Loading...
Minutes-PC 1965/05/24. ., ; City Hall Anaheim, California MaY 24, 1965 A REGULAR MEETING OF TFIE ANAF~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEE~'ING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 p,m,, a quorum being presento PRESENT - CNAIRhiAN: Mungall, 4 ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowlande ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ I i'RESENT - Zoning Coordinator: ' Deputy City Attorney: Robert Mickelson Office Engineer: Jerry Brody Planning Commission Secretar Arthur Daw Planning Department Steno rayher: Ann Krebs 9 P Carolyn Grogg INVOCATION - Reverend John R, Emmans, Anaheim Communit Church Y , gave the Invocation~ pLEDGE OF ALI.EGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago APPROVAL OF T~ MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of N43y 12, 1965 were a r pproved as submitted~ CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUEB PUBLIC HEARINGo JAN~S To PALM PERMIT NO 690 Boulevard, Anaheim, California9 Owner; CURTIS5AS~LENTZ,a739CVaneBibber Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; reGuesting permission to establish a three-story office buildingy restaurant and cocktail lounge, and an automobile service center on property described as: A"pie-shaped" parcel of land of approximately 409 acres with a curve~ frontage of approximately 855 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue9 the northernmost boundary of approximately 517 feet parallels and is adjacent to the AeTo 8 S~F, Railroad right-of-wayq the westernmost boundary is approximately 586 feet in length, and its southern end lies a South State College Boulevard, and further described1ast21502EasteKatella AvenuentepZOPerty presently classified M-19 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 26, 1965, to allow time for the Staff to make a report on the impact of the stadium and commercial uses in ~he Southeast Industrial Area~ Zoning Coordinator Nobert Mickelson advised the Commi.ssion that a letter had been received from the petitioner requesting a continuance of subject petition to allow time to submit a new master plan of the proposed site; further, that the Planning Staff was presently work- ing on the requested study which would be available for the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council to determine the policy for the Southeast Industrial Area, and for consideration by the Commission at a public hearing~ In response to Commission questioning, Planning Coordinator Ronstd Grudzinski advised the Commission the aforementioned cjudy would be available for presentation before the joint meat•- ing after the next Commission meeting on June 79 1965~ Co.nmissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 690 to the meeting of June 21, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to submit a new master plan, and for the purpose of allowing the Planning Commission and City Council time to meet at a joint session on the evening of June 7, 1965, to review the study of the impact of the stadium and commercial uses on the Southeast Industrial Area~ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIEC~ Gji ~'~ ,:~ ~ _ ~; * ~i i.-~ ~ ~` ~ i . ~~ .f ~~ - -- - 2595 - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CGMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2598 CONDITIONAL• USE - PUBLIC~HEARING, WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, 500 South Buena Vista Street, PERMIT N0. 706 Burbank, California, Owner; WRATEiER HOTELS, INCORPORATED, 270 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; requesting permission to expand an existing hiqh-rise hotel with permission to relocate a sign, and waiver of maximum height limit of structure on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of West Street and Cerritos Avenue, with fronta•ges of approximately 1,282 feet on West Street and approximately 1,240 feet on Cerritos AvenUe, and approximately 1,290 feet on Walnut Street, and further described as 1441 South West Street (Disneyland Hotel). Mr. He Re Harrison, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to review subject request, stating the proposed expansion would be a similar structure identical in height (125 feet) and size as the existing hotel; further, that they were proposing to move subject sign to the center of the building after subject expansion was completed, Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson stated that the Commission had requested that the proposed r~3ocation of the existing sign be checked with Sign Ordinance officials since the property on which subject sign is located was zoned commercial-recreation, and that subject sign would be within the limits of the commercial zone; further, that the exist- ing sign was erected prior to the recent adoption of the new Sign Ordinance~ It was determined by the Commission that the sign, at present, was in violation of the existing new Sign Ordinance only because it did not have specific approval, but that physically, it would be approved if it were deemed to be compatible with the areao Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the ~~mmission of the requirements of the existing 5ign Ordinance, stating that our present C-3 Zone did not allow a 125-foot height at that po3nt, but that it probably would at such time of revision of the C-3 Zone, and in relation to the height policy established in this area, he stated i: to be approxi- mately 130 feet from the existing ground level, No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono Commissioner Rowland expressed concern that the berm and screen planting placed by Disney- land to shield the existing sign from view from the park would be insufficient to take care of the relocation of the non-conforming sign; e- that representatives of Disneyland were not present to express their viewpointso Further, that by requiring the processing of a conditional use permit by a petitioner gave the Commission an opportunity to review and renuire that the height of buildings and signs be r~ controiled in the commercial- recreation areao THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe The petitioner stated he would like to inquire about two of the recommended conditions that we;e listed in the Report to the Commission: that being the deeding of a strip of land 53 feet in width along Walnut Street for street widening purposes - whether this was in addition `.~ that provided four ye3rs ago, and whether or not the street light fees for Walnut Street could not be waived since the City under the original conditional use permit had waived the street light fees, since it was determined that lights from the existing golf course which ran the full length of Walnut Street would be adequate for street lighting~ Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:20 pom. Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated that it had been an oversight when Conditional Use Permit Noo 154 was approved not to require the fuil amount of dedication; that many meetings be- tween Walt Disney Productions and the City had taken place, and .3 subsequent offer or proposal foi dedication was made; further, that the reason for stating th? maximum of 12 feet was necessary as the maximum dedication ranging from 0 to 12 feet, which wnuld commence at the north line of the Edison Company easement; and that this requirement was worded so as not to be in conflict with any proposal that had been submitted to them. Commissioner Per.ry offered Resolution No. 1641, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditinnal Use Permit No~ 706, subject to conditions with the exception of Condition No. 3, wh~,reas it was decided to approve a temporary waiver of street lighting fees until such time as the golf course should cease to operatea (See Resolution Book.) Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3:25 p.m. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ailredo ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2ggg VARIANCE_NOo 1705 - PUBLIC IiEARINGo SAMUEL AND ALMA M~ POP, 420 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Owners; RAY STOBER COA~APIY; P,O. Box 2377, Gardena, California, Agent; requesting permission to waive the following: (1) maximum he`iglit requirement of a free-standing sign, (2) location of a roof sign within 300 ~feet of a free-standing sign, and (3) prohibition of roof-sighs in an M-1 Zone, on property descritied as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at thp northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Via Burton, with frontages of app-roximately 150 fee=t~'arr•State College Boulevard and approximately 150 feet on Via Burton, the southern bound'a7y of'said property being approximately '110 feet north of the Riverside Freeway, arrd fur-ttier desciibed as 1505 North State College Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1,•LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZON~. Mr. htarvYn Solbera, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed freeway-oriented sign. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission a lettar of opposition had been received from the City of Fullerton Planning Commissiono Mro Mickelson further stated that the Union Oil sign on one of the other corners of the intersection had been constructed prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance~ The Commission discussed the numerous requests for waivers of the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, and were of the opinion that since this had been adopted with the approval of the representatives of the sign industry, deviations from this ordinance should be held to a~minimum, and that it was unnecessary to have a sign of 50 to 60 feet in height, since on the morning inspection trip it was noted the City of Orange had no signs in the entire city above 30 feeto THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr~ Mickelson further advised the Commission that any request for waiver or the roof sign in the M-1 Zone was unneceasary because the petitioner proposed a sign adjacent to a portion of the structure, which could not be considered a roof sign since it was part of the structurey or a wall sign. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1642, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny the petitioner's request for waiver of Section 18062o090(b-2) for waiver oi the maximum height of a free-standing sign, but grant the balance of the request, based on the fact that the proposed roof sign was considered a wall sign, but that all such signs being proposed shall not exceed 30 fset in height; further, that the reason for denial of the 50-foot high free-standing sign was based on the fact it was contrary to the newly adopted Sign Ordinance, and that the petitioner had not submitted evidence to prove a hardship was involved~ (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungali~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Allredo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. ROBERT L~ PANEK, 1725 Chateau, Anaheim, California, Owner; N0~ 64-65-128 property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Alomar Avenue, with frontages CONDITIONAL USE of approximately 66 feet on Euciid Street and approximately 100 feet on PERMIT N0~ 704 the north side of Alomar Avenue, and further described as 630 South Euclid Streeto Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE., REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT AN AMBULANCE SERVlCE SUB-STATION IN AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RcSIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. Mro Robert Panek, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use of subject property, noting that an ambulance driver was on duty 24 hours a day, and the driver would be residing with his family in the home, and no change would take place as far as the exterior of the property was concerned; further, that subject property was ideally located geographically in the west Anaheim area and would provide more rapid ambulance service for that areao r! , In noting ihe patitioner would maintain the appearance of the home as it presently existed, ~~ ~ Mr. Panek stated the petitioner did not propose to use the existing alley, and that sirens ;'"J ~ were necessary not only for safety purposes, but possibly to save lives when an e~mergency i ~ arose. ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2600 RECLASSIFICAfION - Discussion was held by the Commission relative to sirens being used N0~ 64-65-128 adjacent to a single•-family residential zone, and 'inquired of the petitioner whether the sirens were started upon entry into the ambulance CONDITIONAL USE or after gaining access to a heavily traveled street, such as Euciid PERMIT NOa 704 Streeto (Continued) Mro Panek stated that if an ambulance was responding to a"Code 3" call~ this meant sirens were necessary as soon as the driver st~pped into the vehi~le and pulled out of the drive ay with lights and siren going; further, that there would be no more additional noise than was usual when fire, police, or other ambulance services went up and down Euclid Street. In response to Cormnission questioning, Mro Panek stated the ambulance would be parked in the drive, which was only 15 or 20 feet from Euclid Streeto Mr, Charles Murphy, 630 Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petitions and stated that in the best interests of the community, the Commission should deny any request for commercial use of the residential structure; that the Commission had, in the past, deni~ed petitions for the commercial use of the structures, and the claim that the residential structures could not be rented was based on the r'act that the noise dis- couraged people from renting the places - but in his estimation, it was merely because the property owners had no intention of maintaining the property in a livable manner, and, therefore, people were not desirous of renting the property; and if the Commission granted subject petitions, this would mean the remaindsr of the six homes fronting on Euclid Street would receive commercial zoniny, and strip zoning similar to that on Brookhurst Street would be the result, ~ Mro Murphy further stated the ambulance would have a dirficult time making a left-hand t~rn into Euclid Street if it was necessary to proceed south on Euclid; that he had lived there a number of years, and it was one of the most difficult driving tasks to do (to make a left- hand turn); and that it would be almost necessary to enter a residential street to make a U-turn to proceed southerly on Euclid Street. Mra James Harris, 709 Alvy Street, appeared before the Commissio~ and stated that at the time he had purchased his property six years ago, the entire area was R-1, and it should remain as such, and he was opposed to any commercial use of a residential structure~ Mr~ fiernard Mott, 701 South Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that although the proposed use was a ne~essary one, it was completely incompatible to the resi- dential properties adjacent to itq that th? Commission had previously recommended denial of commercial uses of the properties on Euclid Street, and should continue their denial of any commercial uses of those residential structures~ Mrs, Barbara Riley, 637 South Alvy Str.eet, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated the proposed use of the pr~;perty might be to the advantage of the people who needed it, but the location of it adjacent to residential structures was incompatible; that the ambulance service had been operating from the structure prior to the petition for reclassification, and inquired why they were given a temporary permit for operation without the proper zoning; that she had made complaints to the Complaint Investigator in Development Services Division; that a police squad car had been sent out to investigate the complaint, but that he was still operating the ambulance service from subject structure„ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission the ambulance service was directed by the City Attorney's office to cease the operation until such time as proper zoning for the property was acquiredo Mr. Panek stated the ambulance driver was preparing the home to relocate his family fror~Riversidey which would be after school was out in June, and that since he was on call 24 hours a day, this was the reason for operating from that building, Mrs. Riley further stated her reason for calling the Complaint Investigator was to complain the ambulance was pulling out from the driveway with the sir?n and lights going, and it was apparent no one was living there, and it was her o;`~ion they were operating from that structure as a commercial operationo The Commission then stated the operation was ill ~~ accordance with the directive of the City Attarney's officeo Mrso Riley then stated she had purchased her home ir~ November on +.hr- assumption the homes in that area would remain single-family residences; that she was a+.tempting to keep her children in the same school; and that if she had knowr, commerciai uses were being anticipated for the homes adjacen: to her, she would never have moved into that area; further, that ttie real estate broker had informed her it would be difficult to sell he~ home for the same price she bought it because the real estate values of homes adjacent to approved commerc.ial uses would deteriorate~ .~, :~ . ~~~~ . ,i a{ , _~ ~ •;. I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2601 RECLASSIFICATION - Mro Richard Crane~ representing the Crane Ambulance Service, appeared t40. 64-65-128 before the Commission and stated he would like to clarify a few mis- statements made by the opposition, namely, that no temporary request CONDITIC'EAL USE for operation on subject property for the ambulance service had been PERMIT N0. 704 obtained or applied for; that he had received a call from Charles (Continued) Roberts of the Zoning Divisio:i and had discussed the problem with Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts; that the ambulance service was 630 South Euciid St eetalthat onerthirdaof the callsWmadenby thedCrane9AmbulanceSService was on an emergen~q'basis, and all business wouid be conducted away from that address; that they have an office in the 1000 block on Lincoln Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard~ and the proposed location would be a second one to facilitate handling all business west of Harbor Bouievard~which was the agreement made with the City - that all police calls west of Harbor Bou~levard would be handled by the Crane Ambulance Service, and all those east of Harbor Boulevard by the Southland Ambulance Service; and that the Chief of Police had indicated the proposed location would be an ideal place for an ambulance service be- cause of its central location to the area which they service. In response to questioning by Mro Murphy, one of the opposition, Mro Crane stated a conditional use permit was necessary to operate the ambulance servicee ~' Mro Mickelson reviewed the conditional use permit section of the Anaheim Municipal Code, noting that the ambulance service was prohibited in all residential zones; therefore the request for the reclassification, Mrso Alma Motty 701 South Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission stating this was the first home she and her husband had ever owned,since he was a retired minister; that she enjoyed maintaining the grounds of her home with beautiful flowers and landscaping, and all other neighbors were equally as proud of their homes by the maintenance of their homes in a presentable manner; that if the single-family property owners on Euclid Street were desirous of changing the zoning of their p;operty because of its compatibiiity to single-family residential usey it was recommended that several owners of parcels assemble their properties and develop it for high-rise so that each property owner could realize at least the amount expended on their properties, but that she was opposed to any commercial use of the properties~ Mro Joe Lemons, 429 South Euciid Street, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petitions, stating he had owned his property on Euclid Street since 1946, and with Euclid Street being turned into a heavy thoroughfare, it was difficult to get any rest before 11:00 pomey and after 5:00 a~m~ in the morning, and that one additional siren would not make any difference to the noises already apparent on the street; that it seemed apparent the single-family homes to the east of Euclid Street were controliing any commercial develop•- ment for Euclid Street; and that it was apparent commercial development would ~ake place along the entire length of Euclid Street because of the heavy traffic~ Further9 there was a possi- bility high-rise would afford a buffer to the R-1 homes to the east, although not everyone could afford ~o construct that type of a development. The Commission informed Mr~ Lemons that 2,700 homes in the City of Anaheim were faced with a similar prol-lem of traffic along arterial streets, and it did not seem possible all these homes could be converted into commercial uses~ A siiowing of hands indicated 11 persons we*e present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition~ • ~ TI-Ic" h?ARING WAS CLOSEDo ~ Discu,.sion was held by the Gommission, noting the Commission had recently recommended ~ disapproval of commercial use of another single-family home on Euclid Street, and the Commission could not deviate or recommend approval for subject petitions since they had ~ already recommended denial of any C-1 uses of the six homes fronting on Euclid Street~ + Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo 1643, Series 1964-65, and moved for its ;~ssage I an~? adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that l~etition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-128 be disapproved, based on the fact that the Commission was of the opinion any C-1 use of residential structures on Euclid Street would be detrimental to the peace, health and safety of the area; that the Commission had denied other C-1 uses in the area, and to approve subject petition would be contrary io the policy already ~ established~ (See Resolution B~oko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ,,,t~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo - - . . .. , - •----- - _ --~.,. , ' 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 24~ 1965 2602 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered kesolution No> 1644, Series 1964-659 and N0, 64-65-128 moved for its passage and adoption. seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 704, based on the fact that CONDITIUNAL USE the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses; that PERMIT NOe 704 the use would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general (Continued) welfare of the residents of the area~ (See Resolution Book~) On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COM".ISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo NEIL REITWiAN, 1919 East Center Street, Ana~~eim, N0~_64-65-129 California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped par.cel of land with frontages of approximately 135 fEet on the west VARIANCE NO,. 1704 side of West Street and approximately 110 feet on the north side of Fay Lane, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 196 feet south of the centerline of Broadway, and further d?scribed as 315 and 321 South West Street~ Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, Z~NE~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0~ COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM SITE AREAi (2) AREA DEVELUPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENT~ AND (3) MAXIMUM I-~IGFlI LIMIT WITHIN 300 FEET OF R•-1 ZONE o Mro Neil Reitman, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to review subject develop•- ment and presented a colored rendering showing the proposed development, at which t3me he stated he was later submitting a small rendering for inclusion in the petition file, and that the development wouid have central heating and air-conditioning which would be located out of sighto No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions, Tf-~ NEARING WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1645, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perryp to aporove Petition for Reclassification No~ 64-65-129, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tl~e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONcRS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No> 1646y Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1704, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Book~) On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMI;;SIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allreda RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC 1-IEARING. WILLIAM Pe VISSER, 701 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, ~~~. 64-65-130 California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with frontages of approximately 135 feet on the west side of VARIANCE N0~ 1706 West Street and approximately 110 feet on the north side of Fay Lane, the no:thern boundary of said property being approximately 196 feet south of the centerline of Broadway, and further described as ~15 and 321 South West Street~ Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONc„ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM DISTANCE BENJEEN FACING BUILDING WALLS~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2603 ~ i~ ~{ ~ ;S .~x RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Y~illiam Visser, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and NOo 64-65-130_ reviewed the proposed developmen~, noting that the property was a natural site for single-story apartment development so that it would be compatible VARIANCE NOe 1706 with the singie•-family residential zone on the cpposite side of the street, (Continued) and that it was difficult tc develop subject property for R-1 purposes because of the two-story apartments adjacent to subject property~ Mrso Irene Ferguson, 318 South West Street, appeared before the Commission, stating she was the spokesman for the neighbors in the az•ea and had a petition submitted to the Zoning Division which opposed subject petitions; that eight years ago when the property westerly of subject property was considered for reclassification to apartments, the City Council had reached a compromise with the property owners in that subject property would remain as a single-family residential zone; that all the single-family homeowners on West Street were opposed to apartments; that many had lived there from ten to thirty years, and longer; that it was inconvenient and difficult to have their guests park their cars on the street because of the rumerous zpartments already in the area, and if subject petition were approved, thi~ ••rould add to the confusion already established; that they had information developers of sin a-family hanes were interested in subjec.t property, and a number of the single-family homes on West Street had been developed after the apartments were constructed; that ~ poli.ce problem existed every summer in the ~partmeni development which presently existed there; and if subject petition were approved, other single•-family homeowners in ihe area would request the same classification of their properties, Furthery that the neighborhood had not changed in the last eight to ten years to warrant the Commission's revising their thinking of chang•- ing the zone of subject property~ Mro Wa R, Peacock, 324 South West Street9 appeared before the Commission and stated he had lived in his home thirty years, and all the property owners in the area had improved their properties to the point the assessed valuation of their properties had increased from $8,500 to ~22,000, and this was an indication the property could be developed for R•-1 purposes.. Mrs~ Frances Mack, 312 South West Street, appeared before the Commission and stated she had lived in the area for ten yeara and stated she concurred in all the opposition expressed previously, and was not desirous of having any multiple-family development for subjeci property, even though i+. was one story, and requested the Commission maintain single-famiiy residentiai zone for subject property„ Mr~ Visser, in rebuttal, stated he was providing parking in accordance with Code require- ments; that he was proposing to eliminate an overgrown weed patch, thereby adding to the value o: the single-family homes in the area, and that it wouid further eliminate people parking in the vacant loto THE f-~ARING WAS CLOSED, Chairman Mungall stated that at the time the apartments were built, the City had committed themselves to rezoning of subject property to R-1, a~d that nothing had changed in the area to warrant consideration of a heavier zoning for subject property~ Commissioner Gauer offere~ .3esolution Noe 1647, Series 1954-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-130 be dise.pproved, based on the fact that when subject property was originally reclassified, the City Council had committed the~nselves to single-family residential zone for subject prooerty, and that up to the present time no change ;~ad taken place in the area to warrant consideration of multiple-family zoning for subject propertyo (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall,. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COKiMISSIONERS: Ailredo Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 164&, Series 1964-55, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No~ 1706.• (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Ga~er, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo E i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2604 RECESS - Commissioner Gauer offered a motiun to recess the meeting for ten minuteso Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting recessed at 4:05 pemo RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:15 pomo, all Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Allrede RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC F~ARINGa AMON L-o ROBERTSON, 898 South Harbor Bou•levard, Anaheim, . N0~ 64-65-131 California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel ~~ of land located at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard an~ Vermont VARIANCE NOo 1%07 Avenue, with frontages of approximately 59 feet on Harbor Boulevard and ~ ~ approximately 115 feet on Vermont Avenue, and further described as 898 South Harbor Boulevardo Property presently classified R-1, ONE- ~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTEL CLASSIFICATIONr C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCI~L, ZONE. REQUFSTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF PARKING AREA SCREEN PLANTING REQUIREMENT~ Mro Ao H, Robertson, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated subject property was presently being used by himself for a real estate office and a home; that the proposed dental laboratory would occupy the present area being used for the home; and the front of the structure would be redesigned for a commercial frontageo Mro Miller, the preposed operator of the dental laboratory, in response to Canmission questioning, stated there would be six employees in the dental laboratoryo Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the C-1 Zone required that trees be planted on the easterly boundary of subject property to provide an effective screen within five years between a commercial and a residential pzopertyo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions, THE i-~ARING WAS CLOSEDo Mr. Mickelson further reviewed the development and stated the existing parking layout provided for a 26-foot turning radius, and if the screen planting was *equired, this might take up to eight feet of the property for planting purposes, which would reduce the parking area, Mro Robertson advised the Commission that, in his opinion, the property was well screened from the residential properties on b~th sides with a masonry wall on the east property li;ie and a wooden fence on the north property line~ It was noted by the Commission that since subject property had been used for a real estate office for some years, the proposed additional use would be in conformance, and since it was facing on Harbor Boulevard, the use would be compatible. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1649, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No> 64-65-131 be approved, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book,) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Canp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1650, Series 19h4-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to g ~ Petition for Vaziance Noo 1707, subject t9 conditionse (See Resolution Book~) ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: '` AYeS: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Alungall.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ;,~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrede r ~~ i :` ~. P MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2b05 REPQRTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Petition of property owners requesting name change o: Drury Place to Savoy Placeo ,j '~~ '~~ , I ~i ri 9~ ~ I -, t tl ; Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the action taken by the Commission and the request of the Post Office relative to the duplication of names in widely separated areas of Anaheim, namely, t.hat Savoy Place was located in a iiew tract on the west side of Anaheim and existed for some time in a tract on the east side oi' Anaheim; that the property owners of the newly named Drury Place were requesting of the City Council that the name be changed back to Savoy Place, and asked if the Commission was desirous of making any commentary. The Commission decided to table their action until after the presentation of the petition to the City Council. ITEM N0~ ~ Renaming of Tyrol Avenue to Tyrol Place. Zoning Coordinator Robert iviickelson reviewed for the (.~mn~ission the fact that on November 29, 1954, Tract Noo 2205, located southwesterly ~f the inters~ctien of State College Boulevard and Sovth Street was recorded with the County, and one of the streets was designated as Tyral Place; that on July 30, 1959, Tract No„ 3371, directly west of Tract No. 2205, and south of South Street, was recorded with the County, and one of the streets in this tract was designated as Tyrol Avenueo Since both streets were one continuous street of approximately 565 feet beginning at Wayside Street on the west and continuing easterly to a cul-de-sac termination, it was recommended that the Commission rename the street to Tyrol Place> Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Tyrol Avenue in Tract No~ 3371, which is a continuation of Tyrol Place, be renamed to Tyrol Place, since the naming of both sections of the street were done within the County under separate tractso Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ ITEM NO_ 3 Orange County Tract No~ 5729 •- Yorba Plaza Company, 6821 Fairmont Boulevard, Yorba Linda, California, Owner-Leveloper~ Millet, King and Associates, 511 Sauth Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California, Engineer,. Subject p~operty located northeasterly of Impe:ial Highway and Orangethorpe Avenue and containing 4707 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 90 R-1, Single-Family Residential, Zaned lots~. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 5729 to the Commission, noting the location of subject property and the proposed subdivision of 4707 acres into 90 R-1, Single-Family Residential9 Zoned lots~ It was also noted the City of Placentia would provide sewerage disposal, and the Southern California Water Company would provide their water suoply~ Commissione: Perry offered a motion to receive and file Tentative Map of Tract iJo~ 5729 without submitting any recommendations to the Orange County Planning Commissior Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa ITEM N0~ 4 Orange Unified School District proposed elementary school site in the Nohl Ranch areao Zonir.n Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented a request of the Orange Unified School Distric~. to the City Planning Conmission for approval of an elementary school 5ite on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, northeasterly of Nohl Canyon Road. It was noted by Mro Mickelson that the general location was in conformance with the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plana Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the request of the Orange Unified School District for approval of the Nohl Ranch elementary ~chool site be approvede Commissioner Camp seco:~ded the motion~ MOTION CARRIE~Jo ,{ ~ __ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2606 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 5 RECOMMENDATIOtdS Conditional Use Permit Noa 398 - Request for release of bond (Con:inued) and termination of all proceedings by the petitioner, Christine 0 Donnello Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission actiun on Conditional Use Permit Noo 398, noting that on November ~~, 1963, the Commission granted a 90-day extension of ti.me to corrplete the requirements of approval, subject to conditions in Resolution No. 740, Series 1962-63e Further, that an investigation of the Building Department indicated no building permit had been issued on subject property, althouyh the petitioner had filed a bond for street improvement, had a street dedication, and _ had paid :he street light feeo Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1651, Series 1964-65y and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to terminate all proceedings of Conditional Use Permit No. 398, and to release Bond Neo 3SM156340, covering the street improvements for subject propertyo (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: A~S~ COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ITEM N0~ 6 Conditional Use Permit No, 658 - Lusk Corporation - Establishment of a church and Christian educational facilities in the Nohl Canyon area. Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed a request from the Lusk Curporation regard- ing Conditional Use Permit No~ 658 for a Lutheran Church north of Lincoln Avenue and east of Nohl Canyon Road, for a 180-day ex.tension of time for completion of conditions~ It was noted the time limitation expired on June 17, 1965, and the petitioner was pro- posing to begin construction on June 10, 1965; that Condition Nos~ 1, 3, and 4 had been complied with, but that Condition Noso 2 and 5 were still not completed; and that no previous extensions of time had been requested~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a 180-day extension of time of Conditional Use Permit Noa 658, said 180 days to expire December 17, 1965. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED. I''EM NO o 7 Cor.ditional Use Permit Nos~ 440-441-596 and Reclassification No~ 62-63-131~ Consideration of termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 596 and reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit Nos> 440 and 441~ Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the zoning action having taken place on subject property, noting the most recent one was a request to convert the multiple-family development approved on subject property under Reclassification No~ 62•-63••131 to motel units, and that upon inquiry of the Complaint Investigator regarding the type of structuresbeing approved by the Building Department, it was determined that because the reclassification of subject property was still R-3, Multiple-Family Residentiai, Zone, the property owners had completed development of the project as originaTly approved under Reclassification No. 62-63•-131 and Conditional Use Pe*mit Nos. 440 and 441; that a hold work order to prevent ariy final building inspection o~ those units completed had been placed on the development until such time as clarification had been made on whether the property owner intended to develop under Conditional Use Permit No. 596 which had not been completed because the property had not been rezoned to the R-A Zone, or whether the Commission was desirous of recommending reinstating Conditional Use Permit Nos. 440 and 441 on subject propertiese Discussion was held by the Commission as to the legality of the reinstatement without a public hearing, and it Nas determined that upon consultation with the City Attorney, if it was deemed necessary that in order to reinstate Conditional Use Permi.t ."oso 440 and 441, a public Fearing would have to be advertised, tha~ said public hearing ther. be scheduled for the meeting of June 21, 19650 ~, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve reinstatem~•t of Conditional Use Permit R~ Nos. 440 and 441, subject to the requirement of the City Attorney's uffice relative to ,,,~ public hearing before reinstatement could be made~ Commissionei• Gauer seconded the motion ~ MOIION CARRIEDo ~ ''. ,~ ' _,~ I MINUTES,-CITY ~LANNING COMMISSION, May 24, 1965 2607 REPORTS AND - ITEM I40o 8 RECOMMENDATIOtdS Work Session - Consideration of the first draft of the (Continued 10,000~20,000-40,(700 R-H Zones and the C-H Zone. ' Development Coordinator Ronald Grudzinski and Assistant Planner James Sides reviewed the ~ 10,000-20,000-40,000 R-H Zone drafts withthe Commission. ~ ~ Numerous suggestions were made and questions asked by the Commission which were noted by the Planning Division representatives for incorporation in a re-draft of the zor~es. -_ ~ 3~*~ ALUOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Perry offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Camp seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting adjourned at 6:05 pom. Respectfully submitted, 1' ~~'%~'r/ ,/~i~,/~e/ ~r7/ ANN KRESS, Secretary Y Anaheim Planning Commission ~ .__ ~~ _ ~ ;~ ~ ^~~ ~. ~ ,t~ ~ _ _ .. , ~ - . -- __. ------ ~ ~ . acsa..t,.t-~-~,.-~~ . ,,~G~ . J+.~±:% -- w~._.._