The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1966/08/15, .a i City Hall Anaheim, Cal-fornia August 15, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF "CHE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGUTA R MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commissior. was called to order by Cha;.rman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P,M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - ~ CHAIRMAN: Camp. ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungali, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Reberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Superviso;: Ronald Grudzinski Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend E. H. Lehnhoff, Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of August 1, 1966, were approved as submitted. NEW COMMISSIONER - Chairman Camp introduced the new Commissionar, Mr. Floyd Lo Fe-ano and welcomed him to the Commissiono ' ELECTION OF NEW - - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM - Commissionar Gauer offered a motion to nominate Commissioner LeWis Herbst as the new Chairman pro tem. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. No further nominations were made. Chairman Camp closed the nominations. Commissioner Herbst was elected Chairman pro tam unanimously. CONTINUED RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GAR-L0, INCORPORATED, 921.West Bevarly Boulevard N0. 66-67-3 , Monteballo, California; H. N. BERGER, 4333 East Liveoak AvAnue, CONDITIONAL USE Arcadia, California; and FAIRFIELD HOMES, INCORPORATED, 4333 East Liveoak AvPnuP, Arcadia California Own s h1AURIC ~ PERMIT N0. 861 , , er ; E KeRNS, 245 South Spalding Drive, Bavarly Hills, California, Agont; property dPSCribed ~ VARIANCE N0. 1808 as: Portion No. 1- An irrPgularly shaped parcal of land locatPd at the southeast cornAr of L • oai a StraPt and Broadway and having frontaoas f o approximatPly 141 feet on Loara Streat and approximately 2U8 fAPt on Broadway; P~rtion No. 2- An irregularly sfiaped parcPl of land ~ lying south a•; Past of Portion 1 and having frontages of approximately ~ 495 {PPt on Loara StrPat and approximatPly 860 fAOt on Broadway. PropPrty presontly classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. F REQUES~fED CLASSIFICATIOM: PORTION 1: C-1, GEtdERAL COMMcRCIAL, ZONE; ~ °ORTION 2: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RrSIDENTIAL, ZONE. j; REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USt: PORTION 2: PERMIT A CHILD CARc NURSERY. ~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION 2: Ni;.iVtRS OF (1) MAY,IMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MAXINUM ~ DISTANCE F1,!;ti A DWELLING UNIT 70 A DEDICATED STREET, (3) MIIJIMU~u1 ~ NUMBER OF PARKING SPNCES, AiJD (4) MAXIMUM D?STANCE FROM A DWELLING ~° UNIT 1'0 A GAP.AGE. i~ ; Subject potitions wero continuPd from tho mooting oi July 18, 1960, in ordar to allow t o tor the petitioner to submit revised plans. ~ ~ 3143 k~ ~ 4I ~ r . ,~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, August 15~ 1966 ' 3144 RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a N0. 66-67-3 letter had been received from the petitioners requesting a four- CONDITIONAL USE month~extension of time for the submissio~i of rPVised plans. PERMIT N0. 861 VARIANCE N0. 1808 Commissioner Mungall offered a motion.to contir.ue Petitions for (Continued) RPClassification No. 66-67-3, Conditional UsA PPrmit No. 861, and Variance No. 1808 to the meeting of DAcamber 19, 1966, as requested by the p~titioner. CommissionPr Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATTON - PUBLI~ HEARING. ARGUS INVESTMENTS, 449 South Beverly Drive, Beverly N0. 66-67-11 Hills, California, OwnPr; LESTER MARSHALL, 513 Las Riendas Drive, FullPrton, California, Agent; property describPd as: Portion A- CONDITIONAL USE An irragularly shapAd parcel of land located at the northwest corner PERMIT N0. 870 of JaffArson Street and Santa Ana Canyon Road and having frontagPS of approximately 165 feet cn Jefferson Street and approximately 114 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road; and Portion B- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontaga of approximatoly 280 fAAt on thP wPSt side o: JAfferson StrePt and having a maximum dPpth of approximat~ly 143 feet, the southerly boundary of subjact proparty boing approximately 190 feet north of the centarline of Santa Ana Canyon Road and bAing adjacAnt to thP northerly bounda*y of Portion A. Proporty presently classi- fiPd R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFIGATION: PORTIONS A AND B- C-1, GENERAL COMMrRCIAL, ZONE. RcQUESTED CONDITIONAL USt: PORTION A- ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE StRVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND AT THr INTERSECiION OF A SECONDARY HIGHWAY AND A LOCAL STREET. Mr. Jerry WallacA, roprasonting thP potitionor, appaarAd b=fore the Commission and stated that an investigation had b=Pn madP by thair company to determin? whether it was feasiblp to devPlop subject propArty, and also whathAr it wou16 ba considAred favorably by the Planning Commission, and upon conclusion of the investigation, it was determinad that tha proposed usA of subjAct property was foasiblP, evon though some problem might exist due to circulation; that upon discussion with tho Staff relativa to thP proposed use, numProus suggestions werp made to amend the plan; and that the Staff had seAmPd to be encouraging in thair commPnts r=lativP to ~ubjAct patitions being approved - howavor, upon rPCaipt of thA Roport to the Commission, thArA saemed to ba thrAA basic problams: access to JPfferson StrPet, existing shopping facilitiAs in the arPa, and possibla oxtansion of tha commarcial uses along Joffarson S-trAAt, but his cliant still fplt thp proposed develop- ment should ba givon favorable considaration. Mr. Wallace, in rosponsA to Commission quastioning, statAd tha company hP rPpresented had entered into an agrAPmAnt to ourchasa subjact property from Argus InvostmAnts, subject to subject pAtitions bein9 approved by thP City; that they had no conn=ction with thA tract devPlopmer,t company; and that the Plannin9 Staff did not amend thA proposed d~vPlopment - thay had only statad tho plan was a fAasiblo davPlopmant for subject property. Mrs. Martin Morgan, 217 KPnnabAc Driva, appAarod beforP tho Commission in opposition and statPd sho had a petition signed by 35 proparty ownors who opposad subject petitions; that thPy wAro basically opposad to furthor injAction of commarcial traffic along JPffPrson StrPAt, which would incraas= with possiblo hazardous conditions on thA completion of the freeway ovArpass; that thPrP wPrP adAquatP commArcial facilities to serve the nAPds of the rAsidents of thP arPa; and that thera were morA than adPquaLP service station facilities within on~-half milA of subjPCt propPrty. Mr. Robart W. GArber, raprosenting Prudontial ;;av'.ngs 3 Loar. Associatioi, 526 West Las Tunas DrivA, San Gabrial, appAarod b~forA the Cor.u'.ssion in opposiLion and siated that the officPrs of thP company ha rAprasAntAd asked tt~at hP appPar in opposition, based on tha :act that thay owned a numbAr of multipla-family zonPd lots which wera adjacant to subjPCt proparty; that thara would ba a considorable traffic hazard if access was again grar.tad subject propArty at Jaffprson StrAat; furthermorP, thPra would be further commer- cial encroachmant requasts for thosA lots fronting on J~fferson Straet if subject petitions werP approvod, and it would maan tha r~maining R-3 lots would requost two-story construc- tion to compensate for tha loss of tha rasidontial integrity of the zrPa if commercial facilitias wera pArmittad to be CIPVPiO(JPC~ on thPSP R-3 lots. Mr. Karl Davis, 212 Kannabac Driva, appoarAd bafora tha Commission in opposition and statad that pooplA in the area purchasad thPir proparty with the undPrstanding that thP arPa would ba residantial in character, except for tha axistin~ shopping center at the southaast ~ ~ ~ } MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1`i, 1966 3:.45 RECLASSIFICATION - corner of the intersectio.~; that there was an insufficient number N0. 66-67-11 of people residing therP to support an additional shopping fac?lity since the existing onP had difficulty in rataining its tenants; • CONDI?IONAL USE and that he uraently requastod that the Commission deny subject i PERMIT N0. 870 petitions. ~ (Continued) ~ A letter of opposition was recPived from the Gity of Orange Planning ~' Commission and read to the Commission. i. ~ Mr. Wallace, in rebuttal, expressed surprise at so much opposition being presented; that ~ although subject property was zoned R-3, they were discouraged by the number of vacancies ~ in the existing R-3 developments; that although subject and abutting'properties were zonc+d R-3, thay had rpmainAd undeveloped; and that upon thP completion of the freeway • ovarpass and off-on ramp connection, it would be a matter of time before more requests ~ for commercial zoning would be presented to thP Commission. , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission, resulting in the statement that no land use had ; taken place to warrant the Commission's changing its position from that originally estab- lished on raclassification of the proportias for commPrcial uses; that with so many vacant commercial storps, it seemed hardly likaly that the economic study made for the petitionpr would warrant anothar convenience shopping facility for that area; and that subjoct property ~i was still dPVelopable for multiple-family rasidential use. Zoning SupArvisor Ronald Thompson advisPd tha Commission that in conjunction with Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 870, the petition~r was also making a request to thP ~ity Council for abandonment of the dedication of vehicular access rights to Jefferson Street, and that the Commissio~ should make a recommendation re9arding this to the City Council. Commissioner GauAr offered Resolution No. PCG6-43 and moved for its passage and zdoption, secondPd by Commissioner Mungall, to rpcommAnd to the City Council that PPtition for Reclassification No. 66-57-11 be disapprovPd on the basis that no land use change had takPn place to wa•rrant a change in zona; that the petitionor was proposing abandonment of vPhicular access rights which would be datrimental to the flow of traffic along Jefferson Street upon complation of the frePway overpass; and that subject property is developable for multiple-family residential use. (SAe RPSOlution eook.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by thP following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Harbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo Commissionar Mungall offered Rasolution No. PC66-44 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 870, based on the fact that the land use would be incompatiblA and would ba detrimental to the traffic flow for Jefferson StrPPt and Santa Ana Canyon Road. (Se~ R~solution Aook.) On roll call tha foregoing resolution ~as passed by th~ following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOtJERS: Farano, C;auer, Harbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CO(v1MISSI01JER5: None. AB,.ENT: COPdMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Harbst offered a motion to racommend to the City Council that in connection with Petitions for Reclassification No. 66-67-11 and Conditional Usa Pormit No. 870, the request for abandonmPnt of thP dedication of vehicular access rights to Jefferson Streot be disapproved on thp basis that said dedicaticn is deemed necessary to reduce traffic hazards by r?quiring vehicular traffic to use alleys for exiting and entering thP R-3 lots. Commissioner GauAr sPCOndad tha motion. MOTION CARRIED. R _. _ ._ ._ . . _ ._: _,~__ -. .,. _.} ' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 3146 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANCIS L. RICKER, 2459 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, i~0. 66-67-10 California, Owner; HEINLY d RICKLES, ATTORNEYS, 611 West 8th Street, Santa Ana, California, AgPnt; property described as: An irregularly CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Lincoln PERMIT N0. 869 Avenue and Sunkist Straat and having frontagAs of approximately 133 feet on Lincoln AvPnue and approximately 124 feet on Sunkist Street, and furthPr described as 2459 and 2453 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONc. REQUESTED CLAS5IFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COM~v1ERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITH£N 75 FEET OF R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED PROPERTY. Mr. Dale Heinly, agont for tha petitionar, appeared beTOre the Commission and reviAwed the proposAd use of subjAct orooorty, r.oting the existing servica station at the north- east corner of Sunkist Stre?t and Lincoln Avonue; that tho increase in traffic on Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Streat warranted a change in land use; that since the installation of a siqnal light at thet intersection, th= noisAs had bPCOme mora intense; and that the petitioner also ownPd tha lot immodiately to the wPSt of tha proposed service station sita and would reside thera. It was also notod that the resider.ces abutting tha alle} used the alley to gain accAss to thPir garages. The Report to thP Commission fir.dings Were then reviewed by the agent, it baing notod by him that whenPv~r homes were approvPd adjacPnt to, and having accPSS to, artArial strPats, a problem of possible commercial uses for tha property always existed, and then he reviAwed the similar problem of traffic and front-on housPS along an artPrial strePt in Santa Anae Mr. Heinly also statAd he felt that subject proparty was a logical placa for a service station sincA one alroady existed at tha northoast corner; that the architecturo of tha proposed service station would ba compatible with tho residential environment of the area; that a wall would be plac~d on tha west property linP, and only on the north, if the Commission so dPSired; and that any servic,~ station would always generate some increase in traffic. Mr, Sam Collaronallo, 2449 East Paradise Road, appearAd baforP tha Commission in opposition stating hr• reprPS=ntod homeownars and property ownars in thP araa and was also representa- tivP of the Anaheim Sunkist HomoownPrs Association; that all of the property owners ir. the area were opposed to the proposed commercial usA oi subjact property; that there were 3,000 cars passing tha Sunkist and Lincoln intarsection•per oay (13,000 cars along Lincoln AvPnue actual traffic count by the Traffic Engine?r), and that if the sArvice station gPnorat?d traffic, this would add to the circulation problem; that the alley to the rear was not a through a11Py, but dead-endad approximatoly 850 feAt wPst of Sunkist and providAd th~ only accass to garagas, hoth for Lincoln Avanua and Ptradise Road; that the lights, dirt, and noise from the servicA station would not be compatiblP to the resideniial uses established in c1osP proximity; and tnat privato deed restrictions worA recorded at the time tha iract was dAvAlopAd, limiting tho us?s for subject property to rasidPntial only. Mr. C. T. MaxwPll; 2443 East Lincoln Avenua, appearad before the Commission in favor of subject petitior. and statad he livAd on Lincoln Avonuo; that the t*affic was very hAavy and it was almost impossibla to s1APp at times; that h? had no opposition to commarcial uses, but did not want developmAnt of thA Lincoln Av~nua frontage on a piace-meal basis; that the Commission should consider thF antire Lincoln AvAnue fronta~e rathar than for piPCP-meal devPlopment; that lights on tha streat wouldadd to tha opposition to residon- tial uses whan tha proporty on thA south side of Lincoln Avenue was devAloped since an orangegrove prAsantly axistad thPro; and raquostad that tho Commission giva serious considAration to an overall plan for commercial devP:opmant on Lincoln Avenue, oast of State Collega Boulovard. Dr. A. A. Johnson, 2432 Paradise Road, appPared b=fora tha Commission in opposition to thP proposed sPrvice station, stating thPra were tan service stations within four city blocks; that a health hazard existed with the fumes from the service station to the homes to the roar with small children; howQVPr, if the Commission felt the proposed usa of subjoct propPrty was proper, he urgad the Commission to develop the Li•ncoln AvenuA frontage in its entirAty, rathar than on a piacF-mPal basis. A shewing of hands indicatAd lo persons presAnt in opposition to subject petitions. ~ Mr. Warren TrAadway, 142 Paradise Lar~e, appaarad boforF thP Commission in opposition and stated that the homas in thP arAa ware abovo average in price and maintPnancA; that he ~, had parsonally invasted $27,000 in his hom=, having addPd a swimming pool in addition to R'~ ~thar improvemPnts; that service stations becama a blight in an area, since if they were ~~ not successful, they tendPd to bP poorly oparatAd and did not prPSent a naat anc clean I i' MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ August 15~ 1966 3147 RECLASSIFICATION - appearance for thP area; that if a service station was approved, N0. 66-67-10 the next thing to be asked for would be a carwash since carwashes seem to gravitate toward service stations; that the oil companies CONDITIONAL USE seem to offer more money for corner sites, disregarding the beauty PERMIT N0. 869 and residential integrity of th= area; that if anyone had purchased (Continued) these propPrties witnin the last few years, i+.. was done with the intPntion of developing for commercial purposes; that since subject tract had bePn developed for ten years, many of the people had con- tinued to improve their propPrtias; and that since hP wzs paying $600 a year fur taxes, he feit he had a right to protest the establishment of a sPrvice station in his area. ~ Mr. Heinly, in rabuttal, stated that one of the opposition had indicated service stations were a health hazard; however, that could not bA so since there already existed a service station approximately 40 feet from the proposad service station, and if service stations werP a health hazard, the City would havA closed them by now; that at the time he was a member of the Santa Ana City Council, he also did not likA the establishment of service stations - however, no one had the right to control whPth~r someone could or could not improva his proporty so long as it was not detrimental to the neighbors; that the state- ment made that only 3,000 cars were at the intersection of Sunkist and Lincoln was rather inaccurate sinco it was his feeliny 15,000 cars per day would be more likely; that all. service stations naturally had lights - however the proposed service station would have the lights directed in such a manner that thPy would not be objectionable, and if the Commission so dasirad, the petitioner would stipulatA to hours of operation and the con- struction of a masonr.y wall on tha north proporty line. Furtharmore, it was his opinion that development of the entira area would ba for commercial purposes within a short time; that difficulty would bA met with davelopment of the lots bacause of their depth, and land assAmbly would have to be accomplished in order to develop an acceptable commPrcial dPVelopmont; and that in his opinion, subject property was an ideal site for a service station. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that the servicA station established at tha northaast corner of Sunkist Straet and Lincoln AvAnuA was approved after evidenca had b~en submitted that the Orange Freeway would have an off-ramp cutting off said property in such a mannPr that the corner site could b~~ devAloped only for a servicP station, and that subject property did not present any ~~ra of a problam than 2700 otnFr homes fronting or siding on artorial highways, ar.d commArcial dpvolopmant had not occurrAd other than the servicP station site in the immediata araa. Commissioner Gauer a9zin stated that homas fronting on arterial streats could be shielded from the noise and dirt of thP strePt by tha construction o: a block wall which would give them added patio spaca, together with tha privacy so many pAopla dasired, and that this typo of traatmont of tho front yard had been accomplished in many cities throughout the country. Commissionar HPrbst offered Rosolution No. PC66-45 and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissionor Gau=r, to rocommend to tho City Council that Potition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-10 be disapprovPd, basPd on the fact that the proposed use would estab- lish a pattern of requests for commercial devalopmAnt along Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street, thus destroying tho rasidontial intagrity of the area; that with the exception of the State CollAg? frontagP and thA northeast intPrsection of State CollAge and Lincoln Avanue, the entirA area had 'oaen maintained as singla-fami y residential development; and that subjoct pruparty could not be classifiad in the same position as the service station at tha northeast corner bAcausA of thP existing dAvAlopmPnt surrounding it to the north and wPSt, wherPas tha northAast cornar nad a hardship problem in thP fact ~hat the off- ramp of the proposed freeway would limit thP devPlopmPnt of that intersPCtion. ~SPP Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing reselution was oassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Faran~, Gauer, Harbst, hlungali, ~owland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner HPrbst offered Rosolution Noo PC66-46 and mo~:ad for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissionar Rowland, to deny Patition for Condit~onal UsP PPrmit Noo 869 on L•he basis that the proposad usa would adv=rsely affect the adjoining land uses. (S?e Rpsolution Book.) On roll call the fore9oing rosolution was passed by thP following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, HArbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. P.BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. j MINUTES, CITY PL~fWNING COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 CONDITIONAL USE 3148 - PUBLIC HEARING. GIACOMO LUGARO, 420 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 871 California, Owner; SABER REALTY, 542 North Magnolia AvenuA, qnaheim, California, Agent; rPquesting permission to ESTABLISH ON-SALE BEER at the southeast corner of~MagnoliaSAvanuP and CrascontgAvanue andPhavingcirontagesdofocated ~ andrfurtherides8ribodtasn540gNorth Nagnolianq~eppeoxipTOPPrt218 feet on Crescent Avenue, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ P Y presently classified C-1, No one was presant to represent the pPtitioner. Mrs. James KahlAr, 526 Hanover Street, appParPd bef~re thP Commission in o ~;. stated that thA residential tract easterly of the naighborhood commercial facility was '''Y almost unanimousl o APosition and ~'~; Y pposed to the proposed use being established in a small neighborhood shopping facility; that thPre wPre ovar 100 childran in those tracts who patronized the U-TotP'm grocery store many times during thA da ' purchased thair school supplies at this facility; that many ofethPtary school children i,~`~ backPd-up to the alley of the commercial facility had all sorts ofpdebris, beerrcans~ etc., thrown across the wall into thair rear yards, many of th<m almost being hit by the flying missiles coming across the wa~l; that to pArmit an additional beer bar in this _ area would aggravata an unpleasant condition; and thPn presented a pPtition signed by 58 proparty ownors opposing subjact patition. Mr. John Hartman, 527 Hanovar Streat, appParod before the Commission and stated that his propArty backed-on thA allPy adjacont to tho corrJnorcial facility, stating that debris was thrown across his rear fance into his pool; that the on-sale of beer in a small sho araa was an incompatible and dAleterious usa; that the commarcial facility already suppliPd adequzte serving of alcoholic bevPragPs with tha off-sale at U-Tote'm and the servinglof beer at the Mpxican rostaurant; that the shopping facility was frequontad by children, and a baer bar was not a desirable facility for childrPn to view or ba subJected to; and tt;at the petitioner had not submitted any floor plans to indicate what was proposod and racommandad that tha Commission deny subjoct petitiono Zoning Suparvisor Ronald Thompson advisod tha Commission that tho potitionar had indicatod ; the bePr bar would bo typical of othar bars in that thora would bA an area for thA bar, tables, as well as pool tables. ~ Fiv,o pP~sons indicated thoir _ presanco in oppasition to subj~ct patition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offArad RAsolution No. PC66-47 and moved for its passagP and adoption, secondad by Commissionor Gauar, to dany PAtition for Conditional Usa PPrmit No. 871 on the basis that the proposed beer bar would havP a delAterious A{foct on the ar~a, duA to the fact that the children from tne nearby ,chool and residential tracts patronize the small shoppi.Rg fac;lity for school suppliAs and snacks; that tho small nAighborhood st~opping aro~ had a~oquata facilitips for on-sa1P bAAr with thA existing MAxican rPstaurant; and that the pioposAd bePi bar wo~ld ba an incompatiblo uso in the noighborhood shopping araa, (SPA kosolution Book.) Un roll call ±ha forogoing rAsolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ferano, Gauer, Flerbsi, Mungall, r~owland, Camp, IJOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. AESEfJT: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER A~;D NiRS. WALTER ~dULLER, 520 Vick Place, N0. 66-67-12 BPVerly Hills, California, Owners; DAVID W. HOOK 1 AvenuP, Suite C, Anaheim, California A Pnt. '~~6 WPSt Lincoln VARIANCE N0. 1819 A rectangularly shaped parcPl of land wgt~ a{roPtaty described as: 122 feet on the south side of Lincoln AvenuA and havingfaamaximumadeFih being approxirtiat~l of approximately 254 feet, thA easterly boundary of subjPCt property y 533 feet wast of tha cPnterline of BroadviPw StroPt, PropArty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. !:{~ , REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. r~ ~ .'~ REQUESTLD VARIANCp; WAIL'ER OF MAXIAIUM BUILDIfJG HEIGHT. i' Mr. David Hook, agent for the petitioner, appaared before the Commission and stated that ~' ~ the proposPd construct:on of a two-story office building would bA sim' ~~~ .ax structur~ his firm had constructed on Brookhurst Street; that the llar to thP office Ei proposed structu~e would [1 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15. 1966 3149 RECLASSIFICAT30N - be built around the existin~ pepper tree; that the proposed Spanish N0. 66-67-12 architecture would be c~mp3:ible with the residential development M to the south and west; that landscapin9 would be provided to screen 'JARIANCE N0. ].d19 ttie structure from, and assure privacy of, the single-family homa~; (Continued) that whara windows were proposed adjacent to the R-1 property lines, 'cranslucant gl~ss would be usPd; that ':he proposed r.tr~ct~,e ~+u~ld ~e similar to that which he cons+.ruc.rc•~. on Linco?~i Avenue vvhicli h~: no rear wzndows and :onsid~~aUie landscaping abutting tnf r~••1 ~'one, together with a~~as^.r.:y wall whi~,:h would also be the samP as would be placed alon; tt~~ west and south Firope~cty ..i~..a•~~; that thP petitioner had an oppurtunity to sell his property but had ..equested tha agent '_o presen+. c:velopment plans in order that a compatiblA development would br placed on the ~ proparty ~vhich would be ac.*.oss the street fro~, t'~a oroposed shopping facility at Muller Street and Lincoln Avenu=. wS~'ir.h would bA s:.n:~lar to the Town and C~~untry shopping are~ ~ in Orange; and that in :.ls epir.io.~, Com~iercial Office zoning was the least obiectionabl~ to single-family development e~nich h3d already occurred adjacent to subj~.;t ;~:cpelt•;- A coior.ad randerin~ of th^ :.rop~-~ed structure was then reviewed. by the C:immissiun and ~he purli c•.. Mr. Hcok furth~r stdtad tha;, ~hc. C:-•~~ Zcne was more compati?~1~ with the R-1 uev?)~^pmer.t sinca the propo.•~d St:ucturP woi~iJ L< usod only during dayli3h, hours; tha: ~:i~a ar.Aa being well lit at night would discourage childran from congr?yacing; anci that the :~ly noise heard at night wouid ba thu st:e~t swaPpAr. It was also noted t;~at th~ p~evious p~etition for ~:notal prAsAnteo by the p?titionor was not compatible With thA residential 3:Pa. Mr. Ja•~4s Chavos, 1903 Embassy Hv?nuo, app?ared bPforP the Commission and st~.tA,i he spok= for !~imself and a neiy:~bor, Mrs. VondWrloh, 114 Emorald Place; that his hom.P v:as 150 fAPt from subjact propArty - howovAr, Mrs, Vond=rloh's was immadiatAly adjacent aiong tha wPst boundary of subjPct pro~^r~.y; th~t hA was not opposod to C-0 zoning per sP - howavPr, :~ was concernAd wit^ tho possibilit~ that the valuP o: thP single-family hanAs would be grPatly affactAd if tho GO zenin.~ was approv~d adjacPnt to thA homes ir thA area: lha-. h? had cut shor+ his vacatior, i.r~ order to pr~s~nt his opposition tu thF Commiss~cn rAga:d- ing tha effact the proposed use would havo on th= r~,id~rtial intAgrity of th.- area; thst many ppoplo woulo b= affoc't~d ii cor~unorcial us~ v~Pro approvod, by not boing ~~l^ to re- finance their homAs bacause tte ~avings and lo~n co~ioanies foit commarr.ai usFS .~c~~ld h~ve a deteriorating pffact on tt~A r~••;daniial integrity ~f r}~e a-oa; that, the :.nbass~ F.~~enua froniage ::ould w~ll ba developA~1 tor tw~ R-1 h~:nAs, w'~ he parcPl 31on~ Lincoln /,•.~~~uA projected f~r commarcial us?, sinco otnar hom>s ir l:a z:Aa had boon faced with sim:.lar problAms and saemod to havP s~.:rvived thA so-callFd ^oisPs from comm=rcial oav=lop~nonLS; that proof was evidor~*. at E:ookhurst Sir<At and Urango P.voni:•~ that ti~is R-1 daveiopmont could axist on neavily travol~d sisPOts sincP thA dF~vol~rrr was constructing homos ran~ing i~ prico frorn $30,f ~0, qivi;~n thPsa homes a back-up t:Aatr,iPnt to the traffic along Grook- hurst :,traat; that subj~,~s ;~iop~rty nad boon us<d for rosidAntial pur~:osAs continuously for sixtePn y~~~rs and haa nA•~ar oualified ~~ndrr ihA ~c-N dPsignation; that ho was roalistic enough tc ~ndars`.and th<,t a property owr~or had thA right to profit on his in•restment, but not tc~ the d=triciont and :nLegrity of the residAntial us^: alraady astablished; that the propPrty now beirg use~ for madical and prof=ssional officAe: was approved by the rPsidants after a compr~;iiso had bQAfI rAachad by both tno rPsidAnts arn9 tha propos~d dava].oper, whprA- ~v commArcial. traffic would not be using thA :esidAntial strF•ot; and that c.ho presPnt ownor of subjoct property had purchased thA proporty for inv~~'cmant ~:urne~es ar~d was not the original own~r. .U,r. V~illiam Pay±en, 103 Echc Place, ap~e?*ed before the Gemmission in oppusition and stateo there was r.o *ea~on why a back-up treatment to Lincoin Avenue could not be accomp:ished sirce his h~~me backed an Lincoln i,~~enue, and i~~ had a 1.i7-foot area which backed on Lincoln Avenue, an6 the so-calle: neavy traffic did not seem to bother him; that PAr. A. A. Sch~~m=+o o: 110 Emeral~l °:a~e, and Mr, J~ Wal:ers of 107 Emzrald P1ace, would be vitally aYfected ~y the two-storv cor truction since their livir~g ro.~rns ar.d rear yazds wnuld be overshadow.l by two-story constxuction, degriving them of sunti,,~t anrl air so de~•;~ed here in California; and thot ~~a concurred in Mr. Chavos' :.tatement tha the Er.i~assy Avznue frontage should remain for single-:amily residential purposes with commercial pur~ose~ along the Linc~~- pvenue frnnt~~ge ~nd at t`ie ~orth. The Commission aJv=sed ~he ~nterested perso~s that in 1955 the Commie<,icn had initiated a petition to reclassi.fy subject property to R-1 and C-1 i.^r.es, s:~bject to conditions; i~ow~~~er, the petitioner had not met th~se conditio~s - thertfore, thF propert~ ,uas still classifieu R-A. - Mr. Hook, in rebutta,, stated that he felt personally '.i~at the p~oposed C-G zo~~~~g wa= the ~ least objectionable as to ncise, dirt, and traffic o: any commei ~al use for s~bject property; ~ that he felt, with one minor exception, that the propc,5ed struc :re woald be in cor^pliance with the C-0 requirements and the proposed beautificati~~n prograrn af slua.p stune walls, ~ MINUTia, C:TY r'r+NN NG COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 3150 r ~ E RECi.r~SSIFICATION - Spanish architecture, and translucent glass, together with trees and ~ D:O. 66-67-12 iandscaping, would be less objecti.onable than a parking lot for a j C-1 ase; and that, in his opinion, the proposed office structure ~ VARIANCE N0. 1819 vrould protect the residential integrity rather than infringe on the ~ (Continued) xights of privacy for these homes. t ~ i ~ Ti-~ FIEARTNC• YuAS CLOSED. ~ The Commission noted tha•c at the tim.e the petition for the motel was considered by the Comrr.ission, tne petitioner personall.y a~^ 3red before the Commission and agreed that the - frontage on Embassy Avenue should be ~ie. •oed for R-1 purposes, and this was the reason ~,:tiA ~ tht ;ommission had initiated th~ reclassification of subject property to R-1 and C-1, in ~:a o.*.d_.~ that the residenti~l integ.-ity of the area could be maintained. 'ihe Commission fuitt~e_ inq,iirpd of Mro Chavos why subject property was withheld at the ti~7e the p1•operty was s~~bai.vide~d for the tract. Mr, Ci,~vos stated that the prop2rLy h~id been held out by the original owner in order that he migh; place his own home o.~ t'-~e F~:op?rty, and this had been recorded with the County Recorder at tr:e time the tract aas s~bdivided; however, the property had since been sold to the pres=nt pf itioner. Uiscussion was tn,~n heid by +.:~c• Commission relative to t;~e untidy appearance of the oroperty and the fact that ~he propert~~ owner had be~n asked to maintain some semblance of neatness and clean?iness; ttia;. no hardship •r~as eviden~ since the ori~inal owner of the property had intended to develop h;s propert;~ for sinyle-family purposes; and that the proposed two- story construction would be a definiie encroachment into the residential integrity and privacy of the single-faia`_ly homes which i,~d been est.ablishP~i for ten years in the area, and tne E~r.bassy Fvanue ixo.~taye should remain for sing!e-family residential purposes. Comnissioner t rbst offerE,l Resolution No. PC66-48 ~nd moved for its passage and adootion, se..onded by Comrr,issioner Gaue~, to recommend to the City Council that ?etition for Reclassi- fi~atio~ No. 66-67-12 be disapproved on the basis that nu land i•se change I:ad taken place to v+ar.rant the Commission's considering a change in la~id use desig,iation for it,e Embassy Avenue frontage of subject property; that subject property could be dev~loped along the Embassy Avanue frontage for single-fa~r,ily resi-lential purposes, thus retaining the residential integrity of the area established for t~~~ past ten years; and that the proposed reclassi- iication was not rece<_;;azy or desirable :cr the orde:ly and proper development of the cominunity. (See F~esoiuticr. Hook.) Un ro11 ca11 t~e fo*e~oing :esolution •~n::; passed by the followir.g VOtP: AYES: COh1'.i:SSIU.JERS: C~rano, Gauer, ~ie: ;st, Mun~all, Row?.~r,u, C„no: NOES: C~f~1ASISSIUNERS: t~one. ABSENT: COI~~M,rSSIC.iJckS: Ailred. ~nmmissior.er Rowland advised the ~yent :or the petitioner ~hat there was a possii~i:it~- of acquiri^g ti~•~ property eascerly of subiect prooerty :long ~he Lincolr. Rvenue i~on~~ae ior construction ~; a~ office buiiding, whereupon ~~br. Nook stateo this nad 'oeen atteT~,ird, a;d tt~e property was not for sa:a. Commissio~er Rowland oifer=_d Re~olution i~o. PCo6-49 and r:oved ior its passage and ~:i,,ptiur., secor.ded b; Commissioner HerLst. to oE~y Petition for 'Jariance ;Jo. 1019, ba5ed o~~ iiniiinc:. (See Resolution Book.j On roll cai: t.i~e foregoiny resoiuticn wos passed 'ey t~E :ullowing vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Feraro, ~auer, Herbst, ~tungall, Rorland, Camp. NOES= CQMh1ISSi0IJERS: fJc+ne. FBSENT: CUN~MISSION~RS: A11red, ~:1- ~` ~ ~ _ ~ ~~i ~e~ .:.:. ... .. .... , ._ ,..:.~.-- - ;-, ----~------.,.-..-~..~.,v_.....~d~y~.,~.-~.~~~„~~,~a~ - - ~... P MINUTES, CITY PLANNiD~ COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 3151 VARIANCE N0. 1820 - PUBLIC NL•ARINGa SOUTHERN COUNTIES GAS COMPANY, P. 0. Box 2736, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California, Owner; DON P. DAVIS, i30 Pine Avenue, Long Beach, California, A9ent; requestir3 permission to WAIVE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA on property described as: An ir~egula:l.y shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Kat,~lla Avenue and State College Boulevard and haviny frontages of app-.~ximately 610 feet on Katella Avenue and approximately 1220 feet on State College Boulevaro, and further described as 1919 South State College Boulevar~. Property presently classified M-1, L1GHT INDUSTRIAL, and P-L, PARKIUG-LANDSCAPING, ZONES. Mr. Don Uavis, agent for the petitioner, appeared be:ore the Commission and reviewed the proposed sign billboard to be lccated on subject property, indicating that the pro~osed sign would be used only by the Southern Counties Gas Company to advertise their products. Commissioner Ferano asked the agent to indicate tha exact location of the proposed sign, whereupon Mr. Davis indicated the sign would be located approximately i5 feet from the curb along Pacifico P.venue on the south property line; that it would be lighted with florescent lights and weuld be a billboard constr~ctione The Commission inquired why some consideration was not given to location of th~ sign cluser to Katella Aven~e if the petitioner was attempting to advertise his products to the stadium patrons, and to locate the sign behind the 50-foot setback ;ince there was ~ore tha;~ adequate land to accommodate the proposed sign. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Pacifico Avenue was designated on the General Plan as a secor.dary highway f:om Manchester Avenue to State Colle9e Boulevard; that only a 100-square foot sign was permitted in the 50-foot setback area; however, the proposed sign would be permitted if located behind ttie 50-foot setback area. Commissioner Herbst expressed concern that to grant subject petition would set a precedent for similar requests throughout the injustrial area, thereby destroying the industrial appear- ance of some of the nice industrial a~eas in Rnaheim. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TI-~ HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resol~~tion No. PC66-50 and moved for its passage and adoption, secorided by Commissioner P4unga1l, to deny Petition for Variance ;Jo. 1820, t-sed on the fact that there was adequate space behi.nd the 50-foot setback to erect the prop~ d billboard, and that tt~e location of the sign could be plac?d near Katella Avenue and St.+te Colleg? Boulevard in order to derive the iull view of the patrons of the stadium, an;' that granting subject petition would set a precedent for similar reque~ts throughout the industrial area; furthermore, no hardship had been proven by tne petitioner regarding subject prooerty. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pass^_d by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ferano, Gauer, Herbst, Munyall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: [Jone. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: Allrizd. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ELDEN KANEG.4E, 1800 Sardalwood L~ne, Newport Beach, PERMIT NU. 872 California, Gwner; RGBERT MARTIN, 1808 West Lincoln Avenue, knaneim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH Oi~-SALE BEER on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land located south and west of a 125-foot by 125-foot parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Lincol~ AvenuF and Dale Avenue, subject property further described as having frc+ntages of approxi- mately 115 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 112 feet on Da1e Avenue. Property presently clossifiad C-1, GENERAL COM~v1ERCIAL, ZONE. Nr. R~bert Martin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed establishment of a beer bar in a shopping facility, noting that the operator ef the proposed bar would have a 25% ar=a for the serving of food and would specialize in Pers::an food; that although the shopping facility was completed, it had been diffic~.~lt to obtain tenants for the area; and that the proposed lessee would need approval of subject petition before operation could commence. Zoning Supervisor Rona?d Thompson advised the Commissior the Staff t~ad expressed concern relative to the parking problem which would e~cist if future building was approved for development; that the Code would require ti;e observation of a two-for-one setback from t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COAMAISSION, August 15, 1966 3152 CONDIT:ONAL USE - the south property line, and this would preclude construction of PERidIT N0. 872 Building "B" since no space would be available for parki~g; and that lContinued) control over any development of future building would be predicated by development in accordance with the Site Development Standards of the C-1 Zone. It was noted ~~ the Commission that if subject petition were approved, no matter what type of development was propos~d for the south qroperty, a substandard develo~ment would be indicated because there would be inadequate parking. ' - The Commission iur~her inquired of the a9ent for the petitioner why a beer bar was considered ~-"~ for this area, whereupon Mr. Martin stated they had been unable to iease the commercial ' facility, and the proposed operator presented an acceptable means of utilizing some of the ;~ ~ space; furthermore, he had also operated similar bars in other shopping areas, and if any i~ rowdiness or objectionable behavior occurred, the problem was usually rectified or the ~ lessee was requested to mov?. ,I No one appeared in oppositicn to subject petition. ~ THE HEARING WAS CL.C)ScD. i ~• Mr, Thomp~on, in response to Commission questioning, stated that plans had been checked i by ihe Staff in accordance with scale, and it was noted that several of the parking stalls ~ were measured at six feet, whereas the minimum pazking stall was based on eight and one-half by nineteen feet; that the plans indicated 71 parking spaces, whereas the plans as scaled by the Staff indicated only 66 parking spaces, leaving two spaces more than the parking reouired I for Building "A". Discussion and questioring by ttie Commission indicated there seemed to be an overabundance of shopping facilities in the City; that although a petitioner had a right to petition for any type of use pe:mitted in the zone, the Comr.iission's rendering of approval or disapproval was based on the effect of the use or its benefit to the City; that a beer bar generated a less desirable type of clientele than a hofbrau which sPrved food in cunjur.ction with the serving of alcoholic beverages; that the proposed operator of the beer bar, althouah not experienced in the proposed operation, was a nativa of Persia and proposed to serve Persian food and would operate it herself; that there were no schools ~r large residential tracts in the area to be affected by the proposed use; and that the manage~s of the shopping facility would police their own tenants so that any conflicting use would be required to conform to the police requirements~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC65-51 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, t~ grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 872, subject to a cor.dition, and based on the fact that the prooosed use would not ~fiect the residential integrity oi t~:e ar=_c ano was r.ot in close proximity to a sct.ool. ~See Resolution ~ook.j Un ro11 cail tne foregoing resolution was passed uy ti~e iollowiny vot<_: kYES: CGbM13SSIGilERS: Herost, '~iur~gall, Rowlar.d, Camp. tJOES: COIJ~~IISSIOIdERS: Farano, G~uer. ABSEN7': CU(~S6lISS1Ub]ERS: Allred, REC'tSS - i.ommissioner rcowland oiiered ~ molion to recess tne meeti~::, ior ten mi~~.:tes. Commissioner Herbst secor.ded tl~~e n:otion. '~'~TIO;~ CAR;cIEil. T~e meeting recessed a*, 4:C2 Y.i.~. RECG[dVEIJE - Chairman Ca:np reconvened the meetiny at 4:1~ P.M., all Commissior.ers witn the exception of Commissioner kllred being present. ~ ~ E MINUTES~ CI.TY PLANNING COh1MISSION, August 15, 1966 3153 f i~.:~j RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HE.ARING. VERNA ROWE, 2125 West Victoria Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 66-67-13 California; Owner; PENNIMAN 3 COMPANY, 537 West Commonwealth A~enue, Fullerto~~, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land approximately 97 feet by 320 feet, located approximately 335 feei south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and approxi- mately 130 feet west of the centerline of Empire Street be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZUNE to the P-1, AUTOMOBTLE PARKING, ZONE to expand parking facilities for the commercial facilities located at 2144 West Li.ncoln „:~enue. Mr. Russell Pennin;an, representing the agert for the petitioner, appea^ed ba;:ore the Commission and stated that Lin-3rook Hardwaru Company required addi~i~~.:al ~~arking oecause of an increase in ousiness, and the prepo~ad plvcing of parking o^ ti~~cant l~nd would utilize property which had bee~ zoned R-3, but funds were unavailabie tu develop it for R-3 purposes; tnat it was planned ;:o develop the ualance oi ~he property fronting along Empire S~reet fcr R-1 nomes, and construction of a masonry wai: ~o seoarate the parking iacilities and tne proposed R-1 lots; that Lin-F?rook. Hardware representacives were aware of the faci thzt their pusiness had expanded to sucn o degree tnat customers were now using the street ;or parking puiposes, and it was fel'_ thot of,`-s~reet p~rking should be provided. hiro Gary Jones, 2039 West Embassy Av?nue, .,ppeared before the Commission in oopcsition ano stated thai the agent indicated one oi the selling points on the proposed rezoning would 'c= development oi the :.mpire Street frontage :or single-family residential purposes - nowever, in order to ass~r? that this was done, it was recommended that L'ne Commission continue subject petition until t!~e petitioner }~ad time to file a revised reclassi;icatio~ oetitio~ for the tmpire Street frontage to r~-1 use; that ai the time tne recl~ssification of ti~e entire •racant parcels at the sout:~west cornei of Li~coln Avenue and Empire Street was auorov<_c, the property owne:s compromised by permitting the R-3 zoning in order to prov?de for a bufie: between the coRUnercial uses and tne si;iyle-family residential uses surrounding subject propert; and in order to assure the propert, ov~~ers oi continued privacy, the i,ommission snould recui-e the petitioner to file for reciassiiication to tne R-1, Or.e-Family Resitiential, Zor;e ior those properties. Mrs. R. Euzarraoa, 2043 West cmbassy, appearer Sefore tne Commission in ooposition Gnd stated tnat under a previous reciassificotio tne City ned zoned Lne properties for R-3 with the statement made by the owners of ii^-5rook Nardware that tne zoning would 'pe e(':Fc•- tive from then on, and now tne Lir:-drooh Hardware Company, aiter tt~r?e ~?GZS~ was now re,~es;- ing a chanye in zoning again, rnd it seemeo likely that the continuance o; encroachmer.t oi comme:cial uses to Empire Street would be on a three year basis, and she was concerned with the healtn of tne residents or t'r,e area if any further ercrcachment f commerci~i uses was permitted; tt;at very rFcently ti~e City nad appro~:ed commercial uses along Lincoln F.ve~ue adjacent to ner property wi~ere parking wos proposed within 20 feet of her oatio, and she was compieteiy e~close~i i^ the rear and w~s not desirous oi now bein9 enclosed with comTer- ciai uses to the front of ner propert~~; ano that she ielt t':e property ewners in tne cre~ NI?IE being required to ~ive up more of their inherent orivacy than tne average i;omeowner in the City oi Anaheim. Uiscussion was then held 'py tne Cemmission :,:lative to ~ontinui~g s~ibject petition u~tii tne petitioner nad an opportu~ity to file for R-1, Gne-Family Residential, ~nne for ~ne balance o: the oroperty frontinu on ~mpir< <*.reet, or whether aoprovol could be ;,ade o; subject petition witt: a reoui:ement tnat said rezoning be accomplisned p:ior to ti~al build- iny inspectio:~. Zoning Suo~rvisor Ronald Ihompson advised tne Commissior: tnat subject property ceuld be developed for a single-family residential subdivisicn and could be deve'_oped in accordonce with tne 4-1 Zone; however, i: R-3 zoniny were required, the oroperty could not meFt the requirements of the zore since a 20-foot alley would be reouired to separate tne C-1 or P-1 and tne R-3 lots, and tne widtn of the property r+as or.iy 100 feeL, h1r, Penniman zhen advised tne Commission that althougt: Escrow closing dates were important, it was more irnportant that the property owners in the area be satisiied. Tne Commission then inquired of ,"r. Chavos how the property owners ir~ the area woula ieei regarding development of tt.e property for R-1 purposes. Mlro James ~havos, 1903 Emoassy Ave~ue, aopeared before the ;ommission and stated he was sure there wc~.ild be no oppos:+ion from any of tne residents; however, he could not see where ~ financing could be obtaine~ for development of subject property for R-1 if financing was ' not available for R-3 development. Furthermore, it seemed hardly likely that these homes, if cor,structed, would be easily sold because of being immedia'tely adjacent to the parkina _ iacilities of Lin-L'rook Hardware; however, he was sure all the prcperty owners would be un- R alterably opposed te permitti~g parking oll the way to Empire Strcet and the cor~;tr~.:ction ~ of a block wall. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 3154 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission then expressed the opinion that if the easterly portion NU. 66-67-13 of the Rowe property was proposed for single-family residential use, (Continued) it would be more compatible to the development along Empire Street, and the zoning should be done concurrently with subject petition. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that if the petition for reclassification of the easterly portion of the Rowe properiy adjacent to Empire Street was filed before Friday, August 19, it would be scheduled before the Commission on September 12, if the Commission was considerin9 continuing subject petition. - Ten persons indicated their presence in opposition to subject petition. ~~;i ~~~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for RecJ.assifi- ~~t~ ' cation No. 66-67-13 i;o the meeting of September 12, 1966, in order to sllow time for the ~.~~~ petitioner to file reclassification proceedings for the portion of the property easterly ~,~ of subject property to the R-1, Une-Family Residential, Zone. Commissioner Rowland seconded € ' the motion> M~TIUN CHRRIED. RECLASSIFICATIOIJ - INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANIdIiJG COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, fJO~ 66-67-14 Anaheim, California, proposing that property described as: The P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING,ZCNE portion of tt~ose parcels of land adjacent GENERAL PLAN to arterial highways that are in the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and h1-2, AMENDMENT N0. 81 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, ZUNES be reclossified from the P-L, PARKiNG-LANDSCAPI;JG, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INCUS?RIAL, ZONE on all properties, the remainder of which are presently zoned P,^.-1, LIGHT IiJDUSTRIAL; and M-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, ZOtJt on all preperties, the remainder of which are presently zoned M-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the proposed reclassifi~ation of the P-L Zones 2~jacent to the M-1 and M-2 Zones in the City`s industrial areas, noting that one zone would ac~.omplish the same purpose since site development standards had been incorporated in the M-1 and N~-2 Zones; however, there were three areas which did not normaily meet th= specifi- cations stipulated - those being the east side of ioara Street between Lincoln Avenue and Bruadway, the west side of East Street between 6Yater ar.d South S:r~~ts, ~nd Lewis Street and Cerritos Avenue in the Soutneast Industrial A.rea; t~at Lewis St-eet a~:d Cerritos Ave.^.ue had been deleted from the proposed reclassification; tnat ;o problem was ~pparent in tce sethack requirement of E~,st Street since L=ast Street i:ad be~en design~ted as ~ secondary highway witt;~ut exception, tnus upon dedication to its fol: width, this would orovioe for a 48-foot building setoack and 30 feet of landscaping; however, the east side of Loara Street was es±ablisned i;: 19~9 with a 50-i~ot pari:ino-londscaping zone, altnou~n Loa:a Street was a local street, and the present site dev?.ooment standords for ~ loc~lstreet require a 5-foot building street, ail of whicn would oe landscaped; tha~ exce.t for the one parcel located at tne northe~st. corner of Loara Street and Broadway, ai1 h,ad be?r. developed witt: a 50-foot ouildi:~y setcack anti a 25-foot landscsoed area. FL:r+.nermore, Lewis Street and Cerritos Ave~ue wouid 'nave to te includ=d in d SED'nZdte -aclassification petition at such time as the Staff vlould receiv<_ prope: direction from ti•:a Commission en the proper ap,~roach. lliscussion was held by the Com:nissior: relativa to the existin? 50-foot bui:di~. ;;etback along Loara Street and tne possibility tnot the Y!~~C,'-. could cor,st*uct t't;e rrop. o new facility within 5 feet of tne property line, er.d inquired whethc:r researc'~ had dicateo the Cit~ Council's justification ior reouiri~g a 50-foot setback in tnis orea. ~J~r. Robe.__ stated ti~at from all research he could find, notning was deiinitely indic~ted; however, the City Council in 1959 felt that ~ 50-;oot ouilding set:back for Lco::s ;'.raet w~s justified. The Commission tren stated tnat they felt prooerty owners along Loara Street should not be penalized since other property owners along local streets were permitted to have o 5-foot building setback as the Code presentiy er.ists, and to require property owners a:~ng the east side of Loara Street to set back 50 feFt would be crenting a hardshio. ~:~d cuite restrictive. Assistant Development Services i.~irector Rooert Il.ickeison advised the Commission that ti~e YMC~ would have a special conditional ~se permit to file because of special setbacks proposed; furthermore, from a11 research made of ti~e ;ile, ro apparent justification could be four.d fo: reauiring the 50-r'oot setback along Loara Street - howrver, tne Commission could recommend to the City Council that an exception be made for this particular street since it was a local street. ~ .. .._. _. .._ _..~ _...__.. ~_ _ . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 ` 3155 RECLASSIFICATION - Plannin9 Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski inquired of the Commission N0. 66-67-14 whether they wished to continue subject petition in order to determine W~°ther t.here was some justification for the 50-foot setback along GENERAL PLAN Loara Street; however, the Commission felt the Staff had made adequate AMENDMENT N0. 81 research, and continuance would not reveal any additional light - how- (Continued) ever, in view of the fact that there was no apparent justification for the 50-foot setback, the Commission w;s of the opinion that this special exception be deieted and Loara Street :~ permitted to develop in ac~~ord- ance with its designation as a local street. Mr. Roberts then reviewed the purpose of the general plan amendment, noting that w:~en the general plan was prepared, a 9reen, landscape buffer strip was designated along all arterials in the industrial areas of the City; however, in order to have the General Plan appear as a general and not a precise plan, these landscape buffer areas should be deleted because the ~;ity did require spacial landscape setbacks in residential and commerc:al areas, but these were not designated on the General Plan. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-52 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-14 be approved, deleting ±he P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zon? from industrial areas since the M-1 and M-2 Zones provided adequate site development standards for building setbacks, (See Resolution Boo;<.) On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C01~1f~1ISSIUi4ERS: Farano, Gauer, Herost, ::,ungall, 3owland, Camp. ;IUES: CUfviMISSIONERS: iJone. ABScNT: CGMPAISSIUNERS: Allred, Commissioner Rowland offered Resolur.ion ;~o. ~Cbo_53 and moved for iis passa9e end adoation, seconded by Commissioner ~Jiunqall, to recommer.d to the ~ity Council tha~ ~enerGl ~lan Ame~o- ment No. 81 be approved, del:ting ±ne landscaping ouffer symbol irom the ~:eneral ?lan. (See Resol~tion Booh.) On roll call the for?going resolution was passed by tne iollowing vote: AYES: CO~~Jv'ISSIUNERS: Farano, ,auer, Herbst, ~:~ur.gall, ~owi~nd, Camp. i~OES: CUN~4ISSIOPIERS: ;Jone. hBScidT: C~G;;~IISSIUIJERS: Allred. Af.itNil1~1E:d7~ ~IO ~ESC,LlITIOId OE II~TE?U -?UBLIC !{EP.KI?JG. lIdI~1:-.icil 3y ~Cni CI1'y 1~~• ~2c~-335 AFPRUVING RECLASSIFICAfiu~~ ?LANiJIIJG Cl.,tuV?ISSIOFJ, 204 East Lincoln f;venue, :JG. 61-(',~-59 Anaheim Cal? for:ia + ~ Proposing ~mend~n~.,ts to Fesolution of Inte:~t ;Jo, r~~~-3?~ Gpprovino I;eclassification ;Jo, til-o2-09 ~- to amend oriyir,ol to delete reference to the ~-L, PARnIPi~-L.4iJDSCAPI~ame~~,JL=;~andrtorclarify certain~leqols~ descriptior.s in Finding i~os. 1, 2, and 3 of said resoiution; property descrihed as the IJortheast Industrial tirea, generaily bounded on tne west by the Orange Freeway, on the south ~~~ the Riverside Freeway, on the no:th by the soutt~erly t,uundary o; uranget'r,oroe and Crowther F,venues, and on tne east oy Jeiferscn ~treet. Fssistant Pianner Cnarles Roberts advised th~ Commission that subject reclassification was readvertised to consider the amendment of certain findings and references to street namcs which were no lo~ger applicable -r,amely that reference to ~lacentiz-Yorca houlevard be changed t~ Crowther Avenue, ihat Los Angeles Street be changed to Anaheim Boulevard, that Anaheim Road be changed to Pliraloma F.venue; that deletion of all reierer.ce to tne Y-~, Parking-Landscaping, Zone be made; and that certain general descriptions in Fir,ding tdos. 1, 2, and 3 of the 1n9a1 descriptiunsbe amended for clarification purposes. No one appeared in opposition to suuject petition. THc HEARING WP.S CLUSED. € ~ 4 ., ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CO~MISSION, August 15, 1956 ' 3156 AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION OF INTENT N0. 62R-335 - ~Continued) Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-54 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that amendments be made to Resolution of Intent No. 62R-335, approving Reclassification I~o. 61-62-69, by deleting all reference to the P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zone, by amending Fir,ding tJos. 1, 2, and 3 to revise the legal descriptions to be more specific as to locations of the boundaries, and to update the street names for Placentia-Yorba Road to Crowther Avenue; Anaheim Road to Miraloma Avenue; and Los Angeles Street to Anaheim Boulevard. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. GENERAL PLAN AM[NDMENT - PUBLIC f-~ARING. IN.ITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOS. 18 AND 52 204 East Lincoln ~venue, Anaheim, California, encompassing properties at the intersections of Sycamore and East Streets and La Palma Avenue and East Street. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Commission the action taken on Reclassification No. 65-66-120, which property was located between Sycamore and North Streets, requestin9 C-0 zoning; that the Commission had directed a study be made of both sides of Fast Street from the Riverside Freeway to Lincoln Avenue, and as a result of said study, three exhibits had been prepared, The Commission, upon reviewing the three exhibits, had directed the Staff to advertise for public hearing consideration of GEneral Plan Amendment Nos. 16 and ~2 which encompassed the intersections of Sycamore and East Streets and La Pa1ma Avenue and East Street in order to reflect the changes in uses for those intersections to indicate a neighborhood commercial facility. The ;~taff's Report to the Commission was ~hen reviewed regarding General Plan Amendment No. 18 for the intersecti.on of East Street and La Palma Avenue where two service stations already existed, The three possible alternatives were also reviewed for the Commission; namely, (1) no change to the General Plan, (2) designation of highway-related commercial uses~, and (3) a neighborhood shoppin9 center facility for the intersection of La Palma Avenue and East Street. Mre Grudzinski then reviewed Generai Plan Amer~dment No. 52 for the intersection of Sycamore and East Streets, noting the land use changes which had taken place at this intersection; namely, a neighborhood shoppiny facility at the northeast corner, and a large supermarket at the southeast corner, and a service station at the northwest corner. It was also noted that at the time the Commission had reviewed the East Street study and had directed the Staff to advertise a General Plan amendment, it was determined that General Plan Hmendment Noe 52 more accurately described the Commission's feelings relative to the neighborhood shopping center symbol at the intersection of Sycamore and East Streets; therefore, no new General Plan amendment had been prepared. Considerable discussion was then held by ttie Commission relative to the General Pian symbol designation for La Palma Avenue and East Street, it being noted tl~et service st~tiors did not necessarily mean the start of o,noppir,g center, and it a shooping focility desigraiion was indicated for tt~at intersection, this wouid ir.dicote ;he City felt commerczal f.cilities were warranted :cr tFat area, whereas statementsv.ere~~aa- by pe?itioners of other are~=.ic the City that tney weie unable to obtain :essees for the s:r~ali commercial Eacilities they iiad established in various i~tersections of town; th~t to place the neighoorhood shopping faci- lity designation would compound a problem which would continue to mour,t wherever intersec~- tions had service stations. Commissioner Ferano indicated that if the Commission adooted either Exhibit 2 or 3, tnis would indicate a precedent had been set, and there was a change in the philosoohy of the Commission - however this did not seem to be true, and rather than making a cha~ge to the General Plan by inference that a change in pi~ilosophy had taken olace, further study should be made regard'_ng the zctual terminology relative to any General Plan amendmenta Commissioner Herbst inquired whetner a special symbol couid not oe made for the ~eneral ?lan indicat,ing logical service station sites; however, ;dr. Grudzinski stated this wouid make the plan too precise, rather than general. at~ ~ - -<_~ ~ ~ ~ - - _ ,•, --~y~:_ ,~~.~-~ ~ r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 3157 F. ~ ,'.~.~ 3:M~$ ,:~~ ~ ~. :• ~ I , i ~ -. ~t GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOS. 18 AND 52 - ~Continued) Mr. John Spielman, 747 North East Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that if the City was planning to retain Eost Street as a residential or low density designation, something should be done relative to the heavy traffic and gradual encroachment of specific commercial uses along the street; that if this was to be a residential area, the City should reduce the speed of traffic from 30 to 25 miles per hour and remove the "no parkir~g" signs; and that thFre was no reduction in traffic along East Street with the opening of La Palma Avenue as hed been anticipated, and also with the cln~ing of North Street. Tlie Commission inquired of Office tn9ineer Arthur Daw what the specific plans were for the widening of East Street, whereupon Mr. Daw indicated that East Street was designated as a secondary highway; however, this did not mean an arterial highway was indicative of commer- cial uses for a street. Commissioner Rowland stated that all that was intended by the request to the Siaff for a General Plan amendment was to recognize the existence of existing commercial uses at these i.ntersectionso Mra Grudzinski then stated from the outset, the 5taff was requested to provide symbology on the General Plan as a guideline, and that it was a specific symbology the Staff needed in order that the Staff r_ould make a positive statement to a client at the counter that service stations did not necessarily set a precedent for the establishment of commercial uses at an intersection; furthermore, that it was a feeling of the Commission that the residential uses would be retained in the area - however, if any future trends were indicated and com~r.ercial uses were being developed, the Plan should be chan9ed so that the Plan was an accurat~ guideline, not a reaction to zoning actions which had taken place~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue public hearing on General Plan Amendment Nos. 18 and 52 to the meeting of September 12, 1966, in order to allow the Staff time to review at a work session with the Commission the General Plan symbology and its effect on the areas under consideration on East Street. Commissioner Nerbst seconded the motion. MOTIUN CAr2RIED. GENERAL PLAN AtviF.NDMENT N0. 82 - PUBLiC HEARING, IP7ITIATED BY THE CITY PLAPJNING PRECISE ALIGNMENT-RIVERDALE AVENUE COUJdISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider General Plan amendment for Riverdale Avenue, amending its classification from a secondary highway to an exception designation on the "fahle of Exceptions, and to consider the precise alignmer.t of Riverdale Avenue from its intersectiori with the Riverside Freeway northeasterly 1955 feet to the Orange County boundary line of Tract No. 5409 located in the east Anaheim area. Planning Su~ervisor Rona:d Grudzinski advised the Commission that Riverdale Avenue on the Circulation Eleme~t, Highway Rights-of-Way of the Ger~eral ?lan indicated a standard 90-foot seco~dary street for said street from the r~iverside Freeway easterly to Tdylor Street; nowever, oecause of tne existing development commitments and actual construction of t.wo subdivisions within tnis County area,it was felt Lhe Staff should r~commend t~at niverdale hvenue from tt~e city limits easteriy to 1~aylor Street be added to the list of exceptions as an 80-foot wide secondary nignway - i~owever the parkways could be reduced from tneir standard 13 feet, leaving the poved portion of the street a standard 64 zeet, thereby ~ot affecting tl;e traific-carryiry capacity oi tne street. ihis amendment to tne Table of Exceptions was also necessary in oroer to have the proper alignment of Ri:~erdale Avenue as it was extended easterly throuyn these developeo suudivisions. Regardinq the precise alignment ior Riverdale Avenue, h1r. ~rudzinski noted thut tne Enyineering llivision o: the ~'ublic Works Department !~ad requested official approval of the precise aiigr.ment as indicateti on Exhibit "3", encompassing Riverd-ole Avenue from its intersection with the Riverside Freeway, extending aporoximately 1955 feet northeasterly to the Oranye County line of Tract tio. 5409, and ...._` the balance of Riverdale Avenue,as fa* as precise aliy;~ment was concerned, was outside of the city limits o1 the City of Anaheim and was within tne jurisdiction of the County ~: Urange. IJo one appeored in opposition to subject petition~ THc HEARItJG WAS CLOSED. .~x MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, August 15, 1956 3158 f ~ , GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 82 PRECISE ALIGNMENT-RIVERDALE AVENUE - (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo PC66-55 and moved for its passage an~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend t~ the City C~uncil that Ger.eral Plan Amend- ment No. 82, placing Riverdale Avenue on the Tab1A of ExcepCions as an 80-foot wide street, be made based on the fact that commit~nents and development of tracts easteriy of Tract No. 5409 were developed in accordance with County standards of an 80-foot ~ide secondary highway. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the for=going resolution was passed by thE following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fai. ~, Gauer, ~erbst, MunSati, Rowland, Camp. IJOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ABSENT: COM~AISSIONERS: Allred, Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No_ PC66-56 and :noveo for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Her~st, to recommend to tne City Council that the precise a!innment for Riverdale Avenue extending from its intersection with the Riverside Freeway northeasterl}~ 1955 feet to the Oranqe County line of Tract No. 5409 as depicted on Exhibit "B" be adopted; furthermore that the City Council recommend to the County of Urange _;~at the precise align- ment as indicated on Exhibit "E" from the City oi Anaheim city limits to Taylor Street be adopted. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foreooing resolution was p~ssed by the following vote: AYES: COMJ~1ISSIOidERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, 74urga1l, Rowland, ~amp. ~dOES: CO~J~MISSIONERS: tJone. ABSENT: CO~JuNISSIONERS: Fllred. REPORTS AiJD - ITEIJ~ iJG. 1 RECOhMnENilF;"IIONS Area Uevelopmer,t Plan IJo. 55, REV1510t1 i`.o. 2- R-1 Homes ;ronting on tiie west side of ~1agnolia .4ve~ue petw~Fen Rome Avenue and 5a11 Road - in conjunction with Reclassification ;Jo. 60-01-44. Planning Supe*visor Ror,ald 'rhompson presented Area Ueve?opment Plan iJo. 50, Revision iJo. 2, to the Commission as follows: BACKGROUIJD "Ar~a Development Plan 'vo. 5o was prepared by the Planning Division to aid the commercial re-development of tne residential properties fronting on tne west sioe of P~iagnoli~ Aven~;e, north of Ball Rnad. Tne original Area Uevelopment Plan ?Jo. 5~ was complPted in late 1960 and adopted by the City Council in February, 1901~ I~he ori,inal plar. required tne eighteen (18j lots to be assembled into six (5i packages of th:ee (3) lots each as a method of development. RECENT CO~vU'dISSIUN ANil COU;JCIL f,CTIOPIS In May of 1956, Area Development Ylan ido. 56 was restudied and revised. Tf~ree alter:~alives were presented to the Commission for Commission consideration. Subsequent to Commission review and comment on the alternatives, a meeting was held with the property owners. 1'ney were informed of the development problems associated with ttiis property. The plan reacned the Council on ~Aay 24, 1956. After a r.umber of continuances and lengthy discussions to allow the property owners time to come to a mutual agreement on a so:ution, the City Council determined that a plan similar to Exhibit C, Revision No. 1 of Area Develoe- ment Plan ido. 56 was the answer to the problem. The Council then direr.ted the Staff to re- advertise the original Reclassification No. 50-51-44, and prepare a revision to Area ilevelop- ment Plan No. 56 incorporating their comments. COWi CIL DIRECTIVE ':~ Area Development Plan i~o. 56, Revision No. 2, Alternatives 1 and 2 incorporate the Sollowina ~ ~ Council recommendations: ~ 1. Uedication of 50 feet from ihe centerline of Niagnolia Nvenue. (Said half-width ~,at~ recommended by the City Engineer at the Council meeting of June 26, 1950.1 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 3159 REPORTS AND RECGMNE~DATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 - (Continued) 2. Dedication of a 20-foot alley along the rear of the lots. 3. Prepare at least two alternatives, one showiny a continuous alley from Ball Road to Rome Avenue, and one showing one access point or alley from the north-south alley to Magnolia midway between Ball ard Rome. The Council also directed tne City Clerk to re-advertise a~d the Development Services Department to amend Reclassification No. 60-h1-44, to allow each lot to develop independently. The Council requested completion of tre revisions, report and recomroendation by the Planning Commission and scheduling to meet a Council hearing date of August 23, 1956. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Based on previous comments of the Traffic Enyineer regarding access to tdagnolia Avenue, Staff would recommend klternative IJo~ 2 of r~evision No. 2, as the more desirable form of development. This would allow a point, of access (alley) to Magnolia tivenue approxi- mately half-way between Ball Road and Rome Avenue, and could 'ae accomplisned without disruptin9 the homes. Alternative i~c. 2 shows two possible spots for an accessway; however, it is reco~nmended i that the precis.a location of the accessway or alley to Magnolia Hvenue not be determined at t'his time :.,t;, merely agreed to as a policy. The ultimate location ran be determined as dev~lopment progresses." . ~, Discussion was held by tne Com~ission regardiny the fact that tt~e existiny hornes would be used for commercial purposes which should be required to meet all the provisions oi Fire Code 2; that upon dedication of tne street and alley, onl.y a 4300 square foot parcel wo~ld remain which under C-1 sr,andards was less than adequate to provide ail the amenities of the C-1 'Lore; tnat consideration should 'oe given to limiting tne use of the existin~ structure for a certain period of time and then req,uire removal and replacernent of the s*ructure with a regular commerciGl building; ar,d that coinmercial ar_tivities should Ue limited in t'~esr. struct~res to very light commercial uses. De~uty City Attorney Furman r~oberts advised the Commission that they could recommend ar. amendment to the C-1 2one which would require removal of the residential struciure and replacec~ with a re9ular commercial structure as a condition of commercial zoning, Commissioner Rowland tnen stated that if all provisions oi the 9uilding Code were stricCly enforced, th~re would be little likelinood that the e;cistina structure couid be used, because tnere would be too e?tensive remodeling required to mee: the City's recuirements. Commissioner Herbst was of ine opinion that if all residen'tial homes fronting on a:terial streets were converted for commercial purposes, the City would not be proqressing, ~ut retrogressing, anc. that there was little lif:elihooo ti~at niqh-rise office buildings would ever be erected in the City, Commissioner Rowland offered a rnotion to recommend !o the City Council ihat i,lternative Noa 2 of Area Development Plan No. 56, Revision iJo. 2, be adopted as a reasonable sol~tion to circulation problems which the homes on the west side of 11agnolia Avenue faced in the convers;on of the homes to commercial purposes. Commissioner ~.~ungall seconded the motion. MOTIOI~ CARRIED. ! 1TEM N0. 2 ; Orange County Street Ivaming Committee i" ' + Dowling Avenue to Kraemer-Glassell Street ~ ~- Associate Planner Jack Christofferson adviserJ the Commission that consideration of a ;: recommendation to the City Council regarding a name ciianae for powlinq Avenue h~d bee~ ~~ continued to allow time for the sta~, ~o make , a rield ~,ech ~nd also to contact ~i:e ;;i _; ef P!acentiz reyar.dino th:e posted street r~a~ne witnin ti:eir city liinits fcr Kr~e~;er r.ver.ue; i; that tne staf: had mcde a iield check znd determi;ed ti~::t ti~e street had Ueen Angelina Drive; nowever, ~.:pon contactir~g ttie u' '-F~~:~~eo ~~~ ~ u~lic Worhs :>irector oi ti-~e City of ~ l:centia, he had stated ti-~at tne oid alignrr.ent oi nr;emer hverue nad i;eer. r,ameci ,ti.,-,~li ;a ;;ri~,~e, ,-:-;6 that the n?w 311:]~fi1@flt w~s nuw calied Kiaemer ~oulev~rd. `~ ~~~ ~ ~ F ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNISSION, August 15, 1966 3160 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 - (Continued) Discussion by Commission was then held, it being determined that the Riverside Freeway was a natural separation for naming the street with two separate names: namely,north of the Freeway it should be Kraemer Boulevard, and south of the Freeway it should be ` Glassell Street. Commissioner Rowland offered a moti.on to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Street Naming Comrr,ittee be urged to consider naming Dowling-Kraemer-Glassell Streets - Kraemer Boulevard north of the Riverside Freeway, and Glassell Street south of the Riverside Freewaya Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 Variance No. 904 - Requesting modification of permitted uses of property located on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue, approximately 1500 feet south of Katella Way, to permit use of one of the commercial offices as a trophy shop in place of the flower shop. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the request of the oroperty owner of the commercial facility which was granted under Variance No. 904 on March 3, 1958, to permit the erection of a commercial building for a cam shop and a flower shop; however, the flower shop had terminated its business some time ago, and the owner was desirous of leasing this portion of his building for a trophy shop. Upon investigation of the terminology of a"trophy shop", it was determined it was a similar intensity of use as a flower shop, and the Staff recommended modification of the uses to include other C-1 uses of similar or lighter intensity, as well as the trophy shop. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No, PC66-57 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to amend Resolution No. 194, Series 1957-58, whic'~ per- mitted only a cam shop and a flower shop,to permit the establishment of a trophy shop or other C-1, General Commercial, Zone uses which were si~nilar or lighter in intensity than that now proposed. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred. ITEM NG. 4 Federal Aviation Agency - Proposed Helistop to be located at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street in the "The City" apartment, retail, and office building complex. Associat? Planner Jack Christofferson presented a proposal from the FAA regarding a~ro- posed new helistop to be located in t}ie City of Orange, in the new "The City" apartment, retail, and office building complex to be located between Chapman Avenue, Manchester Nvenue, Lewis Street, and the Garden Grove Freeway. It was also noted that an existing R-1 tract was developed northerly of subiect property, and tt~at the City of Anaheim had received inquiries re9arding the extension of this tract northerly within the city limits. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that many complaints had been received when the heliport was established at Disneyland, because of the noise, direct approach over the homes, oil and dirt dropped from the helicopters; and that as a result of conferences with the FAA, the flight pattern had beer, changed so as not to pass over the R-1 tract. Comm?ssioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Federal Aviation Agency be urged to give consid~ration to the R-1 homes within 1/4 mile of the proposed helistop when the flight approach and takeoff patterns were established. Commis- sioner Gauer seconded the motion. ~dOTION CARRIED. E: TENPORARY ADJOURNMENT - Commission?r Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meetiny to ~~ ~ a work session on August 22, 1966, at 7:00 o'clock P.h1. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. IU,OTION CARRIED. E:j ~~ The meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.A9. R r. ~ ,% ~~ " "' ~ .. i: ~ `~. ~ ~. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 15, 1966 3161 ADJQ:'RNED PUBLIC HEARING - Commissioners Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, WORK SESSION and Camp were present. Commissioner Rowland was absent. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson, Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, Associate Planner Marvin Krieger, and Associate Planner Jack Christofferson were present to represent the Staff. The Staff reviewed the R-H, 10,0U0 Residential Hillside, Low Density, Singie-Family Residential, Zone for the Hill and Canyon General P1an; the Commercial Hillside Zone; and the Multiple-Family Hillside Zone. Although the residential front-~n study was scheduled for review, this was continued to the next work session, to be held September 19, 1966. ADJOURNME~T - There being no further business to discuss, Commissiuner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~i~~~J ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission It ~~ , ~ .~* ~ .__ ~~ ~ i~ ~