The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1968/10/21 5 I ~ .~r 3 ?~ r ;• . i . S s. ~ ~ ~ I ~,e?, ,y .. . . ~, ~ ~ . ' ~~~ . . yh~ . Y~~a. ~ ~ , l~.. ' . , . . . , ~ .. ~ : , City: Hall „. "~ Anaheim, California ~'i ~ . Oct~ber. 21, 1968 , . , . - ' , : ~ ~ : ~ , ,- : . :; , -.: • 1•.'- A REGULAR MEETING-OF TF~ ANAI~IM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION ~~"fi ,: r;. ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning,.Commission was called t d li s~` o or er by,C airman A17xed•a~ 2:00 o'clock P:M,, a quorum'being r~" ; pre sent~. , ,~. _ , ~ Y ~ ~.:•PRFSENT = CHAIRMAN:. Allred. • , r _ - COI~A~IISSIONERS: Farano, Hertist, Mungall, Rowland. : ~.~ ABSENT - CONIMISSIONERSs " Camp, Gauer. . f a!~s ; ` , _ , ~, ,:: PRESENT - Asaistant City Attorney: John Dawson . ~~ Of£ice Ettgineer: Arthur Daw ~;,, ; ra p 2oning Supervisor:, Ronald Thompson . ~• ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Browa 4 j Planriing:Commisaion Secretary: Ann Krebs `;~r ~ INVOCATION. - Rsverend J, K. Saville, Pastor, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, ~ gave the invocation. ~:, ~ PI;EDGE OF ~s E ALLEGIANCE - Qo~3.ssioner'Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. +~~~• ~ APPRAVAL OF - Minutes of_ the meeting of October 7, 1968 were approved with the THE MIANTES ~ following corrections on motion by Co~nisaioner Farano, aeconded ~~ - by Commisaioner Rowland,'and MOTION CARRIED: PBge 4I58,.paragraph 2, Iast line -"however ... propertiea east of Orchard'Drive." PaBe 4158, pazagraph 8, last line -"under R-1 while 5.8 lots were ?-~. obtainable under R-2-5000.~~ `~z _ . _ ; s' VARIANCE N0. 2020 = CONTINUED PITBLIC,HEARING.. WtLLIAM F. AND NINA M. SII~IONS, c/o % ~ ~~" ~ •~r •. , Miles & Asaociates;'?Box 2125, ~naheim, California, Ownera; R D ;MILES ~ ~~;~^ i . , 'SOO South Hrookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, ; Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF-(l~ MAX2MUM PERMITTED DISTANCE'OF f~ '' A LIVING'UNIT FROM A STANDARD STBEET AND (2) ADEQUATE,VEHICULAR, ACCESS FOR CITY SERVICE VEHIOLFS ;TO PERI~IIT ~ `~~ ~ , A 70-UNIT APARa~NT COMPLEX nn property deacTibed as: A arcel of a P pproximately 2.0 acr s f la d ( ?~ ~ e o n conaiating.of two recorded lota and a portion of a third lot, having a combined frontage of approxi.mately,296 feet on the weat side of Webster Avenue and a ~ r~ ~~ ma~dmum depth of approximately.298 feet, the northerl bounda Y xy of said parcel being p '~ ~ a prox3mately 500 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and Purther described ae 639-659;Webater Av P o ,y enue. r perty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ; ~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting o£ October 7, 1968, to allow the peti- i {i ~ ;a t oner time to su~t revised plans indicating ade;uate vehicular access for City e v c ; s r i e vehicles. : Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the reason for continuance of the petition from the-prenious meetitt a d ot d ~ t ' g, n n e that the revised plans still did not meet the requirementa for adequate access for fire trash d ' •a ':~ ~ an other emergency protection, and that it was recommended a four-week continuance be considered for the submisaiott of revised l ;~ p atta. ~ s, ' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon advised the -0ommission-that the petitioner had sub- mitted a requeat as of this date'for continuance to the meetin of N b ~ g ovem er 4, 1968, aince;they:already were in the rocesa`of evis y~ p r ing,the plana, attd other co~itments prevented his appearance`at this`hearing. ?. ' "" ~ '' ' '; Co~t3.seioner.Herbst offered a mot3on to`continue conaideration o£ Variance No. 2020 ; to +he meeting of,November 4 1966 a te i :S ' ~ , , s reques d by the petitioner, in order to a11ow .time:to aubmi.t redised plana which would meet;th m ~ ~ ' e require ents of adequate vehicular access.for City service vehicles, Commiasioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ :~ _ 4166 ;s ~;.; ;; ~ '; ; ;R~ ~ ~.~..~i ~ ~ '..; (~ F'^~i.. *''..' 'W° 4 ;' ;" F~,,..5 u~'3~ ~ .4 ;i`x { n. ,~~ '~ d" rv o- _- yr_ ~ Y~_ ry j... . . ._ 's_ kl _.... . ~ - 1~ ~,~ ~ (..~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CANA2ISSION, October 21, 1968 4167 VARIANCE N0. 2022 - PUBLIC HEARING. DE3~TRIOU AND DEL GIIERCIO, Mobil Building, Suite /+].2, 612 Flower Street, Los Araga3es, California, Owners; requesting WAIVER `~ OF THE pF~RNIITTED R-A ZONE USES TO PERMIT TII~ORARY MOBILE HOME SALFS on property described asr An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frotttage of approxLmately 120 feet on the weat aide of Mancheater Avenue, a maximum depth of approxt- mately* 240 feet, and being approximately 1,340 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and;further described as 2300 South Manchester Avenue. Property presently clasai£ied R.-A, AGRICIILTURAL, ZONE. ~ ~=. ~~ .:; ~~ {` '!~ Aaeistaat Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubjact property, the uses ~7 establiahed in close roximit a~ri the p y, propoaed uae o£ subject property as a mobile home ,p~~ sales area for a mobile home park now uttder conatruction to the aouth and west; that r~4~~~~"' approximately six mobile homea would be on display, with one additiottal mobile ha~ne being ~`~`~.;~ uaed as a sales office; and that landscaping was propoaed for the frontage along Mancheater Avenue, and the entire parcel would have gravel paving. ~ ~~ - Mi~• - awn flu~ther notnd that the petitioner had indicated to the ataf£ that he was not Fa ~ deairous o£ meeting conditions of reclasaification oS the property to the C-1 Zone aince ' the propoaed use was of a t•emporary nature for a eriod of a ~ p pproximately six montha to otte year; therefore, technically, without meeting theae conditiona for rezonin the '" property to C-1, subject parcel would be a aubstandard, R-A zotted parcel regarding lot ~ area end width, and the development plans proposed would not meet the R-A Zone site ~ development standarda relative to required £ront, rear and side atructural setbacka. ' ' However, aince the proposed use would not be detri.metttal to the general area aince an ~ >~; interim uae r,~ras proposed only and the use would be primarily For salea to the adjoining '~ :,;:Y mobile home park, the Commisaion might wiah to eatablish a time limitation with the e' atipulAtiott that any continuation of this proposed operation beyond the period would L` require the completion of the site development standards of Reclassification No. 67-68-45, ~' which approved C-1 zoning. ~ } w ~± ,: The petitianer indicated hia preaence and availability to answer queations. ~i~ No one a eared in o osition to sub'ect ~,i ~~ PP Pp ~ petition. '~~' "~" THE HEARING WAS CIASED. ir ~~ ,''s~~ Coa~ieaioner Mungall offered Reaolution No. PC68-307 and moved for ita passage and ~;';~~ adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Herbet~ to grant Petit3on for Variance No. 2022 kni for a period of six montha, with an additional six months being granted upon request ~i ~,K~ by the petitioner, on the basis that the petitioner requested the variance for a ~ ~:1 period of 'six to twelve montha to provide £or an area with salea to proapective resi- G'~ ''c~I dents of the new mobile home park under construction southerly of sub~ect property. ~ ~ z~y (See Reaolution Book) ~ `~4, On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: ` ~1 AYES: COMMTSSIONERS: A11red, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ,.y, ~ NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,r ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEAR.ING. ARIA A. YODER, 1118 Eatelle Iane, Newport Beach, PERMIT N0. 1064 California, Owner; CASPER BREUER, 1750 Ladera Viata Drive, F1i].lerton, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SE~tI-ENCI,OSED RFSTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR EATING AREA on property described as: A rectangularly ahaped parcel of land located on the east aide of Hrookhurst Street, approadmately 195 feet south of the centerline of Broadway and having a frontage of approxLmately 130 feet and a maximum depth of approximately 275 feet, and further des- cribed as 314 South Brookhurst Street. Property preaently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Aeaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown seviewed the location of aub~ect property, the uaes eatabl3.shed in cloae proximity, and the propoaed request, noting that a previoue reques't for a walk-up restauraxit was never developed and has since beett auperaeded by the present request; therefore, the Commission might wiah to terminate Conditional Uae Permit No. 986 if sub~ect petition were approved. Mr, Brown further noted that the proposed restaurant was under conatructioxi at the present time; however, with the addition of an outdoor eating area, approval of a conditional use permit was required, and that adequate parking spaces were proposed, but the petitioner had indicated there was a posaibility o~f future development of another restaurant on the same property. _ _..,.: .. ~e ~ . ... ~ ~ a . t!"n ~ ~a » ra t~Y <ssa ~. "~e.'' ~ ~ } Yr"'h h,~ : ~. ~ a :~ r ti 1 ~, . ~9 +aa~ f:i ~ L' ~. 'f v p'"' 'k' i ~~ i~. , "i~}F ~ .~'q ~"~a i,'~'M1 ~ t 'Lf v.w 5 ,j G~ ~ .. R J . y~~ `~ ~ d~ S,"''ta .,M ~'1 .,'~~ h,~ , h c.S„r,,~) s"dr^'1 y,w+` ~( w ue~ . ,~ ~ ~' a a'.~!'r ' ~. " "'_ - ~:. ~ ~~~' .'~~ . ,.~'~ . ~ . . . ~ ~ . . ~ •;MIN[TTFS, CITY PI~ANNING CONA4ISSION; October 21, 1968 4=6g CONDITJONAL IISE =,The-agent for the.petitioner indicated hie presence to anawer PEI~IIT NO.= 106 ~ queationa. Continued .~No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. .THE HEARING WAS-CLOSED. Oommisaioner Herbst of£ered Reaolution No.~PC68-308 and moved for its paseage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner:Mungal:l, to grant Petition £or Conditional Use Permit No. 1064, sub~ect to conditions. (See:Resolution Book) On roll call.the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: C~IISSIONERS: A1.1red, Farano, Herbat, Mungall, Rowlande NOFS: COMNIISSIONERS: None. ABSENTe' C02~lISSIONERS: CamP, Gauer. CONDITIONAL IISE - PIIBLIC HEARING. GRAND MARMER CpMpANp, l,,lg Weat Fourth Street, PERMIT N0. 1068 Tuatin, Caiir'ornia, Owner; requeating permisaion to ESTABLISH A WALK-IIP AND DRIVE-TIiROU~H RFSTAURANT on property described ae: A rectangularly shaped par~el located at the northesat corner of Euclid Street and Tedmar Avenue, said parcel having £rontagea of approximately 120 Peet ott the east eide of ~clid Street and approximately 181 fest on the north aide of Tedmar Avenue, and further deacribed as l,28 South Euclid Street.. Property preaently clasei£ied C-1, GENERAI, COi~IERCIAL, ZONE. Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the locatiott of sub~ect property, the usea established in cloae proximity, and the proposed uae of aubject property, noting that the 1160-square foot walk-up, driva-through type restaurant facility was proposed, , with t5zture development of a 1280-square £oot enclosed reataurant; that parking as indicated on the plot plan would be adequate for both facilities; and that the propoaed use would be appropriate to the surrounding area. Also, at the Interdepartmetttal Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare meeting, it was reco~ended that the layout of the parking,..drivea and building.orientation as indicated on the sutmmitted plana be revised since two problems were eyidenced: (1) the microphpne order atand would appear to be located,too cloae to ESiclid Street and was of£-aet - thia would allow no.more the.n one. or twu cara in this.area,,wtiich could cauae`any additional customera to temporarily atop their care over the sidewalk right-of=way, or more serious,', pulling out into ESiclid Street,-thus'creating traffic conflicta; and (2) that the central'parking area could be redesigned to ahow a single tier of parking apaces extending eastward from Euclid Street, rather than the of£-set and para11e1 parking shown ott the plans - therefore, the stafP recommended a two to four-week continuance in order to allow i;ime for the petitioner to aubmit s reviaed plot plan to'eliminate the problema discueaed. Mr. David Jackson, representing the developer of the property, appeared before the Commiaeion and noted they had a similar restaurant north of the Garden Grove Freeway on Hsrbor Boulevard, with a similar layout, and the space rrsa adequate Por four cara between the drive approach and the pick-up; that the type of service they offered was very apeedy, averaging 20 seconde per car, and their preaettt experience was that traffic did not back up into Harbor Boulevard; that they could conaider a Jack-itt-the-Box type of drive apnroach, but thia would not suit their plans. The Commisaion and staff then reviewed the propoaed changea on the plot plan wi.th the petit3oner~s representative, and upon reviewing it, the petitioner~s repreaentative then stated he was atill of the opinion the aervice would not create a back-up onto Euclid Street. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon adviaed the Commisaion that becauae of the experience they had with Der Wienerschnitzel at Center Street and Lincoln Avenue, where cara backed up into.State College Boulevard, it was feared the same type of aituatiott would occur on Euc13d Street; therefore, they recommended a redesign be considered by the petitioner. Mr. Jackson then adviaed the Co~i.saion that they had attempted to deaign the layout to provide.for the maxi.mum number of park3.ng spacea. Mr. Thompson-further noted that one of the layouts deaigned by the atafP would allow £or two additional parking apaces. Furthermore, the property to the east was zoned R-3 and alreac~y had a masonry wall; therefore, the requirement of a 6-foot masonxy rrall along the east property line might not be £easible aince permiaeion would have to be given by the ad~oining property owner to pe*_•mit raiaing the height of the wall to meseure 6 feet £rom the highest grade leveL ~~ .~ ~; . :~, ; 1 r_ - V V _ , __.__ _.. _ ~ ~~ ; ~~., ~ l,.1.69 MIN[TTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 21, 1968 CONDITIONAL USE PF1d~IIT N0. 1068 Coatinued) c , t - No one appeared in oppoaitiott to subject petition. TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discuaeion was then held by the Commisaion relative to continuance, ' and it was determined after the discuseion that no continuance was neceasary sittce the ' staff could adequately handle any revised pla.na with proper circulation, and if the change itt the plane were too drastic, the plans could be presented to the Co~i.saion under Reports and Recommendations for approval. Commisaioner Rowlattd of£ered Resolutiott No. PC68_3~9 and moved for ita passage and - adoption, aeconded by Commisaioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional IIae Permit No. 1008, deleting the requirement of a 6-foot masonry wa11 along the east property line since a wa11 ~aas already constructed there, aad amendment to Condition No. 6, which would requi.re that the circulation for the property be revised to minimize the baeking-up of care on Euclid Street, said reviaed plans to be approved by the Develop- ment Services Department. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution rras pasaed by the following vote: ~~: COMMISSIONERS: A7,1red, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlattd. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. ~~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HARRY C. SAEHI,ENOII , '; PERMIT N0, 1070 , 336 South Walnut Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requeating permisaion to ESTABLISH AN r +: AUTOMOBILE TOWING 9ERVICE WITH OUTDOOR TII~IPORARY STORAGE OF WRECKED ;_,,:.~~. OR IMPOUNDED VEHICLES (M-2 USE), WITH WAIVERS OF TI~ MINIMUM FRONT ~,~ s :~; SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND OUTDOOR STORAGE WALL ENCLOSURE on property deacribed as: A ~,..,.,;,.,~ rectangularly aha~,ed parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 180 Peet on the , ~ north aide of Broadway and a maximi:.n depth of approximately 175 feet, and being approxi- ,~ ,:,~ mately 660 feet east of tha centerline of Loara Street, and further deacribed as 1541 ~ c~ West Broadrray. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INWSTRIAL, ZONE. a,,~ ti~; Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Browa reviewed the location of aub ect ~ property, the usea sw" ~.kl established in closa proximity, and thett noted the propoaed uae of the property for a ~~ ,~~ towing service and temporary outdoor storage o£ wrecked and impounded vehicles, which was ~ w~ an M-2 use, and the requested waivers of the minimum 50-foot £ront setback in the M-1 ti~ N'~; Zone to permit construction o£ a 6-foot masonry wall within 18 feet of the front property t~, ~; line, as well as waiver of the required 6-foot masonry wall enclosing storage areas, ~, ^~d with no wa12 being proposed along the weat, north, and east property lines of this .wy storage area. It was further noted that the petitioner proposed use of an existing ~~a~, buildin on the easterl ~~~ ~ y portion of the property as an office and warehouse, and that ~ ~ the petitioner stated that in order to have adequate storage space, it was neceasary ~;? to construct the 6-foot wall within 18 feet of the front property line; however, no ~ valid reason wes appasent why the petitioner could not observe the 50-foot aetback - ~; therefore, the Planning Commiseion would have to conaider the appropriateness and „~; compatibility o£ the proppaed use to this area when conaidering the established uaes ,~,,,.~; in this area, and the fact that appro~dmately 20 acres of land on the south side of , ,. Broadway was projected for medium density development as depicted on the General Plan ,;,~,,,~ and from previous zoning requests on the property. ._,,; ,,:, a~ f Mr. Harry Saehlenou, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that all ~ towing companies in the City were having a difficult time in finding adequate apace to store the wrecked and impounded vehicles becauae of the vehicle code and police require- ments - therefore, it was felt that by placing the wall within 18 feet of the front property line on sub~ect property, some additional space could be obtained; that these vehicles would not be seen from the school abutting to the north, nor could they be aeen from Broadway because of the wall and gate; and that if he were required to observe the required setback, the property would be too smal], for his purpose. F~rthermore, they-were now operating at 336 South Walnut Street under a conditional use permit granted eight years ago. The Commisaion inquired as to the length of time these vehicles wera kepton the property; whereupon the petitioner stated they were keptfrom between 15 to 3~ days, with an average of 20 days, and that they were picking up four to five abandoned vehicles per day. Commiasioner Herbst noted tba,t other industrial developments which had occurred in this area had been required to set back any structures proposed at $0 feet and were permitted parking of automobilea in the frottt aetback wherein 10 £eet were landacaped; that other industries also needed storage space, and they had to enclose their storage areas while ; . , -~iy :-~, _ ~, _, ., , _: ~ , _ - , ... ~ ` . `;:: , ~ ~,,, _ ~.. : .. . . ~'y~ '~ ~J'~ --~~ I ~~.;"" ,~kr }. `~, '~ rY{~sx ~~r Y s,~,~:.~ j~ ~~.~ ~.a ,v-t.2m N ::? - ~~P.; y. .:N.' ,/~~~i.,'f' •~~~' S l ..~ _.~_~..._ _.._._.~_~._' '_ ""_._. ~. C~ ~ C~ MINUTFS, CITY PLANNING COi~ffSSION, October 21, 1968 l,.7.70 CONDITIONAL USE - still maintaining the required aetback; and, there£ore, to grant PF~RMCT N0: 1070 the waivers requested would be granting a privilege not en3oyed Continued by other induatries in thia area. Furthermore, if requiring the aetback of 50 feet reduced the amount of land needed, there were other more appropriate areas in the City where M-2 Loning exiated to place the propoaed use on the property. _ Mr. Atkins, repreaenting the Fairmont Private School, appeared before the Coffii.saion and indicated they were opposed to the waiver o£ the enclosed storage area becauae of the una.ttractive appearance these types of vehicles preaented to adjoining properties. ~~" Two letters from adjoining industrial property ownera, and a letter from the owner of ~ the potetttial R-3 property to the aouth, all in opposition to sub3ect petition, were ~, t read to the Commisaion. ~ ~3 The pFtitioner, in rebuttal, stated that a precedent had been aet when the body shop '. ,;T~ easterly of sub~ect property was permitted to develop, and aince they stored four to '~ r~ six vehicles in the front area, as well as parts from other nehiclea which were left lying •' outside of thia area not ettclosed with a 6-foot masonry wall, the so-called incompati- ri bility could not be 3ustified, and that their vehicles would not be visible £rom the ; ~ achool or ad3oining properties. - ; . , ?:~ . ;;;: THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . r The Commiaeion inquired as to what rras projected on the Getteral Plan as to the large ,;;~. vacant acreage to the south of subject property; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald '"F Thompson advised the Commisaion that this was pro3ected for medium-denaity residential '~~,~` use, and the petitions indicated on the area map had been terminated by the Commission ;;:;~`~ at the request of the petitioner, due to the fact that he was unable to obtain financing ?;,e~? at the time, although the letter of opposition received from the proparty owner indicated ~;,~;j~ he still intended to develop this property for multiple-family reaidetttial uae. $':'`*3 ;;,~,~ Commiasioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-310 and moved for ita passage and adop- ~~~ tiott, secottded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~1 No. 1070 on the basia that the proposed uae would adveraely af£ect the adjoinittg land ~~,~~ use; that it would have a daleterioua efPect on the existing achools, existing and >~) otential li ht industrial develo , potential development o£ ~~~s P ~ pment in the area and the ,.,~ the large parcel to the south for multiple-family residential use; that although the ~~, petitioner proposed to construct a 6-foot masonry wall, it would not offer visual ~; protection for the potential two-story multiple-family use to the south; that the i; petitioner proposed a masonry wall within the 50-foot setback required in the M-1 Zotte, ~y,~~ contettding that if the 50-foot setback were conformed to, the site would be inadequate '~1 in size for the proposed use; that there ia adequate industrial property in the City ~~ where the propoeed use would be more compatible than in aub~ect area. (See Resolution ~,~~ Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS9IONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMNIISSIONERS: Farano. ABSEPIT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp~ Gauer. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. CONDITICi1AL USE - PUBLIC HF~ARING. LINCOLI3 PLAZA DEVII,OPMENT COMPANY, 615 South Flower PERMIT N0. 1091 Street, Los Angeles, California, Lesaee; BIG BOY EfTCLID INCORPORATED, 100J. Fast Colorado Street, Glendale, California, Agent; requesting permieaion to ESTABLISH AN OUTDOOR EATING ARE~ (PATIO) IN CONNNCTION WITH AtJ ESTABLISHED~RESTAURANT on property described as: An "L" ahaped parcel of land boing located south aad west o£ the aouthweat corner of Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street and having spproximate frontagea of 110 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 160 feet au the weat aide of ESiclid Street. Property preaently classi£ied C-1, GENERAL CONIlrIERCIAL, ZONE. Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the usea eatabliahed in close proximity, and the propoeal, noting that one reataurant would be oriented to the Lincoln Avenue frontage aad another to the Eliclid'Street frontage, and that becausa the reataurant proposed for the Liacoln Avenue frontage indicated an outdoor eating area, the conditional use permit was required. The agent £or the petitioner indicated his presence to answer queations. {,i„r '~,` ,~ "'c:_ '&~ 1-r'~ r ~'" ~ ~' ,4., ~ Y' t.aa. e, ~ a .., ~ r a ~n~~ C F ~. 3 :l ~L-~ ' ~ ~,7 : t ~ : L J''~' ~ 3..1f~ ~ i{ f P ~.A.~ ~ _ . . .';'. .:,~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ... ~: . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ MIN[TTES, CITY PLANNING COI~II~IISSION, October 21, 1968 4171 ' CONDITIONAL IISE - No one appeared i.n opposition to subject petition. PEE~IIT- N0. 1071 Continued) THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon notad that the landscaping referred to in Condition No. 10 would be within subject property rather than on the property ad3acent to it; that the origine2 plans autmmitted indicated it wa~ outside the property,:line, and the last plot plan sti7.l infli.cated this on the outaide, and he wiehad to apprise the petitioner and the CommiesioE~ that landacaping should be con- sidered`inaide the property line. Commiseioner Mungall o£fered Resolution No. PC68-311 and moved for ita passage and adoption, seconded by Co~iasiotter Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit ~ No. 1071, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. `'' ` RECLASSIFICATION - PIIBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM D. AND RUTH B. PRICHARD, 805 East North N0. 68-69-35 Street, Anaheim, California, Ownera; requesting that property ~r y deacribed as: A rectangularly ahaped parcel of approxtmately ~.',~`K~ •45 acrea of land having a frontage o£ approxLmately 100 feet on ~,~ the north aide of North Street snd a maximum depth of approx3mately 200 £eet, the ,1~; westerly boundary of said parcel being approxi.mstely 80 feet east of Orange Street, r''„°''' and further described as 80$ East North Street, be reclasaified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY ~''`"`'~`' RESIDENTIAL ZONE to the R-3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RFSIDENTIAL ZONE. ; ~t:'>:~.'~~ ~ , ~ Aseiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proxim.ity, noting that properties to the north and west had been reclassified to the R-3 Zone in November, 1959; that the Genaral Plan indicated medium-denaity reeidential usea £or this area, and aince the existing land uae and zoning,were aimilar, the requested zoning would appear to be appropriate, and that the petiti'oner had not eut~mitted development plans for the property., ` Co~iseioner Farano of£ered Reaolution No. PC68-312 and moved for ite passage and adop- tion, seeonded by Commisaioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for:Reclaseification No. 68-69-35 be approved, sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYFS: C02~ffSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. .~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVIIAPER: APOLIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 1104 East 17th Street, TRACT N0. 6647, Santa 9na, California. ENGINEER: Williamaon and Schmid, 1535 East REVISION N0. 2 lat Street, Santa Ana, California. Subject tract, located on the east aide of Rio Viata Street, approximately 56Q feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, containing approxLmately 7.7 acrea, is proposed Yor subdiviaion into 42 R-2-5000 zoned lote. Subject tract was considered in conjunetion with Tentative Map of Tract No. 6784• Aseiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aub~ect property, noting tha.t R-2-5000 zoning had been approved on the property under Reclaseification No. 67-68-9g; that the easterly portion of the property under Tract No. 66Q7 propoaed 7200-aquare foot i lota adjacent to the Rtl ::o the east and north; and that the Commisaion might wiah to j request that the developer redesign the southweat portion of Tract No. 6784 to provide for a,lmuckle turn at the western end of Hempetead Road, with atreet access to Rio Vista ' Street'located further north than that preeently 3ndicated, thia baing baaed ~n the fact that the Co~iasion had expressed concern that any future single-femily reaidential lota abutting an arterial atreet which did not rea: on the atreet would be a potential commer- cial converaion lot, as had been experienced in the past as indicated in the Front-On ~ Study of Homea on Arterial Streeta. j ' i --. _~ __.... _ ._ . . ` _.. .._,... _ i . . . .. . _ .. _ . ...,~^;.~,~' . , ~ h K , ,~ ' ~~. ~ * ~~'~~`J'~~;~".F'~ y~~' ,"~,~ ~ rv`s ~Y..: ~~, ~ .~v v ,~ .y~ ka ~ ~y. yr ~ ~~~''4 k~ ~ . s. yi~~ - ~ ~ ~ l ~ /~ * ~ . ~,i~ . ~ . . . . . . . . . ' __ ~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTFS, CITY PLANNING CONR+IISSION, October 2~, 1968 ~72 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Mr. Brown th9n reviewed the policy which the P3anning Commisaion TRACT N0. 6647, might wish to recommend to the City Council regarding the cottstruc- REVISION N0. 2 tion or development of single-family reaidentiel structures adjacent Continued) to arterial highways, which would require that reaidential atructures be oriented ao as to "rear-on" such highways. ~ Diacusaion was held by the Coa~iasion regarding the reco~ettded policy, it being deter- mined at the conclusion of the discussion that the policy ahould be adopted on an interim basis, and that the ataf£ ahould aet £or public hearing conaideration of an amettdment to Title 18 to incorporate this ae part of the ordinance. ```" Mr. Ralph Jenaen, representin the develo er a g p, ppeared before the Commisaiott and concurred ;~y~ , in all the recommended conditiotts if aubject tracta were approved. However, he took ;~~ exception to the ataff~s recommendation that a knuckle turn be located at the weatern end of Hempstead Road and street accesa to Rio Viata Street located further north, aince their design was based un previous experience of preventittg a hazardoua traffic conditiott as well as aub3ecting the homes around this knuckle to lighta at night from vehicles circling ;~ the knuckle. F~.irthermore, since sub~ect property would abut commercial property to the .;; south, some of the lota would be rearing on tha commercial property located acrose the ;~; 30-foot road easement, said co~ercial property also rearing onto thia easement. ~: '.~ Mr. Jensen further noted that CCBcRs were written into a11 their developmente under FHA ~• standarda which were a requirement of FHA, and if the Commisaiott deemed it neceasary, `'~;~ further special conditions could be imposed on the lots affected by aiding on arterials. ~;J ~''~~'. The Commisaion advised the developer that the City had been experiencing considerable °iR problems with both side-on and front-on homes along arterials, and an in-depth atudy ;;~r had been made by the Commisaion and staf£ over a period of several yeara which resulted ;«,;,9 in the adoption of the Front-On Stuc~y; therefore, they were averae to compounding an q1 already untenable situation in the City by approving new subdiviaiona which did not rear ~;~ lota on the arterials. Mr. Jettaen noted tha.t they propoaed to build similar homes as those now under conetruction north of Ball Road, weat of Sunkiat Street; therefore, they might be in for a variance to permit the conatruction of homea lesa than the minimuin permitted, and waiver of lots rearing on arterials could be requested at that time. The Commisaion flu~ther advised the developer that if a waiver of the requirement of lota rearing on arterials were requested, 3t would be neceasary to prove a hardahip exiated becauae.of'other than atatementa made by Mr. Jens~ as to his reason for not deairing to develop the lota to rear ott the arterial. Commisaioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 661,7, sub~ect to the £ollowing conditiona, seconded by Co~isaioner Herbat, and MOTION CARRIED: l. That ahould this aubdiviaiott be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdiviaion thereof ahall be sut~itted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map oi Tract No. 6647 is granted aubject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-98, 3. That all lots within this tract shall.be served by underground utilities. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVEIAPER: AppLLp DEyE[,ppt,4ENT CORPORATION, 1104 East 17th Street, TRAGT N0. 678L• Santa Ana,, California. ENGIN.EER: Williamson and Schmid, 1535 East 1st Street, Santa Ana, California. Sub~ect tract, located approxi- mately 564 feet north of Lincoln Avenue, east of Rio Vista Street and containing approximately 12.3 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 69 R-2_g000 zoned lota. '. Sub~ect tract was considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract No. 6647. Commisaioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6784, subject to the following conditions, seconded by Commissioner Herbat, and MOTION CARRIED: 1. That should this aubdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof ahall be submitted in tentative fora for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6784 is granted subject to the approval of Reclasaification No. 67-68-98. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground facilitiea. r, F s , i ,, - :~ . ~ ~'X<._::S@P^ ~~Y" ~ .~ ,~ w.~~~ J~d,', _~i n .^'i.c ~«;!gtr „~,. '~:., ,7 , s + '~ . . ~~ .,, . . ~. ~ .. ~ .' . ~ '. .. ~ . . MIN[TTFS, CITY.PLANNING CAMMISSION, October 21, 1968 4173 TFNTATIVE MAp OF - 4. That.the vehicular accesa'righta except at street;and/or alley TRACT N0. 678 ' openings to Rio Viata Street, shall be dedicated to the City ': Continued of Anaheim: 5. That in accordance with City Council policy,~a 6-foot masonxy wall ahall be conatructed on the weaterly propertq line separating Lot Nos, l through 8 ana 69 and Rio Vista StTeet, except that Corner I,ot Nos. 1 and 69 aha11 be atepped down to a height of . thir.ty inches in the front yard aetback, and excep~ that pedestrian openinga ahall be provided in said walls where cul-de-eacs abut the planned highway righta-of-way line of an arterial highwt.y. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facili- tiea, shall be inatalled in the tincemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full diatance of said wall, platta for said la.ndscaping to be aubmitted to and subfect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following 1 inatal.lation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the reaponsibility for maintenance of said landacaping. 6. Tha.t all lots ahall rear onto Rio Viata Street. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CANII~IISSION, 204 AMIIJIMENT N0. 111 Fast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider land uae change from commercial-recreatiott to commercial uses £or property located on the southweat corner of Crowther Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. NOR~EAST PLAZA, LTD., 120 E1 Camino Drive, Suite N0. 68-69-38 216, Beverly Hills, California; requesting that property described as: Two parcels of land comprising a total of approximately 9.0 acres located at the southweat corner of Crowther Avenue and Kraemei~ Boulevard, having Frontages o£ approximately 6/al,.feet on the aouth side of Crowther Avenue and approximately 459 feet on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard~ the southerly boundazy of said land being approximately Q75 £eet ttorth of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, be reclasai£ied from the R-A, AGRICULTURAI,, ZONE to the G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Aseociate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewad for the Commisaion General P1an Amendment No. lll, noting the e~dsting symbology was co~ercial-recreation, and becauae of a request>£or the establishment of commercial zoning on a portion of this area, considera- ' tion wa:s beingrgivett to a change in symbology to commerciel and multiple-family deaignation. Mr. Krieger.then reviewed the exiating zoning around this general area, noting that general manufacturing exiated to the north and planned manufactui~ing to the weat, both in the City of Placentia,• R-2-5000 to the east acrose Kraemer Boulevard; and agricultural and induetrial to the aoutli; that the Traffic Ehgineer had indicated the existing arterial streeta, nemely, Crowther, Kraemer and Orangethorpe bounding the area on three aidea, plua the local, internal street syatam,would be adequate to handle the traffic which would be generated by commercial and medium-denaity residential development at thia location; and that thia general area had been determined no longer to have industrial potential aince the flood cotttrol cl~annel aouth of Orattgethorpe Avenue had been deeignated by the City Council as the northerly boundary of the Northeast Induatrial Area. There- fore, the Commieaion might wish to conaider the ar8a as a weaterly extettaion of the medium-denaity reaidential symbology of the Dowling tria~gle, with the appropriate aize commercial development on the arteriel atreeta. ~rthermore, the exhibits poated on the General Plan map indicated medium-density residential with a community ahopping center on Fxhibit l and medium denaity residential with a neighborhood shopping center aymbol on Exhibit 2. Zonittg Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the following item pertained to the commercial reclaseification petition referred to as the reason for conaideration of a General Plan amendment; and the Commiaeion might wish to- consider these two items concurrently. Thereupon, the Co~iasion requested that the reclasaification be considered along with the General Plan amendment. Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown xeviewed the location of subject property and ita proximity as it,pertained to the General Plan amen~ent, noting that only 9 acres of the parcel were under consideration since a portion of the p.ropertq proposed for the shopping center rras already zoned C-1 and C-3; that concapt plans were aubmitted for the community shopping center on a site formerly proposed for a sporta-recreation center approved in April of 1963 under Conditiottal Use Permit No. 372, said petition later being terminated by the City Council in April of 1966 at the requeat of tho petitioner. ' 1 ~ i. ~: --- --- . ~r _~^'"`~:i, ~ '` = ~`ti ~ ~ . ~ 1`'IINUTFS, CITY PLANNING COI~lISSION, October 21, 1968 4174 GENERAI, PL~.21 - Mr. Edward Kozlowa ~ ky,-general partner for the pro~ect, appeared AMEDiI2~fENT N0. 111 before the Co~isaion and indicated he was preaent to answer questions. RECLASSIFICATION . NO.:'68-6 - 8 Commiaeioner Herbat noted that concept'plana only had been aubmitted Continued and inquired'as to whether or not these would be the actual plan of development. `Mr. Kozlowsky replied that since complete leasing ef the narioua unita had.not been accompliahed, no preciae plans had been:aubmitted; however, the baeic plan`would cover a 7-acTe portion whiali would be deneloped at the'beginning, and i£ the development proved a suocesa, flu~ther aeoeia~ent „o,~.a a~~,u. Commisaioner Herbst further noted that aub~ect property was bounded on three aidea with I industrial uaea, both in the City of Placentia and the City of Anaheim, with only the ~2-5000 tract to the east which could support the type of commercial development being proposed. Mr. Kozlowalqr, in reply, atated that withitt .4 mile there was a very large concentration of single-family development, and within the City o£ Placetttia plana were in the process for 360 homea; t'urthermore, to the south of the Preeway there was aubatantial resideatial development'in Anaheim, Orange, and Villa Park and within two miles to the east, flirther residential development would support this type of co~ercial facility. Commisaioner Herbat then ittquired whether or not the petitioner had compsred hia proposal with other ahopping centers. Mr. Kozlowsky replied that the cloaest in comparieon to what they proposed rras the Orangefair Shopping Center in Fli],lerton, and that the prime leseee fur this development rrould lease appro~d.mately 80,000 to 90,000 square feet. F~irthermore~ they concurred with the recommendationa of the staff. A letter from the City of Placentia, opposing commercial use immediately ad~acent to induatrial'properties both within the City of Plaoentia and the City of Anaheim, was read to the Commission. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDc Mr. Thompaon,noted for the Commission that when the Dowling property was approved for R-3 zoning aeveral yeara ago, the City Council directed that the property xiorth of Orangethorpe Avenue, east of Kraemer Boulevard, be removed from the industrial symbology; ~ however, they had not requested that sub3ect property be considered for other than the exiatittg commercial-recreation symbology. Mx'. Krieger then noted that sub3ect property atill had a resolution of intent to M-1 pending on it, and the staf£ was directed only to remove the M-1 deaignation from the ~ Dowling property. ' Commisaioner Herbat then noted that approval o£ commercial-recreation usea £or subject property was a clasaic example of the brealtdown of industrial property in the Northeast Industrial Area, and thia was also the reason for approving residential uses on the Dowling property; that the City of Placentia had a vt:.ry large industrial area acroas the Santa Fe tracks, the main track of thia railroad - therefore, with a railroad in close proximity, this area was atill conaidered prime induatrial property, and even though a portion of tha area bsing considered for the General Plan amendment had already been reclaseified to the C-1 and C-3 Zonea, this area was not yet ready for commercial I development, even though the petitioner had indicated his atudies pro~ected thia area as good co~ercial use aince, in his opinion, it would be a very].imited coammercial use fbr a number of yeara. Commisaioner Rowland inquired as to the atatus of the Dowling property; whereupon 1~1r. Thompson noted that an R-2-$OOO tract already was under`conatruction on the westerly portion of the property, and the ataff had been contacted by several developera for subdivision in a similar manner £or the balance of the property to the east. Commissioner Rowland then noted that aince many thittgs could happen and thera were many commercial uaes which could be placed on the property without being preaented to the Commisaion because of its exiating co~ercial zoning, whieh could be detrimantal to both the City of Anaheim and the City of Placentia, the Commission should consider the proposal'of a subatantial development,which would be the lesser of two evils, as an asaet to the City and the area rather than a~~hodge-podge° of amall stores which might develop:in the f.uture. ~zrthermore, in considering tha symbology for the General Plan ~ ~. . _ . .... ,..~., ~ ~ ~ r~ MIN[TTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 21, 1968 l,175 ~ G~~ P~N . = amendmeat, the regional ahopping center might be better - this, AIQENLMENT"•N0. 111 thett, would provide for.future expaneion if the proposal were auccesatla].. RECLA3SIFICATION N0. 68=6 - 8 Commisaioner Herbst reiterated the fact that.the zoning and conaidera- Continued) tion on the GeneraT Plan for commercial-recreation was a claseic :example o£ zoning errors made by the City; thet he wished to emphasize the':Pact tha.t if the'petitioner had made an in-depth aurvey, he would have lmown the proposed commercial could not'be aupported by the exiating reaidential uaee and would later Te~uest multiple-family-zoning to support the commercial property already developed. However, Placentia would not consider any other zoning for their industrial property. Commiseioner Herbst also noted that the petitioner had ind3cated the ehopping center would be similar to the Orangefair Shopping Center in F1~llerton; however, the latter center had been in exiatence £or ten yeara and was ~uet now realizing some signs of aucceae. Commissioner.Rowland offered a motion to approve Getteral Plan Amendment No. 111, Exhibit A. Commieaioner Muttgall seconded the motion. On roll call the foregoittg motion failed to carry, the voting beittg as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: COI~IISSIONERS: Farano, Herbat. ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. Commiasioner Rowland offered a motion to cotttinue consideration of Reclasaification No. 68-69-38 to the meeting of November 4, aeconded by Coarmisaioner Mungall, in order that a11 Commisaionera might be presettt to vote on the General Plan amendment and Por further cottsideratiott of the propoaed reclaeaification. MOTION CARRIF~D, CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIp gEARING. INCENTNE AID FOUNDATION, INC. AND GEORGE,PAGE, PERMIT N0. 1065 730 Sarbonne Road, Los ~ngeles, California, Ownera; TRACY PRICE- IMJM COMPANY, 3325 Wilahire Boulevard, Los Angelea, Cali£ornia, µ `~gent; requesting permiasion to ESTABLISH AN 2NTERNATIONAL TRADE ~ CENTER;WITH.MARKETS,.HOTELS, RESTpURANTS, A CULTURAL CENTER,'COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS, ' AND OTF~R RELATED USES'on propertyidescribed as: Approximately 89 acrea o£ land being {'' generally bounded on,the north.by Katella Avenue, on the east by State College Boulevard, on the`south by Orangewood Avenue, and on the west by Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT.INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ;.,,;~ I Aaeistant Zoning Supervisor;Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, the exiati ng zoning on the property, and the proposal, noting that it was planned to have a national trade center similar to that approved under ` Conditional Use Permi.t No. 616 by the City Council in August, 1964, for the establishment ~~ of an amnsement park for 55 acres of the proposed site; that Conditional Use Permit No. 616 had recently been reinstated by the City Couttcil and granted a 100-day extenaion of time for the completion of conditiona; and that the proposed development would be done in phases over a period of five to eight yeara - therefore, the area east of the Santa Ana Freeway could also be considered commercial-recreation land uae. Office Ehgineer Arthur Daw advised the Commisaion that there aeemed to be some confuaion on the recommended conditions as to the intent of the City, and he wished to clarify this; namely, Conditiott Nos. l and 2 require dedication £or Lewis Street and Pacifico Avenue - however, this was not a grant deed but a deed of easement, and the alignment of Lewis Street would be mutually agreed upon by the City and the property owner_; and that Condition No. Q ahould be amended to require that a bond be poated to insure construction of atreet improvement,, etc,, but this improvement would not have to be made until.development occurred on the property in thia general area which would additional traffic - enerate ther g efor e ~ atr eet im . ro street was needed for traffic or if requiredvnedemattd~bydthe Ci y Engineert~.me as the `' !,; ; MY'• Maynard Camback, president:of thp option holder of subject property and speaking £or the petitioner,.who is owner in fee title to the property, appeared before the Co~iasiott, ' noting that they concurred in the recommended conditiona by the staff after the minor ad3ustmenta were made by Mr. Daw, and that the architect and project director had been working very closely with the._staff regarding traffic and development of the property. Mr. Henry Jones, pro3ect coordinator of The Orient originally approved by the City Council under Conditional Use Permit No. 616, appeared in opposition and requested that the Planning Commisaion give the same consideration to sub~ect petition that was given to Conditional Use Permit No. 616 when the Planning Commiasion deniec~. the petition, basing ~, ~ ~~ a ;,~'3~~ '~~ 4 ,~ w ~ ~ . -,e~~{f ~tr~t~sr~,w: +y~YY.~..'~ ~G2 tT^ra -`~f y -.a t rc. ~ '=,~'N!'~~ S .r.~}'r,t~9 ~eSv~~t k<h° 1"-~ ~~t ~94 pti ~ ~.F~..ryg r'l ~r ~~ t~ t ~ ,~i lrl - "4 7' ~~ A `m~..ys'n",'tsw~:. etiMri~... .~f L ~.:~ft ~` ~l~ ~1~' `NC~ V ~ ... .~ _. - - - _._.. ""'_.. I ,. ~ '~ . . . . . .. Q ~. .. ~ . . ,~ a;.MIN[TTFS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,-October 21, 1968 /,176 CONDITIONAI, IISE - it on the £act.that.the proposed development was not compatible PERMIT N0. 1065 with the existing zotting and'the land uae itt the erea. y:(Continued) Commisaioner Farano 3nquired whether or not the Commisaion could approve subject petition legally aince Conditional Use Permit No. ' 616 was sti1L in force and`effect. Couldn't the City juat extend the time for completion of the conditions rather thaa having a new'petition to consider?' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that Conditional Use Permit No. 616 covered a portion;bf the::property preaently under. conaideration;.therefore, if the Commiseion decided ~he proposaI was.a proper land.use, then the City would need to obtain the required righty,of-way before the Commiseion would liave to take'favorable aetion on aubject petition because it covered conaiderably more property, and the City would be able to obtain dedication and necaseaxy-street improvements for adjoitting atreets ae depicted on the General Plan. FS~rthermore, the Co~.i.eaion could also cottaider recom- mending that Conditional Use Permit No. 616 be terminated if the City Council concurred in the Co~3.seion's recommendation of approval of subject petition. Co~isaioner Farano inquirad as to whether or not the City was considering a change in character of thia area from induatrial to commercial-recreation, and if so, ahouldn~t the Co~i.aeion also be considering a General Plan amendment at this public hearing? Mr. Thompaon replied that a number of aspecta must be conaidered by the Commisaion, and since at a recent work seasion the Commission had reviewed conaideration for the up-dating of the General Plan, the sta£f felt that rather than bringing a number of Getteral Plan amettdments before the Commiasion, this could be incorporated into the up-dating'of the General Plan. Commnissioner Rowland inquired why the previous petition considered by the Commiasion had'a General Plan amettdment when the parcel was considerably smaller than that now under consideration. Mr. Thompaon replied that the area at Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard had been depicted as commercial-~recreation f r u b f ~~h` o a n m er o years; however, the property ~ had neder developed for the use proposed, and the property.was now under a difFerent ~ ~~ I ownership =.thereiore the proposed Getteral Plan amendment was for guidance of the ~~~ property.:owners in the area. I , Mr. Thompaon further noted that subject property had been considered at the work seasion ~{ , l~ , and tlie graphica took:into acpount the fact that Conditional IIse Permit No. 616 was ati11 'in force;and efYect.`.Furthermore, the preaence of the basetiall stadium was also a '' coneideratiott_which had to be takea into account since it bordered sub3ect property on the east for a considerable diatance. 'r.' Mr. Cambac~C ~~ated that the previoua conditional use ermit a btai p w s o ned by the aeme owner as the present petition, but aince that time aome of the adjoining property had been acquired,;and the type of development form rl r e y p oposed was on a grandioae basis which they £elt rrae not fQeasible; therefore, the new petition was Filed, preaenting a total picture o£ the ropbasl d i r p , an n o der to aseure that this development would be pro~erly origgted and proper traffic flow pronided, conaiderable reaearch had been " made, together rr3th meetiaga with the sta£f who had indicated the proposal would be acceptable, but this recommendation did t no appear in the Report to the Co~iasion. The Commiseion adviaed the agent for the petitioner that the ataff was not in the habit o~ making any racommanda.tions to the Coa~isai - i on the r duty was ottly to evaluate all the evidence preaented. Mr. Camback then atated that the ataff wae very cooperative and did not indicate they were not.in favor of this ro osal ~. . p p . , THE IiFARING WAS CLOSED. -0o~iaeioner Farano noted tha.t there had been considerable diacusaion as to the encroach- ment into'the ittduatrial area; however, thie requeat was proposing to place thie entire area into"the commercial-recreation deaignation rather than the induatrial - therefore, if the Coffiaisaion were to coneider this ar a a de i o e s p cted tt the work copy of the up-dated Anaheim General Plan presented at a work sesaion, then the Commiasion ahould determine what the boundaries would be for the symbol of the Commercial-Recreation Area aince snb~ect.property encompaeaed a coneiderable area and it would have a considerable effect on the induatrial property in the`City. Flirthermore, he was aleo cognizant of the fact that the Planning Commiaeion had dettied the original Orient on aub~ect property~ and the City Council had approved it, grgttting it numeroua extenaione of ti me ae well ae ~ rf ' ~ ~^, ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY'PLANNING`CONIb12SSI0N, October 21, 1968 '.-: `: = - 4177 ' ~ CONDITIONAL IISE reinatating the,petition sfter.it was;~terminated;..there~ore it PERMIT N0: 106 ~ , was;his opinioa.the Commi.asion::.ahould'review atty.~change;in the (Continued)~ ~General Plan on a`more scietttific baeis, which would'mean~at ; ~ ~ . - public hearinga,before-any'consideration was, given'to subject ` '' ' , petition. ;. . ; - _ , _ ; 9; Co~i.saioner Herbat noted there were.about twelne~paroaTa;.which liad'been developed for industrial purposea within thia eneTal a ~ b g re ounded on:the north by Katella:Anenue, on;the aou,th -0r ' bY angewood Avenue, on.the east b~'State:College':;Boulevard,.and on the ` weRt by the Santa Ana ,Freeyray~; and if,;aubject petition wer e a rov d' `thi d~ . pp e , . s. woul estab- lish a pattern of development`in the~area; that•the;proposal.was'"encompaeaing:'consi3er- ably more 'p rt n" : rope y tha ;had.been fox~erly considered, and:;flirtheT encroacbment into the Southeast Induatrial Area would mean'any~future indu t ies la n ~~' a r ._p u ing to,come to the City would loae,faithlin the:integrity of the City.whicli, for;~any.yeare, had maintairied:` ' this area for induatrial pur oses and i du n;~ ~ p ,, n atries;iiho ha.d~deneToped on:previous atate- ments made;by the,City;_would be suf £erin as o s . g a c n equence. :Therefore,'.he:recommended that sub3ect petition be contiaued and a General.Plan amendmettt be advertiaed so that a7l~the property owners in th3 s ~ ? , , general area wouldrbe aware~+of.`what wae.being conaidered by the City,for prime industrial property:. Commiaeioner Rowland then noted that the City Gouncil had:.a-lreacjy decided the £ate of the Southeast Industrial Area when they ori ina] l a g , y pproved-The 0rient and,placed the baseball stadium in the center of the industrial'area; ther.efore, thia wae indicative tliat the Council felt the area ahould b de e ' ' e v loped:for commercial-recreatiott purposea. Co~i,asioner Herbat noted that he had also heard the atatement made by,some of the present Couttcilmen that the ori inal Orie t:w ~ ,1' . g tt ould never be~developed; f`urthermore, aubject property was a'primerGpiece of property £oT havingr.near=by freeway exposure, good railroad faciliti ' ' `~~ es, ar~d good arterial;atrse ta for'cir.culatiott,`,and the':atadium was a compatible'uae aince the houra of operation did not conflict with t :~' he traffic: flow from the industriea, while the propoaed uae would be in.•conetattt conflict'with the traffic circulation in the industrial re ~~ ~'~, ~ : a a. . . . . . . - .. . ~ . ; . . . ~ : ~ .' . ~ ' ; :~ ..y . . Commiaeioner Herbat'also noted that he Irnew of two industries~who had.planned.to build itt Anaheim ' however,.because of the.approval of The O i t~ d .Ye zi , , ,. , r en an the exiating tra£fic attera ~ P d inc-•ease of ;traffic': if:7'1ie~ Orient' were, developed;. they ~chose to ,build in ' Buena Park,;; and that any. `induatriea which had` developed in'; 'this 'ar in ~ , ea .the City, in goods;faith,'ahould be given aome cone'ideration by being made;aware o£ what might develop ad~acent`to them if commercial= c a ~ re re tion uees were...considered for the proper- tiea',.betweett the•Santa Ana F~eewaq and State College Boulevard. , ~' , Co m m i a s i o n e r F a r a n o a g a i. n n o t~ d` t h a t t h e i n tegr i ty o f the City and the induatrial proper- ttea in the,Southeast Induatrial Area wexe affect d t ~' e ; herefore, if the Commission were now bein g a~~;ed t o, c o n s i d e r a latt d uae c h a nge from induetrial to commer i l- t e c a - recr ation, his.ahould be done at a public hearing'or hearinga in order::tha.t all peraona affected might be'heardr ~ Mre l..~mpaod adviaed the Commisaion that tha proponents of the,development were anxious to proceed with this,,and sittce Conditional Uae Permit No. 616 was atill in force and effect, the~~ could proceed under the old peti.tion, Commisaioner Farano was of the opinion that this would create masa confuaion on the property, and aince the City ahould coneidex• other property ownera affected in the area, , no hasty ~udgment should:be made on this piece of.property;"although he was not in favor of an indefir~i.te delay, the Commission should be given aufficient time for a proper atudy, as well as :notifying-other property ownexs in':the area to ascertain their feelings. Co~isaioner Herbst again noted'that if the Planning Cou~ieaion considered commercial- recreation use for aub~ect property, thie would automat3cally place fifteen other parcela in this area, now developed for industriel purposea; in the eame category; therefore,-these property owners should be rspprised of what.was being conaidered by , the City even though thie would,be only a resolution of intent to commercial-recreation usea'on industrially zoned property. Commieaioner Rowland note'd that the Commisaion had already-been pre-empted by the City ~ Council, and any more time apent`on aub~ect petition would.be wasted becauae it was too late alreacLy. Commisaioner:Farano 3,ndicated that he disagreed; even though the City Couttcil had approvod Conditional Uae Permit'No. 616, later terminating it and then reinstating it~ it rras up to the Planning Commission to make a determination of what ahould or ahould not be considered prior to making any recommendation to tha City Council= since any ' ; ;:; ~ ',, . ........:~ c~t^ a?~1 ~ i`4'~.t tF~°~°' ~tx^^ ~'rr ~ '~~h .~' -~ 5r ~'.~"r' c *. '~ ~ ~Jr ~"~ ~.. 3. ..r,. ~~ ~".~ ~, r . ~ y 1. .; ~~ / .:, i r d 'ii` ;. -r . _; ; _ . . y::- 4 , . "~ 6 t i ; = . .• ~ "' ,,:~.; ~.: ~ ,_ ` , . ,:l : : - I . . . . r,~et.~rd.~.~. . . ~ . . . - . . - -=~---~-==`---.c_. --~-~-~_--- '. .~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .~ ~ . . ~ ~.~~ ~ . ~ .. _ . ~ 4.1 MIN[TTES,' CTTY PLANNING COMhI2SS20N, October 21, 1968 ,~~y CONDITIONAI, USE - Mr. Dairson advised: the Commisaion that another 'conditiottal uae PEIiMIT_N0. 106 permit could be 'granted. even though.'one alreac~y e~dated, and aince Continued the repreaetttative of the petitioner had indicated he did not want a contittuanca,'the;Commisaion could make their deciaion today aince a General PTan amen~ent did not mean the property would be rezoned; therefore, another public hearittg would.hane'to be held if,the Co~ieaion deamed it necessary to have a General Plan:emendment.for'conaideratiott,.and that approval or dis- approval of aubject petition had no effect upon the General Plan. Commiasioner Far~rio thett inquired of the agent for the petitiotter the length of time they had been procesaing attd conaidering aub3ect petitionr Mr• Tracy Price, representing the project engineer, advised the Commiasion that they had been working on thia development £or approxi*nately four montha, almost daily~ meeting with various departments at least once a week, and that prior to that time they had started in December of 1967 on the basis of working on the project once or twice a week. ` ^ Co~i,saioner R.owland offered Reaolution No. PC68-313 attd moved for its passage and adop- ~ tion, aecottded by Commiesioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit : No. 1065, sub~ect to conditions, on the basis that the magnitude of the proposal and ~' the fact that no one appeared at the public hearittg in opposition; that if sub3ect ''?' property were developed as proposed, it would be more compatible with ad3oining uses ?, r~~ in close,prox3mity than the exiating induatrial development in the area. (See Resolution ~; Book) ~~ i~~`.'. ~i T~ On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~'~ Y AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Rowland. ~`, ' NOFS: COI~IISSIONERS: Far~o, Herbst. ....; ~.... ~~~.;,;M1. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. ~:`;;,, _ _ Co~iaeioners Farano and Herbat, in votittg "no", stated that a General Plan amendment ahould Have been conaidered in conjunetion with sub~ect petition in order that all property,owners within the scope of the General Plan amendment would be appriaed of what was being considered, and that the integrity of the City.was at atake becauae of the fact that the area hadrbeen established for a ttumber of years ea the Southeast Industrial Area, and approval of aub~ect petition meant flzrther deterioration and attrition of the Southeast Industrial Area. Co~aeioner Allred, in voting "aye°, atated that it wae lu.s opinion that the integrity of'tre City was not being questioned since obviously the City had already made a commit- ment, having diacusaed thia with the petitioners over the paet aeveral montha, and any further delay wae deemed unnecessary. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EVERETT H. MILLER, 270 Roycroft Avenue, Long Beach, PERMIT N0. 1066 California, Owner; HAWKINS & LINDSAY, 401 Silver Iake Boulevard, Los Angelea, Californie, Agent; requeating permieaion to HAVE ON- SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJIINCTION WITH A RESTAURANT NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION on property deacribed as: A rectattgularly ahaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 120 Yeet on the east aide o£ Brookhurat Street and a maxLmum depth of approximately 175 £eet, the aoutherly boundary of said parcel being approximately 310 feet ttorth of the centerline of Ba11 Road, and flu~ther deacribed as 940 South Brookhurat Street. Property presentwy clasai£ied C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ;?ONE. , Asaistent,_Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown~reviewed the locationof aub~ect_property and uaee'estab- lished in close proximity, noting that the ~etitioner wsa proposing to aerve alcoholic 1 beperages in a completely enclosed reataurant,and no bar or cocktail lounge facilities were propoaed since theae beveragea would be served directly to the customers in the ~ diningroom £acilities from'a central diapensing area, and that approximately half of '~ the propoaed restaurant, comprised of 3,100 square feet, would be devoted to kitchen ~ Facilities and relatad uaes. ':i Mr. Thomas Lindeay,'architect repreaenting the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the alcoholic beverages propoaed to be served with the mes;la were wine and beer'and would be incidental to the aerving of food; that the recommended conditiona ' of the Report to the Commisaion had bean completed, with plumbing and building inapec- tiona having been made and a Certificate of Occupancy received. No one appeared in oppoaition to aubject petition. THE HEARING WAS CIASED, ~~'' ; i r . ,. . .. .. . r ~ ~. - - ~- - ._.._ ~ ` ~ ;; c~ 'MINOTES; CITY PL1lNNING COMNIISSION, October 21, 19E$ 4180 CONDITION.gL IISE - Co~iasioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-314 and moved for PERMIT'N0.•1066 its paseage and adoption„ secorided by Co~3.asioner Herbat, to grant ; Continued Petition for Cond3.tional Uae Permit No. 1066, sub~ect to conditione. (See.Reaolution Book), On roll call the £oregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: ' AYES:. COMMISSZONERS: A11red, Farano, Herbat, riungall, Rowland. NOFS: :: OOMHIISSIONERS: ,None. - ' ABSE~TT: COI~IISSIONERS: CamP, Gauer. _ ~ REC.ESS - Co~iesioner Herbat of£ered a motion to recese the meeting for ten minutea. Commis aioner Rowland aecnnded the motiott. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting receeaed at 4~25 P.M. RECONVENE _ Chairman Aured reconvened the meeting at 4~37 P.M., Commiasionera ! Camp and Gauer being absent. ~ CONDITIONAL IISE - PUBLIC HF,ARING, MAURICE GAI,E HAR~IAN, ET AL, 1669z Landmark, PERMIT N0. 1067 Yorba Linda, California, Ownera; ANN T. MADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CaliFornia, Agent; requeating permisaion to ESTABLIS$ A 22-UNIT MOTEL WITIi WAIVER OF MINIMi1M SIDE YARD on proparty deacribed as: A rectangularly ehaped parcel of land havlttg appro~dmate frontages of 110 feet on tha south aide of Ball Road and the north aide of Berry Avenue, and havittg a maximum depth of approximately 213 feet, being appror3mately 275 feet east of the center- line of Palm Street. Property preaently classi£ied R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. 9seiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brorm reviewed the location of sub~ect property, the previoue zon3.ng action, the ueea eetabl3ahed in cloae proximity, and the propoaed uae o£ the property,,noting that the petitioner was proposing to conetruct a two-atory motel within five feet of the west property line and was propoaing only a minimum required three-foot landscaped aetback along the Berry Aveuue:frotttage adjacent to reaidential usea; that the;Co~i.saiott had determined through previoua etudy attd public-hearinga that aubject and sdjoitting propertiea £ronting on Ba11 Road were appropriate Por`co~er- cial office use, and although a conditional uae permit rras permitted in all commercial zones, the Commisaion would have to det~rmine whether a motel would be appropriate, given the exiating and pro3ected.land uaes in this area, and that the plana indi~cated two two-room suitea which had two bathrooms for each aui•te, and the Commisaion might wish to queation the petitioner regarding thia aince i£ these units were combined, they could be utilized ae an apartment, and if so, additional pasking apacea would be required. Mre• Attn Madison, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~isaion and etated it was her opinion the propoaed use would be compatible with the area; that tae property rras located ~ust a ahort distance from Msneyland and the Convention Center, and after having talked with the Visitora attd Convention Bureau, it was determined additional motel rooms were neceseaxy eince during the big season during the au~er, they had to refer people to other citiea, some as far as Long Beach and Riveraide, and with the increased intereat itt both Distteyland and the Convention Center, there was tto doubt that a greater need for motele would be necessary in the f5xture; that the propoaed motel would be a"mom and pop° type facility~ and the variance'was needed becauae of the alley requiremenb for traeh and fire trucks; that previoua proposale for aub~ect property had been terminated becauae of the al'.Ley requirement for ~1ie propertq -' ' however, the preaent developera were fully aware of the requirement of the alley and were ttot propoaing acceas to Berry Avenue; that a aix-foot masonry wa11 wae propoaed along Berry Avenue, with screen planting propoaed•to protect the residetttial integrity of that area; and that ad~oining land ownera fronting along Ball Road and one property owner,o£ a aingle-family home on Berry Avettue, abuttittg aubfect property to the east, had submitted lettere indicating no ob3ection to the proposed development. ~,irthermore, development of eubject property, which was now vacant, would mean more tax dollara to the City. Mre: Madison, itt responee to Commisaion queationing, noted that since thie motel wae family-oriented, there were timea when auitea would be rented and additional bathroom £acilitiea would also be needed; flirthermore, on].y ten of the unite would have kitchen facilitiea, while the City Council had granted 100~ kitchen facilitiee for eome motela, and the kitchen facilitiea would be the two-burner type stone se establiahed in the ordinance by the City CounciL No one appeared in oppoaition to sub~ect petition. ;. 1.; +-C'i ~ 1" ~ ~ q t S '+y. ~x +"'! 4 ' 7+ k ~ ~Y k~.,'1.,~~ 4 ~~ r ; ~ ~.,`S:1 }'~ .- ~ l 7 '~,~„ l'~ +'` „xp Nr' r ~ *~ ,'+ ~ i : ~ t ;,.l,.,,_._..:~._..:...x..~~. -.~ _------- __ ._._._. ._ Q : ~ ~ MIDNTES, CITY PLANNING CONA4ISSION; October 21, 1968 ~gl CONDITIONAL IISE - TgE HEARZNG WAS CIASED. PEftMIT=NO. 106 Continued Discuseion was held by the Co~i.saion, aummarized as followa: 1. Proposal o£ a motel was never conaidered as a compatible uee in the C-0 Zone, nor was.thia type of re-use of the R-1 propert~.ea fronting on Ball Road coneidered by the Commiasion where it was determined that C-O zoning was appropriate for ; theae properties. 2. The.t the propoaed uae; with two-story construction almost i'~ediately adjacent to the Rrl propertq.to the eouth of Berry Avenue, could have an undesirable ~ effect on the peace and health of the single-family reaidente. ~! ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ 3. That the "•~urs of arrival attd departure of motel ueera would be aomewhat irregular k ~ to that '~ally eatabliahed by Rtl reaidents and could create unnecessaiy noiaes. ~ ~ 4• That the uae propoaed was conaiderably heavier thsn that normally exp~riettced in ? the C-0 Zone. `~ Mra. Madieon then adviaed the Con~i.eaion that a 40-foot street aeparated the motel ~ ~ development fram homea on Berxy Avenue, and no atrueture was proposed adjacent to the :' aingle-£emily home; immediately adjacent to aubject property on the north aide of ,.~' Berry Avenue. FSirthermore, the property owners had been attempting For the paet three * ~; yeara to denelop the property for C-0 uaea, but no buyer had £ittalized the trattsaction '`' becauae of the alley requirement. r `~ ~ ~'~ Commissioner Diungall offered a motion to approve subject petition; however, the motiott ~h:-~.:;~ wae loat for lack of a aecond. ,. _ _. , _~ • Co~i.saioner Rowland offered Reaolution No. PC68-315 and moned £or its passage and adoption, aeconded by Commisaioner Herbet, to deny Petition For Cottditional Uee Permit No. 1067, on the baeis that the propoaed uae would adveraely afPect the aingle-family uaea to the aouth and eaet of sub3ect property; that the propoaed uae was coneiderably more intenae than the,co~ercial office use considered appropriate for theae propertiea fronting on the eouth aide o£ Ba11 Road as indicated by the Anaheim General Plan and the F~ont~Ott Study; that the petitioner did not proye a hardalii.p exiated due to the aize and ahape of the parcel to conaider favorably the waiver requested; that the pro- poaed uae would create an undue hardahip on.the reaidential itttegrity of the eingle- Pamily rrubdiviaion to the aouth and east due to the fact that the uaera of the motel would be arriving and leaving durittg houra not normally maintained by the reaidente of aingle-family homea, thereby being detrimental to the eace, health, safety, and general welfare of theae residenta. (See Reaolution Book~ On roll ca11 the foregoittg resolution wae pasaed by the followittg vote: A1'ES: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, FC=ano, Herbst, Rowland. NOFS: C02+IDfISSIONERS: Mungall. ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIF~ARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 Eaet N0. 68-69-3 Lincoln Avenue, .Anaheim, California; proposing that property deacribed as: An irregularly ahaped parcel of approximately 2.85 acrea of land havittg a frontage of approximately 320 feet on the aouth side of Orange Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 345 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 40$ feet weat of the centerline of Brookhurat Street, and further described as the Orange-Thiatle Annexatioa, be reclassified from the COUNTY R-4-6,000 and PD-Q,000 DISTRICTS to the City of Anaheim R-A, AGRICULTUpAI,, ZONE. ~ Aaeociate Planner Marvitt Krieger adviaed the Co~3.seion that aubject petition had been ini.tiated to place interim zoning on sub~ect property prior to final annexatioa; however, the official'anner.ation was reccrded on October 18, 1966, ar~d the reclassification of the property to R-3 zoning under Reclasaification No. 67-68-73, approved in June, 1968, would have the second reading of the ordinance on 0etober 22, 1968 - therefore, because o£ the fact that the annexation proceedinga and the'reading of the ordinance were effected at a more rapid pace than originally contemplated, conaideration of sub3eet reclasaifica- tion was no longer ttecessary, and, therefore, the Co~3.eaion might wish to recommend to the City Council thst eubject reclassification be termi.nated. Commiaeioner Rowland of£ered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 68-69-33 be terminated on the basis that anne~tion proceedings and ;. -- -- °,; . ~.,:.._ ~~~`~ ~S"T~ ,, y ~. {;,'~" t~' ~'r ~,'~~1~ a .j'~"`3,/~ J ~~~ra ~+~ ~:t "~~'rs,~N~~ ,3~ i '~ ?a z ~c i ;{} '7 ~ ~' "4 ~ wy .. } j ~ ~c ~ k xi+Y r ~C'i ~ ~R' ~r ~ u~~ ~' ~ ~~ M^ay, i~ i ~ ~ ~ .. 5 Y< . ki { i „ ~ t I 1 ,~-.r. E,:rl~a~' I ~ 3t ~`d~ 't'~ i_.4^~i.ni .a T31~. f i~.. ., . ~• ~:~ ~ . ~;.,t>Ir.,...,....r {.C .n ..vt -.'I. ~ ., .,. _Ys.S J. . (.~'-. .a . .. . . ~....i . ~. _~:'. .. ,..~ 'O ~~ .. . .... . ~ ~ ~..~ ~ . . ~ . ~ .. .~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CJMMISSION, Octots r 21, 1968 ,~g2 RECLASSIFICATION - reclaseification of,the property:to the City of A~aheim Rr.3 Zotte NO, b8-6 - would be in effect'prior to an,q consideration by the City Council Continued) : since annexation took.place 0etober 18~ 1968, and the second Teadirg°of the;ordinance to the R-3 Zone would be accomplished before:the City Council on.0etober 22, 1968.~ Commiasioner Herbat aeconded the:motion. MOTION CARRIID, " RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. IIIITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CONIhffSSION, 204 East N0. 68=69-34 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider reclasaification of property deacribed as: Att irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 36 acrea of land having a frontage of approximately 1,660 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Can,yon Road and a maximiim depth of approximately 1,000 feet, the southweaterly corner of eaid parcel being opposite the interaection of Walnut Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road, and further.described as Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 2, from the COUNTY A1, AGRICULTURAI, DISTRICT to the RtA, AGRiCULTITR/~,, ZONE. Assiatant 2oni.ng Supervisor Pat Brown revi.ewed the location of aub~ect property, noting that the adjoining lattd usea were primarily agricultural; that subject property would be officiall,v annexed i.nto the City of Anahei.m approximately the middle of 2lovember, 1968; and that a reclasaification petition for R-2-9000 zoning £o•r a portion of sub3ect property had been recommended for approval £or Rri zotting by the Planning Co~isaion - however, on Oetober l, 1968, the City Council denied the request for R-2-5000; and thet the proposed zoni.ng would place the property in its most appropriate zone within the City of Anaheim and would be comparable to that in the County. No one appea:red in opp6sition to aubject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Co~iasioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-316 and moved for ita passage and adop- tion, seconded by Co~i.saioner Herbst, to recou~end to the City Council that Petitiott for Reclasaificatiott No. 68-69-34 be approved, unconditionally. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONA4ISSIONERSc Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlaxid. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COhB~1ISSI0NERS: Camp, Gauer. RECLASSIFICATION. - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANIJING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 68-69-36 Lincoln Ayenue, Anaheim, California; propoaing that property des- cribed as: Five paroela of land compriaing a total of approximately south by La Palma AvenueaandeWhiteeStar Avenuee and onetheg orthBby MiralomaeAvenue,tthe easterly botuidary of said land being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard, and further described as the La Palma Miraloma Anrlexation be reclasai- fied from COUNTY 100-M1-20,000 FOR PARCIIS l, 2, 3 AND 4 and 100-M1(0)-20,000 DISTRICT FOR PARCEL 5 to the R-A, AGRICULTIJRAL, ZONE FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AI1D 4, and R-A(0), AGRICULTURAL (OIL PRODUCTION) ZONE FOR PARCEL 5. Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Browa reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the annexation would become of£icial approximately the middle of November, 1968, and the proposed zoning would place an interim zoning on the property until auch time as ordinaness kere read, placing them in their more appropriat3 zone, namely the M-1 Zone, since aub~ect property was a part of the ilortheast Induatrial Area. Mr. Frank Duttoan, aymer of Duncan Steel located weaterly of the northwest corner of Red Gum and Coronado Streets, appeared before the Commiasion and inquired whether or not hia property was undar cottsideration for rezoning since it was not his deaire to be annea:~~ into the City of Anaheim, The Commission adviaed Mr. Dun,caa that hia property had nc' ~an included in the annexa- tion proceedinge and would atill be a part of the County. 1 No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition. ~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED. , '. ~s'~~~ "~jl" ~~~ ~, ~, , ~.:~_ ~ .. / Y';~ , :~:. : ';.`.:~:; ~,;,JF!'~!M1°+~.ya~ ~m,.'~sz+~E~t'P{FI FT~ ~r-{ ~' t'jTM;7'. n~Y~ ,,~W ,1 q~a ~ws~G i?. , 4 a c q ' '.::GS ~ ~ 1 - -----. .----.. ~ _...- -. _ :. ~ 1`~ .~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING OpNlMISSION, October 21, 1968 4183 RECLASSIFICATION - Commisaiotter Rowland ofFered Resolution No. PC68-317 and moved N0. 68_ _ 6 for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaiotter Farano, Continued) to reco~end to the City Council that Petition Por Reclasaification No. 68-69-36 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) Ott roll call the foregoing reaolutiott wae pasaed by the following vote: A~: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. NOFS: C@~IISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. :cECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INiTIATED BY THE CITY pLANNING C02~IISSION, 204 East N0. 6g_6 _gry Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Cali£ornia; propoaing that property deacribed as: Five parcels of land compriaing a total of approximately 113 south by La Pa]ma Avenue9attd WhiteyStas Avenueaeandnonhtheenorth byuMiraloma Avenuen the easterly boundary being approximately 660 ,feet weat of the centerline of Yiraemer Boulevard, said parcels being described as follows: ~'arcel 1- Approx3mately 106 acrea compriaing the majority oF the area of the La Pa1ma-Miraloma 1~nne~mtion; Parcel 2- A lot of approxi- mately .8 acres o£ land having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the aouth side o£ Corcnado Street and a max3mum depth of approximatelq 310 feet, the weaterly boundary of eaid lot being approximately 660 feet east of the centerline of Blue Crum Street; Parcel - Approximately 2.3 acres of land located at the northeast corner o£ La palma Avenue and Red Gum Street and having approximate frontages of 380 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue attd 278 feet on the east side of Red Gum Street; Parcel - Approximately 1.1 acrea of land having a frontage of approximately 160 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 660 feet weat of the centerline of Krasmer Bou]e vard; and Parcel - A triangularly sliaped parcel of approximately 3 acrea of land located between La Palma Avenue to the north, i~ite Star Avenue to the south aad west, and Red Gum Street to the east, an3 further described as the I,e, Palma_Miraloma Annexation, be reclasaified from the Tt-A, AGRICULTURAL,ZONE FOR pAR~ELS 1~ z~ 3 AND Q to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE AGRICULTURAL OILMPRO CTION)N~ZONE FOR PARCEL 5 toRthe~+MZl(0'),~LIGHTaINDUSTRIALe(OIL(~,~ PRODUCTION) ZONE. Asaistant Zotting Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the locatiott of aub3ect property, noting that the property was five parcels of land of approximately 113 acres and the propoaed zoning would eatabliah M-1 zoning £or Parcel Q without conditiona; a resolution of intent for Parcel 1, eubject to conditiona as outlined in the Report to the Commi,asion; Parcela 2 and 3, M-1 resolution o£ intent subject to conditions as set forth in the Report to the Commisaion; and M-1(0) reaolution of intent for Parcel 5, sub~ect to cottditiona as set forth in the Report to the Coa~ission; and that aub~ect property was known as the La Palma-Miraloma Anne~tion. No one appeared in oppoaition to sub~ect petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. On roll call the forec;riry~ reaolution was pasaed by the £ollowing vote: AYESs COMMISSIONER:i: "llred, Farano, Herbat, Mungall, Rowlattd. NOES: CONAZISSIONERS; None. ABSINT: CAMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer. Oommi.saioner Herbat of£ered Reaolution No. PC68-318 and moved for ita passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 68-69-37 be approved, aub~ect to conditions as outlined in the Report to the Commiasion for Parcels l, 2, 3 and 9. (See Reaolution Book) I~,. REPORTS AND - ITr'I~I N0. 1 ~~~ RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed amendment to Chapter 18.16, Agricultural Zone - '` To amend Section 18.16.030(4) to permit incidetttal sale of agricultural products grown on the premieea only. ~; Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commisaion that the proposed amendment to the Agricultural, Zone was to be a fair'_y aimple one and would reduce the unaightlineas ; of prodiice stands, such ea that located at Euclid axid Cerritoa Avenue, from being a year R; around operation. ~;~ ~ :';~ -; --~ ~ ~t ~z,>a ' ,~~u; g , ~.~::_. - ,.:.:. ._ f ~? T~, f r ;~~~. ~ y rr ~.'.:..'. - -?k: r;~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANDTING COMMISSION, October 21, 1968 REPORTS AND RECOh]MENDATIONS - ITFM N0. 1 (Continued) The Coffinisaion inquired as to the number of atands operating within the City of Anaheim; whereupon Mr. Thompaon stated that there were betweett fifteen and twenty. Commi.aeioner Herbat offered a motion to dir;,a~t the Commisaion Secretary to set for public hearing an amettdment to Title 18, Chapter 18.16, Section 18.16.030(4), to be conaidered at the November 4, 1968 meeting and directed the staff to notify the operatora of the present produce atanda peraottally that'the propoaed amendment wae to be conaidered by the Planning Co~ni.saion, rather than the nnrmsl method of a legal notice. Co~.isaioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIID, Mr. Thompson adviaed the Commisaion that the actual names and addresaea of the produce operatora would be obtained from tue busineas licensea granted by the City of Anahe3m, ITEM N0. 2 Policy £or arterial highwa.y rear-ott lota in aingle-family residential developmenta. Zoning Superv~?eor Ronald Thompson advised the Co~isaion that the City of Anaheim, like many other cities, had developed many single-family residential homea which fronted-on or aided-on arterial atreete, and as a reault, the City of Anaheim was ~ntinually receiving zoning requesta to utilize theae homea for commercial purpoaea. F~rthermore, to preclude further development of front-on lots on arterial highways, a Developmettt Review policy was f'ormed wherein aingle-£amily residential propoaed aubdivision front- on lota on arterial hig$waye were diacouraged, attd the ataff auggeated that thia program of development review snould become an official City policy and be ao recommended by the Planning Commiaeion to the City Council for adoption aince this could act as a guide for developera of future single-fam.ily residetttial subdiviaiona within the City. Mr. Thompaon also noted that aerious conaideration should be given to excluding any development of not ottly arterial front-on but also side-on reaideniial structurea eince the,City had had many requeats to convert aide-on residential lota for commercial lattd uye, and the reco~ended policy to the City Cou~il should read as £ollowa: "It is the policy of the City Council that conetruction or development of single-£amily reeidetttial structures aci,jacent to arterisl highways, as deaignated on the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan - Arterial Streets and Highways, aha11 require that reaidential atructurea be oriented so as to "rear-on" such highways." Diacusaion was hel.d by the Co~ission relative to establishing this as part of an ordinance rather than policy, although the policy could be aet up on an interim basis by the City Council. Commiasioner Rowland oPfered a metion to direct the Commiesion Secretary to aet for public hearing coneideration of an amenc~nent to Title 18, Chapter 18.04, General Proviaions, to include single-family lots abutting arterial highwaye to rear-ott such highways rather than aide-on or front-on. Coauni.saioner Herbst aecottded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, Commisaioner Rowland offcred a mution +~ recommend to the City Council that an interim policy be established as follows: "It is the policy of the City Council that construction or deve],opment ~f aingle-fami.ly residential atructures adjacent to arterial highways, as deaignated on the Circulation Element o£ the Anaheim General Plan - Arterirzl Streeta and Highways, sha11 require that residential atructures be oriented ao as to "rear-on" such highways.~~; said interim policy to be effactive until public hearing for the addition of Section 18.04.075, General Proviaiona,had been heard at public hearing by the Commisaion and Cit~• Council and was eetablished as an ordinance. Co~isaioner Herbat aeconded the motion. MOTION CARI;IED, ~r~~ ,~ -,:~;, .~~~ ; , `~ ~ ,, ,~. . . . , , _. . L,~...: ,,~. ,.. ~ ~ . ~ . . . __ ,~~ Y ~S 3 2 ~ ~~; L ~l • . . . , ..,. ~ . ,. . .. , . . . . . . . ~ ~ . ~ "~''~ '. G^ .~z`~+r .~' ~r ~~~cx} /i ' '. tY f e; + , --~- ~~ ~47 1~IIN[TTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 21, 1968 REPORTS AND REOOMMENDATIONS ~ .--- ___~. .__ ~~ ~ ~ 47.85 - IT_EM N0~ TENTATIYE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6785 - ``'?,; Subdivider: Brookhurst Shopping Center, 2293 Weat Ball Road, Anaheim, CaliFornia, mgineer: Technological `~'i Eagineering Corporation, 4921 Durfee Avenue, Pico Rivera, - California - Propoaing that property bounded on the eaet Uy Brookhuret Street, on the aouth by Ball Road, and on the west by the City of Anaheim city limite and on the ' north by Vancouver Drive, be subdivided into 13 ~-1 lots. ~: Aeaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted £or the Co~i.saion that when the Planning <"r•~''u Coarm3.saion approved Variance No. 2005 to permit a parcel of land for a U. S. Post Office not abutting at least oae public street or elley, tha petitioner had aubmitted a parcel map which ahowed a subdiviaion of aubject proparty identical to that preaently propoaed '''~ under Tentative Map of Tract No. 6785. However, the County Surveyor's office had indicated they could not approve the parcel map due to the overall aize of the property involned and indicated a tentative tract map for the subdiviaion would have to be sub- mitted - which was the reason £or this requeat. } Mr. Brown further ttoted that a request had been received from the developer-engineer of the propoaed tract to defer any conaideration by the Planning Commisaion of Tentative Tract No. 6785 to the meeting o£ November 18, 1968; becauae o£ recently enacted legisla- tion by the State governing tract and parcel maps, there may be tto need to have a tract map recorded. However, this action would not become final until November 15, 1968, and therefore, the request for continuance to conaider aub~ect tract to the 18th of November was being made. Commisaiotter Rowland ofPered a motion to continue cottaideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6785 to the meeting of November 18, 1963, as requeated by the engineer o£ the propoaed tract. Commisaioner Munga]1 aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ADJOURNMENT - There being no flxriher buainess to discusa, Co~isaioner Rowland of£ered ~ motion to ad3ourn the meeting to October 28, 1968 at 7:00 P,M. for a work sesaion on the up-dating of the Anaheim Getteral Plan. Commiesioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. Respectflally aubmitted, L~~/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anahe3m City Planning Commisaion *:;~ ~-` ` . _,, ,, ._ ~. +.-~w..: ~"'°~'.,i~S,-; - - ._: . , :~~. . , .,.~ .:.. ^~n.,~ ' '~, L w-N.~-+ >...r.~~^ ~':;. . . . , . . . ., ' . . ~ .. ~ ~ . . i .. . . . . .