The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1966/06/20~~ City Hall Anaheim, California June 20, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PL.ANNING COP+IMISSIOi~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Plannino Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum oeing present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - CONMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. PRESENT _ - Development Services Director: r Assistant Development Services Zoning Supervisor: Director: Robert Mickelsen Planning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy Cit Attorne Y Y` Ronald Grudzinski Office Engineer: Furman Roberts Associate Planner: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson PLEDGE OF Planning Commission Secretar Y' Niarvin W. ICrie9er Ann Krebs ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer 1ed the Pledga oi Allegiance to the 'rlag. APPROVAL OF THE MINU?'ES - Minutes of tne meetin~s of h1a~ ' 23 and June 5 i965 as su umitted. , , wa*e approveo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WAVERLY WATKINS, ET AL, 450 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, ?ERhiIT N0. 851 California, Owner; LARRY RAY, 112 North McPherson Road, Orange,California, A9ent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the south- east corner of Romneya Drive and Harbor Boulevard and having irontages of approximately 122 feet on Romneya Drive and approximately 120 feet on Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Waverly Watkins, the petitioner, indicated his presence in the Council Chamber to answer questions. The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether he would stipulate to development of the property in accordance with the C-1 Zone site development standards, as indicated on the Report to the Commission, to which Mr. Watkins replied in the affirmative. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Dwolwayttrafficecirculationawhich would~ elext~emelyWdifficulttduePtolthenflowaofptrafficg along Harbor and Anaheim Boulevards. ~ Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that 45-foot half width dedication was required along Harbor Boulevard, and upon receipt of said dedication, the curbs would be relocated, ar.d that a corner radius return was necessary at the intersection of Romneya Drive and Harbor Boulevard. The Commission revi.ewed the ingress and egress proposed by the petitioner and noted that if ingress from Harbor Boulevard were provided, and the parking stalls angled in such a manner to encourage the motorist to leave the parking area to Romneya Drive, there would be less possibility of accidents at said intersection. Mr. Robert Colwell, architect of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether or not one-way drives Could be requiredg however, the Commission was of the opinion that if a change was made to provide angle parking of appsoximately 15°, this would encourage egress to Rornneya Drive, whereupon Mr. Colwell stipulated to the angle park- ing as recommended by the Commission. 3078 ~;d ~ ~ ~ ~~ t City Hall Anaheim, California June 20, 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 Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. PRESENT _ - Development Services Directors Nl~r. JrsLorn Assistant Development Services Directors Robert N~ickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planners Jack Christoffers~n Associate Planners Marvin W. Krieger Planning Commission Secretarys Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF THE MINU -!y~ir.ul~~s of tl;e moeLi~i~s o: :dzy 23 and ~.., -', 19' :', N'=re a;~p-ru.~„ TES ~; s~:Lrnil'.cJ, CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WAVERLY WATKINS, ET AL, 450 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, PL~f~iIr.N);_851 California, Owner; IARRY RAY, 112 North McPherson Road, Orange,California, ~ Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the south- east corner of Romneya Drive and Harbor Boulevard and having frontages of approximately 122 feet on Romneya Drive and approximately 120 feet on Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Waverly Watkins, the petitioner, indicated his presence in the Council Chamber to ansH~er questi.ons. The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether he would stipulate to development of the property in accordance with the C-1 Zone site development standards, as indicated on the .',eport to the Commission, to which Mr. Watkins replied in the affirmative. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. During the review of the plans by the Commission it was noted the petitioner was proposin~ two-way traffic circulation which would be ex:r=mely difficult due to the flow of traffic along tiar.bor and l;;~aheim Boulevards. • Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that a5-foot half width dedication was r=qui.red along Harbor Boulevard, and upon receipt of said dedication, the curbs would be relocated, and that a corner radius return was necessary at the intersection of ftomneya Drive and Harbor Boulevard. The Commission reviewed the ingress and egress proposed by the petitioner and noted that if ingress from Harbor Boulevard were provided, and the parking stalls angled in such a manner to encourage the motorist to leave the parking area to Romneya Drive, there would be less possibility of accidents at said intersection. Mr. Robert Co1Ne11, architect of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether or not one-way drives could be required; however, the Commission was of the opinion that if a change was made to provide angle parking of approximately 15°, this would encourage egress to Romneya Drive, whereupon Mr. Colwell stipulated to the angle park- in9 as recommended by the Commission. ~~ 3 ~7r~ ~ 4 1 MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3079 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 2078, Series 1965-66, and PERMIT N0. 851 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to (Continued) grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 851, subject to conditions and the redesigning of the parking area to provide for angle parking which would encourage the motorist to exit onto Romneya Drive. (See Resolut9.on Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDIiIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. TIC TOC MARKETS, INCORPORATED, 12311 Chapman Avenue, PERMIT N0. 852 Garden Grove, California, Owner; BETTY OLSEN, 1662 Chateau, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permi~~ion to ESTABLISH A HOFBRAU WITH (NJ-SALE BEER AND WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN A FREE-STANDING SIGN AND A ROOF SIGN, (2) WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, AND (3) WAIVER OF ROOF SIGN LOCATION on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and East Street and having frontages of approximately 244 feet on Sycamore Street and approximately 220 feet on East Street, and further described as 514 North East Street. Mr. Miles Wright, proposed lessee of the hofbrau, appeared before the Commission and stated that if opposition was expressed to the size of the sign, this could be reduced to conform with requirements. Mr. Les King, 1221 East Sycamore Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to ; subject petition and stated that noises from the refrigeration units along the east property ; line of the existing commercial structures were detrimental to the peace, health, and safety ~ of the residents immediately abutting subject property, and that the proposed use would in- crease the traffic for the smail shopping center by 30%. Furthermore, many children patron- ized this small shopping center, and the proposed use would be incompatible and have a deleterious effect on the other uses which could be e~tablished in this small shopping area. ; Mr. Wright, in rebuttal, s±ated that the hofbrau would be located at the northeast corner of the small shopping area and would be placed in such a position that it would be ur.obtrusive _I to the view and would have no injurious effect on the children. Mr. J. R. Kruz appeared before the Commission and stated he had subject property under a long-term lease; that he was aware of the refrigeration problem and had ~sked the tenants to relocate their refrigeration to the roof; and that h.e was not attempti~g to antagonize his neighbors. The Commission noted that the commercial development was having difficulty in providing adequate trash storage areas since they were presently located in the parking lot. Mr. Kruz stated it had been hoped that at the time the revised plans were submitted the first part of the year, access could be gained to the rear portion of the commercial struc- tures from Glenwood Drive and Sycamore Street; however, the strict interpretation of the Commission's resolution nullified any chance of having both accesses,and a six-foot masonry wall was required; that he was attempting to have a clean appearing center and was attempt- ing to find a practical approach to the problem. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Comrnissioner ~auer offered Resolution No. 2079, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 852, on the basis that the proposed hofbrau was actually a beer bar, and as such was incompatibie to the small, neighborhood convenience shopping area; that the location of thrr hofbrau would be abutting to the northeast, adjacent to the single-family residential de•~elopment, and noises from juke boxes and persons patronizing the bar would be objectionable; th•it the proposed use would require more parking than the original retail use established for the area, and this would compound a parkin9 problem due to the fact that under a previous petition for a restaurant, the Commission waived eight parking spaces, and this would reduce the number of parkin9 spaces needed by an additional five spaces. (See Resolutio~ ;3ook.) `{ ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the rollowing vote: i~ AYES: COMMISSiONFRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. ~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ;~ ~ AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~ ' ~: ; ~ F -- . ~ ) MINUTES, CITY PT.ANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3080 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLiC HEARING. W. J. TROUTMAN AND J. R. SCHOLZ, 617 East Lincoln Avenue, PERMIT N0. 853 Anaheim, California, Owners; MURRAY WEISBURG, 555 South Anaheim 3oulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; reyuesting permission to EXPAND AND REMODEL AN EXISTING CAR WASH AND SERVICE STATION FACILITIES WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) MAXI- MUM NUMBER Or' FREE-STANDING SIGNS; (2) LOCATION OF A FREE-STP.NDING SIGN; (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN A ROOF SIGN AND A FREE-STANDING SIGN; (4) MAXIMUM FREE-STANDING SIGN HEIGHT WITHIN 300 FEET OF AN R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; AND (5) MAXIMUM PERMITTED ROOF SIGN AREA on property described as: A rectanyularly shaped parcel or' land situated at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Water Street and having frontages of approximately 150 feet on Anaheim Boulevard and approximately 154 feet on Water Street, and further described as 550 South Ar.aheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Murray Weisburg, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the service station itself would be eliminated; however, the gasoline pumps would be relocated, and the sign advertising "service station" would be removed later. The Commission noted the petitioner was proposing an innumerable number of signs and inquired of the agent for the petitioner the need for so many signs. Mr. Weisburg stated that because of its location, it was necessary to have adequate signing to attract the clients; that the proposed baseball sign would be located approximately 100 feet from the front of the car wash, and almost 50 feet from the sidewalk. The Commission noted the car wash on Katella near Harbor Boulevard was constructed with considerable thought to the design and had adequate s:gning, and inquired whether or not the petitioner had considered construction in a similar manner. Mr. Weisburg stated that the car wash he proposed was different but was also attractive. Furthermore, because of the competition in car washes, due to the fact that Anaheim hzd ten to twelve car washes, and studies indiceted only one car wash was necessary per 50,000 ~ population, it was necessary to use a different approach to advertising in order to attra:;t' more business. i ,~ The Commission felt the design of the building and the service given would be adequate to ;# attract business, not the number and size of the signs. Furthermore, the petitioner had not submitted adequate plans since only the signs seemed to be visible, and details of the car wash minimized. It was also noted the petitioner might later request signs advertising give-away items, as well as other types of sales - thus the signing of subject property might extend _ to six or seven signs; that the petitioner was proposing one large billboard which the City was attempting to remedy in the Sign Ordinance; and that it appeared the sigr. company had prepared the drawings for the car wash, rather than an architect or designer. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~9 ~ ,; .1 1~ .~x THE HEARING WAS CLOScD. Discussion held by the Commission indicated that the request for waiver of Section 18.62.090 (B)(2),maximum height of a free-standing sign within 300 feet of a single-family zone and the square footage permitted, was the only waiver that seemed to indicate hardship, a~; should be the only waiver granted - however, all requirements of the Sign Ordinance should ~.rt regarding the balance of the request. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2080, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner f~llred, io grant °etition for Conditional Use Pe=mit No. 853 for the car wash and service station facilities, with waiver of Section 18.62.090(B)(2)~ maximum height of a free-standing sign within 300 feet of a single-family residential zone (25 feet permitted - 31 feet proposed), and mzximum square foot sign area of 300 square feet proposed; however, the waiver of the balance of the request for signs of Section 18.62.090 (B)(1), Section 18.62.090(B)(5), and Section 18.62.090(D), be denied on the basis that the Sign Ordinance permitted adequate signing of the proposed use, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ "' i _, .i' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3081 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ST. MICHAEL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 311 West South Street, PERMIT N0. 854 Anaheim, California, Owner; REVEREND JOHN K. SAVILLE, 218 West South Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH PRE-SCHOOL. CLASSES ~N EXISTING CHURCH FACILITIES on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land Dounded on the east by Lemon Street, on the south by South Street, and on the west by Dickel Street, and having a maximum depth of approximately 215 feet as measured northerly from South Street, and further described as 311 West South Street. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOIJE. Reverend John Saville, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use•of the existing church facilities and the need for said use. It was also indicated by the agent that there would be no change in the design of the church facilities; that the small chapel would be used for Christian educational uses; and that the rear yard area would be for play purposes. Furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, Reverend Saville stated that the school week would be five days a week from 9:00 A.M. to 11:30 A,M, only. The Commission noted that one of the requirements of the previous petition required land- scaping around the parking lot, and this had not been accomplished as of the present date, and inquired whether or not the petitioner proposed to provide the landscaoing in the parking -, areas. Reverend Saville stated they were presently askin9 for donations for the planting area; however he could not state definitely what specific time this planting would be done. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the landscaoing was proposed as the last step of the completion of the church facilities. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~iscussion was held by the Commission relative to placing a time limitation on the completion of the landscaping, whereupon ihe Commission was of the opinion landscaping should be provided in the parking area within 180 days. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 2081, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to 9rant Petition {or Conditional Use Permit No. £~54, subject to conditions, and the requirement that landscaping be provided in the pa~!c- ing area within 180 days. (See Resolution Book.) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following voie: AYES: COMMISS?ONFRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CUh1MISSiONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD 0'NEILL, 876 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, PeRMIT N0. 855 California, Owner; DR. G. A. SALNESS, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABiISH AN OFFICE USc OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIV[R OF: (1) MINIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FOJT SITE ARFA, AND (2) REQUIRED 6-FUOT MASONRY WALL on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parc=l of land situated at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Hampshire Avenue and having frontages of aporoximately 60 feet o^ Harbor Boulevard and approximately 145 feet on Hampshire Avenue, and further described as 876 Souih Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RE3IDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. Charles Levy, 719 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared to represent the agent for the peti- tioner, statino that because of a death in the family the agent was unable to appear in person; that the dedication for street widening purposes had been made on May 25 of this year; that no changes would be made to the existing structure - however, the physician who was proposing to use the structure would utilize the various rooms for diagnostic, laboratory, anc waitir.g room purposes; that only routine traffic would be utilizing the property since the physician had "appointment onl~" patients; and that the required 6-foot masonry wall would be constructed in accordance with the request of the Report to the Commission since Dr. Salness had given him full authority to act. Mrs. D. F. Cunha, 411 West Hampshire Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated her property was directly to the east of subject property; that she was concerned that parking would be on her property; that she had a small child, and requested that if a masonry wall was constructed, that it be stepped down in the front setback so that a small child could be seen when cars were leaving the parking area. ~ r, t ~) MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 ) 3082 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission advised Mrs. Cunha that the Code required the 6-foot PERMIT N0. 855 masonry wall be stepped down to 30 inches in the front setback of her (Continued) property. THE HEAffING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 2082, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 855, with waiver of the minimum 20,000 square foot site area only, and requirin9 the 6-foot masonry ::all along the east property line stepped down to 30 inches in the front setback of the adjoining property, as required by Code, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution i3ook.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. COIVDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HARRY E. WENDLER, 115 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 856 California, Owner; FRANCES NEVILLE, 107' West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Ager.t; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN OFFICE FCR AN AUTOMOBILE RENTAL AGENCY IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMJM FREE-STANDING SIGN AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped ..,~cel of land with a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 130 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 180 feet west of the centerline of Haster Street, and further described as 115 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Mr. Frances Neville, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that the sign waiver request was based on the fact that the size of the sign was internationally uniform; that the proposed o~fice would be the head- quarters office for several counties in Southern California; that the maximum number of employees would be six; that the use would be for an office and no stora9e of cars would be proposed, nor would the repair or maintenance of cars be done on the oremises; further- more, pickup would not be from the premises since cars would be shuttled from the ne;:est pickup station. Mr. Seiwert, one of the executives of tiie oroposed car rental service, appeared before the Commission, and in response to Commission questioning, stated this would be headquarters office for sixteen ayency representatives throu9hout Southern California; that the car storage areas were located in 'Jan Nuys, Santa Ana, Disneyland Hotel, Caravan Motel, Fullerton, Orange, and at the Orange County Airport; and that the office would take rese:vation requests and route them to the appropriate areas. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the original use approved for subject property, that being an animal hospital, and that landscaping was not required at that time; however, this should be a requirement if sunject petition was approved, whereupon the agent for the petitioner stated that Doctor Wendler had agreed to termination of Special Use Permit No. 64, and that they proposed to provide for landscaping as indicated on the exl-.=bit pre- pared by the staff. No one appe~red in opposition to subject petition. TfiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson aavised the Commission that Condition No. 1 of the Repor* to the Commission should be deleted, because this was completed under Special Use Permit No. 64. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2083, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passaye , and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 856, subject to conditions, and a further condition that landscaping be developed on subject property in accordance with Exhibit "A" prepared by the staff, and the finding that the use of subject prooerty woul~ be primarily for a business office with incidental vehicle storage, and that no servicing of the cars would be done on the premises, as stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book.) ~ ~`~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, Perry, Rowland, Camp. ~ ~ ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: T7one. ~ . . ) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3083 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2084, Series 1965-66, and PERMIT N0. 856 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, (Continued) to terminate Petition for Special Use Permit No. 64, on the basis that the use was no longer applicable and as requested by the owner. (See Resolution Book.) ` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. p:~~ . VARIANCE N0. 1d03 - PUBLIC HEARING. LINCOLN PLAZA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 615 South Flower ;~ ~ Street, Los Angeles, California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF: ~~' ~ (1) MAXINUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-SI'ANDING SIGNS, AND (3) LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of Euclid Street ~I~ and Breadway and having frontages of approximately 460 feet on Euclid Street and a roxi- ~:- mately 610 feet on Broadwa Pro ert pp Y• p y presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~, E• ~ No one appeared to represent the petitioner. F• . 'F. ? Mr. Philip Soma, 252 South Brentwood Place, appeared before the Cor.mi:~ion :n opposition ;" ; and stated that he wanted clarification on the requFSt for the signs p•:aposed, and questioned ` if this would open the door for additional sign requests and waiver of the height limitation ~~ for the large C-1 parcel. ~' i f ; Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the opposition that if a particular parcel was leased for at least 25 years, the parcel would then be considered as a separate parcel, and F~ i signs would have to be considered for the individual parcels; however, if it was not under ',1 a 25-year lease, this would be considered under one ownership, and the Sign Ordinance require- I ments would have to be complied with unless a variance requesting waiver of the Sign Qrdinance was granted. ' Mr. Soma noted that a restaurant was being proposed on the northerly side of the service ~ station and inquired if the sign request for that parcel was included in sub'ect ] petition. ~~ -_ The Commission advised the opposition that the sign for the restaurant was not under con- C, sideration in subject petition; however, if the restaurant was constructed in accordance with the Code requirements, the variance might be needed if a free-standing sign was not within the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Soma stated he was interested in the height and the size of the signs as they were ~ related to the single-family devel~pment westerly of subject prcperty, and whether or not ;~~ . the signs would have a detrimental~effect on the residents of the area, and inquired if a E. sign constructed more than 300 feet from the single-family zone would be permitted at any height. ~ ,; 4 The Commission advised Mr. Soma that where residential structures existed more than 300 feet from said sign, a sign in excess of 25 feet would be permitted, providing one additional foot E~ I for each ten ieet of distance for the sign. THE HEARING WAS CL05ED. ~, Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the large size of the parcel, notin9 that ' only the southerly portion was being developed at this time, and alre3dy four signs were FI ~' proposed for the pa*cel, and if the developers developed the property in a piecemeal fashion, f I, this would mean a variance request and could create a sign jungle for that parcel of property, ~' whereas the Sign Ordinance was liberal enough to permit adequate signin9 for the property by :f having an integrated sign for all the commercial developments in the complex. @ . ~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2085, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~' and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1803 on ,_? the basis that the development would create a jungle of signs for the large parcel of land ~ if developed in a piecemeal fashion; that the Sign Ordinance was liberal enough to permit adequate signing of subject property in the form of an integrated sign; and that to •' ' sub grant ,_~ ject petition would set a precedent for a similar requestfor signing of the large C-1 ;:~• parcel bounded on the north by Lincoln Avenue and on the south b broadwa ;~ , ~ Book.) Y y. (See Resolution On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. i NOES: COMNISSIONERS: None. ,~ R ' ;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ - ~1 ,. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3084 RECLASSIFICATICN - PUBLIC HEARING. UNION OIL COMPANY AND HENRY STEINBRINK, 125-D South N0. 65-66-121 Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; LEONARD SMITH, 125-D South Glaudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that propercy described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Sunkist Street and having frontages of approximately 663 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 220 feet on Sunkist Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL CONMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish a service station and smail shopping center on subject property. Mr. Leonard Smith, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the Report to the Comi~~ission summarized the history of subject proper±y; that delay ~ of the construction of the service station had occurred in order that the Sunkist Street overpass of the freeway might be completed; that at the time the City Council heasd the , reclassification petition initiated by the Commission, plans for the service station were - available - however, with this petition plans for the convenience shopping center were also submitted; and that the entire development would be in accordance with the C-1 site development standards. Furthermore, additional steps had been taken to isolate ~the commercial development with a masonry wall and screen planting from the residential environ- ment to the east, west, and south. _, The Commission noted that when subject property was considered for C-1 Zoning under the County, one of the requirements was the hours of operation limiting the hours from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., and that specific uses were permitted; furthermore, in the Commission's recommendations of the reclassification, these hours of operation were carried through, as well as the uses, except that off-sale ]iquor was deleted. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts again emphasized for the interested adjoining property owners and opposition that even though deed restrictions were required, the City c~uld not enforce private deed restrictions, and this could be handled only through individual property owners. Mr. Smith then inGuired whether or not this could be handled throu9h issuance of a business license. Mr. Roberts stated this was not. the correct method, since it could only be applied through zoning, a conditional use permit, or variance. 2oning Supervisor Ronald :hompson advised the Commission that under Reclassification No. 65-66-65 the Commission had limited the uses to eleven speci{ic uses, and the hours of operation were also indicated zs 5:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Mrs. R. L. Holm, 2515 Eas;. ?a Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated her home was diagonally across the street fz~m subject properties; that property owners adjacent to subject properties had a ~on5iderable investment in their properties and wanted to retain the residential integrity of the area; therefore, it was hoped the ~ommission would still limit the uses to those originally recommend?d for better control in maintaining the residential integrity. Mr. Lewis Weir, representing the Union Oil Company, appeared before the Commission and stated that although he was not opposed to the recommended hours of operation of t.he previous reclassification, it was his thought that if any of the neig}~bors had trouble starting his car before 8:00 A.M., the service station facilities would not be available in time for tiim to get to work or school on time, and inquired wheth=r the Commission might consider the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. : Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2086, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ar~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-121 be approved, subject to deed restrictions limiting the uses to retail baker shops, barber shops ~eauty shops, drug stores, grocery storzs, hardware stores, pickup agencies for laundry, shc 3ir and dry cleaning, self-service laundromats, meat markets, variety stores, and auton. >ervice stations, and the hours of operatinn from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., and condi• •(See Resolution Book.) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution x,.assed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gaue~, Herbst, A4unga1l, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. , ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ~ Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at ;;:33 P.M. Commissioner Perry assumed the chair as Chairman Protem. ~ _, ,J 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3085 ;~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~x RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARI~G. PARK VILLAGE HOMES, Box 3236, Anaheim, California, N0. 65-66-117 Owner; FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth, Fullerton, California, Agent. Property described as: Parcel 1- VARIANCE N0. 1796 An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 733 feet on the south side of Yale Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 208 feet, the west.erly boundary of subject property being approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and Parcel 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel of property (approximately 734 feet by 320 feet) adjacent to and south of the southerly boundary of Parcel 1, the westerly boundary being approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PARCEL 1) AND C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (PARCEL 2). REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCEL 2: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: PARCEL 1: WAIVERS OF (1) MI;IIMUM DIS?ANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. PARCEL 2: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (2) MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT FROM A DEDICATED STREET, AND (3) MINIMUM FRONT BUILDING SETBACK. Mr. Henry Fredricks, representing the petitioner-developer, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting it would be similar to others constructed and owned by the agent for the petitioner; that the apartment development would be designed for the adult renter, and very few, if any, children would be in the project; and that of the structures the agent for the petitioner presently owned and operated, they were almost 100% occupied. Dr. Chris Johnson, 2770 Yale Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and st2ted that the City of Anaheim was attaining the reputation of having innumerable apartnent build- ings and service stations; that he questioned the statement that the development would be oriented toward adults, since control of children seemed impossible; that he was opposed to ' the many waivers being requested because there were no two-story buildings in the area; thzt `-~ when he purchased his home six years ago, the salesman for Park Village Homes had emphati- ~ cally declared that no two-story dwellings would be constructed; that the property values f would depreciaie if two-story apartments were approved; that the City had apartment units ~ far in excess to the demand; and that he had been iniormed that it would take five to ten years before growth of the City would catch up with the number of apartments constructed. r The Commission inquired whether or not Dr. Johnson was aware that Parcel 1 already had R-3 Zoning, without any restrictions, and that the petitioner was proposing to reclassify a portion of the large C-1 parcel to R-3 Zoning. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that only a small portion of the two-story development was requested for waiver of the one-story, and that one-story apart- ments were proposed between the two-story apartments and the R-1 home located approximately ~`; 135 feet to the northwest. ~ Dr. Johnson stated he could not see why one-story construction was not bein9 required of che entire development since many of the homeowners had considerable investments in their properties. The Commission stated that access was proposed to Lincoln Avenue for most of the units. A showing o.~ hands indicated eight persons present in opposition. Mr. Fredricks, in rebuttal, stated that as property owners of a number of apartment develop- ments ir, nnaheim they were aware of the property value~> as well as sir,:a-family homeowners; that the property on Yale Avenue was not restricted in any w=y to one-story development except as Code required; that if the Commission required one-story construction within 150 feet of the single-:amily home, this could be accomplished by reinoval of the northwest corner unit - however, this would destroy the Grecian architecture proposed; that all the additional units proposed would be oriented through the commercial property southerly with a cul-de-sac street; that he would reiterate the statement that the apartments were oriented to adults since this was similar to other developments they had, and he believed the proposed develop- ment would attract a higher quality type of resident who would be an asset to the area and the City. A letter of opposition was read regarding the reduction of the commercial portion to R-3. THE HEARING NlAS CLOSED: E ~.. ..J~ I MINUTES, CIIY PLANp1ING COMMISSIOP7, June 20, 1966 3086 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2087, Series 1965-66, and N0. 65-66-117 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, , to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification VARIANCE N0. 1796 No. 65-66-117 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution (Continued) Book.) F On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: C~~iMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp. ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2088, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage , and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variznce No. 1796, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll call the foregoing :esolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. - ABSENT: COMMI~SIONERS: Camp. Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 3:50 P.~1. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CORA RUSS AND LAURA DANIELS, 336 East Orangewood Avenue, N0. 65-66-122 Anaheim, California, Owners; A. E. GIESE, 1621 East 17th Street, Suite G, - Santa Ana, California, Agent. Property described as: A rectangularly VARIANCE N0. 1801 shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast correr of Orangewood Avenue and Mountain View Avenue, and having frontages of approximately 131 feet on Orangewood Avenue and approximately 268 feet on Mountain View Avenue, and further described as 336 East Orangewood Avenue. Property presently 3 classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. •:; REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. '; i REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED SCREEN I.ANDSCAPING~ AND (2) MAXIMUNi $UILDING ~" HEIGHT (SETBACK) WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. y_ Mr. A. E. Giese, agent for the petitioner, appeared beFore the Commission and reviewed the proposed neighborhood-type,convenience shopping center, noting that they P.ad tentative tenants for a market, a barber, and a beauty shop, and that the type of architect.~ire proposed would be in conformance with the residential type of development in the area. ~ Mr. Don Voorhis, 323 East Bluebell ~lace, appeared before the Commis~io;~ and stated his home was located approximately 125 feet east of subject property; that t;ie General Plan indicated subject property for low densi.ty, residential development, and a shopping center was not ~ indicated on the Plan; that the area had been maintained as low-medium density south of Orangewood and rt~edi~~m density north of Orange,vood, and this Plan had been adhered to by the City Counc9l when high density had been requested for the south side of Orangewood ti Avenue two years ago; that the proposed change from a low-medium density to a commercial ~ zoning was unnecessary ber,ause ther~ were r:~any shopping centers located in close proximity to Katella, Haster, Harbor, and Orangewood Avenues; and that fo~r major markets ~+ere within three-quarters of a mile of the area, and if commercial zoning were approved for Orangewood Avenue, this would decrease the value of the single-family residential integrity of the area ,{ and wo~+ld be an invasion of privacy since he would not be able to enjoy his rear yard and J ~ patio. ~ j Mr. Carl Sikora, 315 Bluebell Place, appeared before the Commission and stated his property ~. was immediately adjacent to subject property; that he was opposed to commercia; zoning for the same reasons; furthermore, approximately 70 feet of his property would be adjacent to the commercial development. ~. Mrs. Austin Fordyce, 339 East Orangewood Avenue, appeared before the Commission ar.~' st~ her property was across the street from subject property; that she had lived ther= . nurrc. of years and had seen the area developed from orange groves to two-story apartmen~s, end a!1 that was needed ncw was commercial development for the area; that in her opinion, more apart- ~; ments would not be a necessity - however, a small, convenience shopping center would be ~_ appropriate for the area; ~~d that she was in favor of subject petition. ' Mr. Giese, in rebuttal, stated he had made a survey of the area, and the nearest shopping * ~ area was at Chapman Avenue and Haster Street, approximately one mile away; that they were ~~ proposing to supply only the neighborhood needs and not a large shopping facility; and that I since multiple-family dwellings were in close proximity, no objection should be made since ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~~ _J MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3087 RECLASSIFICATION •• it was intended to have the architecture in accordance with the surround- N0. 65-66-122 ing area, and this would enhance the area because of the fact that subject property was primarily vacant. VARIANCE N0. 1801 (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission, it being noted that no need for the proposed facility was present - after the Ccmmission had viewed the site; that the logical extension of the low-medium residential development in the area would be more appropriate for subject property, and the introduction of commercial uses might set a pattern of development for R-A parcels fronting on Orangewood Avenue. " Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2069, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ' and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-122 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed reclassi- fication of subject property was not necessary and desirable for the orderly development of the community; that subject property was developable for low-medium density housing and would he a logical extension of the existing development; that the lights and signing of the proposed commercial develcpment would have a deleterious effect on the residential integrity and environment of th? area; and that the proposed zoning for subject property ' might set a precedent for similar requests. (See Resol~tion Book.) On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMNiISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2C90, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and odoption, seconded by Commissione:• Herbst, to deny Petition for Varianc2 No. 1801. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOI4ERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. A. R. IYJRRINGTON, 2133 South L~ara Street, Anaheim, N0. 65-66-123 California, Owner; JOSEPH A. MARTINEZ, Box 905, Orange, California, Agent. Property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land VARIANCE N0. 1802 situated at the northwest corner of Loara Street and L~rane Way and having frontages of approximately 130 feet on Loara Street and approxi- mately 180 feet on Lorane Way, and further described as 2~.33 South Loara Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZGNE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF PAINIMUM LOT WIDTHS. Mr. William Mauerhan, representing McDaniel Engir=ering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer quest;.ons. The Commission inquired if the existing residence on the northeasterly portion of the property was to remain, whereupon Mr. Mauerhan replied in the affirmative, and stated that the balance of the property would improve the area in general. Mr. Ralph Clark, 1608 West Orangewood Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petitio~ and stated he was also speaking for Mr. D. B. Crewd, 1620 West Orange- wood Avenue,.in opposition to the request for waiver of the lot sizes, being of the opinion that subject~property should be developed in accordance with the R-1 standards; that if the property cwner had approached Mr. Crewd and 'nimfbr additional property, the waivers would not be necessary. Mr. Mauerhan, in rebuttal, stated the lot area was adequate; however, because of the partial development of the cul-de-sac street, it was necessary to request waiver of the required frontage along a cul-de-sac street rather ±han the depth of any lot. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presenteo the lot layout to Mr. Clark and ~:xplained the difference. ~ ; ~~ 'rE . . . ~ ~; ~ MINUTES, CItY PLANIIING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3088 RECIASSIFICATION - Mr. Clark then stated he and Mr. Crewd would not be overly concerned N0. 65-66-123 ~' single-story development was constructed; however, if two-story construction was proposed in the area, this would create somewhat o: VARIANCE N0. 1802 a problem. (Continued) Mr. Mauerhan stated that split-level homes similar to those on the south side of the cul-de-sac were proposed. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2091, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reciassification No. 65-66-123 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing ~esolution was passed by the following vote: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. None. • None. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2092, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Corr,missioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1802, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, ~owland, Camp. None. None. AMENDMENT TO ANAHEIM - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLqNNING COhVAISSION, 204 East MUNICIPAL CCDE Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an amendment to Title 17, Land Development and Resources, Chapter 17.08, Subdivisions. Associate Planner Marvin Krieyer reviewed the amendment to Title 17, Chapter 1%.08, Subdi- visions, roting that recommendations made by the Commission in their review of the proposed amendment were incorporated into this draft; however, no basic changes were made - only that the chapter was revised to include the latest zonin9 changes. Commissioner Rowland expressed opposition to the fact that no requirement was indicated that utilities should be placed underground, and ~~til this provision was made, he would be 9pposed to the proposed amendment. Chairman Camp then stated that although he agreed with Commissioner Rowland's statement, there were several factors which had to be considered - namely, that F.H.A. required all new housing to have underground utilites; however, it might not be economically feasible for the City to be require:~ to put their feeder lines underground. Commissioner Rowland stated that until such time as the Commissicr~ was given the authority to consider the economics of a zoning change, it would be necessary for the Commi=_sion to consider only land use and not economic feasibility. Commissioners Allred and Gauer were in agreement with Commissioner Rowland. Commissioner Camp then stated that althouqh the subdividers could be required to put the utilities underground, the basic prok~lem was whether or not this would be practical for the City to place their transm~ssion lines underground, since, in his opinion, the City at this time could not afford to make this change in its service without greatly increasing the cost of electricity, and the problem was more apparent if the City required the developers to place the utility lines underground, and the City had the main transmission poles protruding into the air. Commissioner Perry felt further discussion should be h21d with the utilities people on the proposal of underground transmission lines before this could be considered part of the ordinance. Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt appe~ ; before the Commission to explain the problems in- volved in requiring the main transmiss':on lines to be placed underground, since no apparer,t `~rial was available to permit heavy duty use for underground wires; that the cost amo~nted ~'S200 per foot for 69KV lines; that this cost was a considerable amount to bear if the ~ _, .r ~ 1~INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3089 AMENDMENT TO ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE -(Continued) Commission were to require all underground utilities in subdivisions; that the department's major concern was continuity of service since problems existed in tracking down service breaks where feeder lines ivere aboveground; however, technically the lines could be placed underground if the cost of $200 per lot (and if larger frontage lvts were required, the cost would be more) was absorbed by other than the City. ?t was also noted by Mr. Hoyt that polyethelene cable had been used for some lines in other cities within a tract of eight to ten customers; however, he did not have all the answers to research and development by manufacturers, thus he was unwilling to use this material ~~~ for underground through feeder lines which he felt should still be served through lead- covered cable, and this was particularly true in cable terminations which always presented 4 , problems. ~ ' Mr. Hoyt, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the cost per foot underground was $200, whereas the cost aboveg*ound was only $10 to $12; that the cost of utility facili- ties was decreasing constantly as the City impro~•ed its facilities - however, the department did not hav~ sufficient experience with underground facilities, even though this method 'nad become popular over the last several years; that ne could see the economic feasibility of _, underground utilities in the Midwest where they had sleet, snow, and electrical storms; and that the cost of the facilities would decrease as the facilities improved. .I Commissioner Allred inquired what the City proposed for Nohl Ranch regarding the main trans- mission lines, whereupon Mr. Hoyt stated the City did not have sufficient experience in ~~ placing underground facilities for this hilly area. '~ Commissioner Rowland then stated the Utilities Department could operate in the same manner I ~ as the telephone company by acquiring space in commerci:l structures along the lines which j would serve the individual structures and the neighborhood could become a part of it. 1 , ~ Mr. Hoyt then stated that if the Commission should decide to require underground facilities, ~ he would recommend that the reference to topography be eliminate~ because this was totally unreasonable to place the facilities underground where difficult t=rrain existed, and it wo~ld be difficult to require a developer to place these utilities under9round because his overhead was already considerable, which would make it economically unfeasible to place ~ these facilities underground now. :I _ Commissioner Rowland then stated that the Hill and Canyon Area was projected on a fifty-year basis, and the staff was asking the Commission to consider the proposed amendment for projec- tion over a period of a number of years, ano there was always a possibility it would not be feasible to place these facilities underground in the ensuing years; however, he felt that i! the various service facilities could share cost oi the excavation if they were more coooera- ~ tive, or would coordinate their installation so that the streets and parkways need not be ' constantly torn up to place ~dditional facilities underground. Furthermore, overhe.:d trans- ~ mission lines in commercial areas were hazard, especially during a fire or a~iisaster ~' because of the szfety tactor involved. k: ~; E Mr. Hoyt then stated the Utilities Department had developed a special terminating cable i i which was being copied by other cities and was quite effective. ~ ~ Com;nissioner Herbst inquired how much damage had occurred durin9 i:he earthquake of 1933. i. ' Mr. Hoyt stated he had no statistics on this particular disaster; however, statistics were E ~ ~ compiled during the atomic blast in Nevada which indicated the lines held ~lp quite well. i r~ Commissioner Herbst then inquired what the nearest development date would be for the City i to place the transmission lines underground, and would a review of this requirement within ~ five years b= adequate. i ~ Mr. Hoyt stated he could give no estimated date, but he would like to have time to fu:ther pursue this requirement. Chairman Camp then stated that since F.H.A. required underground facilities, the City would soon be reouired to take steps to place their transmission lines underground because of the fact that developers would be demanding them since it would be unfair to sell homes on the `~~ assumption underground facilities were on the development, whereas the City still had their faci.lities aboveground. ~ _ Mr. Hoyt then asked for additional time to work with the Develcpm~nt Services staff and the * Commission to develop the proper wording for this portion of the Code. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY'PLANIING COMMISSION, June 20, 19`66 r 3090 AMENDMENT TO ANANEII,4 MUNICIPAL CODE -(Continued) Commissioner Rowland s+.ated that the amendment was very well done except for the item regarding underground utilities. - ,~ , Development Services Director Alan Orsborn advised the Commission that the amendment to Chapter 17.08 was urgently needed by the staff, and in order to expedite the proposed amendment, Ferhaps the Commission might consi~ler adding an amendment to incorporate the feelings oi the Commission at a later date, rather than holding up the entire amendment for one portion; that since both the Commission and tne Utilities Department were part of the City, if this portion of the amendment could be studied further, the results might set a star;dard for the industry. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated thai the Commission could make this amendment an interim amendment with a time limitation. Mr. Orsborn then read the requirements of the City of Riverside regarding utility lines, such as electrical, telephone, street lights, and cable television, placed underground in residential, commercial, and industrial areas which, in his opinion, would adequately cover any requirements the Commission might want as indicated by statements made previously. Mr. Tom Lacey, representing the California Edison Company, appeared before the Commission and stated his firm had been working with a number of cities in helping them to draft their underground utilities ordinances; that he would like to confer with the Development Services staff and the Commission regardir,g a practi al solution to the operation of the utilities facility in the conversion of the existing t,icilities to underground facilities, since this need was apparent by the great number of new tracts they had been requested to serve with underground facilities; that with the use of polyethelene on ~he conduits, the cost has varied from $45 to $200 per lot, and with the technical skills of their engineers, it was hoped further results could 'oe obtained - however, he was unfamiliar with the technical studies now taking place in their laboratories; and that, in his opinion, he felt under- ground utility facilities should be covered unde* a separate ordinance, rather than in- corporated into the present ordinance. THE HEARING WAS CLQSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to adopting the proposed amendment on an interim basis, the consensue of opinion being that if passed on an interim basis, there would be many types of enforcement problems for the staff to face, wriereas this could be placed on at least a six-month basis and without indication and ar.~endments mada after studies made had been completed by the staff. Commissioner Rowland offe*ed Resolution No. 2093, Series 1965-66, and moved ior its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that amend- ment be made to Title 17, Chapter 17.08, Subdivisions, as indicated on Exhibit "A", with amendments 6eing made to Section 17.08.300(1), referring to underground electrical and commi~nications distribution systems, and Section 17.08.330 to read "Utility lines including, but not limited to, electrical, telephone, street lights and cable television shall be placed underground. Necessary surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, ducts, street lighting or signal control cabinets and other associated equipment in an underground system may be placed aboveground. The Utilities Director may waive the requirements of this paragraph if topographical, soil or other conditions make such underground installations impractical. This paragraph shall not apply to telephone or electric transmission lines or other sucn lines which do not provide service to the area being subdivided or developed". (See Resolution Book.) Gn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOI7ERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Pe*ry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COfvVdISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ _~ , ~ MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3091 AMENDMENT TO ANpHEIM - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMA7ISSION, 204 East MUNICIPAL CODE Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an amendment to Title 18, Zoning, by the addition of Chapter 18.65, Regulations for the storage of camp cars, trailers, boats, and other commercial vetiicles. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that camp cars and trailers were covered under Section 15.28.240 of the Anaheim Municipal Code established in 1949, and amended ia 1953; however, a problem now existed with the residential front yards having the storage of camp cars and trailers. Furthermore, upon review of Chapter 15.28 it was noted limitation of these facilities was not indicated for commercial or industrial purposes - - where they were used as construction headquarters, similar to an office building,until the r.--~~$ permanent structure was built; and the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to distinguish ~'i~` the definition of the various types of trailers and camp cars from that or9.ginally established. ~:;~ ~ p- . Inspector A1 Mandle,Building Department, appeared before tne Commission and stated he was ~~] available to answer questions since he had been involved with the inspection of trailer parks; f`: that trailers were very popular in most any type of commercial establishment; that the State l • Trailer Code did not preclude any local jurisdiction where specific code requirements were E~ established, especially where trailers were being used on a temporary office basis,in order ;Y p _ that the local jurisdiction could require proper sanitary facilities and/or electrical wiring I to be installed according to }he code. . ~' ~:~ Mr. Richard Laub, 519 North Redwood Place, appeared before the Commission and stated he has ~ been opposed to the parking of camper trailers and other trailers in the residential zone; ;~\~ ; that he had approached Mr. Roberts some months ago to determine whether the Code would permit ~ parking in an R-1 neighborhood since he felt this would create considerable problems in attempting to sell a home - however, he was not in the real estats business; that on his cul-de-sac street a camper trailer had been parked on the corner, and this seemed to ob- struct the view of approaching traffic -furthermore, the parkin9 of trailers was permitted, ~ and that in defining the difference between "parking" and "storage" nothing would be gained ~i ~ since the owner would only have to move his trailer every couple of days; and that a pickup 'I ~ truck was parked near his home, and this truck, together with a cement mixer, was always :'I ,~ parked in the residential area - this, he felt, was reducing the residential integrity of the area ar,d made it difficult to retain the market value of the properties in the area. ;, '~: ~I Mr. Wiliiam Hall, Dairy City, representing the Fullerton Travel Group - a membership having ~ travel trailers and other trailer facilities for camping purposes, stated he had owned one r'.~ since 1948; that the membershi of the p group c~nsisted of 5d,~ Anaheim residents; that he did not keep his trailer on his property since he did not have room, and the only time he parked his trailer in the street was at the time he was gettin9 the trailer ready to take I a trip; that an exception might be made to camp cars since this might be the only means of I transportation for the owner; furthermore, it would be up to the City Attorney to interpret ~' whether or not the owner of the camper trailer would be given a privilege not afforded other ! ~ trailer owners; that a parking permit should be for either a"moiive" or "non-motive" type f of trailer; and that the trailer association parked their vehicles only while packing their '~ trailers. Mr. Roberts stated that parking of a vehicle could be limited to 72 hours, and if the owner ~ of the vehicle wished to avoid being charged with stora~e of a vehicle, he could move it 'p:- ~ away for 48 hours and then brin9 it back again. ~ i Mr. Hall then stated that as trailer owners they did not wish to be discriminated against sinca these were no different than a large truck, and that in discussion with the members of ~I • the association, the general opinion was that the chief interest of the association was that , ~ nothing would reflect on the image of the trailer owner. Mr. Roberts then advised the Commission that Mr. Frank Shiiling of thr. 'frailer Coach Association had been at the hearing of subject amendment, but because of p~evious commit- ments out of town, he was unable to stay to present his evidence and requested that the Commission consider his evidence at a later meeting. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue public hearing of Amendment to Title 18, addition of Chapter 18.65, Regulations ior the stosage of camp cars, trailers, boats, and other commercial vehicles, to the meeting of July 6, 1966, to consider additional evidence presented by the Trailer Coach Association. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. P `F MINU:ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3092 REPORTS AND - ITEM AIO. 1 RECOWdENDATIONS Consideration of a new chapter of the Zoning Code numbered 1Se26, R2, Residential Low Medium-Medium Density Single-Family Zone. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented a proposed new chapter to the Anaheim Municipal ; Code entitled "Chapter 18.26 - R2 Residential Low Medium-Medium Density Single-Family Zone" and notcd that the new chapter weuld encompass the recently approved type of development ~ of single-family residence on 50-foot wide, 5,000 sc~uare foot lots where property had been approved for low medium or medium density residential development; that at the time the City Council had considered the proposed changes at their public hearing, concern was ex- nressed by the Council;thus the staff was directed to study a possible separate zone for single-family development on 5,000 square foot lots. e ' Discussion was held by the Commission and the staff reLative to the terminology of the heading of the proposed chapter, and at the conclusion it ~vas determined by the Commission ~ ihat if the chapter was designated "R2-5,OU0", and requests for changes in zone were presented or advertised for public hearing, opposition could be expressed more readily since the general public was more familiar with the R2-5,OOC designation than the R-2, Sin91e-Family Zone designation. ~ _ Development Services Director Alan Orsborn advised the Commission that the City Council had expressed concern that if thisportion was left in the R-2 Zone and R-2 zoning was allowed, this would permit a broader range of development rather than that which was originally approved when the Commission and Council reviewed plans. Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that consideration be given to the addition of Chapter 18.26 to the Anaheim Municipal Code, entitled "R2-5,000 Residential Low Medium-Medium Density Single-Family Zone" as an alternative to inclusion of said requirements in the R-2, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone. Com~issioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commisaioner Perry was absent. ITEM N0. 2 Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 5019. ; OWNERS-DEVELOPERS: MR. d A7kS. DIICK POY.RAJAC, 231 Carolw0od Street, _ MR. WILLIAM E. KUYFER, 1024 Bungalow Street, Arcadia, Califor.nia. _ ENGINEER: W. k. Kuyper, 14427 Joanbridge Street, Baldwin Park, California. Subject tract, located at the southezst corner of Coronado and Blue Gum Streets, containing appro:imately 7.5 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 15 M-1, Light Industrial, Zoned lots. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Map of T:act tJo. 5019 to the Commission, noting th= location of the proposed tract, a~d L::e fact that it was immediately adjacent to the proposed Blue Gum-Coronado Annexaticn; ~hat tne dev?lopers were proposing to subdivide the property into 15 1~-1 lots ranging in size from 20,976 to 29,403 square feet; and that utilities would be supplied by the City of Anaheim. Findings of the Interdepartmental Committee indicated that the proposed section for GreLta Lane was satisfactory to the City; snd that it is the policy of the City to allow a temporary waiver of sidewalks for industrial developments in this area. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange Cuunty Plannirg Commission be urged to approve Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. ~ 5019, subject to the following conditions: ; 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each ~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. i 2. That all improvements shall be instal.led in accordance with the standards of ' the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTiON CARRIED. Commissioner Perry was absent. ~ E - ~ .,,~ I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3093 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Reclassification Case No. ZC 66-28. (Continued) Peiitioner: Tic Toc Markets, ?~~c., proposing a zoning change from ; the R3 "Apartment" District to the C1 "Local Business" ~i:.crict for property located on the east side of Gilbert Stree`, 62 feet , south of Ball Road in the west Anaheim ar=a. ~ ,. Associate Planner Jack Christo:ferson presented Orange County :.ase D!o. ZC 66-28 to the Commission and reviewed the location of subject property to;cther with previous Co~nmission action on Use Variance No. 5716, proposing to establish the convenir:~ce grocery market by Tic Toc Markets on subject property. (~e of the findings of the ~ommission was the fact that if the use was established, this would leave a s:nall 42-foot wide parcel to ~h.e north which might be difficult to develop at a later date. It was also noted that the ~ity Council concurred in the Commission's recommendation of denia.l. Mr. Christofferson also noted that although subject petition was initi.ated by the Tic Toc Markets, the Orange County Planning Commission deemed _t advisable to initiate reclassi- fication proceedings for subject property and the small parcel to the north lo ~he C-1 District in Case No. ZC 66-34. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommerid to tne C~i`y Gour:c:l *.hat the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange Coun*.y G~se No. Z~: 6:~:-28, based on the findin9s made by the City of Anaheim in Orange Cou:ity Use Variance ~vo. 5715. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARR:'ED. Commissioner Perry was absent. ITEM N0. 4 Orange County Reclassification Case No. ZC 66-34. Initiated by the Orange County Planning Commission, proposing a zoning change from the R3, "Apartment" District to the C1, "Local Business" District for property located on the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Ball Road,approximately 245 feet by 160 feet in size. 's, Associate Planner Jack Christofferson preser~ted Orange County Reclassification Case No. ZC 66-34 to the Commission and ncted that the petition, initiated by the Orange County Planning Commission, encompassed property proposed for C1 "iocal Business" District in Case No. ZC 66-28, as well as the small 42-foot parcel to the north, rro~:t?r.y on Ball Road. Recommendations of the Interdep?rtmental Committee were also reviewed. Commissioner Herbst oifered a motion to recommen~ to the (:ity Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be ~rged to appr~ve Crang~~ Cou.^.".y Cas= No. ZC 66-34, subject to the followin9 conditions: 1. That the owners of subject property deed tc the ~ounty a strip of land 53 feet i~~ width along Ball Road for street widening purpos=s, including a i5-fcot minir.+~.!m radius return. 2. That the owners of subject property deed to the Ca~nty a strip ..; i,ind ~2 fee~ in width along Gilbert Street for street widening purposes. 3. That street improvements along Gilbert Street and Ball Road be in conformance with City of Anaheim standards. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Co~unissioner Perry was ahsent. ITEM N0. 5 Interpretation of tandem parking arrangement for single-family zone. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission a request of ,'~r. i.:. J. Bartt as indicated on plans relative to permitting tandem parking of automobiles whert space was not available to provide parking for cars abreast of each other. After the Commission reviewed the plans, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Development Services Department, Zoning Division, to handle any requests on a remodeling basis of homes where tandem parking was requested, on an administrative basis; however, this should be discouraged in the filing of any new subdivision maps. Commissioner Gauer seconded , the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Perry was absent. ~ F .} 1 / ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1966 3094 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 6 RECOMMENDATIOtdS Variance No. 1014 - E~caplish a restaurr.nt and cocktail lounge (Continued) on property located en r'~e east side o: Na:bor Bout~vard, s9u±h of Katella Avenue fno:~ dt~~cr~soed as tne wax museum;. +':ssociate Planner Je,ck Chrz,;,offe:r:;oi. ~:v'ewed tor the Commission the original apprcval of Variance No. ~.:!1~ _°~i• tnt res:~a~„!nt a~,_. cocktail lounge formerly located on the pro~~rty now d~veloped ror tf~e ~:ar. :^~use~+n and the Royal Viking Restaurant and inquired w~eti.~.r b~cause of the Ce-~~er~ id7.••Recreation Arna Variance Ido, i019 was applicaulE due to the iact that variances jnd -.~~.d'~tional use permits wera approved for property along with any change in owriership. Deputy City Ai:torney Furman Roberts stated that all aevelo~.nei~t in the COINL?T:;i~~l-~~crea- tion Area was required to submi.r, plans, and even though the vario;:ce did go wi?:h t~:~ use~ of the land, if these plans hz.d radically changed,the use was no longer e~;~;;cab:.e. Mr. Christofferso~i t.han statAci that a new conditional use permit had alread~/ been t:led, v;~th which plans hao' been subm.'.tted, for on-sale liquor in the Royal Vikino Restaurant. Commissioner RoHland offer?d e. motion to dalay any consideration of Varianc No. 1019,ta be considered in cor.junc~i~or.~,vith the new condi.tional use per:nit filed foi tie Royal Viki~g Resiau-a;,t. Commisslc%es Gauer seconded the mo~wion. PSOTION C.4RRIED. Commissioner Perry ~nas ab:~en~. ITEid NC). 7 Stre~t :~ame change - Paulina to Pauline S;,reet. Office Engineer Arth~.r Jaw presented a quarter-sec:tion map to the Commission which indicated that "Pauline Street" between Sycamore anu Adele •`~treets and La Pa:ma and North Street, although indicated as "Pauline" :...: :~ffic:al:•;r still "Paulina Stre;,t' a~d that at a recent City Council meeting, Councilman 'iutton reoueste.d that this ba investigated. F~~rthasmore, it was noted the rnaps and stree' uere already pos~•>d and printed as "Paulir.e :?treet" - therefore this w~uld be a forma~ity to require ser.ti;~g for public hearing cons'.~ie~ation of the street name change. Commissioner G;auer offered, a motien to direct the °2.anning Commisston 5ecretary to set for public ,:=arino consideratio~ of street name change rar "Paul3na Stree*_" to "Pau].ine Street" f^tY7QE ~ Sycamure z,^,u odei~: "~reets and La Palma and ;~?.rih Streat. Commissioner Rowland ,~~ond~d the motipr. MOTION CARk3~D. Commissioner P~rry was ab,ent. ADJOI;t:NMENT - There being nu further business to discuss, ",omm:ssioner Herbst uffered a motion to a;~journ the meeting. Commiss!.or._r Allred seconded the motion. MOTiON CARRiED. The meetir.g adjourned at 6:10 P.M. Respectfi:liy submitted, L/ci/~'~;;2~ ~./~~ ANN KR~BS, Secretary Anahei~+ P?annir~o Ccmmission ;1 ~~ ~ E I: ~. ~~ ~ .I . I r.y ~ ~. ~ ~' ! R ' .#:. ~! ~ ~e.~.q~ ...r-~er.e..e~~m~~ ra. ~oo~~a~.as~a~r.~. ~ .., ~ --7.-,~-^~ _ _' ,~.,,.~,~ -1c'.~- .-----•-'--_~........~-.c.+~f----^",~'~m. " "" ~ . -. . .' ~~ ~ •