Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/03/11 h ~ ~ j ~ ~ ^ ~~rY~ y ~ ~,r'F- ~ a'~ i " ~ ~~ ~'t~b'S~« ~ 3' ~ ~"~..';~~°~",h~1,~ "rµi'.~~,a"*i 'r`~,f ~, ~ ~~' ~ . ~„ a ` f ~ ~{tR ' r a ~ T :yy ~- z ~R~ic~,v • ~ ~,f.r ~-~ .,~ t~~ ~ " ~ '~ ~'~ 1 ` ~ ~ ~; :t~ J ~ ~ ',:' ~~ ,5, i ,. y ~. ^.. { - - ~ . .. . . . . ~- -... . . ~: ~ '~ ; , 1 ~ . ~ City Hall Anaheim, California March 11, 1968 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE:ANAHEIAI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING r A regular meeting of the Anaheim~City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:09 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONHRS: Farano. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Ernest Friend, Pastor, Central Assembly of God, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner THE MINUTES Mungall and motion carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of.February 26, 1968, as submitted. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. WAYNE R. JONES, 2229 L-ast Lincoln 'N0. 67-68-59 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; TARIQ SHAMMA AND DONN GILMORE, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; property CONDITIONAL USE described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage PERMIT N0. 1007 o'f approximately 98 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 236 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being located approximately 500 feet west of the center- line of Paradise Lane, and further described as 2229 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO PERMIT THE USE OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AS CONSULTING ENGINEHRING OFFICES. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition and the location of subject property, noting that subject and the three long, narrow parcels to the west were all zoned R-A and developed with single-family homes, and to the east single-family residences, as well as to the north, were contiguous to subject property; that a variance had been granted in 1960 to permit construction of a second unit on sub~ect property; that plans submitted by the petitioner indicated the two structures would be converted to be used for commercial-professional offices; that the circular drive would remain, and the peti- tioners were proposing a 10-foot wide access drive to the parking area to the rear; that subject Froperty, along with the many other homes fronting along arterial highways, had been considered in a Front-On Study to determine whether or not commercial uses for the property was appropriate, and the study indicated that Subject property should be retained for.resi~ential purposes; and that the Report to the Commission originally had recommended continuar~ice for :f.urther studies relative to access and circulation - however, the staff felt this was no longer necessary, and the Commission might wish to take action today. Mr. Roberts :~iso noted thet as a result of additional discussions, the Traffic Engineer felt ther~e would be a traffic control problem reaardless of the future development of this.prop~erty or whether or not access rights to Lincoln Avenue were dedicated, since this had been a requirement of commercial office vses of residential homes along other arteriala~, since there was no ailey to the rear to provide access to Lincoln Avenue - this would be undesirable because commercial uses then would be traversing residential areas and could disrupt the use of the single-family homes; that the R-1 subdivision to 3795 ..-r, ~~ ~ ~ . . ....__ „ . ~.,..,,... . ... MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION March ~ ~ 1 1968 r ~:i' ~~ ' ~ 3796 RECLASSIFICATION - the east provided masonry walls around the tract, and with effective N0. 67-68-59 screen planting along the Lincoln Avenue frontage, these homes could be retained for residential purposes. CANDITIONAL USE . PERMIT N0. 1007 Mr, 1'ariq Shamma, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the (Continued) Commission, noting the location of the property and the fact that the heavy commercial traffic to the lar.ge. shopping center across the street, the new post office, and the Jolly Roger Restaurant presently under construction, together with the new Orange Freeway, would project so much taffic along Lincoln Avenue and would make it undesirable to utilize subject property for residential purposes; that the proposed use would be offices for architects, designers, and their e.ngineering firm; that since this would be a private, professional business, there would be little traffic from the street during the day anrl none at night or weekends, and the proposed use might be more desirable than residential uses for the property; that ingress and egress were proposed by one-way drives to a parking area to the rear, and an entire masonry wall with heavy landscaping would be provided; and that the proposed change in use would be in line with future plans of development for this area and would be an asset to the city. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARIIJG INAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission, summarized as follows: 1. Subject property was in one of the areas considered by the Commission for retention as.residential use in the Front-On Study. 2• Approval of subject petition would establish a pattern for similar requests for uses of residential homes along the north side o: Lincoln Avenue for commercial purposes, thereby reducing the possibility of redevelopment of the downtown for high-rise, commercial office use. 3. Conversion o£ these 26 residential lots for commercial purposes would create a traffic problem since secondary access would be needed, and since access rights for vehicular purposes to Lincoln Avenue would have to be prohibited, : the present circulation was inadequate. 4. Many of these homes were highly desirable, and the Commission had encouraged the use of walls in the front yard to eliminate noises and dust from traffic and create a more desirable living environment. 5. That approval of subject petition would be spot zoning since no commercial uses had been established on the r,orth side of Lincoln Avenue between Sunkist Street and State College Boulevar.d. 6. If commercial uses were determined to be appropriate, considerable study should be given to incorporate all these 26 parcels fronting or siding on Lincoln Avenue, and at the present time, the area did not warrant consideration for commercial uses. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-62 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi:ication No. 67-68-59 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed reclassifica- tion would set an undesirable precedent for those residential lots fronting on Lincoln Avenue for similar commercial use requests of the residential homes and would be dele- terious to the.residential uses established to the north and east; that subject property is within one of a number of areas considered for commercial conversion potential in the residential F.ront=0n Study recently adopted by the Commission and City Council, which;study did recommend that subject property, along with other parcels in the immediate area, should be retained for residential uses; that if subject property and the adjacent parcels were converted to commercial uses, increased traffic would create burdens that could not be accommodated by existing circulation facilities; and that there were 17 separate areas including approximately 176 homes located throughout the city which were determined in the Front-On Stu~,y to be appropriate for conversion from residential homes to commercial purposes, and establishment of the proposed use in those areas should be encouraged. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. -- , _ . ~ ~ ~ . , . . ~. . . . . . ~ ~ ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNIP'JG COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 a~# ~ }' r~ r ? •~ ,~,,. ' „~ ~ 3797 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. P.C68-63 and moved for N0. 67-68-59 its passage and adoption, seconded by-Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditi~nal Use Permit No. 1007, based on findings. CONDITIONAL USE (See Resolution Book) PERMIT N0. 1007 (Continued) „ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: ,COMMISSIONHRS: None. • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECLASSIFICAT30N - PUBLIC HEARING. CLIFFORD C. BOTTENFIELD, 732 North East Street, N0. 67-68-54 Anaheim, California, Owner; A. E. SANDORF, 13224 Newport Avenue, Tustin, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly VARIANCE N0. 1954 shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the east side of East Street and a maximum depth of approximately 271 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 245 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further described as 732 North East Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO CONSTRUCT SIX TWO-STORY APARTMENI' UNITS, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES AND (2) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, existing uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting that no previous zoning action had been considered for the property - however, the property was in an area which had had Area Development Plan studies, and the General Plan symbology changed from low density to medium density; that the plans submitted indicated retention of the existing structure on the property and the construction of six studio- type,,two-story_apartment,structures with carpox#s abutting the east property line and parking proposed along the rear, and sihce the General Plan indicated medium density ' for'.this area, it,would eppear that'the density proposed for.subject property would conform with those standards - however, the Commission might-wish to give consideration ~ to one story within 150 feet of the R-1 to the east; that at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting, it was determined that there were problems regarding secondary access to serve these 1ong, deep lots, and the Development Services staff recommended this be continued in order that the property owners could be contacted for development plans to be discussed and to arrive at a solution for secondary access facilities. Mr. A. E. Sandorf, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that they were proposing to construct two-stor~, studio-type apartments; that the General Plan symbology for subject and adjoining properties was for low-medium density, although the present zoning was R-1 and opposition might be expressed basically because of the two- story construction - however, the layout af the plans indicated carports would be con- structed along the east property line, with a 32-foot accessway between the easterly carports and the relocation of the existing garage - this would insure privacy of the residents to the east since the line-of-sight across these structures would be almost negat?ve from the second story of the proposed development; that the petitioner had I discussed the proposed development with adjoining property owners along East Street, and ~ no opposition had been expressed - however, some had indicated commercial uses might be requested rather than residential uses, and also the property owners to the east had been coc~tacted relative to the proposed construction,and no opposition had been indicated; I that the single-family residential use had been somewhat disseminated because of the construction of a service station on the southeast corner of La Pa1ma Avenue and East Street, and an electrical contracting shop existed on the deep lot immediately to the east of the service station along La,Palma; and that in his opinion, the proposed development would be sn indication of the form of direction development for these properties might take in the future. A showing of hands indicated four persons present in opposition to subject petitions. Mrs. S. J. Szot, .727 Juniper Place, appeared before the Cortunission in opposition and stated that the residents of the single-family homes to the east had already thoroughly discussed the development of the deep lots along East Street at the time the Goodyear property had requested commercial office zoning, and if subject petition were approved, the single-family homeowners would have no privacy from the two-story construction ~ ~ z t: ' ~'; ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 3798 RECLASSIFICATION - proposed, and the property values would be greatly depreciated; N0. 67-68-54 that her famil; had not been apprised of the fact that subject property was being considered for multiple-family development, VARIANCE N0. 1954 and they were surprised to receive the legal notice and to note. (Continued) the advertisement in the Bulletin; and that the electrical contractor had developed in that area long before any of the residents had been apprised of what was proposed. . Mr. Clifford Bottenfield, the petitioner, advised the Commission that he did not present the plans to Mrs. Szot because she had placed her property for sale, and it would have been immaterial to her whether or not development might affect her property; that he had discussed the proposed development with the residents directly behind, at 723 Juniper Place, and showed them the plans - they, then, indicated these plans would not be invading their privacy, and they wished himluck on the proposed development. Mr. Bottenfield further noted that the reason for the waiver of the masonry wall was due to the fact that the property owners to the north and south had plans for ultimate development to R-2, and rather than building these walls, it was felt the requested waiver was reasonable. Mrs. Szot again appeared before the Commission and stated that although she originally had her house up for.sale, the sign had been taken down January 20 - therefore she felt she had some say as to development in the area. Mrs. Wally Yost, 717 North Juniper Place, appeared in opposition and stated that Mr. Eottenfield had contacted her husband and had shown him the plans - however she was not present at that time, and after talking with her husband and Mrs. McGiffin, who resided at 723 Juniper Place, and upon reading the legal notice, it was determined that they had not fully understood what the petitioner was proposing, and the request for waiver of the 150-foot requirement for two-story construction also had not been understood; that.they were opposed to two-story construction at the time subject property originally was considered for development - although no specific zoning application had been made several years ago; and that she was quite sure the vacant property immediately to her west would also request two-story construction if subject petition were approved, and, therefore, she wished to go on record as being opposed to two-story construction within 150 feet o~ the single-family zone to the east since it was her opinion there were more than enough people residing on and using East•Street, and to increase the density would be compounding this problem. Mrs. Yost r,ontinued that she was aware that residents of the area could not retard progress; however, she felt that if it were zoned for commercial uses,with possi.bly a one-story professional office building, this would be much more compatible since the use of the property would then be for only daytime hours and no weekends, while apartments would be used on a twenty-four hour basis, with noises of many parties and debris and garbage constantly blowing into the property, but if the Commission felt multiple-f~amily use were appropriate, she would recommend that construction be maintained at one-story within 150 feet of the R-1 to the east. The agent, in response to Commission questioning, noted that if single-story were required within 150 feet of the easterly property line, the number of apartments would be reduced to three. The Commission then noted that in order ~to more fully utilize subject property, the existing residence would have to removed or relocated further to the west. Mrs. Richard Kirk, 703 Nor~h Juniper Place, appeared before the Commission and stated that this entire area along the east side of East Street between Wilhelmina and La Palma and the south side of La Palma Avenue east to East Street had been up for comple:e rezoning a number of times, and there was no reason for spot zoning of this area. Chairman Camp advised Mrs. Kirk that the Planning Commission and City Council had not considered reclassification of these properties - only that Planning Studies and General Plan Amendments had been considered; however, all the properties still were zoned R-1. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that since subject and abutting properties on the east side of East Street were designated for medium density use, the Commission mi9ht wish to consider continuance of subject petitions and direct the staff to advertise the deep lots along the east side of East Street and on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and at the same time give the staff time to study the area for recom- mendation for secondary access of these properties - because of these deep lots, some type of access between the propexties should be provided to bring traffic out to Edst Street from the rear of the property, and if a resolution of intent were established on eH ~y'j'..-,'~ ~""~ *mEq~r ~i:=~*' n H ;s~ ,y~ri ~""++'~.. ti ,~."~',~~" -~ ~ N t i ~ ::~ i. ~"" ' ~ ~ r ~ ~~ . . . . . - - - -' ` ..`^ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . ~../ . ~ .. ~ . . . . ~ . ~ {. ~ ' _~ MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 3799 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - these properties, then the waiver, such as the masonr 'wall d N0. 67-68-54 be unnecessary. y , woul VARIANCE N0. 1954 Commissioner Gauer noted that the Planning Commission and City (Continued) Council had never waived the one-story height limitat•ion within 150 feet of R-1; therefore, the developers of subject property should consider plans for development for single-story rather than two-story construction. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that to grant subject petitiore would be spot zoning for a specific lot, and he would be in favor of continuing subject petitions until the staff could present a circulation plan for these deep lots. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 67-68-54 and Variance No. 1954 to the evening of March 25, 1968, in order to allow time for the staff to ~dvertise all the deep-lots alon9 the east side of East Street between Wilhelmina ar.d La Palma Avenue and th? deep lots along the south side of La Palma Avenue, and further to provide time for L•he staff to develop plans for secondary circulation, and to advise the petitioner to consider revising plans in order to maintain the single-story construction within 150 feet of the R-1 to the east. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LEONARD G. MUSKIN AND DUNALD T. LEAHY, 7805 Sunset PERMIT N0. 1004 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owners; C. 8 I. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 831 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF PERMITTED LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDIP~G SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land havin9 a frontage of approximately 152 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 200 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 490 feet south of the center- line of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2144 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently clessified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed ..the location of subject propeity and uses established in close proximity, noting that the property already was zoned for C-1 uses - however, no development had occurred; that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to'e.~tablish a walk-up restaurant with waiver of the permitted location of a free-standing sign on subject property; that subject property had a total of 600 feet along Harbor Boulevard, and the sign request was for the southerly 152 feet; that a six-foot masonry uvall was proposed along the south and east property lines, with a pedestrian openino on the east property line; that parking was more than adequate for the proposed restaurant and the sign request was necessary because the property was under one ownership and a 20-year lease by the developers of the "Arby's" restaurant, whereas the Sign Ordinance required a 25-year lease in order to consider it a separate free-standing sign. Mr. George Emble, General Manager of C. 8 I. Construction Company and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that a parcel map had been prepared and was being submitted to the City En9ineer, which divided the southerly 150 feet as suggested by the.Report to the Commission, and the plans would be altered to provide for this; that.the West Coast representatives of the Arby's restaurants were present in the Council Chamber to answer questions if the Commission desired to ask any of them; that the proposed restaurani would not be a drive-in, but was a walk-up type restaurant, and no serving of food would occur from windows to the exterior; that all customers must enter the restaurant, and the type of food served would be of the type that would dis- courage utilization of the facility as a teenage hangout. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Cormnission relative to the requir.ement of a 25-year lease as part of the Sign Ozdinance in order to permit additional free-standing signs, noting that this was somewhat arbitrary, ~,~d leases were usually signed on the basis of 5, 10, and 15 years and would not be removed; furthermore, the staff should review this portion of the &ign Ordinance and submit'something more realistic than the 25-year leasing stipulation. The Commission further noted that the proposed use would be compatible to the area. F ~r,.., _ .. - ` 1 .. . .. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 ~ \ 3800 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-64 and moved for PERMIT N0. 1004 its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant (Continued). Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1004, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONIMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMN~ISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CONL'NISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner herbst offered a motion to direct the staff to study the Sign Ordinance, Section 18.62.030(f) to determine a more realistic lease duration than presently exists for individual.parcels being proposed to develop with structures; however, this lease duration should not apply to shopping centers where a commercial development was pro- posed within the shopping complex, and any requests relative to lease duration signs shall be applicable where development will occur on a street frontage. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CANDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. STUART D. AND FLORINE M. NOBLE, 314 West Ball PERMIT N0. 1005 Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to UTILIZE AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 5TRUCTURE FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 64 feet on the south side of Ball Road between Claremont and Palm Streets and having a maximum depth of approximately 97 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 230 feet west of the centerline of Claremont Street, and further described as 318 West Ball Road. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, noting the location of subject property, the requested use, and uses established in close proximity. Mr. Roberts further noted that a resolution of intent to the C-0, Commerci•al Office, Zone was pending on all those properties fronting along the south side of Ball Road between Iris Street on the east and Harbor Boulevard on the west, and the plans submitted by the petitioner indicated that the existing residential structure would be converted, and parking would be provided to the rear. Furthermore, the front,setback would be maintafned and iandscaped as required by the C-U Zone, and since the General Plan was amended to indicate a symbology for commercial-professional uses of subject and adjoin- ing properties, the proposed use could be considered favorably. Mr. Stuart Noble, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired whether or not one of the conditions of approval was to d~dicate ' all access rights to Ball Road; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that under the resolution of intent to reclassify it to the C-0 Zone, these access rights must be dedicated prior to having.the ordinance read. E, ~ The Commission noted that the plot plan indicated there was a paving area off of Bali ~ Road, and this could be construed as being a drive approach; whereupon Mr. Noble advised I~ the Commission these were sidewalks and no curb break or vehicular access from Ball Road was anticipated. t~ Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that Condition No. 1 should be amended to read, ~- _ "Reclassification No. 67-68-33", and upon completion of the conditions of the reclassi- ~ fication; the conditional use permit tFen could be exercised. ~r, Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-65 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1005, k subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~~ r' ;t;,~ ;, 't„~~ , ~ `i:; ,~. ':;s d. a On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. i NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. >> . 'i , ~ ~ _ ., -- _ _ .. ,.,. _ "'`"~`ry7'4,~'s ytr ac~.. ra?: / ~ ( ,4 ,7~~ ~ ~ 1 *• i ~ ' S ~ _~ . ';~ ~ V ~ ~~ MINUTES,'CITY PLAyNING COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 3801 CONDITIONAL USE - Pl7BLIC HEARING. JULIUS NATHAN, 1836 South Anaheim Boulevard, PERMIT N0. 1006 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN ~ EXISTING MOTEL, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING on ~~ , property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and a depth of approximately 120 feet, the southerly boundary of said p%.rcel being approximately 560 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue as measured along the eastern right- of-way of Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 1836 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property-presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ; ~.- j,,5, Associate Planner Charle~s Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location o£ subject ~~;,;~~ '" property, existing zoning, and uses established in close proxim3ty, noting that the "v`~i~1 petitioner was requesting permission to expand the existing motel with six units, and ~";: iat ~e ,:. subject petition was similar in its proposal as Conditional UsE Pe.rmit No. 590 approved July 8, 1964, by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions; however,. the condi~ions 5ad not been completed after four 180-day time extensions, and, thersfore, the Commission ~"-' had terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 590 in February, 1967. Mr. Roberts also noted that the plans submitted were almost identical to tho~e previously ~' submitted,. and the Commission might wish to attach,the same conditions as on the previous petition, emphasizing the fact that since there would be insufficient room witl~.in the ;~ parking area for the required 10-foot landscaped area, the Commission previously had ` required a 2-foot landscaped strip along Anaheim Boulevard, and a hedge of a minimum .._._•,...,~,;.; height of 3 to 4 feet should be provided within this landscaped area. ~ Mr. Julius Nathan, the petitioner, appeared betore the Commission and noted that the reason the conditions had not been met on the previous petition was the fact that construction of the Katella Avenue everpass necessitated deferring any consideration of expansion, and after completion of the overpass, upon contact with the bank for a loan, the interest rates were almost prohibitive due to the tight money markei, and the present request was being financed through the sale of some property he had. Mr. Nathan also noted that the staff had not indicated that improvement of Anaheim Boulevard would not be made for some time; therefore, a bond should be posted to insure installation of the street improvements, and requested consideration of the posting of a cash bond. Mr. Nathan also noted there was some discrepancy between the findin9s of the staff and the recommended conditions relative to the landscaping since a previous 2-foot land- scape strip was proposed and approved, and the recommended conditions required a 3-foot ~ strip. Mr. Roberts noted the reason for requesting the 3-foot landscape strip was because this was the minimum permitted on commercial uses. The Commission then noted that the ~stitionex would have insufficient room for 3 feet; therefore, Mr. Roberts stated that if 3 feet of landscaping were provided, this would reduce the nosmal 25-foot turning radius by one foot - however, if 2 feet were provided, one foot would be taken by the barriers, and this would permit only another foot for the hedge. Mr. Nathan.then inquired whether or not he could post a cash bond for both the street improvements and delaying consideration of the planting strip until such time as the City widened Anaheim Boulevard and constructed the improvements. This would be necessary in order that said street improvements would not damage the landscaping, and, furthermore, street wid'ening might take several years, and he would prefer posting the government bond in lieu of an insurance bond. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that the petitioner could post other than an insurance bond provided that the principal was still assi9ned to the City of Anaheim. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired of Mr. Nathan whether or not his entire parking area was now in asphalt; whereupon Mr. Nathan stated the area was covered in asphalt. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr.Thompson further noted for the Commission that the existing sign would be located in the ultimate right-of-way, and the Commission might wish to recommend to the City Council that an encroachment permit be granted until such time as the street was widened. "~~x~. .':~~r'. ~,r.~t" wP':n~"YS,,~' ~rn f..p` ^n+*'tr'~~"/ A~,~+~...~+, .~, ., yFr t~ -^+ f u.. t .; 3 {'„ ~ .~~ J ~ . . ~ ~ ' ' . ~ ~ ~~._ . ..._ . .. ~ MINUtES,;.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 3802 CONDITIONAL USE - Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated that the usual condition was to PERMIT N0. 1006 permit the encroachment until such time as the street is widened, (Continued) and then the sign would have to be relocated at the petitioner's expense. Commissioner Herbst then noted that subject property and the sign had been in existance ' for some time, and the small expansion being rea,uested, together with requiring.dedication, { did not warrant the petitioner`s assuming the responsibility anci expense of relocation of ~ the sign. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-66 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use.Permit No. 1006, subject to conditions, and permitting the petitioner to post a cash bond to insure street improvements and the landscaping, said landscaping to be deferred until the street was improved, and further subject t~ approval by the City Council of an encroachment permit permitting the sign in the ultimate right-of-way until such time as the street was widened. (See Resolution Book) 3;<' On roll call the foregoing sesolution was passed by the following vote: ,¢ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. 'c'•.;:: == ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: farano. .;,,~.-,,,,- ;k VARIANCE N0. 1956 - PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD K., ELEANOR, ALFRED, AND MAiILDA BOAS, 1234 Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, Owners; request- in9 permission to ESTABLISH A WAREHOUSE I[J CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING FURNZTURE STORE, WI7H WAIVERS OF (1) MINIh1UM REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND (2) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 155 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 285 feet, the soc:.*,herly boundary of said parcel being located approximately 600 feet north cf the centerline of Linc.oln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CUMMERCIAL and C-3, HEAVY CONUIERCTAL, ZONES. Associate,Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses establisbed:in close proximity, and the proposal of the establishment of a warehouse in conjunction with the existing furniture mart, and that a 6-foot masonry wall was required along the east property line where it abutted an R-A parcel presently being used as a private dump - however, only a 3-foot masonry wall was in existence, topped with a 5~-foot chainlink fence; that the plans indicated the existing residence would be removed.and replaced with an 11,000-square foot warehouse in con~unction with the furniture mart, and the height limitation and minimum required setback were technicalities due to the fact that the property to the east still was R-A, and it was doubtful if it ever would develop for R-1 uses - however, if it developed for multiple-family uses, a 10-foot setback would be required, and the petitioner was proposing to construct immedl- ately ad~acent to the public utility easement 6 feet in width from the east property line. Mr. Roberts also noted that the 6-foot masonry wall could be waived provided that a bond was_posted to insure the installation if residential uses were established to the eabt, and that the 6-foot wide utility easement could turn into a weed patch unless the Commission required some resurfacing Lo remedy this. Furthermore, it was suggested that some screen landscaping mi9ht be planted to soften the appearance of the warehouse walls to the property to the east. Mr. Richard Boas, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that sub3ect property was virtually landlocked and consisted of one home which was in a run-down condition and would be undesirable for residential uses, and that the proposed w-arehouse,. which was needed in conjunction with the existing furniture store, would be constructed.in keeping with the existing improvements of the area. The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether or not he would be in opposition to resurfacing the 6-foot public utility easement along the east property line in order to reduce the unsightliness of weeds~ whereupon Mr. Boas stated that they anticipated doing this. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 ~ `:.'~ : _3 ~ ~,S ~~ 3803 VARIANCE N0. 1956 - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-67 and moved for its ~ (Continued) passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant ;,'^~! Petition for Variance No. 1956, provided that the 6-foot easement was resurfaced and screen landscaping provided along the east '`? property line, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ,~'';; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. VARIANCE N0. 1957 - PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CUMPANY, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN 8 SIGNAL CORPORATION, 1100 Ivorth Main Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requestin9 permission to ELEVATE AN EXIST2NG FREE-STANDING SIGN TO 35 FEET, WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT UF A FREE-S~'ANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land loc;~ted at the southeast corner of North Street and Anaheim Boulevard and having app_oximate frontages of 150 feet on the south side of North Street ~~ and 104 feet on the east side o£ Aneheim Boulevard. Property presently classified ~ C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the agent for the petitioner had requested a two-weeks'continuance because of conflicting dates. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1957 to the meeting of March 25, 1968, as requested by the oetitioner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. HOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD C. AND LOUISE W. SCHROFF, 1103 Acacia Street, N0. 67-68-57 Anaheim, California, Owners; JOHN A. KOSHA, 1460 North Blake Street, Orange, California, Agent; property described as: An irre9ularly VARIANCE N0. 1955: shaped parcel of approximately 1.5 acres of land having a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the east side of Acacia Street and a maximum depth of approximately 640 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 645 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1102 Acacia Street. Property preeently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICA?ION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO PERMIT A 34-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, WITH WAIVERS OF (1} MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET UF SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, (2).MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK, A1~D (3) REQUIRED LUCATIUN OF LIVING UNITS WITHIN 200 FEET UF A STANDARD STREET. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the requested waivers being proposed. Mr. Roberts further noted that the General Plan symbolo9Y indicated low-medium density for subject property, which would permit a maximum of 18 dwelling units per net residen- tial acre, while the petitioner was proposing 26 units per net residential acre and two- story construction, whereas tr~e R-3 Zone permitted two-story only a distance greater than 150 feet from single-family residential uses. Furthermore, the parcels to the north and south of subject property still were zoned R-A; however, single-story, multiple-family development was to the south of subject property and an elementary school to the north of subject property. Mr. Don Roth, one of the agents for the petitioners,appeared before the Commission and ~_ reviewed in detail the land uses established in close proximity and reviewed the plans, - noting the proposed development would considerably upgrade the area; that the pians were ! difficult to design for this long and narrow parcel, and in order to be economically feasible, construction would have to be two-story - however, he feli that the require- ment of single-story and deed restrictions for the R-3 property to the south had no bearing on subject property since it was developed in 1962, and Iand costs were a large factor in 1968. i ~ t,~ h1INUTES ~ ~ ~IT~' PLANb1ING COMMISSION, Marcti 11, 1968 y;.i v a< % ;ty .+ ~ ----------__"'__--__.-. ___ '3 . V ~ RECLASSIFICATION 3804 - 1~. Roth further noted that the developer of the project was N0. 67-68-57 available to answer any technical questions. VARIANCE N0. 1955 The Commission inquired as to the number of apartments which would (Continued) be lost if one-story construction were required; whereupon Mr. Ross stated the developer had been in contact with the.R-A parcel owners to the north and south and had presented the plans to them and had received approval of these plans. Discussion then was hedd by the Commission regarding granting the waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 property, and the Commission was of the opinion that if this were granted, this would set a throughout the city where multiple-family development was development of all properties therefore, consideration of one small parcel,which might seemPinsignificant at this time, would present monumental problems in future reclassification petitions. The Commission further noted that if the one-story height limitation were required within 150 feet of the R-1 to the west, approximately two apartments would be lost. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that one of the problems discussed at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting was the fact that the access drive from Acacia Street was 22 feet and then widened to 28 feet at the rear - however, a 28-foot access drive would be necessary to provide for fire and trash services to the rear. Mr. John Kosha, representing the York Construction Comuany and co-agent for the tioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that the ~ area, but this could be reduced to 2 feet, ar.d it mi ht be Peti- ~ drive 25 feet; however, atthis Y Proposed a 4-foot planter point he was not sure~wnetl~ar~as281foot accesshdriveess ' could be designed, and it would have to be completely reviewed affirmative statement that he could provide a 28-foot drive. Prior to making an Mr. Koshs.further noted that he and his partner had reviewed th~• plans with the neigh- bors, and they had received the impression there would be no o proposed pposition to the development; however, if the Commission insisted, the second floor of the front apart- ments could be removed, thereby making the development in conformance with the one-story height limitation from the`R-1 to the west. Mr. Thompson noted that it was unfortunate that the landscaping area would have to be reduced to provide for an adequate access drive, and if someone parked in the drive, there would be insufficient room for fire equipment to gain access to the rear. The Commission noted it was the habit of most moto~rists not to to utilize the street, and on field trips made by the Commissionarmany timesaitghadbut been difficult to gain access to areas because of the narrowness of the access drive and the public parking on the street. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission not to require a 28-foot access drive, but to leave it more flexible so that in the event the 28-foot.access drive could not be permitted, the petitioner would be required to post "no parking" signs on a 20-foot drive, thereby achieving the same results. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-68 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-57 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Geuer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-69 and moved for its seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1955a9inapartdoption, waiving~the one-story height limitation from the R-A parcels to the north and south - however, maintaining the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-1 property to the west, and further provided that the access drive to the rear of the in conformance with Code requirements, or that "no Property be parking'' siqns be posted in the event Code requirements could not be met, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) __ , -. , . . . ... ., . .o ~ . ---~ -~_ .~ ra t"~vr:.; c N._ r= ''~t~~~ ~ t -f ~ ~~ {~ ~ ~.:~~ W + r,. a + :~~ ~ f , SR F' 4 J { ' I _" ^~ ;~,..... . . . . . . . , . . . . . . - ' ~~~.. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' w ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 3805 k RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the f ollowing N0. 67-68-57 vote:. VARIANCE N0. 1955 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, (Continued) Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ;. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:43 P.M. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ADOLF SCHOEPE, 1800 Via Burton Street, Anaheim, N0. 67-68-58 California, Owner; BUTLER 8 HARBOUR, INCORPORATED, 2283 West _ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that TENTATIVE MAP OF property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approxi- ?RACT N0. 6561 mately 4.8 acres of land having a frontage of approximately 265 feet on the north side of Glenview Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 307 feet northerly from Glenview Avenue, the southerly boundary of said parcel beino located approximately 1,800 feet north of Orangethorpe Avenue as measured along Glenview Avenue, from the R-A(0), AGRICULTURAL-OIL PRODUCTION, ZONE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. Subject.tract, containing approximately 4.8 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 25 R-2-5000,~One-Family, Zoned lots. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the proposed request was in conformance with the low-medium density designation on the General Plan for this area and would be in keeping with the development which already had occurred to the south of subject property. Mr. L. B. Harbour, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property and the proposed development was a logicai extension of the three tracts, two of which had been completed and the third was under construction, and when these were completed, the~e would be approximately 200 homes, and it was their feeling the proposed request was within the designation of the Generel Plan as amended. In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Harbour stated that the 40% coverage of the R-2-5000 Zone would be adhered to in the proposed development; furthermore, access would be provided to the property to the west and to the northwest through this tract in order to provide for circulation in the event properties to the north and northwest were developed. Mr. Harbour, also in response to Commission questioning, stated that at such time as the Atwood..channel was completed, the unfortunate circumstances of mud having inundated the homes in some areas of these tracts would be eliminated - therefore, adequate drain- age would be provided for this tract. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the R-2-5000 Zone had different front yard setbacks than the regular R-1; therefore, the rules applicabie to the R-1 reverse corner lots did not apply to subject property. A letter from the Anaheim Union YJater Company was read by the Commission Secretary, referrin~ to possible drainage problems of their property. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that he was not sure whether or not the Anaheim Union Water Company property was contiguous to subject property, but Condition No. 4 of the recommended conditions of the ter.tative tract would apply since the Engineering staff, upon receipt of a final tract map, analyzed it as to proper draina9e of adjacent property in order to assure no blockage of the drainage would occur. Ido one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-70 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the ~ity Council that Petition for Reclaseification No. 67-68-58 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, A7unga1l, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. ~- - ---- ~~ - '~ ~ MINUTES,~.CITY.PLANNING COMMI8SION, March 11, 1968 3806 - RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of N0. 67-68=58 Tract No. 6561, subject to the following conditions: TENTATIVE MAP OF 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one TRACT N0. 6561 subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted (Continued) in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6561 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-58. . 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by under- ground utilities. 4. That the drainage shall be dischar9ed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. 5. That Street "A" shall be named Garland Circle; that Street "B" shall be named Garland Street; and that Street "C" shall be named Boisseranc Way. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOT30N CARRIED. STREET NAME - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, CHANGE 204 East Lincoln nvenue, Anaheim, California; proposing a name change for Jefferson Street between Santa Ana Canyon Road and a point approxi- mately 845 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Avenue, thence northwesterly along the adopted Jefferson-Linda Vista precise alignment to the Anaheim city boundary approximately 175 feet north of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue, to Tustin Avenue south of the Riverside freeway and Linda Vista Street north of the Riverside Freeway. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the area within the City of Anaheim throu9h which the existing Jefferson Street-iinda Vista alignment traverses,, , emphasizing the fact thet the Tustin Avenue-Jefferson Street-Linda Vista-Rose Drive alignment.extends as a continuous highway for a distance of twelve and one-fourth miles from the southern end where it begins as a primary highway from First Street in the City of Tustin to the Riverside Freeway; thence it becomes a major arterial highway to Orangethorpe Avenue, where the classification reverts back to a primary highway between Orengethoipe Avenue and Imperial Highway; thence it becomes a secondary highway from Imperial Highway to Brea-0linda Boulevard. Mr. Roberts also noted that the Orange County Street Naming Committee, naturally, is concerned with attempting to establish continuity in the names of streets that cross city boundaries and traverse the County, and since this street has four different names through seven jurisdictions, the name of Linda Vista Street was proposed for the four and three-fourths miles portion northerly of the Riverside Freeway, and Tustin Avenue for the seven and one-half miles portion southerly of the Riverside Freeway. Further- more, this recommendation and request for review and repoxte was also made to the Cities of Placentia, Yorba Linda, and Brea, and the County of Orange, said reports to be consider- ed by the Committee at their next meeting on April 18, 1968, in hopes that a mutually acceptable agreement may be reached. ~ Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3:55-P.M. Mr. Roberts further reviewed the action of the Anaheim City Planning Commission and City Council for the street name change to Rose Drive when it~was re•ferred to them on June 20, 1966, in which the City of Anaheim had recommended that the Riverside Freeway be the delineation point with'Tustin Avenue being assigned to that portion within the City of Anaheim:south of the freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and Linda Vista Street for the Jefferso mLinda Vista precise alignment north of the freeway. Mr. Roberts:then noted that the County presently was appraising the land that would fall within.the Jefferson-Linda Vista alignment, and acquisition of the right-of-way would be completed within three weeks, and according to the Orange County Road Department, construction of the County portion of Jefferson-Linda Vista was scheduled for June or July, 1968, and the City of Anaheim planned construction for the portion within their jurisdiction for the last part of July. i The action of the Brea City Council on February 21, 1968, Mr. Roberts noted, indicated they had adopted a resolution expressing that city's intent to change the name of Rose ~~ ? ` ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~~~, . ~ ,MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March ll, 1968 `~ : 3807 ~ STREET NAME - Drive to Linda Vista Street subject to similar action being taken by • CHANGE the Count of O d ~ y range an the Cities of Aneheim, Placentia, and Yorba (Continued) Linda. ~ Mr. Roberts then conclude d his presentation by stating that he had contacted the City of Placentia and an ad e o < , . v rse expressi n wes made to the street.name change to Linda Vista, with a statement being made-that they would r th ~ ecommend at the name Rose Drive be retained, citing a.smell:shopping;center was:: at the northea t rn `, s co er of Rose Drive and Yorba Linda ' Boulevard.whfch was identified by the two street a n mes. The staff's conclusion regarding the street name chan9e was then presented. Mr. Roy Solomon, one of the property owners through which the street would traverse, was present but stated he had'no op ositi t + p on o the name change proposed. ; THE HEARINC.WAS CLOSED. ?~ Discussion was then held by the Commission relative t~ all the .findin s the staff, together with th f t th g '~~ e ac at the name of Linda Vista Street northErlyeofbthe Riverside Freeway originally hac~ been xecomrtiended by..the Planning'C i ~'~' omm ssion and City Council; however, additional consideration of the advantages that would i ':;r~ i r~: accrue to Anaheim n terms of freeway signing should be given by the continuity of the long-established name of Tustin Avenue t di .-~ ~` , ex en ng said name through the Anaheim Northeast Industrial Area, with the name change to become effective when th ~h e new alignment is completed to Orange- thorpe Avenue. ;;:;`a Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC6g-71 and moved for its ~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council thatpJeffersondStreet,~n~ ~ extending from Santa Ana Canyon Road to a point approximately 845 feet south of the center ;3" line of Coronado Avenue, thence northwesterly along the adopted Jefferson-Linda Vista " ~:~ precise alignment to the Anaheim city boundary approximately 175 feet north of the center ',~~ line of Miraloma Avenue, be changed to Tustin Avenue on.the basi•s.,that~the'major,portion " of the traffic on this street will be within the City of Anaheim, and continuity of a '~ long established name would have its advantages in freeway signing within the City, and: further recommending that:the City Council recommend said street name chan9e to the ~- Orange County Street•Naming Committee, said street name change to become effective at such time as the new alignment is completed to Orangethorpe Avenue: (See Reso,lution Book) *;~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was ~R` _ passed by the following vote: t=~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. `'J` NOES: .COMMISSIUNERS: None. t ':; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ('.. REPORI'S AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMEIJDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 894 (Heritage Towers) - Property located on the north side of Katella Avenue, approximately 725 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Soulevard'in the Commercial-Recreation Area - Request for an extension of time to complete conditions. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from the proposed developers of ~ Heritage Towers, requesting that an extension of time be granted for completion of conditions of Planning Commission Sesolution No. PC66-138, dated November 7, 1966, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 894, and noting that on May 22, 1967, the Commission had granted a six-month extension of time for completion of conditions - provided, however, that dedication for street widening purposes along Katella Avenue (Condition No. 1) be completed within 30 days of June 21, 1967, and to this date said dedication ~: had not been completed; therefore, it was questionable whether the original six-month- extension of time was ever in effect; and that the petitioner was aqain requesting a six-month extension of time to allow for further negotiations on the property. Mr. Roberts also noted that the staff during the past two weeks had attempted to contact ~ Mr. Boone, agent for the petitioner, regarding the'required street dedication; however, ~ requests for return of repeated telephone calls made were apparently disregarded. Commissioner.Rowland offered a motion to edvise the petitioners of Conditional Use Permit 'No. 894.that the condition originally requested to be completed by June 21, 1967, has not beer~ completed, end that if said condition, namely dedication for street widening purposes along Katella Avenue, is not completed within four weeks, or April 8, 1968, the aforementioned petition will be terminated. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _ ~ _ . ~ -~ :~; r ~~ ~ ~ MINUT'~S,..CI~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 11, 1968 3808 REP,ORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2' RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 961 (Vernon D. Perera) - Property :(Continued). located at 1239.South Magnolia Avenue, southerly of Ba11 Road - Request for extension of time to complete conditions for pre-school and nursery'school. • Associ'ate Planner CharTes Roberts preaented a request from Mr. Vernon Perera, request- ~ing'~~an extensiori of time in which.'to coinpl'ete conditions in Resolution No. PC67-189,; dated.August 28, 1967, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 961, three of which_had ~ been.completed. Commissio.ner Herbst offered-a motion to.grant a six-month extension of time for completion of;con.'ditions in Resolution No. P;;67-189, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 961, said time extension to expire August 28, 1968. Commissioner Mungall.seconded the motion. MOTION;;CARRIED. - ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall ~~~, seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission s~~;s ," ~ , ~: ~ s_d!z i ,1;. ~ ;.'. ~ ,,; . ,,~;' tji: ~ I --..i4~. ~ r ~ . . ., . . . ... . . . . . ., ., ... ~, .. _ _., . .. , . , . ' .i . . _ . ._. . . .._....._„ , _ .. . .. . . . , r , ... ,.. . .. ,. , / , I . . . " ? f ( I ~ ~ 4 :. p 1' ~i' . , . %'4 ~1' f 4 ~ 1 f l 'i t f ~ ',~.i ir ` ' ` ,- ' . :; .~ .~. .: ~ ~' i.-.~;P ... ... .....,. .~'~.` .~ -.. .... .... r . ~ . .. . . .. . . . ~ j s:~~>~; .`';:.~::~ 1 1 r yt ,~, , ,, ? `~^-~c r ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ a~~= r ~,,~~ , ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ '•~ ~ ~~~ ~ ' ~ n ° r ~ , ~, . :, ~~ ~ i ~ , : ~ ~ ~ < , ,, F , ~ r < :ti, k 1 •~ a ~ ` t~ { S ~ ..,. t. i.: ( ~ y .r i i i. ~ i ; ' i ~ ~ ~ ~ i _ j - i ~ ' ~ I 1 '~ ~ s ~ r, ~ ~ ~ ~ , r ~ ~ ~ ~ -'~ - ~ , , ,, `, , „ , 1 ' ~ ,~ ' ' { ~ ~ , ~ G.' I tnJ/ ~ ~ 7 li, ~A~I; 7 5 ' ~ L 1~. ~ ~ 1,1 .~ I ~ ~ ( ! ~~ ~ +~ ~ S S . . .~ 4 F: > L I ii ~ t .~ ~_; Y I~ f f ~. . ~ ~ ~ 1 r 1' !1 E~ ) ., ( ~,( ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ ~; , ' ~ ~ 1 ~ t a . } ~5 I 1 1 ~ . ; • { J ~. '~ ~ ~. . ` 1 ~ [ ! ..,7 ~~ . . f ~'. 1 c t~ .' t ~ a ! m r r . i~ ~t ' ~ ' ' ~ , F l ~ ;. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . - t ~ ' r .. 4 ~ 1 t + ~ 4 ~ , ~„ i i ~ i ~ ~ r i ~... ~ . , . ~ . _ .~ . 1 . . . ~ .~ ~. . ,. . ... . . ... , . .~i . . . . . .. , ,.. ~ ., .~. .. ., , iRt ~. ~"i~,F ~" .. . ~ - A ~ :' ~ . . . . ... .:: . . . ~. . ~-.:~~j'. •:~'%' ' , . ... . . . ~ . . .. ~ . , . .