Loading...
Minutes-PC 1965/12/20~ . ~ ,~ ~' 4 ~~ `~F ~~ City Hall` ~ Anaheim, California December 20, 1965 ; A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION € , REGULAR MEFTING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning C~>mmission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P~M., a quorum being present~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. ;, ..~,,~,~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowlando ;) . ,;,~~ ~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Noneo '~f PRESENT - Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson , Deputy City Attorney: Furman °:berts ~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw ~ ~ Pianning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Planni.ng Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg "~, I` INVOCATIUN - Reverend Allan Young, Assistant Pastor of the First Baptist Church, ,'I gave the Invocation., PLEDGE OF ~ ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag~ ,.I APPROVAL, OF ~ THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meetings of Novamber 8 and December 6, 1965, were ~ approved as submitted, ! I I GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AMENDMENT N0. 61 204 East Li.ncoln Avenue, Hnaheim, California, to consider amendment to the Circulaticn Element of the General Plan by designating Howell Avenue easterly from State College Boulevard connecting with Katella Avenue as a secondary highway< ~ :. ' Subject General Plan Amendment was continued from the meeting of October 18, 1465, in order - to a11ow time for adjacent property owners to review the proposed amendment~ Associai:e Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment, noting that a i report from the Traffic Engineer indicated approximately 5,000 cars per day were using Howell Avenue; that the amount of traffic would increase as properties developed alon9 Howell Avenue ~ in the Southeast Industrial Area; and that upon completion of the stadium and operation of said stadium, Howell Avenue would be used as a by-pass to the intersection of Katella Avenue i and State College Boulevard, thus the secondary highway would provide four traffic lanes for j the movir.g of automobiles and also provide parking on both sides of the street. No one appeared to represent the interested property owners. No one appeared ~.n oppositior. to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No, 1876, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 61 be approved, establishing Howell Avenue as a secondary street on the Circula•- tion Element Highway Rights-of-Way. (See Resolution Book~) On rall call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CCM,MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mun9alle NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: Nonea Commissioners Camp and Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:08 P~Mo ~ - * '~ .,i:Yk -2855- ~ . .~ ~~ <, ;- -- ~ _ ~: MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COh~:oSION, December 20, 1965 ,.t 2856 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. TOId TAKETA, KOTARO HOSHIZAKI, FRANK Mo IWASAKI, AND PERMII' NOo 791 KIMBO YOSHITOMI, 947 North Euciid Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; DAN Lo ROWLAND, 1000 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILJTY (SKATEBOARD COURSE AND ROLLER SKATING AREA) on property described zs: A square parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 330 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 330 feet, the west line of subject property being approximately 553 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. tdra (',oodwin Alarik, 314 Starlight Crest Drive, La Canada, appeared before the Commission and ~ reviewed the proposed skateboard and roller skating facility, noting the location of the ~^~,~ proposed facility was centrally located in the City of Anaheim; that 80% to 90% of the ~~ patrons would be between the ages of 8 and 14 and would be within walking distance or bike f ~ riding distance; that the faciiity would not be open during school hours and would open only S after noon on Sundays; that these curfew hours would be rigidly er.forced; that it was antici- pated the National Skateboard Championship would be held at this facility and would be tele- vised, at which time it would be necessary to erect temporary bleachers on adjacent properties j for which they had purchase option and permission to erect these temporary bleachers; and ~ that this facility would remove the children from public streets and sidewalks, and provide ~ ~ an immediate facility for skateboard enthusiastso The Commission noted a steel building was to be constructed as part of the development and i inquired whether the steel building would be in conformance with the recently established policy of the City of Anaheim, to which Mr, Alarik replied in the affirmative, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, ~ The Commission then reviewed the conditions if subject petition were approved - it was also I noted adequate parking was being provided, I Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, 1877, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 791, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Booka) ; Or, roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Mungall, , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Rowland, ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EARL A. DUNN, 5650 Ashworth gtreet, Lakewood, ~alifornia, ;I PERMIT N0~ 792 Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A HOFBRAU WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING STRUC'fURE on property described as: A rectangularly ~ shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east ~ side of Euclid Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 135 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 190 feet north of the centerline of Katella I Avenue, and further described as 1742 South Euclid Streeto Property p?;sently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONco Assistant 2oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission the petitioner had submitted . a letter requesting withdrawal of the petition~ THE HEARING WAS CLOS~D~ ' Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit ~ Noo 792, based on the fact that the petitioner had requested withdrawal. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo . , I ~ ~ ~ ~ --- ., ~ ... ~ ,f ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMio.r3SI0N, December 20, 1965 28g7 t.i a ' CO;~B;TIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE Ea LOSNESS, 1126 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, PERMI? N0~ 793 California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of~land with a frontaye of approximately 130 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and having a maximum depth :•f approximately 250 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 338 feet west of the centerline of West Street, and furt}~er described as 1126 West Katella Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, 61ro Geoxge.Losness, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed expansinn of the existing motele After the Commission had reviewed the plans submitted, the petitioner was asked whether or not doors were proposed for the rear portion of the addition since it would be adjacent to the school wall, to which the petitioner replied negativelyo Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 2:15 PoMo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 18?8, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 793, subject to condi.tionsa (See Resolution Book.) On roll cail the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A1!red, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, ABSTAIN: COMAAISSIONERS: Campo CONDITIOfJAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING> FRANCIS Ma DOWLING~ IOLA S. DOWLING, FRANCIS M-, DOWLINGy JR~, PERNIIT N0~ 794 AND RUTH Mo DOWLING, P„ 0, Box 412, Beaumont, California, Owners; A> BLAINE SMITH AND JOHN VAN IDERSTINE, 3613 Greenmeadow Drive, Fullerton, California, Agents; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESI- DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (116 UNITS~ 2-STORY) WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) MA:CIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIYVEEN BUILDINGS, AND (3) MINIMUM LIVING UNIT DISTANCE FROM A DEDICATED STREET on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of ]and of approximately 903 acres with a frontage of approximately 541 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 890 feet, the westerly line of subject property being approximately 836 feet east of the centerline of Dowling Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEa Mr~ Ranald Fairbairn, realtor, 3ppeared before the Commission, stating he represented the Dowling family and re•:iewed the H~oposed development, noting the original tract map proposed 200 units, whereas che present plani:ed residential development was proposing 116 units, and that the builder and developer of thE~ proposed development had been working with the Planning Staff and was available to answer any +echnical questions the ~ommission might havee Mro John Van ;derstine, one of the agents, in response to Commission questioning, stated the trash storage areas would be located in such a position with a U-turn to provide easy access for trash truck pick-upo Upon reviewing the plans, the Commission was of the opinion it would be necessary to have private trash pick-up because the location of the trash areas would not permit access of public vehicles over private propertyo No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, THE HEARING WAS CL05ED. Commissioner Herbst expressed the opinion he was still opposed to any residential use projected for the Northeast Industrial Area, that subject property was still a prime piece of industrial property, and if residential uses were allowed, the area would turn into a slum area because the raiiroad tracks were located to the rear of subject property and the property was entirely surrounded by industrial uses, together with the fl.ood control channel. Commissioner Gauer stated that since the City Council had approved a Resolution of Intent for R-3, any conditional uses within the R-3 Zone would be permissibleo ~ , _ ; <~ MINUTFS, CITY pLAtJNING •COh_ :SSION, December 20, 1965 ... ~r 2868 CONDIIIONAL USE - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that PERMIT NOo 79d su~ject property still had R-A Zoning, although the Resolutior~ of Intent (Continue T to R-3 was pending; that the tract map which had previously been filed on subject property had expired and a new tract map and planned residential development plans were submittedo Mro Fairbairn again appeared and advised the Commission the proposed development would b~ entirely one unit and would not be a subdivision; that he had been working for the petitioner for over a year in an attempt to develop subject property; that the previcusly approved tract o;: subject property proposed over 200 units, whereas the proposed pianned residential develop- ment was proposing 116; that the location of subject property, with the railroad tracks on one side and Crowther Avenue and Orangethorpe on the other side, presented a natural barrier to separate subject property from any industrial propertyo Mro Dowling appeared before the Commission and stated the sale of subject property was depend- ent upon development of the property under the proposed plan, which i^ his estimation was a considerable improvement over any previously considered by the Commission~ Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:30 PoMe Mr< Fairbairn stated that, in his opinion, subject property was at the outer perimeter of the City's industrial area and was not in the heart of the area, whereupon Commissioner Herbst stated the City of Placentia`s industrial area was immediately adjacent to the City of Anahei.m, and the entire area should have been retained for M-1 usese Mr, Fairbairn then stated there were many industrial properties southerly of subject property, and if subject property were developed, owners of the other properties were hopeful they would be able to develop their properties for other than ind~strial purposes„ Commissioner Perry stated that although he concurred in Mr~ Herbst's stateme~t that the area shouid have been maintained for M-1 purposes, since the City Council had committed subject property for R-3 uses, and tha± the property owners were attemptiny to develop in accordance with the Resolution of Intent of the City Councii~ Co.mmissioner Camp concurred in Mro Perry`s statement~ -',! Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No~, 1879, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage I and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No~ 794, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perryy Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland-> Commissioner Herbst, in voting "NO", stated residential development in the heart of-an industrial area would be detrimental to any future developrtient of i.he industrial areao Hssistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the conditions of approval of Aeclassification No~ 64-65-86 were contingent upon just the approval of a final tract map, whereas the approved conditional use permit was for a planned r?sidential develop- ment - tl~erefore, in order to provide flexibility in i:he administration of any future requestG, the Commission might wish to rece;cmend an amendment to the Council's approval of Reclassifica- tion No~ 64-65-86 as indicated in tl~e Staff Report~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1880, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer,to recommend to the City Council an amendment to Resolution of Intent Noa 65R-233 approving Reclassification Noo 64-65-86 to provide for admini- stration of the tract R~ap pro.edure or a planned residential development procedure, (See Resolution Booko) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following v~~te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Perry, Mungallo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbsta ` ; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ~. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland~ ~~ , ~ a, A ?~~ "!x y c ~ -- __ 1 MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING CONL.,~SSION, December 20, 1965 -t 2gg9 ;i~~~ s~ ~ ~. 1 ~ i i - ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ Jo Po RALSTON, 8841 Anthony Avenue, Garden Grove, PERMIT N0~ 795 California, and OPAL STEIB, 2310 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California (Parcel No~ 1)s and ALBERT GUDES, 930 Laguna Road, Fullerton, California (Parcel Noo 2), Owners; REVEREND GERALD R~ CARTERy 7902 Lessue :~venue, Stanton, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH AUDITORIUM AND SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING.STRUCTURE on property described as: Two rectangularly shaped adjoining parcels of land with a total and combined frontage of approximately 172 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue: Parcel No~ 1 being approximately 97 feet by 135 feet in size, the wasterly bounc~ary lying approximately 755 feet east of the centerline of Nutwood Street, and Parcel Noo 2 being approximately 75 feet by 147 feet and lying immediately east of and adjoining Parcel PJo~ 1, and further described as 1831 and 1837 West Orange Avenuee Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~ Reverend Gerald Carter, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was proposed to use an existing structure for a school and Sunday school facilities; that the legal aotice indicated a school was being proposed, which would imply this would be a regular day school - however, this was not so and it was intended to ut:lize s•:bject property only fo: a church and Sunday school; that it was anticipated to construct a new sanctuary some time i.n the future on the existing grounds; and that no plans for extes•ior remodeling were anticipated~ Mro Joseph Coffman, 1846 Orange Avenue, appeared before the Corunission and stated he represented a group of property owners on Orange Avenue, in opposition, and stated in the opinion of those in opposition, the area was residential in character and the vaiues of the properties would be adverseiy affected by making them less desirable for resa2e in the event subject petition was approved; that the operation of the school would not improve the property values; that several churches aiready ex.isted in close proximity, and the proposed church wouid further increase traffi.c on Orange Avenue, which would be detrimental to small chiidren, endangering their lives; that with such a heavy cor,centration of churches on a locai street, the existing street would be i:r:able to handle heavy tzaffic which would be ger.erated from the churches; that subject property could not accomriodate parking facilities for t:~e approximate 35 to 50 cars which wouid be comina to the church fo= services; and if a sanctuary were builts this would further reduce the parking facilities; that off-street parking should be a requirement if subject petitior, were approved; that the existin9 structures were not const;ucted to allow larqe qroups of people to congregate, and the structures should be inspected for possible vioi~tior. of the ~,:ilding codeq and that in his opinion, very few people in the area would be attending the services - therefore, ali attendance would be from outside of the area~ It was also nnted by Mr-, Coffman that the Co~ission should suggest tne petition be withdrawn since this would be an encroachment on the :esidential integrity of the area; that religeous and cha*itable organizations were not tax payers, whereas the opposition were tax payers of long standingq and that in the interest of these tax payersy subject petition should be denied~ Mr., David Bieltena, 1812 West Orange Avenue, appeared before the Commission, stat?ng his property was directly across the street from the proposed church facilities; that access to Orange Avenue from subject property was adequate if subject property were being used for single•-family residential use - however, a heavier use of subject property wouid mean an encroachment o.f addit;onal traffic from a considerably heavier use than was proposed for the property, It was also noted a small portion to the east of subject property~ measuring approximately 30 feet, provided access to an antique car s±orage area r.ortheriy of the proposed church facilitY3 that subject and the abutting property did not have street improve- ments or sidewalks, thus forcing pedestrians into a street which would have considerably more cars than were presently using the street, which would add a traffic hazard; and that other church facilities in the area were required to provide ef~-st:eet parking. Mr~ L~ B?.uhm, 1863 West Orange Avenue, appeared ir. oppositiony stating that in addition to the increase in traffic and inadequate parking facilities~ the petitioners wouid be using subject property without providing any improvement for the area~ In rebuttaly Reverend Carter stated thatfuture structures were proposed for subject property; that there was always opposition to the development of a church in a residential area; that there would be nn activity during the week • that services would be only on Wednesday and Sunday; that in accordance with the requirement of the Development Services Departments they were providing adequate parking facilities for the attendance anticipated; that upon construc- tion of a new structure, the existing structure would be removed; that one of the requirements of the Building Department would be renovation in accordance with requirements of the building cude; that one af the requirements of approval would be tfie dedication for street widening, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks; furtherY in response to Commission questioning, it was anticipated to remodel the interior and improve the outside - however, the use would be temporary until the time the church was :inancially able to construct a new structure, and no plans were available for said new structure~ ' t } MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~...~SSION9 December 20, 1965 ~ ~ 286~J GONDTT:ONAL USE - The Commission inquired how soon it was anticipated the new structure PERMIT NOo 7~5 would be built, to which Reverend Carter replied approximately one to (Continued) two yearsa It was also noted a convalescent hospital existed between subject property and Euclid Street and was commercial in nat~:re and projected heavier traffic on to the street~ ~ ~ Mro Henry Bryant, 1866 West Nutwood Place, in opposition, stated he was immedi.ately west f ~ to subject property; that Reverand Carter had mentioned the convalescent home wa~ located ` immediately west of Euclid Streetq however, this hospital was lccated immediately west of ~ Eu„~id Street and not in the general vicinity of sUbject property, Furthermore, he wished to have a statement by Reverend Carter as to the residence of the membership of the proposed ~ church facility, to which Reverend Carter replied that only a small portion of the church ,,.:.~ membership lived in the immediate vicinity of subject property. ~ ~' Mr,. Bryant further stated he had investigated the church activii.ies in the City of Stanton but was unai~le to locate the church and assumed it was held in a private homeo Reverend Carter stated the church was in existence in Cypress for the pas*, six years, ard thPy had never had a complaint against tne church at that iocat.ion, _ Commissioner Rowland expressed concern that if subject petition were approved, this would ~ leave a 28-foot strip along Orar;ge Avenue which would not be dedicated and would deter the widening of the street to handle h~avier vehicular use of the street; furthermore, he would not consider any land use change which wouid exclude widening of the street .'or its entire length~ In response to Comr.iission questioning relative to the antique car storage to the rear of the ch~rch propertyy Reverer.d Carter stated the owner of that prope=ty resided in the first house immediateiy east of the 28-ioot strip of land, which he feit was an access wzy to the re3-• po*tion cf the property. After discussion by the Commission reiative to obtaining dedication for the small parcel adjacent to subjec+. propertyY Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated the Commission could request the Right-of-Way Division of Public Wo:ks to enter into negotiation for that strip of land in attempt to widen the street, Office Engine2r Arthur Daw advised the Commission that approximately six to seven months ago they had attempted to contact the various property owners reiative to street improve- ment and had been informed they were not interested in improving their properties Commissioner Rowland then stated subject petition should be continued in order to allow the petitioners time to contact the adjacent property owners to determine whether dedication of their properties could be obtoined in order to provide fur adequate street width for vehicular traffico Commissioner Perry offered a motion to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permii No, 79~e Corunissioner Hllred seconded the motion~ ConsiderabLe discussion was then held, after which Commissioner Perry and Commissioner Allred withdrew theis motion and second. The Commission were of the opinion that a cburch would not be a detrimental use to the R-1 development in the area; that ~rany churct,es in tF,e city were well kept,.and many of the churches the Commission had approved were an asset to the area and the city and not a detriment; that the agent for the petitioner had clarified the school would be only a Suodax school, rather than a daily school; that some attempt shouid be made to acquire dedication for the small strip of l.and immediately to the east of subject property for street widening and improvement; and that a time limitatio~ to permit the use of the existing struCtures could be established by the Commission if subject petition were approved~ Commissioner Allred stated, in seconding the motion for denial, he was of the opinion that as the church grew, there would be no room for expansion on the existing property, and the propert was too small +.o accormnodate a growing churcho A petition signed by 28 property owners of 17 parcels on Orange Avenue was submitted in opposition to subject petitiono ~~~ ` ~ +~ ` ~. ~ * r ~ "~ ~.'1 ~ ~ ~ - ~- A showing nf hands indicated 10 persons present in the Council Chamber opposirig subject petitiono Commissioner Herbst offered a rotion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Conditiona Use Permit Noo 795 to the meeting of January 3, 1966, in order to allow the Right-of-Way Depart ment to attempt to get dedication of the 28-foot parcel for street widening purposes, and that the church should also make an attempt to negotiate with the property owner for said dedication because of the traffic hazards involved in automobiles 9oing to and from church along a narrow streeto Commissioner Allred seconded the motion-~ MOTION CARRIEDD F , _ ; MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COM~o,iSSION, December 20, 1965 ~-f ' 2861 k. ~:~~ VARIANCE NOo 1752 - PUBLIC HEARING~ STA'IER BROTHERS MARKETS, P. Oo Box 150, Colton, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE MAXIMUM FREE-STANDING SIGN HEIGHT WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIUENTIAL STRUCTURE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying east and south of a rectangularly shaped parcel (approximately 147 feet by 155 feet) at the southeast ccrneF of Magnolia Avenue and Broadway, subject parcel having fz ~tages of approximately 347 feet on the south side of Broadway and approximately 100 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2564 West Broa:way, Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAI., ZONE~ Mro Barker of the Federal Sign CompanyY Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed sign, noting that if the =_ign were located at the height permitted by code, this would present a grotesque size; that this type of sign, 14 by 22 feet, was normally placed at 55 feet. In response to Commission questioning relative to placing the sign in accordance with code requirements, Mr. Barker :;tated the petitioner was of the opinion advertising was rrc~t important to a:.y cmrmercia!. enterprise, and that the proposed sign shouid be located at a height that wou?d be visicle for some distance, Commissioner Alired stated the location where the proposed sign wa, to be located was a neigh•- borhood convenience shooping centery and everyone who would patronize the store would be aware of its location, ar,d a large sign was unnecessary.. Mr:, C~ D„ Brown, Jr,,, engineer for Stater Bi•others. appeared before the Cor.mission and stated the sign was a trademark for the company: that all new locations of the market had similar signs for effectiveness in order to be sufficiently visib:e for traffic to be forewarned in order to turn into the oa:king area~ and that the effect of the sign on the residential proper•- ties would be no different if it we=e piaced hiyhe: or lower. Mr~ Manuel Mendez, 2556 West Row:and Avenue, appeared befora the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated the:e were 14 homes directiy ~Olitll of the market, which were a new development; that 10 of the homes hsd been so;d prior to groundb:eaking, and the others N~r~ sold is.mediately afterwards; that he was opposed to the sign and would have been opposed to the market if he had been aw3re of it when he purchased his p:ope~ty - however the develop° ment oi the property had not taken place untii after the singie~•family residential subdivision had been constructed; and that he requested the Commission give some consideration to the single-family homes since the petitioner was proposing a four•-story sign which would light up the entire street and ~ncrease the undesirability of residential use of the properties to the south of the market, Mrs~ Armstrong, 2581 West Rowiand Avenue, appeared before the Con•~r:ission and stated she opposed the sign since it would be affecting he*. property and requestee~ that the Commissior, continue subject petition in order that other property owners on Rowland Avenue could appear to express their opinions, THE iiEARING WNS CLOSED, r! ' ~~I * i~ Commissioner Herbst stated, in response to a statement made by Mr, Brown, the engineer for Stater BrothersY the basis for establishing a sign o:dinance was to establish iimitations in order to protect all persons who might be affected by tne construction of u similar sign, and the intezpretation of each person would be different relative to the height which shouid be permissible. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolut.ion No, 1831, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No~ 1752; based on the fact that the proposed 48-foot high illumir.ated sign would have a detrimental effect on the residential integrity of the newly developed, single••family subdivision to the south and that subject property could be adequately signed within the requirements of the sign ordinanceo (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONUdISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: tvo~~eo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. t ., .., r~~~::;.:;_ ; .., .,, , _. . _., .~;:a_..: ~:~.._. . . . ... , f ~~~ ~~~ . ~:i . . .,..., ,. r T C, ~~I~'J~,..[ ~ . ~. _ - . ~ , _ ~,~ ~ ~ x~ - ~ ..._ - , = . . > 1~~ !.u, = . .,. . _ • :ra .i - .__.__._ _ ,- r~--:`~' • • ` _ . - • ~ ~ - _. _ ~ . - . ,, .. .. ~ ~ _ ~.> : .. . . . ~ ~.n. :~, .. ~ i~ ~~ _ i . .~t ~- •~ •- ~ ~ .. 1::~~t~. _ ~_ c.... ~n . . v.,, ._. ~ ~ ' -a. . .. =.'l~:J': i ~ ~ . ... _. . .f ,. . ~ ~ , ., . . . _.^.t ~.'+~~ - : T .... . . n ~.. . iil . .... . ~ •... - ~ - '. _ ~~:l:U•^. - . 1 r._ ~- . .. . i . .-,.rt . ",1Ci~. ot.. . .. , . . . • : . _ ^ ',.uf : . . . ... . ~~~..~ ~.t)'il>. _.~i.. . .~i ... '.l". ... .. .~ . ~-~~ariT _ .. . . .' . . . .:~ .,I•~ .._. .i... .. ~ . . - .. . . .. ~ . . ~ . ..so ~.. ... . •.1 . ~. ~ ... I' . . ~ ~ . ~~ :-. : . . i .:< <...~ .. .. ~ - ~ .. ., i, , ~.._ i. ... - . + . , . . ,. .', '.C -- . . , "'7'. _ . ~ .'J 1.4.""' .. i ' . .. . _.. .it~, f.~ F.S..t: • - -i . . -CC .~,1~ ..... ~ . _,~ c. . E nc ~." .. . ~ , . . . . . . . ~ ,~ C . .. . - ' • .... ~ ..Ci:.. !.. r.. . ,.., -.~-~a~_a~.; ..:o . .. ~ !~ ; i . .. i , .i: . , , .. ..., . ., . . ., ~ ,~:n~ti'.»; .. ., • - .... .., _ ~t: ir.. . ~ _ . - • ~R ~ n' ~-- ' ~~-,...~ ._. . . . ..~i _ . _ .... -. .. •- , _... f .~ '-O:i~~. r -- • i.~. .. ~ . 'r ~~,.,... . - ,, . ~ i . - . .... .......-- °- r _- . _... ; t 1 1 . . . . .,, • ' , •. _ ~ • `• , ' . ~ .,i~ , . ~ t:. , „ +.i, ~.. .. .... ~ ,. , ,~:,. . . i. ~.~ .._.7 ~ r , '.'~f C: i ~ . -' 1 ~ ... _.~~.e~ Ot i.~.~ ,...-- ;tl"~:' J..c, . ". ~ ..... , ' .. _ .... ... ~..: - t.~. ...~ . .. ._.,. C. __.,... ._.._. • ~ . ... .... .-` ' - . ....~ .. . . ... ,_ ..,.. ' ~ ....~.. . ,i.r. . .. ... ..., r.."-.I. i~~. ,... .. ,' :~ ~1:.. . . . .... 1 t....- . ... .. ._. "a . .. . ' , _, ,.. ~s:=; ._ .. r -'-.. •"" ' ~~ t ' ~ ~`, ~+ '~ , ' -. . .. . ' ,. ' t Il^Ii. , , .. .i. .. c .r~: . ' ~. . . . . , u , ~ ...,. _ ~ .. . . • ~ =i:L' ~. ~ . ~. ~ . . ~'"'•'•' .~.... ~~ ~" ._ . . ..u. i•. , ., r . ., . 1..~..: . ~ ~~ . _" ' . . ~ ..:~~. ... , . . ~~ . . .._..i. 1 r i.! : ~ .. , ~ ' . ~ . , i.. ~ .~i .... , ' . . . , .- . :,1 ~ ' t} .~:~:~ . ~ ~ - . .. ~. . . . . ~ . ~ ,... '1 . ~ • • ' ~~ _ _ :i .. . . .,,_ ~ . . . .~ . . _. - ;1 ,1'7Xt~:. .~ ..-. n ! 1•i~ . ..' ~ .... _ ~ ^,`. -_ , -_ . , . - . _ , . . .. . .. , . o t I . i : ' - ~• .' . =_... . . . _ ~ ~ ~ .. . . -. _.._ ` . i.. j ~.. ~~. . _ . ~ -' .. .. ~ . :f .. . ,. . I~ ' -,r i .. ., .. . . . . ~.~. . .. ~ ~ . ~ .. ' . ..~~r :~1',' ~ ... ~ . . .. , . . ~ .. .. ~1~. ~. ~. .i. , .. . ~ . ~ " . .. .~ ..~ . . ~ • ' .. . ... .~r~.f:it,'. . -~ - ~ i~ .' . ~i .. .{ T'i1 = , , .~,_ .._~ . . " . . ,... .r~ I~~,'1~'li ~ ...... . . . . . 1 ; } ` , ` .. ~. .._.. : . , ! .. __..... ..'- `_' ~ . ' ' ~ ~~ , ~ • , . ~ ~ . . . : . . . . ~ ~' ' ' " , , ^. . ' ~ ` . . . ~ ~ ' _.. ' . , .. . ~ ~ ~ . . , ~ .. . . .~ ~ r:n t.: , . . ~~~ I ~ ~. ~ . ,' ... ~. .' ~.. ' ~ . , ,........ :C~ .. ~ l~.. , . .._ .,.. 7,:, 1~.. ' '.. _ , , , ):. ...__. ` ,• . ... .; / rl ~ . .. . _~Y . . :-i -" ' - .,. .. . 'l ll: i t ~' . : ~ . . . - ~ ` :. • i1 ~ . ~ . :l'.:: !1:~ t . ~ . .....1 -, -..~ ... .""' i . .~n 1 . i( ' f ~ .. ~~~' " ' ~ ` 11 ' , .i~ . "~ '- . .. r.._.~~.._ - . ii. ' ' , ' ~ . .., .. . . ' . , ', I - _... ' ~ ~ .. . . _ . '. rJil .~-. , ~ ~.. . • ~ . _ . , . l:'. i . ..,. .~ ., . . ~,~~::~ .~.... " 4- . lF~ i _' 1 ? Y T~~-:: ~h~1^I.~ZY>Y~ ~: "C 2 i't ~ 'S. .l;'~ - - ~'5;~~~z~_ _ . ~ r _ K #.~ ~ ::e;=}^., . _.~n-. .. ..,_ ._ - . ,~vr,...2v,~ _ 'r I r~ ~ ~ '- w ~ ~- . _, k MINUTES, CIT.Y PLANN?NG COMMl~SSIONy December 20, 1965 '! ' 2862 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ FRANK MULLER, SR~ FOUNDATION, 6363 Sunset Boulevard, NOo 65-66-66 Suite 700, Los Angeles, Califo*nia, Owner; CLIFTON P., WOLFE, 629 South Spring StreetY Los Angeles, California~ Agent; proposing that property ~ described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a f:ontage of approximately 435 feet on the east side of Crescent Way and having a maximum depth of approximately 400 feet, the southeriy boundary of subject property being approximately 915 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1., LIGHT INDUSTRIALS ZONE~ Mro Clifton Wolfe, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the location of subject property and the existing uses established in close proximity, further noting that an Anaheim firm had purchased the property contingent upon reclassification to ~ the M-1 Zoneo No one appeared in opposition to subject pe*..ition~ THE I-]EARING WAS. CLOSEDo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1882, :eries ?965-66, and moved for its passage and adoptiony, secor.ded by Commissioner Gauer, to _>commend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ 65-66~66 be approved, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book~) On roll cali the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: C041MISSIONERS: Ailred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry; Munqail,. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None: ABSTAIN: COMMISS,ICtdERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY TN.F. CIT': PLANNING COMMISSIOR, 204 East NO,. 65-66-64~_ Lincoln Avenue, Hnsheimy Caiifornia, proposing that property described as: An area of lar:d cor,taining approxir.ately 338.? acres, bounded on the north by the Riverside F:eeway, on the east by Dowiing Avenue, or the southeast by the Santa Ana River, and on the south and west by the present Anaheim city limits, and further divided in.to portions described as foilows: Portion No~~l: A:ectangularly shaped oarcel at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Sunkist Street and having frontages of approximately 663 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 220 feet on Sunkist Street. Portion Nos_ 2 and 3: A tilangularly shaped parcei bounded on the north by the Riverside Freeway, on the south by La Palma 4venue, and on the west 6y tha present Anahcim city limits Portion Nos._ 4 y5 and 6: An irregularly shaped parcel bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, on the east by Rio Vista Street, and on the south and west by the psesent Anaheim city limits. Portion Nos~ 7, By9 and 10: An irregularly shaped parcel bounded on the west by Rio Vista Street, on the north by the Riverside Freeway, on the east by Dowlin9 Avenue, on the southeast by the Santa Ana River, and having a maximum depth south £rom the Riverside Freeway of approximately 1,550 feet. Portion No. 11: An arregularly shaped parcel consisting of Tracts 4321 and 44i2-, Portion No~ 12: A rectangularly shaped na:cel containing approximately 25 acres having a irentage of approximacely 840 feet on the east side of Rio Uista Street, the southerly bounda~:y of this portion being aporox=r,ately 1,227 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Fortior. No, 13: An irregularly shaped ~arcel bounded on the south by Lincoln Avenue, on the west by Tracts 4321 and 4412, and on the east by the Rancho Santiago de San~a Ana boundary which lies within the Santa Ana River3 and further described as the La Palma-Rio Vista Annexation, have permanent zoning established for Portion Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13y R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE; for Portion Nos~ 4; 6 and 11, R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; for Portion No~ 2, R-2, MULIIPLE-:AMILY RESIDENTIALY ZONE; and for Portion No. 7, R-A (0), AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (OIL)~ Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed the proposed permanent zoning for the properties encompassed in the most recent annexation known as the La Palma-Rio Vista Annexation, noting the annexation had been filed with the Secretary of State on December 13S 1965, and with the Orange County Recorder on December 14, 1965; that permanent zoning was comparable to the interim zoning established by the City Council on November 23, 1965, „sx ~ ... ~ 4 .. , i i ; MINUTES, CITY PLANhiNG COMmiSSION, December 20, 1965 2863 ~ f RECIASSIFICATION - Mr~ Roger Panniery 2056 South Loara Street~ appeared before the Conunission j N0~ 65•-66-64 and stated he was not opposed to the zoning of the properties although he ~ (Continued) was interested in a portion of Parcel No, 7, on which there presently existed ~ a printing company which had been zoned M-1 while under the jur•:sdiction of ~ the County and inquired whether or not reclassification of the adjoinin9 parcels could be requested at a future date to possibly commercial uses along a service road~ ihe Commission informed Mro Pannie: that petitions for reclassification were always open to property ownErs, and the proposals would be considered on their merits and how they would ~ffect adjoining parcels in thei.r future development. ': ~~~ hir-~ Krieger stated the printing shop was a non-conforming use established in the County, and , the property had not been classified in the M•-1 Zone; that at the time investigation relative ~~f ~ to permanent zoning on subject property had been made by the staff, the structure on Mr~ Pannier° ,>~x property was ~racant; and that the low density :ecommendation for subject property. was based on ;~ the fact that the General Plan indicates low density south of the freeway since the freeway was considered a natural de:ineation between the indust*ial to the north of the freeway and any i ~ other residentia'_ uses southeriy of the freeway~ { Mr~ Arthur Hemmerlir.g, 114 Coffman, appeared before the Commission and noted Parcel No: 8 had ' ~ been zoned in the M-1 Zone while under the ju=isdiction of the County; however, under the i proposed zoning :t was being piaced into the R•-A, Aaricultu:al, Zone~ i .~ Mr, Krieger stated that although Parcel P~os~ 8 and 10 ~ad been classified in the M-1 Zone, the Anaheim Ger.eral Pian, as well as the p:oposed Hi!1 ar.d CanYOn General Flan, designated the area south. of the Riverside Freeway as low density residential <3nd a special park site ,1? adjacent to the river; ?hat the Rive:side F^eeway w?s ~~`.iiizeo as a natural iine of demarcation ~ with the Northeast Indust:iai Area r.orth of the `ree~-~ay ar.d low density residential development ~ and the park south of the freeway; and that ~he Park and Rec_eation DepartTent had ?ndicated I extensive rec:eational .'acilities were being pianned fo: the design.ated park sites in this area- , therefose it was recommended thai the R-A Zone be established for Ua_cel f~os 8 and 10~. Frir=.=i~ ~i because they were presently ~indeveioped F'owever, t?us di.d r.ot preclude anyc.~ne ~eauesting a zoning change of their properties, THE HEARING W'-: CL05ED~ I Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised ±he Commi.ssion tnat exact bounda:ies by metes and •'~ _ bounds would be necessary in order to prepare ar ordin~nce establishing permanea.t zoning as - indicated on the map. ~. ~ Mr, Krieger stated the Right~of-Way Department ot Fngineering had prepared these, ar.d it was i assumed they wese accurate~ ;,I :~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution ~o. :.883; Series :965-66; and mo.~d for its passage and ;~ adoption, seconded by ComTissioner Rowlar.d, ±o recoTrt:end to the City Council that Peti!ion :or Reciassification Na. 65-65-64 he approved, astablisning permar,ent zoning fo~ pzonerties in the recentiy annexed La Palma-Rio Vista Annexaiion, placing Parcel Nos, 1, 3; 5; 8, 9, 10, 12, and ~~ 13 in the R•-A, Agricultural, Zone; parcei No, 2 in the R•2, Muitiple~-Fam?ly Residential, Zor.e; ',f ~ Parcel Nos. 4„ 6, and 11 in the R-1, One•-Family Residential, Zone; and Parcel No„ 7 in the R o J I (0), Agricuitural (Oil Production), Zone,. (See Resolutior. Book ) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Camp. Gauer, !ierbst. Per:y, Rowland, Mungal!., NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ i I~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~ RECLASSIFTCArION - PUBLIC HEARING~ I~ITIATED BY T4E CITY PLANNING CO'~M4ISSION, 204 East N0~ 65-66-65 ,:,_ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that propert}~ described as: Portion No, 1 of La Palma-Rio Vista Annexation permanent zoningy and further described as a rectangularly shaped parcel of lar.d at the southeast corner of La Pa:.ma Avenue and Sunkist Street and having frontages of approximately 663 feet on La Paima Avenue and approximately 220 feet on Sunkist Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GE.NERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, ; Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed the location of subject propertyy noting that while ' under the juris~9iction of the County, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning had been granted in April of 1965; that re~:ently a call had been received from the Union Oil Company indicating a service - station would be constructed on a 150-foot by i50-foot parcei at the southeast corner of Sunkis± * Street and La ~alma Avenue; however, there was no indication on the assessor's map that a lot ~ split had baer. effected; and that if a service station was proposed for a portion of the propert under considerationy this was a permitted use in the C-1 Zone, and since a single•-family resi-- dence was not within 75 feet of the property, the service station couid be constructed by right. ~ , i ~, f MINUTESy CITY PI,ANNFNG CO~vv.;iSSION, December 20y 1965 2864 RECLASSIFICATION - It was aiso noted by Mr~ Kriege= that since properties to the e~st5 north, NO.. 65-66-65 south and west were already developed, there was little like:i!,ood tha± (Continued further strip coRUnercial development would occur along La Palr.~s Avenue or Sunkist Street._ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompsony in response to Commission questioning relative to a variance which had requested amendment to deed restrictions on the use of the c~rrunercial property at the time subject property was undE~r the jurisdiction of the County amending the hours of operation, stated the City Attorney's representative wouid have to ansWer the possi- bi?ity of restricting the hours of operation for the service stationf furthermore, that the ultimate dedication of Sunkist Street would be 90 feet and for La Palma Avenue 106 feet, and that the actu.sl dedication at this time on Sunkist Street was 30 feet - therefore an additional 15 feet of dedication would be required as a condition of approval of the reclassification for subject property to the C-1 Zone„ However, upon i;~vestigatior. of the County's limitatiun=_ in tha Neighborhood Conmercial Zone, it was r.oted the City did not have a comparable zone in which to limit the uses for subject property. The Commission inauired whether or not the prope_ty owne~ had plans for developnient oi the rem3inder of the proposed C-1 property: Mr, Henry Steinbrink, 516 South Revere, appeared before the Corr.:issior: and stated theze were no pians for development of the *em.=.ir:der of the parce?. The Corruni~sion then stated that rathec tnan consider blanket rec?assification inr sub;ect property, it might be best that plan~ of develop~*ren± be subr`_tted fo_ ar.y p~oposed sr.o~ping center ir, order that the uses R:iaht be more compatihle to the :esiden!?ai integrity of the area, Mrs. R, L. ".olm., 25~5 East La Paim~~ Avenue, stated t'r:e -es'de; t= o: tr,e area H~~nte+f a cor.ticu• ance of s:!ject petition since they had no time to :m~estiga*.e tne :mpiica±ions oi cons:ercial zoning f~r that propezty •• this ±ime wouid give tiiem an opportunity to study tne implications and soeak with soa:e kr.owiedge and autho:zty ir. opposing the C• : Zor:ir.g since tt.e area consis±ec of fine residentiai homes in al? dirzctions to tne nor:h, westS so~t5 ar.d east; howeve-, tentatively the property owners :n the area we_e opposed ±o cor.,,er~~ai zor.ir~g io, subiec± property, After considerable diswssion by the Conmission it was dete.-a;ined r~o=e SCLidy ~t:ouid be g°_ven i; orde: to determine whethe: or r.ot tr,e Ciiy chou?d estsb'_ish ~ Neighbo~hood Con;¢~ercial Zone to permit wider uses than oresent:y permitted ir. the C~1 Zor~e witt;out re^ui:ing deec _estric tions-since the owner of subject p_ope:ty ;~3d been given a Ne~ghbortood Con,rercia: Zone fo: the property, the Ciiy should not rest.ict him in tne ~~ses of f,is p:operty othe~ than ti:a± whicn was originaliy granted. Commissione: Camp offered a motion to contin~~e cons:deration of Reci~ssificatior. PIo b5-66 u5 to the meetir.g of January 17; 1966y in order to a11ow time for tne ,~a'; to presar,t iaore detailed infozmatian on the Neighborhood Commercial Zonir,g gran±ed !:.~ F~er.e~ty owner of subject property and to determine whether or not deed restrictions snouid be nl:+ced on subiect propezty if a C-1 Zone was recommerded for appro~ai, Commi,sioner G=_uer ~econded the motior.. MOT?ON CARRIF~.. RECESS Commissior,er Perry offereci a motior, to recess the ~:eeting un±i'_ 7:00 P~M~ Commissioner Rowland seconded tne r,otion, MOTION C.4RRIcD~ The meeting recessed at 4:00 P,M, RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconver.ed the meeting at 7:03 F,M,, a:l Cemr.:issior.e:s being present with the exceptio~ of Co!rmissioner .Alired-, ~ F { MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM~~dSSION, December 20, 1965 ~ ~ 2865 AREA DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, PLAN NO> 23 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that property described as: A generally rectangular7y shaped parcelofland located east and west AREA DEVELOPMENT of Harbor Boulevard and between Santa Ana and South Streets, and further PLAN NOe 24 ~ dividEd into parcels as follows: j RECLASSIFICATION Parcel Noo 1: A generally rectangularly shaped parcel with frontages of N0~ 65-66-59 approximately 763 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 163 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Street, and approximately 110 feet on the north side of Water Streeto Parcel Noe 2: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with frontages of ~ approximately 117 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Street . and approximately 213 feet on the east side of Harbor , Boulevardo Parcel Noe 3: A rectangularly shaped parcel with frontages of approximately 561 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 234 feet on the north side of Water Street,and approximately 561 feet on the west side of Y,elena Streeta Parcel Noo 4: A rectangularly shaped parcel with frontages of approximately 766 feet on the east side of Harbor Houlevard, approximately . 766 feet on the west side of Helena Street, approximately 227 feet on the south side of Water Street, and approximately 235 ~e~t on the north side of South Streeta Parcel Noo 5: A rectangularly shaped parcel with frontages of approximately 766 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 766 feet on the east side of Pine Street, approximately 235 feet on the south side of Water Street, and approximately 235 feet on the north side of South Street9 be reclassified ~ from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE; R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; C•-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE; and C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, , ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject Area Development Plans and Reclassification were continued from the meeting of November 2~, 1965, in order to allow the Commission time to study and evaluate the implications of commercial zoning for subject propertiese ~ Assistant Planner Francis Nutto reviewed Area Development Plan Noso 23 and 24 for interested persons in the Council Chamber, noting this was a portion of the consideration of commercial _ zoning for Harbor Boulevard between Lincoln Avenue on the north and Ball Road on the south. It was also noted the City had 2,70G homes facing similar situations of fronting or siding on arterial streets and highways, and the Area Development Plans presented were prepared to indicate secondary access for the Harbor Boulev:rd frontages if access rights were required to be dedicated~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions, THE HEARING WAS C;OSED. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the necessity for reclassifica- tion proceedings or approval of strip commercial zoning for Harbor Boulevard in order to obtain property for street widening; that it was possible to resolve the traffic problem by rest*icting the parking on the street for a specified amount of time to determine whether this would be the most feasible method af resolving the traffic problem. Com:.issioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1884, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Area L'evelopment Plan No. 23 be disapproved without prejudice, based on the fact that the proposed commercial zoning was too premature for the area, and it was further recommended that the City Council initiate "no parking" zones for Harbor Boulevard between Santa Ana and Water Streets in Qrder to alleviate the traffic problems on Harbor Boulevard because of the exist- ing width of the street. (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungalla NOES: COMMISSICNERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo ,~ . '~~ ~tx* F _ -~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMrv,i~SSION, December 20, 1965 ' 2866 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOSo 23 and 24 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-66-59 - (Continued) Commissioner Rnwland offered Reso).ution No< 1885, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan Noo 24 be disapproved without prejudice, based on the fact that the proposed commercial zoning was too premature for the area, (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea J ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ ~ , Commissioner Camp affered Resolution No~ 1886, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclissification Noo 65-66-59 be disapproved without prejudice, based on the fact that no evidence was submitted to indicate the need for further commercial zoning in the area above and beyond that which presently existed; that no support was indicated from the property owners of the Harbor Boulevard frontages for reclassification to commercial zonings and furthermore, that the ~~ommission recommended the City Council establish "no parking" zones along Harbor Boulevard between Water and Santa Ana Streets for a period of one year and striping of the street should be made to indicate travel lanes, as a possible means of resolving the traffic problems along Harbor Boulevardo (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMIS~IONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungail~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMN!ISSIONERS: Allredo AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANtdI~G COMMISSION, 204 East PLAN NO„ 9 _ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing development of properties between South Street and Vermont Avenue on the east side of Harbor Boulevardo Assistant Planner Francis Nutto presented Area Development Plan No, 9 as fo?lows: Backqround and Anal sis This report is an updated revision of an area development plan presented to the Planning Commission on August 3, 1964, On October 19, 1965, the City Council held a public hearing on the subject of proposed NO PARKING along Harbor Boulevard from Anaheim Buulevard to Ball Roada As a result of that meeting, it was decided to study Harbor Boulevard in two sections, with first attention given to the area south of Lincoln Avenue~ The area norih of Lincoln will be studied in the second sectiono It is further intended to study the first section in phases, with two or three blocks at a time given detailed study~ Previous area develop- ment plans have considered the blocks from Broadway to South Street~ This Area Development Plan Noo 9 will cover the east side of Harbor Boulevard from South Street to just north of Vermont Avenueo It is assumed in this study that any redevelopment of this block will proceed more or less on a parcel bK parcel basis, over an extended period of time, rather than on the hasis of one project, at one time, on the entire blocko The City of Anaheim is fa~ed with the problem of residential homes fronting on arterial high- ways in certain areas of the Cityo As development, both physical and economic, has taken place, homes which were once located on lightly traveled thoroughfares have found themselves located on higt,ly traveled arterial highwayso Al~ng with tremendous growth of Anaheim has come greatly increased traffic along Harbor Boulevardo According to the Traffic Engineer, the average daily total at the present time is approximately 21,000 vehicles winter and 26,000 vehicles summer with a 50;K increase estimated in ten yearso Harbor Boulevard is the gateway from the north to our important Commercial-Recreation Area~ It is a primary arterial on the Anaheim General Plan and a primary highway on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highwayso ~'; Harbor Boulevard pierces the heart of Anaheim, Being one of the most important north-south `•~• arteries in Anaheim, its appearance is highly important in creating an image of Anaheimo ~, _ This feature is recognized in the Billboard Ordinance in that billboards are not ~~ along two scenic highways, one of which is Harbor Boulevardo permitted ,-;j ~ ~.1 ~ ~ ~ : I MINUTES, CITY~PLANNING COh~..;SSIONy December 20, 1965 } ' 2867 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0~ 9 ~Continued) 7n order to hardle increasing traffic loads, it will be necessary to: lo Restrict parking along the present 34~75 foot half width right-of-way, or 2~ Widen to the 45-foot haif width ultimate right-of-way called for on the General Plano Either of these measures will cause deterioration in the environment for continued single family residential useo The public hearings should serve to bring out the alternative preferred by the affected residentsa ~ In addi~ion to changing environment along arterial highways, some residential property owners have been subj.ected to economic pressures, These economic pressures result from developers ; ~ wanting to redevelop arterial frontage, residential parcels for commerciai purposes~ 'fhe ~ combi~ation of traffic and economic pressure is aiready stron9 on both sides of Harbor from Water to South St:eet and is starting to become evident along the east side from South Street to Vermonta Findinqs: • 1> Subject p:operties are presently developed as low density singl~ family resider~tialo These properties were developed as a tract approximately fifteen years agoo While the dwellings have experienced over half of th~ir expected economic life of approximately twenty-five years, the improvements still represent considerable value, 2~ Most of the lots under study are 61 feet wide, substantially below the city minimum standard of 70 feet„ Th~ typicai lot in the block is 61 by 103 or 6,283 square fee+., which is considerably beLow the city minimum standard of 7,200 square feet for an R-1 lot.. 3~ The existing surrounding uses follow: (See Q~arter Section Map No~ 74) ao Properties across Harbor to ~':e west have an Auto Ciub ofiice, muitiple-•family de•~elopment, and motels; proposed uses include a se;vice station and market, and a Masonic Temple; and vacant parcels., bo Surrounding properties to the north, east and south are largely low~-density ! singie family residentiala - 4~ The General Plan indicates that the subject properties are considered to have Commercial-Professional office potentiai. 5~ Subject properties do not have any secondary access alleys: (See Exhibit "A")~ There are thisteen access points now existing on the east side of Harbor between South Street and Fiampshire, and one between Hampshire and Vermont~ 6~ Traffic count shows an average daily total of some 26,000 vehicles per day in the '` summer, Within ten years, a fifty per cent increase is predicted, ~~:; 7~ The Circulation Element of the General Plan shows 45 foot half right•-of•-way reauired I.~ along Harbor. Boulevardo This would mean a dedication of 10~25 foot width along the east side of Narbor to properly provide for traffic nee~s~ 8~ Subject properties have been developed with street trees, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, 4= Development of subject properties for commercial use would require, by Code, the !- provision of a public alley unless surrounded by public streets or w2ived by the ~} provisions of an officially adopted 3rea development plan. i ~ Development Al.ternatives: (Block bounded by Harbor Boulevard, South Street, Helena Street and Hampshire Avenue) ; le Commercial use: (Either office or retail) (C-0 or C-1) a~ Harbor Baulevard frontaqe lots onlv: Insurmountable problems would be cieated if - such deveLopment were allowed~ Without an alley for access to the rear, the existing u' dwellings could not be utilized on a single lot basiso Due to existing narrow side ~~ ; setbacks, there is no room for a driveway for access to rear parking required by ~ Codeo If twa lots are used and one dwelling removed to provide parking to the side of the remaining dwelling, it is highly auestionable that this could be j.ustified , ~ '' economically. Undesirable vehicular access would still exist to Harbor Boulevard, ±.' *~ Even if a continuous alley could be provided in a reasonable time through some :;:~ ~, `~ thirteen parcels now under separate ownership, there would be no usable parking area left behind the existing dwellings, after taking 20 feet of the rear yard for ~ MINUTES, CIiY PLANNING COIv~...SSION, December 20, 1965 2g6g AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOo 9-~Continued) alley right-of-way~ For a variety of reasons, therefore, use of an existing dwelling on one nx mare frontage lots is not feasible~ j~~ ;~~ , j, ~ As prexiously noted, it would be virtually impossible to expect all Harbor frontage lots an.the block to provide a continuous access alley with.in a reasonabie time.. It shnuld also be noted that such an alley would have to go through two existing struct;:ses, Even if we consicered the use of new structures on frontage lots, access would have to remain for an undetermined length of time on Harbor Boulevaxd, thereby creating much worse traffic probiems on this important arterial~ W~,tfiout the nucleus of an exis~~ng alley to serve as secondary acr,ess, these frontage lots by themselves are toa shallow to be developed for commercial use, bo Entire binck from Harbor through to Helena: Redeveiopment for commercial use might be feasible if two lots or. more are combined so that the assembled parcel has fror,tage on both Harbor and Helena. Visual contact with expensive frontage on Harbor could be maintained along with vehiculax access from Helena Streeta Redevelopment on a parcel by parcel besis could be accompli.shed by al.inwing.tEmoorary access to Helena Street only until such time as all parcels in the tilock have p=0v_ided the necessarY alley riqht-of•-way~ Due to restrictians on setback and heiqht when 3djacent to a residential zone boundary, it proba6ly~ would not be zEasible to develop only a singl2 lot width~ For example, a ten foo# high buildi.ng would have to stay twenty feet from the side lot line if the next lot were still in.a residential zone~ On ? 61-foot w~_9~ lotY only 21 feet would be le;t on which to buiid~ On two lots wide or 122 foot width, 82 feet would sti21 be available for buiiding. Of course, if the lot to be redeveloped is next to a parcel already zoned and developed commercial, then the =_ide se*.back would only be 10 feet for C•-0 or zero side setback reauired for G-1: 2, Retail use: LC-1, Gener3l Cortur~erciai, Zone) It is always di£ficult to draw ±he line between commercial and residentiai uses~ Generaliyy it seems to be more satisfactory to have such uses back to back :ather than across a narrow street from each other Since it is not feasible to develop the frontage only lots along Harbor, and since commercial use wouid undoubtedly be orien~ed toward Harbor9 retail use of the enti:e biock betweer Harbor and '.ielena would mean that the rear of retail. use would be ac:oss Helena Street from the front of single family resi- dential uses, Tne public hearing wili probably show that such use is conside~ed undesir- able by the residents along the east side of Fle]ena S*_reet~ In addition, there does not appear to be a demonst:ated need for :etai! use. 3, Office use: (C-~, Commercial O:fice, ?one) P.s part of the general program of studv along fia*tor Eoulevard from Lincoln to flall Road, all classi#ications have been adve:tised uniformly for pessibie change to the C-1, General Commercial Zone, in order to give the Planning Comm?ssior, and the City Council flexibility in considering the various choices in land use: It is possible to grant C-0 'Lone when advertised C-1; however, it is questionable if C-t Lone could be granted when advertised for C-0~ The General Plan indicates that this property has potentiai for cortur~ercial officP use. As noted above ia Alternative 1, it is not feasible to develop the frontage only lots in this bLock for.commercial use; however, commercial office use would be an appropriate use on a parcel running through from Harbor to Helena~ In order to properly protect the singie family residential uses on the east side of Helena from any adverse effect ~f business across the street, the following safeguards should be observed: aa Review of plans by the Development Review Committee of the Department of Development SErvices should give careful attention to the east buiiding elevation of any new building to make certain that a pleasing appearance is presented to the resid=nts across Helena and not just the back end of a buildinge ba As each pascel is redeveloped, access to both Harbor and Helena =hould be dedicated to the.City~. Temporary access should be allowed to Helena until a secondary.access alley is completely dedicated and improved through the block. As things sta~d at the pres~nt,..the most convenient location for the alley would be 5£eet from the Harbor. frnntage lot and 15 feet from the Helena frontage loto This location would be as far as possible from Harbor and allow the maximum possible utilization of the exptnsive Harbor frontage for building purposes~ At the same time, such location would cover the existing 10-foot wide utility easement which has 5 feet each from the rear of Harbor and Helena frontage lots., MINUTES, CITY' PLANNING CONu.~,SSION, December 20, 1965 + 2869 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOo 9-(Continued) c~ The basic requiremeni of the C-0 Zone of 20,000 square foot minlm~~m site size should not be ~educedo This would guarantee that at least foUr lots would be assembled into one usable parcel~ If it is further required that such minim~im of four parcels contain at least two lots on Harbor and at least two lots on Helen,3, it would keep access poi~ts to Helena at a minimumo do The area covered by the Helena frontage lots should be reserved for parking and landscaping with no structures permitted~ eo The fzontage along Helena shouid have a landscaping strip and a 6-foot high decorative block wallo Temporary openings would be needed for any temporary access permitted; however9 provision should be made for completing the wail when the temporary access is terminated, 4~ ~4uitiole housi,nq usel (R~2 or R-3y Multiple Family Residential,Zonej For the s.aaie physical reasons enumerated in deveiopment Alternative Number l~a abovey the frontage onl~ lots in this block could not be properly developed for muitipl,: housingo Also, the.same environmental problems that now exist .'o: the continued use as sirTgle family dwellings would operate to discourage redevelopment of the frontage only ~ots for multiple use~ However, this entire block could very suitabiy be used for multiple hous- ing if it.ran from Harbo= through to Helena and were oriented to Helena:, A block wall and a secondary access alley along Harbor would produce a satisfactory environmen.tal situation far multiple housing on this block~. The economics of the situation indicate that the cost af acquiring the land for this purpose is beyond the point of being reason- able, Because the value of existing structures is s:ill significantly large, the cost of providing cleared land on this block is not comoetitive with similarly situated vacant i3nd~ Multiple housing is not economically feasible at this time, but might be in ten years or mnr.e when the vaiue of the improvements on the iand have been considerably depreciated.~ 5o Low densit residential use: ~R-1, Single Family Residential, Zone) Environmeatal conditions appear to be slowly deteriorating along tne Harbor Boulevard frontage Lats~ While the neighborhood still presents an excellent appeaiance, continued deterioratinn i~ ervi.ronmental conditions can be expected As the structures are finan•- cially depa~eciated with the passing of time, economic pressures wili increase and redevel- opment wi11 take place, There is no apparent need at this time for any redevelopment of the lots on the H•~st side of Helena as this is a good, stable single family neighborhood~ The only need to consider the west side of Helena is in connection with redeveiopment of the east side of Harbor in the same block, since it is apparently riot fe3sible to redevelop the Harbor frontaqe alone, Development Alternatives: (Th:ee lots at southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Hampshire) Lots 1 and 2 on Hampshire Avenue and the single lot facing Harbor contain a total of approxi• mately 19,980 square feeto While they are currently being used as single famiiy dwellings, the General Plan does indicate thei: potential for C-0, Commercial-Office zoning district use-, If the block to the north is reclassified to C-0 Zone, then these three lots should be similar- ly zoned~ In _tha.t event, individual development of these three lots should not be ~ermitted, but instead, asseu~ly.of the three lots into one parcel should be encouraged even tt~ough the total area is not quite up to Code required 2C,000 square feet, At the same time, and in order to encou~age such a redevelopment, it is felt that a secondary access should not be required as Hampshire Avenue would provide suitable access with ail access to Harbor dedicated.. These lots do ant appear to be ready at this time for redevelopment; certainly this is not the only possibilityo In time, up to four or five lots along Hampshire might be involved, parti- cularly if the entire block to the north is redeveloped for orfice use-. This particular situation has so many redevelopment variations possible that final determination might well await a specific proposalo It is even conceivable the single lot facing Harbor migfit be assembled with the corner lot on Vermont~ Recommendations: It is recen~ended that the Commercial-Office potential shown on the General Plan be recognized and that the property covered by Area Development Plan Noo 9 be reclassified to C-0, Commercial Office, Zor.eo Recommendations for Imalementation: , It is recommended that this Area Development Plan No, 9 be officially adopted as a feasible ~; means of development of the property and that redevelopment be req~iired suostantially in accordance with Exhibit "C"o „+tx i '_ ' ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMmISSION, December 20, 1965 ~ 2870 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOe 9-(Continued) The Commission was of the opinion that public hearing on the Area Development Plan Na~ 9 and Reclassifitatiora Woo 65-66-63 be considered as one itemo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ INITIATED BY THE CITY ?LANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 65-66-63 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing reclassification of property described as: Portion A: An irregu2arly shaped parcel of land bounded on the north by South Street i on the east by Helena Street, on the south by Hampshire Avenue, and on the ~~ Po ti wes~ b~ Harbor Boulevardo r on B: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner o~ , Hasbar Boulevard and Hampshire Avenue and having frontages of approximately Portion C: 178 .fPet on Harbor Bou2evard and approximately 110 feet on Hampshire Avenue~ A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of appioximately 125 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approxi.mately 200 feet, the northerly boundary of subject prope:ty being Portion D: approximately 213 feet south of the centerline of South Street., A rectangu2arly shaoed parcel of land with a frontage of approximately _, 338 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum de~th f o approximately 236 feety the northerly boundary of subject property Portion E: beinq apoxoximately 676 feet south of the centerline of South Street,. An irregularl sha d y pe parcel of land situated at the southwest corner o£ Harbor Boulevard and Vermont Avenue and having fronta es of i f t g approx mately 329 feet on Harbor Boulevard and approximately 260 feet on Vermont Avenue; rom he R-A, AGRICULTURAL, and R-1, O~E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES to the C-i, GeNERAL j COMMERCIAL, ZONE., Mr~ Francis Nutto noted that Area Development Plan Noe 9 encompassed Por±ions A and B; that Portion C was already developed with the use permitted in the C•-0 Lone, and with the proposed Masonic Temple adjacent to the south; that Portion D was vacant, and reclassifi- cation to the C-0 Zone would be compatible with the proposed Masonic Temple adjacent to the north; that Po:tien E cor,tairted a service s±atior~, a~~otel and a vacant parcei; ar.d since a motei ar,d mobile home pa~k exis±ec to ±he south in the Cor.r~ercia;-Rec>eat?on R*ea, the p:oposed C-i Zone wou:d be most appropriate.. M*, John Langford, 839 South ~elena Streets aFFeared before *ne Commissior. in opposition to reclassification of Portions A ar.d B, noting that he was pa=tic~la~iy opposing ~eciassi- fication of those propertiss on Helena St*eet based or the fact that there was no ~eal compeiiing reason to Tezone the =esidentiai Uroperties; that comr.~e:cial zoning was un~ecessary because that whicn existed on Harbo* Boulevard north of South S*:eet had r~any vaca~cies in the co~*~mercial building; that there was no demar.d for commerciai zoning c* p*oper±y i.n the areag t!-,a~ because the t:affic on Harbor Bouievard had increased was no basic reasor for destroying the residential integrity oi those properties on Hele^.a St=eet; t`~at ne toak exception to the po:tion of the krea Development Pian which stated the price of p;ope*ty on Narbor Bouleva;d preciuded any development of onP single parcel,and if 'his w,,s t3ken inte consideration in deterRining the :easibility of reciassificatior. for these properties for economic purposes, 'r.is property was presently valued at y2:,000; that Helena Street had been entirely developed for residential purposes for more than fifteen years, mar,y of the ~roperty owners having lived there since the home:. were constructed; that many chiidren lived n the zrea, and if commercial uses were proposed for a portion of the street, this would create considerable traffic hazards to the residen±s of the area which the Commission shouid keep in mindg and that he ur.ged the Comm?ssion to consider retaining the residential integrity for both Harbor Boulevard and Helena Street as depicted in Portions A and B for residential purposes, since it was too premature to determine whether or not strip commercial zoriing would be appropriate for the area> ~ Mrs, Wesley Jones, 856 South Helena Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition ard stated she had resided on that street fo= fifteen years; that she and her neighbors were interested in the development of the area; that all the property owners on Helena Street were proud of the neighborhood and had worked hard to maintain its residential integ*ity; that commercial zoning from an economic standpoint was too premature since too much money was still invested in these homes; that she =ea=ized the City was faced with the problem of development on Harbor Boulevard with the heavy traffic - however, the entire area along Harbor Boulevard south of South Street, on the east side, and ail of Heiena Street were still being used basically for low-density residential use; that commercial enterprises that had been siarted in the area did not seem to succeed ~ therefore comr.ierr,ial zoning did not seem to be ner.essary; that she realized it was impo*tant the City be concerned with the image of the City for this street since Harbor Boulevard was the entry to thz CoRUnercial- Recreation Area; and she suggested the City develop a precise plan of development for Harbo: Boulevard which would encompass standards for the area in order to depict the beauty of the City to all people visiting the City~ . ; MINUTESS CITY PLANNING CObu.,tSSIOPI, December 20y 1965 2g~1 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0~ 9 RECLASS~rICATION - Mrs. Robert Routh, 842 South Helena Street, appeared before the N0~ 65-66-63 Commission and presented a petition of opposition sioned by 35 p~operty (Continued)~ owners representing 2i properties or. He'_ena Street and one on the north side of 4ampshire Street9 opposing reclassification of the proper}ies o-i the west side of Ueiena Street, based on the fact that residential rights would be infringed upony and these rights shouid be respected ard should supersede the soeculative rights o: comr.iercial interests~ that commercial infringement rould he projected for the properties along the east side of Helena Street which would lead to.a deterioration of. the area which might extend ir.to other residential areas on Dickel and Clementine S+.reets; and that altnough the~e ~ight be some finar.ciai gain in the propnsed change, of which all the property owners were aware, they were more interested in realizing the hi9her vaiue of being able to continue to rear their families in a wel?~rooted, estab- lished neighborhaod as they presently had, Mrs„ Catherine McIntyre, 324 Nest Hair.pshire Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and expressed corcern *_hat :f the noztheast corner of Harbcr Boulevard ar.d Harnpshire Street were zoned for com~ercial uses, this woui~ ~IOject another service station which was unnecessa*~ in the area, and urged the Corurission to recom;r,end denial ior subject petitior.:. _ Mr, W., Parsons, 950 G:enneyre, Lagur.a Aeach, owne= of property at 8ti2 South Harbor fiovlevard, appeared before tiie Commission in _'avor of the croposed comme:cial zor.ing, stating he was unabie to reside in the property because of tne possible commercial infringement of ±he other prope*ties in the area, and that if an aliey was projected for the ze3r of the proper- ties, this would provide for adec~uate pa;king for single lot development-• Mr, R: L. Miller, 866 South Harbor Eou:eva_d; appeared before the Commission in favor cf subject cetition, stating he h=d resided the~e for fifteer. years; that. it would be difficult ~ to develop singie parceis if dedicat_on for ar. ailey, togethe_ witr. :na:'~"t;~r,a,+_en feet for ~ street widening purposes were :equired 'oy the City for corr,Tercia: zoning of sub,7ect propertie=_, this wou.d reduce the potential r.or-ut~ercial va;ue of the prope_•ties; however.. he was ~ure mzny of the property cwners on Harbo= Bouievard were wii:ing ±o discuss tf:e possib?ii±y of 1ar.d assembly in order to develop seve_•a~ pa*r,el~ ir,to a wo_thwhiie cemmercia~ development; and that Herbor Bouleva:d could be the Wii~hire Bouievard "Mi:acie Mile" of Araheim zi developed in a simiia~ T.anr.er - howeve: this wo~].d not occu= .°or a rur~ber of vears Mr~ Milles further noted that reror.,r..endations oi t;~e staff for secondary acce<_s cou'd weii reduce ille amount of potent,al lard .or development ard did not feei an a11ey io the rear of the properties wts a necessary thing fo: deveiooment. Planning Supervisor Rona:3 Grud?inski adv`_sed the Cor.:~rission ±hat upor. conside_ab:e study of the ares; it was determined it was necessa<-y to provi~+e secondary access sucn as a 20-foo! dedicated ailey betwee~ ooth parceis in orde: to a:leviate ~~c~~sidera!;le ingress and egress on ~.arbor Boulev~rd fo: these p_oper*.ies.. Mr, Milier then stated there was no :eason for the p:operty owners to be too concerned if reciassification of the properties was p*oposed since *.his wes a long-ran9e project which might never mater:alize - however was a step in the righ} direction in resolving development of the Harbor BouLevard frontaqe in a more accep±able manner., Considerable concern was expressed by a nurober of the prcperty owne:s reiative to the method ~f the secondarK access not going through to So~th Street, but with having a left turn into r:arbor Bouievard, and inquired why this was happening:. Mr, Grudzinski stated that concern of the route was understar,~able; however, the large parcel at the north end of Portion A had access to South, He?ena, and Harbor Bouievard - therefore a secondary access was not necessary, and to provide an alley througF the center of the parcel would develop its potential i.n commercial development fo* the property-. Mrs~ Jones again appeated and stated that if any consideration were 9iven to an alley, it should extend to South Street rather than projecting additional traffic on to Harbor Boulevard; furthermore, when the Helena Street prope*ties were pu:chased, deed restrictions were r.ecorded on the properties which prohibited any commerciai use of the prope*ties for a numbe* of years to come, and further restrictions limited the prope*ties to single-storys by which all the property owners had abided, and some consideration should be given to this although deed restrictions were cansidered a private r~atter by the City~ Fu*thermore, there was na reason to consider commercia? zoning for subject properties, whether or not it was a long-range preject or not, since parking could be limited on Harbor Boulevard wi;hout requiring a 10-foot dedication and commercial zoning for the p:operties if it was necessary to reiieve the heavy traffic problems on the streeto i ~x h1INUTES, CITY PLAN[~1~NG COh~.,tSSIONy December 20, 19b5 J ' 2g~2 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0~ 9 RECLASSIFICATION -,Commissioner Camp then stated clarification should be made relative to N0~ 65-66-63 the placement of the ailey, noting the alley would provide secondary (Continued) access for both the Helena Street properties and the Harbor Boulevard properties; chat it was not necessary to provide an alley access tkro4gh the iarge parcel to the north because it already had a secondary access, and to place an alley in between the Helena Street properties and the Harbor Boulevard properties would require 10•-foot dedication from the Helena Street properties9 as v.~211 as the Harbor Boulevard propertieso Considerable discussion was then heid by the Commission relative to the Area Development Plan and summarized as follows: .,-.~-~~ 1, Tr.~e proposed a11ey having an access to f;arbor Boulevard and Hampshire Avenue; -~ 2~. 1'he long-:ange plannir,g by the Conunission and staff to have solutions to refer '~~ to at the time property owners feel a change in zoning is necessary for the a*ea; ~~ 3. The purpose of commercial uses for subject property and the fact that the en'_re area ~.~js not yet ready foz• co~ercial activity; ~ 4, The *esidentia'_ integrity of the area sh.ou:d be maintainedti .'~ 5., The possibiiity that "no pa_king" areas be established for Na:bor Soulevard ; and striping of the travel lanes., rather than _e~;~~iring additional street ,1 dedication for street widening; ,•i 6.. That properties not ;oca±ed on Ha_bor Bouieva:d have considerably longer ~• longevity since property owne*s have !raintained them for resi.dential uses; i` 7~ The Area Development Plan presented by the staff was the nost iogical r:ethod of handiing ~ Frot._er ~rea at such tire as the area was completely ready for ~ redeveiopment, and that Azea Development Plans were not reciassification proceedir.gs, but methoc~s and solutions of handling secondary circulation and ,uggestions for developmert of the proFerties either singiy o; a 2and assembly ;~ prog:am, A suggestion by a gentlenan in the audience indic~ted that if travel lanes we:e striped to curve toward the curb nea* intersections, this wouid provide fo~ the fifth lane for left turn traffic, and that parking cou:d be rest*icted for that area in which the fifth lane was proposed to be located, snd that the suggested methods of developrer.t for the area as presented by the s?aff were tco prerr,iture, and other methods of resolving the traffic problem sFould be attempted before considerino st.ip coc:-ercial uses for ya:bor Boulevard, Mr, J„ J. 0'Connor, attorney representing the Automobile Club, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in favor of C-0 Zoning as indica!ed for Portion C: THE HEARING WAS CLOSED_ The Commission continued discussion of the methods of aporoving or disapproving the Area Development Plan and the reclassification, it beina noted the Area Development Plan was a well thought out pianning study and would be a great heip to the CoRnission and oroperty owners in the area so that the property owners could rea:ize the prob:ems facing the City and the alternative methods of use of the orope:ty in resolving an unter.able situation along arterial streets and hi9nways in the City~ Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Commission yuestioning, stated that if F°o,er'ie:= or: the wesr side of Harbor Houie~.-a;d t~etween South St*eet and Ra;l P,oad were required tc dedicate, the City t-ad 3 poiicy of uot. wider.ing any Fo-tior. of a street .:;.+.ii all pai•ceis on specific h]ock had g~ven dedicat?on fu_• tte widening, ar.d that the C'ity wouid r.ot widen i.ndividual parcels as they were being dedicated., Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No-. 1887, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Ar=a Development Flan Noo 9 be disapproved without prejudice; however, it was reco.mmended that no parking and striping of travel lanes be initiated for a period of a year between South Street and Ball Road to determine whether this was the most feasible means of resolving traffic problems, (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ ~ . .t MINUTESy CITY PLANNING COh~..iSSION, Decembex 20, 1965 ~~` ~ , AREA DEVELCPMENT PLpN N0~ 9 28~3 REGLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1888, Series 1965-66, and N0~ 65-66-63 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comrt:issioner Gauer, to ~ (Conti.nued recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.. ? 65-66-63 be approved in part, recommending that Portions A and 3 be disapproved; that Portions C and D be approved for C-0, Commercial ~ Office, Zoning; and that Portion E be approved for C-1, General CommerciaiY Zoning, subject to requiring "no parking" on both sides of Harbor Boulevard between South Si;reet and Sall Road until suc!: time as the City Council determines this was a better means of resolving ' the traffic prob~em for Harbor Boulevard, or until such ±ir:~e as the street was widened for ' those portions along the west side of Harbor Boulevard encompassed in Portions C, D and E, i and subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book~) ~ ~ ,~:~il~-~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perrys Rowland, Mungall, , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENI': CpMM~ISSIONERS: Ailred, AMENDMENi TO TITLE 18 - PUBLIC kEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East _ OF THE ANAHEIM Lincoln Aven~e, Anaheim, C3lifornia, proposing an amendment to MUNICIPAL CODE Title 18, Section 18~16, R•A, Agricultural, Zone and 18020, R-Oy One•-=amily Suburban, Zone~ Assistant Zor,ing Superviso* Ronald Tnompcon advised the Co~,.mission tnat amendments to Title 18 for the R-A and R-0 Zones were similar to changes made to the R•-E Zone encompassing Section 180:6,030, Permitted Accessory Buildings, Structure=~ and Uses, p.=_'.air,ing to birds and animals or. the prooertyy and Sectien i8.20,O1C, U=e, pe*tainina te *he maintence of birds and animais on the property, and referring to Section i8.04-020 as revised recently by the Commis~ion and the Ci±y Council, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No., 1889, Series i965~•66y and moved for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recoRaeend to the City Council that Title 18 ; of the Anaheim Municipai CodeY Section 18,16, R-A, Agricultural~ Zone and Section 18,.20, R-0, _ One•-Family Suburban, Zone be amended„ (See Resolution Book.) On ioll ca12 the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gaue:, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, REPO$I'S AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RECOM.MENDATIONS CONDITiONAL USE rERMIT ~0.. 708 - Convalescent hospital located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard between South and Vermont Streets - reouest for an extension of time for completion of conditions~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission a requeat had been received from Mr~ T~ E. Lewis, representing the Orange County Investors Associates, relative to an extension of time for the completion of conditions attached by the Cor+mission in Pesolution No., 1654, Series 1964~65, dated June 7, 1965, granting subject conditional ~.ise permito It was also noted that nor~ of the conditions of approval for said conditional use permit had been complied witho Cortmissioner Perry offered a motion to grant an extension of 180 days for the completion of conditions in Resolution Noe 1654, Series 1964-65, dated June 7, 1965, granting Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 708s said 180 days to expire June 2, 1966~ Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. ~~~ F~ ~ M ~ r.j J~ t r ., f MINUTtS, CITY PLANNING CG~.~~~ISSION, December 20, 1965 1 ` 287~4 RFPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 2 RECOMMEP]DATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0~ 654 - Coin-operated car wash located !Continued) on the east side of East Street northerly of Lincoln Avenue - request for permission to include an additional 15 feet at the _ rear of the property for parking and vacuum stations~ Assistant Z'6ning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed a report from the Development Services Department relative to a notification from the master lessees of property at the northeast c~rror of East Street and Lincoln AVenue, granting an additional 15 feet at the rear of the coil-operated car wash approved by the Commission December 7, 1964, which indicated an additiona: 15 feet at the rear of the property was being leased to the sub-lessees of the coin-operat~d car wash; however this 15 feet was not included in the granting of subject ~ conditional ua< permito Furthermore, that the sub-lessees were assuming all responsibility ior this additio~-a1 15 feet, and that after consultation with the City Attorney's staff, it i was recommended by the City Attorney the petitioner assume full responsibility for the add?tionsl 15 feet~ It was also noted subject property presently had a C-1, General Co.mmercial, Zone classification Com~nissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve the request for consideration of an additional 15 feet to the rear of prope:ty considered under Conditional Use Permit No~ 654 for the estab- lishment of a coin-operated car wash, based on the fact *_hat the City Attorney's Office had recommended that the lessees assume fuli responsibility for the additional 15 feet sub-leased to the coi.n-operated caz wash company~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion,. MOTION CARRIEll. ITEM N0: 3 STREET NAME CN~.;:uE - BATAVIA STREET TO RIVERDALE AVEP;U~ betwee~ Anaheim-Olive Road easterly of Jefferson St:eet to the present Riverdale Avenue~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that 3n exhibit posted on tFie Chamber wall indicated the City of Orange had changed the name of Batavia Sireet rrom Anaheim-Oli.ve Road to easterly of Jefferson St:eet to Riverdale Avenue, and since a portion of Batavia Street was Nithin the City of Anaheim, it was ~ecomrrended the Conunission set for pubiic hearing consideration of the =treet name change of Batavia Street within the boundaries of the City of Anaheim to Riverdale Avenue. Commissioner Rowiand offered a motion to re~uest that the Zoning Division of Development Services Department set for public hearing on January 1', ?966, consideration of the street name change of Batavia,Street to Riverdale Av,nue Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOT~ON CAHRIED, ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss9 Coir~Tissioner Nerbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting~ Commissioner Perry seconded the motion., MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P,M~ Respectfuily submitte~; [.~~~ _/~E)1.~~/~_~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ ~ ~