Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/10/24r r City Hall Anaheim, California October 24, 1966 ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION , REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Araheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer~ Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ' ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronal.d Thompson Deputy City Attorney: John Gallagher Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Renne Haase, Assistant Pastor of St. Anthony C:aret Church, gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in ±he Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of October 10, 1966, were approved as submitted THE MINiJTES on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. REICHERT d SON, 16262 East Whittier Boulevard, NG. 66-67-22 Whittier, California, Owner; THOMAS SHELTON, 17612 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California, Ager,t; requesting that property described TENTATIVE NIAP OF as: Parcel 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a fronta9e of TRACT NOS. 6311 approximately 816 feet on the east side of Lewis Street and having a AND 6314 maximum depth of aoproximately 855 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 465 feet north of the centerline of Chapman GENERAL PLAN Avenue, and Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage AMENDMENT IJO. 89 of approximately 601 feet on the west side of Manchester Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 290 feet, the southerly boundary of sub- ject property being approximately 158 feet north of the Anaheim city limits, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2, 5000 ONE-FAMILY, ZONE for Parcel 1 and C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 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 R-2, 5000 lots each and a 4-acre commercial site fronting on Manchester Avenue. Subject petition and tentative tract maps were continued from the meetings of September 26 and October 10, 1966, at the request of the petitioner in order to resolve development plans. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the petitioner had submitted revised development plans which had been reviewed in the Report to the Commission; however, since receipt of the plans, the petitioner ha~ requested a continuance of the petition and tracts to allow time for readvertisement for a more intense use of subject property. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-22, Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 6311 and 6314, and General P1an Amendment No. 89 in order to allow time to readvertise subject property for a more intense lan~i use, and for the submission of development plans in conjunction with said use. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. . 4t~ r{ * .y~ ~ 3232 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1966 3233 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAF~IM MASONIC TEMPLE ASSOCIATION, c~o JAMES L. MORRIS, PERMIT N0. 892 104 North Emily Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to ES?ABLISH A PRIVATE LODGE WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AND (2) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF A CARETAKER'S APARTMENT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 169 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 362 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 342 feet south of the ce~ter- line of South Street, and further described as 841 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. ~ :~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE 1-L~ARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed use of subject property, it j being noted that the property had been purchased a considerable time ago :or the proposed use, and the reclassification at that time had indicated use of the property as a private lodge. . It was also noted by the Commission that the alley to the rear of subject property should be a dedicated 20-foot alley to provide for adequate circulation, and that there was a possi- - bility the R-3 residents might use the circulation pattern of subject property to gain access to Harbor Boulevard as a short-cut. Mr. William Schalber, engineering ~iepresentative, advised the Commission that the petitioner would be present iater. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 892, subject to conditions, anc~ Conditional hiun9a11 seconded the motion. After considerable discussion by the Commission relative to the necessity for having answers to questions raised in the Report to the Commission, Commissioners Gauer and Mungall withdrew their motion and second. Chairman Camp then stated that subject petition would be considered later on in the meeting. (See Page No. 3239) CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC t-~ARING. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, PERMIT N0. 893 Anaheim, California, Owner; P. D. LIPPERT, c/o Atlantic Richfield Company, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to tSTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION in ttie R-A Zone (Commercial- kecreation Area) on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at ~he northwest corner of Ball Road and West Street and havin9 frontages of approximately 150 f~~;, on Ball Road and approximately 140 feet on West Street. ?roperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mr. P. D. Lippert, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed service station would be one of the newer types of stations and that the peti- tioner would comply with all conditions as set forth in the Report to the Commission. Mr. Lippert then submitted a colored rendering of the prooosed service station for subject property. The Commission advised the agent a colored rendering had been submitted with the petition. No one appeared in opp~sition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-131 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 893, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMNISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~ t 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1966 3234 VARIANCE N0. 1836 - PUBLIC HEARING. N~ARGARET H. HAAS, 1850 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; requestin9 permission to ESTABLISH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 178 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 287 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 560 feet south of the centerline of Katella Way, ; and further described as 1850 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONES. Mr. Henry Haas, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the location of subject property, together with the existing uses on either side, noting ~ that subject property had been used previously for a real estate office, and it was their intent to re-establish said real estate office. The Commission inquired of the petitioner how long he intended to use the property for a real estate office, to which Mr. Haas replied - until the prA~+erty was demanded for develop- ment for a more intense use, which would probably occur within the next five years. 'fhe Commission, upon reviewin~, the plans, inquired whether or not the office buildin9 was part of the structure, whereupon Mr. Haas replied the office building was connected with the main structure through a breezeway, and the residence would be used as such. ' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson asked Mr. Haas whether or not the office portion had been originally designed as part of the residential structure, whereupon Mr. Haas stated that the office had been constructed after the home had been completed. Mr. Thompson then stated that under the Sign Ordinance, where commercial uses were established next to a residential structure, only one, unlighted sign would be permitted. Discussion was then held between the petitioner, Mr. Thompson and Deputy City Attorney John Gallagher relative to the types of signs permitted. After their discussion, the Commission inquired about the minimum type of sign permitted in the M-1 Zone, whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that in the M-1 Zone a 100-square fo~t sign in the front 50-foot setback was permitted. Mr. Haas, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the siqn of 100-square faet permitted in the M-1 Zone would be adequate to serve his purpose. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to placing a time limitation and review at the expiration of said time limitation. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-132 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variar,ce No. 1836, subject te condi- tions, and the furiher condition that a time limitation of three years be granted the peti- tioner for the proposed use, and that any signing for subject property shall be in accordance with the M-1 sign standards. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hllred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HOWARD MORF AND LYLE MORGAN, 2037 West 115th Sireet, ! N0. 66-67-33 Los Angeles, California, Owners; PERCY H. GOODWIN COMPANY, c/o Robert Bowdle, Box 3446,Anaheim, California, A9ent; requesting that property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land lying south and east of a 140-foot by 140-foot parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Ave~ue • and Lemon Street and having frontages of approximately 40 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue and approximately 65 feet on Lemon Street, be re•classified from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONES to the C-1, G[NERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish a dental ~ office and future commercial development on subject property. ~ .~' Mr. Robert Bowdle, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. ~ _ ~ ~ The Commission inquired why the dental office was being oriented to Oranqethorpe Avenue ~~ rather than Lemon Street, and whether subject property was part of the 1~-acre parcel on which Zody~ proposed to build their commercial facilities. ~ i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, i966 3235 ~ ^~~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Bowdle stated that the service station had been sold, as well as N0. 66-67-33 the easterly property; however, the small portion had remained for some (Continued) time, and he was pleased to have someone interested in developing this odd-shaped parcel with a dental office on the Orangethorpe frontage because this type of commercial development would have less traffic flow than other commercial enterprises, and that the petitioner had no choice but to try to develop something on this odd-shaped parcel because of the land subdivision of the 10~-acre parcel. It was noted by the Commission that the Staff had suggested the possibility of the petitioner negotiating with the developer of the Zodyscomplex for an integrated parking and ingress and egress layout. `~~~ ' Mr. Bowdle stated :hat when Zodys applied for the reclassification of their property, they i. had a parking problem, and because of this had deleted their automotive service center. ,•j However, for economic reasons they were unable to negotiate with Zodys because of the excessive price of land for parking purposes. ~ The agent also noted, upon Commission uestionin that the 9 g, proposed walk-up type restaurant ' was similar to the Taco Bell, but because they were still in the negotiating sta9e, he was ~i not at liberty to reveal the name of the company, and that when the petitioners are given permission to develop subject property for commercial purposes, they may be able to further negotiate wi:`, Zodys. The agent n^ted that plans submitted with the petition made it diffi- "~ cult to redesign the building for any other type of use than commercial. '~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Disc~ssion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed use, noting that the commer- cial uses had been established on the west side of Lemon Street, and that the Zodys complex would indicate that commercial use of subject property would be more appropriate than existing M-1 uses because the shape and size would be too small for a worthwhile industrial development. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-133 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ; fication No. 66-67-33 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 66-67-34 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Oran9ethQrpe Avenue and i;aving frontages of ap~roxi- motely 140 feet on Lemon Street and approximately 140 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue, be reclassi- fied from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONES to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing service station in a more appropriate zone. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that because of their action on the Zodys property and the previous petition, they might wish to amend the industrial use of subject property to a commercial use because the existing service station was a permitted use in the C-1 Zone. ~~ ~ ~ i * y ~ 1 No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the used tire racks located between the sign pillars on subject property. Zoning Suparvisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that this item should be taken up under Reports and Recommenciations since it was not applicable to subject petition. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-134 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-34 be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. F 'k , +r i MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSIOIV, October 24, 1966 3236 GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East AMENDMENT N0. 90 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an amendment to the General Plan for Area I- West side of East Street between Sycamore and North Streets, low density residential to commercial-professional designa- tion; and Area II - East side of East Street between Wilhelmina Street and La Palma Avenue, and the south side of La Palma Avenue e:•tending easterly from East Street to approximately 120 feet west of Hawthorne Street, low density residential to medium density residential. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented General Plan Amendment No. 90 as follows: "BACKGROUND• ~ As a result of the filing of Reclassification No. 65-66-120 (R-1 to C-0), located on the west side of East Street midway between Wilhelmina and Sycamore Streets, the Staff was directed to prepare a study of East Street from Lincoln Avenue to the Riverside Freeway. After reviewing the results of the study and holding a public hearing, the Commission directed the Staff to prepare G?neral Plan Amendments to (1) add a neighborhood shopping center symUol at Sycamore and East Streets to reflect the existing development (General _ Plan Amendment No. 52 adopted by Planning Commission on September 26, 1966); (2) indicate commercial-professional along the west side or East Street from Sycamore to North Street; (3) indicate medium density residential along ~he east side of East Street from Wilhelmina to La Palma Avenue and on the south side of La Palm~ from East Street to the vicinity of Hawthorne Street. FINDINGS: (1) Area I- West side of East Street, Sycamore to North Street. a. The General Plan presently designates Area I(west side of East Street) as low density residential. With two exceptions the area is both zoned and developed as single-fartiily residential. The two exceptions are a parcel midway between Wilhelmina and Sycamore Streets recently zoned G-0 and the service station at the northwest corner of Sycamore and East Streets. b. The trzffic count on East Street is presently 15,000 vehicles prr day with ~ a ten year projection of 22,500 vehicles per day. - c. East Street is designated as a 90-foot secondary arterial highway and as such, a dedication of 12 feet would be required t~ attain its designated ultimate width. d. Secondary access could be pruvided by means of alleys. e. The history of zoning cases on East Street in this area, along with the increase in traffic and the required dedication, indicates a change in the development policy from one of lcw dersity residential to heavier land uses. It is, therefore, felt the General Plan should be amended to reflect commercial professional developmer.t :or this area. (2) Area II - East side of East Street, Wilhelmina to La Palma Avenue, and south side of La Palma, East Street to approximately 100 feet west of Hawthorne Street. a. The General Plan presently designates krea II as low density residential and is both zoned and ~eveloped as single-family residential on exception- ally deep lots. The only exceptions are the service station at the south- east corner of East Street and La Palma and the one multiple dwelling use on the lot immediately east of the service station fronting on La Palma. b. The traffic count on East Street is presently 15,000 vehicles per day with a ten year projection to go to 22,500 vehicles pe: day. La Palma is presently carrying 12,000 vehicles per day with a ten year projection of from 18,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day. c. East Street is desi9nated as a 90-foot secondary arterial highway requiring 12 feet of dedication. La Palma is designated as a 106-foot arterial high- way requiring varying dedications of from 13 to 23 feet to ultimate width. ,~ d. Secondary access by means of an alley system could be easily provided due to the depth of the lots. R ~ ~ MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1966 3237 GENERAL PLAN - e. Tlie history of zoning cases on East Street, along with the increase AN~NDMENT N0. 90 in traffic and the required street dedication, in this area with (Continued) the development of La Palma Avenue in this area indicates changes in the development policy as stated by the General Plan. The area has transitioned from low density residential to heavier land uses. It is, therefore, felt that the General Plan should be amended to reflect medium density development in this area." Mr. Ben Ford, 711 North Juniper Place, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether the designation proposed for the east side of East Street between Wilhelmina Street and La Palma Avenue meant that there was a possibility an alley would be proposed for the easterly portion of these properties, and if this were true, a straight line alley could not be made because it would mean he would lose one-third of his west property, which jutted out from the adjoining R-1 home. h'r. Krieger stated that the Commission was not proposing reclassification of the properties - that the General Plan amendinent indicated the City's thinkin.~ as t.o future guidance for development. Furthermore, no proposals had been submitted to the City up until this time; that an area development plan was presented some time ago in con;unction with a reclassifica- tion for C-1 uses on a deep lot adjacent to the service stati~;n located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and East Street, and when any development proposals were submitted, the area development plan could be updated to reflect these proposals; and that many of the lots had depths of 270 feet and could easily provide their own secondary access at almost any given place. Mr. Ford then inquired whether or not the property owners would have the opportunity to voice their opinions when development would occur. Mre Krieger stated that since the Commission was not proposing reclassification of these parcels, before any development took place the property owner would have to file reclassi- fication proceedings to a more intense use, and aii property owners would be advised just as they had been advised regarding the General Plan amendment. Furthermore, becau~e a General Plan amendment was proposed, it did not necessarily mean these properties would not remain single-family uses. Mr. Ford inquired whether developers could work with the City's planners so that any multiple- ~ family development would be restricted to one-story apartments. Chairman Camp stated that the Anaheim Municipal Code restricted development to une-story within 150 feF-t ui the R-1 property line. Mr. Hugh Sprague, 757 North East 5treet, inquired whether these proceedir,gs were necessary since the Commission knew the feelings of the R-1 property owners on the west side of the street who were all in favor of the more intense use of their properties. The Commission advised Mr. Sprague that a General Plan amendment did not necessarily mean that the properties would be developed in such a manner, but gave the possible potential use of these properties. Mrs. Mary Alice Yost, 717 North Juniper P1ace, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that less than a year ago a reclassification petition had been considered, at which time the City Council disapproved, even though traffic at that time was perported to be extremel~~ heavy, and if two-story apartments were to be proposed, this would add considerably moretraffic than tl~at presenLly using ihe street; that she did not care to have two-story apartments next to her, even though Code required one-story within 150 feet, since it was her feeling that the privacy of the R-1 homes would be invaded by people looking down into the rear yard areas; that all the R-1 property owners were opposed to medium density for the deep lots along East Street and La Palma Avenue, and that many of the residents would have appeared at the hearing if the hearing had been held in the evening; and that she was speaking for her neighbors when voicing opposition to the proposed amendment. Chairman Camp inquired whether or not she and her neighbors would favor commercial uses, whereupon Mrs. Yost stated that when it was considered previously the City Council stated it should remain low density. Chairman Camp then stated that many of the property owners of these deep lots would be faced with a traffic count up to 25,000 cars per day, and he felt some attempt sho~ld be made to redevelop these properties, and that the line of sight studies made indicated that at a dis- tance of 150 feet no one could see from a second story window. Furthermore, if any problem in developing these propesties occurred, the developers would be required to submit plans at the reclassification proceedings, at which time opposition couid then be expressed. ~ .~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1966 3238 GENERAL PLAN - Mrs. Yost stated that the property owners were still opposed to the medium ' AMENDMENT~NO. 90 density designation. ~ (Continued) ' Mrs. Clifford Beckler, 1242 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission, stating that she and her husband were in favor of the proposed medium density designation; that approximately ten properties would be affected by the proposed General Plan amendment; that their most recent tax bill showed the property value was twice as much as the value of the house; and that they wanted to have the benefit of the use of the entire parcel for which they pay taxes. Mrs. Beckler further stated that it was becoming extremely difficult trying to gain exit from their drive at the present traffic count, and she could not imagine what it would be like if 25,000 cars would be using La Palma Avenue. Mrs, Harry Sprague, 757 North East Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that her family had lived in the same home for fifteen years - however it was becoming almost impossible to consider their home a place of r?sidence because of the volume of traffic; that they had attempted to develop their property some time ago because they had a vacant parcel to the rear - however they had been denied this opportunity; that they still had to pay taxes on this vacant lot; and that they were in favor of the proposed General Plan amendment. Mr. Thurman Harris, 1224 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that when the reclassification petition for an office building had been considered approximately a year ago, they had indicated they were in favor of the office building because if might improve the property and set a pattern of development for La Palma Avenue; that at that time an area development plan had been presented indicating an alley to the rear - however, i: dedication was required for the full width of the alley as well as dedication for the widening of La Palma Avenue, this would reduce the parcels approximately 40 feet, and with a depth of 2]0 ieet, a worthwhile apartment building could not be constructed, an9 this was the reason for beiny in favor of commercial development on La Palma Avenue; that commercial uses had been qranted for properties at Acacia and La Palma; and that, in 5is opinion, there was an overabundance of apartments with a considerable vacancy factor. The Commission advised Mr. Harris that apartments were needed to support commercial uses which had already been approved. Mr. Harris was of the opinion that apartments intended to depreciate properties around them since development of these apartments was not complimentary to the existing homes. The Commission advised Mr. Harris that the type of structures he was referring to was not permitted to be built by the City since more stringent requirements were written into the Code which would provide for more open space. Mr. Harris then stated that, in his opinion, commercial-professional was more apropos for La Palma Avenue, rather than the proposed medium density, and if this was not possible, he ' would rather keep it at low density and take his chances of getting out of his drive, even though the traffic might increase. The Commission again re-emphasized the fact that they were not attempting to reclassify the pro~a~ties - only an amendment to the General Plan was proposed which would be a guide for f~ture development of these properties if the owners of the deep lots planned redevelopment of their properties, and no re7uest for a zone change would not be considered even it it was for commercial zoning, and the General Plan amendment did not necessarily mean this would be the only means of developing these parcels. a Mr. Harris then stated he was aware the Commission was doing long-range planning, and the ' property owners were more concerned with their present status. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to numerous people being interested in having large lots or large estates with one to three acres; that a wall could be placed alor,g the property line which would add to the privacy of the people desirous of doing so; that the ~ Commission had spent many hours in meetings trying to determine the most acceptable solution to development along East Street and La Palma Avenue; and that the proposed General Plan ' amendment offered an alternative method of redeveloping these deep lots. Commissior.er Gauer offered Resolution No. PC66-135 and moved for its passage and adoption, ; seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 90, encompassing the west side of East Street between Sycamore and North Streets and the east side of East Street between Wilhelmina 5treet and La Palma Avenue, and the south side of La Palma Avenue between East Street and approximately 100 feet west of Hawthorne Street as depicted on Exhibit "A" be approved. (See Resolution Book) ,.- . _.__ .y...~~:.:.,~,~x,_.,,~-_....-._m,,,a,~„Q..~.,.,~„~._ ._._.~ -'' i . ---- ,. " ~ . ~"` ~INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1966 3239 3ENERAL PLAN - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 4MENDMENT N0. 90 (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. William Schalber, 2252 East Belmont, appeared before the Commission PERMIT N0. 892 stating that he had contacted the architect and was authorized to represent (Continued) him. Chairman Camp and Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the plans and questions the Commission had with Mr. Schalber. Mr. Schalber then stated that the Masonic Temple Board would prefer to have a chainlink fence which they could control - or which could be controlled by the caretaker - to discourage use of the private parking lot to gain access frorn the R-3 development to the west and Harbor Boulevard. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutic~~ No. PC66-130 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 892, subject to conditions, and the provision that adequate dedication be provided to permit an alley 20 feet in width along the west property line; that a masonry wall be constructed along the west property line except at ingress and egress points, and a chainlink fence or some other accept- able substitute be provided at said ingress and egress points to discourage using the Masonic Temple parking area as a short-cut between the R-3 properties and Harbor Boulevard. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. REPORTS A1:D - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 4633 - located on the south side of Yorba Linda Boulevard, west of Imperial Freeway, containing approximately 8.3 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 26 single- family lots. Associate Planr,er Jack Chris*~fferso~ presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 4633 to the Commission notinq the location of subject property and the proposed subdivision into 26 single-family zoned lots exceeding 7200 square feet. It was also noted that one lot was proposed for development as a panhandle lot having a 20-foot frontage on a dedicated street - an arrangement permitted in the City of Anaheim's R-E Zone. The proposed tract was reviewed as to its relation to the Hill and Canyon General Plan, it being noted that subject property on the Plan was designated for low density reside~tial land use. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4633. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Orangp County Use Variance No. 5804 - Placentia Unified School District - property located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue approximately 500 feet west of Jefferson Street - proposing the establishment of administration offices for the school district, and the establishment of a school bus storage area with facilities for servicing and maintenance of said busses in the A1(0) General Agricultural (Oil Production) District. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5804 to the ~; Planning Commissi.on noting the proposed use and the location of subject property; that a ~:~ maximum of 64 employees was projected to be on the premises at any one time; that adequate ~~ parking was being provided for 105 automobiles and 20 busses; that access to the property ~ ~ was proposed via a 30-foot wide paved driveway from Orangethorpe Avenue; and that a portion r ~ of subject property was within the City of Placentiao ;~ "~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Urange County ;.; Planniny Commission be urged to approve Orange County Use Variance No~ 5804. Commissioner ;) i Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1966 3240 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS City of Fullerton - Special Permit No. 17 and Variance No. 1254 - (Continued) property located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue - proposing to establish a service station. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented City of Fullerton Special Permit fdo. 17 and Variance No. 1254 to the Commission, noting the location of subject property, and the proposed use; that a service station was already established on the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and State College Boulevard in the City of Anaheim's A7-1 Zone, which permitted said use. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to receive and file City of Fullerton Special Permit No. 17 and Variance No. 1254. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. ~dOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 Conditional Use Permit l~o. 631 (Calvin L. Pebley) - Termination of use of an existing building for church purposes. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Conditional Use Permit No. 631 to the Commission noting that the Report to the Commission explained the background of subject petition, and the fact that a telephone conversation with the petitioner indicated the structure was no longer being used for church purposes, and the Staff recommended termi- nation of said petition. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-136 and moved f~~ its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to terminate all proceedings _:~ Conditional Use Permit No, 631. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ITEM N0. 5 General Plan Amendment No. 88 - Recommend termination of all proceedings. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger advised the Commission that at their public hearin9 of October 10, 1966, the Commission had recommended to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 88, reclassifying the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way of the General Plan by designating Jefferson Street between the Riverside Freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road as a primary arterial highway; that subsequent research had indicated that the Hill and Canyon General Plan had automatically changed this designation - therefore General Plan Amendment No. 88 was not necessary. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-137 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that all proceedings on General Plan Amendment No. 88, previously considered by the Commission on October 10, 1966, be terminated on the basis that the Hill and Canyon General Plan had amended said Circulation Element. (See Resoluti~n Book) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COh1MISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COh1MISSIONERS: Farano. ITEM N0. 6 Tire rack at existing service station site on the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street. * Deputy City Attorney John Gallagher advised the Commission that under Section 18.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, tire racks were supposed to be movable racks which could be rolled into the service station building, and from examination of the pictures presented by the Staff, these racks did not look as thou9h they were movable; however, since storage of tires was a permitted use under the definit.ion of a service station, it might be diifi- cult for the Staff to require the service station operator to change his mode of operation by threat, and it might be more effective if voluntary relocation could be obtained through contact by the complaint investigator of the Development Services Department. Furthermore, under the Vehicie Code, this might come under the heading of "obstruction of traffic view", and he would suggest the Development Services staff contact the operator of the service station to encouiage him to relocate said tire rack since, in his estimation, he could not see evidence of violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ~ ~' ~ MINU:'ES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1966 3241 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6 (Continued) I Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the Development Services staff to make an ~ investigation of the used tire rack located between the posts of the existing sign to ; determine whether this rack could be relocated to a different spot in order to eliminate the possible traffic hazard because of the inability of the motorist to have a clear view r ~ of oncoming traffic. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, i~s- / i ~/~j~ v~/~' i/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission F.~ i ' ~^ ~ .. ~ `r ~ i ~ '~ ::~ ~ ~ ? i * ~ ' .~x j : ' ~. ~ `I ~ . y __ _ , ~ F