Loading...
Minutes-PC 1965/03/29~ } city Hall Anaheim, California March 29, 1965 A REGULAR N~ETING OF THE qNAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR Iu~ETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 p.mo, a quorum being presento PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowlando ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Robert Mickelson Deputy City Attorney: Jerry Brody Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Planning Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg INVOCATION - Reverend C. R. Freeman, Grace Baptist Church, gave the Invocation~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of March 15, 1965, were approved as submittedo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEpRING. FINANCIAL FEDERATION, INCORPORATED, 921 West Beverly N0. 64-65-94 Boulevard, Mor~~ebello, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated northerly TENTATIVE h1AP OF of the Santa Ana Ganyon Road and westerly of Imperial Highway, the TRACT N0. 5844 southerly boundary of said property coincides with the northerly right- of-way boundary of the Santa Ana Valley irrigation canal, and the east~- ern boundary lies approximately ?70 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway; the northern boundary of subject property is the easterly prolongation of the northern boundary of Tract No. 5229 which lies immediat•ely west of subject property, from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. DEVELOPER: GAR-L0, INCORPORATED, 92i West Beverly Boulevard, Montebello, Californiao ENGINEER: Kemmerer Engineering Company, Incorporated, 145 North Painter, Whittier, Californiao Subject tract, located northerly of Santa Ana Canyon Road and westerly of Imperial Highway, and covering approximately 12 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 44 R-2, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lotso Subject petition and tentative tract were continued from the meeting of March 1, 1965, in order that a determination might be made as to the ultimate alignment of the freeway by the State, and for the petitioner to incorporate said recommendations into a revised tract mapo Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a request had been received from the engineer requesting that subject petition and tract map be continued to the meet- ing of April 12, 1965, because the necessary information had not been receivedo Discussion was held by the Commission as to whether or not approval of continuance might be interpreted that the Commission considered the proposed reclassification favorably. It was then noted that the petitioner and engineer should be notified that the continuance might be granted, but that the Commission could give no assurance that the extension might assure the petitioner that the Commission favorably considered the proposed reclassificationo Commissioner Rowland offer=d a motion to continue the public hearing of Petition for Reclassi- fication No, 64-65-94 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 5844 to the meeting of April 12, 1965, and direct the Commission Secretary to advise the petitioner and the engineer that the grant- ing of said continuance did not offer any assurance that subject petition would be approved, since the Commission was not convinced that subject property should be developed for multiple- family developmento Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo - 2528 - ~ , r ` ~ A4INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 252g TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: DELTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 504 Newport Boulevardy I'RACT NOo 56~4, Newport Beach, Californiao ENGINEER: McDaniel Engineering Company, REVISION N0____~__~1 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiao Subject tract, located on the west side of Loara Street, approximately 461 feet south of Orangewood Avenue and containing l05 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 6 R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lotsa Mro C, Ra McDaniel, representing the engineer, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questionso Zoning Coord~inator Robert Mickelson reviewed the original tract map submitted and noted ' • that an additional lot was proposed in the revisec' map +ogether with approval of the c,~.~~;~ proposed 56-foot wide street with a double bulb type cul-de•-sac, t~~ ' ~.;~~ Cortmiissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Revision Noa 1 of Centative Map of Tract r~i Noo 5684, subject to the iollowing cenditions~ r;i (1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each ~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval~ i .:~ , (2) That Street "A" shall be developed with a full roadway 36 feet wide with curb and gutter~ :~ (3) That a one•-foot holding strip along the north side of Street "A" wili be ,`1 permitted and shall be designated as Lot "A",. (4) That a predetermined price for Lot "A" shall be calculated and an agreement for dedication eritered into between the Developer and the City of Anaheim prior to 3pproval of the final tract map„ The cost of Lot "A" shall include land and a proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvementso (5) That Street "A" shall be recorded as Lorane Wayo (6) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No~ 5684, Revision No, 1, is granted subject to the completion of reclassification proceedin9s on subject property, ; Commissioner Gauer seconded tne motione MOTION CARRIED~ CONSIDERATION OF AN AA~NDN~NT TO T!-lE R-: ZONE REQUIRING RECLASSIFICATION OF R-A PROPERTY TO T!-~ MOST APPROPRIATE ZONE WF~N A TE!JTATIVE TRACT MAP 4YAS FILED~ ________ Mro C, R, McDaniel, representing the McDaniel Engir.eering Company, appeared before the Commission and stated the Amendment to the R-A Zone in 1964 required that R-A property be reclassified to the R•-i9 One-Family Residential, Zone, at the time a t?r.tative tract map was filed; that this was creating a problem in that the time delay from the original time of approval of a tentative tract, 34 days, to obtaining reclassification of property of three months, due to the fact that closing of escrow could not be accomplished until the latter date, which sometimes presented quite a burden on the original property owners ~ trying to transfez their equity from the land being subdivided into their new home - such as the time, money, and red tape; and that the Commission should consider an amend- ment to the Code to provide for a shorter time delay by one uf the following methods: ' (1) If the property adjacent to the proposed tract was developed for R-1, and the 4 tentative tract was proposing R-1 subdivision, the Commission might wish to have a blanket reclassification for those oroperties to the R-1 Zone, i j (2) That all properties should be held in the R-1 Zone, rather than ~he R-A Zone, for future developmente i i (3) Where the General Pian indicates low-density residential development for the properties, these also should be placed in the R-A Zone, since some ager.cir> i~ the County pre-zoned land subject to annexation. (4) :hat the tract map be approved subject to filing an approval of a reclassification petitiono Thi.s, then, would be a form of pre-zoning the property. Mr, iv~cL~ariiel continued, stating that escrows were set i,p by financial institutions for _ financing in construction, and the loaning of a certain amount of the funds for the * purchase of land, but this was not paid until the final tract map was recorded in the County~ and that this made it quite a hardship on the property owner, the prospective ~ property owner, the developer, and all concerned in the development of the R-1 tract. ~ _. . ._.: . ,:.:_._ . .,. ~~_:__, _~ _ _ ,__.: .. -- -- -'~ ~ . , - ~ _ .~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2530 CONSIDERRTION OF AN AMENDN~NT TO THE R-1 ZONE REQUIRING RECLAS53F1~ATIDN OF R•-A PROPERTY TO T!-lE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONE Wf~ N A TEN'CATIVE TRACT MAP WAS FILED,. (Continued) Further, that his comments were made oniy in the hope the Commission would initiate a studq to consider. a possibie change to the Code, but he did not want the Commission to feei he was by-passing State requirements that a public hearing be held for reclassi- fication of any propertyo Zoning Coordinator Robert fdickelson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that formerly, when an R-1 tract was filed, the maximum amount of time between the filing and the approval of the tentative tract was approximately 34 days, and that now a petition for reclassification had to be filed and the tract was considered concurrently with the reciassification, which made it a 24-day time lag between the time the reclassification was filed and the Commission considered it, and an additional 24 to 30 days before the City Council considered it •- this made an additional 20 to 25 days because of reclassi•- fication proceedings~ : Discussion was held by the Commission as to the most appropriate method of resolving the problen. presented by Mr~ McDaniel, whereupon Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the Plannino Department to make a study and report to the Commission upon its completion the best possible means of resolving the problem of reclassification of R-A property to the R-1 Zone at the time a t~ntative tract map was filed„ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDo RECI.ASSIFICATIO[~ ~- PUBLIC f~ARING, GEORGE J.. ANp MARY R. A~DDICK9 200 East Wi.ihelmina NO., 64•••65-100 __ Street, Anaheim California Owners;GkIL. V.ARY °. 0„ Aox 67 Anaheim ~ •--------------- e e ~ • e e California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped VARIANCE N0; 1694 parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 52 feet. on the east si.de of Claudina Street and a makimum depth of approx.imately 155 feet, tha nor;.hern boundary of said property being appror.imately 441 feet south of ths centerline of North Street, and further described ~s ?28 North Claudina Street~ Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE•-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOU: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDE~TIAi, ZONE, REQIJESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF FOLLOWING CODE PROVISIO~~S: (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES; (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARDS; (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED RECREATION_-LEISURE AREAi AND (4~_MINIMUM REOUIRED FLOOR AREA__~_ Mro Gail Vary, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the plans submitted were the same as the apartment structure at the southivest corner of North and Claudina Streets; that since the last time said plans were submitted, the R•-3 Code requirements had changed, ihereby necessitating a request for waiver of the square foot size of three units; further, in response to Commission questioning, stated the patios would be the same as the plans indicated, and that the pJ.anter area would be the same except that one planter area from the side would be moved to the fronto - Mro Ro L~ Pheyley, 727 Nor•ch Philadelphia Street, appeared before the Cortur,ission in opposition, ar.d stated he and his neighbors were opposed to the change in zone, since this would permit a heavy residential density for an area not designed for heavy traffic; that he was speaking for a number of neighbors present in the Council Chamber who also opposed the proposed reclassification; and upon being advised by the Commission that the , oid garage at the rear of ;,he lot would be removed, stated he was still opposed to having heavy density zoning for subject or any abutting properties., Mrso Evelyn Dhont, 731 NorLh Claudina Street, appeared in opposition and stated that the streets in the area were too narrow to permit on•-street parking of extra carsq that the proposed reclassification would be located in the middle of a block primarily developed with one and two-family homes; that the proposed reclassification would be incompatible to the area; and that if subject petition were approved, this would set a precedent for heavier, multiple-family residential deveiopment in the entire area~ Mr~ Ro B. Mouch, 730 North Claudina Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that subject property was too small to accommodate the same type of development as was developed on the corner of Nor±h and Claudina Streets; that his property would be primarily affected by cars parked on the street since the frontage of subject property could not accommodate an additional four cars, which in all likelihood would be there because today's families i~ad two cars each; and that a number of property owners in the area, who were also opposed, were unable to attend because of their working hours, and asked that he exF~ress their oppositiona " '~ , i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO,'J, March 29, 1965 ' 253i RECLASSIFICATION - Eight persons present in the Council Chamber indicated their N0~ 64~-65-100 __ opposi' ion to subject petit~.o~,sa VARIANCE NO„ 1694 Mr~ Ro E~ Pratt, 715 North Claudina Street, appeared before the (Continued) Commission in favor of subject petitions, and stated he also represented Mr, 0. So Smith, 747 North Claudina Street and Mrs. B~ Eo Berry, 125 East Wilhelmina, further statinq he was the oldest resident on the street, having been there 26 years; that it was his opinion the area should be upgraded, and the development at the corner of North and Claudina Streets was a prime example of improving the area; that he did not feel the proposed reclassification would decrease the values of the adjacent properties, but would, in fact, increase their values since lar.d values were going up, and a need for more residential development was indicated due to the population explosion in the area, and it was quite possible the entire area would have a heavier residential zoning than presently existed, Mrs~ Dhont again appeared before the Commission and stated that if the Commission con- sidered reclassification oi the entire area, there would not be as much opposition, but to have an individual parcel developed was considered detrimental to the area, and that because one property owner was desirous of reclassifying his property, did not mean the entire neighborhood should suffer because of his desires~ Mrso Lila Hood, 732 North ~hiladelphia Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, and stated the development on the corner of North and Claudina Streets had two sides for the parking of cars; therefore a parking problem did not exist as it would if a parcel were developed similarly in the middle of a block, and that if subject petition were approved, this might rnake a difference in the tax assessments for the entire area, to which she was violently opposed„ In rebuttal, Mr~ Vary stated everyone present was aware of the type of deve:opment he proposed; that the tenants were required to park their cars and lock the garayes; and that there quite a possibi.:ity there would be no more than one car per :amily, if sub•- ject petition were approved~ TI-lE t~ARING WAS CLOSED,. Discussion was held by the Commission on the p*oposed change in density for subject ~ propertyp that the R-2 Code was amended last year, which permitted three units for the _ square footaqe of the lots in the area; that no R-3 deveiopment existed in the area, _ except for the one at the corner of North and Claudind; and that if subject petition were approved, this might set a precedent for the area„ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, 1567y Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissi~ner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Peti•• tion for Reclassification tJo„ 64•-65-100 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed reclassification of subjeci property ~vas not necessary or desirable for the orderly develop ment of the community; thai the proposed reclassification would set a precedent for develop ment of multiple-family uses on narrow lots, placing a heavy burden on the streets to handie traffic for which these streets were not designed; that the parki.ng of cars in the area was a critical problem; and if subject petition were approved for the plans submitted, a precedent would be established for substanda.rd parking facilities_ (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowiand„ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allreda Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 1558, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Variance No~ 1694., (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ * ~ P MINL7ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2532 CONDITIONAL USE •- PUBLIC HEARIi~G~ THEODORE W,. WILSON, c/o MacMahon, Nelson 8 T;isonY 1?ERMIT NO__681_ 16y5 'Nest Crescent Avenue, Suite 560, Anaheim, California, Owner; M4CMAHON, NELSON 8 TILSONy 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Suite 560, Anaheim, Californiay Agentg requesting permission to establish an inland m3rina for the sales, servicey repair, reconditioning, and parking of boats and associated mazine accessories, on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 263 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approxiinately 1,200 ieet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2704 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presentiy classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE„ Mr~ Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and re- viewed the propcsed development~ stating it was uniquely suited to the area and this wouid be about the best development that could be hoped for on this particular property because of the high line wires running across or,e half of subject property, preventing most ordinary uses; that it would be most advantageous to develop vacant property in the ~~~ to its highest and best use; and in response to Commission puestioning, Mr, Macn~.,,,on stated that ttie existing buiiding would be removed; further, that they would ha~e some spaces up tc 30 feet in iength for stor3ge of iarger boats; that ali boat repa:= work would be done indoors; that to prove the feasibility of such a develop•- ment, he stated they had 35 leases from residents of the City alone which would take boats out of front and rear yards of residences, thus presenting a better overall appe3r•- ance of residential areas~ It was further stipulated by the agent for the pe±itioner that a six-foot masonry waii would be constructed on the eastY west and south property lines, and that the proposed landscaping in the f:oni: setback was partially for advertis- ing pu~poses to exhibit one of the hoats that would be scld in the buiiding. At the Comrt;ission`s request, the agent submitted a small coior rendering of the proposed development for inclusion in the file:~ A discussion was held by the Commission in which it was determined that deveiopment should not be limited to ihe storing of boat trailers, but also 17~foot camping trailers, and th3t ir siorage of mobile homes was ever contemplated in the future, the petition would hav~ to be readvertised for a new public hearing to consider a change in use~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE I-fEARING WAS CLOSED:~ , Cortunissioner Rowland offered Resolution No:. 1569, Series 1964-65y and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No., 681, subject to conditions and with the understanding that only camping trsilers (not to exceed 17 feet in length) may be stored on subject development, as stipulated to by the petitioner:. ;See Resolution Book,) i On roll call the foregoing xesolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES= COM~IIISSIONERS: Canp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland ! NOES: COMMISSIO~'ERS: iJoneo ~ ARSENTc COMMISSIOIdERS: Allred. RECOMMENDATION OF AA~NDMEiJT TO ORDIhA~~CE ~!0 _2126__________ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No„ 1582, Series 1964•-55, and moved for its passage and adoptionY seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council th~t Chdin~r,ce Nc 2:26, Condiiion 1~0 6, be amended, whichieciassi *ied certein property inRe~iassi fication No., 63-64•-2 to the C-1, General Cummercial, Zone, which re3d as iollows: "That subject property shall be developed subsiantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Revision No~ 1, Exhibit f~oso 1, 2 and 3, provided that a minimum 30-foot wide drive is incorporated into the dev~topment to provide access to the rear of subject property„" and substituting thereto, "Exhibit Nos, 1 through 7 approved in Conditional l.ise Permit No,. 681 by the Commission in Resolution No. 1~69y 5eries 1964~-65, dated March 29, 1965", (See Resolution Bookaj r.~ *; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; 1'~ ~. I AYES: COMMI5SIONERS; Camp, Gaver, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ :a 7 ~ RBSENT: COMMISSIOiJERS: Allred> F MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2533 VARIAMCE NO,N1~89 - PUBLIC HEARING~ FRANK AND LORETTA H~ KROGMA~, 2338 Wagner Si:eet, Anaheim, California, OwnPrs; JA(u~S E. GRAVE, 6849 Live Oak, 3e11 Gardens, California, Agent; requesting permission to waive the foilowing Code provisions: (1) Number of free-standing signs within 300 feet of another and total number of free-standing signs on one parcel and (2) permitted location of ;ree-standing signs (closer to property line than 40% of width of parcel) on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located west and south of the service station site located at the southwest corner of La Palma and M~gnolia Avenues9 subject property having frontages of approximately 105 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue 3nd approximately 458 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, the western boundary of said property being approximately 290 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 1027 North Magnolia Avenuee Property presently ciassified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZOi~E, Mr~ J~ E~ Grave, agent for the petitioner, appeared b=fore the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. The Commission inquired why the piot plan did not conform with thE existing striping in the paiking area since if subjact property were properly striped in accordance with adopted parking standards, it was quite possibie the pz•oposed sign would eliminate some of the required parkingo Mz•,. Grave stated he had co-tisulted with a member of the Planning Stafr' on a number of occa- sions,~nd since the general description of the property seemed tu be in order, this was not considered when he filed the petition; that there were a number of f*ee~-standing signs for some of the other businesses there, and to dNny the proposed sign would be cre:3ting a hardship~ Zoning Coordinato~ Robert N,ickelson advised the Commission that at least one parking space would be eliminated if the proposed sign were approved; that the proper stripino fortne parking area had been approved for the petitioner some time ago, but that the 3pproved striping had not been placed on subject property; and that because the plot pian did not conform, the Staff was unable to determine the required parking, and upon field checking the property, it was then determined what the petitioner was requesting, Discussion was held by the Commission which indicated that since the petitioner had never compiied with parking requirements, additional parking space was proposed to be eliminated by the free-standing sign; that the petitioner had been given approval of a previous petition subject to striping the parking area in con`ormance with the approved striping plan; that the existing signs were not in conformance with the Sign Ordinance, Chapter 18062, and to grant the proposed variance would further compound a violation of the Sign Grdinance and would further create a hardship for any other tenant who, in turn, could aiso request a variance; that the Sign Ordinance met with the approval of the sign industry; that before the Commission could make any judgmant on the validity of the requested sign, suoject petition should be referred back to the Staff to resolve any parking probiems and the consideration of the sign reouest should not be contingent upon the resolving of the parking, since a separate section of the Code was invoived, Comm~ssioner Perry offered a motion to continue the hearing of Petition for Variance No., 1689 to the meeting of April 26, 1965, ir. order that the Planning Department might have time to resolve parking problems on subject property, and that the consideration of the sign request was not contingent upon the parking requirements being met_ CoR~issioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEll, RECLP.SSIFICATIO~! - PUBLIC f-~ARING.. ESTATE OF A~~LlA LENZ, 230i 'v'Jest Crescent P,venue, i:!0_,64_65•_99__~ Anaheim, California, Owner; FREURICKS DEVELOFNIENT CORPORkTIU1~, 524 West Commo~wealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; property VARIA~~'CE iv_'0,_16~3 described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with z frontage of approximately 130 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 315 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 530 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street. and further described as 2301 West Crescent Avenuee Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTlAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YF,RD. Mr~ Russell Betker, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Conunission and reviewed the proposed development and the land use in the area surrounding subject property: , _ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission Finding No~ 3 of the ~~ Report to the Commission and noted that sirxe the variance was not necessary, the Staff recommended that it be terminatede ~ i .; I{ MINUTES., CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2534 RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions~ R~O., 64-65-99 TNE F{EARING WAS CLJSED~ V,VARIA~iCE ^Oo 1693 (Continued) Commissioner Perry offered Resolution fdoo 1570, Series 1964-65, and moved for i:s passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Counc~~l that Petition for Reclassification ~Jo~ 64-65-99 be approved, subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the :ollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COh1MISSIONERS: Allreda Commissioner Camp offered a motion to terminate Petition for Variance No, 1693, based on the fact that the variance was not necessary due to a dedicated roadway being adjacent to subject property; further, that it be recommended that the City Council refund the filing fee to the petitionero Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ RECiASSIFICATION - PUBLIC !-~ARING. BUTLER 8 HARBOUR, INCORPORATED, 22g3 West Lincoin NO_ 64_65~101 __ Avenue, Anaheim, California, and ADOLF SCHOEPE, 1800 Via Barton, Anaheim, California, Owners; BUTLER 8 HARBOUR, INCORPGRATED, 22g3 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent, requesting permission to construct a planned residential development on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcei of land with a frontage of approximately 1,580 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 1,860 feet; the eastern boundary borde=s County Tract Noe 4762; the northern boundary is directly south of, but not adjacent to the Yorba Linda Reservoir; and the westernmost corner boundary on Orangethorpe lies ap- proximately 890 feet east of Taylor Streeta Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALy ZONE. REQUESTED ~iASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEIJTIAL, ZONE. Mr., Merrill Butler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the back•- ground and proposed development of subject property, stating the property was zoned R-4 7199 PD 5400 under the County s jurisdiction at the time of its annexation to the City of Anaheim, which would have allowed a density of eight dwelling units per acre; that upon its annexation to the City, it was placed in the R-1 Zone; and that one of the cnnsidera- tions given to subject property was a request by the Placent.ia Unified School District for a school site tliereon~ D:, Earl Brewer, Assistant Superintendent of Business of the Placer.tia Unified School District, appeared before the Commission relative to the proposed school site to stress th:ee points: First, that the Orange County Planning Commission and its planning staff took cognizance of the fact that they had filed a master plan saturation study of the proposed site; secondly, that the same situation existed in terms of the Anaheim Planning Commission giving cognizance of the needs of a school district~ and third, that when it became known that the petitioner proposed the nlanned residential development, he informed Mro Butler that the school district would need a sctiool site in the proposed areao He further stated that a school site alre~dy existed in the Orchard Drive Area about 1~ miies from the school site indicated on the proposed layout, and that the proposed schooi site would be entirely saturated with resi.dential development to the north and east- In answer to the Commission's questioning, Mro Brewer siated that one of the stipulations placed upon them by the Bureau of School Planning of the State Uepartment of Education, who held jurisdiction over whether a school district could obtain a desired site, merely by agreeing or disagreeing, was that they have the approval of a fire marshall which he stated they already had; further, that they were in the process of acquiring subject site; that to make tF~e school's position clear, if this proposed development were to be approved by the Commission for eight units per net acre, they would have no objection in terms of generation of children as they considered this density to be the same as an R-1 development,. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that if this particular parcel of land were to be su5divided to R-1, that three to four lots per gross acre could be expected, probably closer to three and one-half; and that with the planned development as proposed for eight units, this would double the number of dwelling unitso '~ Mro Butler advised the Commission that their petition stated they were requesting a ~ maximum density of ten units ~~ to be an FNA Per acre, because of the fact that their development was 'I ~ which determined~that asathehfloor arearoflaWdvellinglunittwas reduced,nthesdensitylbecame ;~ higher; that they were anticipating a max:mum of ten units ~ per acre, but at the present MINUTES, CITY PLAIVIJING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2535 ~ RECLASSIFICATIQn' - time it was proposed to construct eight units per acre; that the develop- N0. 64-65=101 ment would be surrounded by a masonry wall, that this would then permit (Continued) the provision of private streets throughout the development with the exception of access to Orangethorpe Avenue and the school site; that it might be necessary to dedicate additional public streets to meet Code requirements; and that what was basically hoped to be achieved at the public hearing was approval of the proposed zoning, with the petitioner filing a conditional use permit petition at the time concise plans of development were availableo Further, since sub.ject property had a flood control channel bisecting it, it was proposed to develop a 100•-foot right-of-way, with landscaping along the usual cemented sides of the channel and a main channel in the center with smaller channels alor,gside for the collection of water from the streetso Mr. Hugh Halderman, the engineer for• subject development, appeared before the Commission to give flood control factors and figures if development occurred as R-1, stating they had been studying the property for two years in order to devise a suitable development plan which would allow for the flood control channel bisecting property; that the water came from the east and ran westerly across subject property and collected at Orangethorpe Avenue in a structure recently completed by the Orange County Flood Control District; that there were two possibilities for development - either a line channel or concrete chanriel, or a planned development type of approach which would not only utilize the proparty to its best advantage~ but would also develop a~ acre that could be used for recreational purposes since the f?ood control right-of-way was proposed as a greenbelt area which would provide some access and continuity in the development; that in considera- tion of this entire parcel for landscaping purposes and in zoning specifically, that they had a number of factors that would need to be contended with: first, that the southerly frontage was the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad which was immediately adjacent to Orangetnorpe Avenue; second, to the north was the regional park; further, that should this be developed as R-1, homes would be developed along Orargethorpe Avenue backing up to the railroad and Imperial Highway, or a service road would have to be installed which would permit these homes to front on Orangethorpe; that two vehicular accesses would be needed on Orangethorpe Avenue, and one would be proposed on each side of the channel; further, that in a planned development they would be able to restrict the traffic flow, and houses would be set back considerably from Orangethorpe. Further, that oil well sites on the north part of subjeci property would be partially screened by the proposed school and that under a planned development, the houses could be set back farther from the rail- road and street, utilizing ihat immed.ate area for parking space, a greenbelt, and recreation. In response to Commission`s questions as to whether or not the oil heads would be sunk in the ground, Mre Halderman siated that the only part that was standing now was the rocker arm (or motor) and that he did not believe they would be placed undergrourd, but added he really did not know their productive nature, eic~ Mro Halderman presented a map which outlined the general alignment of the proposed develop- ment, illustrating where three properties would be affected and, ultimately~ that this alignment would be part of a flood control bond issue; further, as an economic aspect of the proposed storm drain channel, Mr. Halderman pointad out that they would be prepared to lower the price to the buyer over $100 a unit. on an eight-unit basis as compared to six. It was further determined that it would cost the home buyer 5110 mo:e per month to buy a home of six units as compared to eight; therefore, it was not considered feasible by the developer to huild six units based on the present market conditions and stated he thought the builder to tne east would agree. In conclusion, Mr~ Butler and Mr. Halderman stated they would like to leave a letter addressed to the City of Anaheim from Rinker Development Corporation in which Mr, N, S. Rinker, the property owner to the east, stated he was not opposed to subject development. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission of a letter from the County of Orange which stated they would recommend denial of subject patition as it would allow twice the density previously permitted under thei* zoning and wanted to go on record that they would like a statement that the maximum number of proposed units would not exceed eight-ten units; further, tiiat it was his thought ihat the County recommended denial because +tiey were under the impression that our R-2 Zone would allow 18 units per acre, that he would think it safe to say that the County of Orange would be in favor of subject development; further, that it should be pointed out to the petitioners that the City`s planned development resolution would require standard streets that are determined necessary and that generally speaking, the City would prefer no standard street closer than 200 feet to a planned development type unit. A discussion was held by the Commission in which it was determined that since the presently requested R-2 Zoning was in effect at the time of annexation, it should not be denied to him now; that with the flood cortrol channel bisecting this property, this would be the best feasible means of development. l MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2536 RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in oppositiun tc subject petition. N0. 64-65-101 (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Re~.olution Noe 1571, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to approve Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-101, subject to conditions and that the development be restricted to 52 gross acres (eight units per net acre); further, that the granting of subject reclassification would not set a precedent• in this area for any future develop- ment Qf this type due to the contour of the land and the flood control channel. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECESS - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recess the h4aring for ' ten minutes. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:25 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:35 p.me, all Commissioners being present with the exception of ['ommissioner All:ed. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC t-~ARING. INITIATED BY TI-lE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East AN~NDMENT N0. 53 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing the change in street dedication of Richfield Road, southerly from ~9alnut Street to the Santa Ana River and =asterly from Jefferson Street, from its present designation as a collector street to a local street on the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way of the General Plan. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the location of Richfield Road on the GPneral ~ Plan, noting that it extended westerly along the Santa Ana River to Jefferson Street; '' that with the approval of the general alignment of La Palma Avenue, it was determined - that Richfield Road, because of the fact that sand and gravel operations utilized the - existing street, the street designation was unnecessary, and it was the Staff's recom- mendatio~ that the Orange County Planninq Commission be advised of the change of designation, Mre Howard Crooke, representing the Orange County Water District, appeared before the Commission and stated that the district had recently acquired approximately 100 acres for water spreading purposes approximately 400 feet east of Jefferson Street and southerly of Walnut Stzeet, and since the County had their own roadway along the river bed, Richfield Road extending across the water spreading area would no longer be necessary. Further, to keep from having the area open across the wa~er spreading facilities to the general public, and the area free from debris and outside contamination, if a road was no longer available j for access to the river, this wouid be a considerable help in keeping down the water pollu- i' tion, and, therefore, he was in favor of a change in the designation of Richfield Road from a collector street to a local street. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TEiE I-fEARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1572, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage I' and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that ~ General Plan Amendment No. 53, Circulation Element - Highway Rignts-of !Nay be amended by the change in designation of Richfield Road from a collector street to a local street. Further, that the Orange County Planning Commission be encouraged to adopt the change in designation of Richfield Road from a collector to a local street. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the fore~oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. 1 ' a1 ~ 1J ~ -~ - , . . .. .. _ . ,.:,,: .~:. _, -. _ , _;-~.•, --_.__. .... ......_ . ,. . ~ _--~.-, . .... . .. . - _ . . ~ - : ,,. : ....~,,,,.,.~.. -- -- " • , ~ - ;r _ - - F ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2537 GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY T!-IE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East AA~NDN~NT NOo 5~ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing to amend the designa- tion of Jefferson-Linda Vista Street, between Orangethorpe Avenue on the north and the Riverside Freeway on the south, from a primary highway to a major highway. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the location of Jefferson- Linda Vista Street, noting ihat the Comrission was to consider the precise alignment of Jefferson-Linda Vista Street at their hearing of April 26; that the Traffic Engineers of the City and County had analyzed the traffic problems involved and determined the primary highway designation was inadequate to handle the present and ultimate flow of traffic from an industrial area, and recommended that it be designated as a major highwayo Mr. Victor Peltzer, 7002 South Richfield Road, inquired whether the proposed major street designation would extend the entire length of Jefferson Street. Mre Mickelson advised Mro Peltzer that the desi~nation would be for the road between Orangethorpe Avenue and the Riverside Freewaye Mre Hudson Saffell, owner of property at the southeast corner of Walnut and Jefferson Streets, appeared before the Commission and asked for clarification on whether the desi9- nation of the street would have any effect on the precise alignment which would be considered on April 26, 1965. The Commission advised Mr. Saffell that a general aliynment of Jefferson-Linda Vista had been established by public hearing of the Commission and the Council; that the Oranqe County Planning Commission had previcus hearings; that studies had been made by the Traffic Engineers of both the City and the County to determine what type of street was necessarv to handle the heavy flow oi traffic; and that regardless of the approval of the width for the street, the precise alignment would still have to be established before actual dedica- tion of the right-of-way could be ascertained; and that no matter whose property would be affected by the proposed alignment, a certain amount of property would have to be dedicated for sai.d street. Mr, Don Pierotti, owner of property southerly of the intersection of Jefferson and Walnut Streets, appeared before the Commission and stated it was his opinion that the area needed more roads to handle the traffic, rather than a wider road; that traffic was presenl:ly backed-up in an attempt to clear the drives from Autonetics during the shift changes; and that it was his hope consideration would be given to developing more roads for that area~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered R?s~~~~tinn Nn. 157~, Series 1964-65. and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 5~,- Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way, be amended to chanqe the designation of Jefferson-Linda Vista Street between Orangethorpe Avenue on the north and the Riverside Freeway on the soutt~ irom a primary highway to a major highwaye Further, that the Orange County Planning Commission be advised of the Commission and Council action for their public hearing of t;~e proposed change in street designation on April 7, 19650 (See Resolution Book.) On roll call tne foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEA~:ZNG. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East j AMENDMENT N0. 5~,- Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califorria, proposing the desi9nation of ~ Taylor Street, between the Riverside and Yorba Linda Freeways, from I a secondary highway to a primary highway as proposed on the Circulaticn Element - Highway Rights-of-iNay of the General Plan. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the location of the proposed change in street designation of Taytor Street on the General Plan. Mro Howard Crooke, representing the Orange County Water District, appeared before the Commission and expressed concern that if the change in designation occurred, the widenin9 ' of the street would take an additional 26 feet, and with the large, excavated holes adjacent , to the present alignment, it would mean additional shifting of sand to build up the road for access across the river, since the County had agreed to three bridges across the river in that area, namely, Dowling, Jefferson, and -aylor Streetsa MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2g;.,; GENERAL PLAN - Mr, Mickelson advised the Commission that subject General Plan Amerd- AA~NDN~NT N0. 5 ment was set for pubiic hearing in order that the Commission`s (Continued) recommendations and comments might be referred to the City Councii and the Orange County Planning Commission in time for their consider~:•- tion at a public hearing on april 7, 1965; that the Traffic Engineers of the City and County had analyzed the traffic flow and needs and were of the opinion that the street designation should be changed to a primary street; that if parkways and sidewalks were included, this would mean a 106-foot wide street, but there were areas in the Northeast Industrial Area where parkways were not neededo Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated that the ri9ht-of-way across the river would be 106 feet without parking lanes; this compared with 80 feet if parking lanes, parkways, and sidewalks were not needed, and 100 feet if said requirements were needed; that a lesser width could be designated when the street traversed the Santa Ana River; that the street width was necessary to carry the estimated traffic capacity; that the proposed designa- tion was general and when a precise street width was proposed to be adopted, it would require four 12-foot travel lanes, two 8-foot parking lanes, and two parkways for the planting of trees. Mr~ Crooke then stated he had been advised an 80-foot width would be needed, plus space _, for banking purposes. Mrs~ Henry Coates, 6706 Taylor Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired what would happen to the homes presently existino in the ut.timate right-of•-way, since her and her neighbor°s home would be in the middle of the street if the ultimate right-of- way would be requireda Mro Mickelson stated that widening of the street would be dependent upon the ultirnate industrial development of the area, and until the City decided that the street should be widened, it was hardly likely that the requirement of street dedication would be made until that time~ Mrso Coates then stated that when their present home was constructed, they had understood trom the County that the dedication needed at that time for street widening purposes was to its maximum width on theii~ side, and that the property to the east which had an off- set centerline would be required to dedicate to the ultimate width., Mro Mickelson advised Mrse Coates that at the time the City decided to widen Taylor Street; the centerline of the street would then be determined, and he could not advise her of any- thing other than the present existing street width and centerline, TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSEC~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 157~, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No, 5~y Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way be amended to change the designation of Taylor Street from a secondary highway to a primary hi9hway; further, that the Orange County Planning Commission be informed of the Council'= action prior to their public hearing of April 7, 1965, (See Resolution Book,) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing voie AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CamF, Gauer. Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland,. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nont,o ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Allredo AMENDMENT TO ANAI-~IM - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED By T}iE CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSIUiJ, MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an amendment to Chapter 18.40, C-1, General Commercial, Zone, Section 18.40.Oa0(b) Outdoor Uses - Plar,t Nurseries, to consider including them in Section 18040..030 as accessory useso Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that when the C-1 Zone was redrafted, outdoor plant nurseries were permitted in the Code as a primary use, whereas with the exception of service stations, all other uses were proposed to be conducted , within a building; that the Staff became concerned with allowing this use in the C-•1 Zone as a matter of right, and gave as an example some of the snall neighborhood shop- ping centers which provided outdoor sale of nursery goods and supplies where they were . adjacent to residential areas, and since it was the Staff's opinion the use was secondary * or an incidental use, these should be permitted by filing a conditional use permit, but ~ that the legal notice indicated these uses would be accessory uses; therefore, it we:s recommended that the Commission consider continuance for readvertisement~ . `~, _ . 1 MIP7UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, iNarch 29, 1965 2539 AMENDA~M TO ANAHEIM - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the Planning Staff MUNICIPAL COLE to readvertise Amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code - Chapter (Continued) 18e40 to consider outdoor nurseries as a conditional use in the C-1 Zone. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED, The readvertisement of "outdoor nurseries" was scheduled for the meeting of April 12, 1965~ TI-~ FOLLOWING ~fEMS WERE CONSIDERED BY Tf~ COMMISSION AS ON^_ E I7'EM; ~ RECI./iSSIFICATION - PUBLIC i-IEAR7P~u~ INITIATED BY TI-lE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOIV, 204 East N0. 64-65-102 Lincoln Avi~nue, Anaheim, California; Property owner: Alfred A, Holve, 13J.4 North Sequoia Avenue, Lindsay, California, proposing that pro;~ert~ described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land ; at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Katella Avenue, with frontages of approxi- ~ mately 333 feet on Euclid Street and approximately 348 feet on Katella Avenue, be reclassi- ~ fied from the R-A, AGRICU;.TURAL, ZOIJE, ±~ ti~e C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to place an existing service station, commercial shopping center, and professional offices in their most ~ppropriate zone. Subject property was developed while under the County's jurisdictiono No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. T!-IE f~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1575, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-1C2 be approved, unconditionally~ (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland„ NOES: GOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allreda RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING,. INITIATED BY TI-~ CITY PLANNING COMtdISSION, 204 East N0~ 64-65-103 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Property owner: Fritz Goosens, 2401 North Park Boulevard, Santa Ana, California, proposing that property described ~<,: A rectangularly si•,ap~~d parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 232 feet on the east side ui Euclid ~..reet and a maximum depth of approximately 240 feet, the southern boundary of ~:~id property being appioximately 575 feet north of the cen~erline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1154 North Euclid Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZOIJE, to the C-2, GENERAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE, to place an existing restaurant and cocktail lounge in their most appropriate zonee The existing restaurant and cocktail lounge were established while subject property was under the jurisdiction of the County. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE f-lEF'.~IYG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1576, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-103 be approved, unconditionallye (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrede { `* 1~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 25~0 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-~ARING~ INITIATED BY TI-~ CITY PLAN!JiNG COMMISSION, 204 East NOe 64-65-104 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiaq Property owner: John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, c/o Richfield Oil Company, 555 South Flowe: Street, Los Angeles, California, proposing that property described as: A rectan~ularly shaped parcel of land at the southwest :orner of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street, with frontages of approximately 127 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximatel,y 127 feet on Euclid Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the C-1, GENERAL CO;uIA~RCIAL, ZONE, to place an existing service station in its most appropriate zonee Subject service station was developed while the property was under the jurisdiction of the Cow~ty, and on September 30, 1963, the Planning Comm:-Gi~~r approved Conditional Use Permit Noo 484, which established an existing non-conforming service station as a con- forming usea No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED> Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1577, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Rerlassification N~. 64-65-104 be approved, unconditionallyo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-~ARING. INITIATED BY TI-~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0~ 64-65-105 w Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Cali.'ornia; Property owner: Euclid Shopping Center, 2295 West Ball Road, proposing that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street, with frontages of appre•~imately 150 feet on Euclid Street and approximately 150 feet on Katella Avenue, be reclassified from the C-3, HEAVY COMh~RCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to a service station or any C-1 use, to the C-1, GENERAL COMA~RCIAL, 7_ONE, to establish an existing service station in the most appropriate zone, Subject property was reclassified to the C•-3 Zone in 1957, under Reclassification Noe 56-57-460 No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1578, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, ~econded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that 1'etition for Reclassification No. 64-65-105 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst~ Mungall, Perry, Rowland, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC H"tpRING. INITIATED BY TI-IE CITY PLqNNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 64-65-106 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Property owner: Helen Porter, et al, 600 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, California, proposing that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of iand located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue, with frontages of approxi- mately 150 feet on Euciid Street and approximately 150 feet on La Palma Avenue, be re- classified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the C-1, GENE,~AL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE, to place an existing service station in the most appropriate zone. The development of the existing service station was established under Variance No. 253~ No one appeared in oppositio;~ to subject petition> TI-IE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED, ~ } } MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2541 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1579, Series 1964-65, and N0~ 64-65-106 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, (Continued) to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-106 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Eook.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: : AYES: CONOuIISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 1Jone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allreda ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ~ ~ N0. 64•-65,~ 107 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Property owned by: Milo. K, Tedstrom, 2103 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California~ Property ' CONDITIONAL USE presently classified C-3, F~AVY COMN~RCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted PERMIT N0. 682 to a service station or C-1 use as business or professional offices only. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GEWERAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE~ PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT TI-~ CONTINUED OPERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT TF~ INTERSECTION OF A PRIMARY ANil A LOCAL STREET WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTUP.E IN THE R-A ZONE. The existing service station was established under Reclassification No~ 58-59-108. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions, TI-IE f-~ARING WAS CLOSEU, Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 1580, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-107 be approved, ur;conditionallye (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Munqall, Perry, Rowland, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Cornmissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1581, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commis.sioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 682, unconditional.lyo (See Resolution Booko) I On roll call tne foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cainp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIO:JERS: Allred. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RECOMN~NDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Nos. 289 and 526 - Lincoln West Professional Center - Request for an interpretation of permitted uses. ~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed a request from Mr~ David Hook, one of the ~ owners of the Lincoln West Professional Center, and the Commission`s interpretation of i the permitted uses under Conditional Use Permit No. 289, Resolution No. 465, Series 196?_-63, + dated August 20, 1962, and Resolution No. 522, Series 1962-63, dated October 29, 1962, I,~ Further, that in the Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit Noe 526, reference was - ; made to the permitted uses allowed under Conditional Use Permit No, 289~ Discussion was held by the Commission on the permitted uses and the establishment of the business and professional offices, and whether the Commission could interpret a drama '~ school and theater as a use in the Fine Arts Building, Mr. Martin Bryant, drama teacher in the Anaheim Union High School District and proposed ~ ` operator of the drama school, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the purpose of t~ * establishing a school and theater on subject propertyo [ ~ „a~ ~. ~~~. _ ~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2542 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) Deputy City Attorney Jerry Brody advised the Commission that since the sales of tickets was proposed, and the activity would be estabTished in an R-A Zone, that the conditional use permit should be readvertised in order that all property owners affected by the pro- posed interpretation might indicate their opinions. The Commission discussed the fact that subject development was granted subject to specific uses because no reclassification of the property had been requested, and that consideration of the petitioner's request for interpretation could only be legally handled at an advertised public hearing. Mr. Mir,kelson stated there was little C-1 development in the vicinity of subject property, and, perhaps, this miyht have been the reason for the Commission's limiting the uses on subject property. Mr. David Hook stated he had contacted the tenants of the professional offices, and they Tustindicated no opposition; further, a similar type of development was established in Commissioner Camp offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to readvertise Conditional Use Permit No. 289 for public hearing on April 26, 1965, to consider the interpretation of the use of the property for a drama school and theater. Com~nissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO_ ? Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1173 - Hillcrest Trinity Chur.ch, proposing to establish a church and Sunday School faci].ities on the southwest corner of Cerro Vista Drive and Santa Ana Canyc~ Road in the Peralta Hills area. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Orange County Conditional Permit Nn. 1173 to the Commission and reviewed the location of the prop~sed church and Sunday School with , the following findings of the Planning Department also being reviewed: 1. That a problem may exist in that the northwesterly frontage of the property ;_ is designated as Riverside Freeway Frontage 'toad, whereas said frontage road _ is indicated on the County Master Plan of Highways (with whi~h the City of Anaheim concurs) as a primary street, and as such, may require considerable dedication from subject property. ' 2. That the proposed plan further indicates an access point at the northeasterly ,~!` corner of the property into Cerro Vista Drive, c local street. Said access I could conceivably be into the intersection of the future primary streete 3. That parking, as indicated, excluding the possible dedication mentioned above, meets Anaheim Code requirements. ~ N~r. Mickelson also noted that since a conflict exists between the County Master Plan of I Streets and Highways and the State's apparent intent to consider the frontage road as less than a primary highway, the Commission may wish to consider recommending that the City Council urg4 the Orange County Planning Commission to continue subject petiCion until such time as the access or frontage road width is determined by the State and the City of Anaheim. ~I '• Mre Roland Kruger, representing the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association, appeared before I ~' ~ the Commission and stated that since the Peralta Hills homeowners had requested annexa- I tion to the City of ,lnaheim, they felt their ~ i' access to the proposed church, since Cerro VistauDriveUin therRSE Zoeir concern on the ~~ wide, and on Sunday, traffic from the church would beco ne was only 18 feet t". j of c:rs being backed up for 15-20 minutes on the narrowmstreetrdnusFwith the possibility ~ I to enter into Santa Ana Canyon Road; that there were several driver s attempt poss~ . olutions: 1. That Cerro Vista Drive be widened, which, in his opinion, ~ .> incompatible , with the R-E Zone development already established, since t~ .ent of the Zone rias to mainte~n a r~.ral atmosphere. G~ ~ ~~ 2. Continuance of subject petition until such time as the State could give an anproxi- ~ mate date and the width of the ~_ pruposed construction of the fror.tage road. ~ 3. That it be recommended that a short drive from the existin9 frontac,e road be ~ constructed to the t~ ,,,t.~r. proposed church driveway. P f MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29, 1965 2543 REPORTS AND R[COMA~NDATIONS - ITEM NOa 2 (Continued) In response to Commission questioning, Mr< Kruger stated he would attend the public hearing of the petition before the Orange County Planning Commission and express the same concern to themo N~ro Mickelson stated that it had not been determined how wide the fror,tage road would be; therefore it would be impossible to ascertain where access to the church could be located> ~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to continue their consideration of Conditional , Permit Noo 1173, based on the fact that a conflict sxisted between the Orange County Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the State's apparent intent to consider the frontage road as less than a primary highway, and until this could be res.~lved between the State and the City of Anaheim, development of the church facilities with access through a local street only 18 feet wide would be hazardouse Further, that the Peralta Homeowners Association representative also expressed concern that a traffic problem would exist in the event Cerro Vista Drive was to be utilized for access to and from -. the church propertya Commissione* Camp seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED, ITHM N0. 3 Orange County Use Variance No. 5526 - Proposing to establish an auto laundry with three gasoline pump islands in the 100-C1-10,000 Local Business District on the north side of Lincoln Avenue approximately 150 feet west of Brookhurst Street in the west Anaheim area. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Orange County Use Variance No, 5526 to the Commission and reviewed the location and the proposed use of subject property~ Findings and recommendations oi the Planning Department were presented to the Commission for their consideration as follows: 1. No screening is proposed abutting the residential street to the northo 2. No landscaping is proposed in the setback area or in the parking lot~ 3. Nineteen parkinq spaces are proposede The City of Anaheim would require a minimum of ten spaces for the food stand, 4o Two double-faced freestanding signs are proposed, one having a 38-square foot area per face, and the other with a 15-square foot area per faceo Both signs are proposed to encroach five feet into the right-of-waye Title 18 would permit one freesta~ding sign with an area of 350 square feet per face~ Recommendations: lo That access to Polk Street be denied by dedication of access rights. 2a That a six-foot masonry wall be required along the Polk Street property line to separate the commercial use from the residential development, 3. 'Chat a min.mum three-foot planter area be required between the proposed drive approaches. Discussion was held by the Commission on the proposed recommendations, with the Commission expressing grave concern that the petitioner was proposing to have access through a single- family residential subdivision to the north, thus creating a traffic hazard~ Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Comm?ssion be urged to consider the following in their deliberation of Orange Cou:ity Use Variance No. 5526: 1. That access to Polk Street be denied by dedication of access rightso ~~ ~ ~ ia E - S * t`~ ~, 2o That a six-foot masonry wall be required along the Polk Street property line to separate the commercial use from the residential developmento 3. That minimum three-foot planter areas be required between the proposed drive approacheso Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. __ . ~.._~......_ . _.: - -- ~ °"rw--~1 ~ ;~ l ) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 29, 1965 2544 R£PORTS AND - ITHM N0~ 4 RECQhR~NI3ATI0NS Orange County Conditional Permit Noo 1175 - Probity Development Corporation - Proposing to establish a planned development contain- ing 40 dwelling units in the R-2 (PD) 7,200 Single-Famiiy Residence Planned Development District on the east side of Richfield Road, approximately 1,230 feet north of Mariposa Street in the Yorba Linda areao Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Oran~e County Conditional Permit No~ 1175 proposing a planned residential development of 40 dwelling units on 6a7 acres in the Yorba Linda area and reviewed for the Commission the density of subject property as it was depicted on the Yorba Linda General Plan. Upon review of the data subm:tted by the Planning Department, and noting the location of subject property, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Conditional Permit Nuo 1175< Commissioner Rowiand seconded the motiono MOT?ON CARRIED, ADJOURNN~NT - T;ie:e being no further business to discuss., Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5~42 pamo ~ Respectfully submitted, ~~2~^-/ ''~.~1'i -2/ ANN KREBS, Secretary + Anaheim Planning Commission Y: •. 4 ~ G~ ` f ~ ~X~ ~ \.. ~-a. ~. -' .. _.n-.~. . . _~T..' .. ._ r.,- ._~-=:~ . __. .._.... ._ .. -.._. _ . ,° .., ,..:.... _. .. -. ... _ .._: _ __ ~ ~ .. '.' -" ' .. i i -- ~.~.~. r, ' ~ ` r