Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/08/01City Hall Anaheim, Californis August l, 1966 A REGliLP.R ~ETLn1G OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION k•.~ :~ ~ ~ 3~ :. .~ _.I :~ 'I '~ ~: . ~I ~ C' ' ~ ~ ;:1 ~ ~' 1 i : ': ~I li ','~ ., ... REGULAR NMEEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to ordsr by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESEN'L' - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COIvIIufISSIONERS: Herbst, Pdungall, Rowland, Gauer(who entered the Council Chamber at 2:35 p.m.). ABSENP - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Perry. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thc~npson Deputy Cits~ Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer•: Arthur Daw Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Planning Commission Socretary: Ann Krebs MEMORIUM - Chairman Camp requested that those presen+ join with the Commission to pay silent tribute to Commissioner Herbert I. Perry, who passed away July 29, 1966. A RESOLUTION OF CONDOL.^NCE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is deeply saddened by the passing from its midst of Herbert I. Perry, its faithful and highly respected Planning Commissioner; and WI~REAS, "Herb" as he was affectionately known to his many friends, conscientiously served the City of Anaheim as a Planning Commissioner for five years with a devotion unsurpassed end rarely equslled in public service, and endeared himself to all who knew Y.im; and WI-lEREAS, the loss of "Herb", ss a friend and as a loyal and devoted membai• of the Planning Commission,will be keenly felt by the City Plannin~ Commission, the Development Services Department, and his many friends. NOW, THEREFORE, B~ ~'P RESOLUED by the City Planning ComLnission of the C~:ty of Anaheim that it deeply mourns the passing of Herbert I. Perry on behalf of the People of the City of Anaheim, and 3xtends its deopest sympathy to his wife, Th~lma, and other members of hi~ family. BE IT FURTHER RESOLUED THAT THIS RESOL'JTION be spread upon the Minutes of the City Pl~.nning Cammission and a copy thereof be forwarded to his ~rife, Thelma. THE POREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and signed - this llth day of August, 1966. (Signed) Horace A. Camp CHAIRMAi3, AI3AF~IM CI'I`~` PLANNING COtuIIv1ISSI0N (Signed) Lenzi Allrad COMMISSIONER (Signed) Melbourne A. Gauer COMMISSIONER (Signed) Lewis Herbst COMMISSIOIJER ATTEST: (Signed) Robert W. Pdungall CO~MflISSIONER (Signed) Dan Rowland COMMISSIONER (Signed) Ann Krebs ANN KREBS, Secretar~ AtdAf~IM CI'fi PLANNING COMM~SSION _2130- ~ MIN'~'PES , CI'~~' PLAIQATING CONIIvIISSION, August 1, 1966 2131 ,-..`%il~~ INVOCATION - Reverend 0. L. IInderwood, Pastor of Four• Square Church, gave the Invocation. PLEIDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Cov_mis~ioner Rowland led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPR0I;P.L OF - The Minutes of the meeting of July 18, 1966, were approved as submitted. MI.^.TUTES RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PIIBLIC HEARING. TED FfiEEMAN, Box 3303, Anaheim, Californis, N0. 65-66-106 O~vner; ROBERT HASLER, 16314 Canelones Drive, Hacienda Heights, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximetely 60 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, the southern boundary of subject property being approximately 233 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 919 South Magnolia Avenue, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMIli: RESID~NTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COT~RCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of May 9, Sune 6, and July 6, 1966, to allow time for the ~taff to meet with the prope~ty oWners and to determine v~hat action had been taken by the City Council regarding a similar zoning action on Magnolia Avenue. No one was present to represent the petitioner• Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the action taker. by the City Council regarding Reclassification No. 65-66-85• It c~as also noted that the Council had indicated that they favored a development plan for this block of Magnolia Avenue which would ir.corporate alley access only for the properties fronting on Magnolia Avenue, which e~ould r•equire dedication of access rights to Magnolia Avenue if the properties were used for commercial purpo,es. This method would permit parcels to develop individually, as the alley developed from either end of the block. Furthermore, a public hearing was set for August 23, 1966 to consider an area development plan which v~ould establish guidelines for this type of development of the properties. THE HEARING VJAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired whether the staff had met e~ith the property owners, whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that the staff had met saveral times with the property owners in order to - ~ resolve mutual access problems; however this had not been resolved, therefore the City - Council had approved the reclassification petition before them and required that all access rights to Magnolia Avenue be dedicated to the City,as well as, dedication of a 20-foot alley to provide access to these properties. Commi.ssioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-27, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissi.oner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition foi• Reclassi- fication No. 65-66-106 be epprovad subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the i'oregoing resolution was passed ',y the following vote: ~ atx AYES: COI~'QvIISSIONERS: Herbsi, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMI~SIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Perry• CONDITIONAL USE - PliBLIC HEARING. AARON SWAIN, 2U29 South Harb~r Boulevard, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 865 California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING MOTEL WITH WANER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 140 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 555 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 790 feet north of the center- line of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2029 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mr. Merrill Boyd, representirig Mr. Aaron Swain, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether subject peti~ion would also encompass ar.y further expansicn of the motel facilities, since the petitioner proposed to build the development in stages. The Commission advised the representative that a new petition was not necessary, only the submission of development plans to the Commission for their approval would be required. ~ , , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1, 1966 2i32 CONDITIONAL 1JSE - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a previous PERMIT N0. 865 petition, Conditional Use Permit No. 734 was still pending on subject (Continued) property, and if subject peiition was approved, the aforementioned petition should be terminated, since a portion of the new plans would be in conflict with the previous petition, and that the petitioner had been so advised. e. •' ~~ # , ~~,t ~ r ~ `: . No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-28, and movad for its passage and adoption, secor.3od by Commis~ianer kowland to grant Conditional Use Permit No. 865, subject to conditions.(See Resolution book) On roll call the foregoing re~olution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C01~[vIISS20NERS: Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COIvLM2SSI0NERS: None. ABSENT: COIvIIvIISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Perry. Commissioner Rowland oPfered Resolution No. Pi,56-29, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rov~land, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permi+ Aio. 734, on the basis that Conditional Use Permit IQo. 865 would supersede previous plans approved.(See Fesol•ation Book) On roll call the ioregoing resolutior. was passed by the follov~ing vote: AYES: COIv4viISSIONERS: Herbst, A4unga1l, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMhdISSIOA'ERS: None. ABSENP: COI~MAISSION"ERS: Allred, Gauer, Perry. ti~ ~:~ ~~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROSALIE METZGER, JOHN AND GRACE HEIN, 511 South Rio Vista PERMIT N0. 866 ~treet, Anaheim, California, O~rnors; ROBERT TURNER, 2622 Ames Circle, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission TO ESTABLISH A CHURCH on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 325 feot on the ~vest side of Rio Vista Street and havin~ a maximum depth of approximately 440 feet, t}:a northerly houndary of subject property being approximately 630 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Praperty presently classified R-A, ~ AGRICULTL'RAL, ZONE. Mr. Lynn Thomsen, reprasenting tho agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions; however, any technical or architectural questions would be answered by ihF architect. Mr. Thomsen responding to Commission que~tioning stated that the 191 foot portion to the west of the church rite now under considerat•ion would be purchased later by the church and would either be developed for singie family homes or used as expansion for the church; and that he had discus~ed nt longth tlio po~sible development of the vacant parcels to the north. Nlr. Bernard F. Shay, 55? Dur.e :,treet, appeared before the Commi~sion and inquired whether or not adequate parking was being provided and whether the privacy of the neighboring homes would be protected? Mrs. Bernard F. Shay, 552 Dune Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether traffic to and from the church site ~vould use Dune Street. The Commission advised both Mr. and Mrs. Shay that the petitioner was proposin~ a 6-foot masonry wall along the south property line; that adequate parkin~ was Ueing provided; and that traffic would enter and exit to Rio Vista Street. THE i~ARING WAS CL03ED. Diseu~sion was held by the Commission relative to dedica+i~~n of access rights to Dune Street since the petitioner was proposing a 6-foot masonrY wall as well as a modifiod cul-de-sac for Dune Street, and upon completion of i;he di~-cussion, it was determined that access rights should be dedicated to the city for TJune Street in order to avoid a similar incidence that the city had experienced on Magnolia Avenue. . ;~ 'f v MING~'ES, CITl' PLANNING CONIIvIISS20N, August 1, 1966 2133 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-30, and moved for its PERTAIT N0. 866 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition ~ (Continued) for Conditional Use Permit No. 866, subject to conditions.(See Resolution ' Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~0[~M~IISSIONERS: Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ ~ ,,,,~~p NOES: COIvIIvIISS20NERS: None. 4 ~ ABSENT: CONIIvIISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Perry. ~ ' ~r~2An,rC~ IJO. 1817 - PUBLIC HEARING. HIGHL•AND PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, 4885 East 52nd Place, Los Angeles, California, 90022, Owner; EDWARD D. EDWARDS, 4885 East 5 2nd Place, Los Angeles, California, 90022, Agent; requesting permission to WANE MINIMUM FRONP SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land u~ith a frontage of approximately 145 feet on the southwest side of Manchester . Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 510 feet, the northerly boundary of sub- ject property being approximately 1,050 feet south of the centerline of Katella Way. Property classified tvf-1., LIGH?' INDU~TRIAL, ZONE. No ono ~vas present to represent the petitioner. PJo one appeared in oppo~~ition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor R.onald Thoe~pson revie~ved the Report to the Commission, noting the fact that a variation did exist between the setback of the property to the nori;h and the south as compared with tha required 50-£oot setback of the M-1 Zone. It v~as also noted that the • petitioner had been advised that limited commercial uses re~tricted to wholesaling was , permitted in the M-1 Zone. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-31, and moved for its passage and adoption, _, seconded by Commissioner HsrUst to grant Petition for Variance No. 1817, subject to - conditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AFES: CONIIutISSIONERS: Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COIv4vIISSIONER°: None. ABSEPTP: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Perry. FtECLASSIFICATION - P'JRLIC HEARING. M. GREENWOOD, R. SINGER, AND E. ILIFF, 3505 Long Beach N0. 66-67-5 Boulevard. Suite H, Long Beach, C~lifornie, O~vners; ROBERT SINGER, 338 East 3rd Streei, Long Beach, California, Agent; property described VARIANCE N0. 1815 as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi- mately 375 feet on the north side of Broadv~ay and having a maximum depth TENTATNE MAP OF of approximetely 595 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property TRACT N0. 6294, bein~ approximately 13'L feet east of the centerline of VJayside Place. REVISIOY3 N0. 1 Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~`~ ~ ~~ ~a REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE REQUESTED VARIANCE: WANERS OF: (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA; (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH; AND (3) MIMMUt~1 REVERSED CORNER LOT WIDTH. TENTATIVE TRACT: D~ELOPERS: MURRAY GfiEENW00D, ROBERT E. SINGER 8 EDWIN C. ILIFF, ;SC~ Long Beach Boulevard, Suite "H", Long Beach, Caiifornia. ENGINEERS: Armet d Associates, 9776 Katella nve•.zue, Aneheim, Californie. SuUjoct tract located on the north side of Broadway easterly of East Street between Wayside Place and Date Street West, containing approximately 4.7 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 22 R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENPIAL,ZONED lots. ~. F I ~ , ~ i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1, 1966 3134 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Duane Stout, representing the engineers of the proposed tract, N0. 66-67-5 appeared before the Commission and stated that the majority of the homes ~ to be built on the 22 lots would be single story, and that the price VARIANCE N0. 1815 range for the homes would be $27,000 to $29,000.00. , TENTATNE MAP CF Mrs. Sherrill Cross, 228 Wayside Place, appeared before the Commission ' TRACT id0. 6294 to inquire whether the existing easemen+ would extend over both the ', 3evision No. 1 homes to tho west and subject property or whether it would only be on ..TM~~ (Continued) subject property, and whether a masonry wall was being required. ~~ The Commission advised Mrs. Cross, that the existing public utility easement would remain .~I ' ; on both p:~operties, and that a masonry vrall was not required to separate R-1 from R-1. 1~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a masonry wall was required ;`~ where the property a?~.tSed an arterial highway. -..{~ _ Mrs. Cross then inquired whether the lots would be or. a lease basis; whereupon the agent ~ for tha petitioner replied that the petitioners had purchased the property far subdivision and construction of homes, and that the land on ~vhich each house was built would be sold elong with the house. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-32, and moved for its passage and adoption, J seconded by Commissioner Herbst to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- I fication ;~o. 66-67-5 be approved subject to conditions.(See Resolution Hook) ; On roll call the foregoing resolution ~vas passed by the following vote: A`1~5: COIv4v1ISSI0NERS: Herbst, Mur.gall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COtv4v1ISSI0NERS: None. ' ABSED!'!': COMPdISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Perry. - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution NU. PC66-33, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall io Rrant Variance No. 1815, based on tha fact that the ~~~ lots in the surroundir.g <_sbdivisio:,: were comparable in size; and subject to conditions. ~ (See Resolution Book) ~1i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloviing vote: ~ `I ~. r i A'~'ES: CONLI~ISSIONERS: Herb~~t , Mungall , Ro~vland , Camp. i 4. ~ NOES: r,OtvA~tISSIONERS: None. i i ABSE?~IT: COtvIIv1IS5I0N~RS: Allred, Gauer, Perry. Commis~ioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Revision No. 1 of Tentative Pdap of Tract g~ No. 6294, seconded by Commissioner Herbet, and MOTION CAftRIED, subject to the following `r conditions: 1' ' ~" ~ ~ 1. That the approval of Tentative Nap of Tract No. 6294, Revision No. 1 is granted subject to the approval o£ Reclassification R~o. 66-67-5 and Variance No. 1815• I j 2. iiiat should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each sub- ! division thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. I 3. Tl;at the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to • Broadway shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 4. T!:at the alignment of Broadway shall conform to plans available on file in the office of the City Engineer. '~ . ~ 5. Tlia± in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot mason:y vrall shall be con- structed on the south property line separating Lot Nos. 1, 20, and 22, and Broadway - rsn arterial highway, except that corner Lot Nos. 1 and 22 shall be stepped down to * 30 inches in the front yard setback. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation ,,~ ~ facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parl:•aay the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to Ye submitted ,'~ to and sub,7'ect to tha approva]. of the Development Services Department und the E~' ! Su~,drini,endent of Parkway Maintenance. Pollowing installation and acceptance, the 6;i City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. r~ ~ - _' . , i ~ E: MINUZ~S, CITY PLANNING CON~IISSION, August 1, 1966 3135 R~'CLASSITICATION - RAg gpADEN, 1512 South Brookhurst Street, WILLIAh7 CHANDLEE, 1508 South N0. 56-67-6 Brookhurst Street, HERBERi NEWSOME, 2172 West Cerritos Avenue, and WILLIAM KROGSDALE, 2168 West Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; CONDITIONAL USE JOSEPHINE CHAI~TDLEE, P. 0. Box 3244, Anaheim, Califarnia, A~ent. Property PERMIT N0. 867 described as: PORTION l: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Cerritos A/enue and VARIAIQCE N0. 1816 having frontages of approximately 125 feet on Braokhurst Street and approximately 140 feet on Cerritos Avenue; and PORTION 2: An irregularly shaped percel of land with a frontage of approximately 97 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 141 feet; the northern boundary of Portion 2 being adjacent to the south boundary of Portion 1; and further described as 1508 and 1512 South Brookhurst Street and 2168 and 2172 West Cerritos Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENiTAL, ZONE. REQu~;STED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GEniERAL COhRv1ERCIAL, ZONE RE~iTESTED CONDT_TIONAL USE: FORTION 1- ESTABLISH A SEftVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF R-l, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY ~RUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION 2- WANER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Mr. Lewis Weger, representing the developers of the property, appeared before the commission and reviewed the existing zoning of the properties on the west side of Brookhurst Street, which is under the jurisdiction oi the County, and also reviewed the present traf£ic count for both Brookhurst S'^eet ard Ce_•ritos Avenue. The proposed development was also reviewed. Commissioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at 2:35 p.m, Mr. W. Ragen, 451 South "D" Street, Tustin, stated that one of the ovmer-occupants of the homes told Yri.m that traffic v~as so heavy that she was unable to rent her property; that the proposed development ~vould back up to threa other re~idences' rear yards; that screened landscaping v~ould be required in addition to the landscaping that ali•eady exi~,ted rvhich should be more tYian adequate to protect the R-1 homes; that in 1954 the single family tract was established under the County';~ jurisdiction, but since that time the Courity realized that a decided change had taken place and had zoned these homes Residential-Proiessional; that a change in land use was evident, however he was not desirous of having the oroper•ties in this area become similar in appearanco as those on North Brookhurst Street; that the proposed development would supply a much needed street widening as well a~ sidewalks so that children would not have to use one of the lanes of traffic to go to another store; that FHA had advised him that financing Sor an R-1 home use of these properties would not be approved by them because of the appareat land use change; and that 51~ of i;he tract owners had indicated they were in favor of the pi~oposed zoning. Mr• Harold Hartley, realtoi•, appeared before the Commission in favor of tlie proposed reclassification stating that the property should be used for commercial purposes; that he had tried to sell one property in this srea for a property owner who had lost his pets thro ugh the heavy traffic, and decided to move bef~re one of the children would also be a victim of the heavy traffic; hov~ever they were unable to sell, and finally had to rent to people who had no children; furthermore, because FHA financing was not available, subject property should be considered as a hardship case. Mr. Robert Portello, 2118 West Lullaby Lane, ar.~eared before the Co¢m~ission in opposition, stating he represented the property ovmers who had ;aigned a potition in opposition, and noted that there was plenty of undeveloped land available which should be used before any considerPtion should be given to rezoning of an area alread~/ establis:.ad as a resider.tial area; that adequate commercial facilities were available at the intersection of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street; that commercial uses established imm=diately adjacent to residential property would reduco the values of the residential property; that the properties fronting on Brookhurst Street would benefit financially from any re:,oning whereas the residential homes would lose considerably if these properties were sol~l; and that the establishment of commercial uses would set a precedent which would eventual:_y require the opening of the cul-de-sac s~reet to permit parking, etc; and that considerable noises would emanate from the commercial u~es which v~ould disrupt the residential environment of the area. A pei;ition signed by 30 property owners was then presented. Mr. Portello further .;tated that the representatives of the petitioners stated that they had 51~ of the tract owners in fs,vor of subject reclassification; howev~~, this could not be true since 30 of the property owners had signed his petition in opposition; and that many of the property owners had moved into the area on ±he assumption that it would remain residential, and to approve subject patition would create a considerable hardship on these peoole since ±hey would be unable to move, if commercial encroachment prevented tiiem from enjoying their privacy. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLA RECLASSIFICATION N0. 66-67-6 CONDITIONAL JSE PERMIP N0. 867 VARIATdCE N0. 1816 (Continued) VNING COI~IISSION, August 1, 1966 3136 • The Commissi.on inquired of Mr. Portello whether he felt the proposed convenience shopping center would not be beneficial to the residents of the tract, whereupon Mr. Portello =tated he v~as not in favor of an arbitrary change in the area, since if subject petition e~as approved, this could set e~. pattern of de~•elopment of all the homes fronting or siding on Brookhurst Street with sll the adjoining homes being unfairly subjected to a depreciation of the residential integrity ~f the area. ~ , Mr. Herbert Newsome,one of the petitioners stated that he belioved that the realtor was referring to him when he stated he represented a property ovrner who had besn unable to ~ sell nis property, that he was living in Fullerton at the time he purchased the property in order to be closer to his vrork; however, after noting the heavy traffic, he decided to i•ent an apartment, and that since thet time he had had five renters in the home, with ~he iiome being vacant for :everal months now. Furthermore, with a small convenience cente: at that location, the children in the area would not have to walk to the Ball Road shopping area for their small purchases. THE HEARIIQG WAS CLOSED. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the fact that subject property was facing the same problem ihat 2700 homes in Anahoim faced along arterial streets; that if a serv'.ce station were approved for this corner, it could be assumed that three other service stations would be erected on the other corners; that the cul-de-sac on Lullaby Lane would not be affected by this reclassification; that subject propert;~ did have some screenirg edjecer.t to thc .°,-1 hoc~sa ~o trie oast, i~i addiLion io tne existing alley; and that although the County has R-P Zoning on the west side of the street, only two homes have been converted for this type of use. Assistant Development Services Director Robart Mickelson advised the Commission, if subject petitions were favorably considered, the air-conditioning proposed should be adequately buffered, so that the compressor noises did not di~turb the rosidents to the east and south. ; This was predicated on the fact that several other shopping arees recently complei:ed had _~ presented considerable problem~ in tlie fact that tiZe noise from the compressors brought many _ complaints from the residents. I The representative of the petitioners stated that air-conditioning was proposed for the ~J rooi of the structure. tl Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-34, and moved £or iis passage and adoption, F~~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- k; ~ fication No. 66-67-6 be approved subject to conditions and the requirament that any air- ~ j conditioning facilities shal' '~e properly buffered so that the noise from the compressors ~.~ ~ will be minimized to shield the adjacent residences.(See Resoluti on IIook) ;.. I , ~~ i, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed 'oy the following vote: ~ i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~: PIOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. i i ABSENT: CON~rIISSIONERS: Allred, Perry. ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-35, and moved for ita passage and adoption, i seconded by Commissioner Mungall to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 867, sub- r t ject to conditions.(See Resolution Book) , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Ro~vland, Camp. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~ ~ ABSENT: I;ONMIISSI0DIERS: Allred, Perry. ~' 1 .~ _ ~ '.~j .I s i "~ i t e i. . y: ' MINUTES, CITY PLIIN~dI3TG COTdMISSIUN, August 1, 1966 3137 ; RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herb~t offered Resolution No. PC66-36, and moved for its ~ N0. 66-67-6 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1816, subject to conditions and a further requirement ; CONDITIONAL tiSE that any air-conditioning facilities shall be properly buffered so that PERMIT N0. 867 the r_oise from the compressors will be minimized to shield the adjacent residences.(See Resolution Book) VARIANCE N0. 1816 ~. Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution v~as passed by the following vote: ~. ~~ -;j AYES: COtv1MISSIONERS: Gauer, Horbst, A9ungall, Rowland, Camp. ', ~ ~ NOES: COtvIIvffSSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ABSEn~'S: COtv4~IISSIONERS: Allred, Perry. j RECLASSIFICATIOAT - PuBL2C HEARING. CHARLES I-PJSHAW, 519 Peppertree Drive, Brea, and ROBERT ,' N0. 66-67-7 CROFP, 638 South Stato College Boulevard, Anaheim,California, Owners; ' GEORGE ARGYROS, 415 West 4th Street, Tusl;in, Californie, Agent; property I CONDITIONAL USE described as: An i;°regvlarly shaped parcel of land situated at the north- i PERMIT N0. 868 east corner ui State College Boulevard and South Street and having front- .~ ages of approximately 190 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 100 feet on South Street, and further described as 628,632, and 638 South •.,~ State College Boulevard. Property presently classified R-1, ONE FAi~42LY RESIDENIIAL, ZONE. j ~ REQJESI'ED CLASSIFICATIOAT: C-1, GENERAL CO[v4vIERCIAL, ZONE. J ' REC~UESIED CONDITIONAL 'JSE: ESTABLISH AN A'J'POMOBILE SEfZJICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF ~ ~ A RESIDENT? ~L ZONE. ,~ i` hir. George Argyros, agent for the petitioners, appeared Uefore the Commission and reviewed what was proposed for the vacant portion northerly of the proposed service station site, ~;i further noting that since the commercial development to the northf.Fredricks development) ; presented such an attractive appearance, the Union Oil Company agreed to continue the Spanish I -_ architecture by proposing a mission tile roof,and then reviewed service station as depicted on the exhibit presented to +.he Commission at the hearing; furthermore if the Commissior. desired the petitioners would stipulate to the Spanish type architocture as well as lal:d- scaping of the vacant portion to the north. ~~ .i No one appeared in opposition. i ' %. ' THE HEA.RI?dG WAS CLOSED. ;' ~ 7 [" `I ~:i Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission if cubject petitions were to ~:{ ~ be considered favorably, the Commission might wish to direct the Staff to prepare a General ' Plan stsdy of State College Boulevard from Lincoln Avenue on the north to South Street on r~~ ~' the south, since the General Plan did not depict commercial uses for the east side of State ~ ~ College Boulevard. ; Commissioner Rowland u~fered Resolution IQo. PC66-37, aad :noved for its passage and adoption, " , seconded by Commissioner Herbst to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi• 6 fication No. 66-67-7 be approved subject to con3itions.(See Resolution Book) ; 4 '~ On roll call the foregoing resolution v~as passed by the following vote: i' I~ AYES: COlvA42SS20NERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rovland, Camp. NOES: COt~MAISSIONERS: None. i~ ABSEIdT: COb4vIISSIONERS: Allred, Perr;~. i • ~ Commissioner Rowland of£ered Resolution No.PC66-38, and moved for its passage and adoption, secnnded by Comciissioner Herbst to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Na. 868, subject to conditions and the requirement that the northerly undeveloped portion be landscaped and irrigation facilities installed,end landscaping maintained.(Sse Resolution Book) ..~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i ~ ~; AYES: COIvA4ISSI0NERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall Rowland, Camp. P10ES: COt~MQISSIONERS: None. ~~ ABSEI~P: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Perry. ~~ ~ I ~p~ i !~ ! ~ _~ t r~INUTES, CIT1' PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1, 1966 3138 GENERAL PLAN - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direci; the Planning Division DIRECTII'E TO to prepare a General Plan study encompassing properties on State College I'HE PLANNIArG Boulevard between Lincoln Avenue on the north and South Street on the south DNISION to determine if recent land use changes u~arrant a General Plan amendment. Commissioner Gaue: seconded the motion. MOTTON CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARIDIG. JOHN VON DER HEIDE, 924 ,Jorth Euclid Street, Anaheim, N0. 66-67-8 and California, Owner; property described as: An irregularl.y shaped parcel of land located at the northeast cor•ner o~ Euclid Street and Catherine VARIANCE N0. 1818 Drive and having frontages of approximately 100 feet on Euclid Street and approximately 55 feet on Catherine Drive, and further described as 924 North Euclide Street. Proporty presently classified R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COIvIIvIERCIAL, ZONE REQUESI`ED ITARIANCE: WANERS OF: (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK; AND (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Mr. John Von der Heide, the petitioner, appeared before the Co¢unission and reviewed the proposed use of subject property noting that the Repoi-t to the Conmission had indicated the new structure v~ould be used for a real estate office, however, this was erroneous, because he had a tentative tenent v~ho was a dentist; that thc~ property immediately to the north had the same front setback as he proposed; furthermore, the 2~forris Plan building to the south also had the same front setback, and it was his opinion that he should enjoy the same property right. The Coa~ission noted that the parking area reauired landscaping ho~~~ever, many of the commer- cial structures had landscaping which died for lack of weter and all landscaping required should have irrigation facilities and maintenance of the landscaping as a requirement. Deputy City Attorney F4irman Roberts quoted from tne site development standards of the commer- cial zones which required that all landscaped areas should provide hose bibbs or irrigr~tion ; facilities as well as maintenance of the landscaping. Furthermore, the older C-Zones did not have the site development standards, therefore, it was possible that irrigatior. facil- _ it`_e~ many timas were omitted. No one appeared in opposition. TI-~ HEARING NlAS CLOSED. It was noted by Zoning Supervisor Cional.d Thompson that a letter had been received from the ~# property o~vner;, immediately to the east of subjant property indicating their approval of the ~ proposed development. I j Considerable discussion K~a~ held by the Commission relative to whether or not a precedent had been set for setbacks along Euclid Street and whether subject property should be required ~ to comply with the existing setback requirements. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-39 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded b;~ Commissioner Gauer to rocommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ~ fication rlo. 66-67-8 bo approved subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book) I On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. I ~ NOES: COPrIIv1ISSI0NERS: None. ; ABSENT: COMMISSIONr;RS: Allred, Perry. Commissioner Rowlsnd offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 1818, seconded by Commi~sioner Gauer based on the fact that subject property could be developed with the required setback. The motior. lost by a vote of 2 for and 3 against. * ~ MINUPES, CI'In' PLANNING COMMISSION, August l, 1966 3139 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Horbst offered Resolution No. PC66-40, and moved for its N0. 66-67-8 and passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1818, on the basis that the setbacks along Euclid Street VARIANCE N0. 1818 have already been established, and to require one parcel to comply with Code requirements would create a hardship on the petitioner, furthermore, the proposed setback would reduce the co¢Lmercial ercroachment on *,he residence to the east, and sub~ect to conditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution k~as passed by the following vote: f. ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, HERBST, MUNGALL, CAMP. ~;~~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ROWLAND. t. ~ ARSENP: COIv4ul2SSI0NERS: ALI,RED, PERRY. 6:;~ I:',I Commissioner Rowland in voting "NO" stated that the proposed structure could be accommodated on the property wi'.i: a minor change, and to grant subject petition would set a precedent for ;~ similar requests alor.~ arterial highways at some future date. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BI THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 66-67-9 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califarnie. Propei•ty owned by Pablo Dominguez, 1523 East Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, California. The Commission proposes the reclassification of subject property from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the Td-1, LIGI-IP INDUSTRIAL, ZONE; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard and having frontages of approximately 150 feet on Ball Road and approximately 150 feet on State College Boulevard. Zoning Supervisor Rottald Thompson reviewed past zoning action on subject property, not.ing that the proposed M-1 Zone would be in conformance with the General Plan. No one appeared in opposition. THE E~ARING WAS CLOSED. ~: " Commissioner Herbst offered Resolu+ion No. PC66-41, and moved for _ts passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Rowland to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-9 be approved unconditionally.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follov~ing vote: AYES: CONIIvIISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CONIPdISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COIu4vf2SSI0NERS: Allred, Perry. ~i I REPOR'PS AND - ITEM N0. 1-a RECOP~NDATIONS ORAAtGE COUNPY USE VARIANCE ATO. 5765 Establish an Automobile Salvage Yard in the M-1 Light Industriel District - Property located approximately 260 feet west of Van Buren Street and • 580 feet south of Oi•angethorpe Avenue - 500 feet north of the City of ` Anaheim boundary in thc~ Idortheast Industrial Area i Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5765 to the ~ Commission noting the proposed use of subject property and its location. The Report to the i Commission was reviewed as follows: I 1. The proposed use would be establishad within 500 feet of the Anaheim City Limits. 2. The Grange County Planning Commission had granted use of the property immediately west of subject property for a"Tov~ing Service" which seems to have g:aduated'into a "junk yard". ;~ 3. The County M-1 Zone does not permit salvage enterprises or wrecking yards. The property in question does not qualify under the criteria of the County of Orange or the City of Anaheim variance requirements, i.a., size, shape, topography, location, etc. ;.~ ~~ `. ~~ ;,~~ . ~ ~~ ~ MINIJI'ES, CIZY PL/iNNING COIvLM2SSI0N, August 1, 1966 3140 REPORTS AND ITEM N0. 1-a(Continued) REC OMIdEP1DATI0NS (Coni;inued) 4. The County of Orange does not have site development standards for the M-1 Zone. However, the site development standards of the City of Anaheim M-1 Zone would r3quire 8 additionai parking spaces; a 6-ioat masonry perimeter ~va11; and access to a dedicated street. The peti- tioner propo~es to utilize an existing 40-foot un~mproved easement westerly from Van Buren Street, both for access and fc_ parking. No '_ screen landscaping or solid wall is being provided. ' 5. The City's engineering maps, as well as the most recent assessor's ~ ~ ~naps, indicate the entire 7-acre parcel is syill under one ownership. If a 1ot split has been crea+ed recently, a parcel or subdivision map r has not been filed. Staff recommendations ~vei°e reviewed by the Com~ission, the Commission noting that the basic objections to the proposed use are the fact that it is not a per~nitted use in the M-1 Zone, and the lack of proper access to the site, as ~vell as the lack of sufficient devalopment standards for development of tho site. Coromissioner Herbst ofiered a moiior. to recommend to the City Gouncil that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance PSo. 5765, on the basis: 1. That use is not permitted in the M-1 Zone (District) of either the County of Orange or the City of Anaheim; and that it would have a deleterious effect on the future potential of properties in cluse oroximity for light industrial land use. 2. That the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider requiring standard streets to serve future industriel development in this area, since standard streets would be necessary to provide an adequate system of circulation and access to par- cels which will otherwise be landlocked; and that if standard streets were required adjacent to the ~outherly boundary of subject property, access to a standard street wuuld be made available for the developmhnt of approximately 25 acres in this area. ; 3. 'Phai thu Orange County Planning Commission should also be urged to ?nvastigate the -~ status o'_' the exi;:ting "Automobile Towing Service" on the wester].y portiun of the - property in question, in or•d~r to determine ii the use of the propert•y is ii: con- formar.~e with all County regulations and permits. Commissioner Ro~vland seconded tne motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 1-b ORANUE COJNTY USE VARIAPICE N0. 5767 EstaUlish a church in the Lock Ranch Planned Community District - located ~ between Ti-act No. 5925 and north of the Yorba Linda Golf Club in the East Ycrba Linda area Zoning Supervisor Ronald Ti~ompson prasented Orange County Use Variance No. >767 to the Commi.ssion, noting the location of subject property and the proposed ~ase for a church to be located in the Lock Ranch Planned Communi+.y, south of Tract No. 5925 and north of the Yorba Linda Golf Club. The parking and landscaping proposed ~vas al~o roviowed. CorsLmissioner Herbst offored a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Oren6e County Planning Commission be urged to grent Orange County Use Variance No. 5767. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I, ITEM N0. 2 ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERI~~IT N0. 5ll ~• Approval o: Plans for I'iestaurant and Bar - 1226 North Harbor Boulevard (Arnold Construction Co. - Anaheim Inn) ~f . Assistant Development S~,rvices Director Robert Mickelson reviewed for tho Commission thei !. pre~iou~• action on plan~ submitted by the developer, noting that the revi~ed plans for the parking now meet Code; however, tha saparation of 'he bar and dit:ing facilities was not ~~ ; provided. ' Mr. Ralph Lovett, representing the Arnold Construction Company appem~ed before the Commission ~- and stated that in ord~,r to accomplish meeting Code parking requirements the revision indi- ,`j ~~ ~ates that two stairways wero relocated, thereby providing the additional 4 spaces; however, ., ~ if the Comm9ssion was sti11 desirous of a separai;ion of the bar and dining facilities this j ~ could be accamplished through special curtains. ~ MINUTES, CIT'% PL•ELN!~IIS~?G CUMMIS.ION, August 1, 1966 3141 REPORTS AND - I'!'EM N0. 2(Continued) RECOI~RvfENDATIONS Discussion was held between the Commission and the representative of the developer regarding hours of operation, possibility of changing the dinner house to a family type restaurant, and the fact that the Commission was de~irous of a separatian uf the bar from the dining facilities. ~ r Commissioner Gauer offered a motior. to approved development plans for the restaurant-bar under Conditional Use Permit No. 511, provided, however, that the petitioner provide some curtained separation of the bar and dining facilities as stipulated. Commissioner Mungall seconded the Motion approving Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1. MOTION CARRIED. IrEM N0. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 648 Gulf Oil Corp. request for termination - motel, re~taurant ~vii;h on-sale liquor to be located at the northeast corner of Le Palma and Dowling Avenues. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presonted tho request of the Gulf Oil Corp. requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 648 on the basis they did not wish to exercise the uso granted by the Planning Commission in Resolution IQo. 1414, Series 1964-65, da'ted November 9, 1964, noting that none of the conditions had been completed. Cotw~issioner Rowland offered Re~olution No. PC66-42, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 648, on the basis that the petitioner no longer desired to exercise the use granted by said petition.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: A'?ES: CON~uf2SSI0NERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COIv4vI2SSI0NERS: None. ABSi?4T: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Perry. ITEM N0. 4 Ora7ge County Street P?aming Committee - Stroet name change.^> for Rose Drive-Linda Vista-Jefferson Streets to Rose Drive i Taylor-Lakevievi Streets to Lakeview Street Dowling Street to Kraenr: -Glassell Street Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed £or the Commission the City Council's request for report and recommendation by tho Planning Commission regardin~ the proposed stree+, name changes for Ftose Drive-Linda Jista-Jefferson Street~ to Rose Drive; Taylor-Lakeview Streets ~o LaY.eview Streei;; and Doeiling Street to Kraemer-Glasse'_1 Street as recommended by the Orange County .treet Naming Committee. Considerable discussion eras held relativa to recommending Rose Drive as a street name for a street running the full length of the northeast industrial area. Upon completion of tY,e discussion the Comeiission wos of the op~nion the name should ba Linda Vista Street, and it should terminate at the Riverside Freeway with tho name o~ Tustin Avenue assigned to th~, street south of the Riverside F'reeway~. It was also the opinion of the Commission that Lakeview Strest should terminate at the Santa Ana River on the basis that Crescent Drive was a long established name in the Peral+,a Hills and some opposition would be oxpressed by the property owners ii the street name were changed. The Commission a~.so noted that Dowling-Kraemer-Glassell Street(Kraemor St,reet in Placentia) had been posted as a change in name in Placentia, however, the exact name was not determined and the Staff was directed to contact the City of Placentia to determine what name had been assigned. The recommendation of the Commission for powling Street was deferred until the moeting of August 15, 1966, at vrhich time the Staff could prssent informatiun as to the name Placentia had assigned. ~ ..._ . -_ __.. _ . . __ __ - ~-• ° ~ , . ^ . ` . p~,. - - - ~•-,...~.....•.. r, ~ `r 1 MINUTES, CI'I`r PLANNING COMMISSIO?~T, August 1, 1966 3142 j REPORTS AND - I'~EM N0. 4(Continued) RECOMMENDATIUNS Street Name Changes Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Street Naming Committee be urged to considor the following recommendations for: ROSE DRT1E-LINDA VISTA-JEFFERSON STREETS to LINDA VISTA STI,EET extendir.g from the north side of the Riverside Freeway northerly to I~perial - Highway; and south of the Riverside Freeway to remain Tustin , __~~ Avenne. ~':~~ ' TAYLOR-LAI~VIEW STREET - LAKEVIEW STREET to terminate at the Santa Ana Rivar. ~''~ ~.~~ Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ITEM N0. 5 ; i PLANNING COtvIIvI2SSI0N ~'~l ~ WORK SESSION SCHEDULE ~.- ~ ~'j. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented a schedule oi work sessions to be held ~:I between the Development Services Department and the Planning Co¢~ission namely: ~'~ r,~ August 2?, 1966; September 19, 1966; October(to be determined later); November 28, 1966; ~'•,~ December - no se~sion scheduled; January 23, 1967; February 20, 1967; March 20, 1967; f. April i7, 1967; May 29, 1967; and June 26, 1967. `~ Mr. Grud~inski furiher stated that the material to be reviewed at each of the work sessioas ~j would be forwarded to the Commission one week prior to the session scheduled, so that the ~j material could be reviewed. `,i ,!•~ Mr. Grudzinski also requested that. the Commission give the staff some idea as to their plans for vacation~ -~~~izereupon, ComLnissioner Camp stated he would be gone either the last week in August or the first week in September; Commissioner Herbst stated the last week in ~I August, however if a quorum •~vas needed he could be contacted; and Commissioner Rowland ~I stated he would be gone the la~t two weeics in August. Commissioners Gauer and Mungall stated E~ they had no contemplated plans for a vacation. tI - '.~ ADJOURDIMEA~'I' - There boing no further bu~inesa to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a ; motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i ;~ The meetin~ adjourned at 3:55 p.m• ~ Respectfully submitted, ~ , ,,~ ! ~!//~! '= ~~ + ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary ~- ~ Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion ~ '`~ ~ i S ; ~~ , I ~ ~ ~ :~ . ,i ~~ * ~„ '•~ a~x' 1f II ~ ..-.- ~1..T ~Y'