Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/12/05( i F t City Hall t Anaheim, California 'k December 5, 1966 ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINu COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Cart~p at 2:00 o'cloc'r. P.M., a quorum being present. ~ ,T~~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. `V ;:~ ~ j ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall. ;:j ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. '.I PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson 'i Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ! Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts "~ ~ ~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw ~' Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson ,~1 Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ~ .'`{ , PLEDGE OF I ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Alle9iance to the Flag. ~ APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meetings of November 7 and 21, 1966, were approved '1 THE MINUTES as submitted, on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner ~7 Rowland, and MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE A. GADE, 186 Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, PERMIT N0. 899 California, OK~ner; NORMAN SNEDEGAARD, 401 West 8th Street, Santa Ana, ;, California, Agent; requesting permission to have ON-SALE LIQUOR IN AN _ EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly shaped ` parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 405 feet on the north side of Oran9ethorpe ~:1 Nvenue and havin9 a maximum depth of approximately 1,268 feet, the easterly boundary of sub- i ject property being adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, and further described ~) as 601 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Proper~y presently classified ~4-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ~i -~ Mr. Veriyn Jensen, .~ttorney with Rutan and Tucker, 401 West 8tn Street, Santa Ana, California, i-•~ appeared before the Commission and stated he represented Mr. Smedegaard, the agent for the j~ petitioner; that they had worked with the Staff regarding the proposed use of subject property and no opposition would be expressed to the recommended conditions. ~~ ,`i No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ ~ . ~v I THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission to determine whether or not. the hours of operation as indicated in the Report to the Commission should be made a condition of approval. i Upon completion of the discussion, Commissioner Herbst offe:ed Resolution No. FC66-161 and ;~i moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 899, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) F ~ I 't: On roll ca11 the foregoing resolutio:~ was passed by the following vote: 4' b, ~ ` AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. . NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMAIISSIONERS: None. r~ ~~ - ~: ~ ~ ` 3272 ~1~ ~~ ~ [i ~:.,•- ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1966 3273 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARItJG. JESSIE L. GOODMAN, 716 South Webster Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 901 California, Gwner; JULIA BRACHT, 506 Lakeside Drive, Fullerton, California, Agent; requestin9 permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIU": IN AN cXISTING STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approx.imately 119 inet on the east side of Webster Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 268 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 1,100 feet south of the center- line of Orange Avenue, and further described as 716~ South Webster Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mrs. Julia Bracht, ayent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stating she represented her aunt, owner of the property, who resided in the house to the rear of the former church structure in which the school was proposed to be located, and that the proposed operator of the scheol was availabie to answer questions. Mrs. Nadeau, the proposed operator of the school, appeared before the Commission and stated she was an accredited teacher, and it was her intent to lease the property, starting the school with approximately fifteen students ranging in classes from kindergarten through third grade; that the school would be non-denominational; that she would be the enly teacher for the present; and that when enrollment increased, there would be one additional teacher. Furthermore, adequate parking was provided to the rear of the property. Mrs. ~racht appeared and stated that her a~nt was quite concerned *egardin9 the conditions o•€ approva: recommended to the Commission by the Staff, r.oting that in Condition No. 2, a number of the homes on Webster Avenue had sidewalks, except for the R-1 tract to the south oi Orange Avenue; that the petitioner was not in a financial position to expend the money for sidewalks, and if this was a requirement, a large tree wou:d have to be removed which was an additional ex~ense; that the six-foot masonry wall would cost in the vicinity of $3.n5 to $4,75 per running foot, which meant an additional $1,000 - however, tnere already was a~;3soniy wall along the easterly property lina, a cyclone fence approximately ten feet hign,with very heavy shrubbery, the full length of the property, with the neighbors having additional shrubbery hedge of conifers, privet, and bougainvillea, and a grapestake fence w~s prov:ded along the southerly property line, and the play area was alr.eady fenced off fr~m t}ie drive, thus making three sets of fences on the property; furthermore, if the proposed lessee was successful in her operation, she would begin to look for larger quarters, and the expense involved to obtain subject petition couid not be off-set by the income received from the rental; that at the time the church was established in 1951 under Condi- tional Use Permit ~o. 460, the building was brought up to building code at that time; and that there was more than adequate parking. Clarification of the reouirement of trash storage areas was then requested by the agent. The Commission advised the agent that this information could be obtained from the Uirector of Public Works. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARIhG WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the va:ious coeditiors recom~ended by the Staff; that the proposed use was similar to that established in the structure before; and then inquired of th~ agent for the petitioner whether a bond could be posted to insure the installation of the sidewalks and driveways, whereupon the agent for the petitioner indicated this would be agreeable to her, and at such time as development occurred on the south, or a more intense use was proposed for subject property, the sioewalk would be installed. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson suggested that a specific findin9 be made as to the reason the Commission was requiring a two-year bond for the installation of sidewalks and driveways, rather than requiring that they be constructed at this time. Comr~,issioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC66-162 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commi.ssioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 901, subject to the conditio~s of 15¢ per front foot for tree planting purposes, the posting of a two-year bond to insure installation of the sidewalks and driveways along Webster Avenue, ;rash stor- age areas, that the building shall be in accordance with the Anaheim Uniform Building Code, and that the six-foot masonry wall would be deleted from these requirements, based on the fact that adequate fences with dense s;irubbeiy 3lready existed. (See Resolution Book) ':~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: j- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mur.gall, Row]and, Camp. ' ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. `j ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. _ _. ,_,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1966 3274 CONDITICNAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EIXNARD HARPSTRITE, c/o Dolly L. Butler, 1647 West PERMIT N0. 902 Beverly Boulevard, 1cs Angeles, California, Owner; THOMAS Y.OFFPAUIR, 1600 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Hvenue and Olive Street and having frontages of approximately 100 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 135 feet on Olive Street. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Travis Clark, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission - and questioned the legal notice and the Report to the Commission relative to describing the ,_,:i~h~ p oposed development as a walk-up restaurant, since his interpretation of it was that it was a drive-up tYpe restaurant. The Commission advised the agent that the proposed development was considered a walk-up type restaurant and parking was computed accordingly. Mr. Claik then stated that he had attempted to :esolve many of the problems with the Staff; that it was his understar,ding that the C-2 Zone did not require landscaping - however, he was proposing three feet along Lincoln Avenue and Olive Street, and if the Commission required a 10-foot landscaped setback, this would greatly reduce the parking which he felt was neces- sary; further.more, the drive to the rear,which was adjacent to the alley, was provided in the event the alley would have one-way traffic in the future, as this was quite possible with the problems and changes facing the downtown area; and that the air-conditioning unit was an evaporator cooler which was silent when running. The Commission inquired whether the agent was suggesting that no food was to be consumed on the premises if this were a drive-up restaurant, whereupon Mr. Clark stated that 9P~ of the food would be picked up at the service window, approximately 10~ of whicn wo~ld be e~te,~ in the cars, and that there would be four tables for those who desired to eat on the premises. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. T~E HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the 12-foot drive proposed adjacent to the existing alley. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a larger drive existed on the Olive Street side; however, it was farther re~oved to the north than the drive oroposed; that the City was not now requesting that access rignts be dedicated; and that the 10-foot landscaping strip would be suggested only for the Lincoln Avenue fror,tage. li~e Commission noted that the 10 feet of landscrping would be en improvement for the downtown area ~Nithc,t reducing the petitioner's parking space~, and that tne drive along the Oiive Stzeet fr~ cage should be eliminated. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC65-163 and moved for ~ts passage and adoption, seconded by Commissiorer Herbst, to grant Petitian for Conditional Use Permit No. 902, subject to deletion of the proposed 12-foot drive along the southeast corner of the prooerty, ar.d increasing the landscaped setback for the Lincoln hvenue frontage io :0 feet, 3:~d ot~er cc,:ditions. (See Resolution Book) Or~ *ol~ call the foregoing resoiution wa~ passed by ti~e followir.r vote: ~1'ES: COM~~IISSIONEF.S: Alired, Farar,o, Gauer, ~erbst., Alunoali, Rowl;nd, C~mp. i:OES: COMh1ISSI0IJERS: None. P.SSE'di: COht!~ISSIU;dERS: PJone. j; C0.'CD?T.OD~n! USE - PUELjC HEARING. PACIFIC LIVION CGNFEREI~CE OF SEVENI'f'. DAY ADVE;'dTISTS. ~'. i'ERM1T P;O. 903 Box 146, Glendale, California, Owner: HERITAGE CCNSTRIiCT?Oid COR?URF.TIO?~, ~: 4i00 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerto;~, Caiifoi:~ia, Aoent; zenuest:n~ permission to FSTAEi.ISN A MOTE1 AnD REST;URAf~!f Wlii' WAIVEF OF Ml~:ih1i!N. ~ F.E~I~iRED PARKIfdG SPACES on prooerty described as: H rect~ngulari;~ sh_,ced pa_cal ~f land ~; , t::~^ir.o a frcnta9e of approximately 98 feet oc the east. side UP :'dTLJI' BOU12V3:C~ ar,d :~.~vin ~~ ~ :.~jximurn deotn o: a 9 pproximate~y 400 ;eet, the northerly boundar}' of subject pzeper*y 4eir.q ~j % apoioximately 500 feet south of the centerline of Katelia Avenue. P_operty presently o~'i ~, :.:.~ssified R-P., AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~~ , ~'~ L ~;,~ r i .~ich~;d eiserm~n= age~t for tne peti~ior,er, aope~r~d befor? the Comrrrission anci st:~ted ~~~ ~ ie was a~~ailao]e ~o answer auestions. ,; . E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1966 3275 CONDITIONAL USE - The Comriission noted that the proposed development had a s',ortage of PERMIT ti0. 903 parking spaces which would be increased if the 15-foot landscape strip (Continued) was required; that adequate parking was provided in the motel 3rea - however, a shortage was indicated in the restaurant a*ea. Mr. Keiserman, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the proposed restaurant was similar to that already established in Puer~a PerK and Palm Springs. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that uses to the north of subject property, namely the wax mu:eum and the Danish restaurant, were developed with a 50-foot fully - , landscaped setback, and if the Commission desired that the petitioner provide a larger ,.;~6-~ landscape area than shown on the pians, some parkin9 spaces would be eliminated, and the ~i interior landscaping along the north property line would have to be deleted to provide for adequate turr.ing radius for the 90° parking proposed - however, this could be accomplished ~~ without difficulty. Chairman Camp and Mr. Th~mpson reviewed the plans with the proposed developer, indicating wnere the most logical -:hanges could take place. After further discussion with the developer, he indicated that the st~ucture would be relocated, and one tier of four units of the motel wculd be deleted in order to provide for adequate turning radius into the front parking area, and a minimum 15-foot strip of landscaping. Upon further analysis of the revised plan proposed, it was determined that three parking spaces would still be needed; therefore, the Commission could waive said three parking spaces, making a total of 75 spaces proposed, 78 spaces required. No one appeared in oppcsition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-164 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 903, provided, however, that the existing restaurant shall be relocated e3sterly, deletion of four units, provision for a minimum of 15 feet of landscapin9 in the front setback, and waiver of the required 78 parking spaces to provide 75 parking spaces, and other corditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrad, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEIJT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIACJCE PJO. 1844 - PUBLIC HEARING. HOWARD ENGLEMAN, ALBERT MASLON, AND BEN HELLER, 9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1011, Los Angeles, California, Owners; R. L. COONS, 111 West Elm Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting W.4TVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SiGNS, AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE.7INEEN FREE- STANDI~IG SIGNS on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue and having fronta9es of apqror.i- mately 300 feet on Euclid Street and approximately 400 feet on La Palma Avenue, and fu:ther described as 1098 North Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMN!ERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Rex Coors, agent for the p~titioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that a servic? station was now being constructed at the soutt~east cornez of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street, and in order to have adequate signing, the proposed variance was necessary because of the large Alpha Beta shopping center sign located at the entrance to the shopoing cer,`er, approximately 125 feet south of the intersection; that there was adequate frontage of the property to warrant two free-standi.ng signs; and that the recommendations of the Staff regarding approval of suLject petition met with his appre.•al. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiun. TNE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-165 and moved for its passage 3nd adoption, secor~ded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance ~o. 1844, 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, Rowlar.d, Camp. "~' MOES: CONuNISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMP4ISSIONERS: None. i :; r ~dINUTcS, CITY PLANNING C~'tv1MISSION, December 5, 1966 3276 f, ~ * ::ECLASSI"rICATION - PUBL.T.C HEARING. EDWIN FRAHM, 1721 West Lincolr, Avenue, and HENRY WESSELN N0. 66-67-41 _ 9382 Thistle Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; HENRY WESSELPI, 9382 Thistle Road, Anaheim, California, A9ent; property described as: VARIANCE N0. 1845 A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property beinq aparoximately 220 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 1717 and 1721 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO PERMIT HEAVY EQUIPMENT RENTALS. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. Mr. Robert Vucsanovich, 1741 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and expressec concern that approval of the rental and storage of heavy equipment might set a precedent for undesirable commercial development of the properties in close proximity and would be detri- mer.tal to those many well-established businesses on the south side of Lincoln Avenue; fur.ther more, he did not feel there was adequate room for storage and parking at the rear of the property. Discussion was held by the Commission relati~~e to the possibility of temporarily delaying cor.sideration of subject petitions until later en in the meeting, since the Commission had a number of questions to ask the agent for the petitioner. Upon completion of this discussion, the agent for the petitioner enterP~ the Council Chamber. Mr. Henry Wesseln, agent for the petitioner, appeared beiore the Commission and stated he prooosed to store his eq~ipmer.t on the r.ear of the property; that he was a contractor and had equipment scattered throughout the Southland; that he was desirous of obtaining official approval for the proposed use of subject property; that the rental phase of the request was based on the fact that repair of tne forklift equipment of various other contractors would be done by his mechanic, since it was difficult to get equipment repaired immediately; that he would rent some equipment to associated contractors until his mechanic had repaired the broken equipment; that he anticipated using the property for approximately two years, as proposed - however, this date could not be certain since finar.cing of the property for the proposed new office structure was dependent upon future lending policies. It was further noted by the agent that although most of his contracting equipment would be in the field, approximately five to six pieces of the eouipment would be stored on the premises while being repaired by his mechanic, since it was almost impossible to have equip- ment repaired in the field by outside mechanics. Ttie Commission inquired of Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson whether or not the manner in which subject petitions had been advertised would permit repairs oi the equipment proposed. PAr. Thompson stated that the C-2 Lone would permit a contractor's office, and the variance requested equipment rental with inciden±a; repairs only. Mr. Wesseln, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the forklift was of i0,000 pound capacity, and the petitions before the Commission were necessary so that neighbors would not question his storing the equipment on subject property; however, it was still his plan to b~iild an office building in the near future. P1r. Thompson then advised the Commission that the uses proposed could be accomplished via the variance rather than approvin9 C-2 Zoning, but since the petitioner had indicated he intended to build an office building in the future, if tne reclassification was not approved, this would mean the petitioner would have to apply for reclassification at some future date. Furthermore, zoning on both sides of Lincoln Avenue was varied, with R-A, M-1, C-1, C-2, and C-3 Zoning on the north side between Euclid Street and Crescent Way, and C-1 and R-A Zoning on the south side; however, development had occurred on some of the R-A parcels through variar.ces and conditional use permits, which could be defined as C-0 or C-1 uses. Mr. Thompson also noted that development along Lincoln Avenue had occurred with specific setbacks and landscaped; that the plot plan submitted with subject petitions indicated parking approximately 44 feet from the centerline of the street, and revisions would :e necessary to incorporate the setback requirements and the landscaping; and that ihe Faii- tioner was requesting a temporary use of the property tnrough requesting the variance petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. c F -~ ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANK'.NG COMMISSION, December 5, 1966 3277 RECLASSIFICATION - The type of landscaping which could be required of subject property N0. 66-6"r•41 was then discussed by the Commission, it being noted that the C-2 Zone did not have site development standards - however, the C-1 Zone site VARIANCE N0. 1845 developmer.t standards could be applied so that a minimum of three feet (Continued) of landscaping could be installed; that a time limitation could be attached to appr~val of the variance; and that parking in the front setback should bi~ eliminated on the easterly parcel. Mr. Thompson then advised the Commission that curbs and gutters were not in; that the parking would have to be reoriented parallel to the house in order that landscaping could be installed adjacent to the right-of-way; and that the Engineering Department would not grant unlimited drive approaches from Lincoln Avenue. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the State regulated the drive approaches on Lincoln Avenue and permitted a 36-foot drive approach, whereas the City of Anaheim permitted only a 30-foot drive approach. The Commission noted that there would be little difficulty in relocating th? parking since this could be to the iear of the parcel; furthermore, since M-1 Zoning existed tu the rear of subject property, storage of rental eouipment would not be as harmful to that zone as it would be to a commercial zone. Mr. Thompson also advised the Commission that the normal condition of tying the variance and reclassification together had been omitted in error, and suggested that this be incor- porated in the Commission's conditions, if subject petitions were approved. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-166 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner tdungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclas- sification No. 66-67-41 be approved, subject to conditions, and that the C-: landscaping requirements shall be applied to deveiopment of subject property. (See Reso:ution Dook) On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the folio~aing vote: A1ES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CO~~MIISSIONERS: Uone. ABSENT: COMMISSIO~ERS: None. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution tdo. FC66-167 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1845, suoject to completion of Reclassification Ido. 66-67-41, development in accordance with the C-1 land- scaping standards, and a time limitation of two years for the proposed use of subject property. (See Resolution Book) ! Un roll call the foregoing iesolution was passed by the following vote: -a ~' ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, G~uer, Herbst, Nungall, Rowland, Camn. ~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: No~e. ~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIOtJERS: None. ,.~J j e i STREET NAME CNAN~ES - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLAMNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Aver.ue, Anaheim, California, proposing a change ir street names for Taylor Street to Lakev~ew Avenue and Dowling Avenue to Kraemer ~ou'.evard within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheima Zor.ing Superviscr Rcnald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the request of the Orange ! County Street Namir,g Commission relative to settin for ~ ,; for Taylor Street ~.~d Dowling Avenue. It was alsognotedPby1Mr.hThompson tnatetheaPlanninge I; Commission on August 1, and the City Council on August 23, 1966, had recommended the pro- ii Posed street name changes to the Orange County Street Naming Committee. ;•• ~s Mr. Soichi Hori, 139(' Dowling Avenue, appeared before the Commission in o pposition to the ~~ proposed street name change for powling Avenue and stated that he owr.ed 15 acres of property or ~owling Avenue: that he had moved to that address :rom the San Fernando Valle a ~ mately 12 years ago; that neighbors had advised him that the street was so namedYoverr501 ~ years ago, and hz could see no advantage in the change in name; that he would have some trouble in the change in street name on his business address; that when his pioperty had :, ~ ~ been anr,exed into the City several years aqo, he had a change at that time from the County numbersto the City of Anaheim numbers, and this would be an additional change. 'j ' The Commission advised the opposition that it had originally been su ' ggested that the name `~ ~ for the street be a dual name, namely Dowling-Kraemer; however, the public hearing now under ~ ~x ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1966 g278 STREET NAM~ CHANGES - consideration was the result of a compromise; that Kraemer Boulevard (Continued) would align with the present alignment of Dowling Avenue over the railroad track, and, therefore, would carry through traffic to the Riverside freeway. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the Riverside Freeway was a natural boundary line for the separation of names since off-ramps for both streets were at different locations, and the signing of both streets would be placed on the freeway. The Commission further advised the opposition that when a street name change became effective, it usually carried a time limitation of two years and had dual naming of the street - this would take care of any expense involved in changing over the bus?ness stationery. Zonin9 Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that one of the main reasons fur the change at this time was the fact that the properties adjacent to the street were not developed for industrial purposes, and this would not, then, be a weighing factor if several indusiries had to have their stationery and shipping tags changed to the new name, such as was done by Autoneti.cs at the time Anaheim Road was changed to hliraloma Avenue. Mr. Robert Dowling, 3115 Flint~oo~-Drive, Fullerton California a ~ , ppeared before the Commis- sion and stated that he and his brother owned property on the east side of Dowling and Crowther Avenues; that they had moved there in ~909, and while still under the jurisdiction of the County, when the railroad was extended to Atwood, the County asked for 25 feet of his land, and with the City and County roads, a total 3.25 acre_, of land encompassing 327 orange trees was taken; that presently the one street had five names, namely Carolina Aver.ue ir, the Cities of Brea and Placentia and the County of Orange; Kraemer Boulevard in the City of Placentia; ~owling Avenue i;i the Cities of Anaheim and Orange and the County of Orange; and Glassell and Grand Avenua in the Cities of Orange and Santa Ana and the County of Orange; and if a street name was to be assigned, just one street name should be given the entire length of the right-of-way. Mr. Dowling also stated that even though the City had Laken 3.25 acres for street purposes, taxes were still paid on the easement. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised Mr. Dowling that although this had been an assumption on his part, after checking with the County Assessor's office, he had bee~ advised that taxes were assessed for only the actual lot line rather than for the property encompassed :n the str=et easement. Chairman Camp stated that all assessor's maps indicated land for lot cuts afte: dedication for street purposes. Mr. Thompson also advised the Commission and the opposition that the Street Naming Committee had requested that the City of Brea and the County of Orange consider a change in name foi Carolina Avenue to Kraemer Avenue, and that the action of the City of Anaheim was at the request of the Street Namir.g Committee also. Discussion was then held relative to the importance attached to the various names - Kraemer, Dowling, and Glassell, whereupon Mr. Dowling stated that Glasseli Street anti-dated Kraemer Boulevard, and Kraemer Boulevard anti-dated Dowling Avenue. The Commission further noted that regardless of the new street name assigned to any street, there would be some opposition, and the freeway was a natural dividing line to separate this street, since no one could agree on one name, and the five street names for this right-of-way had been reduced to two. IHE N~E.ARING WAS C~SED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-168 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Taylor Street within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim be renamed Lakeview Street, and that the Oran9e County Planning Commission be urged to rename Taylor St:eet within their jurisdiction, extend- ing from Santa Ana Canyon Road northerly,to Lakeview Street. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: '' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ' ~ ~OES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~•~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~x r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1966 3279 STREET NAME CHANGES - Commissioner Rowiand offered Resolution No. PC66-169 and moved for (Continued) its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Dowling Avenue exte~ding northerly from the Riverside Freeway to Orangethorpe Avenue be renamed Kraemer Boulevard; that the City of Brea be urged to rename Cazolina ~,venue to Kraemez Poulevard; ano that the City of Orange and the County of Orange be urged to chznge Dowling Avenue within their jurisdiction ~o Glassell Street, located southerly from the Riverside Freeway. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: l AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.37 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY IHE CITY PLANNING COM"AISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code by the addition of Chapter 18.37, C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, -• ZONE . Subject amendment to Title 18 was continued from the meeting of November 7, 1966, to allow the Staff time for further study regarding recommendations made by the Commission. Planning Supe:visur Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that additional time was necessary for this study and requested that the Commission's consideration of amendment to 'fitle 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code by the addit:on o£ Chapter 18.37, C-R Zone, be continued to January 4, 1967. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue public hearing of Chapter 18.37, amend- ment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, to the meeting of January 4, 1967, to allow the Staff further time for recommended changes to the proposed zone. Commissiuner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 ! RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEtiT N0. 90 - Both sides of East Street - _ west =_ide of Sycamore to North Street; e2st side from Wilhelmina to La Palma Avenue; and the south side of La Palma Avenue from East Street to Hawthorne Street. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised tl~e Commissicn that at the public hearing of General Plan Amendment No. 90, the City Council expressed concern regarding the impact of the total commercial element, and the possibility that both sides of East Street might be developed for commercial-professional uses; therefore, sent said Plan back to the Fianning Commission for further study and report and continued their consideration of General Plar~ Amendment No. 90 to the meeting of December 20, 1966. Mr. Grudzinski then presented the study made by the Staff encompassing evidence presented at the Council hearing in said study (copy on file in the General Plan Amendment file -- with copies submitted to the City Council for their perusal). Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission and Staff regarding General Plan Amendment No. 90, which is briefly summarized below: ~~~ 1. At the time the Council approved C-0 Zoning for the vacant parcel on the west side ' of East Street northerly of Sycamore Street, it was the Commission's feeling that ~ a precedent had been set establishing the pattern of development for the single-family t lots fronting East Street for more intense land use, namely commercial-professional, since all previous requests for commercial zoning by other owners of R-1 property between Sycamore and North Streets had been disappioved by the Commission and Councila 2~ A separation existed between the proposed commercial-professional uses ard the sin9le- family homes behind it because a 15-foot a~yley was already in existence. L'~Z~f /~LL ~. 3. Multiple-family development was a logical buffer~between the commercial on the west side of East Street and all the single-family homes backing onto the deep lots along ~ the east side of East Street and the south side of La Palma Avenue. `~ , 4. An overabundance of commercial-professional uses for East Street might be detrimental to the ultimate redevelopment of the Center City area, by reducing its potential; ''~ ~ therefore, a more intense residential use was recommended. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1966 3280 REPORI'S AND RECOMMENDAIIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) 5. The Commission had spent considerable time in work sessions reviewing the implications of the conversion of residential front-ons on arterial highways in the City and, therefore, felt that commercial projections for one side of a s~raet did not necessarily mean the same should be applied to both sides of the street, since an area could only support a given n~^~ber of square feet of commercial-professional uses. 6. The size and shape o' the parcels on the west side of East Street made ihese parcels more adaptable to commercial purposes than the deep lots on the east side, and assembly of the sir.gle-;amily lots was more likely than the deep lots for commercial-professional uses. / 7. The ~lanning Commission did not feel it could project any reuse of th " enter City ar until after completion of the public hearings by the Urban Renewal Development Committee, and a policy for said redevelopment had heen established by the City Council. The Commission also reviewed the alternate exhibits presented by the Staff, and at the con- clusion were of the opinion that only that portion projected originally for commercial-profes- sional uses in Area I should be considered unt~l such time as a policy was established by the City for the ultimate development of the Center City area, since ar.y further corr,merciai p:ejec- tions outside of the "Core Area" would reduce the possible potential for the Center City. Development Services Director Alan Orsborn suggested that perhaps the Commission might w:sh to consider recommending that the area encompassed in the General Plan kmendment No. 90 be made a part of the front-on study, if the Commission did not feel there was any urgency, since the Commission has been involved in a series of work sessions; however, a recommendation was necessary because the Council was to consider General Plan Amendment No. 90 on December 2C, and there would be a number of interested property owners present. Correotion based on motion made at December 19, 1966 meeting by Commissioner Herbst, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, and ~dOT20N CP_RRIED: Page 3280 - Paragraphs 6-12 should read: "Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that since there were no major zoning decisions, they felt that a final action on East Street General Plar. Amendment No. 90 should be withheld until it could be evaluatod in light of its effect on the front-on study. This recommendation was made on the basis of: 1. That the City Council was in the process of working toward a decision on the future of the Center City Redevelopment Plan, and until a decision was made on said plan, it would be di;ficult for the Commissi•n to adequately evaluate the effect on the Center City, and Lhe City as a whole, of commerciel development proposals throughout the community. 2. That a commercial designation for one side of the street did not necessarily mean the same designation could be justified for botY~ sides of the street. 3. That the size and shape of the deep lots on the east side of East Street made them more suitable for multiple-family uses u~hich could edd to the economic support for tho commercial uses established in the area. 4. That the Commi.ssion had spent considerable time in work sessions considering the conversion of the residentisl front-on sites along arterial highways in 21 specific locati~ns in addition to East Street, and were attempting to find a oommunity-wide answer for the conversion of these front-on sites to more intense uses. Commissionor Rowland further indicated if the City Council is desirous of an immed- iate decision, the Commission would recommend General Plan Amendment No. 90 as originally presented. Commissioner Fsrano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED." :. ~ • ~ i : ~_ .. r, ~ ~1. ~• . ^.:~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5, 1966 3281 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS City of Buena Park Reclassification No. Z-321 - Proposing (Continued) reclassification of a 5.79 acre parcel of land located on the wet,t side of Knott Avenue southerly of Mungall Drive (in the City of Anaheim), and bounded on the south by the Orange County Flood Control Channel, from the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone to the R-2, High Density Multiple-Family Residential, Zone. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented to the Commission the City of Buena Park Reclassification No. Z-321, and noted the location of and the proposed change in zone for subject property. Findings by the Staff were also reviewed by Mr. Christofferson as follows: 1. Property to the north of this parcel (within the City of Anaheim) along Mungall Drive, is zoned and developed R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential). 2. Property to the east (across Knott Avenue and north of the Orange County Flood Control Channel (within the City of Anaheim) is generally zoned and developed for R-3 uses. 3. Property to the easi of subject property and south of the Orange County Flood Control Channel (within the City of Anaheim) is zoned R-A, Agricultural, Zone. 4. The City of Buena Park R-2 Zone permits one dwelling unit per 1200 square feet of lrind area; furthermore the :~eight of any building within 50 feet of an R-1, Single-Family Residential, Zone is limited to one story and a maximum hei9ht ci 35 feet - which is approximately equivalent to the City of Anaheim R-3, h1ultiple-Family Residential, Zone. Sa The Anaheim General Plan indicates that the property within the City of Anahei:n to the north of this oroperty be medium density residential, and to the south of the Orange County Flood Control Channel low density residential. 6. The City ~f Buena Park would also require that Knott Avenue adjacent to the property be dedicated for 50-foot half-width to provide for street widening purposes. The Commission inquired as to the street classification of Knott Avenue as it appeared on the General P1an, whereupon, Pdr. Christofferson stated that Knott Avenue was desig- nated as a primary highway with a 106-foot wide right-of-way; however, the City of 3uena Park primary ~ighway was a 100-foot wide right-of-way with travel lanes and widths comparable with the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council th3t the City of Buena Park be advised that the proposed reclassification is in conformance with develop- ment of properties adjacent to it within the City of Anaheim, and is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTIOI~ CARRIEDo ITEM N0. 3 Orange County Use Variance No. 5822 (C. L. Pharris) - Reouesting permission to remove sand and gravel from a 13-acre parcel of land over a period of six years; property located on the east side of Orchard Drive, approximately 250 feet north of the Yorba Linda Freeway; property zoned 100-E4-15,000 Small Estates District. ; Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5822 to the ~r'• + Commission,noting the location of subject property and *he proposed request for removal ~ of one million yards of sand and gravel over a period of six years; the Staff findings we:e also reviewed regarding the developmert of properties in close proximity; the type ~ of access to the site• the roximit of the existin and , p y g proposed schools; hours of ~. operation; and the possible effect the removal of sand and gravel would have on ttie ' residential environment and agriculturai uses established in close proximity. I~ ~ ~~ Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the concern the Commission ~_ had regarding the wholesale removal of geographic hills in the area in which subject property is located; that. ~hildren going to school would be in constant danger because of the many R trucks which would be entering and leaving subject property during the day; that removal of ~,~ „~ one million yards of material would create considerable dust, noise, ~nd vibration which would be detrimental to the residential environment already established in the area; a~;d ,~ , tFat the aesthetic beauty ai the area would be destroyed by the proposed use. ~ ~ ' _ I ! . i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOh, December 5, 1966 32g2 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDA?IONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Cou ,;, .., ..~ange County Planning Commission be strongly urged to deny Orange County Use V,-~;.' :n the following basis: ' • ° 1. That wholesale removal and leveling of the topography within ~.. ,c~; :.:;iGa area would destroy the aesthetic beauty of the hilly areas, particularly arounr' subject property, where expensive homes have been established for some time. 2. That numerous truck loads which would have io be hauled daily in order to remove the amount of material proposed over a period of six years would be deleterious to the health of the residents of the area because of the dirt, noise, vibration, hours of operation, etc., inherent in operations of this type. 3. That the increase in traffic, because of the number of trucks, would be dangerous to the school children traversing the streets adjacent to subject property on their way to and from school because sidewalks hae~e not been constructed in this area. 4. That dust and dirt from the proposed operation would be very harmful to the citrus and avocado groves and plant material grown adjacent to subject property. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 633 (LeRoy Rose) - Request for an extension of time to complete cr^a'tions approving a convalescent home at the northeast corner oi bert Street and Crescent Avenue. 'sq Associate Planner 7ack Christofferson presented a request from the agent for the petitioner ~ requesting a six-:..,,nths' extension of time to complete conditions imposed in Resolution No. 1377, Series 1964-65, approving Conditional Use Permit Vo. 633, for the establishment of a convalescent home proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Crescent Avenue~. It was also r.oted that two previous 180-day time extensions were granted, the last having expired Sep=ember 15, 1966, and that the conditions yet to be met were subject to final building inspection. Commission~r Rowland offered a motion to grant a six-months' extension of time for the completion of conditions imposed when Conditional Use Permit No~ 633 was granted, said time limitation to expire March 14, 1967. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNh1ENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. NiJTIO~ CARRIED. The meeting adjouined at 4:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~r ~~r, , ~ // ~'~~,,~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission C' ~ ~ t. ~ ~f~ -~ j::l ,~~:c ~ 1. .-_ ~1 .~4Y'