Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/01/16City Hall Anaheim, California January 16, 1967 A REGULAR MEE7'ING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANPdING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2: 00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ,~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano (entered Council Chamber at 2:40 P,h1,), ,; Gauer, Herbst, Alungall, Rowland. ~~ i ~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONF.RS: None. j 1 PRESENT - Development Services Director: Alan Orsborn i Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson { Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ~ Deputy City Attorney: ~ Furman Roberts I -. Traf£ic En ineer: 9 Ed Granzov,~ Office Engineer Representative: Robert Jones Pianning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger Associate Plonner: Jack Christofferson ~ Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs I INVOCATION - Reverend L. Kenneth Zank, Pastor, St. Mark's Lutheran Church, gave I i the invocation. •I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pled9e of Allegiance to the F1ag. •~ APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of tne meeting of January 4, 19b7, were approved as J TI-IE MINUTES submitted, on motion by Commissioner Rowland, seconded by Commissioner i Mungali, and (v1pTI0N CARRIED. ~ I ~ 'I _ Chairman Camp inquired of the audience.~Jho was interested in General Plan Amendment Noe 84;~ - and ~, showing of hands indicated over 100 persons present in the Council Chamber were +.i interested; whereupon Chairman Camp stated that the Commission would consider General Plan ~'i Amendment No. 84 first.. I 4,i GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC }iEARING. INITiATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLkNNING COMMISSIOIJ, ~1 AMENDMENT N0. 84 204 East Lincoln Aver.ue, Anaheim, Caliiornia; proposing that West Street x~~ between La Palma Avenue or, the north and Broadway on the south be reclassi- E~ 1.I fied on the Circulation Element Nighway Rights-of-Way of the General P L n , from 3 local street to a secondary highway as an exception. having a varied i+ width to 76 feet, and between Broadway and the 5anta Ana Freeway on the ~ i south from ~ local to a collector street, with a standard 64-foot street ~• widtho I ~1 Associate Planner Marvin Krieyer reviewed for the Commission the proposed general plan amendment, indicating that an engineering map located on the east wall of the Council ~ , Chamber depicted the existing and proposed right-of-way for West Street and noted ~.hat the Traffic Engineer had reyuested consideration of a change in street designation because 4 1 ! there were no arterials betweer, Harbor Boulevard and Euclid Street, and both streets were ~ carrying their capacity traffic loads. I ~ Traffic Engineer Ed Granzow appeared before the Commission and noted that the Engineeriny Department had reviewed the entire City street system to determine the traffic flow on j. existing arterial streets, as well as other streets, ond it was r.oted that the vehicle count for West Street had jumped from 3,300 in 1961 to its preser.t co.~t of 7,600; that • the projections indicated the ultimate count would reach 12,000 to 13,000 cars in ten years. It was also noted that the increase in traffic on West Street was due to many people using the street as a by-pass, or a convenient route to the freeway and the Anaheim Shopping Center at Loara-Crescent-Euclid Streets; thus it was determined an additional ~~~ four-lane arterial was needed to handle traffic between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard. ~j ~j _ ~~ * 3306 i { "~ `:~ E' I -r ~ ~ _.....- ,:~_:~_ ..-.._ ~ ...1: ....:~_. _.~:~a_..~._,... ... . .._......,_~_..., _ .., _..._..::. :._..: ~:-.. ___-_ , . ..._ ....~ y ~ i , .. ~- ~ '-- ~._. .-- 61 --'__ ^ ~~. a ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 33U7 .-....a6i;-~ ,~ , '~ ~, :' I ~ I GENERAi PLAN - Chairman Camp tnen noted he would like an expression of each of the AMENDMENT N0. 84 Commissioners regarding their feelings about the proposed amendment; (Continued) that he felt the proposed amendment for West Street was not in the best interest of the citizens of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst not.e~' that he would like to see additional studies - mainly that would indicate other ro,.~es that would by-pass presently designated areas which were not now considered through streets, such as West Sti•eet; that alternate methods for routing automobiles around these areas should be explored - which would discourage motorists from using these residential streets to by-pass arterials which have heavy traffic; and that the Commission was now studying an existing problem facing 2,600 homes which were now located on existing arterials to determine the best way to resolve means of reducir,g noises, dust, etc., which affected the residential envirorment of these homes, and to add West Street to this already enormous problem was tantamount to affecting any residential area or any residential street in close prox:mity to heavy traffic. Commissioner Allred concurred in Commissioner Herbst's statements and added that moi•r concrete steps should be taken to make Harbor Buulevard a four-lane arterial; that studies should be implemented which might reveal ttiat one-way streets might be a medns of resolving traffic problems without widening a predominantly residential street and introducing a heavy flow of traf:ic which would dest:oy its residential integrity. Commissioner Gauer stated that West Street was c,ne of the best residential streets in the City; that when residential streets were changed to an arterial street, strip commercial development occurred, with many people speculating in selling these t~:omes for strip com- mercial business; that this would introduce many requests ior service stations at the intersections, and in all likelihood, West Street, co;;ld have 16 service stations just as East Street; and that any consideratio~ of the propcsed amendment should be deferred urtii such time as a complete, comprehensive study was made with alternate solutions to the traffic problem rather than changing the street designation of a local street and widening it, thereby destroying the residential integrity of the properties along said streat, as well as ad;bining properties. Commissioner Rowland expressed concern ti~at no consideration was given to the fact that the adjoining streets would be affected also by the change in street designation; that West Street presently served a public and private school, and many children used this street to walk to school, and tc increase the volume of traffic on this residential street would jeopardize their safety; that the Victor Gruen Report on t'ie Center City Area did not consider West Street as an important arterial in the traffic flow for the City; that additional boulevard signs, not traffic siynals, were necessary to deter motorists using the street f.or easier access to an:i from the regional shopping center; that traffic signs should be posted and speed limit enforced on West Street to deter usir,g this st*eet as a through street; that preparations should be begun on a long-range project to correct tl-.e traffic bottleneck at Lincoln Avenue and cuciid Street. in cooperation with the State Division of Highways, and when this was resolved, a areat deal o: L'r~e traiiic would 'oe eliminated from West Street. Chairmzn Camp, in summarizing, stated that after he t~ad discussed the proposed amendment with several of th: Commission2rs prior to the public hearing, it was his opinion the pro- posed amendment was premature, and when a more definite chang- in traffic flow occurred, consideration should be given at that tim^. Furthermere, no change to the General Plan Circulation Element should be considered for streets around the Center City Area until a definite decision had been made by the City Council. Mr. Stephen Gallagher, attorney, 328 North Jv'est Street, appeared before tr~e Commission to reoresent approximately 100 persor~s present in the Council Chamber opposin9 the proposed amendment, and stated he reoresented these people without fee as a resident of North West Street for sixteen years; that the proposed amendment was premature and should be completely removed from the agenda; that nc:ie of the property owners wouid dedicate any of their property :or street widening purposes; and that i. order to solve the heavier traffic on West Street, the City should attempt to extend Loara ~treet to La Palma Avenue, thus routing all traffic from the shopping center to an arterial street. Mr. Frank h9elcher, 521 North West Street, offered the suggestion that sidewalks be installed on West Street - this, then, would reduce the traffic of mothers drivinq their children to school because of the hazardous conditions due to no sidewalks. Mrs. Carolyn Thompson, 856 North West Street, inquired why it was necessary to request an additional 10 feet for street widening purposes since there already existed between 10 snd 15 feet adjacent to the roadway for said street widening. ~ ~INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, January 16, 1967 3308 GENEP.AL PLAN - Chairman Camp advise~ Mrs. Thompson that if the amendment was approved AMENDMeNT N0. 84 and the street was widened, the sidewalks and curbs would be necessary, (Continued) and the portion now existing represented part of the existing dedicated right-o:-way. Chairman Camp further state~ t'iat the consensus of opinion had been expressed by the Commission in opposition; that a general plan amendment did not mean the street would be widened, and this would not occur for sorne time, depending upon the need for additional right-of-way to take care of traffic on the street; and that the additional 10 feet would provide for curbs to plant trees and the installation of sidewalks:- however, sidewalks , were not installed by the City, but the City Engineer would cooperate witn the property ~~~ owners if they desired to install sidewalks at their own expense. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted by the Commission that many of the large, old trees would be removed if the proposed amendment were approved, and eventual street widening was projected - uvhich would further destroy the residential integrity of the area since many of these trees were over 100 years old, and thut the proposed amendment should be acted upon, rat;ier than terminated, _ so that the City Council could benefit from the expressions of the Commission a~d the opposition. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-lo and moved for its passaga and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that General P1an Arner,dment No. 84 be disapproved on the basis that the area was primarily residential, and to propose that the residential,local street be changed to an arterial highway would destroy this residential i.ntegrity; that it would encourage strip commercial z~ning, thereby adding to the problems of conversion of homes fronting on arte:ial highways; that nu major changes should take place in the circulation element in the vicinity of the Center City Area until a decision was reached by the City Council on the Center 'ity Study; and that the City Council be urged to explore alternati~;es, other than street w:dening, to take care of tr;ffic problems on local, residential streets. (See Resolution 3ook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO~dISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, fierbst, Mungali, Rowland, Camp. NUES: CUiv1MISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CONtiMISSIONERS: Farano CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIIJG. FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CURP~RATIGtd, 524 West Commonwealtn PERMIT N0. 911 Avenue, Fullerto.:, California, Owner; FRANK NICOLETTI, 3026 Liberty Boulevard, Apartment E, South Gate, California, Agent; requesting permission to HRVE ON-SALE LIQUOR IN A i'ROPOSED RESTAURAfJT o~ property described as: A r?ctangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 162 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the soutt~erly boundary of subject property being appror,imately 375 feet north of the centerline oi Winston Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CUtJ~h1ERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location and the proposed request and the uses established in close proximity to subject property. The Commission reviewed the plans, noting that the petitioner w~s proposing a separation between the bar and the eating area. ~ i1o one appeared to represent the petitioner. t Pdo one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TI~ HEARIPJG WAS CLOSED. I ~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution t~o. PC6?-9 and moved for its passage and adoption, i seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 911, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOtdERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, r~owland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CUMMISSIUNERS: Farano. ' ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: C~mp. ~' .4x i ;~ ,, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3309 CONDITIO~:nL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK SACKETT, c~o Carl Cowles, 106 West 4th Street, PERMIT N0. 914 Room 309, Santa Ana, California, Owner; C~ARLES SCHLEGEL, 433 West 8th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WUMEN'S FIGURE SALON AND RcLATED FACILITIES on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue, Wilshire Avenue, and Pearl Street and having frontages of approximately 190 feet on Lincoln Avenue, approximately 203 feet on Wilshire Avenue, and approximately 140 feet on Pearl Street, and further described as 1253 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-l, GEN~RAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ' - Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the rroposed request, the location of subject -~-~ property, and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the two-story structure ; now under construction to the rear of a Howard Johnson restaurant and Union Oil station was 2~ to be utilized. Mr.F, K. Fri.edemann,representin9 the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the beauty salon and modeling studio would be pa*t of the women's figure salon operation, and that subject property would be developed in accordance with the C-1 Site Development Standards. In response to Commission quastioning, Mr. Friedemann stated that although the name of the operation was indicated as ths "Eileen Feather Salon", this would be a franchise operation since there were other oqerations throughout California. Mr. Christofferson, in response to ~ommission questioning, stated that any proposed sign for subject property would require a variance. No one appeared in opposition to =_ubject petition. THE HEARING WAS C~OSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-10 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 914, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) y:}j .; _ i~~ ~ ~~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Ga~er, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARIiJG. DAVID MADI~X, 111 North Western Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 66-67-47 California, Owner; JAMES SCHULER, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: Nn irre9ularly shaped parcel CONDITIONNL USE of :and having a frontage of approximately 136 feet on the north side of PERMIT N0. 912 Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 135 feet, t~~e easterly boundary oi subject property being approximately 160 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GCNcRAL CONiMERCIAL, ZUNE. REQli~STED CUNDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN ANIt~AL HOSPITAL. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request and adjoining land uses and indicated that the petitio~ier's agent had indicated on the plot plan that the lot width was 140 feet; however, in interpreting the 1e9a1 description, it was determined the parcel measured only 136 feet, plus or minus, and that the petitioner or his agent should be aware of this discrepancy between the plan and the legel description and should revise the plot plan accordin9ly since this could be done without any major problem. Mr. James Schuler, the agent, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed smali animal hospital ..~ld be opera?ed by Doctor Dean who had a similar operation at 1561 West Lincoln Aven~c, and that the problem presented by the Staff regarding the dis- crepancy of 4 feet between the plot plan and the legal description would be resolved, either by reducing the square footage ^f the building or eliminating the setback of the east property line. Furthermore, the screen landscaping on the west property line would be planted adjacent to the 6-foot masonry wall. In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Schuler stated that the proposed small animal hospital would be in addition to that already under operation by Doctor Dean since t,e had a partner who would operate the other hospital. ~ .. ~j MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3310 R~CLASSIFICATION - The Commission noted that there was considerable traffic congestion N0. 66-67-47 at the original animal hospital, and ~ome provision should be made at the new animal hospital to eliminate this traffic congestion. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 912 No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-11 and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-47 be approved, subject to conditions, and stipulations made by the agent for the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll ~all the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mur,gall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Mun9a11 ofiered Resolution No. PC67-12 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 912, 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. NUES: COMMISSIONERS: Vone. ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: ,arano. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FUREST LAW!J CEMETERY ASSOCINTION, Box 1151, Glendale, N0. 66-67-48 California, Owner; FORES7 LAWN MORTGAGE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, 1600 South Glendale Avenue, Glendale, California, Agent; property COI~DITIUNAL USE described as: Parcel ~, - Ari irregularly shaped parcel of land having PERMIT NU. 913 a frontage of approximately 321 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 700 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 1,350 feet east of the centerline of State College Bo~levard, and Parcel 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land approximately 333 feet by 316 feet, being south of and adiacent to the southerly boundary of Parcel 1, the westerly boundary of Parcel 2 being bounded to the west by Westport Drive. Property rresently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIUN: PHRCEL 1- C-1, GENERAL CO~~ERCIAL, ZUNE. PARCEL 2- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAPAILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Conditional Use Permit iJ~. 913 property description: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 209 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth ~~f approximately 280 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 1,310 feet ea;t of the centerline of State College Boulevard. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO PERMIT JN-SALE LIQUOR IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT. Commissioner Farano entered the Council Chamber at 2:40 P.h1. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed reclassification and conditional use permit, noting the location of subject property and the adjoining land uses. It was also noted that the proposed restaurant would be adjacent to the proposed location of tne branch library. Plans were reviewed, and it was noted for the Commission that if subject conditional use permit and reclassification were approved, the plans would overlap a previousl~ approved conditional use permi± for a pizza restaurant; therefore, the Commission might wish to consider termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 538. Mr. Austin Eddy, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission a~d noted that the architects for the propose~ restaurant, a representative of the operators of the restaurant, and a legal representative were present if the Commission desired to have any questions answered. A colored elevation of the east and north portionsof the structure was presented for the Commission and Staff to review and was then returned to the petitioner. Mr. Eddy noted that one exhibit which was not presented as an official part of the petition included plans for the location of the proposed branch library; that the City Council had authorized the hiring of an architect several months ago to prepare preliminary drawings for the proposed library structure, and copies were presented to the petitioner for placement on the parcei in the event developm~nt was proposed. However, the plans that were prepared r. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3311 RECLASSIFICATION - included a theater, and the plans were not presented because it was N0. 66-67-48 uncertain whether or not the library would be placed on the property in the exact location as presented to them; that the t.heater was now CONDITIONAL USE eliminated b~cause of competition in the theatrical business since PERMIT N0. 913 the proposed operators were given approval to construct another theater, (Continued) as well as competition in obtaining first-run pictures in Orange County. The Commission inquired whether or not plans of development were proposed for the immediate future for Parcel No. 2- the R-3 devel.opment. Mr. Eddy stated that the reclassification petition included the highest and best zonir,g for the property; however, at this time, it was not planned to develop Parcel No. 2. Mr. Eddy continued, that although plans had been tentative for the library, the City was delaying any action until a definite plan of development was presented for the property adjacent to the library site, and now that the plans were before the Commission, it was hoped the library construction would be undertaken by the City since it was his feeling this would be an asset to that area. The parking for the entire shopping center was also reviewed by Mr. Eddy, who noted that although the commercial structures at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard were part of the commercial development, they were not owned by his company; however, t;~ey had parking easements which negated any construction along the State College Boulevard frontage because the consent of these property owners was necessary and was not forthcoming. Mr. Eddy, in reviewina the recommended conditions, stated that Condition No. 6 could not be met since it was their plan to develop Parcel No. 1 first, and perhaps the Commission would consider requiring this at the time development occurred on Parcel No. 2. The Commission inquired whether or not the library di~~ctor, William Griffith, had any comments regarding the restaurant and cocktail loungE ~djacent to the proposed library site. Mr. Griffith stated that much depended upon tne quality ot the restaurant; whether or not it would be compatibie with the library. Commissio~er Gauer noted that the operators of a similar type of resta~~rant had a high quality type restaur.ant. Mr. Eddy noted there was considerable parki~g between the restaurant and the proposed library site. IJo one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-13 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commi~~ic~er Allred, to recommend tc the City Council that Fetition for Reclassi- fication No. 65-6~'-48 be approved, subject to conditions, and amendment to Condition No. o to require this con~pleted at the time development plans were proposed for Parcel No. 2. (See Resolution Book1 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOIvERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC67-14 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 913, 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: CUMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COiW~AISSIOPJERS: None. ~ ~ i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3312 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-19 and moved for its N0. 66-67-48 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to terminate all • proceedings on G~nditional Use Permit No. 538, on the basis that CONDITIONAL USE Conditional Use Permit No. 913 development plans superseded the PERMIT N0. 913 previous plans approved. (See Resolution Book) (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NUESs COMMISSIOiJERS: None. :X~ ~3SENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,~ ~~ RECLNSSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THF ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, 204 East j' N0. 66-67-46 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; oroposing that property described as: H pie-shaped parcel of land containing approximately one-tenth of an acre, located approximately 32~ feet west of Orchard Dr:.ve and north ' of Orangethorpe Avenue, the westerly boundary of subject property being east uf and adjacent ; to the present Anaheim city limits line, and further described as the Rinker Annexation No. 2, ' _, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2, 5,000 ONE-FAMIL:', ZONE. ~' Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission the annexation of the small, I pie-shaped parcel of land known as the kinker Hnnexation i4o. 2, ar,d the interim zoning 1 established by Urgency Ordinance 2336, passed by the City Council on November 29, 1966, establishing interim R-A Zoning for Rinker Annexation No. 2, further noting that R-2, 5,000 'I Zoning had been granted the property to the west known as the Rinker Annexation, Reclassi- I fication No. 66-67-1, and that subject property ~vas a continuation of the property being developed to the west. ~ IJc one appeared in opposition to subject petition. i ; THE HEARI!JG WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Row_and offered Resolution No. P~67-15 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the Cit~• Council that permanent zoning be established for property known as P.inker tinnexation ~o. 2 under Reclassification No.66-67-46, subject to conditions, requiring the filing of a final tract map on subject property and recorded in the office of the Crange County Recorder, and that the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25.00 per dwell.ing unit to be used for Park and Recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follc+winq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONE-S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, fiowland, Camp. NCFS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSICNERS: None. H~'ulE~DMENT TU TITLE 18 -?UIILIC HtARIIJG. INI"IIF,TED 6Y THr CI'I~Y PLANtdING COMh1ISSI0N, AIJAI-fEI~i MUNICIPAL CUDE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, t,naheim, California; proposing amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18, by the addition of Sec~ion 18.85, Special Setbacks in the C-R, Commercial-Recreation, Lone. Associate Planner ~uiarvin Krieger reviewed the proposed addition to the Anaheim Municipal Code, indicatinq that Chapter 18.85 should 'pe designated as "Special Setbacks", deleting any reference to the C-R Lone, and that any reference made to structure or development in the first three lines should read, "Every buildiny, building site or an addition ec,ual to 25% or more of the gross area of an existing building or building site....of this Urdinance", and that the setback depths and landscaping as indicated on this proposed addition to Tit1e 18 are qenerally in conformance with past requirements under the conditional use permit for developmen± of property along these streets. Commissio~e~ Rowland questioned whether or not reference should be made to 18.85.010 saying "and/or an addition equal to", whereupon Mr. Krieger stated this was defined in the Code as both. ~ Mr. Maurice Jones, 621 Soutli Spriny Street, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission , representing Mrs. Inch, who owned property on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, immediately ~ north of Orar,gewood Avenue, and requested clarification of what was proposed by the addition of Chapter 18.85,as well as Chapter 18.37, since he had been unable to study what was proposed "~ in order to express opposition or approval. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3313 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL COllE - Section 18.85, Special Setbacks in the C-R Zone (Continued) The Commission Chairman advised Mr. Jones and Mrs. Inch that the amendment by the addition of 18.37 and 18.85 to the Anaheim Municipal Code would place into ordinance form what the City had administered throu9h a conditional use permit in the ai•ea known as the Commercial- ~ Recreation Area, generally bounded on the north by Vermont Avenue, on the south by Orangewood Avenue, on the west by Walnut Street, and on the east by the Santa Ana Freeway. Mr. Jones then inquired if the proposed amendment was adopted, would this mean his client - would have to dedicate as well as landscape the setback regardless of the re-zoning? I . •~if~-~ Mr. Krieger stated that the Commercial-Recreation Zone and the special setbacks would apply ; ' only at the time the property owner proposed to develo his I~ would the special setbacks and landscaping be requiredPof anyrdevelopment,~and thaththislhad I been the practice in the past on Harbor Boulevard - requiring a 50-foot setback with a 10- foot landscaped area. Mr. Jones then inquired whether or not Anthony Pools was required to set back 50 feet, and was advised by the Commiseion that the structure was set back 50 feet; however, landscaping had not been established on the property up to the present time. No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment. TFfr HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano inquired whether Chapter 18.85 was to be heard concurrently with the C-R Ordinance, and was advised it was necessary in order that any reference made in the C-R Ordinance could be reflected in the Zoning Code. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-17 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council the addition of Chapter 18.85, entitled "Special Setbacks" to the Anaheim Municipal Code as depicted on Exhibit "A". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the fr, lowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, 6lungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CCti:MISSIONERS: None. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNI;JG ANAHcIM MUNICIPAL CODE COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the addition of Chapter 18.37, C-R, Commercial- Recreation, Zone. Subject amendment was continued frorn the meetings of iJovember 7 and December 5, 1966 ano January 4, 1967, in order to allow further study and amendments of the proposed zone. Associate Planner Marvin Krie9er reviewed the changes made to Chapter 18.37 as previously indicated by the Commission and noted that a further correction was proposed in that Page 4, Section 18.37.030(b) should reflect, "Any existing building or building site is added to by 25% or more of the gross area of said existing buildin9 or site", since this would conform with the manner in which the Buildinq Division administered their property values on a building permit. ' PAr. Maurice Jones inquired whether this would also affect his client, Mrs. Inch, whereupon ~ the Commission informed him that the zone would apply only if his client was desirous of i developing her property in the Commercial-Recreation Zone since her property was generally ' located in this area known as the Commercial-Recreation Area; however, she would not have to request, or develop in accordance with, the zona if she was not desirous of developing her property. Mr. John Wise, representing Walt E. Disney Enterpr?ses, appeared be;ore the Commission and statad they were in general agreement with the proposed zone; however, there were two areas ~ j in which they had questions: namel y, would they qualify as an amusement park and would they be required to request a conditional use permit to build any subsequent p!anned projects for Disneyland since their original conditional use permit was granted under the jurisdic- ~ ~ tion of the County7 ~ ~ ~.~ .*x Mr. Krieger and Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised Mr. Wise that primary uses and ~~ accessory uses would be covered under the ordinance; however, the Disneyland operation would ' i, require a conditional use permit if this was np~, cpver.ed under their ari9inal conditional use permit approved by the County. 2 MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIQG COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3314 AMENDMENT TC TITLE 18 ANAI-fEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Chapter 18.37, C-R Zone (Continued) ' Mr. Wise then inquired whether or not reference made to the Height Standard Guideline applied within the park as well as outside the park since it was their understanding that the height standard was developed for anything outside the park. ; Considerable discussion was then held by ±he Commission, Staff, and Mr. Wise as to the interpretation of the Height Standard Guideline. Chairman Camp noted that this was brought up before public hearing, and he specifically asked before it was adopted whether or not the guideline applied within and without; however, if the original conditional use permit permitted any height, then anything not covered by said conditional use permit would have to adhere to the Commercial-Recreation Zone requirements - that an ordinance could not be written which would exempt one property owner specifically. Mr. Wise then asked whether or not the Staff could obtain the resolution adopting the Height Standard Guideline Map No. 1124 so that it could be read aloud and interpreted by the City Attorney's representative. Chairman Camp declared a ten minutes recess while the City Council resolution adopting the Height Standard Guide'_ine was brought from the Development Services Department. RECESS - The meeting recessed at 3:30 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meetin9 at 3:40 P.M., all Commissioners being present. Mr. Krie9er then read the resolution which adopted the Height Standard Guideline, known as Map No< 1124, and upon completion, the Commission was of the opinion that in two basic instances, the resolution referred to both "within" and "without" the park. Mr. Wise expressed concern that if they had an unusual project which would require a waiver of the 75-foot height limitation,before they had rer.eived approval of the height waiver, . this idea could have been plagiarized by other people. - ~ The Commission u ~ ggested that specific plans would not be necessary - only the request - that a building or buildings would te constructed within the park in excess of the 75-foot height. THE 1-~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farar,o discussed at length his feelings and philosophy regarding development in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and the following is a summary of his discussion: 1. All development in the area bounded on the north by Vermont Avenue, on the east by ttie Santa Ana Freeway, on the south by Orangewood Avenue, and on the west by Walnut Street should be through the filing of a conditional use permit, so that control of the type of development, both use and architecture, could be maintained by the City which would assure that the area would have the highest and best development in a strategic area visited by millions of people every year. 2. That a Commercial-Recreation %one was a usable tool for the City, but with some of the C-R Area still undeveloped, and the area oriented to recreation facilities, it was important that this theme be retained. 3. That the commercial-recreation uses already established should be in the area by right, but if the City permitted other uses which were not compatible to be developed in this area, it miqht deteriorate, and if this area could be isolated, then he would not oppose the zone; however, this could not be done - therefore, it was necessary to safeguard the area with the uses which were more oriented to recreational uses. 4. That no one should be granted a privilege to develop in this area by right. :~~ Commissioner Camp stated he sympathized with Commissioner Farano's philosophy; however, - there were only six primary uses which could be established by right, and that the cost ~ ~ of the land would deter any undesirable development for that area. j ~ , ~' Commissioner Farano stated he was not only concerned with the primary uses, but also the Y~ ~. ~ architectural design, the theme of the development, and land use proposed, and that he ~ could not measure this by facts and figures-how people's attitude would affect development ~'• i ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3315 AMENDMENT TO TITL[ 18 AtJAItiEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Chapter 18.37, C-R Zone (Continued) if the proposed zone were approved; however, the area could change if more stringent controls were not placed on the area which could not be incorporated in the ordinance. Commissioner Herbst noted that architectural c~ntrol had not been enforced on the C-R Area except to determine whether or not the proposed use was acceptable and in harmony with the area. ' Commissioner Farano stated he felt the only thing, under the to determine whether or not a proposed development was or waspnoteconsistenttwithstheas ,,"~ architectural development in the existing area and could be obnoxious to the area; ~ however, he was not prepared to say that the argument would stand in a court of law, i; and requested that this be clarified by Mr. Roberts. Furthermore, the Commission's :i~ ~onsideration should be aimed at drafting an ordinance which sets forth the architectural pattern or development similar to that established in Solvang - however, Anaheim may have progressed to a point where this was not feasible; that possibly the Commercial-Recreation ~ Area had been o0 to 70% developed, and where an area had a 5d,-K developmer.t, the pattern ' in architecture was already established, and there would be great difficulty in requiring ~ _ any change of the remainder of the undeveloped land - however, any development should be . I. in harmony with the existing development. 1 Chairman Camp noted that it took some dev, ~uL'~'' 1 feasibility which should be placed in that area, slx years to decide on the architectural ``~± Commissioner Farano stated that he did not feel there would be an improvement in the i community in this area with the furthermore, it would not improveranyS~evelopmentEinethe area~sinceWit was~his~bestance; ~ Jud9- ~ ment thst it would remain status quo, and from past trends it was more a probability it would slide down rather than improve, or take the normal co!~rse; that he was sure develop- ment w~~`~ continue in the area - however, if the City did not exercise good judgment to protF. _ne area which had a substantial investment and added to the economy of the City, there r+ould be no revenue to support it. Furthermore, there was not that much land left ~ to require a new ordinance to cover the area, and the new ordinance would not alleviate the nec,ssity for public hearings. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether Commissioner Farano would consider this area the •h _ ~o~nercial-Recreation Area, and vote it as such? •;~ Commissioner Farano inquired how it was ~ consideration be given to it, since thisPcouldlnot~beedonetwithin thealimitsaofsPhellaw; ~~ hovrever, he felt a small area known as the Commercia ~~ for consideration by conditional use i~-Recreation Area should be retained ~ should be Permit, and that perhaps the proposed ordinance ~- given further study, although he had studied the ordinance at great length and €~ had found no solution to the questions which he had expressed. Commissioner iAungall stated that in 1958 the Commission had adopted an ordinance for the Commercial-Recreation Area with arcfiitectural control; however, it did not pass the City Council because the courts would not uphold any ordinance in which architectural control was proposed. Commissioner Farano continued that he did not feel architectural control would accomplish this. Commissioner Herbst stated that he wished to express his support of the that although development had occurred in the Commercial-Recreation AreaPbyp~onditionalnuse permii, it was more likely this would be the same pattern in the future development of these properties, with exception of the primary uses, and since the pattern for the area had been set, the Commission must consider private enterprise where a person who owned property in this area most likely would not develop his property u~lessthe developer pro- posed a high-quality development because he could not compete with the businesses already established there unless he had a worthwhile development. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance was a good ordinance, and a number of necessary controls we~•e written into it; that there was always ~ possibility that mistahes would be made, but te felt the Commission should not set a pattern for architectural design since guidelines hac been established by previous developmento ;~ Commissioner Rowland, speaking on architectural control, stated that nothing had 'oeen _ ; attempted in that field since 1958; that he wouid hate to see the Commission or anybody ~~~ like it set the architecture of a development since few were qualified by education and experience, and it was unlikely that within tFe nex•'. ten or fifteen years arcnitecture .~tx I~ MINUTES, CITY PLANIJING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3316 AMENDPAENT "IO TITLE 18 ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Chapter 18.37, C-R Zone (Continued) in the area would not be in complete harmony; ±~at presently there were few developments in the area which could be classed as quality development; that he did not feel it should be architectural control as much as theme control; and that the area aiready had some type of outside uses being appruved and established in the area which normallv could not be considered a compatible use. Furthermore, there was another point which ha~9 not been discussed - that being the fact that the existing C-R Area could extend to other areas , in the City, and he was not desirous of having to be confronted with consideration of ~~~ conditional use permits for development of other commercial-recreation areas outside of ;i the existing one as depicted on the General Plan. ;f~ Commissioner Farano then stated he felt the wording "theme control" was more appropriate i` than architectural control; however, he did not want to impose his judgment on the archi- ~ tectural quality of a development, but he was concerned with objectionable theme develop- i ment which might occur. Furthermore, in requiring a conditional use permit for development { in the Commerci.al-Recreation Area, this placed the Commission on guard as to what type of ~ development was desi*able, and if tr~e Commissioner performed its job as it was intended by ~ - approaching each petition with a sense of responsibility and inte;liqence, the City would j go far in preventin9 encroachment of undesirable uses there. f .~ Chairman Camp stated he could agree with the thinking of the ::onditional use permit if the ~ City was considering opening up this area for more intense use by right, but with only six ~ basic uses being permitted by right, the City was not taking too much chance in the uses ~ being compatible, and if the requirements were met, development would occur in an acceptable I ' manner. Furthermore, the Commission would be reviewing most of the developments because ~ many uses would reouire a conditio~ai use permit, and with the cost of land in thnt area, even the ?rimary uses might come in with a height limitation. ! i Commissioner Gauer stated he felt the tneme had been establish_. .~ the area, and the j proposed ordinance met with his approval. I Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-18 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner :Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that an amendment be made to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Tit1e 18, by the addition of Chapter 18.37, C-R, ; - Commercial-Recreation, Zone as depicted on E;chibit "A". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, ~~uer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RE PORTS ANu - I TEM i~U . 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Use b'ariance No. 5839 - Permit a Television Repair Shop in a residential structure, and the elimination of the required I residential covered parking or, property located on the east side of North Brookhurst Street, approximately 112 feet south o: the center- iir.e of Catalina Street. Property zoned Orange County R-P, Residertial :rofessional District. ~ AsSOCiate ?lan~,er Jack Christof,erso.^. presented Urange County lise Variance Vo. 5S39 to the ~~ :'ianning Co:nmissio~, a,:d reviewed the petition as follows: ~ 1. Subject property is located on the eas't side of Brookhurst Street, approximately ~ 112 feet south of the cenierline of Catalina Street and is zoned R-P, Residential Professional. . ; ~ 2. Television repairs were permitted 'oy fiome Uccupation Permit by ti~e County of Urange. . . 3. Adjacart properties primarily zoned R-P, and generally used for office use, except tt~at the properties to the east are zo~~ed R-1, Single Family. ; 4. The petitioner proposes to utilize the dwelliny unit for residential uurposes, e;ccept tnat one room wi11 be converted to office use; ~he existing qaraqe will be converted into a fu11-fledyed commercia' television repair shop; that an ' 18-square foot wall sign is proposed to I.,e rected; and that customer par4iny ~ will be provided on tne exi~ting drivewvy 1~cated at the fror.t of the structure. ~ 5. The Use Variance was init.iated since the proposed use is not permitted in the ~. R-P Zor,e. f w .. ~ ~ MINUf'~3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3317 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) 6. The Anaheim Municipal Code permits limited commercial use of residential structures only in the C-1 Zone, with parking required to the rear of the residential structure, and that the proposed use would not be permitted under this type of zon~ng. 7. The existing right-of-way for Brookhurst Street is 30 feet with an ultimate right-of-way of 60 feet, which would reduce the front setback of the exist- ~,~~ ing structure to 7 feet, thus eliminating any parking of vehicles in the front. t, ~ T~ Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the incompatibility of the proposed use wi±h the existing uses, and the fact that the use would not be permitted if proposed in the City of Anaheim; and that the ultimate right-of-way for Brookhurst Street would eliminate the parking proposed in the front setback. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No. 5839 or, the basis that the use would be incompatible to the uses established in the area; that ihe ultimate right-of-way of 60 feet for Brookhurst Street would eliminate the parking area in the front setback, thereby making it necessary for the owner to provide parking else- where which could not be accomplished. However, if the Orange County Planning Commissio~ deems the use acceptable, the petitioner should be required to dedicate 60 feet from the centerline of Brookhurst Street for street widening purposes in order not to deter the widening of said street when needed. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. ~JpTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Orange Gounty Use Variance iJo. 5840 - Permit the construction of a single-family dwellirg unit with attached 9arage replacing the existing property; property located at 17386 La Paloma Avenue in the Atwood area, and is zoned M-1, Li9ht Industrial District. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5840 to the Planning Commission and reviewed the location of subject property, the proposed erection of a new single-family residence, as well as destruction of the existing residence. It was further noted that the existing zoning on subject property was M-1. Uiscussion was held by the Commission and Staff regarding the possibility that the property could be converted into a commercial use, since the County permitted commercial and indus- trial uses in the M-1 District. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that because of the location of the property, and the fact trat most of the lots in this area are developed for residential purposes, commercial uses would be minimal. Commissioner Herbst cffered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Orange County Use Variance PJo. 5840 be received and filed due to the fact that uses and development in the area were residential; that the structures would not be adaptable for commercial-manu- facturing purposes; and that the area would not be devel.ooed for industrial ourooses for a number of years. Commissioner Allred seconde~i the motion. iWJTIUN CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 Variance No. 1788 (3ouck) - Permit sale of art objects (by appointment) in conjunction with residential use of home at 319 North Harbor Boulevard. Request for six-month extension of time to complete conditions. ~; Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented a request from Mrs. Helen Bouck for a si~- month extensior~ of time to complete the condition of street dedication for Variance No. 1788, noting that the petitioner had previously requested deletion of this condition before the Planning Commission and City Council because the lessee was not the owner and had no authority to dedicate land; however, the request was denied. It was also noted that if the dedication problem was not resolved within the next six months, she would not exercise her variance petition. Commissioner N~ungall offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for completion ~ of conditions in Variance No. 1788, said time extension to expire April 20, 1967. ~x Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIED. 5 r, MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3318 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 4 RECUMMENDATIONS Variance No. 1637 - M 8 M Market - Request for approval of development (Continued) plans for the exp~ision of an existing non-conforming market into ar existing single-family hone to the south, on property located or. the southeast corner of Santa Ana and Citron Streets. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented the report made to the City Council by the Development Services Department on December 27, 1966, regarding Variance No. 1637, the M 3 M Market located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana and Citron Streets, noting that the petitioner was requesting approval of the expansion of an existing non-conforming market . into an adjacent sin9le-family home to the south. It was also noted that the Commission ,.,,~~ had denied subject petition on May 24, 1964, and upon appeal to the City Co~ncil was approved i by them on July 28, 1964, provided that ar.y expansion for the market be along Santa Ana '{ ' Strect to the east; however, the proposed plans, which are partially developed by the peti- ,~ tioner without benefit of a building permit, indicate the expansion is to the south into a i single-family home. The Commission reviewed the proposed o].ans, and their action taken previously, noting that it was their feeling that the expansion of a non-conformin~ use in an area primarily developed for residential purposes was not the highest and best use of the property; and tnat the - approval of ttie use for the single-family zone.d property adjacent to the south would have a deleterious effect on the residential integrity of the area. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to advise t!~e City Council that the land use for the area in which the property covered by Voriance No. 1637 is located has not changed to warrant the Commission amending their previous action, by favorably recommendin9 to the City Council tnat the plans be approved, and that the proposed expansion to the south into the single- family home would set an undesirable precedent for conversion of the other homes, as well as having a deleterious effect on the residential integrity of the area. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 Minimum Dimensions for Designing Off-Street Parking Layouts - Revision No. 1. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented revisions to the ~dinimum Dimensions for Designing Off-Street Parking Layouts to the Commission noting that this standard had been adopted by the Commission and City ~ouncil in 1962; however, the changes incorporated were: 1) the incorporation of residential garage or carport standards; 2) access drives ~mended to show the minimum width of 20 feet and reference made that this was in reference to private access drives; 3) reference to landscaping provided as required by the zone; 4) reqiiiring bumper blocks along property lines; and 5) reduction of the title to "Minimum Uff-Street Parking Dimension". Commissioner Farano of:ered Resolution No. PC67-20 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the amend- ment to Minimum Dimensions for Designing Off-Street Parking Layouts as depicted on Exhibit "A", entitled "Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimension". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follou~ing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMtdISSIONERS: None. ITEPA N0. 6 Consideration of an amendment to the P-1, Automobile Parking, Zone. Commissioner Herbst noted that the City Council had disapproved the request for reclassi- fication of the property at the southeast corner of Niobe Avenue and Brookhurst Str.eet to provide parking for the medical center located immediately to the south, and inquired if the existing P-1 Zone could .not be amended to permit its use as an accessory zone to commercial zones, and the deletion of any reference to multiple-family development permitted within the zone. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission, the Staff, and the City Attorney's office regarding the best. method to be used to assure that commercial developments which find themselves with insufficient parking within the existing zone to request an accessory zone for adjacent property, in order that untenable parkin9 problems in residential areas could be avoided. ~Ax ~ ,~ MlNIffES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 16, 1967 3319 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the Development Services Department staff to draft ar, amendment to the existing P-1 Zone to include makirg this a zone which would be an accessory zone to one already established and developed so that parking could be provided and the deletion of any reference to development within the P-1 Zone of multiple- family residential uses. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Farano o:fered a motion to adjourn the meeting to January 23, 1967, for a work session. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M. WORK SESSION - Two items were on the agenda at the Commission work session held at the public library January 23, 1967, at 7:30 P.M. Commissioner Allred was absent. 1. The role of the Planning Commission under the ch~rter - this was reviewed at great length by City Attorney Joseph Geisler, with the Commission and Staff participating in a question and answer period. 2. Prel?minary draft of the revision to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE reviewed and discussed by the Commission. The Commission requested that exhibits illustrating what mi9ht be accomplished if the front setback were reduced; comments and suggestions by varieus City departments if the sidewalk were constructed adjacent to the street; and a field trip to other cities to see how they have accomplished the reduction of the front yard and used a block wall treat- ment such as Cameo Shores. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~.. , ,/ ~=~-..~.~i ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ ~x