Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/09/26~ 4 City Hall r Anaheim, California September 26, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Araheim Ciiy Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - Chairman Camp. ' - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. r. `~~ '~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. ~', ~ ~ ~•'~ PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson ~'~ Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ~i Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts ~ I Office Engineer: Arthur Daw C~ Planni~g Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski ~ Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson C:~ Associate Planner: Marvin Krie9er ~1• Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ~~ ~ INVOCATION - Reverend John K. Saville, Pastor of St. Michael's Episcopal Church, gave the Invocation. PIEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissicner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ~~ APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of September 12, 1966, were approved with THE MINUTES the iollowing corrections: I~ Pa9e 3174, paraoraph 10, should read: "Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC66-85 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded i by Commissioner Mungall . , . . ~ ; Page 3175, paragraph 15, line 3, should read: "the occupants to have r ~. no problem in .... from the property." ~:~t '.I - :. I `•' CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JANE H. BRIGHT, 331 North Harbor Boulevard, '~J PERMIT N0. 879 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND A PRIVATE ~ EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIa~ TO INCLUDE PRTMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN on property i described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 'I approximately 120 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum depth of 1 ' approximately 98 feet, the south line of subject property being approximately 350 feet j north of the centerline of Cyf ass Street, and further described as 331 North Harbor 1 ; Boulevard. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. I ,~ G Subject petition was continued from the meeting of August 29, 1966, in order to allow the `r; ~ petitioner time to work with City officials in an effort to solve the traffic problem. Mrs. Jane Bright, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated she wished to make a correction to a letter that had been submitted to the Commission regarding one of ' the neighbors who she had stated 'nad approved the proposed expansior~ of the nursery to a F school, namely Mr. Stanley Pawlowski, 408 N. Pine Street, who stated he would be opposed to establishment of primary grades, but not opposed to expansion cf the nursery; that she '~ I had contacted the Traffic Engineer who had indicated he had investigated the flow of trafiic i along Harbor Boulevard in the general vicinity of the school and had not obs•=rved any congestion in thetraffic flow; that althouah she ~~asaliaved to operate with acapacity of 45 chiidren, she averaged approximatel 38 throu hout the , proposed expansion to 75 !; ; y g year and that with tne i students, she estimated it would take approximately two years to reach the maximum; that A, I. the operatin9 hours were from 6:15 A.M. to 5:15 P.M., and the school was closed at 5:45 P.M.; that the peak load of students arriving was between 7:45 and 8:15 A.M~, with classes starting at 8:30 A.M.; and that the Traffic Engineer had not indicated any problem in the flow of traffic during the peak hours of arrival and departure of parents bringing their children. • +~ ~ ~'~ AftQ* discussien by the Commission relative to the means of de~ivering these children to ~ school with a drop-off point at Harbor Boulevard, and suggestion that the parents arrive _ at the school from a northerly approach, and the only reason the City Council had required ,~ ~, the unloading of school children in the alley was because this would have created less danger, the Commissiori inquired of the petitioner whether er not any of the chiidren walked ~~ "~ ~ to school. j ~ , 3192 t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3193 CONDITIODlAL USE - Mrs. Bright stated that no children walked ~o school - all were delivered PERMIT N0. 879 by their parents; thai the State Department of Social Welfare re~uired one (Continued) teacher for each ten students; that it was proposed to have six teachers and herself, who would act as the director. Mrs.Hugo Buchelt, 404 North Pine Street, appeared before the Commission and presented a petition signed by the tenants of the apartment which she owned, cpposing any increase in the number of children going to school on subject property, also indicating that some of the ~esidents on Harbor Boulevard, as w.ell as those on Pine Street, indicated that when the ratio of children reached 25, there was considerable noise during their play period, and it was very disturbing to the elderly residents; that in her opinion, she did not feel that the petitioner should be allowed to increase the number of children because of the opposition to the noise which would be generated by the increase in children. Mrse Harry Urbigkeit, 415 North Harbor Boulevard, appeared before th? Commission in opposi- tion, stating that the alley presently being used for the droo-off of children was rather narruw and had considerable traffic; that people who used the alley to gain access to Sycamore Street were unable to do so beca use of the traffic to and from the school; that motorists raced throuqh the alley to get children to school and ther. rushed on to work; that there were many older people in the area who should be given some consideration; that the City of Anaheim _ had p;iblic schoois which should be adequate to educate the children; that the property owners in the area had a constant battle appearing before the Commission regarding the types of uses in close proximity; and that she was of ~he opinion subject petition should be denied, and the residents of the area be given peace of mind, to whicP~ they were entitledo Mrs. Brighi, in rebuttal, stated that the traffic in the alley was not only from the nursery school; that the traffic delay at Sycamore Street and the alley was because of the long traffic light on Harbor Boulevard, and the alley was many times used as a by-pass because the motorists had to wait too long for the traffic siynal to change; that in her opinion, the area was not a quiet neighborhood, but would eventually be developed for commercial purposes; that a majority ~ of the children being dropped off was one child to a car - however, she had several families ! with two children and one family with ti~ree ch'ldren; and that one family had used her facili- ~ ties since the school was opened. ' Mrs. Pat Haley, teacher of the school, appeared before the Commission and stated she had brought her first grade class to the Council Chamber, if the Commission was desirous of ~ noting what the school did, and that the first grade students were her kir.dergarten students last year. Chairman Camp then stated that, in his opinion, it was not ne:essary to have a demonstration; that there was no question as to the operation of the school; however, the main concern of the Commission was the traffic and outside noise. Mrs. Haley then stated that primary grade classes would be neld indoors and would be as quiet as other schools holding indour classes. j THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 1 The Commission noted that one of the observations made during the field inspection of subject l property was the fact that at the time the ultimate width of Harbor Boulevard was developed, ~ a purtion of the play yard would be taken, and this would be the school's problem since the ~ State Department of Social Welfare had speci:ic regulations as to the rUmber of square feet per child for play area, and ir~quired whether or not the petitioner was aware of this. ~ Mrs. Pright then .,:~ted she was aware of this; that the present size was adequate, but that ~ in two years, st ~ed to be able to move and establish a larger school which wo~ld provide the required 75 s~ ~re feet of play area for each child. ~ The Commission then noted it would be necessary :or the petitioner to reduce the enrollment , in order to meet the State requirements if enrollment reached the maximum before the petitioner ' four~d it economically advisable to relocate. ; Commissioner Fierbst expressed conc=rn thot tne Commi.ssion was consideriny the possibility of permittir.g the delivery of these children alonq tne Haroor Boulevard frontege r~ther t'r:ar the alley, and this would be contradictory to the stipulation in reyuirement made u, tne City Council. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission tnat the stre~t w;s a public street ; and the alley was also considered a public street. ~ ' Discussion was then held by the Commission and the City Attorney relative to the possibility :~~ ~ ~ of re uirin the 4 g petitioner to submit a written statement indicating her kr:owledge of ~he faci ~ ~, that it would be necessary to reduce the enrollment in the event hiarbor Boulevard was widened ,~ to its ultimate width which, in turn, would reduce the play a.e~. A;ter discussion, it was I+ E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3194 CONDITIONAL USE - determined that a finding be made that when the ultimate width of Harbor PERMIT N0. 879 Boulevard was accomplished by street widening, it would be the obligation (Continued) of the petitioner to resolve her enrollment problems to conform with the ~ requirements of the State Department of Social Welfare regarding adequate play area, and the City would not be held liable fcr said reduction in enrollment. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No, PC66-86 and moved for its nassage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 879, subject to condi'tibns,,and thefinding that the petitioner be made cognizant of the fac;t that at the time of ultimate street widening of Harbor Boulevard which would encroach into the existing play :~y~~ area, the petitioner would be required to meet State Department of Socia). Welfare play area requirements, and the City would not be held responsible for any reduction in enrollment. ~ ~ (See Resolution Book) , On roll call the foregoing r?soiution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: Allred, F2rano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Camp. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~.} ~ ~.! ' ~ ~ ~ Commissioners Rowland and Camp in votinq "no" stated that although the school was an out- standing operation, it was their opinion the land use proposed was an encroachment into a residential area and would be a further encroachment of use of homes fronting on arterial streets for commercial purposes, and the area involved was not the best area for the type of school proposed. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: EMPIRE SAVINGS s LOAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, TRACT N0. 6315 Van Nuys, California, ENGINEeR: MILLET, KING a ASSOCIATES, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California. Subject tract, located at the northezst corner of Catalina Avenue and Aladdin Street, containing approximately 9.67 acres, is proposed for subdivision into one R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEN- TIAL, ZONED lot. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Tentative Map of Tract No. 6315, noting the locaticn of subject property and the faci that the developer was proposing to revert t~~e property to a~reage because he was not prepared to develop the R-3 parcel at the present time and was desirous of being released from finar.cial obligations associated with Tract No. 5958. However, the reversion to acreage would not affect Aladdin Street on the westerly boundary. Mr. Howard Frye, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether the R-3 zoning would be removed if the tract was reverted to acreage, and was in- formed py the Commission that the zonin9 would not be affected by this action. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve '.'entative Map of Tract No. 6315. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTIOIJ CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. VERNA ROWE, 2125 West Victoria Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 66-67-13 California, Owner; PENNIMAN 3 COMPANY, 547 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; requestin9 that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land approximately 97 feet by 320 feet, located approximately 335 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and approximateiy 130 feet west of the centerline of Empire Street, be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the ?-1, AUTOMOF3ILE PARKING, ZONE to expand parking facilities for the comrnercial development located at 2144 4Vest Lincoln Avenue. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of August 15 and September 12, 1960, to allow the petitioner time to file a reclassification for the property fronting on Empire Street. Mr. Russel: Penniman, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that tt~e reclassification petition scheduled following subject petition was the action taken as requested by the Commission, and an :~-2,5000 One-Family,Zone reclassification for the frontage property along Empire Street had been filed. Furthermore, a homeowners' group that had been in opposition previously was not in the Council Chamber; however, its spokesman, Mr. Gary Jones, was prese~t. ~ . 1 j ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3195 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Gary Jones, 2039 West Embassy Street, appeared before the Commission N0. 66-67-13 and stated that since the petitioner had filed a reclassification petition (Coniinued) to single-family residential development of the Empire Street frontage, he recommended that subject petition, and the subsequent petition, be approved. THE HEpRING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-87 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-13 be approved, subject to conditions as outlined in the Report to the Planning Commission. (See Resolution Book) ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , ,:> AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOcS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COh1MISSIONERS: None, i ~Y ; RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARItv~. VERNA ROWE, c~o Penniman d Company, 547 West Commonwealth `` N0. 66-67-26 Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; PENNIMAN & COMPANY, 547 West Common- '~' wealth Avenue, Fuilerton, California, Agent; requesting that property des- 'p cribed as: A rectan ularl sha ed ;, 9 y p parcel of land with a frontage of <.:~ approximately 320 feet on the west side of Empire Street and having a maximum depth of approxi- ;~ mately :00 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 338 feet south '~ of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ONE to the R-2, 5000 ONE-FAMILY ZONE. Mr. Russell Penniman, agent for the petitianer, appeared beior? the Commission and advised that subject petition was the result of a recommendation of the Commission at the hearing of August 15, 1966. Mr. Gary Jones, 2039 West Embassy Street, advised the Commission that he recommended approval of subject petition. No one a:~neared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-88 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-26 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot.e: AYES: COh1MISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp, NOES: CO,Wv1ISSI0NERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ARGETTIS BIXBY, 544 South Dorchester Street, Anaheim, PERMIT NOa 886 California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTADLISH A BOARDING HOUSE FOR SIX HANDICAPPED CHILDREN (WOMEN) ori property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 62 feet on the east side of Dorchester Street and having a maximum depth of approximately ].O1 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximatel~ 260 feet north of the centerline of Chelsea Street, and further described as 544 South Dorchester Street. Property presently classified R-1, OIJE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mrs. Argettis Eixby, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that she presently had three girls living with her, and she was desirous of convertin9 the garage to a room for her grandson who would be attending college next year and using his existing room for three nore girls; ti~at all the girls must be under one roof, which is the require- ment of the State Department of Public Welfare. Furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the girls were handicapped in that they were mentally retarded, and that their ages were 33, 35, and 37; however, they were not physically nandicapped because they were ambulatory; that when the girls were first placed with her, they were unable to write, except for an "i(" - however, they were ~ow capable of printing their own signatures, are able to feed, bathe, and dress themselres; that tf;ey were never left alone and were always in her company when she left the house; that she taught Sunday School and had taken them to Sunday School classes, which they seemed to have enjoyed; and that the average mentality of these girls was ten to twelve years of age, ~ ~ ~:~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COWJISSION, September 26, 1966 3196 CONDITIONAL USE - Reverend John Saville, Pastor of St. Michael's Episcopal Church, appeared PERMIT N0. 886 on bEhalf of the petitioner, stating she was a member of the church: that (Continued) he had observed her from year to year and had noted the progress she had made at her former location; that she was dependable and lived up to the obligations assi9ned to her; that she had had many years of experience in Los Angeles, a.nd it was commendable that someone would take interest in people who were normally confined to an institution, to give them a place to live that was home-like in appearance; and that he would vouch for tF~e capabiliti~s and integrity of the petitioner. Mrs. Aubrey Jones, 554 South Elder Sireet, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that the Pastor's comments were concerning the abili~y of the petitioner; however, :he property owners in the area were concerned with the establishment of a business in a an area primarily residentiai in development; tha*_ she had a petition signed by seventeen property owners opposing the conversion of a home into a commercial-type operation; that the area had had some oroblems in maintenance of the homee purchased at a low price - however a new group of people had purchased the homes and were now maintaining them tc, the benefit of the neighbors and the City; that the existing home was being proposed to house more people than it could accommodate; that the petitioner was proposing to eliminate the garage by converting it into a residential use, which would be setting a precedent in the area; and recommended the Commission deny subject petition. Mrs. Bess Neel, 525 South Dorchester Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that she had signed a petition circulated by the oetitioner; however, she wished to withdraw her name from the approval of subject petition since the petitioner seemed to be unable to disci- pline the woR~n in her charge, and the police had to be called to quell the disturbance that had occurred. Mrs. Bixby, in rebuttal, stated tliat ~he could not understand why any opposition was submitted s,ince she had canvassed the entire neighborhood and had talked to all the neighbors, explain- in., what she proposed to do, and had subm~tted a doc,~ment with her petition which indicated twelve persons did not oppose the proposed expansion of her existing use; that the girls were never permitted in the front, except when ie3ving in the automobile with her; that she had no knowledge of the disturbance which would necessitate having the police come in - however, there were a number of police ca:ls because of dis;;urbances in the srea; that her home was surrounded by a fence which completely eliminated any cbjections the prope:ty owners might have; and that the girls were always under her supervision. 2.oning Supervisor Ro~ald Thompson advised the Commission that the petition of oppositi,~n contained all but or.e name of property owners on Elder Street, and the documert s:ibmitted - by tt~e petitioner had s:gnaturas of t^irteen property owners on Dorchester Street. Mrs. Ronald Usher, 529 South Dorchester Street, appeared before the Commission ir. favor of subject petition and stated that all the property owners opposing subject petition lived on one street removed, and she had lived in the area for four years and had never seen a police squad ;ar in the area. Mrs. Neel stated she had trieu to yet the property owners on Dorchester Street to come to the meeting; however, they were too busy. 'i ' ~ ~ ~, ~ ,.sx THE HEARING V7AS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. FC66-Ei9 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded t~ Commissiorer Herbst, to deny Petition for Ccnditional Use Permit No~ 886 on the basis that the proposed use would be a commercial encroachment into an area primarily developec: fo, residential use, and altho~gh the integrity of the petitioner was not questiorted, the grar,ting of subject petition would set a precedent for similar requests of the residential homesin the area wt~ich would have a deleterious effect on the peace, health, safety, and general wel.fare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reseiution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMN,ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, ,auer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~viMISSIONERS: IJone. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3197 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GIACOMO LUGARO, 420 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 888 California, Owner; PAUL PEREZ, 524 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to have ON-SALE BEER AND WINE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, and having frontages of approximately 218 feet on Crescent Avenue and approximately 1,030 feet on Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 524 North Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mrs. Paul Perez, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ` and stated that the "Plush Burrito" restaurant was just opened in July of 1966; that many ~~ requests had been received for the on-sale of beer in conjunction with the serving of Mexican food; and that she was available to answer Commission questioning. ~ The Commission inquired whether a bar fer the dispensing of beer and wine without the serviny ' of food was being proposed, since the petitioner had not submitted a floor plan, Mrs. Perez stated that the floor plan submitted to the Alcoholic Beve*age Control Board indicated only a service area where the beer and wine would be dispensed for waitresses to serve the restaurant customers; that the r?staurant was a family type and would not have stools for the serving of beer or wine patrons only. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Considerable discussion was then held by the Comm~ssion relative to whether or not a finding or condition be made that the beer and wine sold was an incidental use to the primary use, which was the servin9 of Mexican food. Mrs. Perez inquired whether or not she weuld be requi.red to indicate that the beer and wine would be served only at the time food was being served to a customer; that she did not prefer the serving of alcoholic beverages - however, so many requests had been received, and it was ~ their desire to satisfy the customer. Deputy City Attorney Furma~i Roberts advised the Commission that a condition could be attached ~ that would require the submission of a floo: p:~n which weuld indicate that the proposed service _, ba: was screened from view of the dining patrons, and that a substantial portion of the floor - plan would be devoted to the preparation and serving of food. Furthermore, the Commission might wish to indicate, if subject petition were approved, that the request for on-sale beer and wine was differe~t than that recertiy disapprovPd by the Commission, due to the fact that the on-sale of be=r and wine was an incidental use in conjunction with the serving of ineals on subject property, whereas the pievious request was for a hofbrau, beer bar type of operation. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ PC56-90 and moved ror its passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Condi;ional Use Permit No. 888, subject to the requirement that the petitioner submit plans of the floor area, indicating that a substantial portion of the premises would be devoted to the preoaration and serving of food, and that the proposed service bar would be screened from view oi the dining patrons, I and said facilities to be subtantially in conformance with the plans submitted to the A.B.C., ~ and that a fir~ding be made that the approval of subject petition was predicated on the fact that the on-sale beer and wine was an incidental use to the primary use of the preparation and serving of food and not primarily a"beer bar". (See Resolution Book) Cn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COPAMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIOtJERS: Dlone. ' VARIANCE N0. 1827 - PUBLIC HEARING. DOYLE HILL b UELMAR JACKSUN, 322E South Euclid Street, ~~ Anaheim, California, Uwners; C. F. MUELLER, 9726 Klingerman, South E1 Monte, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE N~AXIMUM FREE-S1~ANDING SIGN HEIGHT AND AREA OF FRcE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: An !." irregularly shaped parcel of land lying northerly and westerly of a 100-foot by 142-foot ~; parcel located at the northwest corne.r of East Street and Kenwood Avenue and raving frontages of approximately :26 feet on East Street and approximately 102 feet on Kenwood Avenue, and a further described as 1239 North East Street. Property ~resAntly classified M-1, LIGHT "i - INDUSTRIAL, and P-L, PARKIIJG-LANUSCAPING, ZUNES, A ,~ ~ Mr.. C. F. Mueller, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that ,~ because of freeway obstructions from view to the north of the property, as well as a wind-row v ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPAMISSION, September 26, 1966 3198 VARIANCE N0. 1827 - of eucalyptus trees on the north and east sides of the property, the (Continued) proposed sign was requested; that Standard Oil and Idobil Oil gas stations had 70-foot high signs; that he was unaware he was over the anticipated having clientsefrom thetindustrial areasWnortherlytofnthehfreewas; that he the restaurant; and further, in response to Commission questioning, stated thattthelsinn as permitted under the Code would not be viewed by the prospective diners until after they had gone under the underpass of the freeway from the north, and it would be too late to make a right-hand turn to gain access to subject property; that the height of the sign wuuld also alert freeway drivers who had become hungry and direct them to subject propert•.. The Commission advised the agent for the petitioner that both service station signs were in effect prior to the establishment of the Sign Ordinance and were one of the basis for the establishment of the Sign Ordinance. The agent stated that the proposed restaurant was a very desirable one and deserved a nice, presentable siyn, and thereupon he presented a rendering of the proposed restauranto The Commission noted it was tre same as the one presented at the time Conditional Use Permit No~ 797 was approved. Mr. Doyle Hill, 332~ South Euclid Street, appeared before the Com~ission and stated that in addition to the obstruction of th:• freeway~ a large wind-row of eucalyptus trees existed across the str?et from subject property which would hide the proposed restaurant and would present a traffic hazard in that people coming down East Street from the freeway would pass the property before noting a turn-off was necessary, Mr. Robert Michaels of Downey appeared before the Commission and stated he was proposing to operate the restaurant, and si„~e it was a highly competitive business, it was necessary to have adequate signin9 to advertise the location, and that the location was chosen because of its proximity to the freeway, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion w~s held by the Commission relative to the effect approval of subject petition ~~ would have on similar requests of service, commercial establishments througnout the City, _,~ with requests for taller and larger signs of any development along freeway areas; that restaurarts that serve good food had automatic advertising by word of mouth; and that in ~ the opinion of the Commission, the existing Sign Ordinance adeouatel ~ of the proposed useo y provides for signing Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo PC66-91 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Variance No, 1827 on the basis tnat the proposed request would establish an undesirable precedent for off-size sign requests along freeway frontaqes for other commercial purposes; that the proposed sign would have a deleterious effect on the residential integrity located to the east and west of subject property; and that the existing Sign Ordinance adequately provided for signing of the proposed use~ (See Rr.solution Book; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOtiERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camo. NOES: COMMISSIO;!ERS: Noneo ABSENT: COh1MISSI0NER5: None, VARIANCE N0. 1830 - PUBLIC HEARING., LLOYD MORIARTY, RoR, #1, Box 334, N'illows, California, Uwner; HAROLD HARTLEY, 918 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting 'r~AI~/ERS OF ~1) MIIJIMUM LOT WIDTH ANU (2) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 65 feet on the west side of West Street and having a maximum depth of apprcxi- mately 370 feet, the north boundary of subject property being approximately 600 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue~ Property presently classified R-0, ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, 7_ONE . [~'} ~ Mi. Harold Hartley, agent for ttie petitiorier, appeared before the Commission and stated that the prospective purchaser of subject property haC acted in good faith - however, a hardship was involved because of the R-0 zoning of the property; that the owner was proposing to constr.uct a 2,000-square foot home on the property, which would be an asset to the City; that the prospective buyer was interested in the lot oecause of its size - however, it was not large enough to split again and still conform to the R-0 Zone; that nothing could be ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNINv COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3199 VARIANCE N0. 1830 - gained by postponing subject petition since the adjuining properties (Continued) were already developed with single-family homes; that the owner of the property to the south had purchased the rear portion of the property, although-indications in the Staff Heport noted there was a division cf property; that the petitioner was requesting waiver of the building setback only so that he could construct his home approximately in line with those already developed on the west side of the street - however, he would comply with Code requirements if the Commi~sion deemed it necessary; and that the proposed owner of the property had no intention of nurchasing other property since he was interested only in developing subject property. Mr. Don Rees, 521 South Hrden Street, the prospective owner of subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated he was purchasing the property subject to the Commission's approval of the var~ance; furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he would utilize the entire lot either by placing some of his extra supplies, since he was a contractor, or planting trees and establishing a garden on the rear portion of the lot; that he owned a large percel similar to the one he was E posing to purchase and had planted ' 23 trees on it and had considerable landscaping there. Assistant DeveloF~ment Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the prospective owner that the storage of contracting materials was not permitted in the R-0 Zone. Mr. Hartley further stated that tne properties to tne north were not wide enough to split and still conform to the R-0 Zone. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held 'oy the Commission relative to the existing zoning havin9 bee~i establ:shed a number of years ago at the request of the property ow^ers in the area, and the fact that if the properties nad a more appropriate zoning, the present problem would not exist; ;urthermore, an existing setback of 40 feet was already established - therefore, this would 'ne comparable to the R-0 homes in the area, and the petitioner had a reasonable hardship in development of his property. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution D7o. PC66-92 and moved ior its p~~sage and adoption, seconded by Commissior,er Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1830, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed hy the followinc, vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mung~11, Rowland, Camp. hOES: COMMIS~?9IdERS: None. ABSE'J?: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NU. 1831 - PUBLIC HEARING. W. R. HEMPHILL, 951 North Gilbert Stree*, Anaheim, California, Owner; request:~ng WAIVER OF MIf4IMUM LOT WIUi., on p:operty described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Gilbert Street and Rainbow Avenue and having frontages of approxi.mately 178 feet on Gilbert Street and approximately 190 feet on Rainbow Avenue, and further described as 951 North Gilbert Street. Proper~y presently classified R-1, UNE-FAMILY RESIDENTIkL, "LO1dE. Mr. W. R. Hemphill, the petitioner, appeared before tl~e Commission and reviewed past action on subject property, noting that thz existing lot, which was lot split under a previous variance, would be increased by 27 feet, making it approximately 8,000 square feet in area, and that the balance of ti~e property would be subdivided with more thon adequote mirimum square foot lot size - however, waiver was being requested for the lot width which would conform with lot widths estaulished in the area. Mrs. Robert H. Hudson, 1001 Irene Place, appeared before the Commission and stated she had submitted a letter of ~sition - however, she wishes to withdraw her letter of opposition because she had h?en ' :med tnat the property owr~ers within 300 feet of subject property would be notifi-~.! of a :~1ic hearing if a house-moving to subject property was being consid- ered, and at t'..+t time s~~e could express any opposition to the types of homesthat might be relocated on subject property. x' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the City Council always held , ~~ oublic hearings on any move-in of homes on vacant lots. R _ ii'- ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3200 VARIANCE N0. 1831 - Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Pdo. PC66-93 and moved for its (Continued; passage an~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1831, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - FUBLIC HEARiNG. REICHERT ~ SON, 16202 East Whittier Boulevard, NU. 06-67-22 Whittier, California, Owner; THOMAS SHELTON, 17612 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California, Agent; requesting that property described TENTATIVE MAP OF as: Parcel 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of TRtiCT NOS. 6311 approximately 816 feet on the east side of Lewis Street and having a AND 6314 maximum depth of approximately 855 fe~t, the southerly boundary of sub- ject property being appro~imately 455 feet north of the centerline of GENERAL PLAN Chapman Avenue, and Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of land AMENDMENT N0. 89 with a frontage of approximately 601 feet on the west side of Manchester Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 290 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property ueing approximately 158 feet north of the Anaheim city limits, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2, 5000 ONE- FAMILY, ZUNE for Parcel i and C-1, GE[JERNL CUMMERCIAL, ZONE for Parcel 2. Subject tracts, located southerly of Orangewood Avenue between Lewis Street and the Santa Ana Freeway, and containing approximately 26 acres, are proposed for subdivision into 57 lots each and a 4-acre commercial site :rontinq on Ma~chester Avenue. Mr. Ronald Shelton, representing the engineer for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was their belief there was a need for less expensive homes, particu- larly in the category cf ~20,000 ±o ~25,000; that they had reviewed the Report io the Commission and the findings a~d would be available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Furthermore, the owners of subject property were present in the audience. Mr. Sheltor, in response to Commission questioning, stated that it was anticipated to have a commercial development on Parcel No. 2- however no specific plans had been submitted, but retail commercial uses such as were established alongside the Holiday House were being pro- posed. Mr. Walter Drewry, 120 Wind9ate Dri•~e, Orange, aopeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he owned eleven of the nomes in the tract immediately south of subject property; that he represented the Homeowners Association,and considerable discussion had been held betwee^ the Homeowners Association and the City of Oranae Planning Department relati~:: to the tract ir~ which they were r.~w living and ne9otiations were underway for the purch.,se of these homes by "The City", it being anticipated that both sides o; Chapman Street would ~e developed in conformance with the overall plan of development for "The City" which would 'oe an asset to the community ar.d County; that many of the people in the area were having t'r.eir homes removed and wanted commercial zoning for these properties - however, if subject r~tition were approved, this would present a conflict of the type of development for the area and might make it impossible to sell their homes; that "ihe City" will create considerably more traffic than existed a± present, and this would create a further detriment to possible purchase or renting of the ~~roposed new homes since a traffic hazard and noise factor already existed. Furthermore, in response to Commission qu~~~`ior.ing, stated that "The City" nao inoicaLed Lhey anticipated purchase of these homes witl~i.. the next two years. The Commission noted that homes were necessary t~ support any large commercial enterprise. Mr. Drewry stated that they wished to go on record of notificatioi~ to the City of Anaheim that the property owners of the homes in the tract to the south of subject property would be removed for commercial use in the very near future, and that the area was not appropriate for residential development. Mr. Henry Reichert, one of the petitio,~~-s, appeared before the Commission and stated that the test.imony given by Mr. Drevary was completely reversed to what their original re3soning was for requesting smaller lot sizes and higher density tor sub~ect property; that the proposed development of subject property was arrived at after reviewing the existing development in the area, but since evidence had been submitted which indicaied the homes south of subject propert would be torn down o* ^Plocated and commercial establishments or high-rise establishments being !.~rstructed on ~:.c: property, the land uses might nc ~ ccmpatible - however, they had the na,e:sary financiny appro:;-'..atecy .`cr developing sub; ,roperty in any way, but he would not like to be caught between ~;.emetery and a high-:ise c`- ~ buildiny, and requested that the Commission defer any action for a few minutes while hE ~.iLted +~ith thP re~resentatives of a finance company; furthermore, contact with "The City' ~letermine wheti,er or not the existing single-:amily homes would be torn down o: relocatea. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1965 3201 RECLA5SIFICATION - The Commission then stated they would listen to the Staff's report N0. 66-67-22 on the General Plan Amendment to give the petitioner time to consult with his finance represer,tatives. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 6311 Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented General Plan Amendment AND 6314 No. 89, as follows: GENERAL PLAN "General Plan Amendment No. 89 has been initiated as a result of an AMcNDMENT N0. 89 application for R-2 5000, Une-Family and C-1, General Commercial zoning (Continued) on the property immediately south of the Melrose Abbey Cemetery. The total area for consideration in this proposed amendment is that area bounded ~n the north by Oran9ewood Avenue, on the west by Lewis Street, and the south by che Anaheim city boundary, and on the east by Manchester Avenue. The major point for consideration by the Pla~ning Commission is the determination of whether or not a change in the land use policy for this area is appropriate at this time. The General Plan presently depicts low density residential land uses for the ma;ority of the study area. Medium density residential land uses have been determined to be appropriate for the northwestern section of the area around the intersection of Orangewood Avenue and Lewis Street. The existing land uses surrounding the study area include: a, North: Manufacturin9 firms, a trailer park, and a multiple-family subdivision. b. West: Vacant land within the City of Anaheirn :vhich has been approved for multiple-family development, Also, in the City of Orange, there is a single-family ~~~bdivision with 7200 syuare foot lots. c. South: A single-family subdivision with approximately 7200 squar? foot lots in the City of Orange. Aiso; to the south of this subdivision, a large commercial and residential complex is proposed. This complex, known as "The City", will ultimately cover about 200 acres and could have a very definite influence upon the type of development that might be completed upon the property with which General Plan Amendment No. 89 is concerned. d. East: The Santa Ana Freeway. The request that is before th? Planning Commission now under Reclassification No. 66-67-22 is for R-2 500~, One-Family z ming on 22.q acres and C-1, General Commercial zoning on 3.87 acres south of the cemetery. The residential subdivision as is presently proposed would contain lots of 6000 square feet. The determination that must now be made is whether a change in the statement of land use policy for the area is appropriate. The existing land uses immediately surrounding the study~ area are primarily low density residential in nature. However, it is iiighly conceivable that the influence of "7'he City" project could extend northerly to tne area tnat is under consideration in Recl7ssification tJo. 50-67-22. Ihe development of tnis property to a higher density residential land use could serve to complement the overall concept of "The City". 'Iwo alternative exhibits will be presented at the Planniny Commission public hearing: a. Exhibit A" illustrates low-medium density residential uses ior the entire study area. b. Exhibit "B" illustrates medium density residential for the entire study area. The medium density symbology would constitute a continuation of the mediuin density projected for the north side of Uranyewood Avenue. If the Planning Commission feels that a change as depic',ac ~p~n one of these exhibits is appropriate, thi.s would indicate that the area is approp~:zta not only for ~-2, 5000 develop- ments, but multiple-family developments as well. Tne adoF:ic;i of Exhibit "A" woulc permit a maximum density oi 18 dwelling units to the acre and Exhibit '?" would permit a m?ximum density of 36 dwelling units to the acre. In the event th~t either of these exhibits is approved, the increased burden upon educational and recreational fecilities would 'oe negligible. I~herefore, in considering all of these facts, it would appear that a cr.ange in the Plan to permit higher residential densities would be appropriate, especially when considering the trends in tne area." Mr. Reichert ~gair, appeared before the Commission and asked that subject petitions be continued two weeks in order to allow them time to contact reoresentatives of "The City" and for further re-analysis of develoome~it of subject property. MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3202 REC?.ASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue pLblic hearing on NC. 66-67-22 Reclassification No. 66-67-22, Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 6311 and 6314, and General P1an Amendment No. 89 to the meet~ng of October 10, TENTATIVE MAP OF 1966, in order to allow the petitioner time to re-evaluate development TRACT NOS. 6311 plans for subject property. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. AND 6314 MOTION CARRIED. GENERAL .PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 89 (ContinUed) f ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PU3LIC HEANING. ELIE FILIP, 112 South Bush Street, Anaheim, California, N0. 66-67-27 Uwne_•; RICHARD MATHER, 2018 North Ross Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land VARIANCE N0. 1829 with a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Bush Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 155 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 135 ieet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 112 South Bush Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUE5TED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOf WIDTH, (2) MIIJIMUM FLOUR AREA, (3) MAXIMUN BUILDING HEIGHT, AND (4) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK. Mr. Richard Mather, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the apartment structure was already in existence and was located five feet from the south property 1ine; that the proposed 450-square foot apartment addition would be located adjacent to the storage room and would be a conversion of an existing garaye; that the present garage had a capacity for three cars and would converted into three covered parking spaces. The Commission inquired as to the time the petitioner 'r~ad outained approval from the City to constru::t the existing substandard apartment. ' hir. ~+lather stated that the apartment development had 'oeen in existence for a number of years; ; that it was not the petitioner's in?ention of addin9 square footage to the building, but to utilize existing excess space; and that many of the 50-foot lots in the area had five and six _ units constructed on them. Pdo one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEA~. JG WAS C[ASEU. Discussion was held by tt-- Commission relative to tne number oi waivers requested, znd those necessary to convert a nor-conforming use into a con:orminy use, tnat being thst Section 18.28.050(1-b!, 15-bj, and (G-a-5-b-2j would !iave to t~e appro~~ed; t;owever, Sectior, 18.28.050 (3-a) for waiver of the minimum iloor area to convert existino :'acilities into a si.ibstandaro 450-square foot apartment should be denied. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutior.i~o. x 66-9~ and moved for its passa3e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend te the City Cour,cil tf~at Petition for Reclassi- iication No. 50-67-27 be approve9, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book; On roll call the foregoiny resol~~iion was passed 'uy tfie iollowiny vote: AY~S: COIo1MISSI0D1EkS: Allred, rarano, Couer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowiand, Comp. IVOES: CUMMISSIUNERS: iJone. ABSEfJI': COMMISSIONE;cS: Pdone. ~ ' Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. F'C5o-9~ and moved for its passage and adoption, '' i seconded by Commissi~ner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1829 in , part, denyi:~3 Section 18.28.05C(3-a; mirimum floor area per dwelliny unit, and approviny the balance of the waiver requests on Lhe basis that the structure was already i:; existence, and granting the waivers would formally establisn a non-conforming niultiple-family development as a con- ~: forming use; nowever, the denial for the n;inimum i]oor a.~a was basad on the fart that the F~ proposed uni± would be substandard. (See Resolution nook) ~~ ~ ~<~ On roll call the foregoing resol~tion was passed by the following vote: ~~ - AYES: CO~~1h1ISSI0iJERS: Ailred, Farar.o, Gauer, Herbst, Niunyali, Rowland, Camp. ~j ~ NOES: COMMISSIOMERS: iJone. ~ ~ ~`„ kBSEPJT: CGMh1ISSI0PJERS: PJone. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3203 RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Cemmissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTIOCJ CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:06 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:20 P.M., all Commissioners being present. RECLAS~IFICATION - PUBLIC HEARIIJG. TUSTIN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATIOD!, 130 "H" Street, N0. 66-67-28 Tustir~, California, Owner; CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH OF ORANGE COUI4TY, = 227 ::orth Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property Jescribed ~ CONDITIONAL USE as: An irregularly sFaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately PERMIT N0. 887 60 feet on the west side of Magnolia F,~renue and having a maximum depth of ~ approximately 460 feet, the southerly boundary or sub;?r,t property being approximately 330 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. °rooerty presently classified R-H, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIUN: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, LUNE. _,~ REQUESTED CONDITIGNAL USE: ESTABLISH A PRIVFTE EDUCHTIONAL INSTITUTIUN. Reverend Paul Liefeld, representing the church and the petitioner, ap,~eared before the Commission and stated that the matter of parking was a record of easement; that students would not be parking on subject p:operty because they were directed to park in the main parking lot,across the Orange County flood control channel, which had more than adec;u3t? space for parking purposes. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised ti~e Commission that a document,to assure the preservation of sufficient land to provide for the *equired parking for tiie building pro- posed to be constructed on subject property, be recorded and this document be bindino on the owners, heirs, successors, and assigns, in the event a oortion of subjact property was sold. No one appeared in opposition to sub;ect petitions. THE HEARIKG WAS C~OSED. ~.1t ~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PCSo-96 ar,d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication P]o. 05-57-28 be approved, subject to conciitions. (See Resolution Book) On ro11 call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Earano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CO~NMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONE.^.S: None. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution IJo. PC6o-97 and moved for its passage and adoptiun, seconded by Commissioner 19un9a11, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 887, subject to conditions. ~See Resolution Book) Or~ roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the follcwiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Fdungall, Rowlar,d, Camp. NOES: COMMIS5IONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY WAGNER, 975 South Stat.e College Roulevard, Anaheim, N0. 66-67-23 California, Owner; WEGER COMPANY, INCORPORAT~D, 8879 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; property described as: Portion A- A CONDITIONAL USE rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of PERMIT NU. 885 Ba11 Road and State College Boulevard and having frontages of approximately 125 feet on Ball Road and approximately ].50 feet on State College Boulevard; VARIANCE N0. 1828 Portion B- A rectanguldrly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi- mately 95 feet on Ball Road and 1./ing west of Portion A; Portion C- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 60 feet on Ball Road and lying west of Fortion 6; and Portion ll- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 95 feet on Ba11 Road and lying west of Portion C. Property presently classified R-A, HGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTIOtJS A, B, C, AND D- M-1, LIGHT INDUSI'RIAL, LONE. ~ i i ' 1 • y : ~:i ~ 'ji .5 .. ._ ...: ..:.~.. ~ .... .. . . .. :. .... _. ~_ ...:,~....._ _ .. . ` -:. ~ ..._. ,~ . _. / - . .., .. . . . .,_. .. !,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3204 RECIASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PORTION B- ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT. N0. 66-67-23 PORTION D- ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 885 REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION C- ESTABLISH RETAIL STORES. VARIANCE N0. 1828 Mr. Sidney Weger, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared (Continued) before the Commission and reviewed past Commission and Council action on subject property, stating he was available to answer questions. The Commission inquired as to the type of retail stores he was proposing in the M-1 Zone. Mr. Weger stated he was not sure what type of retail stores would occupy the proposed space since no leases had been signed, but it was proposed to hav= the most compatible type of service businesses complementing the res:aurants and the service station, such as a beauty shop, a cleaning establishment, and pessibly a liquor store; that the area invo]•.ad for the retail stores was only 60 feet in wiath, since the balance o: the property was being occupied by ihe restaurants and the service station. The Commission noted that the restaurant and service station were oermitted uses in the M-1 Zone - however, the inclusion of any retail stores would be a breakdown of the M-1 Zone as it has been established in the City, since this would not be compatible to the area; that it was not an incidental use to the industrial development; ar.d that no residentialhomes were in close proximity to support the proposed type of commercial use since a commercial development ha~; occurred on the east side of State College Boulevard which would adequately serve the e~:isting and potential residential development for that area. Mr. Weger stated that it was his feeling the commercial uses proposed would be a service to the industrial area as well as to the residential area established; that the northeast corner of State College Boulevard should not be given non-competitive use of the area; that there was no intent to build stores until the f?rm leases were established because the market, as it presently existed, would require leases before money could be obtained far development; and it was the intention of the developer to construct the service station first. Furthermore, the area between the proposed restaurant-cocktail lounge and the walk-up restaurant was the area proposed for the small retsil st~ops, and that in order to obt~in adequate parking, it was necessary to reduce the landscape setback in the front area. The Commission informed the agent that all restaurants that had been developed in the M-1 Zone were required to submit plans, and were also required to provide the landscape setbach, and, furthermore, it was hoped the Commission could determine from plans the type of restau- rant proposed. The agent stated that contact had been made with several o: the large restaurants - however, he was unable to consummate an agreement with any of the restaurants. Commissioner Gauer then read a newspaper clipping regarding the establishment of beer bars in shopping centers, noting tnat because the shopping areas were unable to lease their proper- ties, requests were coming before the various governmental agencies asking permission to es±ablish beer bars in smal:, neigt~borhood shopping areas. Mr. Weger stated that his concern had built a number of commercial shopping centers; that beer bars were allowed in the iirst ones - however, certoin problems arose, and the requests for beer bars were reviewed and were r.ow being refused in all of the centers they operated. Continued discussion was held 'oy the Commission relative to the property owner owning a large portion of the property northerly of subject property wnich was und~veloped; that tne General Plan indicated subject and adjoining properties for industrial purposes, and any development of th~t property should be in accordance wiih the industrial code requirements; furthermore, the 60 feet proposed for the small shopping area snould be incorporated into the restaurant pa.rking and the structure itself rather than an area with only three stores for shopping purposes. i~1r. Weger stated that since there was no firm commitment as to the restaurant, the proposed commercial uses were indicated or: the concept plan. Mrs. Ann Madison, realtor, appeared before the Commission and stated she was the agent for ~ the petitioner; that when the Weger Company had made an offer on the property for the proposed commercial uses, they had indicated a 3-foot landscaping strip rather than that required by the M-1 Zone; that subject property was presently R-A, and on the tentative master plan - for M-1 only; that because the developer had no firm commitments relative to the res±aurant ~ or the retail stores, it was determined the small, service-type businesses would be more ~ industrially related and oriented than anything else; furthermore, ttie City had approved the "Orient" trade center which would have many more retail stores when it was developed than the three stores the petitioner was proposing. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COti~ISSION, September 26, 1966 3205 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. B. J. McKay, Manager of E. N. Saraent s Company located to the west N0. 66-67-23 of subject property,appeared before the Commission and stated he was not opposed to the request for M-1 zoning which allows service stations, CONDITIONAL USE although he was not familiar with the other uses which could be established PERMIT N0. 885 in the M-1 Zone; however, in hi=_ estimation, the Commission should only establish M-1 zoning and deny all the other requests for specific uses, VARIANCE N0. 1828 becauses commercial uses on a small parcel would 6e detrimental to the (Continued) ultimate development of the large, industrial properties available in close proximity; that the existing commercial shopping facility at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road was more than adequate to serve the needs of the area, including the industrial area; that the walk-up restaurant was a rather small one, and certainly would not serve people adequately - and this was one of the reasons he requested that subject property be designated for M-1 uses only. Mr. McKay also expressed grave concern regarding the property between the proposed restaurant and the E. H. Sargent Company, stating that the entire parcel should be required to submit development plans prior to any approval of subject petitions in order that the Commission may determine the adequacy of `:.ndustrial development. Mrs. Ann Madison stated that only 300 feet of frontage along Ball Road existed between the E. E:. Sarqent Company and the proposed development. ~':~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the proposed signs and their ~~7' locations were noi under consideration and inquired whether the Commission had any specific `.1 requirements for signs for subject property. '- The Commission advised the r~ petitioners and the Staff that if subject petitions were approved, ~` the developer would be required to comply with signing as permitted by ordinance in the M-1 ~ ~ Zone. 'i Uiscussion was then held by Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, Mr. Thompson, and the `i Commission relative to the variation in the types of signs permitted in the setback area of the M-1 Zone, and the size of signs permitted in the commercial zones, and at the close '~ of said discussion the Commission deterinined that since the petitioner was requesting M-1 zoning, and the facil?ties were proposed to serve the area, the M-1 Sign.Ordinance should apply; furthermore, that a parking-landscaping area should also be incorporated in any r development pians. ~ ~ _ THE HEARING INRS ~LOSED. Cummi.ssioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-98 and moved for its passage and adopt.i.on, secon~~d by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reciassi- fication No. 66-67-23 be apprcved, subject to conditions, and a further requirement that any `I sipning proposed fo~r subject property shall be in conformance with signs permitted in the i tJ!-:~ Zone; fi:rthermore, the landsc.ape setback shall be in conformance with the M-1 Zone. '`~ lSee R~solution Book) {~ ` On roll call the foregoing r.esolution was passed by the following vote: I `I ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. J ~ NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None. ~` ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PCo6-99 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant PEtition for Conditional Use Permit iJo. 885, • establishing an enclosed restauz•ant and cocktail lounge on Parcel D, a walk-up restaurant on i Parcel B, but denying the request for waiver of the required setback landscaping in the M-1 Zone, and further provided that development plans for both restaurants shall be subject fo ;I i the approval of the Planning Commission or City Council relative to any signs and landscape I setbacks proposed. (See Resolution Book) i On roll call the foreooing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONUdISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. F NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~ ' AB3ENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-100 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1828 on the basis that no ;•'; hardship was proven that retai~ uses shculd be established, or were necessary, on subject property; that nranting suF~ject petition would set an undesirable precedent for the estab- ~ ' lishment of retail uses in the industrial areas of the City; that retail uses would be ~,, deleterious to the future growth potentia: of the undeveloped 50 acres in close pruximity l *~ to subject property; and that adequate retail facilities were already established at the ,{ ~ northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road to serve the residential properties ? I; north and east of it. (See Resolution Book) ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAI RECLASSIFICATION N0. 66-67-23 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "•'.~. d85 VARIANC:E-N0. 1828 (Conr.inued ) JNING COMMISSION, September 26, 1~)66 3206 - On roll call the foregoing Pe~olution was passed by the following V~~e: 'c:S: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMNISSIONi:RS: None. RL:.'I.ASSIFICATIOP~ - PUBLIC HEARING. N ITIATED BY THE CITY PLANN1iJG COMMISSIUN, 204 E~s* ~d0. 66-67-24 . Lincoln Avenue, Ar.aheim, California, proposing t!~at property describ=U as: Parcel 1- An irreaularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximatelY 2,3U0 feet on the nor.n .,ide of the Rive*side Freeivay, the easterly boundary of subject pro~~rt~~ being approx~.nately 665 feet west of tne cente:rline of Blue Gum Street, the northerlv :,~undary k:eirg approximately 310 feet south of the~ c.r.Lerl~n~ of Miraloma Avenue; Pari;el 2- Po.r.;.i~n A- An irregularly shaped parcel of land lo~:ted at the northeast corner of Blue Gum 5~:~~~et .:nd Coronado Street and !:aving frontage: of apnroxi- mately 610 ,~e~ on BZue Gu:r~ Str-~et and approximately 180 feet on Coronado Street, and Portion &- An irregularly shapEd parcel ui :and iacated at the southwest corner of ~or~nado 5treet a~d Blue GL!r. 5±reet and having frc,~~'.;.aes of approximately 620 feet on Coronado Strent anr' ap,~r~ximately 1,050 feet on Blue GuT~ ~±~~:e`e ~arcel 3- A rectangular:; shaped paicP: ;>f '_an9 i:cated at the noi•t.hwest corner of i:oronado Street and Blu~_ Gurn °t.raet and havi~~ fro~it:~yes of approximately 640 feet on Coronado Street and approximately 9?0 feet on ~l.ue Gum Street; and Parcel 4- A recta;iyularly shaped parcel of :and located at the southwest corner of P1~..e G:.,n Street anc Miraluma Avenue and having frontages of approximate!y ?'0 feet on Blu;,~ " m 3treet and approximately 1,330 feet on Miraloma Avenue, be reclassifie~~ from (Parceis 1 and 4) R-A, AGRICULTURAL, LONE (INTERIM ZONING) to R-A, AGRICULTURA!, LONE and (Parcels 1 and 3) M-1, Li,,:~iT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE (ITITERIM ZONING) to M-1, LIGHT IIJDI;STRIAL, ZONE. ~'~~ Associate Planner Marvin i;rieger re~•iewed the existing zoniny established by the City Council through an interim ordinance for the ~,lue Gum-Coronado Annexat.ion, noting t}~at ~~arcels 1 and 4 were presently vacant w?th some agricultural use and had an ;2-A interim zoning; that }e~rcels 2 and 3 were already developed with ind~strial uses and h3c an ht-1 interim zoning, s~id interim zoning having been established August 30, 1966, ?~ Ordinance IJo. 2316, and that :s had been established in previous annexations of proper':ies .'n the Nori~.~ast In~,iustr°.al Aie~, those parcels not developed for industrial purposes we:°e pl< :er ~~ tF. ~ t,oldir~g zcn~ •:vi~i~ a subsequent reclas~ification petition being initiated to est ^,~ a r~sriution of i~tent to rezone to M-1, subject to specific conditions. No one appeared in oppesition to subje:t p=tition. THE HEARING WAS CLUSFO. Commissior,er Rew1e;:~i offEt.:d Res~1~•tion No. PC6o-101 and moved ior its passage an~9 adoption, seconded by Commissicner ~1:1_ed, to recommend tc the City Coun:~: that ?etition for R~classi- fir.~tin~ No. 66-67-.t4 be appro~~d, establishing permanent zoning fo: pr~oerties i~ ti~e~ Blue Gum• _uro~.ado Annexation, v~itti Parce; s 1 and 4 being zoned to the R-/,, Agricultura:, Zcne and Parcels 2 and 3 bei-~y zoned to the ht-1, Light Industrial, Zone. (Set Resolution 2:~ok) Or. roll call the for=going resolution was o~ssed Ly the foJ1 ing vote: i,YES: ~:!MMISSIONCRS: Allred. Farano, Ga~er; H?r,,,t, ~viungall, Rowlar~d, ~~mp, NGES: COMiutISSION~RS: ,~one. ABSENT: COMMISSIUNEFS: None. Commissioner Herbst .eft the Council Chamber ~t 4:57 P.M. • ~ ~ , MINUTES, CITY rl-a1P',t;lr_• ~.n~~ISSION, September 26, 1966 3207 RcCLASSIFICATION - PUBL1i. HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, 204 East N0. 66-67-25 Linco~n kverue, Anaheim, California, proposing the reclassification of property ~escribed as: Parcel 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frcnta9e of approximately 2,300 fe?t on the north side of t~~e ~2iverside Freeway, the eastcr:y 5oundary of subject property being approximately 665 feet west of the centerline of Blue Gum Street, the northerly boundary being approximately 310 feet south oi the ;enterline c~f M'~raloma Aveni~?, and Parcel 4- H rectangularly shaped parcel of land locat~ad at the soutnwest cor~~er of Blue Gwn Street and Miraloma tivenue and having frontages of approximatelv 31C feFt on Blue Gum Street and approximately 1,330 feet on Miraloma Aveiue, from t}ie R-:,, AG!3ICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGH7 INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. :.::,ociate Plannf:r Marvir, Krieger reviewed the prope ~s under consideration, noting they ~• were undeve~oped - however, were lc,cated in the ina..~trial area and the proposed resolution `'~ ;. of inte~•~t we ~l•,: ~e in ccnfc,-~nance with past :ity actions on undeveloped indus+.rial oroperty I in i ;e ~'v_ihea;,; ?ndust °la~ „~aa. y No nr,c: ~epea:F:+ in opposition to eubiecc pe~tition. ~ ' THE HEP.RING WAS GL')SED. . ( Commissi,.~er Rowland offe~ed Resolution i~o. °Cu5-102 and moved for its -~) secondeJ Ly Commission,r All., d, to recomme.~:~ ~o the City Council that PetitionaforaReclassi- fication vo. 66-67-25 bE appr~.ved, esLablisr'.r,~ a resolution of intent for a portion of the I: Blue Gum-Cor.>nado Pnnexatior,; subject to c~„ditions. (See Resolution Book) I On rol'. call the foregoing ~eso~ution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, F~rano, Gauer, ?~~ungall, Rowland, Camp. I NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. .4BSENT: CUMMISSI.Gi~EP.~ : Herbst. STR.°_ET Iv;.MI,; CSiPNaE - PUBLI~ HEARING. INI'I?P.;ED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, 204 East FOR GARNET =TRtGT Lincoln Avenue, An~:;eim, California; proposing a street name chanye for Garnet Street, lo~ated east of Brookhurs'. Stzeet north of Broad;vay, to P.rcher Street. Ze~iing Supexvisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the loca,; n of Garnet Street, noting that said street was a logical extension of Archer Street; that only three residences would be aff?cted by the change ir, name on Garne St,eet, whereas 55 hon,es would be affected if P.rcher St:eet were char.;=d; that ihe Anaheim G'ost Office t~ad indicated that no problem would exist in the servicing of said homes on Garnet Street: and that t'~e three property owners involved on ;a:net Szreet were contacted, and no op~.osition was e~cpressed to the name -t~ange. No one appeared in opposition to s•~bject petition. •i ~ 1HE HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Commissioner Munga,l offered Res~lution No. PC66-103 and moved fcr its passaye and adoption, seconded by Commissioner iarano, to reco~mend to the City i,ouncil that a change in name be I rr,adc. f~r GarnF? Street to f.rcher Street or the basis that ~nly three hcmes would be affected, ~ and that to provide consistency in stieet names which ext?nded logicall.y across another strPet, ~~ a chan9e ~n name w~s deemed necessary. (See Resolution Book) ` On roll call ine ioregoinq resoiution was passed by the followir.y vote: ~ ! AYES: COMi4ISSIUtdERS: All.red, Farano, Gauer, ;4un a1_; NOES: CUNNIISSIUNERS: ;;~~F, 9 , Rowland, Camp. ; AB~ ,.i7: COMIAISSIONERS: Herbst. i'. i: ~) GENERAL PLAI~ - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATEU BY 7HE CI"TY PLAI4;JINC G~GiMISSION, ', AMENDM~ENT NOS. 204 East Lincoln Nvenue, Anaheim, California, encompassing properties ~ 18 AND 52 at the intersectionsof Sycamore and [ast Streets and ia Palma Avenue 9 and Fast Street. ~ 5 i Subject Gereral Plan Amendments were continued from the meetings of August 15 and september 12, ~ 1966, to allow time for furtt~er study. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewec' for the Commission tne various zoning actions considered by ttie Planning Commissior~ and City Ccuncil, ari9 the fact that a special. area ~= study encompassing properties on both s`des of [ast Street between Linc~ln Avenue on r.he south and the Riverside Freeway on the north t~ad been presenCed at a previous hearing; i.hat as a result of said study, ttie C;~mmission directed the Staff to reacti~,ate t~eneral Plan Ame~,dmei:t .._ ,~. ':.`~ i V~ `~.~'i svc-e- -C'~~•.'/~``w. ..~x.ur:NumRr...-. _~ .._. •,..~w~~r'u°~ ~~~~~ . .~5.«.F~,~ u..u. MINUTES, CI?Y PLAPINING COMMISSION, September 26, 1966 3208 GENERAL PLAN - Nos. 18 and 52 encompassing properties which were developed for AMENDA~NT NUS. commercial purposes so that the General Plan would reflect development 18 AND 52 in that area. (Continued) Commissioner Herost returned to the Council Cha~ber at 5:00 P.A4. Mr. Grudzinski then reviewed Area Development Plans for the south side of La Palma Avenue, easterly of East Street and the west side of East Street between Sycamore and North Streets, and further noted that the neighborhood commercial symbol for the irtersection of Sycamore and East Streets represented the existing development; however, the neiahborhood commercial , symbol for La Palma Avenue and East Street might be more than the Com~;iission migiit wish to ,~~ recommena to the City Council, and perhaps highway related uses at that intersectior. might ; be more appropriate. It was also noted that the Commission continued subject General Plan ~~ , Amendments in order that more data might be presented by the Staff regarding the residFntial ~ front-on studies at a work session. ' Th= action of the City Council on a re~lassification for C-0 uses northerly of Sycamore ~ Street on a vacant parcel was also reviewed by Mr. Grudzinski. The recommendation of the Staff reyarding General Pian Amendment No. ~2 was reviewed and recommended as being a favoraUle amendment; however, Mr. Grudzinski stated the designation of the General P=<.: Hmendment No. 18 at La Palma AvenuP and East Street was undetermir,ed since only two service stations iiad been developed at ihat intersection. The presentation of the front-on study at the Commission's work session was brief:y reviewed by Mr. Grudzinski, who noted that in studies made of the area, no evidence was found to indicate tnat the area could ecocorz~ical~~; suppe-t {_:-.i:=r commerciai developr.ent along East Street. After discussion b! the Commission regarding the zoning action taken alono East Street, as well as the action taken by the Commission and City Council regarding Area Development Plans and General Plan Amendments on both East Street and La Pa1ma Avenue, ;J~r. ~rudzinski then •reviewed the exhibits posted on the General Plan, namely 1) neighborhood symbol at Sycamore and =ast Streets, 2) whether or not desiqnation at La Palma Aver,~? and East Streat, i.e., highway related commercial other than service stations or a commerciai shopping center,should be indicated, and 3) whether or not the Commission desired '.o recommend commercial uses be- tween these te~o intersections for the frontages on both sidas of East Street. In respons~ to Commission auestioning, Mr. Grudzinski stated he had contacted tlie manager of the market at Romreya Drive and East Street and had been info:med that there was no inten- tion of closing that small, cenvenience shopping center; furthermore, past Commission action had indicated that additional commercial establishments along East Str?et should be discouraged. ~Nrs. John Spielman, 747 North East Street, ap~eared beiore the Commission and stated she was of the opinion that the properties along the west side of East Street were not suitable for rasidential uses; that she did not like livin3 under the present conditions which had heavy traffic and a;ess desirable environment for residential uses; tha~ the residents of the area had lost their pride in ownership because o; the indecision of what could be developed, or what could be used, for sub;ect proper*ies since considerable commercial development had occurred along East Street; tnat with the closing of North Street, further problems had been created i.n lessening the chances of gaining ingress and egress te the drives which fronte~3 G!ong East Street; and that she could not see where Commissioner Gauer's recommendation that a masonry wall be placed along the street would be of any heip because it wouid be ton hazard- ous attempting to back out of these drives. Commissioner Gauer then stated that he was opoosed to the designatio~ of commercial uses without i~emoval of the existing homes and submission of development plans for use of land or area sinEe no evidence had been submitted that ~~ould indicate any support for addi:ional commercial uses, and that more than adecauate sho~,iing iacilities aiready existed along the street. Commissioner Herost concurred in Commiss~oner Gauer's statement, namely that there was a real problem since no evidence had been pieser~ted to warrant commercial development of these p*operties, and he was unalterably opposed to conversion of single-iamily homes for commer- cial purposes - that perhaps the area could 'oe developed for multiple-family residenti.a? purposes, since the City could only withstand a certain amount of saturation of commercial development before all commercial devetopment in the area would be suffering; that the City had a definite proUlem within the City in considering strip commercial zoning because 2,700 homes in the City either fronted-on or sided-on arterial streets and highways, and if out- lying areas were oermitted to develop for commercial purposes, this wouid completely negate any possible commercial redevelopment of the downtowr. area for high-rise office buildings. .ax MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, Septen:ber 26, i966 3209 GENF~AL PLAN - Mrs. Spielman then stated if the Commission was of tF:e opinion that AMENllMENT NOS. East StrEet should remain residential in character, then the City 18 AND 52 should reduce the speed limits, enforce the reduced speed limits, (Ccntinued) eliminate the "no parking" signs, and reroute any truck traffic to another area, The Commission also noted that although zoning or projections on the General Plan might ' i;,dicate a difrerent type of zoning than alreac~y existed, this did not mean a redevelop- ment program of the area would take place, since many areas in the City had not rede•deloped in accordance with the projections and the zoning on the property. ' - ~Mr. Clifford Beckler, 1242 East La Palma Avenue, aFpeared before the Commission and stated ,i ~'~ , they were unable tc sell their property because no one wanted to purchase property without u , an =ndication of a specific use for the area; that the opposition to the commercial develop- ;~ merL on the Durante property was other than t~e homes ixontir,g along La Palma Avenue; that jt the rear yards of these deep lots were the collecting piaces for trash from the R-1 homes f that backed on to them; however, she was unsure whether or not there was a market for multiple-family residential use. I ' Chairman Camp advised Mrs. Beckle: that ii a land assembly of two or more parcels was ! accomplished, the price of land would then :educe the cost of ~ ' possibly developing ior m~~ltiple-family residential use, since that was more in demand than commercial requests. I. I THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Consid?rable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the symbology that ; mi.,ht Qe designated for !he deep l~~ts along the south s de of La Palma i,venue, as well j as the deep iots along the east side of East Street northerly of Wilhelmina Street, and ~ the fact that service stations were the most intense commercial use in ttie C-1 ~one and ~ miyht not f~e compatible v~ith any residential use, ' Assistant Development Services Director Robert ~J~ick~lson related to the Commission an ~ example of residential and commercial uses, nam=ly at the southeast corner of Ball Road ~ and Euclid Street where a planned development was constructed and ihe garages backed on to the commercial uses, with ttie residences being approximately 55 feet from any commercial use. _, After considei ble discussion by tt~e Commission relative to the type of uses that should _ be permitted along the west side of East Street, as we12 as the east side of East Street, the Staff was directed to prepare a new General Plan Amendment encompassing properties al.ong the west side oi East Street between Sycamcre and tdorth Streets with designations for commercial-professior,al uses with a recommendation that since these luts backed on to an alley, thev presented a more logical con~ersion to pro;essional office use than those along th~ east side of East Street - however, conversion of the residential homes for commercial purposes should be discouraged because of the size of the lots, and the ~ recommendation that land assembly for spe.:ial office use would 'oe more acceptaole; that ~ the deep lots alorg the east side of East Street ~;erthe:iy of Wilhelmina Street extending ~ to La Palma Avenue, and the south side of La Palma Avenue extending easte^ly to approxi- ~ mately 120 feet west of Hawthorne Street, be the second ~rea of consideration ior low- medium density development, and a recommendation that land assemb:y of these deep lots ~ be attempted in order that develooers might be encouraged t~ develop a complementary ~ multiple-.'amily residential development~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Dio. PC66-104 and moved for its passaoe and adoption, seconded by Commissior.er Herbst, to :zcommend to the City Council tnat General Plan Amendment No. 52, enc~,npassing the properties at the intersection of Sycamore and East Streets be adopted as a logical symbology for development which had already occurred at that intErsection. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by tP~e iollowing vote: , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, (arano, Gauer, Herbst, idungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commi;si oner Herbst offered Resolution IJo, °C65-i05 and moved for its passaoe and adoption s2conded , by Commissioner t~lungall, to recommend to the C.ty Council that General Plan Amend- ~' ~ ment No. 18 be disapproved on t~:e basis that no further commercial encroachment should be G~~ permitted along East Street, and that the existing servi ce station sites did not warrant ~ consider ation of a neighborhood shopping facility symbol. (See Resolution Eook) ~; - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ey ~ ~~ ~* AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauei, Herbst, h4unga1l, Camp. " ~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. r-i ABSENT: CU~.IMISSIONcRS: None. ~ ! ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. p MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September ~6, i966 3210 REPURTS AND - ITEM N0. i RECOMMENDATIOP : M-1 and P-L Zo:~es - Consideration oi deletion of Vermort Street from the Commission's recommer:~ation. Assistant Planner Chailes Roberts reviewed for the Commission cheir action on the reclassi- fication of properties in the industrial areas regardin9 the parking-landscaping zone being converted into the M-1 "Lone beczuse the M-1 Zone now had site development standards which covered the previous ~ecessity ;or the parking-iandscaping zone; thai the reclassificati.,n oetition would be considered by the City Council at their meeting on September 27 - however, in reviewing the data on all streets in the various industrial areas, it was determined that , Vermont Street was designated on the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way of the T~~ General Plan as a local street, and the site development standards of the M? Zone permitted ~ a five-foot, fully lardscaped setback on a local street. However, many of the industries ;~ , along Vermont Street .~ad already developed with the 50-foot setback, and because of the many problems involved along said street, the Commissior, might wish to consider dele.ing Vermont ~' Street from the reclassification petition and direct the Staff to further study the setback requirements, such as was proposed for Cerritos Avenue and ?ewis Street. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that although Vermont Street was designated as a local street, because of the amount of traffic on the street it could be co-~sidered an - arterial highway, and the existiny setbacks on the properties which were presently 50 feet should be mairtained - therefure, he recommended that it be deleted from the reclassifica- i tion petition proposing the chanye of P-L Zone to M-1 Zone until such time as a further study was made which might reauire a change in the Circulation Element, designating Vermont Street as a secondary arterial highway. Cort~nissioner Rowland stated that many of the vehicles using Vermont Street were heavy trailer trucks and needed a wider area for turn-around; therefore, the desionation of a local street was hardly ir, keeping with the traffic along this street. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the Staff to recommend to the City Council at the public hearing of Reclassification !Jo. 06-67-14 to delete any refere~ce of -sclassify- ing the P-L Zo~e along Vermont Street until such time as a further study could E made regard- ing the possibility of an amendment to the General P1an, designating Vermont Street as an arterial highway. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. h70TI0N CA.RRIED. I?EM N0. 2 Variance No. 1742 (John Schaefer, Petitioner) - Property locat=d at 1320 and 1325 Belmont Avenue - Request for an extension o: time. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented to the Commission a request for an extension of time for the completion of conditions of Variance No. 1742, noting that the petitioner requested the extension so that he could proceed with negotiations regarding Frivate deed restrictions which preciudad development as proposed, and that the Staff recom~nended a one-year extension of time. It was also noted that the previous er.tensior, of time e;cpired on March 28, 1966, and the Commission might wish to make the one-year extension of time retroactive. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time, retroactive to March 28, 1965, said time extension to expire March 23, 1967. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MUTION CARRIEU. IT'tM Nu. 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 750 (idarvin Streiff, Petitioneri - Property located at 928 South Webster Street - Request to establish a cat boarding facility in an existing structure. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented the request for an extension of time from the petitioner under Conditional Use Per.nit No. 755, noting that none of the conditions of Resolution No. 1772, dated September 13, 1965, had been compieted; that a 180-da~~ time extension expiring September 11, 1905, had b=en yranted by the Commission on PAarch 14, 1966; and that the Staff recommended an additional t80 days. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant o 180-day time e,ctension for the completion of conditions of Conditionai Use Permit No.. 756, said time extension to expire March 9, 1967. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, September 26, 1956 3211 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. q RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County P:oposed Abandonment of a portion of (Continued) Crescent Drive south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Associate Planner Jack Christof;erson presented to the Com;nission a proposal by the Orange County Planning Commission to abandon a portion of C:escent Drive westerly of the Anaheim city l:mits and the centerline of Rcyal Oak Road soutn of Santa Ana Canyon Road in the cany:, area in east Anaheim. It was also noted that this proposed abandonment was made necesaary because of the realignment of Royal Oak Road at the time Tract No. 5999 was recorded with the County Recorder on October 28, 1965; and that the Staff recemmended that the abandonment be approved. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council to urge the Orange County Planning Commission to approve the proposer~ abandonment of a portion of Crescent Drive south of Santa Ana Canyon Road located westerly of the city limits in the east , Anaheim area. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 Orange County Case IJo. ZCo5-47 - Proposing a zone change from A-1, General Aoricultural District to tf:e R-1 Une Family Residence District - Property located on the west side of Orchard Drive, 12~0 feet soutn of Imperial Highway, ano immediately easterly of the city limits of the Rinker Annexation in the south Yorba Linda area. Associate Planner Jack C'!Zristofferson presented Urar.ge County Case i~o. ZC66-47, noting the location of subject property as weil as the fact that the City of Anaheim had approved a zone change for the adjoining property kr,cwn as the Rinker Annexation to the R-2, 5U00 Une-Family Zone. It was further noted that the Rinker Deveiopmen± Co:poration was pro- posing to develop property under Orange County Case No. ZC65-47 and knaheim Reclassificatior~ No. 56-67-1 as a single tract, although the two properties were under two separateju:isdictions, Commissioner Mun3a11 offereci a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to approve Orange County Case No. LC66-4~ as being a logical extension of that zoning approved within the boundaries of the City of Ar.aheim. Commissione~ Allred seconded the motion, h10TIUN CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further b~:siness to discuss, Commissioner M~ngall offered a moti~;i to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. tdOTION CARRIEll. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 P.Pd, Respectfully submitted, C ~ - ~_. ~=. P.Nt~ KREBS, Secreta: y Anaheim City ?lanning Commission E~ ~ ~ ~ ~