Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/11/07t 7 City Hall Anaheim, California November 7, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A reg~ilar meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being prese:it. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. F ~'' - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall (who entered the Council Chamber at 2:40 P.M.). ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Erich Oelschlaeger, Pastor of Prince of PFace Lutheran Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led ir, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of October 24, 1966, were approved as THE MINUTES submitted on motion by Commissioner Rowland, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ALWYN S. AND LUCILLE G. JEWELL, cjo Heritage Construction PERMIT N0. 894 Corporation, 4100 West Comroonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owners; - NATIONAL COORDINATORS, 4100 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, Califernia, ' Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 12-STORY (151-FOOT) OFFICE BUILDING WI?H WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: An irregu- larly shaped parcel of land havin9 a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and having a rnaximum depth of.approximately 635 feet, the west property line of subject property being approximately 725 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 415 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mr. Ray Bruhn, representing the Heritage Construction Corporation, agent for the petitioner, aFpeared before the Commission to review the proposed change in location of an office struc- j ture previously approved by the Commission under Conditional Use Permit No. 785. He also I noted that because of the many problems encountered in the development of the Harbor Bou:evard frontage, the developers had made a concentrated search for a parcel of land in the C-R area which would accommodate the structure originally approved. Mr. Bruhn further reviewed the total coverage of subject property, tlie percentage of land- '.;' scaping proposed, and the method of computing the number of square feet necessary for parking purposes. Furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, Mr. Bruhn stated that it was not intended to provide a restaurant with cocktail lounge on the top floor; however, the I` original plans had indicated a restaurant would be provided for the tenants in the building. i .=5 ~;: The Commission noted that in the Report to the Commission a 20% shortage of parking spaces .~ was presently indicated, and if a restaurant and cocktail lounge were proposed in the future, ;~ this would greatly increase the shortage. :~ Mr. Bruhn stated that he was of the opinion the parking provided would be adequate to serve , the needs of the facility; furthermore, if a restaurant and cocktail lounge were proposed, ` ~ they would be patronized by tenants of the structure, rather than the general public. ' j ''r; Considerable discussion was then tield ~y the Commissi.on, the agent for the petitioner, and tf~e Staff relative to the parking requirements for subject oroperty, and as they oertained to .~ - the previous petition, noting that a parking structu~e had beer. proposed previously; that t, .^ considerabiy more property would be d=voted to driveways for maneuverability of automobiles '_ ~. ;; than wouid be necessary fo: a parking structure; and that calculation for the proposed ;~ '? 3242 _+:, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIC~;, November 7, 1966 3~~3 CUNDITIONAL USE - structure was based on the typesof businesses proposed for the various PERMIT N0. 894 floors. (Continued) The agent for the petitioner than advised the Commission that almost 9,000 square feet was being proposed to be devoted to landscaping, and it was their desire not to delete any of the landscaping in order to provide for the required parking, since the landscaping would be an added attraction te the leasin9 of the structure. In response to Commission questioning, the agent stated that some retail outlets were proposed, such as a bank; that three of the floors were proposed to be occupied by an insurance company; that a large real estate firm was also proposed; that tentative agreements were reached for a ^,~~ restaurant - however, the size ar,d its location were not definite; and that a party was inter- ested in the penthouse - however this was not for a restaurant. i ' ~ No one appear~d in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the number of spaces previously waived on Conditional Use Permit No. 785 and inquired of the Staff how computation was made • relative to the usable souare footage. AssociatePlanner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that computation was computed on the gross area eliminating the elevator shafts; however, the utility rooms were included since these well could be occupied by employees servicing the structure. Commissioner Farano noted that the Commercial-Recreation Area Policy required a minimum of 3 net acres with freeway frontage and inquired why the previous petition was approved when subject property did not meet these requirements. Chairman Camp indicated that the 3-acre minimum site pulicy would not be co.iducive -:o con- structing a better building. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission rela~ive to subject petition's impli- cations on the Commercial.-Recreation Area Policy. Zoning Supervisor Ronald l~hompson advised the Commission that on the previous petition the petitioners had indicated a major portion of the floor space would be devoted to national trade shows, etc. After discussion with the Staff relative to the required parking, the method of caiculation, and whether or not the proposed number of parking spaces would be adequate, the Commission asked the Staff to determine whether other cities in Ora~~qe County had a formula for parking where high-rise buildings were involved, and determined tho? subject petition be continued to later in the meeting until the Staff was able to ob~ain this information. (See Page No. 3248) Commissioner Mungall entered the Council Chamber at 2:40 P.M. ~ VARIANCE N0. 1837 - PUBLIC HEARING. GLORIA ANN MADDOCK, 3108 West Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, ' California, Owner; requesting permission to ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A DANCE STUDIO IN A GARAGE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage o: approximately 73 feet on the south side of Teranimar Drive and having a maximum depth of approximately 130 feet, the west boundary of sUbject property being approximately 1,110 feet east of the centerline of 'Nestern Avenue, and further described as 3108 West Teranimar Drive. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mrs. Gloria Maddock, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and submitted a letter trom the principal of the Twila Reid School, noting that letters from the superintendent and assistant superintendent of schools werealso on file with the petition; that most of her students attended this school; that the dance studio she was operating was not a flourishing uusiness, but was like a part-time job; that she did no advertising and no change in the ~ appearance of the neighborhood was effected because of the existiny use; and that a number of tier neighbors had requested clarification on the use of the variance as it applied to subject property, and requested the Commission clarify tnis for interested persons. Deputy City Atto~ney Furman Roberts then reviewed the definit.ion and requirements of a variar.ce, and upon conclusion the Commission noted that a variance was yranted with the property, not necessarily with ihe oet;'.ior,er; th3t the variance would then b~ for a specific use of the land, a.^.d the petitioner would be ~or.fined to the conditions imposed on the variance; and that no zone char.qe would he e*fected. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3244 VARIANCE N0. 1837 - Mrs. Maddock then stated that she had been operating this small dance (Continued) studio for approximately three years after her friends had asked that she teach their children since they knew she was an experienced, former dancer and dance instructor; that at first she had ten to fifteen children, and the first year had a small show in another neighbor's qarage; that the second year the number of children was increased, but that the maximum number of students in one class was . nine, and the minimum two; that because she taught two children, her hours of operation were somewhat limited between the hours after school and 7:30 P.M.; that because of personal family problems she found it necessary to supplement her income in order to maintain her home; that she had never advertised previous to this Fall, and then she had advertised in . the "Penny Saver" newspaper to determine whether or not she should begin teaching on a larger ;y~~ scale - however, she used only her telephone number and no name or address; that many of the li. children walked to the classes, and a number were dropped off by their parents and picked up t~ ~ after classes were over; that very few of the parents stayed through the entire session; that ~, she was the only instructor and was limited to the number of students she could have because 1 of the space in ner garage; that she did not teach classes after 7:30 I~.M., or on weekends; that the children were required to stay indoors until the parents picked them up; that the ~ garage was still usable as such; that she had a once-a-year recital - however this was not ~ held at the home, but was usually held at the public school where the children and parents ~ could view the recital or their rehersals; and that she had approximately thirty-five students- j ~ however this could never be an accurate figure because of the number of children who dropped ~ out and those who were new students. Mr. R. A. Nelson, 3119 Teranimar Drive, appeared before the Commission and presented a peti- tion signed by 32 persons in opposition to subject petition, opposing the use of subject property for commercial purposes because ~his would set a precedent for similar requests in a predominantly R-1 tract, and to illustrate his opposition, he presented an ac+.vertisement which he had just received indicating tha± commercial services were being offerer3 in a resi- dential area on Hayward Drive in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Aall Road, and that, in his opinion, if subject petition were approved, this would set the pattern for similar uses of the residential homes, and when the property owners in the area had purchased their homes it was with the intent the homes would be used for residential purposes only. A1r. Emil Scherba, 3100 West Teranimar Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he concurred with Mr. Nelson's statements; however, when he siqned the petition in opposition, it was his understanding there would be a change in zone - not as explained by the City Attorney's O:fice. However, he concurred with his neighbors in tha` ney did not wish to have a chanoe in the residential integrity of the neighborhood, but ~ince the petitioner had indicated no change in the appearance of her home, and the iact that it was only a part-time operation, he felt the variance would not degrade the neighborhood, and, in his opinion, he urged the Commission to consider approval of subiect petition. ..~x Mr. Jack Marshall, 1741 South Euclid Streei, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition and stated he was the father of one of tne students; that opposition had been expressed to the possibility of commercial uses - however the explanation by the City Httorney's Office regarding tne variance petition indicated that only a specific use could be made of subject property; that the petitioner lived on a cul-de-s~,, and this, in itself, would preclude any heavy, throuyh traffic; that the petitioner was a credit to the neighbor- hood since she was supporting her children, and the use of subject property did not create any noise or harmful appearance to the neighborhood; that he was sure many of the children who played music,al instruments made considerably more noise than the few children taking dancing lessons; and that he urged the Commission to favorably consider subject petitione PJ~r. W. L. Eaton, 3133 "leranimar Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated he did not knov+ a school was being operated until the petition of opposition was being circulz'ed through- out the neighborhood, and in his opinion, the proposed use of the garage would not create an eye-sora or disturb the neighbors. trir. f~elson then stated that Mr. Eaton's daughter was taking lessons; therefore, he naturally would not have opoosition to th~ proposed use. Mr. J. J. Fix, 3115 Teranimar Drive, appeared before the Commission and sta~ed that of all the people who were appearing in opposition, o: for subject petition, no mention was made about the parking problem; that the Commission had expressed considerable concern regarding parking of large office buildings, and it was his opinion that the use of subject property would also create a parking problem; and that Mr. Nelson had taken pictures showing the cars (of the parents whose children were taking lessons) blocking the drives. Mrs. Charlene Allen, 3105 Teranimar Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated she lived directly across the street from subject property, and that she operated a 9raphotype machine in her garage, which made considerably more noise ihan all the students the petitioner had at any one time; that her children did take lessons from the petitioner; that in her opinion there was no parking problem; and that there was room available for three cars in the drive. 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3245 VARIANCE N0. 1837 - Mrs. Maddock, in rebuttal, stated she had submitted a list of students (Continued) whose parents drove ttiem to classes, and if the drives were blocked, she was sure it was only for the time the parents dropped off or picked up their children, and someone would always be in the car to move the car if the drive was being biocked. ; Mr. Nelson then presented three pictures, two of which indicated one of the driveways was blocked; nowever, someone was at the wheel of the automobiles. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~;~~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the number of students permitted if subject petitioner were approved, as we11 as ±he possibility of a time limitation being assigned to 4 ~ the proposed use. S r Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-139 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1837, subject to signs for the property being in conformance with the requirement of the R-1 Zone, development in accordance with plans, a time limitation of three years for the proposed dance studio, and a maximum number of 35 students. (See Resolution Book) On roll call ti~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMNiISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ! VARIANCE NO.. 1838 - PUBLIC HEARI~G. SOUTHLAND MACHINERY COMPANY, 1822 South Lewis Street, i ~ Anaheim, California, Own?r; ALFRED GILES, 1822 South Lewis Street, •~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to have OUTDOOR DISPLAY I OF INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED MASONRY WALL on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east side of Lewis Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 273 feet, ttie north property line of subject property being approximately 250 feet south o: the centerline oi Katella Avenue, and further described as 1Ei22 South Lewis Street. Property presently classified ~ M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIFlL, ZONE, " Mr. Alfsed Giles, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the ..~ reason for requesting waiver of the required masonry wall along a portion of subject property, ~ stating that storage of equipment could a haphazard "Fibber Magee" method or it could be well ~~ maintained just as a ship in ihe navy is consi~ered "ship-shape"; that the request 2or this j waiver was necessary because subject property was hidden from Katella Avenue viewers because ~_~ of an existing service station and Westport Development Company; that the equipment would be ~~j so arranged as to be a display advertisement of the equipment for people traversing Katella 1 Avenue to tne stadium; furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, stated there would ~{ be times when some of the equipment might not be new -however the proposed location would be ~~ the training center for the company in anticipation of opening nine other locations in Cali- i fornia; that the sales would be contractor-type sales, and that since this would be a train- I ing center, it was his intent to maintain the facility in ship-shape order so that it would ~ be a model for the other locations; that it was their intent to do all maintenance work in an enclosed building; that it was planned to surface the display area in accordance with F State specifications for streets and highways; that because of the type and size of the ~ equipment, the facility would not be catering to the p , t ' general ublic• and that after discussion t• ~ wi'th Mr. Mickelson and Mr. Thompson, his firm was willing to arbitrate the requirements of ~I i. the City - however he did not feel they would like to be penalized b}~ not permitting some i form of on-site advertising; and also that there were four other locations of a similar type of business in surrounding towns - two in Santa Ana, one in Placentia, ar.d one in Costa Mesa. I; i No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. , The Commission Secretary indicated communications from three nearby property owners indicated no objection to the chainlink fence proposed. THE HE.AP,ING WAS CLOSED. `~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-140 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1838, ailowing a chain- link fence for the easterly 209, plus or minus, feet of the south property line, and subject :~ - to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ;,{ "~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~;~ NQES: COMh1ISSI0NERS: ~one. r; ~' ABSENT: COMMISSIOIJERS: Allred. ~ t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3246 VARIANCE N0. 1840 - PUBLIC HEARING. M 8 S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 500 South Main Street, Orange, California, Owner; DOMINICK SFREGOLA, 1604 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Aqent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) IviAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land having a irontage of approximately 90 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, the south boundary of subject property bein9 approximately 535 feet north of the centerline of Freedman Way, and further described as 1604 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICUL?URAL~ ZONE. g , g p , ppeared before the Commission and reviewed ~~ ~ Mr. Dominick Sfre ola a ent for the etitioner a ';~ the proposed request and the location of subject property, noting that it had been difficult to compete with the other motels in the area because of poor signing of the property; that ,~ considerable time had been spent with the Planning Staff in an effort to determine the best .; means of providing a sigil without creating an obstruction to the adjoining property; that because Denny's Restaurant and the Marco Polo Motel had adjoining driveway approaches with a _~ telephone pole separating them, it had been difficult to see the sign - therefore the proposed request would alleviate the hardship by having a changeable copy sigr, which had the approval :~ of the VBCB and the adjoining neighbor, the Desert Inn. ~ Mr. Sfregola, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the existing sign would .I~ remain because the debt incurred ;or the sign would not expire for three years. :I I No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the numerous signs in the Disneyland area, '~ noting that many of the signs bl.ocked each other, and if subject petition wese approved, this ; would encourage others to request a similar sign duplication because their existing signs ~ were more or less obliterated, and tnat Harbor Boulevard was fast overtaking a reputation of the lighted signs of Las Vegas. Mr. Sfregola indicated that the Commission discussed one of the problems which had faced them, namely that the number of signs made the area look like a jungleland, and one of the possible solutions would be the elimination of all signs, or the requirement of only small signs, and ~~ - that in proposing the sign as indicated on the plans, considerable time and expense were in- :.;I - volved in trying to place the sign in such a manner that it would not obstruct any other sign in the area. I f.+ In response to Commission questioning relative to the relocation of the sign, the agent stated ~; that if the sign wereplaced as recommended by the Commission, this would block out the Desert i Inn sign. ~'{ ~; Commissioner Mun9a11 offered a motion to approve Petition for Variar.ce No. 184~; Commissioner ~{ Gauer seconded the motion. On roll call the ioregoing motion lost, as follows: I ~,:`~ j AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall. ~.i I NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Rowland, Camp. ABSEN"C: COMMISSIONERS: Fllred. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-141 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~. , seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1840 on the basis that no ':~ ~ hardship had been proven that the existing Sign Ordinance did not provide for adequate sign- y, p pproved, this would set a pattern ~ ing of subject propert and that if subject etition were a of similar requests for the area along Harbor Boulevard for more si9ns. (See Resolution Book) ~ I ~, On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Rowland, Camp. I NOES: COMMISSIO~ERS: Gauer, hlungall. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~' } j ~ ~ ~ f MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3247 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, 2622 Ames N0. 66-67-35 Circle, Anaheim, California, Owner; LYNN THOMSEN, 625 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 318 feet on the south side of South Street and having a maximum dep•ch of approximately 640 feet, the west property line of subject property being approximately 342 feet east of the . centerline of State College Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURRL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. Lynn Thomsen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that = at the time the petition was submitted, no decision had been made as to the type of develop- ~ ment proposed - however, it was now planned to have a subdivision with 16 R-2 lots and provid- ing a recreationarea with aswimming pool in the center; that the increase in traffic on South Street would be approximately 40 cars; that the property could be divided into 17 R-1 lots, which would mean approximately 34 cars; that in his opinion, there was no real traffic problem as far as the number of cars on the street from the proposed development; that the Report to the Commission indicated the Traffic Engineer recommended circulation from South Street as we11 as State College Boulevard - however this, in his estimation, would add to a traffic hazard which already existed on State College Boulevard; that it was intended to provide 16 _, duplexes, with the majority having one to two bedrooms providing a living unit for persons who were both employed, and an additional unit which would subsidize their living expenses by the additional income from the other; that a service station was already being constructed on the northeast corner of South and State College Boulevard, and commercial uses were approved for the southeast corner of said intersection; and that the proposed R-2 zoning would provide some buffer to the single-family residential development easterly from State College Boulevard and the commercial uses approved at the intersection of South Street and State College Boulevard Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the petitioner and the Commission that the new~ R-2 Zone was a multiple-family zone and permitted more than duplexes on the lo~ while sti11 comply- ing with the standards of the zone. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the uses established in the area, and the fact that the City had projected that area for single-family residential purposes; since subjeci property was already surrour.ded on three sides with single-family residential zoned purposes, the proposed reclassification would be in conflict with the established uses. The Commission also noted that the property easterly of ~he existing church on South Street had submitted requests several times for R-3 and R-2 reclassifications; however, it was now developed as an R-1 tract, and subject property was developable for an R-1 tract. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-142 and mo~~ed for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-35 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed heavier density of residential use would be incompatible and deleterious to the existing single-family subdivision development on three sides of subject property, and that subject property was developable for R-1 purposes. (See Resolution Book) Gn roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYFS: CU~~ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. n^uSLvT: COM~ISSIONERS: Allred. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:05 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:15 P.M., Commissioner Allred being absent. ~~-? ~ ~ ~ ~ i . Q ~ 2j• i t ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3248 f CONDITIONAL USE - Assistant Development Services Director P.obert Mickelson advised the PERMIT N0. 894 Commission that some information had been obtained from nearby cities; i ' (Continued) however, there was insufficient time to make a real evaluation of the ~ information received from these cities, that being - ! I Los Angeles ....... 1 parking space for every 500 square feet. Long Beach ...o... No reqiiirement for the first 2,000 square feet. ~ Pomona ....... 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Sacramento ....... 2~ parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. , Burbank ....... 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. I.~y-~'~' Santa Ana ....... 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for the ;~ ~ first 10,000 square feet and then 2 per 1,000 „~ , ...••. square feet over 10,000 square feet. '~ ~ Orange . 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for the ~,;~ first three floors; 2~ parking spaces per 1,000 square feet over three floors - and that the City of Orange was most comparable with that of the City of Anaheim. ' It was also noted that using the formula of the City of Orange, 120 parking spaces would be required for the first three floors and 200 for the n~xt eight floors, making a total of 320 parking spaces. F.irther calculation in using the formula of 3~ spaces per 1,000, a maximum of 385 parking spaces would be required, and the forR:la of 3.3 s~aces per 1,000, a maximum of 362 spaces would be required. It was also noted that the City of Fullerton's requirements were less than the City of ~~ Anaheima i '{ Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the various parking requirements indicated by Mr. Mickelson, and it was noted the Staff should compute the number of parking spaces by the gross floor area rather than eliminating certain items since there were too ~ many variations; that there seemed to be some indication that the City's requirements might . require some further analysis - however, because subject petition was a conditional use ~ ; permit, the Commission could administer the ordinance as they saw fit without setting a - precedent. However, the City's Code did not provide for a~y deviation on high-rise buildings - because just office buildings were indicated, and the City did not have any experience with ,•I high-rise requests. ~:i ~ommissioner Rowland stated that it was not the shape of a building, but the quantity of ~ peop:e who would be using the structure, and there seemed to be little likelihood that more '~~ than 50% of the people would be in the building at one time. ' _i ~~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-138 and moved for its passage and adoption, '~~ seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 894, 4'~ together with waiver of the required parking spaces on the :~asis that from data submitted ~; by the Staff there seemed to be a possibility the City's requirements for parkin9 soaces I as pertained to high-rise structures would seem to be in excess, and subject to conditions. ~ , (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow~ng vote: f, ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONEP.S: None. ` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. I'. ~~ ~ e' ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. SHERWWD PROFESSIONAL PARTNERSHIP, 80C South Brookhurst N0. 66-67-38 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; JAMES A. ALLEN, cio Sherwood Professional Partnership, 800 South Brookhurst Street, Ar.aheim, California, ~ ~' Agent; requesting that property described as: An irre~ularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Niobe Avenue and Brookhurst Street and having '' frontages of approximately 145 feet on Niobe Avenue and approximately 100 feet on Brookhurst i.: Street, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL ~~ COMMEP.CIAL, ZONE to permit the devel~pment of subject property as a parking lot for the ~° medical center located to the south of subject property. ; ' - Mr. James Allen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and indicated it ~~ * was the intention of the petitioner to place a par;;ing lot on subject property; however, he ;„~ ~ was nor. aware that the G-1 Zone would permit C-1 uses; that the opposition might possibly ~~ .~, be z;.pressed to the request for C-1 Zone - however it was not the intent of the petitioner I~ ~:~, to have anything but a parking lot for the oroperty; that the medical certer had been built ;; ~ `-f ...- .,., . _ - - , ` . . ._,. .,. ~: _. ~,.~..~s~,,,,.. ~..:.. ~ ,-_.,, .: . . .. , . ,.. ~ _.. .: ....,.. - .._. -- . _,.._ . ~ ;- . ` -._- .. _ . _ ' - ~ ,~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 7, 1966 3249 RECLASSIFICATION - in three sections over a period of nine or ten years, and as it was NU. 66-67-38 built there was no provision made for additional parking as these additionai ' (Continued) sections were constructed - however, the medical center was now almost totally occupied and it was found necessary to provide additional parking space for the nurses, doctors, and patients; that he was aware numerous complaints had been made to the City regarding the parkin9 of automobiles on IJiobe Avenue as well as along Brookhurst Street and on subject property; that it was hoped the removal of the structures and the redesign of the property for 28 parking spaces would eliminate all the complaints tne City had received; that he had maintained a count of the number of automobiles using the area, and it averaged approximately 16 per day, with a maximum of 20; ~ that it was proposed to have a masonry wall along the north and east boundaries of subject property, together with adequate landscaping to shield the parking area from the residential , homes; that no entrance was being provided from Niobe Avenue - only an entrance and exit from Brookhurst Street which would be adequate to handle the flow of traffic, and this would then eliminate trafiic from using Niobe Avenue for parkin9 purposes, and that the proposed parking lot would be an asset to the area rather than a detriment; that with the requirement of an additional ten feet of dedication for street wideninq purposes on Brookhurst Street, a better view of oncoming traffic would be afforded the residents using Niobe Avenue; further- more, in response to Commission questioning, stated that although he would be happy to dedi- - cate the additional frontage a'_ong the medic~l facility, this could not be done until further consultation with the partners to determine whether or not the structure would be affected by the required dedication; that the Report to the Commission had been received by him in the mail Saturday, and he had been unable to contact all the twenty owners of the partnersnip relative to said dedication; that the mortgage holders had their headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and it would take considerable time with correspondence and meetings before any final decision relative to the ultimate dedication of the medical facility's property could be determined; and that the problem of said dedication could be resolved at a later date. Mr. Jack McCanic, 217' Niobe Aaenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that he had a petition of opposition signed by 28 property owners on Niobe Avenue; that his property was located directly across the street from the rear 72 feet; that he was opposed to any zone change because if would basically affect the residential integrity of tt~e area and affect the property values of his and ad;oining homes; that because he was retir?d, he had a fixed income and any chanye in the valuation of his property would be extremely detri- mental to his living envirenment; and that if subject petition were approved, this would set a precedent for similar requests of adjoining properties for commercial uses. Mr. Peter Olden, 2172 Niobe Avenue, appeared before the Commission, stating his property abutted subject property to the east; tnat he was the owner of the Riverside Vineyards on the west side of Brockhu:st SLreet and was cognizant of the problems of providing adequate parking since they provided 14 more porking spaces than the minimum requi:ed, and tnere were times when more parking spaces could 'oe used; that if ttie six-foot wall were constructed along the east property line of subject propzrty, this would be within six feet of his bed- room window; that ne was doubtful the number of parking spaces proposed would be adequate to serve the professional building sir,ce they alr~ady parked on the property as well as in the parking lot of the Palomar Building at 800 So~Lh Brookhursi Street; that the cars that presently parked on the driveway and lawn of subject property were those of the r.urses or doctors and were parked there a11 day, and tnat the homeowners in the areo should not be penalized for previous errors made in construction by not providir.g adequate parkirg; ond that subject property should remain residential. Mr. Jack Raines, 214E Niobe Avenue, appeared in opposition, stati~g that a statement made by the agent for the petitioner reo3rdinq the fact that Brooknurst Street would be adequate io ~andle the traffic, in his estimation, was not so since a commercial use was being pro- posed for ar~ aiea that formerly had a maximum of four cars; that an additional drive within 15 feet was proposed to have ingress or egress to Brookhurst Street; that the accessway was too close to the viobe Avenue-Brookhurst Street intersection and w~!~ld be dangerous to any- one coming from the residential area to Brookhurst Street because traffic flow would narrow from two lanes to one lane. The Commission presented the plans to tre opposition, noting that one of the major complaints of the residents of the area was the fact that the nurses and doctors were uiiiizing the vacant house for parking purposes. Mr. Raines stated ttiat the first tiouse at the intersection was vacant, with no evidence of ~ the home being used for residential purposes; that no "for rent" or "for sale" sign was on ~ the property, although cars were parked on the lawn which was detrimental to the residential integrity of the neighborhood; that the personal assurance of the petitioners that the use ` would be primarily for the parking of cars was not very reassurin9 because the past use of * the property for parking rather tt~an residential was contrary to the zoning of the property, „~ and if this were changed to Commercial or P-1, a detail analysis wou!d prove that the space was much too small to provide for parking purposes, and no room would be available for adequate screen landscapir,g; and tt~at he concurred with the statement made by Mr. McCanic that a parking lot would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the areae MINUTES, CITY PLANNI:VG COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3250 ~. ^~`~'~9, RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Raines also stated *hat because of the narrowness of Brookhurst N0. 66-67-38 Street at the intersection of Niobe kvenue, and commercial parking for (Continued) that intersection, a signai light would be necessary to reduce the dangerous and hazardous condition at that intersection, and that if subject petition were approved, the Commission should require adequate landscaping which will blend with the residential properties abutting it to reduce the undesirable appearance of the parkin9 lot adjacent to the residential properties. Mr. Robert Bothwell, 2138 Niobe Avenue, appeared in opposition and expressed the feelings of the neighbors regarding the change in zone for subject property and inquired whether or not the P-1 Zone would be more apropos for subject property so that there would be some assurance to the people that a more intense use of the property wouid not be made. f ' The Commission inquired whether the property owners would be more receptive to the P-1 Zone ~ with a decorative block wa11 or. Niobe Avenue, with adequate landscaping, rather than the reques~~d C-1 Zo~eo Mr. Bothwell then stated that alt~~ouoh he was appearing in opposition, the persons primarily affected by the parking area should be the ones to answer that question. The Commission noted that if the parking facility was provided, this would remove a blight or the two parcels on which the City had received many cemplaints and would solve the problem of automobiles parking on Niobe kvenue because dedication of access rights to Niobe Avenue was one of the conditions of approval, and that a decorative wall, together ~ with landscaping, would hide any unsightliness or light from the residential area~ Mr, Cedric Berggren, 2166 Miobe P.venue, appeared in opposition, stating that the parking ~ lot proposed would 7•eir~ove what guar3ntee the residents would have that subject property ; would not be used for other than parking purposes if the C-1 Zone were granted. i i Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised that basic cont~~l could be placed in the resolution of intent to rezone, such as street widening, street lights, dedication of access rights, and the reauirement that the masonry wall and landscaping be provided prior to :inal building and zoning inspections, and development in accordance with plans would be adequate to eliminate any possible use of subject property for other purposes. Mre Berggren then stated that when these homes were torr down, this would set a precedent _ for requests for commercial uses for several of the other homes in close proximity to the intersection, and that there was adequate commercial property available to the south of the medical center, and it was his feeling that the residential integrity of the area should not be disrupted to provide the parking facility. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the new owners o; the property were the medical group; tt:at the former owner was Mr. Tierney, and many complaints had been received when Mr. Tierney was the owner of the property. ~~~ Mr. A:len advised the CoR~mission that the medical group had been the owners of the property for approximately seven weeks. Mr. Olden again appeared before the Commission and stated that his rear door now faced the medical center, and if the parkir~g lot were approved, this would completely encircle him on two sides, thus depreciatiny his pzoperty. Mr. William J. Conley, 2173 Nioh_ „~~enue, stated that Mr. McCanic would be basically affected by the parking lot; that altho~ , agreed the medical group had a parking probleR, he did not feel the method in which they :ere pla~ning to resolve their problem was the best means possible; that the entrarce to the Sherwood Estates, of whirh subject ~roperty was a part, had a special wall, and many of the people who lived in the tract purchased their homes because of the residential environment it afforded - however, if a commercial facility such as a parking ;ot were permitted at the entrance of this residentia: tract, part of this environment would be destroyed; and then inouired whether there was some ordinance which prohibited parki~g on lawns so that the residential integrity of the area would not be destroyed. Mr. Robe.ts stated that the City was presently considering the parking of cars, boats, etc., in the front setback; nowever, the committee of residents and City officials had not resolved the problem. and there was nothing in the Anaheim Municipal Code which prohibited parking on the lawn. Mr, Coniey then stated that, in his opinion, the medical group should retain the residential ~ integrity of the two houses they are proposing and attempt to put parking south of the medical ~x facility around the Palomar Building, ~ .; . ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANN?NG COMMI'SSION, November 7, 1966 3251 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr, Ro D. Miles, part owner of the Palomar Building at 800 South Brookhurst N0. 66-67-38 Street, appeared before the Commission and stated they presently had an (Continued) agreement with the medical facility to permit parking in their parking lot; however, this has created a hardship because they have been unable to lease their facilities due to the fact that there was inadequate parking for the Palomar Building tenants, and that in the very near future, this agreement witti the medical , center regarding parking would be terminated. Mro Miles also stated that at least twelve cars were parking in their lot, dnd sometimes this averaged sixteen; that the point he wished to stress was there was a desperate need for the parking facility by the medical group, and he complimented them for purchasing the property ~ prior to even having the assurance by the City that the property could be used foi• parking purposes - however, he felt the people were not objecting to the property being used as a , parking facility, but were more concerned that the commercial use was being requested for the property which could later be turned into a regular commercial buildin9, which would be more detrimental to their property, and that one of the problems that had not been stressed by the opposition was the safety factor, in that the property which would be adjacent to the medical center would have less chance of adding to the traffic hazards because of the narrow portion of Brookhurst Street since a turnin9 area was being provided in the parking lot to a~sist people in th'eir attempt to find a parking spot in the new parking area; and that some consideration should be given by the medical group to providing for additional dedication so : that subject property and the medical group property to the south could have the wi~ening of the street, reducing traffic hazards. Mr. Olden then stated that if twelve parking spaces were being utilized in the Palomar Build- ing parking area, and sixteen were on the street adjacent to subject property, this would take up the maximum number of parking spaces being provided, and no consideration wo~ld be given to the necessity for additional parking - this, then, would bring about the problem which presently existed of all-day pa:king on Niobe Avenue by the nurses and doctors. Mrso David Gordon, 2132 Minerva Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated~that the residents of the Sherwood Estates had faced this eye-sore on that intersection for over five years, and inquired whether or not it was permissible to build a six-ioot masonry wall adjacent ~ to the R-1 propertyo . The Commission advised the interested persons that a six-foot masonry wall could be built to ~ separate both R-1 and commercial o.r R-1 from R-1; however, in the separation of the R-1 from , cornmercial, additional scre?n landscaping was required. THE HEARING NAS CLOSEU. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to whether or not the proper vehicle was used in the rezoning of subject property - whether or not a voriance should have been required, or w.hether or not the P-1 Zone should have been required; that it would he a considerable improvement if a p~rking facility was provided, thus eliminating a blight that had occurred and which represented an eye-sore to the residents; whether or not deed restric- tions could be placed on the C-1 property, limiting the use to a parking lot only; and whether or not more control should be established for the property. ~Nr. Roberts advised the Cornmission that the deed restrictions would only be enforceabie for those who would benefit, and the City of Anaheim would not be involved in enforcing t'r.ese deed restricti.ons since tf:~ey would be private deed restrictions. ?he Commission alsc roted tf~at ti:e exisiing medical cent?r nad inadequate parkiny ar:d inq~.:ired whetner or not the prooosed pa:kinq woUld provide for adequate oarking as necessary ur:der tne existing Code, Idr. Thompson advised the Comrnissio:: that the Sit? Development Standards wouid limit tne petitioners ielative to bui.ldiny setbacks as well as tne access riynts to iviobe Avenue, and tnis wouid preclude utilizing the property for a commercial buildir,g L-ecause ~ne oroperty would r,ot .,e adee~ate to provide parkinq facilities, etc., to meet tne Site Development Standards of tt~e C-1 Zone, ano that at the time the medical facility was approved, tne pork- ing standards of the City were less restrictive. Commissioner Farar.o offereci a motion to recommend to ti~e Cit, Councii that Petition for Reciassification i2o. 50-67-38 be denied on the basis thai the C-1 Zone was r,ot tne aporooriate zore for parki.ng purposes, tnat this would permit comr~ercial uses of tne property, and subject property could r,ot be restric'ted to a parkinu !ot. ~aid motion ;ost for want c,f a secund. - After further ciiscussion by the Co:r,missior. reiative to the aspects o; deed i•estrictior,s, ~ type of zcning, type of masonry wall and lar.dscaping, Commissior,er Eierbst oirered Resolutior. ~ bJr,. PC56-1.43 and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Cornmissioner Gauer, to recommer,d to the City Council tha~ Petitior, ior k=cla;sifica~ion Mo. ob-67-38 be aoproved, ~ , y;. ; } MINU?ES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSIOPJ, November 7, 19h~ ~ 3252 RECLASSIFICATION - subject to the recuirement that the decorative wall be in conformance N0. 66-67-38 in material with the entrance of the Sherwood Estates, and that all (Continued) landscapir,y be in conEormance with the i•equirements of the C-1 Zone, and conditions. (See Resolutior: Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: P.YES: COhIMISSIONERS: Gau?r, Herbst, Mungail, Rowlar.d. NUES: CO~MAISSIONERS: Farano, Camo. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. T~ Commissior,ers Farano and Camp stated that their vote of "no" was based on the fact that the vehicle used, namely the reclassification to the C-1 Zone, was inaporopriate, and subject 4 , request should have been made through a variance to insure that subject property would r.ot be p utilized for other than a parking 1ot. r RECLASSIFICA~IIUid - PUBLIC HEARING. :';?TIATED BY THL CITY PLANNING COMIIISSION, 204 East ~0~ 66-67-36~ Lincoln Avenue, Anai~~i~,~, California, proposing that property described as: Portion 1- A 25-ioot wide strip of land on the north and south -~ sides of, and adjacent to, Cerritos Avenue, extending from Anaheim Boulevard on the west to the easterly Anaheim city :imits, and Portion 2- F 25-foot wide strip of land on the east and west sides oi, and adjacent to, Lewis Street, extending ;rom Ball Road to r.u_e11a Avenue, be reclassiiied :rom the P-L, ?ARKIIdG-LANDSCAPING, ZCIJc to the h1-1, LIGHT INDUSIRIAL, ZONc. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the Gackground o: the prooosed request, noting that Cerritos Avenue and Lewis Street were deleted from tf~e previous reclas- sificatior proc=edinas of the arterial streets and highways to reclassify them ;rom the P-L to the N~-1 ~one in erder to allow the 5taff time for furtner study o: tnese streets. Fiowever, at 't^e p~~blic P:earir,g of ~classi,`ication ^;o. 55-57-14, the City Couiicil excressed the opinion that the industrial building s~tbacks along arterial streets and higrways should be uniform ~hroughout the City, and that Cerritos Avenue and Lewis Sireet should not be exceptions; therefore, subject petition would reclassify tnese ?-L Zones to tne ~:i-1 Zone and provide for 50-foot building set~ack. This setback would give industrial developers more flexibilit, :,ecause tne 50-foot setback need 'nave only 10 feet landscaped, whereas the previous 25-ioot setback required the entire setback landscaped. Nr. Charles Ebe:ly, 1000 East Cerritos Avenue, representing the Hmerica^ Paper ~nd ?iastic Company, appeared 'oefore the Commission a.^.d stated that his company owned an 7.54-acre parcel at Cerritos and Lewis on wiiicn tne ~0,000-square foot manufacturing plant was set back beyond ti~e 50 ieet proposed; however, a nome on a portion of the undeve:oped property was witnir~ tt;e 50-foot setUack proposed, ar,d it was tneir desire to retain that ho:ne until such time as t~e manufactu*ing oiant was enlarged, wner. it would be torn down. 7i:e Commission advised t:1r. ~ueriy that the setback of 50 f2et would affect on.~~ i::ture con- struction, and the existing F:ome could remair, until sucn time as erlargeme.^,t o! the marn~;ac- turing facility was proposed. h1c. Roberts adviseU tF;e Commission that the existing manuEacturing facility was 50 ieet from the ultimate right-of-way. Assistar~t Development Ser~~ices Director Rebert Mickelson ir.quired of h1r. cberly whetF.er or not he opposed the 50-foot setback in any of nis future expansion oi the marufccturinq facility, to which hlr. Ebe:ly rep:ied he nad no opposition to the 50-foot setback for the future expansion of the facility. THE NEHRING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland otfered Resolutior, No. PC65-144 and moved ior its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommer.d to the City Council that Petition ior Reclassi- ficatior No. 05-6~-36 be approved. (See Resolution Book) On roil call the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: • AY'ES: CUhM~IISSIOh:ERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, hlungall, Rowland, Camo. IdOES: COh1N~ISSIONERS: D:one. ~, ~ ABSeNT: COGiMISSI0~1~R5: Allred. ~~~ • * ~ ~ f J .~ ~ . MINUTES, CIT1' PLANDIING COMMISSION, flovember 7, 1956 3253 4 7 , RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEP.RiNG. I':ITIATED IIY THE CITY PLANNING CGMMISSIOtJ, 204 East N0, 56-67-37 Lincoln Avenue, Hnaheiin, Califo:nia, proposing that proper±y described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest c,orner of Crescent Hvenue and Gilbert Street and having frontages of approximately 1,300 feet o~~ ~:escent Avenue and approximately 615 feet on Gilbert Street be reclassified from the R-3, MULT?PLE-FFMIL'f RESIDEIJTIAL, LOIvE +o the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE . '.oning Supervisor Ronald 7hornpsor, reviewed for the Commission the previous action tzken on subject property under Recla,sification No, 63-64-77 and Conditional Use Permit Plo. 532 to permit the establishment of one and two-story, R-.3 planned residential development; that a request had been received by the City Counc?1 from the owners of subject property for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 532; that internal and external improvements be abandoned, and'the improvement oonds released, as we11 as the payment of deposits for street lights and street tree fees since it was not their intention to develop subject property. However, the City Council had indicated that they would only consider termina- tion of Condi`ional Use °ermit !do. 532 and the abandonment of tne internal and exiernai improvemant5 and release of improvement bonds upon reclassifi.cation of the property to its origir.al R-A Zone. It wa~ also noted that the S~aff recommended no abandonment take place alona Crescent Avenue or Gilbert ~treet, even thougti dedication had beer. made to the ultimate width, and that a11 securities posted with the City oi Anaheim be released upcn the finalizi~g oi the p=oposed at;ar.donmer;t of Innsdale Nvenue and Cambria Street. Mr. Tlu,r,oson, in response to Commission questionir.y, stated that the owners of subject property :3d filed tne rec'_assification fee to .:ove: tne ~xpenses incurred i:~ tne public nearings or sub;ect petition. No one appeared in ooposition to subject petition. I'Fit :~~ARIi`1G WAS CtUSED. Cummi;sioner Rowland offered Hesolution Pdo. °~o5-1G5 ano moved for its passaye and adootion, seconded by Commissiorer ."dungal;, to recommencl to the City Council that Petition for Reclas- sification No. 66-67-37 be approved, subject to the reco:nmendation ti~at no abandor,ment shaL' be made along Crescent Hvenue or ~ilbert Screet, ~ltnough dedicatior. iiad been made to the ultimat~ ~treet widti~s, and tnat all securities posted with tf~,e City or A^a;~eim be rele~sed upon tile finalizing of the proposed abandonment of Ir.nsdale F.venue and Cam~rid Street. (See Resolution Book) Un ro11 call the foregoiny resolutior, was passed by ti~~e followir.g vote: FYES: CO~i'~1ISSIOIdERS: rerar:o, C;auer, H?rbst, !~":ungall, Rowland, Camp. ~dOES: CU~VJIISSIOi~ERS: PJor.e. ABSEI`JT: COfuL1~ISSIOidEi~S: A1:red. E~ i (. ~~~o~ rs a~i~ - i rErr~ ~~~ . i ~ RcCO~J~viECiGNfIGtiS Variance No. 104' -~:ortneast corr,er of Harbor roulevaro and Wilken Way - Yroperty zo~:ed R-A - 3equest ior modification of uses aoprov=d. . ~< ~? Zoning S~~pervisor Rona!d Lhompson advised the Commission tnat a request had been received ~ from tne rew owner, Wayne M,auzey, 2176 South fiarL-or 6culevard, for modification of Resolution ~ ' No~ 90, Sezi~~s 1558-59, passed 'oy ti~e Plannin~ Ccmmis=_ion on I~ove~r.ber 3, 1958, approving ~•~ Variance Ido. 10A7, t.o permit the use of subject property fc. a real estate office, draftiny, ~;;~ bookkeeping, etc., to include ti~e establishr~~ent of a flower shop in addition to ti;e existing ` ~'~ zeai estate office and Hertz Rent-A-Car lea~ing facility. I~ j s~ '~ '~ I Mr. Thompson further noted tnat conversion o: the entiie 3,000-squ~re foot Uuilding to I'E~dll ~ <~ sales would result in a deficiency uf four oarki y spaces; that the reouested .~se was permitteo 'W~ in the C-G ano ~-'. ?ones; and that }he petitioner hao indicated he int?nded to file for re- ~ ', classification o: the property in the ver/ near future, ~ , 4~ ~ •t Coinmissioner Eierbst offered Resolution IVo. PCoo-148 and mcved for its passage :::~d odoption, 9, ~ second?d by Comrnissioner Rowia^.d, to arnend Rcsolutior. iJo. 90, Series 19~8-59, •'+pF:i•oving ~ ,~ , . ~ Vaciance iJo. :047, to i.nclude a;lower shop since the proposed use was includeci within the ~ oi:.y:na] intent of the previously yran.~d resol~~tion. (See Resolution Book) A ~ .?~ On ro11 call the foregoino resolu+ioi~ was ~:dssed t;y ;f~e following vote: ~, ~ ~ AYES: CUPl~N~ISSIONERS: Farano, ~auer, iierbst, I~1unya1l, Rowland, Camp. ~ I '~ ;dOFS: CU'J,h1ISSiU~IC-RS: '.?u;~.e. ' .'~ AHScNI~: CUiNh~1lSSiutiERS: Ali:ed. ~ . -~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3254 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the uses which had been established in the ar?a, and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to direct the Staff to study the area and initiate the most appropriate reclassification for subject properties. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ' ITEM N0. 2 ~ Special request regardinq the incompatibility of the M-1 Zone , with the R-3 Zoned properties abutti.ng each other alon9 an alley between Rose Street and East Street and Santa Ana StreeC and Water Street. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that considerable discussion had been held by the City Attorney's Office, the Develepment Services Staff, the complainant in this petition, Mr. Jarvi, and representatives of the Verdon Plating Company regarding the __ complaint made by Mr. Jarvi regarding the operation of buffer machines across the alley from apartments which he owned; that Mr. Jarvi had indicated he was employed by the Air Pollution Control Board in Santa Ana tc investiyate harmful effects to employees and surround- ing properties from similar types of operations as that of the Verdon Plating Company; and that i.t was his opinion the existing operation was creating a nuisance through the emission of dirt, dust and noises detrimental to the residents of the apartments. The Commission noced that the h1-1 Zone did provide for some control in eliminating problerns in an industrial operation where it. was located in close proximity to residential uses by phasing out the undesirable operation and its undesirable effects while still letting him operate in the industrial zone. Mr. Norman Jarvi, 2442 Alden, appeared before tiie Commission, stating he wished to elaborate on the statements made by Mr. Roberts regarding the plating shop which was located directly across the alley from the apartments which he operated, and he was primarily complaining about the buffer operation because it was one of the di^tiest operations in the manufacturing business; that he had been attempting for some time, both personally and through representa- tives of the City, to require the platir,g firm to comply with the heaith standards because _ of the air pollution from tne buffing operation, and upon checking with the License Depart- ment he had determined the firm was operating without a business license; that his tenants had complair.ed about t!~e noise and dirt which occurred during all hours of the day and night, including Saturdays and Sundays; tnat the mer, workers in th,~s plating firm had harrassed the women tenants, or.d after contacting numerous oepartments witiin the City, ti;e only or.e who had givec him any satis;actiun wa=_ the Fire Jepartment who i3d told the uper~tors of the bufiing busi~ess to ciear. up ti~e operation ard elimirate a~y :ire hazards. 'dr. Roberts state~ t~~at t~.e ie~a'_ oepartment ::ad bFer, attempting to obtair, e•/ioe^ce that a severe noise `.actor was ;r.volved 'oy reyuestirq the Police llep~r~.:rent t~ have tne oatrol vehicle police ~'r:e arEa ~.- •~arious time=_ during tne day and nig~;t- nowever, '.nat report had not been completed as of this date, but from ti~e reports that ;~ad been sutmitted, no uvidence was indicated tt;at noises and dirt snd dust were escaping into the apartment areas; tnat the Fire L'epartment had giver: t,:= Verdon Nlatina co~:~~~y ni~iety days to comply witn the fire hazards and problems, at which time the owne: stated 'ne was moving the b;;i;ir.g operation to the front of the large tuildina fronting on Rose Street, which would be awcy from the alley adjacent to the R-3 develo~ment - however, ne had been informed it v:ould take se~er.~l mont'.;s to accomplisn ti~is move; t~t.;~e was unaware of any violation of tne business :icersr, ~lth~ou~n according to t'r.~ license ~aw, a transfer locaiion was permitted with the filing fee oi ~CC - therefore, if tr.e Verdon Plating Company were located at a different atidress on Rose Street, the ~0¢ transfer fee wa~ a11 that was necessary. Mr. Jarv~ then stated that two years after the olating business ~iad been in operation, the buffir.g operation was started; that although the, may have the same name, they were 'wo sFp~rate operations in two separate locations, Commissioner Herbst stated that an/one operating a platiny business needed a ouffir.g ope*r,_ tion in ciose proximity to tt~e plating operation, and it was a necessary ooeration in con- junction witn it. Mr. Jarvi then stated that part of i;is work with the Air Pollution Board was to insoect , industries for the t/pe of oueration 'Jerdon Pla+ing Company had,in Ura;~ue County, between ~ Oran9e ar.o Brea, ar.d t!:e plating ope:ating, as well as tf~e bcfiing operation were not compatible with any residen±ial uses. „!* -~-I-'~- . - -_ Y_ ~ •- ~ ~ -, ~,.-. , -- :~i ~ MINUTES, CIIf PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3255 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) The Commission then advised Mr. Jarvi that this was one of the firm statements the Commission had made in the past - that residential uses were not compatible with the industrial uses; however, the R-3 and the M-1 properties were zoned under one zoning action in 1951, although the residential development had occurred prior to the industrial development. After considerable discussion by the Commission relative to the complaint made by Mr. Jarvi, the Commission was of the opinion the legal department and the Development Services Depart- ment should work together to resolve this problem since certain controls had been built into the M-1 Zone, which would require elimination of any nuisances, and that if nothing could be ; resolved to eliminate any flagrant violations, Mr. Jarvi should address his complaint to the ~~ Council. ! RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MUTIUN CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 5:45 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 7:45 P.M., Commissioners Allred and Herbst being absent. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC Nr~.:.I~lG, INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNIfJG COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing the addition of Chapter 18.37, C-R, Commercial-Recreation, Zone. Associate Planner Marvin W. Krieger presented a preliminary draft of the proposed Chapter 18.37, entitled C-R, Commercial-Recreation, Zone, to the Commission, reviewing the various facets of the p:oposed zone, noting that the intent of the zone was to be used as a vehicle for development in the Commercial-Recreatior. Area around Disneyland depicted on the General Plan as the flesh-colored area; that it was the intent that any reclassifications of the property would be similar to that type of procedure used for the Nartheast Industrial Area, whereby a resolution of intent to rezone an entire area would be considered at public hear- ing and elimi~ate any subsequent public hearing if the proposed use was in conformance with the C-R Zone; however, the present public hearing was foi the establishment of the zone ano not for rezoning the property. Mr. Krieger, in response to Commission questioning, stated that drive-in and walk-up restau- rants were eliminated from permitted uses because these had beer. excep~ed from the area by the City up until the present time. The Commission also inquired why transportation centers were not covered in the permitted uses, whereupon Mr. Kriege:• stated that these snould be inclu~led in condition~l uses. The Commission also inquired why the location af a service station in the C-R Zone was different than the C-1 Zone, whereupon fdr. Krieger stated that a developer would not pick a zone in which more restrictions would be applied than a more apprupriate zone - therefore development of a service station in the C-1 Zone would be more acceptable since it was not limited to Lhe intersection of two arterials. Planr~ing Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that the Commercial-Rec*eation Zone would `~= used only in those areas designated on the General Plan for commercial-recrea- tion purposes, and if requests were received for reclassification to the C-R Zone in other areas other tt~an those designated on the GEneral Plan, this might necessitate a General P1zn amendment if approved. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson stated that if a resolutioi~ of intent were passed for the entire area at public hearings, no further consideration would be necessary to permit a service station at two arterials. The Commission also noted there was some ambiyuity in Section 18.37.020(c-1-3), and requested ,~ that this section be amended to read: "The keeping of animals used in the operation of a ~ park, provided such animals shall be maintained in coops, pens, stables, or other quarters, ~~ provided said coops, pens, stables, and other quarters shall not be located within forty ~ (~l0) feet of any window or door of any building used for human habitation, or within twenty ~_ (20) feet of a property line of the permitted use". ,'; R ^.i ,~tx ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3256 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Chapter 18.37. C-R Commercial-Recreatioii Zone (Continued) Further discussion was held relative to Section 18.37.020(c-4) regarding headquarters-type business and professional office buildings, requesting that this be amended or deleted since previous action taken by the Commission and City Council negated this requirement. These amer.dments would be elimination of Subsection "A"; furthermore, any amendment of Subsection 4 should be delayed until the study requested of the Staff regarding parking for high-rise buildings was resolved. Considerable discussion was then held by t~e Commission, the Planning Staff, and the City Attorney's Office representati~~ relative to whether or not th? proposed reclassification proceedings for the entire Commercial-Recreation Area should encompass the developed as well as the undeveloped properties since certain conditions would be att ~ed to the resolution oi intent. At its conclusion, Mr. ~oberts stated that those propez .es which had been devel- oped in'the Commercial-Recreation Area prior to the establishment of the C-R Zone would be considered a non-conforming use and could be reclassified to that zone. Mrs. Mary Jones, 810 West Wilhelmina Street, representing Disneyland, appeared before the Commission and stated representatives of Lisneyland had reviewed the proposed C-R Zone and wzre basically in agreement with the proposed zone. Mr. Mickelson again reviewed the service station section of the C-R Zone, noting that a service station wou~d be permitted at two arterials only, this oeing generally tt.e same as the C-1.Zone; however, the C-1 Zone permitted a service station at two locals, provided a conditional use permit had been applied for and approved, and it was the feeling of the Staff that if a service station were requested a~ other than two arterials, tnis should be consider- ed under a variance, rather than a conditional use permit - iiowever, it was the general con- sensus of discussions with various groups that service stations in the C-R Zone should 'oe limited to the intersection of arterials. The requirements for parking in motels was also reviewed by Mr. Mickelson, noting that the Commission had waived the interim parking requirement for the motel at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue; that one of the Ylanners ir~ the department worked for a long time as ,nanager of a motel in the Disneyland Area and stated the existing parking requirements as written in the Code, in his opir~ion, were the bare minimum and many times there was insufricient parking, even with having met the minimum requirement for the motel. I~he Commission noted that where a parking problem might be noted would be where a larae restaurant was located in cunjunctior, with a motel - this might create some problem, although a restaurant in c~~njunction with a motel was considered an accessory use. P~r. Grudzinski th~-n stated the Staff would review and study the parking proolems, taking into considerat:on statements made by the Commission and pre~sent it to the Commission at a later date for further consideration. Chairman Camp stated that in the Staff's review of the parki,~g requirements for motels, two separate breakdowns should be made: one where there were only motels, and the other where there were incidental or accessory uses. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of the C-R, Commercial- Recreation, Zone to the meeting of Decembe* 5, 1966. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. ti~TION CAR~IED. I j~ AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CUM6IISSION, :1 i ANANEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider an ~ addition to Title 18, Anaheim Niunicipal Code, by the addition I' of C;iapter 18.39, C-H, Commercial-Hillside, Zone and Chdpter 18.13, R-H :'.000, Residertial-Hillside Low Density Single-Family, Zone. ~' Associate Planner Marvin Kriec;;. presE. ed to the Commission the C-H Zone with~ exhibits '~ indicating the background of a typi~al, small, nei hborhood sho station at the intersection, together with a co g PPinq area with a service and overla s were PY of the recommended roo. policy. Slides ~ Y presented to the Commission, noting the setbacks, parking, and circula- "' tion of the small, neighborhood shopping area as it pertained to the Commercial-Hillside _~ Areas and the traffic flow wnere a service station was proposed at an intersection. '~ ' Mr. Robert Harrison, representing the Western Oil and Gas Association, appeared before the '~ ~ Commission, stating he represented 90% of ~he oil companies of the s?x weste~n states, and ,.~.at~ he wishes to express opposition to the requirement of access to a service station being ,~ g 110 feet f:.,m an :ntersection, tegether with the method of signing of the service station ~F~ - _._ _,,. ; , yf . ---- ~ ',. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~ovember 7, 1966 3257 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, Chapter 18.39, C-H, Commercial-Hillside, Zone and ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Chapter 18.13, R-H 10,000, Residential-Hillside Low Density __ Sinole-Familv Zone (Continued) and rev3ewed studies made by the Cities of Detroit and Buffalo regarding the types of accidents which might be associated with a service station (copy of said study on file in the Developmen~ Services Department). Upon conclusion of the study review, Mr. Harrison stated that limiting the number of service stations at an intersection was ar,other of the points in Chaoter 18.39 which he wished to objec;: to since most oil companies felt it was more competitive to have an intersection with four ~ service stations rether than one, since if only one were permitted, this could possibly ~ present a mcnopoly of the Hill and Canyon Area. Mr. Harrison requested that the Traffic Engineer explain the problems and points of conflict as they pertained to the slides presented to the Commissione Mr. Ed Granzow, Traffic Engineer, appeared before the Commission and stated that at an average intersection there were twelve conflict points as far as vehicular traffic was concerned, and four additional conflict points where there was pedestrian access, thus having sixteen conflict _, points ai an intersection for each service station, and when four service stations were per- mitted, 100 plus conflict points would be present. thus by limiting the access on a normal street, the number of conflict points would be greatly zz~uced; that at the intersection of two arterials a left-turn signal island was needed, and traffic lights and striping would be considerably difficult if access to service stations were permitted at less than 110 feet; and that by moving the access to 110 feet, this would reduce the critical corner problem and alleviate any conflict ~oint too close to the intersection. Mr. Granzow, in respo~se to questioning l~y Mr. Harrison, stated that the studies made by him were based on actual case histories of intersections within the City, and the studies indicated that where the drives were closer to the corner, there were more accidents than when they were required to be a considerable distanr.e from the intersection; that the sight distance was most important to a driver when he made a left turn because he had difficulty seeing approaching traffic because it was at right angles, and by placing the drive further from the corner, this gave a clearer view of approachiny traffic. ~' Mr. Harrison then questioned the autho:ity of establishing conflict points used exclusively , for sight clearances and inquired whether or not the studies made by the Traffic Engineer _ referred to a shooping center as well as the service station or residence having accessway to enter the flow of traffic, Mr. Granzow stated that ttie conflict would be considerably hiyher if it were an arterial highway because the conflic+ points would be higher, the sight distance would be affected considerably, the traffic fiow from the adjacent str.eet and the traffic flow into and out of the site, and that shopping centers, if located with a similar traffic flow pattern, would present the same problem if located at the intersection oi arterials. The Ccmmission was of the opinion that comparisons with other cities could not be brought into the picture as far as the City of Anaheim was concerned because each city had its own uniqueness in traffic problems. The Commission also noted that Mr. Harrison had stated a design change had been made with service stations; however, this change had not occurred until ad~oinino residential home- owners had insisted upo~ it. Mr. Har*ison advised the Commission that approximately thirty years ago service stations were designed backing up to intersections; however,this design was eliminated because it was found to be economically unfeasible. In response to Commissioner Farano's questioning, N1r. Harrison stated his objection to the requirement of ingress and egress no less than 110 feet from the intersection was that the servi~e stations were not provided with an easy in and out fln!•; of a normal se~vice station layout; tha~ the oi1 companies do not like the idea of backi ~ ~p to the corner of an inter- section, since in order to be successful it was nece~sary to have an uncomplicated site with easy access from the street at or near any corner. , I Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson inquired of the Commission whether they wished to limit the number of service stations or whether they wished to eliminaie the uses within a zone, since th~ concept of t;- ::taff was to place these small, ne '~^rhood - shopping centers in the area :~; three to five:-acre sit.es l~ased on the fact thc ~~~ popula- ~ tion projections for this a:ta ,vith two to three ?nc •:.~-halt homes p~r acr,: coo.-' ' ~ economically support any service stations or small snopping centers. - ; . ,: ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3258 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - Chapter 18.39, C-H, Commercial-Hillside, Zone and ANAHEIM MUNIC?PAL CODE Chapter 18.13, R-H 10,000, Residential-Hillside Low Density Sinqle-Familv,Zone. ~Continued) ~ Mr. Krieger stated that in drafting the C-H Zone it was the intent of the Staff to have a service statior. incorporated in a shopping center site, not a service station at an intersection in which traffic was unrelated to the uses established. Mr. Harrison stated that he was concerned that there was no buffer area between the service - station site and the commercial site - this was dangerou~~ with many people running in to , ~T;~,y~ the gasoline pump and interfering with the traffic patter~ and the parking lot of the shoppin9 ~ center, and in his estimation, what the layout did as far as the hazard was concerned was to s# remove the hazard from a public street and place it on private property, and he felt the street t;~%~ should carry the hazard of the traffic rather than private property. f~ ~ '6', ?HE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-146-A and moved for itspassage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, by the addition of Chapter 18.39, C-H, Commercial-Hillside, Zone as presented on Exhibit "A" be made. (See P.esolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COfv1MISSIONERS: Uone. ABSENT: CON~MISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed Chapter 18.13, ft-H 10,000, Residential-Hillside Low Density Single-Family,Zone for the Commission, noting that zny reference relative to the maintenance of birds and animals in the R-H Zone would b< covered by Section 18.04.020 also being considered at this hear:ng. No one appeared to prese:~t any opposition or viewpoints on the proposed amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutior~IJo. PC66-146 and moved for its possage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Councii that amer.dment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, by t.he addition of Chapter 18.13, R-H 10,000 Residential- Hillside Low Density Single-Farnily,Zone as depicted on Exhibit "A" be made. (See P.esolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followir.q vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Earano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NUES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ABSEIJT: COh1PAISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. AMENDMENI TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. IMITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CON~v1ISSIUN, ANAHEIM ~IUNICIPAL CUDE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an amendment to Section 18.04, General °rovisions, amending Section 18.04.020(6) to includ? the R-H Zone. Associate Planner Marvin Kr:eger reviewed the amendment to Section 18.04.02C!~,t;~ for the Commission, noting that the only change being made was the inclusion of R-H 1~,000 to tfie zone in whict~ the maintenance of birds and ar,imals for domestic, non-commerc~a:i use would be permitted. ~ ~; Discussior, was held by the C~mmission, it being noted that the same change should be made to this section as was recommended for the C-R Zone, namely, the first paragraph shall read: "The maintenance of birds and animals for domestic non-commercial ~se shall be permitted in the R-A, R-0, R-E, and R-H ].0,000 Zones only, and said birds or animals shall be maintained , ir. coops, pens or stab:es or other nuarters, provided said coops, pens, stables and other . quarters shall not te located within forty (40) feet of any window or door of any building ~_ used for human habitation, or not less than twenty (20) feet of side lot lines. Further, the maintenance of such birds or animals shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.08 " of this Code and the fo1_owii~g:". '.,; * ~ ~ '] ~ No one aopeared in opposition to the proposed amendment. THE HEARING WF3 CLOSED. c l i~ f ~ i ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3259 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, -•Amendment to Section 18.04, General Provisicns, ; ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE amendinq Section 18.04.020(6) to include the R-H Zone. (Continued) Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-147 and moved for its passage and adoption, F seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Title 18 of the ~ Anaheim Municipal Code be amended by the amendment to Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.020 i General Provisions - Use - General, as foilows: "(6) The maintenance of birds and animals for domestic non-commercial use shall be permitted in the R-A, R-0, R-E, and R-H, 10,000 Zones only, and said bir9s or animals shall be maintained in coops, '. T~~ pens, or stables or other ~uarters, provided said coops, pens, , stables and other quarters shall not be located within forty (40) T~~ ~ feet of any window or door of any buildi.ng used fo: human habita- tion, or not less than twenty (20) feet of side lot lines. Further, '' the maintenance of such birds or animals shall be subject to the ; provisions of Chapter 8.08 of this Code and the following: (a) Poultry, rabbits and cavies shall not exceed 24 bircis or ,~ animals per acre. (b) Horses sha11 not exceed four adult animals and thei= immature offspring on a minimum one-acre site. ~. (c) Cattle, sheep and goats shall be permitted on oarcels of ~~ land five (5) acres or more in area; however, the number :_~ of animals shall not exceed a total of two (2) per each ~ acre." ~:.~ (See Resolution Bookj P ~~ On roll call the foregoin:~ resolution was passed by the following vote: i:• j ~ AYES: CUAtiNISSIUNERS: Farano, Gauer, Nungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ~: 'i~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A]lred, Herbst. -:` REPORTS AND - ITEM NU. 3 ~ RECOMMENDATIUNS TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NG. 5989, REVISIUN NU. 5. DEVELGPER: BUTLER 3 HARBOUR, 'ICORPORATED, 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. ~. ENGINEER: Jennings-Nalderman-Hood, 1833 East 17th Street, Suite 20U, !i Santa Ana, California. Subject tract located northerly of Urangethorpe .~ Avenue, easterly of Lakeview Avenue, and westerly of Boisserar.c Street, y~ a portion of a i7-acre site, is proposed for subdivision into 59 R-2, ;~ 5,000 Single-Family Zoned lots. :~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Revision No. 5~f Tentative ~dap of Tract { No. 5989 to the Commission and reviewed the proposed changes to previuus action taken, as ^) I follows: ~. 1. At the time subject tract and Tract No. 5990 were considered by the Commis~ion in conjunction with Reclassification No. 66-67-19 (R-2, 5000), the developer . indicated a problem in defining the exact line of division of the two tracts; that at the Commission meeting of October 10, 1966, both tracts ~vere proposed ~` without any del?neation boundary batween the tracts, and at the conclusion of ' the hearing, upon the advice of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, both tracts ~; I were combined under the number Tentative Map of Tract No. 5989, Revision No. 4. I: t ~' 2. That the developer now indicates hat a firm division of the two tracts is desired, j~`• i' and Revision No. 5 reflects this division which he wishes to be ap~roved. ~`. ~ 3. That since the iatest revision is essentially the same as the original tract map, T~ the Staff recommends approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5989, Revisio~ No. 5, ~., subject to conditions. ~~ Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5989, Revision ~~ ' No. 5. subject to the fol~o~;ain9 conditions: ~^.~ ; ;~.1 ' y (1) That sl~ould this subdivision be developed as more than on~ subdivision, ~~ 1 t each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~ i,'~ ~ ` ~•i :~ -- •- • , : - -.r•~,tic~; ~ . c ~ ~ ~ "k .1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3260 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued) (2) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5989, Revision No. 5, is granted subject to tne approval of Reclassification No. 66-67-19. (3) That in accordance with the City Council policy, a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the southerly property line separating Lot Nos. 1 and 46 through 59 and Orangethorpe Avenue, except that corner Lot Nos. 1 and 59 shall be stepped down to a;~eight of 30 inches in the front ;~ard setback. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway ~~ the full distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Supe=intendent of Parkway Maintenance. s Following installation and acceptance, the City oi Anaheim shall assume the ~ responsibility for maintenance of said landscapingo j i (4) That the vehicular access rights, except :~t street and/or alley openings to Urangethorpe Ave^ue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. - (5) That the pedestrian easements shall be improved with six-foot masonry walls, stepped down to a height of 24 inches in the front one-half of the front yard setback and a height of 42 inches in the back one-half of said setback, and concreie s~de:~alks. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION C.4RRiED. ITEM N0. 4 TENTATIVt ~NAP UF TRACT i~0. 5990, REVISIQN P10. 5- DEUEI,UPER: BUTLER d HARBUUR, INCORPORA?ED, 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Jennings-Halderman-Hood, 1833 East 17th St*eet, Suite 200, Santa Ana, California. ~ubject tract located northerly n{ prangethLrpe Avenue, easterly of Lakeview Avenue, and westerly o; Boisseranc Street, being a portion of a 27-acre site, is proposed for subdivision into 61 R-2, 5000 Single-Family Zoned 1ots. Subject traci was considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract iJo. 5989, Revision No. 5. Commissioner Mungall offered a motio^ to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5990, Revision No. 5, subject to the following conditions: (1) I'hat should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (2) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5990, Revision No. 5, is granted subject to tne approval of Reclassification IJo. 65-67-19. (3) i'hat the pedestrian easements shall be improved with six-foot masonry walls, stepped down to a height of 24 inches in the front one-half of the front yard setback and a height of 42 inches in the back one-half oi said setback, ar,d concrete sidewalr:s. (4; That a pedestrian bridae shall be constructed over the flood control right- of-way at no cost to ihe City of Anaheim, and the constructior. and design of said bridye shall be ap,~roved by the City Engi.neer and the Urange County Flood Control Uistrict. (5) That the flood control right-of-way shall be deeded to the Orange County Flood Control District prior to approval of the final tract map, and a channel constructed as required by the City Engineer and the Orange County Flood Control District. ~.~ ~ ~ (6) That Gle~view Avenue, northeasterly of Lot No. 61 shall be improved as a standard 64-foot street. The developer may retain a holding strip, if so desired, and if held, that a predetermined price for said holding strip shall be calculated and an agreement for dedication entered into between the Developer and the City of Anat~eim prior to approval of the final tract map. The cost of said holdi~y strip shall include land and a proportionate ~. share of the underground utilities and street improvements. j (7) That Street "A" shali be named Boisyeranc Drive. ~I~ Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTIUN CFRRIED. _,~ f ~ ..~, ~ , - --• ,. ~ .. ~.;._ ~ , ; ~. ~ t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7, 1966 3261 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 5 RECO(dMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 702 - Eirst Christian Church of • (Continued) Anaheim - Property located west of the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and South Street - Request for an ext:.~~sion + of timeo Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented the request of the First Christian Church of Anaheim for a six-month extension of ti;ne for the completion of ccnditions in Conditional Use Permit No. 702, noting that two six-month extensions of time had , beer. granted by the Planning Coi~unission, the latest one to expire November 8, 1966; ~ that a bond had been posted for the street improvements - however, the street light ~~.~ and street tree fees had not been paid. ~`'. ~ . ~~: ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the ~~?' completion of conditions in Conditional Use Permit No. 702, said time extension to ~':~ expire May 18, 1967. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion, MOTICN CARRIED. f' i ;. ITEM N0. 6 `.` -~ Street name changes - Blue Gum Street to IIlue Gum Way - A portion of La Palma Avenue to Whitestar Avenue - :~ Frontage road between Chantilly Street and Newkirk Road :i ' to Front~~ra Street. '•,,~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented to the Commission recommendations of the Staff regarding three street name changes as follows: i FIIJDINGS: :~ ,~ 1. The completion of the La Palma Uvercrossing at the Riverside Freeway and other street changes in the area necessitate a rumber of street name changes. i 2. One of these streets is presently in the City of Anahsim. The remainder ar= in the County. The Oran9e County Planning Department informs us that there are no pending actions to rename these County streets and that a recommendation of a name change from the City of Anaheim would initiate such an action, [:, " - RECOMMcNDATIONS: ,,~~ 1. That the portion of Blue Gum Street, witnin the City of Anaheim, from a point approximately 650 feet south of Coronado Street to the north side o: Uld La Palma ~ Avenue, be changed to Blue Gum Way at public heari~go ~I 2. That the City Council recommend to the County of Orange that Old La Palma Way ~ lying north of the new section of La Palma Avenue, be changed to Whitestar Avenue. ~ 3. That the City Council adopt for that portion of the stre?t within the City, and ~ ~ recommend to the County of Orange that tne frontage road located 3djacent to and •~ I south of the Riverside Freeway and running easterly from Chantilly Street to ~, Newkirk Roao, ~e named Frontera Street. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that any street name changes, , according to the State Planning Act, would hav~ to he established at public hearing before the Commission. ~ '' ~; ` Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Commission SE:cretary to set for public ,~ , i heasing November 21, 1966, street name changes for Blue Gum Street to ulue Gum lNay, La Palma ~- Avenue to Whitestar Avenu~, and the frontage road between Chant_illy Street and Newkirk Road ~' to Frontera Street. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. ~TICN CARRIED. t. , ~• ADJOURNMENT - There bei~~g no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland ;~ o:fered a motion to adjourn the meeiing. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion~ MOTIUN CARRIED. ~.~ The meeting adjourr.ed at 10:05 P.M. Respect:ully submitted, .j ~ ,,~ :~ ~ /~ ^~ ~ _ ~ ANN KREBS, :~ecret ry ~ ~ i. Anaheim City Planning Commission ; , ~ _~... 1 ~ .~ .__ -- - . _----_ :_,.. v • '' - p __ tfs ~!Y