Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/06/06City Hall Anaheim, California June 6, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PL4NNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meetin9 of the Anaheim City Pianning Commission was called `o order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being presento PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. (Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 2:04 P.M.) PR'eSENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Deputy City Attorney: Ala^ Watts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Associate Planner: Marvin W. Krieger Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Loren Fischer, Magnolia Avenu e Baptist Church, gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Approval of the Minutes oi the meeting of May 23, 1966, was continued to June 20, 1966, for a complete set o f Minutes. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. COALSON C. MORRIS, 708 fJorth West Street, Anaheim, N0. 65-66-120 California, Owner; ROBERT E. VAN, 515 Priscilla Way, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped VARIANCE N0. 1800 parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the west side of East Street and having z maximum depth of approximately 112 AREA DEVELOPMENT feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately PLAN N0. 68 430 feet north of the centerline of Sycamore Street, and further described as 609 North East Stre~~t. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. :i _ ~ ~R REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED SITE AREA, AND (2) MINIMUM SIDE YARD ScTBACK. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Study covers the properties fronting on the west side of East Street between Sycamore and Wilhelmina Streets. Mr. Robe:t Van, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed subject petition and the fact that the adjacent property owners had signed a petition in favor of subject petition. Mr. Van further stated that because of the increase in traffic during the past seven or eight years, subject property no longer was attractive for residential development; that the other single-family homeowners had been waiting for the City to establish an appropriate zone for that area in order tt~at orderly development of the properties could take place, and upon presenting his plans of development to them, they all indicated their approval of the proposed type of development along East Street; and that in order that East Street between La Palma Avenue and Sycamore Street would not become stagnant, redevelopment for C-0 uses would provide a lc~ical means for the uses of these homes or the property as a transitional use, and the proposed pe'.ition was an attempt to start this redevelopment - however, subject property was vacant, and, therefore, could no~ be classified in the same manner as other properties. 3058 ~ MINUTES, CIlY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3059 RECLASSIFICATION - Pdr. J. C. McIlvain, 601 Nort.h East Street, appeared before the N0. 65-66-120 Commission and stated his property was located in the center of the block of the propo<.ed Area Development Plan, and that the petitioner VARIANCE N0. 1800 had voiced the feelings of the other property owners in that commercial uses should be established along East Street; however, it was his opinion AREA DEVEIAPMENT that a definite plan of development for all the properties should be made PLAN N0. 68 by the Development Services Department similar to that made for Harbor (Continued) Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue in order that development should be in a neat and orderly manner. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ,.~~ The Commission reviewed the Area Development Plan, noting that the eight lots plotted should t,j ~ be adequate for any future development along the study area; that the Commission was not ~ , desirous of having "spot zoning" or hodge-podge development along East Street; that in order ~-~~ that long-range plans might best provide for an orderly develooment of the area, a precise ' plan, including those properties under the Area Development Plan, together with oroperties ~~ on both sides of East Street from the Riverside Freeway to Lincoln Avenue, should be pre- ~~ pared by the Planning Staff. E~ !~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Area Development Plan No. 68 ;~ was prepared for the west side oi East Street only because the C-0 Zone requires an Area Development Plan where development of the property er.compassed less than 20,000 square feet; i~' that if any of the other single-family homes were to be used for C-0 purposes, each would `~ have to file a conditional use permit in addition to the reclassification to permit use of a residential structure for C-0 uses; and that Area Development P1ans had 'aeen prepare9 on previous public hearings encompassing property on the east side of East Street between La P~lma Avenue and Wilhelmina Str=et- however, the City Council had denied that Area ~ , Development Plan, being of the opinion tnat the area was not yet ready for that type of ',i development. Furthermore, since East Street was designated on the Circulation Elenent of ,.I the General P1an as a secondary arterial, additional street dedication oi ten to twelve i feet would be required of these lots fronting on East Street. ~ ~ Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that a General Plan P.mendmeni i •i was not considered since it was felt an Area Development Plan was necessary prior to any ;i consideration of a General Plan Amendment; that the history of the Commission and City ~ ';` Council action indicated the reclassifications were approved - however the General Plan i ~l Amendments and Area Development ?lans were denied; and that four different General Plan ~ _; Amendments were prepared for the properties on both sides of East Streei extending froR '~ Romneya Drive to Lincoln Avenue. ;I " i~~ ,;i Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the proposed reclassification was somewhat premature for the area since all the homes were well-mair.tainea, and to permit "piecemeal" ~ ~ commercial development would create a deterioration of the ertire area~ .~ ~ :~ Commissioner Rowiand was of the opinion that East Street had a similar problem as Harbor 1 Boulevard, and considerable study would be necessary to accurately assess the implications of commercial development for this entire street. ( ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions ior ~J I Reclassification No. 65-66-120, Varianc= iJo. 1800, and Area Development Plan No. 58 to the ~I meeting oi July 18, 1966, to allow time for the Development Services staff to prepare a I ~ study encompassing properties on both sides of East Street from the Riverside Freeway to Lincoln Ave~ue. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. :NOTIOti CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARNG. TED FREEMAN, Box 3303, Anaheim, California, N0. 65-66-106 Gwner; ROBERT HASLER, 16314 Canelones Drive, Hacienda Heights, California, Agent; requesting that property describe~9 as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fror.tage of aporoximaiely 60 ieet on the west si~e of hiagnolia Avenue ano iiaving a mGximum ueptil o, appro;;imately :20 ieet, t:~e soutner.,~ bou~dary of subjec~ orooerty being approximately 2°,3 ieet norti~ of the centerli~e oi coll 3o~d, ar.;; furtner oescrioed as 919 ~outn L;ag~;olia F+venue, be reclassifiec from ti;F r~_1, ~:Jr-rnISILY RESIDEDITIAL, ZOtJE to the C-1, vE:1ERk~ Cu;1~tiiERCIF.L, Z'v`Ic. Subject petition was continued from tne meeting o: ?.;o•1 9, 19uo, 2e allow ci:~e :or cne s~ai* to meet with ttie properiy owners. Zoning Supervisor Ronald T~ornpson odviseo tne Commission th~t ;s meeting hao been held with tne affecteo property owners on Wednesday, htay 18, 1905, ~~d at tnat meeting it n~d been pointed out to the owners the oroperty owners themselves wou1~ 'r:ave to prese~t :;i::n ag:eed to by all owners in order for redevelopment. to take plece on an individu~,1 lo~ basis; _:::... - ~.. .-- r . . _ .___-.. .. . . . . , . MINUTES, CITY~PLANNIPaG COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3060 RECLASSIFICATION - furthermore, this was reaffirmed by the action of the City Council at N0. 65-66-106 their subsequent meeting on May 24, 1966, in reference to public hearing (Continued) on Petition for Reclassification Noo 65-66-85 pertaining to the lot at the southwest corner of Rome and Magnolia Avenues since the Council had continued the public hearing and had stated this time was given to allow the property owners time to formulate an alternative pian to the one originally adopted under Area Development Plan No. 56< Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue Reclassification No. 65-66-106 to the meeting of July 6, 1966, in order to allow time for the Commissicn to receive action taken by the City Council on a previous reclassi;ication for one of the properties on Magnolia Avenue. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEHRING. PATRICIA F. JACKSON, 17660 Walnut Street, N0. 65-66-116 Fountain ~alley, California, Owner; property described as: A rectr..ngularly shaped parcel oi land with a frontage of approximately VARI~VCE N0. 1793 83 feet on the north side of Lanerose Drive and having a maximum depth of approximately 234 feet, the western boundary of subject prooerty GENERAL ?LAN beirg approximately 415 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue. AMEN~'dENT N0. 76 Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUeSTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, ML~".PLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. RcQUESTED VARIAtJCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM B~!ILDING HEIG'rIT VaIT~IN 150 FEET OF AN R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZO::c. Subject petitions were continued from the meetin9 of tday 9, 1966, in order to allow time for the staff to meet with the property owners regardin9 land assembly. Mr. Robert Jackson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that at the meeting of the property owners on Thursday, May 19, 1966, all property owners were of the opinion that reclassification of their properties was necessary before any land assembly could be attempted; th=~ 5e had discussed the possibility of development of these properiies with several de.~ ..pers, but since no zoning action had taken place on tne p*operties, very little enco~ragement was given to the property owners. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompsor advised the Commission that at the me=ting with the property owners, discussion was t~eld as to the various ways and methods o: developin9 the lots in this area; that some preliminary layouts of R-1 lots were prepared - however the staff was of the opinion that R-1 development was not too feasible since this would leave a number of landlocked parcels; that the staff concurred in the statement made by Mro Jackson that the uncertainty of obtaining reclassification to a multiple-family zone had apparently discouraged developers in the past; and that, in addition to enhancing the chances for land , assembly in the area, rezoning to an R-2 or R-3 density would also preclude technical waivers required because of the presence of R-A parcels adjacent to developing parcels - however, it would be the prerogative of the Commission or the property owners to initiate zoning to the R-2 or R-3 Zone for all of these parcels. Mr. Jackson stated that the property owne*s were agreeable to initiating the reclass'Fication if they felt the Commission would give them ar.y encouragement. Mr. Jackson, in response to Commissior. questioning, stated that at the meeting of the property owners, all were of the opinion that rezoning was necessary prior to reconsideration of developing their oroperties on a land assembly basis. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that the petitioner was proposing eight units on two- thirds of an acre, and this was within the density oi the R-2 Zone. Mr. S. C. Punter, 1318 Masterson Street, appeared before the Commission and siated that at the previous public hearing a petition had been submitted indicating that the R-1 property own~rs were in opposition to development of the parcels adjacent to the single-family homes unless developed for R-1, since the apartments would not be esthetically valuable to the area, although the~~ were desirous of having the property developed, and since all thsse properties encroached for a considerable depth adjacent to the single-family nomes, they should be developed for single-family purposes. ~ Mr. Herbert Lieberman, 12621 Ohmer Way, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission in ' favor of subject petition and complimented the staff in reviewing the experience of the property owners involved; that although their properties were not adjacent to the single- _ family homes, his property abutson other properties that were deep, narrow lots and iaced * onto Ball Road, and that if the Commission considered reclassification of these properties .+tx : , -; .~l ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3061 RECLASSIFICATION - favorably, they would then be developed in a unifcrm manner. Furthermore, N0. 65-b6-116 the staff had investigated the possibility of developing these properties for single-family purposes and had come to the conclusion that if the VARIANCE N0, 1793 proper,ty owners developed regardless of the zoning, it could not be developed for single-family purposes since several of the parcels wouid GENERAL PLAN have rear portions which would be landlocked and would have no access AMENDMENT N0. 76 to a street. (Continued) . Mr. J. J. Turek, 1234 South Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition and stated that at the previous hearing the oppos~tion had indicated the proposed development would create heavy traffic on Lanerose Drive; however, on taking an actual count of the number of cars along the street in one hour, there were five automobiles using the street - thus the street does not presently carry much traffic, and to project an additional eight units to this property would not affect the traffic pattern for the street. Mr. Paul Pletz, 3203 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in favor of subject petition and had an acre of land immediately adjacent to the east of the Jackson property; that the development plan presented by the petitioner was acceptable; and that he had been approached saveral times regarding development of his property i.n the area, but because of the R-A Zoning, this became impossible. THE [-fEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~ The Corsunission again reviewed the plan, noting that the deep lots zlong Ball Road would probably have commercial frontage; that due to the nature of the size of the lots, land assembly of the lots would be rather difficult since single-family subdivision deve:opment had been oriented around these properties; and that it would be reasonable to assume subject property and the abutting properties could be developed for low-medium density. Seven persons in the Council Chamber indicated their presence in opposition to subject petitions. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2058, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petitior for Reclassification No. 65-66-116 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSION'cRS: vone. Commissioner Nungall offered Resolution No. 2059, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1793, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONeRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COA~v1ISSI0NERS: None. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2060, 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. 76 be denied on the basis that the reclassification petition was on a smal? parcel of land and would not generally affect the area, and, furthermore, that it be referred to annual review. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. * ~ MTNUTES, CII'i'~PLkNNiNG COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 ~ 3062 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. T}i~MAS P. WALKER, 2855 East Coast Highway, Corona Del PERMIT N0. 845 Mar, California, Owner; LARRY A. RAY, 112 North McPherson Road, Orange, California, P.gent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying south and east uf a 150-foot by 150-foot parcel situated at the southeast corner of Via Burton Street and State College Boulevard, and having frontages of approximately 34 feet on Via P~arton Street and approximately 143 :eet on State College Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Mr. Larry Ray, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. i~1r. George Ehrle, 1201 Nort.i State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission stating he represented the property immediately adjacent to the south of subject property which was his mother's property; that he was not in opposition to the prooosed reclassification - however he was considerably concerned in the fact that the parcel immediately adjacent to the freeway was becoming more landlocked all the time; and that oresently they had a 15-foot agricultural access to Placentia Avenue, and since he was attempting to oversee his mother's property, he was interested in negotiating with the petitioner for a roadway to State College Boulevard through the subject property. . Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that there might be a problem to obtain additional access to State Colle9e Boulevard because of the limited access adjacent to a ramp of tne freeway; that the traffic problem had been discussed with the Traf:ic Engineer who was of the opinion that the proposed layout of subject petition was adequate; and that development of subject property might be difficult if access was permitted to the property to the south. The Commission noted there were several vacant parcels easterly of subject property which could, upor. development, have a road to Via Burton Street, thereby providing seconoary or an additional access to the Ehrle property immediately adjacent to the freeway. h1r. Thomas Walker appeared before the Commission and stated Mrs. E~rle had sold her access rights to State College Boulevard for a substantial fee approximately ten years ago, and that he had acquired twenty acres oi which subject property was a part from persons who had previously lived on the property. ;; No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. _ THE 1-IEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner F.llred offered Resolution No. 2061, Series 1965-66, and moved for its oassage and adoption, secondeo by Commissiorer Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditiunal Use Permit No. 845, subject to conditions, or, the basis that there was no intent and puroose in land- locking the parcel to the south since there was still vacant property available which could be combined to provide street access to Via Burton Street. (See Resolution 3ook.) ` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONVv1IS~I0NERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungail, Perry, aowland, Camp. G NOES: CUM;~II5SIOIJERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COt~IullSSIONERS: None. COtJDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JAh9ES S. h40RRIS, 1865 Greenleaf Street, Apartment H, PL•RMIT IdO. 845 Anaheir~~, California, Gwner; RGBERT C. Id,CKAY, 833 Dover Drive, Sui~e 25, Newport Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to cSTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTHURAiJT WITH WAIV~R GF "~1I'dIl.",lRvi REQUIRED ?P.~KIP?~ SPP.CES on property described as: k recta.^.gularly shaped parcel of land wi;,i~ a frontage oi app:oximotel~, 07 feet on th= east side oi i:rookiw rst Street and 'naving a maximum uepti~ of ~poroxim~teiy 210 feet, the southe.•ly ooundary of subject property oeing G;,proximately 451 ;eet souti: of tne centerline of Broodway, and furtner described as 400 Soutn ~rookhurst Sireet. ~roperty presently classified C-1, GEi~ERF.L CON'~~1E~CIkL, ZO:JE. ~oning S~pervi.sor Ronolo~Tnompson aovised the Commission tnat since the Report to the Co~.r.is- sion had been prepareti, the petitioner nad suumitted a revised pl~n oi developn:e~~t wnict: indi- cated waiver of the mi~:imum number of porking spaces was no lo~ger needed si~ce 21 parki:~a spaces were being provided. ~ ~ Mr. Harry Knisely, attorn>y for the oetitioner, appeareo before t}:e Commission and stateti tnat ~,, the locatior, of tne proposed restaurant would be integrated with •.tner com.nercial us=s, ~r.d i * ~ that the proposed landscaping was considered th? best in the industzy. ~~ ''~ I P7o one a oared in o j PP~ pposition to subject petition. .~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3063 CONDITIONAL L'SE - THE i-~ARING WAS CLOSED. PERMIT N0. 846 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2062, Series 1965-66, and moved for i's passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 846, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On rol'. call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allr?d, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. ~OES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMNiISSIONERS: None. ~ COiJDITIUNAL USE - PUBLIC HrARING. PHILIP MCFARLAIdD, J. P. COiJHTY, M. L. iJEFF, AiJD ' PERMIT N0. 847 T. J. LAWTON, 310 West Bostanchury, Fullerton, California, Owners; FRP.NCIS J. MILLER, 133 West Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, California, ~gent; requesting permission to cSTABLISH A RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of s~proximately 240 feet on the north side of Katella kvenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 605 feet, the westerly ' -, boundary of subject property being approximately 720 feet east of the centerline of Lewis Street, and further described as 1105 East Katella Avenue. Property presently classified ' M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and P-L, PARKING-LAIJDSCAPING, ZONcS. Mr. Francis Miller, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the background, ideas and philosophy of establishing the proposed restaurant on subject property, further noting that ,'~r. Harry Fahnestock, the proposed operator oi the Stox Restaurant, had a similar operation in the City of Downey in the industrial zone on Imoerial Highway, which was a successful operation; that a feasibility study of Orange County had been made which indicated subject property was a logical spot for the proposed tyoe offa:ility to serve the industry in the area; that the proposed restaurant v~oulri be fully equipped with cooking facilities, together with a bakery, with meals being preoared, and would not be like a steak house or a hamburger shop; furthermcre, although the proxi~nity oi ~he base~al? stadium to the restaurant would normally be considered, it was proposed to serve breakfast, lunch, and light snacks for the industry in the area and would not necessarily be geared to possible clientele who would frequent the stadium. Mr. Miller, in response to Commission questioning, stateo that the rear porticn of the land would be landscaped, and the two existing homes would be rernoved. Discussion was then held by the Commissior .-~lative to the signs prooosed on the olot plan since one of the signs was proposed to te loco~ed in the parking-landscapin9 ~rea. The Commission inquired what other types o`. signs we~re beino proposed. Mr. Miller stated that the sign in the parki~g-lands.:aping area was primarily an arcritec- tural feature oi the "Stox Restaurant" and not like a iree-standing sign; that the oetitioner intended to put a larger, f*ee-standing sign to the re~r of the landscaping - however ±: the Commission was of the opinion that other signing was more appropriate, they would attempt to conform with ihe requirements. The Commission indicated tha: since the proposed type oi development in the industrial zone would be i~ a low competitive area, the signing of the property would r,ot necessarily be as critical as in a commercial area, and the proposed developme~t should conform with the require- ments of the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone for signing of properties. Mr. Fred Lowe'_1, industrial agent with the Southern Pacific RaiLway, appeared before the Commission and stated the railway owned property to the west and north of subject prooerty, and it was their concern that if all the restaurants proposed and approved by the City were constructed, this would project innumerable restaurants along State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, and in the Southeast Industrial Area proper; that serious consideration should be given by the Commission to maintaining more land for industrial ourposes since this has become increasingly di:ficult with the advent o; the Anaheim Stadium. Mr. Alex Indergand, 1021 East Katella Avenue, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether the proposed restaurant would be operating on a 24-hour basis, and whether or not liquor would be sold in conjunction with the sale of food. The Commission advised Mr. Indergand that the petition before the Commission requested permission to operate a restaurant with a cocktaii loun9e. ~~ * Mr. Indergand then inquired whether or not a six-foot masonry wall would be cons±ructed M~ adjacent to his driveway since he was still residing in his home located adjacent to =ubject !~~ property. F ~~ I MINUTES, CI,-i~~~~PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 19bb 3064 ~NDITIUNAL USE - The Commission indicated that the petitioners were proposing a six- PERMIT N0. 847 foot masor.ry wall on both sides of the proposed restaurante (Continued) Mr. Miller, in rebuttal, stated that the Southern Pacific Railway Company did not indicate any opposition to service stations which they felt were a necessity to the area; however, it was his clients' o;:inion that a good restau- rant was also a necessity for the area, and that the railroad ~rroperty would be protected on the northerly side by an 89-foot, undeveloped purtion of the land. Mr. Miller also stated that he did not know whether or not the operator of the proposed restaurant would maintain the restaurant for a 24-hour period; however, he was presently operating a restaurant on a 24-hour basis in the M-1 area in Downey and had no problems. TEiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. s Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2063, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ' and adoption, seconded by Cort~Tissioner Rowland, to 9rant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 847, subject to conditions, and by a finding that the petitioner stipulated to compliance with all requirements of the M-1 Zone relative to landscaping ~nd signing. (See Resolution Book,} , On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, P>rry, ~owland, Camp. NOES: C~MMISSIONERS: I1one. AB~ENT: COMMISSIONERS: \one. CANDITIONAL USE ~ PUBLIC HF.ARING. DALE I. SELLCN, 1709 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 848 California, Owner; JAMES H. HODGES, 1709 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTA3LISH A INALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: A recta~gularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxim~-ely 78 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and having a maximum deoth of approximately 175 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 375 feet south of the center- line of Broadway, and further described as 324 South Brookhurst Street. Pro~erty presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMIv1ERCIAL, ZONE. _; Mr. James Hooges, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated tnat _ the existing "Dog House" would be a coffee shop primarily since they were serving at tables in the restaurant, and the take-out window proposed would be only 20~ of the •rolume of the sales for the restaurant; that studies made by the proposed operator of the restaurant indicated the ten parking spaces were adequate to take care of both a sit-down and take-out restaurant - therefore the eighteen parking spaces proposed, in his estimation, were adequate. I ~ The Commission inquired whether or not the walk-up restaurant would be simil.ar to that located on South Anaheim Boulevard with the typical take-out window, to which Mr. H~dges reolied this ~ was a prototype building and would be similar. Mro Dale Sellon, the petitio~er, appeared before the Commission and stated that when he first approached the Zoning Division oi Development Services, he had been advised the Commission might be more receptive if he would provide reciprocal parking; that he had incoroorated this along the entire frontage with an easement thro~gh the driveway and no impediments to the flow of traffic would result. Furthermore, there was considerable parking in the front of the other properties immediately ad;acent. The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Flan Watts whether or not a recordation of an easement for mutual parking and access across other properties would be necessary. Mr. Watts stated that fer the protection of the City it was recommended an easement be recorded. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission the staff was attempting to elimin~te problem parking of other restaurants where two or three were immediately adjacent to each other by orienting the parking in such a way that regardless of the drive approach used, parking in close proximity to the immediate restaurant would be gained by providing a mutual parking agreement, and that a reasonable layout of the entire commercial facilities was recommended. The Commission then stated that an additional condition should be attached to those recom- _ mended by the staff, namely that the easement for mutual parking and access easement be ~ provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. F ,~ 1 ~~ MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3065 CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. PERMIT N0. 848 (Continued) THE l-~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 2064, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 848, subject to conditions, and the requirement of the recordation of a mutual parking agreement prior to issuance of a building permit, as stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EVERETT DEAN, 1709 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 849 California, Owner; JAMES H. HODGES, 1709 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RcSTAURANT WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKIf,., SPACES, AND (2) Rr.QUIRED 2% IIJTERIOR LANDSCAPING on property described as: H rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 90 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maxim~am depth of approximately 236 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being app::oximately 201 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2802 West Lincoln kvenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENcRAL CO~J,h1ERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. James Hodges, agent for the petitioner, appeGred before '.he Commiss~on and stated the waiver of the parking was similar to one requested in an earlier petition; that the develop- ment was only the first phase of the proposed shopping ar:a, and to require provision of 24 parking spaces and the 2% landscaping of the parkin, area might have some effect on future plans of the commercial shopping center and requeste;i that these be waived at this time in order that they might be incorporated into the property when the entire parcel is developed~ Mr. Hodges also stated that when subject property was reclassified in 1963, the number of required parking spaces was not the same as now r?quired by Cede. PJ~r. Hodges then presented a copy of a recorded mutual parking agreement to the Commission for inclusion in the iile. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if subject petition was approved, plans of development indicated a planned unit shopping center - hoa~ever, now only the westerly portion was being developed, and unl=ss the City was assured some type of document which would permit other buildings and the remainder of the properties having adequate parking, the Commission should require the petitioner to provide 24 parking spaces; furthermore, the staff was concerned about the easterly portion being rievelooed in the fut~u~e: if the size of the structure as proposed were placed there, there would be insufiicient park- ing for that structure also. Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that there might not be adequate parking for employees of the restaurant since at a recent luncheon with a restaurant owner, he had indiczted they could never provide parking for their employees. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission the stafi was presently making a study of the oarking requirements for all commercial developments in the City. Mr. Hodges, in reply to Comr,iission questioning, stated the minimum number of employees for the proposed restaurant would be three and the maximum six. Mr. Thompson also advised the Commission a building permit was presently penaing for the "Dog House" and the small shopping facility southezly of the restaurant, and the proposed new structure would be to the east. ~F - ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~~ After considerable discussion between the Commission, the staff and Mr. Hodges, Mr. Hodges withdrew the request for waiver of the 2% landscaping and minimum parking requirement. ~.~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~1 R ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3060 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission, Deputy City Attorney Alan Watts, and Mro Thompson, PERMIT N0. 849 after reviewing the document presented by tne agent for the petitioner, (Continued) were of the opinion that because of the legal description it could not • be determined without making a complete comparison with the subject E property whether or not the recorded document covered subject property; ' thereupon the Commission requested the recorded document be a condition of approval. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 2065, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 849, subject to the submission of a recorded document for mutual parking agreement on , property to the east, and conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~.;i'"~~ On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ , ~~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. ~' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. 1 F,BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ' CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT J. DRABKIDI AND NICHOLAS c. PLOTNCFF, 6423 VJilshire ~ Boulevard, Los An ~les, California Owners; DAVID S. COLLINS, 1077 West •~ PERMIT N0. 850 9- ~ Ball Road, F~naheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ~STABLISH A PAWN Si-IOP on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of ~ land with a frontage of approximately 17 ieet on the west side oi Anaheim 3oulevard and havir.g 1 a maximum depth oi approximately 78 feet, the nortnerly boundar•, of subject property being ~'j approximately 106 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and iurther described as ~ 139 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ Mr. Davic: Collins, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission .:nd stated the real esta~e brokers of subject property had been attempting to establish stable tenants oi~ ~.~ the west side of Anaheim Boulevard; that the proposed pa'.vn shop would be located im:nediately ; south of the barber college; that they were attempting to encourage the owners to remodel ~ the face of the building which includes the aojoining fcur stores; that a tentative agreement had been reached to have this remodeling extended around the corner of Hnaheim Boulevard and ~•. Chestnut Street; that in order to protect the community and the landlord, since he also owns all the stores in the 200-foot frontage, stipulations were written into the lease agreement; ~~ that the proposed operators of the pawn shop, Mr. and Mrs. cllis, had been operating a similar _ store in Torrance, and upon checkin9 with the authorities in that town, he had received the .•~ - best recommendations for Ivir. and Mrs. Ellis; that the proposed pawn shop had not the same connotation most people thought of a pawn shop; that they proposed to establish a jewelry y store and a loan and pawn st.op, and that it was their intent to sell new and used merchandise; i.I and that both Mr. and ~v1rs. Ellis were present in the Council Chamber `.o present their views to ;~ the Commission. i:i ~`~ Mr. Matt Ellis, 1681 Gramercy, Torrance, appeared before tne Commission and stated he hao f~ been in the same business for the past twenty years; that he had a fine relationshi~ with '~ both customers and the Folice department in that city; that he intended to establish a fine collateral loan shop, and from his previous history of the operation o: his shop he hao never ~{ i been questioned as to his mode of operation since it was oi the highest standard; that he s I would set up a similar type of establishment in this city; and ~hat his loans were not made ~ on ~he usual basis - loans were made primarily to people who hao suddenly realized the iinan- f. cial budget emergency and had presented adequate c~.llaterai to obtain the loan to tide them ove: the emergency, ~~0 95% of t~e ,D°OD~2 ~o w'r.om h<_~ nad made loG.^.s :^.ad tnar.ked i:i:~. :d.r. Col~ins, i~ resoonse to Com~nissio^ ou=s~ioni~y, s_a;.eo tn~i by law ~he paw^ s'.^.oo woulo i nave i,0 1^:p1Cot2 1^. their Si9~ tRct 1`~, Wa5 d PcW.^: SRO~j .^.OW2'J@T~ ~~2 :154a1 C1251af1c~lOC Oi ~~ , tnree 9oid 'czlls wou~c r.ot oe useo. ~. ~ ~ I No o~e appeared in opposi~ion to subject petition. ; T :c ricARIVG PrHS CLOSeD. I . I Commissioner Gauer o:fered Resolutior. ?•io. 2055, Series 1905-50, ano moved *or its passage a^d 'eV0~t10~~ 50C0'iCJBO ~y Commissio~:er ?errl~ i0 grani, c'BL1t10^ i0I' ~.'.O~a1~10 ~ol ~~2 r2=:~1t No. 850, subject to conditions. (See Resolu~ion 500~.; ~~ ~ Gn roll call tne ;oregoing resolution w~s passeti by the iollowi^g ~ote: ~ ~~ A~ES: CGMfuiISSI~idFRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, ~erry, 3ow1an6, C~mp. ~ ~ NOES: CGMd~4ISSI0NERS: ~Jone. ~~ ~ P.BSENT: COw:iISSIOPIERS: None. ~:l .~ ~, t i MINUTES, CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, June 6, 1965 • 3067 VARIANCE N0. 1797 - PUBLIC HEARING. CASEY BURNS, 420 North Vine Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIVERS UF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA PER CWELLING UNIT, (3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, (4) MINIMUM PARKING SPACE SIZE~ AND (5) PERMIT AN ACCESSORY BUILDIiJG TO AB: A SIDE PROPEr2TY LINE Iiv THE FRONT 75% OF A BUILDING SITE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxima:.ely 65 feet on the east side of Vine Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 159 feet, the northerly line of subject property being approximately 93 feet south of the centerline of Sycamore Street, and further described . as 420 North Vine Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ; ^~~~ ZONE. ,;y ;>: ~ , Mr. Casey Burns, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the proposed addition would be over a garage and that he would be residing in the n=w apartment. .:. . Mr. Burns, in response to Commission ~uestioning, stated that the number of covered parking ~.~ spaces being provided was more than ad~quate since the residents of two apartments had no cars, and the others had one cir apiece. 0 ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 2067, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, se'~nded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance i~o. 1797, `1~~ ' subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: { I ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Ruwland, Camp. i NOES: COMAIISSIONERS: None. i ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 1798 - PUBLIC HEARING. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISOU COPhPANY, Box 351, Los Angeles, ~ California, Owner; ANITA HERTZLER, 1123 Louise Drive, Anaheim, California, - Agent; reque~ting permission to ESTABLISH RETAIL SALES on property described - as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue and having frontages of approximately 2i0 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 940 ieet on Cerritos Hvenue, and further described as 1500 South State College Boulevard. Property presenily classified M-1, LIGHT iNDUSTRIAL, AND P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONcS. Mr. Charles Hertzler, hus:~and of the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they presently had a wholesale business license; however, because of the retail store they formerly had, which had to be liquidated, the inventory from that store was now stored at the State College address, and it was their desire to attempt to dispose of these retail items at the State College Boulevard address. Mr. Hertzler, in response to Commission questioning, stated the Edison Company permitted only tem~orary structures on the property, and if any structures were constructed, they must be of alurtiinum only; that he was not desirous of having the retail business for temporary use only but as a permanent use since it would be only a small portion of the actual operation; that no parkir,g was permitted along State College Houlevard, and ingress was gained f*om State College Boulevard and egress from the Cerritos Avenue frontage; that Cerritos Avenue was presently a two-lane highway with two additional lznes unpaved, and these were being used for extra parking areas; that the street lighting recommendation made in the Staff Report would create an undue burden since they were financially embarrassed to handle such an expen- diture and could only pay this if a retail license was obtained to increase their revenue. Furthermore, advertising would not be permitted through a newspaper since they were restricted because of this, and it was their intent to have a larger sign than they presently had. Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Commission questionin9, stated that State College Boulevard was now fully dedicated and Cerritos Avenue was also completely dedicated - however, paving was for approximately 20 feet, and the existing curbs and gutters were at the ultimate location of the width of the street. The Commission determined that the petitioners were not utilizing the property to the easterly - boundary because the majority of it was fenced in adjacent to the flood control channel, and ~ that a portion was being utilized by the railroad tracks for approximately 30 feet near the ~, point. __- - -_., .._.._...,_.:...... ., _,.___. . .. ~_... t, - _:.._ .. _ .__.. _ ~ _.._ `_.: . _ __. .. , ~ .. ~ MINUTES, CITY+PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 ~ 3068 VARIANCE N0. 1798 -:he wmmission inquired of Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson whether (Continued) or not the staff had had similar problems with retail sales in the industrial zone, whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that two other businesses in the M-1 Zone had been notified they were operating a retail business in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and that the City Attorney had instructed them to file a variance since the industrial zone did not permit retail sales. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the proposed use being established on a permanent basis and whether or not this •,+ould set z precedent for similar requests ` along Sta±e College Boulevard.and in the oth=r industrial areas, even though the request ! for the proposed use was within the Edison easement, since many of the other areas within the Edison easemert were devoted to wholesale uses of the property, and the land was all ~ rather attractive because of the wholesale nursery uses. ~ Mr. Hertzler then stated that it was his opinion State College Boulevard would be similar to Harbor Boulevard, with restaurants, motels, etc., because of the in:lux of the baseball stadium, whereupon Commissioner Herbst stated that industrial uses had already been estab- lished and were still being established in the area; therefore industrial uses should take precedent. Mrs. Anita Hertzler then appeared before the Commission and stated they had formerly operated -• the "HIC Nursery" on North Euclid Street and were forced to vacate before they could dispose of their retail items, and if the Commission could see fit to grant a temoorary use for the balance of the growing season through August or September, this would provide them time to dispose of materials they had. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Deputy City Attorney Alan Watts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the Commission could grant a limited period of time for the use without conditions if they ; saw fii. Co.nmissioner hiungall offered Resolution No. 2068, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1798 for a period of six months only, and to terminate at the end of said six months; that signs shall be erected in accordance with the requirements of the M-1 Zone; and that because of the time linit of six months, it was deemed by the Commission that the requir ement of street lights and strr;et trees, as well as street widening and street improvements would not be equitable - therefore, these conditions would not be attached to the ~ommission's approval. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMIdISSIONERS: None. RECLASS?FICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. W. A. MILLS, ET AL, 10562 Mahalo Way, Garden Grove, N0. 61-62-30 California, Owners; requesting REIdOVAL OF C-1 DEED RESTRICTIONS LIN~ITII3.~ THE COMMERCIAL USES TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIOIJAL OFFICES ONLY on property described as: Portion No. 1: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 246 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet, the southerly Goundary of subject property being apQroximately 278 feet north of the centerline of Underhill Avenue; Portion No. 2: An irregu- larly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Underhill Avenue and having irontages of approximately 99 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 128 feet on Underhill Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL ~MMERCIAL, ZONE (DEED RtSTRICTED). t ~ .~x ~ ~ Mr. W. A. Mi11s, representing some oftl-e eroperty owners of oroperti?s originally approved u~der subject petition for limited commercial uses of subject property, appe~rea oefore the Commis- sion and stated that when subject property was reclassified iive years ago the uses permitted seemed to be the logical method :or use of these properiies; however, durin9 the past five years most of the property owners were unable to sell, rent. or lezse their properties under thes= limitations. Therefore, the request by the property owners :or deletion of the deed restrictions was made to the City Council who were of the opinion that a public hearing should be held before tne Planning Commission and tne City Council before ~ny decisio~ coul.i be ma„e, and directed that the property owners, at their own expense, have subject petitio~ readvertisea; c r ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1956 3069 RECLASSIFICATION - that many times the property owners had opportunities to lease their N0. 61-62-30 properties - however deed restrictions always presented a barrier; and (Contin~~ed) that subject properties could not be rented or sold for r?sidential purposes because of the heavy traffic along State College Boulevard. Furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he had started reclassification proceedings of these properties five years ago. Mr. E. Jette, owner of property at 300 North State College Boulevard, which was Lot No. 1 of Portion No. 1, appeared before the Cor,unission and stated it had been very difficult to reside in.the home on State College Boulevard because of the heavy traffic, and since Lhe advent of the baseball park, this had been magnified; that he had 'nad a number of opportuni- _ ties to sell the property, however, when the prospective buyers learned that deed restric- ~ tions limited the uses, they lost interest, and for this reason he felt it was necessary .~ ' that these deed restrictions be removeti. ~~t ~ ;s~ Mr. M. J. Walker, 1239 Live Oak Court, appeared before ihe Commission and stated he wzs f;~ the owner of property at 212 North State College 3oulevard, two doors no*th of tne Under- `.i hill lots and two doors south of tne four lots fronting on State College 3oulevard; that ,s..1 he was opposed to the deletion of deed restrictions, ano he knew of several o~her property ;i owners who also were opposed to the requested deletion; that the value of their properties ,~ would greatly depreciate since four of the ten lois had developed under the restricted ,~ commercial zoning. A4r. Mills again appeared and stated Mr. Walker was not affected by the close proximity oi a doq hospital; that the homes on Euclid Street were in a similar predicament, and they were given commercial zoning; that the situation on State College Boulevard was more diifi- cult than Euclid Street; that properties northerly of subject property had been given C-1 Zoning without deed restrictions and one of these lots was within a foot of the lots under considdration; and that with the construction of two large effice buildings on Center Street, any chance of leasing or renting their properties for business and professional ofiices had been greatly reduced. Chairman Camp reminded th~ property owners that if deed restrictions were oeleted, the existir.g structure would have to be removed and replaced with a regular commercial structure since use of a residential structu*e was limited by Code, thus placing these properties under restrictions again. Mr. Alills then stated he understood that it was not necessary to remove the structures, and _, these structures were still in good condition, being only twelve years old. A man in the audience stated ihat t~ir. Harris, owner of property at 215 idorth State College Boulevard, was opposed to the removal of the deed restrictions. F letter fror~ Doctor Richard Reppe, owner of tne dental office located at 202-206 :dortn State College Boulevard, was read to the Commission, in which opposition was expressed to the removal of the deed restrictions. M THE HEARING WAS CLOS~U. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the evidence submitted at the original public hearing of subject petition five years ago, and the fact that the deed restrictions were placed on the properties after the pe`i.tioners had recognized the fact that the residents immediately to the east of their properties should be given some protection and consideration. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution 'Jo. 2069, Series 1965-60, and m~ved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~owland, to recommend to the Citv Council that the *equest for aeletion of deed restrictions limiting tite uses to bUSiness and orofessionol office use only in Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-30 be disapproved on the nasis that no economic or land use change had taken place since the original deed restrictions were applied to warrant the Commission's considering removal of said deed restrictions; th-~t removal of these deed restrictions would be granting the remaining property owners o p~ivilege which other property owners who had developed under the deed restrictions would not enjoy; and that the requested deletion of deed restrictions would have a deleterious effect on the single-family homes immediately adjacent to the east of subject properties. (See Resolution 3ook.) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was p~ssed by ~ne following ~:ote: AYES: COh'~v1ISSiGiQERS: l~11re~, Gauer, :ie=csi, h;ur;:a11, ?erry, Ro'~~1and, Camo. '10.~5: COAIMISSI~;J'cRS: i~one. h3Sc;JT: CO"Nu;ISSI0NcR5: Noneo ~~ - , ~ *~ '~ ~ I F ~ j MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 19bb 3070 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIHNI CLASEN, 1517 East La Palma Avenue, and ELylJARD N0. 65-66-118 W. CLASEN, ET AL, 1008 Acacia Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; IRVING A. WIGGINS, 2617 South Western Avenue, Los Angeles, California, VARIANCE NU. 1799 Agent; prope*ty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Acacia Street and having frontages of approximatel.y 300 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 190 f?et on Acacia Street. Prope-ty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZOIJE . : REQUESIcD CLASSIFICA:iON: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZUfJE. . REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVrRS OF (1) REQUIRED SCREEN PLANTIVG, AND (2) MIiJIMUIv~ REQUIRED BUILDIIJG SETBACK. -. i ~~ ~fi# ~ id~r. G. D. Fisher, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated jT~ that considerable money had been expended to determine the most feasiole use of subject `,j' property and the proposed use was considered the best for the site; that the proximity of 1 the proposed shopping center to other shopping c2nters wzs .6 of a mile to Romneya and ` East Street, .7 of a mile to Sycamore and East Street, and 1 mile to Lincoln and State ~~ College Boulevard; that tnere were a considerable number of apartment units in the area, and ~ the proposed convenience shoppin9 center would eliminate the necessity of traveling consider- ',~ -~ able distances for a small item; that he had presented the plsns of the proposed convenience shopping center to the residents in the area to deternine their reaction and had received ,~~ favorable response from the people; that he had contacted the two churches in close proxiinity and received favora~le comment; that subject property was bounded on three sides with apart- ments and on the fourth side with a medical service center; that with the elimination of the k'~,.~ orange grove, a safety feature would be added to the intersection of Acacia and La Palm~ since it was proposed to set back the commercial structure 77 ieet; that many school children con- ~~ gregated at this intersection wnen the ice cream trucks came to vend their wares, and with ~; the convenience shopping center this would eliminate a traffic hazard; that it would cost ~j the devnloper approximately $10,000 to widen the street and out curbs and gutters, lights, Fi , and trees on the property; that he had made some tentative leasing co~tacts and hau over y~ ' 50;G of the space on tentative leases pending approval of the zoning; that the oeveloper 'sl ~ intended to construct a commercial service center which would be an asset to the area; and !~~ that the proposed commercial center would be owned by the agent for the petitioner as an ~ investment. ~ iJo one appeared in o osition to sub'ect PP .7 petitions. ~ ,~ F) rhE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED. ~"~ The Commission discussed the action taken by tneir body on t!~e medical center, and the pro- ~~~ posed use would be creating °spot zoning" o: a convenience shopping center whicn was not ~~ necessary since within one-nalf mile there would be another snopping area established at 'i the corner of State College Boulevard and Placentia, and the area was adeqi-tely served ;.~ with commercial facilities; furthermore, tne property was developable for °esidential uses '~ bec~use of its size and shape ar.d because of the close proximity o* other residential uses _~ , in the area. Commissioner Allred offered R>solution No. 2070, Series 1965-b6, and moved :or its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recomm=nd to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 55-66-118 be disapproved, based on the fact thzt the orooosed com- mercial shopping center would set an undesirable precedent ior commercial uses alono La Palma Avenue; that with the exception of tne medical center, subject property was completely s~ar- rounded by residential uses; and that subject property could be develooed for residential uses, and the area was adequately served with commercial facilities within one-hali mile. (See Resolution 3ook.) ~ ; i On roll call the fore9oin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: j L i AYES: COUMISSIONcRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp. ' ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~ ' Commissi oner Allred offered Resolution No. 2071, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~ E and adop tion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, t o deny Petition for Variance No. 1799, based ' t: on findi n s. (See Resolution Book.) 9 E.~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~y AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Camp. ;~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. s.i ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: None. 4~ ,,,~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3071 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY WAGNER, 975 South State College Boulevard, N0. 65-66-119 Anaheim, California, Owner; WEGER ~MPANY, INCORPORATED, 8879 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, A9ent; property described as: Portion 1- A=ectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest c~rner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road and having frontages of approxi- mately 173 feet on State College Boulevard and appzoximately 323 feet on B~11 Road; ?ortion 2- A reciangularly shaped parcel of land with : frontage of approximately 75 feet on Eall Road and haviny a maximum depth of approximately 173 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 353 feet west of the centerline of State Colle9e Boulevard, and further described as abutting the westerly boundary of Portion 1. Property presently classified R-N, AGRICULTURAL, Z~NE. T,.~~ REQUESTED CLtiSSIFICATION: C-1, GcNERFL COid~ERCIAL, ZGtJE FGR PORTIUN 1; I C-2, GtNcRAL CUhUNERCIAL, ZOIJE FOR PURTION 2. hhr. Sidney Weger, agent ior the petitioner, appeared before the Com~ission and reviewed the proposed uses planned for subiect property and the uses establisned in close oroximity to subject property. It was also noted that the C-2 Zone was requested so tnat the pe~i- tioner would not bz limited to the uses for subject proper~y; that deiinite olans were made ior the service station site, however, tne bal~nce o: the property was open for zny recom- mendations and arcnitectural suggestions m~de by ihe Commission i^ order that the intersection -• would be developed ir. an orderly mznner. It ~vas also noted the petitioner had co^siderable land in the vicinity and just recently decided to dispos= o; his noldings on G long-term basis. The Commission noted the service station would 'oe tne only use oermitted in tne industrial zone witnout a cor.ditionai use permit ano inquired wnat tyoe of commercial development was proposed for ~arcel 2. Mr. Weger stated tnere were tentative p1:^s ior a dir.ner nouse since Nirs, hiadison, the realtor, hao maue ~ sur~ey a~o inoicat:o ~nis woulo be a good area ;or servino o: iooo ~o many employees in this ar=a. ~ The Commission r:o~ed for tne ~g=nt's i~:forma~ior. th;t the ~or~:~issio^ h~o recently =.;tiroved a di~~.ner house for the north2~s~ corner of the intersection, and that subject oroperty was ; projected on the General Plar, for ir~dustrial develooment. Furtnermcre, tne uses tentatively ~ oro osed were '~ P permitted i:-. ~ne ioi-1 Zone and i~quired if the petiiioner nad an•; plans for -,~ the ba2ance of the large R-~ parcel because it wo~ld have implications on subject petition. Mr. Weger replieo tnat t~e p=titioner hzo pla~s ior commercial oeveloomer.~ along tne S~ate Colle9e Boulevaro iro~tage, but ne cid not know what was planneo :or tne soutn side or, Bai1 Road. Mrs. F,nn N~adison, 918 ViFst t.incol~ F,venue, appeored beiore tne Commission and statao tnat as a realtor she nad been working very closely witn ".ir. Wagner on his propertie~; tnat he was proposino a 50 to 60-foot access :oad to serve tne rear portio~ oi tne property; nowever, he was not ready to release all nis oroperty :or development because oi the t~x problem. Si~ce he had planned to release subject property, t~is wouid encourage him to develop the balance at a fast~r rate. rurt::ermore, altnougn subject property was zoned :~-F,, and desig- 1ot°~ Of1 2R? General Ylaf1 {0I' 1:"lOUStrial 42V@j0~T2.^,~~ t71@I'2 We5 Silll C0,'151oB=cp12 VoCdf!C la~.~ alread/ zoneo fo= inous~rial purposes on zne soutn side of 3a11 r~oao; ~nat sne had made a survey oi the area and ~oted tnere were aoproximately 10,000 employees in ~nis area, and tne impression sne receiveo during t:^.is survey was tnat a aood restaurant would be ~r. asset to the area - i:owever the projecteo type of r=staurant woulo not oe tne same as tne dinner nouse plann<_d for tne commercial oevelopment to the east oi subject orope:ty; tnat if suoj=_ct petition was approved, t'r.e inter~ection oi 3a11 Read ar.d S~ate College 3oulevard would be considerably improv>d by provioi~:g a corner turning radius; and tnat the Genaral ?:an indicateo a shopoing area ior that intersection. The Commission advised tne propone~ts that tne designation or. the Generai Plan meant one shopping center would adequately serve tnat area, and that one alreaoy was es~ablis:,e~ - since construction was in progress at the northeast corner, The Commission also noted that industrial develooment had occur:ed immediat?ly adjacent to subject property along Ball Road. ~ Mr. B. G. ~dci:ay, Hssistant Manager for E. H. Sargeant Company, tne industrial development to the west of subject property, appeared before the Commission in ooposition and stated that although Mrs. Madison had indicated she had made a survey of the industries, he was ~ unaware of the survey; that the proposed use would be detrimental to the industrial develop- ~, ment already established and proposed for the Southeast Industrial Area; that the investment ~ MINUTES, CITY PLA~NING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3072 RECLASSIFICATION - made by his company was predicated on the fact that the area would be N0. 65-66-119 retained for industrial developm2nt; that the shopping center now being (Continued) constructed at the northeast curner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road would be adequate to serve the residents north and east of that intersection; and that an additional convenience shopping center on the northwest corner was unnecessary because of the relztively few homes adiacent to it. Mr. Weger, in rebuttal, stated that anything tnat would be projected for this property would not be detrimental to the industrial development in the area; that it was their intent to develop the property to its fullest potential; that the people who would patronize the shop- ping area at the northeast corner would be of the executive class, and it was their intent to cater to the working person; that the advent of the baseball park had influenced him to place a dinner house on subject property; that Mrs. Madison had been in contact with a number of persons interested in placing a dinner house on subiect property, and these people were similar to "Coffee Don's" and "Big Boy" and were quite selective in their choice of location, and that type of development would not be detrimental to the industrial development of the area. Mrs. Madison aqain appeared before the Commissior and stated that subject property was zoned R-A with potential to M-1; however, when she listed the property she noted there was a considerable amount of vacant I~i-1 property soutn o: Ball Road, and that the access road would serve the Wagner property to the north as well as being beneficial to tne E. R. Sargeant Company. The Commission noted that the R-A Zone had been beneficial to h;r. Wagner since he had been growing oranges on tne property and received a tax benefit; furthermore, the General Plzn projected this property for industrial development, and 6',r. Wagner had been using the property for agricultural purposes since 1905. THE HcARING WAS CLOSED. ' Discussion was held by the Com~ission as to the appropriateness oi the request for commercial I~ zoning since both uses presently proposed, namely the =_ervice station a~d dinner house,were permitted in the hi-1 7one. Furthermore, the Gen~~ral Plan had projected all of this and adjoininq properties for industrial purposes and only tne Wagner property tiad not been re- •' classified by the City when the Southeast Industrial Area was iormalized. ~. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution i~o. 2072, Series 1955-66, and moved for its passage : and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition ior Reclassification No. 65-66-119 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed commercial encroachment into the Southeast Industrial Area would set an undesirable precedent :or the remaining R-F. oarcels in close proximity, and that the uses proposed were oermitteo in the ~'v1-1 Zone by conditional use per;;it. (See 3esolution 5ook.1 On roll call tne foregoing resclutio:~ was passe~ b•r ::^e :ollowi~g vote: AYCS: CUp~:iISSIU:Jcr~.S: F.'_lred, ......_:, :±erost, ;I~.:^.ua11, a~rr;;, Row:~~;i, ~~^~p. ;~iJcS: CO;~L'~1ISSIG:JER~: :io~e. i,BSEi?T: CG;+V,IISSIUiJc~S: :;or:e. R~CLASSIFICtiiIGii - ~u:;:i:,Ucil : USLIC :i~F ;::1.;. C:;i;RLIc ... ~:t~C;:, 3133 ',iest ~rar.ge r;ve~ue, ~JG. 05-05-98 A~zheim, Califor~ia, (,~wner; Bc1 Cti~EK, Ji;., 4303 ~1'est 5~~ Street, Sar,ta A.~~a, Califor.^.ia, f:~e~t; r~Guesti~~g zna~ property oescrioed as: TEiJ'IATIVc ;::AP OF kn irregularl•f shapeo parc=l o; land contai~iny aporoximately 3.15 acres, T?i,C"I~ivG. 0103 with a;:ontage o: approximat?ly 500 :eet on t^e nortF sitie of tre CarUO^. Creek cna;:nel a~o naving a maximum oeptn o: approximately 271 feet, .~e westerly ooundary of subject oroperty being approximat=ly 750 ieet eas~ of t'r,e centerline of 'Jdestern ~,v~nue, be reclassiiied from ti~e R-A, P.~RICULTURf,L, ZUi~c to th.e R-1, OivE-FAiI!ILY RCSIDEfJTIAL, ZOP!"c. Subject tract - DcVcLGPER: R. J. BcRRY, 451a YJ>st 3ro Street, Sar,ta Ar,o, Californio. ci~3I;dcER: ;?aab and Bo;~er Engineering Co^~pa^~, 1731 Soutn Euclid Street, Suite "A", F,naneim, Caliiornia; located r,ortnerly o; Orange Avenue and easterly of lNestern Fve~ue, containin9 approximately 3.1 acres, is oro4osed for subdivision into 12 R-1, GNE-tAiJ~ILY RESIDc\TIF,L, Z~;'cD lo~s. ' ~~ Subject petition was continueo :rom tne meetings of fd~arch 14, April 11 and 25, ano hiay 23, ,~ 1966, and the tentative tract map was ccntinued :rom the meeti~gs oi February lo, N~rch 14, , ~ April 11 and 25, ano iviay 23, 1966, in order to a11ow time for the developer to ne9otiate for ',~ the property to tne =ast witn the County of Orange. * ~ ~~ ) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3073 RECLRSS3FICATION - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commis~ion that the N0. 65-66-98 developers had again requested an indefinite continuance of subject petition and tentative tract because of financial problems in obtain- TENTATIVE MAP OF ing money to process the development of tne property. TRACT N0. b163 (Continued) Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the requested reclassification to R-1 and were of the opinion this was an appropriate zone; however, because of the possibility that the petitioner would have to refile a tentative tract map, perhaps that could be denied without prejudice, and a new tentative tract submitted at the time the developer was ready to develop the property. ~Jj~~ THE I-IeARING WAS CLOSED. ~F; ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2073, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~. ,.:~~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition ~~ for Reclassification No. 65-66-98 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ti~e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, C~mpY Gauer, Herbst, tdungall, Perry, Rowland. '~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: iJone. ' Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 4:50 P.M. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 6103, without ~ prejudice, based on the fa^t that the o~_itioner had requested an indefinite continuance which could not be accomplished under the State Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTIOIJ CARRIED. PRECISE ALIGNMENT OF - PU3LIC 4EARING. I;JITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNIIJG CUP.4MISSION, 204 East LA PALMA AVENUE Lincoln A•,~enue, knaheim, California, proposing the establishment of the precise alignment of La Palma Hvenue within the jurisdiction of the City of Hnaheim between Fee Ana Street on the west and Imperial Highway on the east. Associate Planner N~arvin Krie9er reviewed for the Commission the precise alignment of La Palma Hvenue as adopted by the City which indicated Fee Ana Street was the easterly boundary of said precise alignment; however, the precise alignment for the entire street as the County projected it had also been approved, but the portion within the jurisdiction of the County now had eliminated the portion easterly of Fee Ana Street within the city limits of the City of Anaheim - therefore the adoption of this ;~recise alignment was neces- sary in order to ha~ie a complete packet of said alignment. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution IJo. 2074, Series 1955-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the precise alignment of La Palma A~~enue within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim, extending from Taylor Street on the west to imperial Highway on the east. (See Resolution Book.) Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONE4S: None. ABSENT: COPAMISSIONERS: Perry. STREET NAME CHANGE FOR !, PORTION - PUBLIC HtARING. INITIATEU 3Y THE CITY PLANNIPIG COMMISSION, UF KATELLA AVeNUE ?C nATELL/: WAY 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing a street name change for a portion of Katella Avenue between Haster Street and iJ,anchester Avenue on the west side of the Santa Ana Freeway and from Anaheim Boulevard to the easterly on-ramp of Katella Avenue, from Katella Avenue to Katella 'Nay. ;'#; Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that at a previous Planning s:~ Commission meetin9 the staff had noted some confusion had arisen regarding the use of ~ Katella F~venue for the stub streets which remained aft?r the Katella Avenue overpass was )~ completed; that the State Division of Highways had atLached the name of Katella Way to these ~ stub streets; and that the Interdepartmental Committee and the Post Office Department had ~; ~ indicated no conflict would result if the stub streets in question were officially named , "Katella Way". ~. r ~ ,l MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CON~MISSION, June 6, 1966 13074 STREET NAME CHANGE FOR A PORTION OF KATELLA AVENUE TO KATELLA WAY -(Continued) No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 2075, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by i,ommissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that a street name change for a portion of Katella Avenue be made for the two stub streets between Haster Street and Manchester Avenue on the west side of the Santa Ana Freeway and Anaheim Boulevard and the easterly on-ramp of Katella Avenue on the east side of the Santa kna Freeway to Katella Way. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the :oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, G;uer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: GbMh1ISSI0NERS: Perry. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 4:55 P.M. REPORTS ANC - ITtid ivU. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use ~ermit iJo. 690 - Establishment of a three-story office building, restaurant, and motel located on the north side of Katella Avenue, easterly of State Colle9e Boulevard - request for approva! of revised plans. Associate Planner Jack Cnristofferson presented Conditional Use Permit iJo. 690 plans, Revision No. 3, and reviewed ihe original request and subsequent revisior.s to the original request; that Revision No. 3 took into accuunt the right-uf-way for the underpass of Katella Avenue; that the motel would be a three-story complex with the restaurant being expanded in squ3re footage - however the number of rooms had been reduced by 40; that the parking had been aproved under Revision IJo. 2, and at that time the Commission had expressed the thought there would be an overlap of parking within the motel and restaurant complex; and that Revision No. 3 complied with al! other requirements of the Anaheim hfunicipal Code. The Commission reviewed the plans as submitted. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Revision No. 3, c"xhibit ~Jos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Conditional Use Permit !Jo. 690. Commissioner Mungall secondeo the motion. i~'~OTION CARRIED. Commissioners Perry and Rowland were absent. I TEh1 NO . 2 Special Keport regarding ambulance services in the C-U Zone. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the study maoe by tt~e staff relative to ambulance service in the C-U Zone in conjunction with a residence, said study having been made at the reqt~est of the ~ity Council when they approved a six months' temporary use for the ambulance service at Hlomar and Euclid Street. Commissioner Rowlano returned to the Council Chamb?r at 5:00 P,M, Discussion was then held oy the Commission relative to the existing use granted by the City Council and uses as they were established in other cities v+hich were subject to a conditional use permit. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Plannin9 Commission concurred in the findings of the Development Services staff relative to ambulance service in the C-0 Zone. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3075 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Cord'tional Use Permit No. 822 and Variance No. 1771. (Continued) Conditional Use Permit: Establish a walk-up restaurant. Variance: Waiver uf (1) maximum structural height, and (2) required six-foot masonry wall. ~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that in the Commission's Resolution Nos. 1978 and 1979 approving Conditional Use Permit f7o. 822 and Variance No. 1771, the legal description for the properties was not separated, and that the City Attorney's Office was of the opinion that an amendment should be made to the legal des- cription to encompass the drive-in restaurant property only~and th~ addition uf a condition which would require development of the drive-in restaurant in accordar.ce w~th plans. Furthermore, in Variance No. 1771, Finding No. 1, should be clarified to ~ndicate the specific waiver oi theheight of the structures and then the recommended wording ior the amendment was read. Mr. Christofferson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the walk-up restaurant was a McDonald's hamburger shop~and that the location of said walk-uo restaurant was important~ in the fact~that the commercial buildings ~~hich would be located on the south boundary line would add as a buffer to the residential uses adjacent off of Western Avenue. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2076, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to amend Resolution No. 1978 granting Condi- tional Use Permit No. 822, as follows: 1. A legal description encompassing the property of the drive-in restaurant only. 2. An additional Condition No. "5. That subject property shall oe developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on tile with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, ar.a 4". (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: AYES: COMMISSIO~ERS: A11red, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COA1MISSIONERS: Perry. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2077, ;'?ries 1965-60, and movad for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co,mmissioner Gzuer, to amend Resolution No. 1979 granting V~riance IJo. 1771, as iollows: "ri::,iin, :;o. "l. Inat tne p=titio~Fr :equests ~ v~ri~r.ce :ror: the nnai;ei;n ~.iuaicioal Co;ie: Sectio~ 18.40.070(3-aj to permit ~ w~i~~er of tne ~~ei~i~~t of con~.r,er- cial str~:ctures locateu to ti:e souta oi tne proposed walk-up iest~ur~r.t, in accoro~nce with the heignt of said structur?s as snown on plans mar:~~o c:tnioit :~os. 1, 2, and 4, iileo i~ conjunction witn Variance :;o. !l''_, said pla~s oeing approved b}~ th~ Plar~ni:;g ~ommission on ',;arcn 1~, 1G6b; and Sec~ic~ 18.40.070(5; ior waiver o` t~e requireti o-ioot maso~ry wa1'_ fo* ~ portion of tne west proper~y li~e". (~ee Resolutior. 3ook.; U~ ro11 call tne foregoing resolutio~ was posseo by ti~e fo7lowino vote: A`f~S: COP;;i+iISSIONcRS: P.1! red, Gauer, :fe*b52, .'::un^yail, Ro•~•.'land, "~mo. fdOES: C01Ju:iISSIGi~cRS: idon?. ABSrNT: COh4?~'.ISST0:1cRS: rerry. ITch; ?J0. 4 Conditional Use Permit No. 735 -<.eo Freedman - cstablish a 22-story, hign-r=se office building on ,~roperty located on tne soutn side of Frezdman Way, wes~ of (Sanch,ester /:ve^ue and Haster Street - reques~ for an extension o: ~ime. Associate ?lanner Jack Cnristof:erson advised tne Com~nissi~n tnat a letter 'r,ad been rec=ived +- from Nr. Leo Freedman requesting an extension o: one year's time ;or tne comoletio~ of condi- ;,=~ tions in Resolution No. 1762, Series 1955-66, dated September 13, 1?65, granting Conditional k,~ Use Permit No. 735, due to difiiculties in :inancing the project. { Commissioner ~Mungall ofiered a motion to grant an extension of one year :or completion o: ! ~ conditions in the Commission's ap~roval o: ~or.ditional Use Permit No. 735, saio time li:r~itatio~ ;i 1, to expire September 13, 1967. Commissioner Allred seconded tne motion. PJ;OTION CARRIcD. •J ~ ~•~~. ~ f ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1966 3076 REPORTS AND - ITEPA N0. 5 ?E~MMENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No. 5741 - Proposing to establish an office (Continued) for the sale of motorcycles in an existing garage and elimination of the required covered off-street parking in connection with an existing dwell- ing in the RP, Residential Professional District. Property located on the east side of Brookhurst Street northerly of Lincoln Avenue. Assuciate Planner Jack Chri.stofferson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5741 to the Commission, noting the location of subject property; the fact that the petitioner indicated the proposed use would not have any main~enance, storage, or display of motorcycles except the personal motorcycle of the petitioner; that the existing residence would be continued to be used ior living purposes; that only three uncovered off-street parking spaces were ~.r'°''"~ being provideri; and that one 2-square foot sign would be painted on the sliding glass door -~i , of the sales office facing Brookhurst Street. Mr. Christofferson +hen reviewed the requirements of the City of Anaheim C-1 Zone, the most aporopriate cr,mparable zone f~r the proposed use, further noting that access was in- adequa For trash pickup. The recommendations of the staff were also presented. The Commission inq~ired wheti~er the Broadway-Brookhurst Annexation encompassed subject -. property, and whether the annexation had been approved by the Local Agency Forming Office. Deputy City Attorney Alan Watis and Gffice Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the pruposed annexation had been approved by the LAFO and that subject property wds a part of that annexat.~on. Commissioner Row.and offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider requiring the following conditions if subject peti- tion was considered favorabiy, in view of the fact that the property was part of the oroposed Broadway-Brookhurst F,nnexation: 1. That the petitioner dedicate 60 feet (40 feet existing) from the centerline of the street f~~r Brookhurst Streei fcr street widening purposes. 2. That the construction of the street improvements for Brookhurst Street be in ~ccordance with standards of the City of Anaheim. 3. Tllat the use of a dwelling as a residence in the commercial zone be permitted only if used by the proprietor, ihe manager, or the custodian. 4. That at such time as the street ;s widened and improved, if the residential structure is still in use, the remaining asphalt areas in the front yard be removed and the area landscaped as required by the City of Anaheim standards. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 6 Reclassification of Jefferson Street - Urange County - between Miraloma Avenue on the south and Orangethoroe Avenue on the north from a primary ar~erial to a major arterial highway. Associate Flanr,er Marvin Krie9er re~~ieweu for the Commission a 1ega.l notic2 oi puolic iiearing befo*e the Orar.ge Count;~ P1ar.ning Com:.ission o~ June 1~, 19~5, to co~sider rec'_.;ssi:ic.:tior, oi Jeiferson Street between Iuliraloma and Grangeinorpe F.venues irom a prim~ry arterial to a major arterial hignway. It wzs also no~ed tnat tne Planning Commission t;ao recommended approval o; Gea=ral Plan Amendment ;Jo. 54, designating tne same street as a majcr arterial hiqhway, and that tne Ci~y Council ~ad approved said General ?lan f,mendment ;Jo. 54 or. F,pril 27, 1966. Commissioner f.llred offered a motion to recommen~ to tne .;ity Council t%:at the Crange County °lanning Commission be urged to aoprove reciassiiication of Jeiierson Street within the jurisdiction of the County oi Orange from a primary arterial to a major arteria? nighway wnich will also conform with ihe C~`.y of Anaheim General Plan Amer.ament Dio. 54, establis~ing Jefferson Street as a major arterial highway. Commissioner HBTDSL seconded tile :~otion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ,+tx i ~5 F ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMi:,~ION, June 6, 1966 ~3077 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Work Session on Title 17, Chapter 17.08, Subdivisions,of the (Continued) Anaheim Municipal Code. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission amendments proposed for Title 17, Chapter 17.08, Subdivisions, and asked for any additional recommenda- 1 tions t}~e Commission might consider prior to setting this for public hearing. After considerable discussion with the Commission, the City Attorney's Gffice, and the staff, the Commission directed the Planning Commission Secretary to set for public hearing Amendment to Title 17, Chapter 17.08, Subdivisions, of the Anaheim Municipal Code to be considered on J»ne 20, 1966. ITFM N0. 8 General Plan Amendment No. 79. Planning Supervisor Ronald ~~rudzinski presented General Plan F~mendment No. 79, Exhibit "A", to the Commission, noting that the amendment would encompass property within the jurisdic- tion of the City of Fullerton, and, therefore, no public hearing was necessary before the Anaheim Planning Cemmission. However, ;he amendment of the General Plan and its considera- tion at annual review would take this ye~eral plan amendment into consideration - and the - staff wanted the Commission to note the cnanges being proposed which encompassed the new Montgomery Ward Shopping Center at the southwest corner o: Harbor Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve General Plan Amendment No. 79, as being the appropriate designation for that portion of the General Plan witilin the jurisdiction of the City of Fullerton, and that said amendment be reflected in any new publication of the General Plan W1ap. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Perry was absent. A~JOURi~MENT - There b?ing no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Rowlanr3 seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~/" / - - ~%~~ G;~?/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission ;1 ~ I ~ { .. ~:~ ~ . -; ~ ~ ` ~ .__ ~T ~