did not desire to be uprooted. She further requested ' info.rmation, again, as to when any such widening would take place. ::~1lf-~ Chairman Camp stated that all property owners would be contacted long before any street 1 widening took place since the property wo~ld have to be dedicated ;~ ' widenino. prior to the actual street Under questioning, Chairman Camp further ~tated the City would attempt to !-~andle traffic with the present street width; however, all property owners involved who planned to place their property on the market for sale, as w=11 as prospective buyers, should be made aware the City was contemplating a change in the General Plan Circulation Element requiring addi- tionai street widening on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and that if any p~rchase of property was necessary in the final analysis, a fair market value of these properties would be given. Mr. Joe Liles further questioned the Traffic Engineer as to the traffic counts on Harbor Boulevard, and if these counts indicated that La Plama could handle the possible increase in traffic without widening. He further questioned the advisability of the placing of a traffic signal at Lemon and La Palma; the Traffic Engineer explained that any signal in this location certainly would be coordinated with the other signals in the area. Mr. Liles further inquired into the feasibility of an underoass on North Street to permit North Street to be still utilized as an east-west street; whereupon the Traffic Engineer replied that Lhe Katella Avenue underpass, for instance, had cost a million dollars, and the railroad paid only 10% of tliat cost. Mr., Erwin Garrison, 948 North Helena Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that everyone on the street would be happy if the land needed for street widening would be taken from tt,e p:rk site, and in that way only one side of the street would have to be _ torn up and curbs and gutters replaced without disrupting the lives of any of the residentse THE HEARINu WAS CLCISED. The Commission was of the opinion that proFerty shoiild be acquired from the south side of the street rather than the utilization of the proper;y from the now existin9 park, as the cost of moving the stadium would be excessive, not to mention the proelems of disruption of the annually planned and scheduled park events withi~, La Paima Park. The Commission was further of the opinion that with the completion of the freeway overpass and the Pauline to East Street section, La Palma Avenue would become a major arte~~ol si,reet carrying east- west traffic through the City to and through the Northeast Industrial Area. Cortmissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1993, Series 1965-56, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Generai Plan Amendment No. 74 be approved, mak~ng La Palma Avenue a primary highway without exception~ (See Resolution Book.) ^n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AY=Ss COAM7ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COhMhISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMhiISSIONERS: None. .~ ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COh~..:SSION, March 28, 1966 2990 REPOR'fS ANU - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 745 -~pproval of development plans for a restaurant in conjunction with an existing wax museum approved by Resolution Nc. 1750, Series 1965-66. Mr. Nelson, representing the petitioner, ap~eared before the Commission and stated the development plans for the restaurant were Condition No. 6 of the approval of Conditional Use Permit No.745 in Resolution No. 1750, Series 1965-66, and that he would be available to answer questions the Commission might have. Zoning Supervisor RonaJ.:= ''hompson advised the Commission the plans indicated an access drive 45 feet wide, whe:~•.:s the City Engineer permits a maximum access drive of 30 feet, .,~~~ and that if the development plans were approved by the Commission, the City Engineer ~ would have to approve the proposed width of the acc?ss drive. ~E{ Commissiuner Rowland offered a motion to a .:i` pprove plans for development of the restaurant ~ portion of Conditional Use Permit No. 745, marked Exhibit Nos. 1R through 5R on file with the City, provided, however, that the proposed access drive shall be approved by the City i Engineer. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Camp ~ abstained from votinga .~ ITEM N0. 2 Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 4777 DEVEIAPER: MARJAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 843 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: McDaniel Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoin Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the south side of the Riverside Freeway, west of Mohler Drive in the East Hnaheim hill and canyon area, contain- irg 19.98 ~cres, is proposed for subdivision into 69 - 8,000 to 10,000 square foot R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lotse Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 4777, reviewing the location of subject property and also noting that the Commission had considered and made recommendations for approval of the tract at the February 28 meeting; that the Orange County Planning Department - Subdivision Section had requested specific conditions : of apNroval for drainage and circulation from the City of Anaheim and had met with the Inter- ~ departmental Committee for P~blic Safety and General Welfare to resolve these problems, at _ which time it was also noted that the sewer and, water servir,es would be available from the City of Anaheim in approximately one year after payment of fees; and that the recommended conditions were part of the Report to the Commission. Commissioner Yerry offered a motion to recommend to the f:ity Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider the following conditions, if Orange County Tentat:ve Map of Tract No. 4777 were approved: lo That a street improvement bond be posted to guarantee the construction of improvements along Santa Ana Canyon Road, excluding sidewalks. 2o That all streets shall be developed to City of Anaheim sections with a minimum width of 60 feet, except Mohler Drive, which shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. That a storm drain shall be constructed along the easterly line of Nos. 16 thrcuyf, 20 and 33, and in Mohler Drive, to the existing culvert under San~a ;,na Canyon Road. The easement shall be a minimum width of 10 feet. 4. That all req,uired improvements shall be cons' •ucted to the City of Anaheim standards. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~•~ , :~~ :i iI :i R ;' ~ ~~tY i ,~ ~E .. _. ~ A MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COi,. _'SSION, March 28, 1966 REPORTS ANp 2991 RcCOMMENDATIONS - ITE' ~~ 3 Locke Ranch Planned Community Development - Located adjacent to (Continued) the Yorba Linda County Club containin a e northerly of the Yorba Linda Freeway - 9 pproximately 394 acres is proposed ior develo~ment with single-family homes, apartments, commercia? shopping areas~ fire stations, schools, electric sub-stations, and green belt areas. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thom son Community Development Plan p presented Revision No. 4 of the Locke proposed by the developer-owner, Linda Investment Corporation, Yurba I_inda~Boulevardheandcthatnthe developmentpplansawerelig aetween Fairgreen and Linda Gene:al Plan, ccordance with the Yorba Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be informed that the proposed Locke Ranch Planned Community Deve~opment Plan, Revision Noo 4, has been reviewed and that the City of Anaheim would have no objection to the development of the property as proposed. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Perry left the Council ~hamber at 5:00 P.M, ITEM N0, 4 Vari~ a~~e No, 1633 - Request to reactivate Variance No. 1633 and extension of time to comply with conditions of Resolution No. 1127, Series 1963-64, dated April 13, 1964. Associate Pianner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that a request had been received from Mr~ Chris H. Rowenhorst, 801 North Spurgeon Street, Santa Ana, Czlifornia, requesting reactivation of V~riance No. 1633 and requesting an extension of time irom the present date of six months to comply with conditions, said letter indicatin the potential new owner of the parce located on the south side of Orange Avenue, approxi- mately 500 feet west of Knott Avenue. Waiver of the required garages and single-storys height limitation within 150 feet of R-A zoned property to construct a two-stor was the request of the variance. y apartment It was also noted that sub}ect to the west was church Property already had R-3 zoninq, and that the R-A h~i Property; therefore the request for waiver of the single-s~oryel of garages now~ ght limitation was a technicality, and that ±he P.-3 zone permitted carports instead Mr. Christofferson also noted that one extension of time had been re uested b the said extension of time havir,y expired in Uecember, 1964. q Y petitioner, Clarification was requested of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether or not subject petition could be reactivated and the extsnsion of time hearing date - as of this dateo granted from the Commissie,-,~S Mr. Roberts stated his interpretation of the time limitation indicated the Cortmission could reinstate subject petition. Commissioner HE•rbst offered a motion to approve revised plans marked Revision No. Exhibit Nos. :, 2, 3 and 4 of Variance No. 1633; furthermore, the request for six moriths'' exta~;iun of time was hereb 1' y granted, said time extension to expire September 26, 1966. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MpTION CARR?~D. ?~ . `~ ~ ~ ~~ 1~ l I T~~_ i Conditional Use Permit No. 780 - XYZ Investment Fund - Request for an !I extension of time for construction of a travel trailer park located on the west si~; of Beach Boulevard, northerly of Lincoln Avenue. j Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Cnmmission that a ~ Investment Fund for an extension of six months to complete conditions of Resolution No. 1842, Series 1965-66 request from the XYZ d:-a to financin ' 9ranted November 18, 1965, had been received with the notation that time limitation. g problems they were unable to complete the required conditions within the •~~ ~ -w.-. _ _,.sti~,~ ~. ~ t L r. r~ ~s a ~. ) ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~~~SSION, March 28, 196ti 2gq2 REPORIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 - (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a six months` extension of time for the completion of conditions of Resolution No. 1842, Series 1965-66, granting Conditional ~ Use Aermit No. 780 on November 18, 1965, said time extension to expire November 14, 1966. ~ Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRTED. < `- ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business ~to discuss, Commissioner Rowland " offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst ;~ seconded the motion. ht~TION CARRIEG. The meeting adjourned at 5:06 P.M. _, ~ . ,I ., ;i; c~ ~9' 1~ '. \ ~ C ~ ~ i ~ F` ~ ~ ~~ _ ':~ ~ ~ :1' ; ;i ~ ~'~ µ •= -.~ Respectfully submitted, ~/C/l-:il~~ ~~~,x,ti`~-i ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~