Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/02/15. ? City Hall Anaheim, California February 15, 1967 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONLdISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ~ ~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. , PRESENT - Assistant Development S~:rvices Director: Robert Mickelson Planning Supervisor: Ronal~ Grudzinski Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts _, Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson j Planning Commission Secretary: An~ Krebs PLEDGc OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of P.llegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of January 30, 1967, were approved as THE MINUTES submitted, on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner Hllreo, and MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CLIFTON AND MARILYN MARSHALL, 744 tdorth East Street, PERMIT N0. 90a Anaheim, California, Owners; JOScPH AND GRACE ROM~, 118 North Ladera Vista Drive, Fullerton, California, Agents; reouesting permission to ~ OPERATE ~ CHILDREN'S DAY NURSERY IN AN EXISTING RESIDENCE WITH WAIVER _ OF MAXIMUM PERN~ITTED ~T~N AREA on property described as: A recta~yularly shaped parcel _ of land having a fro:,,...ge of approximately 75 feet on the east side of East Street and a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 330 feet south of the centerline of La Palma kvenue, and further described as 744 North East Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMII.Y RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request and location of subject property, noting that the waiver for sign area was necessary because of the restrictions in ttie R-1 Zone. ~ Mr. Christofferson also noted that General P1an Amendment Nos. 52 and 90, together with ~ Area Development Plan tJo. 22, had been .:onsidered previously on subject and abutting I properties, and that no decision had been reached as to General Plan Amendment No. 90 by the City Council. Mrs. Grace Romo, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed ~' the need for a nursery school in the east Anaheim area, notiny thai si~e operated a similar ~ school i~ the west Anahe=m area, and a study made of the number of people bringing their children from east Anaheim indicated a dire need for a n~rsery school of the tyoe she j. operated in the east Anaheim area. i : ~; Mrs. Romo, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the State of California Welfare Board required one teacher for each ten children; that the teachers would be at the premises all day; that it was planned to have the rear portion of the property retained as an orchard to act as a buffer to noises of the children at piay between the hours of 10:30 and 11:10 A.M. and 3:30 and 4:30 P.M.; furthermore, a fence would be constructed so , that children would not gain entrance to the orchard. ~ A petition signed by adjoining property owners in favor of subject petition was presented (~` to the Commission. ~ _ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~1 * THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~x ~~ 3330 ~ tdID1UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3331 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-29 and ,noved for its PERMIT N0. 904 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petiticn (Continued) for Conditional Use Permit No. 904, subiect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMNISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. 4 ) `~4 z .-~~ ~ ;, 1 r ~i l ,I Commissioner Rowland, in his vote of "no", stated that the proposed use was inconsistent with the Commission's recommendations made under General Plan Amendment Nos. 52 and 90 and Area Development Plan No. 22, since the City Council felt medium density use for the east side of East Street between La Palma Avenue and Wilhelmina Street might not oe advis- able, and asked that C-0 uses be considered, and that nursery schools were a primary residential operation and not a residential use, and, therefore, inconsistent with past Commission action. _ CONDITIOiJAL 'JSE - PUBLIC HEARING. GULF OIL CORPORATION, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, PERMIT N0. 918 Los Angeles, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CARWASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION on property described as: A rectangularly snaped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Dale Avenues and having frontages of approximately 150 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 163 feet on Dale Avenue, and further described as 2801 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COlv1MeRCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission the request and the location of the proposed carwash. Mr. Allan Hart, representing Michielsen 3 tissociates, 280 North Wilshire Fvenue, appeared before the Commission and no~ea CI~~t the proposed czrwash would provide additional service to customers of the service station; that presently t}ie operator was washin9 between five and ten cars in the lube area of the existing service station, and the colored rendering ~'~! submitted with the petition was a sam le of the P propused carwash, with the exception of ~ the canopy; and that the petitioner was agraeable to relocating the carwash area to provide for additional parking for dryin9 anc~ detailing of the washed vehicles. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HtARitQG WAS CLOSED. Cornmissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-30 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by ~,ommissioner Farano, tc orant Petition for Conditional Use Permit IJo. 918, subject to conditions, and an addition to Co~~dition No. 3 to include "proviued, however, that the carwash shall be relocated to provide additional area for drying and detailing of the washed vehicles". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was oassed by the following vote~ AYES: COMN!ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, iulungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CCMMISSIONERS: Nore. ABSENT: CONIMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARiNG. FNANK R. rinOGh"~F"J, 2344 Eas' 'P~agner Avenue, Anaheim, '~ j PERMIT N0. 920 Cal:fornia, ~~wner; LOUIS S. AND ALLENE ~LBAtJO, 1935 East Lincoln I, Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting permission for ON-SAL"t BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT, WITH WAIV[RS GF (1) ~dINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, (2) MA;(I:M1U~vi NUMBER OF ROUF SIGNS, (3) MINIiJ~UM DISTANCE $E7VJEEN ROOF SIGNS, AND (4) MINIMUM D?SiANCE BE NJEEN ROCiF AND FREE-ST.4NDING SIGNS on property . described as: An irregularly stiaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ~, 129 feet on the north side of L;.ncoln Aven~~e and a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 180 feet west of the center- line of State College Boulevard, and further described as 1935 East Lincoln Avenue. +'~~ property presently classified C-•1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZOUE. ~.~ ~ ' Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed tlie proposeci conditional use permit request , and location of subject property, together with existing uses in close proximity, further ~~ noting that the Anaheim Municipal Code required 27 spaces for the uses now existing in thF: ~ center; however, only 17 spaces were provided, and if dedication for street widening of .... ~+, r, F MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February'15, 1967 3332 CONDITIONAL USE - Lincoln A~enue was submitted, the number of parking spaces would be PERMIT N0. 920 reduced to 12, with a maximum of 15, if the parkin9 layout was redesigned. (Continued) The Commission Secretary read a letter from the petitioner indicating that he would not comply with the conditions of approval as recommended by the Interdepart- mental Committee and Development Services Department. ` No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ti~~ THE HEARING 'NAS CLOSED. { , The Commission noted that the recommended conditions were necessary to provide for adequate ~ widening of Lincoln Avenue between the centerline of State College Boulevard and a point ' 580 feet westerly, and that the requiremen tr of street light and street tree fees and side- walks were necessary "ror the ultimate improvement of the City. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolutiun No. PC67-31 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit ;Jo. 920, on the basis that the petitioner indicated by letter that he would not comply with conditions, if approved, said conditions being r~ecessary for adequate vehicular circulation and ultimate beauzification of the City. (See Resolution 9ook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, idungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 1851 - PUBLIC HEARiNG. LtOIJARD AND AiVNETTE SHAPIRO A;JD BERNARD AND RENE SiiAPIrTO, 13631 Saticoy Street, Van Nuys, Cali:ornia, Owners; SAM GAYE, 1500 East Cerritos Avenue, Nnaheim, Califorr,ia, Agent; requesting WAIVcRS OF (1) PL-RMITTED FREE-STHNDING SIGN LOCATION AND (2j NINIMUM DISPLAY . SURFACE HEIGHT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a ! frontage of approximately 480 feet on the south side of Cerritos Avenue and having a , maximum depth of approximately 110 feet on the easterly boundary and a maximum depth of - approximately 230 feet on the westerly boundary, with the easterly boundary being approxi- mately 740 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and further described as 1500 East Cerritos Avenue. Property presently classi:ied M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission the proposed request and locdtion of subject property, further noting that the City Council at their meeting of December 27, 1966, granted a temporary sign permit for the proposeci sign, advising the applicant at that time that he was oroceeding at his own risk; however, he was to file a petition for variance, and said temporary permit was subject to approval of said variance. Mr. Eldon Nolson,representing the sigr company, appeared before the Commissior. to review the proposed request, noting that the sign would be placed in the center of the structures which were located on the westerly portion of subject property, and to locate the sign as required by Code would place it in the center of the proposed driveway. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARINu WAS CLUSED. ..}~ i ,- . ~~ (, Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC57-32 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded b Commissioner Herbst tc Y , grant Petition for Variance No. 1851, subject to i conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Nungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COWv1ISSI0NERS: tdone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. , ~. ~ =~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CpMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3333 VARIANCE N0. 1852 - PUBLIC I-~ARING. BEULAH B. WATSON, 701 North Elm Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CORPORATION, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN HEIGHT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Lincoln and Dale Averiues with a frontage of approximately 125 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 125 feet on Dale Avenue, and further described as 2800 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GE~l~RHL CU~+IMERCIAL, ZGNE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location of subject property and the proposed request, together with the findings of the Report to the Commission, summing up with the fact that a field check by the Staff indicated the existing sign was visible from at least 350 feet to the west; however, little benefit would be received beyond 350 feet, even though the request might be approved. Mr. William Kelleher, representir.g Atlantic Richfield Corporation, appeared before the Commission and stated it was their desire to improve the visibility from the west and south of the existing service station site; that there were a considerable number of trees which blocked view of the existing sign from both the south and west, as well as commercial signs; and that adequate signing was necessary to obtain any prospective business from both the south and west. The Commission noted that the existing service station site had an unusually attractive landscapin9 arrangement and congratulated the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that little would be gained by adding the small amount of additional height to the existing site since the trees in close proximity to subject property wereof the deciduous type, and when thefoliage grew'inthe Spring, any height would be.completely oblit=rated, and that the petitioner had not shown any undue hardship; furtnermore, granting subject petition might establish a precedent for similar requests. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-33 and moved for its passaae and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1852, on the basis that the requested variance would provide the petitioner with only a temporary relief from the ntstruction of trees to the west; that granting subject petition might establish a precedent for similar requests from other properties in close proximity for waiver of the sign height; and that signiny of subject property w?th a 25-foot sign was adequate as required by Code. !See P.esolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSICNERS: None. ABSEPJT: CON~MISSIONERS: None. VARIANCL- IJO. 1853 - PUBLIC HtARIIJG. RICHARD E. JUNES AND ROB~RT D. PETERSU~, 218 East Broadway, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owners; requested variance to ?ERMII A 7-FOOT DECORATIVE SCREEU FENCE 6VITHIN TI-i~ REQUIRL-D FRGNT LAIJDSCAPED SETBACK AND WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED PARKING on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the south side of Broadway and having a frontage of approximately 50 feet, the easterly property line being approximately 110 feet west of the centerline of Philadelphia Street. Property presently classified C-1, GEPJERAL CO~vVv1ERCIAL, ZUNE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed .'or the Commission the location of subject property and the proposed request, also noting that although a waiver was advertised for off-street parking, the shortage of parking spaces had existed since 1959, and the proposed tandem parking was an improvement over tlie existing facilities; furthermore, in the event subject petition was approved, the waiver of the parking would apply to the existing struc- ture, and any major alterations of the structure, or construction of new building on subject property, would require meeting Code parking requirements. ~~~; Mr. Richard Jones, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated he ~~~ was available to answer questions. - The Commission asked that the petitioner clarify what was meant by a"shingle wall", ~ whereupon Mr. Jones stated that it could be likened to the facia of the "Family Tree" ~ restaurant located on the west side of Euclid Street between Lincoln Avenue and Bruadway. F ; MINUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3334 VARIANCE N0. 1853 - Mr. William Love, repres>nting Mrs. E. K. Rae, 224 East Broadway, (Continued) appeared before the Commission and stated he was interested in learning for Mrs. Rae the proposed use of subject property. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson then presented the plans to Mr. Love and explained what was proposed. The Commission noted there would be no land use change, a~d the petitioners were asking only to permit a fence in the front setback, which was requesting a waiver of Code require- ments. Mr. Love then discussed at great length the problems concerning the parking difficulties '' ~ on Broadway, noting that during the week the City employees utilized all the parking ~.:~~ ~ space on the street, and on Sunday the parishioners of the church at Philadelphia Street and Broadway utilized these parking facilities; that he had attempted during the past ten ~'.I~ years to persuade the City Council to davelop a 15 or 20-minute loading zone so that resi- dents of the street could have temporary access to their hemes from this loading zone - ~~ however, this has never been accomplished. Y. .I ~, fi The Commission advised Mr. Love that any changes in the striping for temporary parking }-.~ - facilities would be at the recommendation of the Police Department, and the Commission [~ had no jurisdiction over parking along a public street; furthermore, if Mr. Love was F~ interested, he could contact the Chief of Police, Mark Stephenson. ~. l ~~l ~ Mr. Love then stzted that after reviewing the plans he did not feel there would be any ~~~ opposition from Mrs. Rae. ~: , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. II ;~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-3a an6 moved for its passage and adoption, ' seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1853, subject to !i conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ; NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ~~ - ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Chairman Camp and Chairman pro tem Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:40 P.M., Commissioner Gauer assumin9 the chair as chairman pro tem. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HHRULD S. LEEDY, 816 East Chestnu~ Street, Santa Ana, , N0. 66-07-49 California, Owner; MARK FIRESTUiJE, 1123 West Carson Street, Torrance, ~ California, Agent; property described as: Parcel iJo. 1- A rectangularly CONDITIC'NAL USE snaped parcel of land having a fror.tage o: approximately 45 feet on the ~ PERMIT N0. 919 south side of Lincolr; Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately I 88 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 115 feet east of the centerline of Harding Avenue, and Parcel No. 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Harding Avenue and Lincoln Avenue and havir.g a frontage of approximately 68 feet on Hardiny Avenue and approxi- mately 95 ieet on Lincoln kvenue, the easterly boundary of subject property being contiyuous ~ to the westerly boundary oi ?arcel No. 1. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ~ ZONE (PARCEL N0. 1) AND C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (PARCEL N0. 2). ' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIUV: PARCEL iJO. 1- C-1, GEyERAL CUMMERCIAL, ZUNE. I . REQUESTED CONDITIONAL LSE: PARCEI. NOS. 1 AND 2- TO ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT, ~VITH WAIVERS UF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEiGHT, (2) REQUIRED o-FOOT MASUNRY WALL, AND (3) RUUF SIGN LUCATION. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location of subject property and the proposed use for the area, as well as reviewing the waivers requested. It was also noted that Variance No. 908, which approved a temporary tract sign, was granted on February 3, 1958, and the sign had been removed; i,!~erefore, the Commission may wish to terminate the variance. ~ ~ I ~ t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM~dISSION, February 15, 1967 3335 RECLASSIFICATIUN - Mr. H. S. Leedy, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, N0. 66-67-49 stating that he had expected the agent to be present; however, he would be willing to answer any questions the Commission might have. CONDITIONAL USE He also noted that dedication requirements as recommended by the PERfdIT N0. 919 Staff would be complied with. (Continued) ~ The Commission discussed the possibility of improving the alley to the rear of subject property and inquired of Office Engineer Arthur Daw whether or not full dedication had been received. . Mr. Daw advised the Commission that only a 15-foot wide alley was necessary; however, : T,;,~~ no plans were in the foreseeable future for improving the dedicated alley, although the ~,,~ Director of Public Works had attempted to set up an alley improvement program, and that ~; ~ no additional dedication was required ~ince there was a possibility that upon its ultimate ~`~~~ development it would be a one-way alley. >~ ;' The Commission r.oted that the plot plan indicated the exit tn the alley frcm the wa:~;-up E'j restaurant was proposed. i ~~ Mr. Leedy stated that it was the intent of drivin throu h the ;} _, 9 g property, having access to the alley, and then using either Harding or Grand Avenues to gain entry to Lincoln .:J_ Avenue. Zoning Supervisor 4onald Thompson and Commissioners Allred and Farano discussed the plot plan with the petitioner. The petitioner then inquired why a nearby "Tastee Freez" walk- up restaurant was permitted to have a structure adjacent to the curb, and the Commission was requesting that the 35-foot setback be maintained along Lincoln Avenue. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the City Council had granted this waiver at the time the Tastee Freez was considered by them at reclassification. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE 1-IEARING NJAS CLOSED. The Commission,in reviewing the prooosed plot plan, noted that the lighting pole, 15 feet in height with two 500-watt bulbs, would create considerable light, as well as the two 8-foot long fluorescent lights along the Harding Avenue frontage, and if this type of light- ing was proposed, any lightin9 would have to be directed away from the residential properties both south of subject property and across Lincoln Avenue to the north. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-35 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Reclassification No. 66-67-49 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Idungall, Rowland. iJOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutior. No. PC67-36 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 919, waiving the ratio of building setback as it pertained to the 20-foot high building, to a minimum of 25 :eet along the south property line in order to provide for a minimum 35-foot setback along Lincoln Avenue, and an addition to Condition t~o. 9-"pi•ovidin9, however, that the 35-foot building setback shall be maintained along Lincoln Avenue"; and "that any lighting proposed on subject property shall be directed away from the residential proper- ties to the south and north". (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. ?- ` Later in the meeting Mr. Leedy requested clarification of the required 35-foot setback _ as it pertained to the waiver of the setback in accordance with the height of the buildinq. ~ ~~ ~ . MINUTES, CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3336 RECLASSIFICATION - Comrn~ssioner Rowland stated that the 35-foot building setback along N0. 66-67-49 Lincoln Avenue should be maintained; however, in the waiver of Section 18.40.070(3-a-2) the minimum setback along the south property CONDITIONAL USE line could be reduced to 25 feet in order to provide for the 35-foot PERMIT N0. 919 setback alon9 Lincoln Avenue. (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-37 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate Variance No. 908, which zpproved a temporary tract sign on subject property. (See Resolution Book) ,, ~y~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~i :'.~s ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. ~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ::~y ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. ~I RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY LESTMANN, 9311 Hillview Road, Anaheim, California, ~~ N0. 66-67-50 Owner; SI-~LDON GOLISON, 1505 Beachcomber Drive, Seal Beach, Cal.ifornia, ~~~ ' Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and ~ I Magnolia Avenue, and having a frontage of approximately 264 feet on Orange Avenue and '~ approximately 212 feet on Magnolia Avenue, have DELETION OF TriE DEED RESTRICTIONS LIMITIi9G ` THE USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND PROFtSSIONAL OFFICES AND PHARMACIES, ,, TO PERMIT THE FULL RANGE OF C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE USES. Property presently classi- fied C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZOIJE (DEED RESTRICTED). ~ I ~~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location of subject property, the zoning ~~ . of abutting properties, and the request for an amendment of the deed restrictior.s, as well :f as the oetition for reclassification of subject property. Pae•t zoning action on subject :.i propert~ and the Commission's findings for recommending denial of the previous request for deletion of deed restrictions was also noted. s Attorney Harry Knisely, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and p reviewed a letter from Tishman Associates regarding C-1 Zoning within the City. ~~` '_ Mr. Knisely also noted tnat the City had recognized the fact that potential commercial use :i was the proper zoning for subject property since 1961; however, at that time, because the n..l City did not have C-0 ~oning, deed restrictions were attached to the C-1 Zone granted. ,~ Furthermore, the permitted uses were too restrictive for subject property; therefore, it ~ had r.ot been developed, and that the previous amendment to deed restriction request had ~ many waivers whirh the present request does not have. 7 ~~. .; Tne Commission noted tnat the letter reviewed by ,V~r. Knisely had no bearing on suoject j request; that tne previous reclassification made it appear tnat strip commercial uses were ~ proper for tnis area - nowever, development in close proximity we:e residential us=s or .~ uses compatible to residential uses, namely a school and church. ~ ~ ~ I ivir. Knisely ~oted tnat Tishman Associstes were discouraged in pla~;ni;:g i:igi~-rise o!fice ~ rl structures in ti~e City, and tnot C-u uses on suoject propert}~ mi^yht afiect tne ultimate redevelopment of tne Center City. ~'vir. Robert Froslie, 2h17 YJesthav?~. Drive, appez:e~ '~efore ti:e 'o~.mission in opcosition, stating tnat his property aoutted sui~ject prooert~~ to tne south; tilai i~, i!~,e previous requ?st for amenoment to the deed restrictions, 12 perso:i~ and representatives of ti;e church appeareo in oppositior.; thot tne noise, dust, anu increase ir. traiiic to ti~e resi- dential areo would be detrimental to the existing values oi ti:e resiue:ices; :h~: tnere was no commercial use estoolisi~ed witnin ti~ree k~locks oi sub!ect property, and tl.is was a.. isolated parcel of commercial property; and ti:at the prop~-rty pro'c,ai;ly would remain v~c~nt because there was no demand for cummercial uses for subject property. i~1r. Knisely, in r?buttal, stated th~at ti~e previous request for ~me~~drner.t to ~eed restric- tions wa; basea on many waivers; that iie 7ad discus~e~i ti~is wit}~ ti:e ~i ~y „ttor:~ey's oi : ice who had advised him that the present request was suustantially different than tf;e previous request, and was the udsis for the new request witi~in three mcr.ths rati~er ti~an the Cit•y Council policy of six months; and tnat sonie type of office uuiluinqs w:,s proposed for suoject property. `! ' Commissioner Gauei• inquired o: .:ir. Knisel~~ wirethei• or not i~e i:ad made a survey oi t!:~_ `a ~ numbe.r of inedical buildings in the City, whereupoi;;.~r. K;isely replied negatively, uut :I „+1~ that ne had made o~~e on office ouildings. F ey MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3337 RECLASSIFICATION - Further discussion was held between the Commission and Mr. Knisely N0. 66-67-50 regarding the proposed request and the fact that there seemed to be • (Continued) an oversupply of store buildings and office buildinys which were vacant. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that in 1951 when the zone change for subject property was made, it was spci zcning, and this was bourne out of the fact that in five years no development had t~ken ple~ce on the property; that the existing restrictive uses , for subject property were necessary to protect the adjacerit residential development; and that the Commission should consider subject petition on the basis of whether or not the r'i""~~ request was the best land use of subject property. Furthermore, subject property was _~s , developable for a six-lot subdivision as indicated on the Commission's previously recom- ;~ mended denial of the request for deletion of the deed restrictions. ~~. Commissioner Mungall inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether or not it ~ was pcssible to rezone subject property to the R-1 Zone at this time, whereupon Mr. Roberts ~ stated that rezoning within a lesser commercial zone would be possible, but not to the R-1 4 Zone unless readvertised for the new zone. 1.~ -. ~:i Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC57-38 and moveo for its passage and adoption, F~ seconded by Commissioner Mungall, ~o recommend to tne i,ity Council that Petition for Reclas- ~.~ sification No. 66-67-50 be disapproved on the basis that the more intense commercizl use r+ would have a deleterious effect on the residential integrity of the area, and that subject ~'~,; property can b~ subdivided into six R-1 lots. (See Resolution Book) I. ; ~j On roll call the foregoir.g resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. ~; NOES: CONuNISSIONERS: None. , ARSENT: COMIviISSIONERS: Czmp, Herbst. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEHRING. WALTER A. GOCDEN AND PAUL H. PLETZ, 1731-A South Euclio N0. 66-67-51 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMES HODGES, 1731-A South Euclid Street, Fnaheim, California, Ager.t; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parceJ o: land having a irontage of approxi- mately 135 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 340 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately E60 :eet east of the centerline of Euclid Sireet, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-3, HEAVY CONW~ERCIAL, ZO!JE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the location of subject property and the proposed request, noting that development plans were only "concept" plans in which the petitioner indicated the proposed automotive center and rPStaurant, and that the petitioner had indicated he would comply with the 35-foot building setback ~lor~g Lincoln Avenue and develop in accordance with the C-1 site development st~~~dards. Furthermore, a basic problem had developed since no provision had been planned :or the 4.77-acre parcel to the south, also owned by the petitioner, for access from Pampas Lane, and it would be land- locked except for a half-width of Pampas Lane which dead-ended into the southwesterly boundary of subject property. Mr. James Hodges, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the petitior.er was attempting to develop the property in accordance with the Staff's recomme;~d.:- tions, and that it was felt the recommended concitions were necessary to best serve the interests of the City and his clients. Mr. Hodges, in response to Commission questionin9, stated that it was hoped to develop the 4.77-acre parcel southerly of subject property for R-3 purposes and heavy commarci~l uses along Lincoln Avenue; that there was a possibility thc: a~utting property would be sub- divided in the future which would necessitate haviny streets; that the rental spaces indicated on ttie concept plans were proposed to attract clients in the automotive industry: that the petitioner was negotiating with the AAMCO Transmi.snion Company for 4,000 to 5,000 square feet; that the Staff had recommended C-3 Zone because of the automotive use proposed; that it was doubtful that the proposed restaurant would be developed since onl~~~ one person was interested in the development, and he had advised his clients to estaulish rnore compatible commercial uses for that property. - Mr. Ray Cook, owner of the apartments at 1651 Pampas Lane, appeared before the Commissio~~ ~ in opposition and stated that the dust and noise from any tieavy co~nmercial use, togeti~er ~ with high lights, would be de+.rimental to the residential environment of the apartments located to the west of the proposed heavy commercial use; that since no precise plans or development plans had been s~bmitted regarding the 4.77-acre parcel to the south, this n1 MINUTES, CI1'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3338 RECLASSIFICATION - would remain a landlocked parce'., and there was always the possibility N0. 66-67-51 that the commercial use would extend to the entire vacant parcel, which (Continued) would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the apartment dwellers in his units. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to requiring more definite development plans arci~+~hether the zoning application was proper or improper for Lincoln Avenue. , Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution IJo. PC67-39 and moved for its passage and adoption, F' ^'~~ seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ,~ fication IJo. 66-67-51 be approved, subject to development ir, accordance with the C-1 site ~f ~ development standards and deletion of Condition Ido. 4, requiring the Parcel Map recordin9, ~'(~ and Condition No. 5, requiring the applicant to execute an agreement for street dedication ~-I and improvement purposey. ~j Considerable discussion was then held between trte Commission and the Zoning Staff regarding J the proposed deletion of two conditions. w; I -~ Mr. Mickelson stated that Condition No. 7 was contingent upon applying Condition No. 4; w'~ that any site development standards would apply to landscaping and setbacks only and had ~i no jurisdiction over subdivisions of property. ;tI ~ Commissioner Rowland noted that at such time as development for the soutnerly portion o: ~~~ subject property was proposed, deoication could be requ:red for street access at that time, ~'~ and there was the possibility that tne entire parcel would be developeo for C-3 uses, there- i~ by negating the recommendation of a Parcel Map and provision ior dedication of 60 feet ior 't' a street extension of Pampas Lane. E: r; Commissioner Rowland then s~ated that a finding be made through his offer of the resolution that Pampas Lane did not constitute sufficient access for the r=ar portion of subject , property,and that the proposed commercial use of subject property was inadequate to provide • ;or proper circulation to Lincoln Avenue, and that at such time as development of the ,' , southerly portion of the 4.77-zcre parcel south of subject property took place, some ~; ; provision should be made to provide access by the extension o: Pampas Lane through said ~ ; property. (See Resolutio~ Book) ~r - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tne following vote: i t,. , i'I AYES: COMI~1ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, hlungall, Rowland. IJOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst. REPORTS ANU - I"IE~J~ Nu. 1 ~ RECUMh9EiJDATI0N5 R-H- 10,000, RESIDENTiAL :;iiLSIDE, ZGNE - SECTIUfJ 18.13.030(b) - tdinimum Site Requirements. l i hssociate Planner Marvin Krieger presented the proposed amenoment to Chapter 18.13, R-H- 10,000, Residential Hillside, Zone, noting that the City Council had withheld the first reading of the ordinance in order that clarification might be made regarding Section 18.13.030(b) which referred to ]ocation of a main structure 200 feet from a standard , street, whereas a fire hydrant was required only 400 feet from a stand'ord street. It ~ was also noted by Mr. Krieger that during discussion in the drafting of this proposed ! ordinance, the Commission had indicated 400 feet; however, at the time the final draft was presented to the Commission, this was reduced to 200 feet and this discrepancy was ' not discove-red until the ordinance was being prepared by the City Attorney's office; and I that the proposed amendment would be in accordance with the Commission's previous considera- ; tion, namely: ~ "Minimum Site Requirements. No main structure shall be located more than 400 feet from a standard street nor more than 400 feet from a fire hydrant with steamer connections." Commissioner Allred offered Resolution IJo. PC57-40 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that in tneir considera- ~ tion of Chapter 18.13, R-H.-10,000, Hesidential Hillside, Zone an amendment be made to ~ Section 18.13.030(b) - Minimum Site Requirement, Site Uevelopment Standards, , "Minimum Site Requirements. fJo main structure shall be located more than 400 feet ~~; from a standard street nor more than 400 feet from a fire hydrant with steamer connections." ~ so that the site development standards would be comparable to the R-E, Residential Estates. ~ Zone. (See Resolution Book) I ~.._.:: _ . ,. , .... .z ,-~ _ ___ , :. . ._. E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3339 REPORTS AfJD RECOtviMENDATIONS - ITE;N N0. 1 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: GUMMISSIONERS: Camp, HerbsL. , ITEM N0. 2 T~~ Orange Cou.ity Use Variance No. 5849 - Yorba Linda Plaza Company - ~.~i~ Request to permit the continu=d use of a temporary real estate office sign and for temporary signs in connection with the sale of homes in Tract No. 5432, "Locke Ranch G<neral Development Plan". ,. , ~~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Use Veriance lJo. 5849, ~ noting that the request was for the continued use of temporary real estate signs originally { approved under Use Variance No. 5385; that the request was for a two-year extension of time :i _ for the use in order to a11ow 30 of the o:i9inal 70 homes to be sold. Commissioner Mungall offered a rrotion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange I County Planning Commission be urged to grant a two-year extension of time for use of ~~, temporary signs as requested under Orange County Use Variance No. 5849. Commissioner f 1 Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. IT~M N0. 3 Orange County Tentative idap o: Tract yo. 5686 - Developer: B. L. ~ D, Property Compar~y, 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Engineer: Anacal ~n9ineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the east side of Richfield Road between Mariposa and Buena Vista Avenues in the Yorba Linda area, containing approxi- mately 7.1 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 25 R-1 lots. ; Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Orange County Ter,~ative Map of Tract -. No. 5685, noting the location of subject property and the propesed subdivision into 25 - R-1 lots; that all lots were a minimum 7,200 square feet which confo:ined with the City of Anaheim R-1 lot requirement - however, lot wi~ths, except for two lots, were less than the minimum 70 f~et required, and front setbacks were indicated as being 20 ieet, whereas Anaheim's was 25 feet; and that the two streets proposed for the tract had widths of 5E and 60 feet, slightly below the Anaheim standards for resi.dential sub- divisions, and that land uses in the general area were single-family residential uses and agricultural uses. Furthermore, Tentative 1J~ap of Tract No. 48i7 for sin9le-family 1 residences abutted subject tract to the south. i ~ Commissior.er Allred offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Urange i County Planning Commission be urged to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5686 as being substantially i~~ accordance wi.th the requirerrients of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner ~. Mungall seconded the motion. MOTIOtd C~RRIED. ,I . } ITEM NU. 4 ~ Orange County Use Variance No. 5848 - Joyce L. De11it - 4 Requesting permission to establish a brid-ol salcn for rental ~ ; and retail sale of gowns and formal wear; a siyn of more than ~ tnat permitted ::. the area; and off-streei parhing in tne front ~ half of a lot in the RP Residential Professional Uistrict. ; Property located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, approx' '~• ' mately 800 feet nortn of Lincoln Avenue. ~ Associate Planner Jack ~hristofferso~ presented Orange County Use Variance IJo. noting that subject property was pi~oposed to be used for the establishment of t gown rental and s~les agency in conjunction w?th the existing real est.ate office, .nd that subject property was ~oned Residen'ial Professior~.s1 in tne County; furthermore, ~~; that four parkin~ spaces were being provided in the front of ihe existing house - however, ~_ should the dedication to 60 feet be made for Brookhurst Street, these spaces could no longer be utilized. a ~ ~ Thc Commissior. revieweu the recommended conditions if subject qetition were considered 1 ' favorably by the Orange County Planning Commission. g ~ ! ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3340 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) Comrt!issioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider the following recommended conditions c,f approval if Orange County Use Variance No. 5848 was considered favorably by them: 1. Dedication of a strip of lar:d 60 feet in width, as measured from the centerline of Brookhurst Street, for street widening purposes. 2. That parking be provided to the rear of the structure by providing access drives. One possible method of accomplishing this would be to require a common accessway with the adjoining property to the south or north of subject subject property. 3. That the portion of the front setback not being used for access be landscaped. Commissioner Farano seconded the motior. :v10TI0IJ CARRIED. -. ITEPA ~0. 5 Grange County Use Vaxiance No. 5850 - Yorba Plaza Company - Requesting permission to continue use of two temporary directional and advertising signs in connection with the sale of homes in Tract Nos. 5776 and 5400 for a period of two years, said signs located on the north side of Esperanza Road approximately 165 feet east of the Yorba Linda Freeway in the east Atwood area. Associate Planner Jack Christofierson presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5850 to the Commission, noting the location of the existirg signs and the fact that Orange County Use Variance No. 5385 was conditionally granted on August 4, 1?64, to permit a 10 by 20-foot, single-faced sign at this location, and that 30 homes remained to be sold out of the 76 homes in these tracts. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Cour.cil that the Orange ~ County Planning Commission be urged to grant a two-year extension of time for the ~ directional signs as requested under Uranye County Use Variance No. 5850. Commissior.er , Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITE,V; N0. 6 Coverage factor in the R2-5,000 One-Famil.y, Zone. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presentzd a report on the coverage factor of the R2- 5,000 One-Family, Zone as follows: FINDINGS: 1. The R2-5,000 Zone presently provides that a maximum of d5% of the lot area may be covered by roofed structures. 2. As of this date, four subdiv:sions have been approved for R2-5,000 type development. One has been completed (Butler-Horbour), another is iindez construction (9utler- Harbour), and construction on the other two (Rinker-Orchard ~rive and r~orth side of Riverside Freeway at the Newport Freeway? has not yet Gegun. 3. ~he R2-5,000 Zone was intended to encourage a reduction of density in those areas that have been deemed appropriate for m2dium and low-medium ~iensity uses on the General Plan. By permitting 5,000 square foot lots a lesse~ density is achieved than would be normally permitted in low-medium and medium d?nsity residential zones, yet a greater density than that permitted in the R1-7,200 square foot Zone. It is contemplated that the single-family character of a development is to be retained by providing open space on individual lots in an amount proportionate to what is provided on an R1-7,200 square foot lot. ~'{; ~ CONCLUSION: ~ 1. Upon investigation of tl~e developments that have already been constructed, i~ is ,, obvious that the present maximum coverage :actor is not leaving adequate open * ~ a.rea on the lot. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, February 15, 1967 3341 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6 (Continued) 2. If the coverage factor is reduced from 45% to 4d,~, the minimum open area will be brought into direct proportion with the R-1 open area. The following chart illustrates a comparison of the coverage factor in the R-1 Zone with varying coverage factors in the R2-5,000 Zone: ZONE R=1 R2-5 .000 Coverage Factor 40% 4~% 40% 35% 3~ Minimum Lot Area 7200 sq.ft. 5000 sq.ft. 5000 sq.ft. 5000 sq.ft. 5000 sq.ft. Naximum Coverage 2880 sq.ft. 2250 sq.ft. 2000 sq.ft. 1750 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. Remaining Open Area 4320 sq.ft. 2750 sq.ft. 3000 sq.ft. 3250 sq.ft. 3500 sq.ft. ~}t ~j ` ~i * r~ ~' ~ ~ Considerable discussion was held between the Commission and Staff regardin9 the fact that if the coverage percentage was reduced, and developers found it necessary to build larger homes, they would start construction of two-story homes; the fact that calculations had been made cn R-2 dev?lopments just completed or in the construction stages, with the result that some were 38-39% and others were 43.8% coverage; and that this resulted in the study presented to the Commission. It was also noted by the Staff that if the Commission felt coverage could be reduced, this could be considered at public hearinga Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public hearing March 13, 1967, amendmert to Title 18, Chapter 18.26, R2-5,000 One-Family, Zone, Section 18.26.050, Site Development Standards, ~ubsection (3). Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 7 Variance No. 1805 (W. C. 0'Reilly) - Request for an extension of time to comply with conditions of Commission Resolution No. PC66-2,dated July 6, 19ci6. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented the request of hir. William C. 0'Reiliy for an extension of time to comply with conditions imposed in the Commission's approval of Variance No. 1805, Resolution fJo. PC66-2, dated July 6, 1966; and that the variance w-.s to permit waivers on a three-story office building, together with requirements for a parking lot. Previous action of t„e Planning Commission was also reviewed, it being noted that if the request for an extension of time was approved, the :~mmission reouire dedication of a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline oi riarbor Boulevard, including a 15-foot radius corner return, be submitted to the City within 30 days as a condition of approval of the time extension. Commissioner Farano offE~~d a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the completio~ of conditions in Resolution i~o. PCo6-2, dated July 6, 1966, approving Variance No. 1805, subject to the petitioner dedicatin9 a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, including a 15-foot radius corner return, within 30 days from date hereof as a condition of approval of this time extension. Furthermore, if said dedication was not complied with, the time extension would become null and void. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM iJO. 8 Consideration of recommendations regarding proposed changes to the Trailer Ordinance to be considered by the City Council March 7, 1967. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the Commission's last opportunity for submitting recommendations on the proposed Trailer Ordinance as submitted by the Trailer Coach Association and the conunittee appointed by the City Council to review a proposed Trailer Ordinance, both pro and con, would be either the meeting of February 15, or no later than February 27. ..---~=~~1~ .,.-=T G ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 3342 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 8 (Continued) The Commission was of the opinion that the full Commission should be present to present any problems and discussions relative to the parking of trailers, etc., in the front yard, and that each section of the proposed ordinances should be thoroughly reviewed; therefore, any consideration would be at the February 27, 19G7 meeting. ITEM N0. 9 - Review of the General Plan Circulation Element ~l Highway Rights-of-Way and arterial streets and highways. Associate Planner h1arvin Krieger presente a report to the Commission relative to streets which should be studied in anticipation u~ possible General Plan amendments to ths Circula- tion [lement and inquired when tne Commission would lik? to se± consideration o` these at a`,uture work session; that the next ;~ork session would be primarily devoted to tlie Front-On Study, Phase III, and that perhaps the next work session in March could be designate;i ;or _, this special st.idy. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that Convention Way should be the first to be consicierec since he had discussion with the property owners near the convention center who presented the idea of extendiny Convention Way through to the Santa Ana Freeway. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that the Staff w~s nct desirous of navinr~ the Commission's decision on these General Plan amendmen~s; however, it was impor- tant that they be thoroughly discussed aL future work sessions, and that if there waa time at the work session o~ February 20, these could be reviewed in more detail. TEMPORARY ADJOURNMEIJT - There being no furtner business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn tne meeting to a work session on February 20, 1967, ai 7:00 ?.h;. Commissioner Hllred secondeo the motion. MOTIOiJ CP.RRTED. The meeting adjourned at 4:10 P.^d. 1':ORK SESSION - PRESENT: Commissioners P.llreo, Farano, Gauer, Y,erbst, ~OWLe~~Q~ Februarv 20, 1967 Camp. ABSENT: Commissioner biunyall. PRESENT: Development Services Director Alan G. Orsb~rn Assistant Development Services Director R~bert ~~Sickelson Planning Supervisor Ronald G-:dzinski Zoning 5upervisor Ronald Thon:NSOn Associate PlannersMarvin W. Krieger and John Christofferson City Engir.eer James td~addox Traffic Engineer Ed Granzow Fssistant Fire Chief James Heying Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts Planning Commission Secretary Ann Krebs Chairman C~mp convened the ~neetir~g at 7:10 P.hi., February 20, 1967, to discuss Phase III oi the F,esidential Front-Un Study and pessible consideration of th= General Plan Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way and axterial streets znd highways review. The ?lanning Staff presented to the Commission four proposals for the conversion of iront yards and setbacks of residentiai homes on arterials for their co:,sideration. Consider~ discussion was held between the Commission and tne Staff relative to the vari.ous rnatives presented, and at its conclusion, tne Co~rmission expressed the oe=ire tc s'udy exhibits ;urther in order that a policy might be established since it was ~c.~s:bl~ tt:e front-on situation might present a different pattern for screening the front yards to make them more habitable. ~ The Staff then suggested that the meeting of March 13, 1967, was relatively snort, and the ~ ~ Staff could present more detailed information for the Commission to consider at that meeting regarding Phase III site solutions. ei t, The Staff then reviewed on the General Plan tne areas proposed to be reviewed on the General !`~ ~. ~ Plan Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way - those streets involved bein9 dependent E: il f~ ~ r ' i ._. -ti ..~_ . .,.. _....__ . . ........ . __._.. °"A' . I ~_....-,. .. . ~ 7~ w s~a~ r - _ _ . . - -- - .~... ~ . ., ' ii 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 15, 1967 ' 3343 WORK SESSION Februarv 20. 1967 (Continued) upon the Center City Study and proposals for changes to the Santa Ana Freeway were discussed with the City Engineer and ihe Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Herbst requested that study be given to the possible =xtension of Olive Street along the Southern Pacific right-of-way to Ball Road to provide for additional circulation to and through the Southeast Industrial Area. Commissioner Herbst also requested that a stua; be made for consideration of an access road along both sides of the proposed Orange Freeway between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue, since this area would also be a primary, and access roads were necessary for ultimate development of the Southeast Industrial Area. Chairman Camp directed the Staff to present a revised list which would indicate those streets needing more immediate consideration, and to set them for public hearing as soon as all data had been prepared - preferably having these scheduled at a time when the Commission agenda was relatively short. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Chairman Camp adjourned `.he meeting at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, / ^ '/ L •. l!~~/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~~ ~ ~' 7 ' ~j ~ ~ : ~~ ~ i . :-'~ ~ ; i .._...___,:,. _ _..,.:.., __ _ .._., _ _ _ - - , „ _. . ~ . -- ~"_ -. ~ ~i ~