Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/01/29~ y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ,, ~~ City Hall ~ Anaheim, California. ~ January 29, 1968 , ~ A F.EGIJLAR MEETING-OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING.COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commissio s ` L n wa called to.order by Chairman Camp at Q:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being.present. _ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Campe ,:: - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT . - COM-,dISSIONERS: Farano. y~ ' PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ~ Deputy City Atforney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer Representative: Rob t Jo ;~ ~ er nes Associate Planner: Charles Roberts ~ Planning Comrt;ission Secretary: Ann Krebs r ~;~'. INWCATION - Reverend Hugh 0'Connor, Parish Priest, St. Justin Martyr Church a e th r~ , g v e invocation. ;~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ; ~ - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flage ~ APPROIlAL OF - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, THE M.[NUTES and motion ca i d to ~~ rr e approve the Minutes of the meeting of January I9~ 1968, as submitted. ~r4, '~,' , ;f, . STREET NAME CHANGE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEqRII~X',, INITIATED BY'TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING LINCOLN AVENUE TO COMMISSION 204 E t i j~ , as L ncoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider NOHL RANCH ROAD a street name change for Lincoln A ve y , nue easterly of the'Newport Freeway . , to Nohl Canyon'.Road (Walnuf~'Canyon Road) `t ~N ~'.° o ohl. Rarrch`.Road.~ ~' ~ . Associate.Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the reason for,continuance'of. the Commissior.'s~ consideration of a street name chan e fo Li ~>.. g r ncoln Avenue, noting that correspondence had'' been received from the Ora'nge County Street Naming Committee; thereup S th ar ' 'C ~~ on ecre£ e , ommission y read`the correspdndence from seid committee. ~ : ' "~' '~ _ Mr. Roberts further noted that the State of California Sign Department had not taken any . ~ steps to resign the various arterial highwa s a d f e ~ ~!~! ` y n r eways to reflect,the action taken by the City of Orange in renaming the 2400-foot portion of Lincoln Avenue di ti d n ~, ~; , c un o er their juris- I to Nohl Ranch Roed. `'< , ,r.,;;, Mr. John Lusk, representing Lusk Corporation and Mr, Louis Nohl, appeared before the Commission ~nd reviewed a a f +' m p o the Nohl Ranch area which depicted the course which Lincoln Avenue - a b0-foot wide street - took throu h th hi l t g e l y err~in of the Ranch and compared it with the width of Lincoln Avenue west of the Newport Freeway thoroughfare which a f 1 a , w o s a ma3or 26 feet in width. Mr. Lusk also noted that the policy of the:City and'the Street Naming Committee to discourage ~ different street names for one co ti 1'~ n nuous street was valid; however, a stre e t name c hange for j Lincoln A v e n u e eas ter ly of the freeway was a logical deli eatio ;;.i n n point, and the street would { pass through 5500 acres owned by ~ne person, said area and being considerabl differ th v r e 1 I '': y ent an that de eloped west of the freewayyp Furthermore, identification of the area was important since the onl acce t t e ,'t y ss o he freeway was at the ntrance of the Ranch, east of the Newport Freeway, where it changed from a c characte t r ommercial o a typically residential area. , Mr. Lusk, in response to Commission questionin9, stated that any street bearing the name ~ of "Nohl" would be changed if Li col v `J r n n A enue became Noh1 Ranch Road in order,to eliminate i any future confusion for street names. . ~ , , ,, Mr. Champ Crewse, 2022 Agate Street, Orange, appeared before the Commission, repreaenting members of the I'rinity Lutheran Church locat d i e at the intersection of D?~h1 Canyon Road and Lincoln Avenue, in opposition,to the proposed street h name c ange and stated that since the` church felt the existing neme was their mark of identificetio i n n an area developed with a church only, said church having purchased expensive~aroperty on~ the as u p ' _ s m tion that the facility ~745 i; ~ ~ ~°"~"~ `il ''~ .~fi. -: t°'~ ,'- s ' li~; r~ v~i 1ti~7~~f.'~~~r'~(~i~s'~"'~ >,~tt 5#~'y,S+t~,0.'y'+'k~,F~_'4"'~'~w'n1~r~~~i""°~r~''._.-~`"`"ta"'tl+'~ i': f ` l '~' ' ~'J ` ~ _""_"._"_'-' ~. ..._.. ' ".'_ MINUTES,~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 29, 1968 ~ 3746 STREET NAME CHAt~E - would be easy to locate because everyone.was familiar with the name LINCOLN AVENUE TU of Lincoln Avenue, and none would know where Nohl Ranch Road was NOHL RANCH ROAD located without constantly referring to a map - therefore, he urged (Continued) the Commission to reta'.n the name of Lincoln Avenue since the street had been known as that for some timea Reverend Willard L„ Co:-adson, Pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, appeared in opposition and reviewed many instances where changes in street names had created a particular hard- 'ship on attendance for church functions by other churches throughout Orange County, further noting that the Trinity Lutheran Church had to host these various functions from time to time, and easy identification with a known street name made it less likely that strangers to the area would not be able to find their way, and that since the church already was s~ established on the street, being the only property with a Lincoln Avenue address, he urged ~ the Commission to retain the street name of Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Alan Jennings, 8291 Orange Acres 1?rive, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission, noting he was president of the Peralta Hills Estates Improvement Association which was ad3acent to the Nohl Ranch; that he would like to point out several factors not previously presented ~ namely, that it had been only a few years ago that the County had established a committee which provided•a beneficial program to unify into one name all the different names assigned to one street, said street having passed through several cities' jurisdictions; that the assignment of one name was beneficial to both the new residents and visitors, and Lincoln Avenue traversed several types oi development throughout the five jurisdictions within the County of Orange; however, regardless of the action taken by the Commission, it was hoped the Commission would establish, or recommend the establishment of, a policy to adopt the actions taken by the Orange County Street Naming Committee who had been attempting to eliminate duplicate names of streets having continuity through several jurisdictions into one name, and such a policy would affect the entire City, thereby resolvi•ng a larger problem than having identification for 5500 acres within the County. Commissioner Gauer inquired of Mr. iusk why he felt Nohl Ranch Road was more appropriate than Lincoln Avenue; inrhereupon Mr. Lusk state:l that the new n~une would identify the area, and since the street would have access only t~ one freeway, it would help the people who worked in other areas to relate their area to a specific street, and it was very important to every property owner in this area. Furthermore, he had studied this at considerable length, and it was his opinion the street name change was important to the development of this';'acreage within the City. I'HE HEARIN:~ WAS CLASED. Discussion was.held by the Commission as to alternate street names, or a combination of street names for this one thoroughfare; that if another street name were approved for this thoroughfare, this would be a step backward in the progress made by the Street Naming Committee; that the proposed street name change would be good advertising on a State high- way of private property; that in order to have a benefit to the County as a whole, and the City of Anaheim in particular, it was important that duplicity of street names would be more confusing if direction from one street were changed with one name westerly and one easterly since one's sense of direction was difficult when leaving the freeway. Commissioner Row2and offered Resolution No. PC68-28 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that the name of Lincoln Avenue be retained for the alignment of the street easterly of the Newport Freeway on the basis that a continuity of street names should be maintai.ned throughout the City in order that areas may be easily located by the many visitors to the City, and lessen the confusion experienced by visitors and new residents of the City; furtherm~re, that the City of Orange be urged to change the name of the Lincoln Avenue alignment within its jurisdiction back to its original name to prevent the assignment of two names to one street. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ,'rl ~~ d''s,,`. ~~ ; a. ;j ': MINUTES,`CITY PLANNING COMid2SSI0N, Jar.uary 29, 1968 j, a : f 3747 STREET NAb~ C~HANGE - PUBLIC HEARIN3, INITIATED BY THE pNAHEIM CITY PLANIviNG CpMMISSION, NOHL CANYON ROAD 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing a street lU TRINITy DRIVE name change for Noh1 Canyon Road.between the Santa Ana Canyon Road on the north and Lincoln Avenue on the south to Trinity Drive. Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that as a result of the January 3, 1968 Planning Commission meeting to consider a request to rename Lincoln Avenue east,of the Newport Freeway to Nohl Ranch Road, the Commission directed the staff to advertise all other'streets bearing the name of "Nohl" for consideration of a street name:change; however, the only street within the City of Anaheim's ~urisdiction was Nohl Canyon Road, and the Nohl Ranch Lake Road was a private street formerly known as Walnut Canyon Road. Mr. Roberts also noted that the City of Orange had requested continuance of the Planning , Commission's consideration of the street name change until their Planning Commission had ~ an opportunity to review the proposed request. Furthermore, the Orange County Street Naming Committee had also suggested that if the Cominission would consider changing the name of Lincoln Avenue to Noh1 Ranch Road, then the procedure the Planning Commission was following, namely considering street name changes for any other streets bearing the ' , name of "Nohl", was in order and recommended that only one street bear the name of "Nohl". { A letter of opposition from a resident of the City of Orange was ~ presented to the Commi~ssion.~ The Commission further noted that since their action on Lincoln Avenue was to recommend the ~ retention of the name, if the City Council deemed it advisable to rename Lincoln Avenue, j then any consideration of Nohl Canyon Road should also be considered :or a name change. ~ T~E H~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No< PC68-29 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that no street name change for Nohl Canyon Road shall take place; however, if the Council determined that Lincoln Avenue should be changed to Nohl Ranch Road, that favorable consideration be given to a street name change.for Noh1 Canyon Road. ~(See Resolution Book)' . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: A~Sj ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COI~IINISSIONERSs None. ABSENIi NMMISSIONERS: Faranoe CONDITIONAL• USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGe JOHN WRIGHT, 1620 South Euclid Street, PE~IT ~• 992 Anaheim, California, Owner; VERNON DAVIS, 11933 Beach Boulevard, Stanton, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN ADULT ONLY,'147-SPACE MOBILE 1-bME PARK on property described as: A rectengularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 650 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approximately 1,270 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 112 feet south of the centerline of Cris Avenue, and further described as 1620 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the property, the proposed request, existing zoning and noted that 19 acres were involved in the R-A Zone, and that the petition had been continued from the meeting of January 3, 1968, in order to allow time for the petitioner and the Southern California Edison Company to resolve problems regarding the Edison easement along the southerly boundary of subject property, and for the staff to develop overlays for possible single-family residential use of subject property. Mr. Roberts noted that revised plans indicated guest parking had been removed, and the ~ primary access had been relocated approximately 130 feet northerly of the easeme~t; that the petitioner had indiceted he proposed to reduce the grade elevation on the front portion of the property in order that the trailers would not be visible above the masonry wall along ' Euclid Street; and that the petitioner had also indicated the State law now permitted the removal of the wheels of mobile homes, which would further reduce the visual awareness of the mobile homes from abutting.residences to the east and north. 1~'. Roberts also noted that the staff had examined subject property in terms of dwelling units and population density for the proposed development and compared these statistics with those generated by single-family development as depicted in the Report to the ~ Commission under "Evaluation , Finding No. 10. R:.~ ;_~~44 ~~ ~~kM6'~'.+r~{y -•.~~"~,r,'` y~ ~.*'xy~A..~At~+'r~,~`~~-p"r rmr w4r r ~• r ~r ~-.rvr~X~am~r „*ru.~c- ,..~:9~7'~ ~;s•~mr 2yf,.~y9 F > ,,~ r . r,~ l - U ~ ~~ MINUTHS, CITY PLANNIIv;: roh1MISSION, January 29, 1968 3748 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the agent~ appeared before the PERMIT N0. 992 Commission and noted that the basic concern of the Commission was (Continued) •i,ne land use of subject property; that Euclid Street for a five-mile - route had been changed, and no single-family residential use would be established on the street, or had occurred for the past six to seven years, and, furthermore, the majority of the single-family residential development which had occurred on the street was prior to the exceptionally.high increase in traffic count; that the east side of Euclid Street south of Ball Road had multiple-family devel- opment, a library, a fire station, and commercial uses immediately ad,jacent to the Anawood tract, which seemed to be compatible with each other; that he had traveled the length of Euclid Street and found only three parcels still available for residential use; that the :==: opposition expressed at the previous meeting indicated they were not opposed to multiple- '_g family development or a.mobile home park - only in the density of the use, which should ':;'~;~~. be similar to R-l, and recent fi9ures indicated that le7 persons was usually calculated as the residential density of a mobile unit, or approximately 250 persons in the proposed `~ mobile home park, while density fer R-1 calculated at :s,? persons would be approximately ; the same - however, the difference was that the adult IliOAi.a home park would not generate use of public school facilities and would have .its own recreational facilities totally °''~Yi within the park - nor would any traffic pass through the R-1 development from the mobile ' ,< home park. Mr. Knisely, in response to Commission questioning regarding the lack of guest parking, indicated the proposed parking was in excess to that required. Furthermore, if favorable considpration were given to development of the property for R-1 use,•this property would not be developed because the owner of the property intended to lease the property rather than sell since a portion of the property was under the Edison easement and could never have any permanent development on it - thereby reducing the amount of return for the property, while the proposed use would utilize this easement for recreational purposes and remove an eyesore of unsightly appearance with weeds, debris, etc. Mr. Paul Allen, 1732 West Cris Avenue, appeared before the Carmnlssion in opposition, stating his property abutted subject property to the north; that the agent for the peti- tioner did not indicate the amount of single-fam3ly residential development on Euclid Street since a number of homes had been constructed on Palais Road easterly in 1961 and 1962, and these were sold very ~uccessfully; thai Mr, McMichael was 3ust now construct!.r.g single-family homes easterly of Euclid Street, south of Broadway; that increase of traffic did:not seem to be a deterrent for development of $35,000 to $40,000 homes on the east side of Brookhurst Street, and subject prc;~erty could easily be developed for a similar. use; that comments made regarding the Edison =asement and the railroad should not be taken into consideration since the petitioner had purchased the property with the full knowledge of the possible deterring factors in future development of the property; that there now was one mobile home park along that area, although it might be in the City of Garden Grove, and approval of subject petition could set a precedent and pattern of development of the other vacant,parcels in the immediate vicinity, thus making Euclid Street a"trailer park row"; and that if oversaturation of these parks were permitted, they would no longer be economi- cally feasible to limit them to adults only, bringing in the influx of children and other undesirable elements which the R••1 residents in the area were anxious to avoid. Mrs. A. D. Shankman, 1617 South Loara Street, appeared in opposition, stating her property was adjacent to the east of subject property; that she was concerned that traffic from the trailer park would endanger the children in the neighborhood, and the environment which might be established througti approval of the mobile home park would have a detrimental effect on the area; that there was no guarantee the standards which the petitioner indicated would be established in the park would be maintained; and that the petitioner had not ' indicated he had investigated the possibility of developing the property for single-family residential use. Mr. Knisely, in rebuttal, stated that controls could be established for the park as part of the approval of subject petition - however, the mobile home park operators who were professionals had more restrictions than could be imposed by the City~ that there were very few parcels of land large enough to develop for another mobile home park in this area to warrant fear that Euclid Street would develop into a trailer park row; that the regula- tions imposed on prospective mobile home residents, such as selective method of approving residents for the park, type and age of vehicles, etce, were much more restrictive and would never be dmposed if this developmenf were for an R-l community; and that the only development along Euclid Street which had occurred since the last tract was commercial and multiple-family use. Furthermore, subject property would never be used for R-1, 7200-square foot lots, and the proposed park would offer a more quiet environment, acting as a buffer between the railroad tracks since a masonry wall would be constructed along the periphery of the property; that the grade of the property would be lowered; and that wheels would be removed from the mobile homes, which would further reduce any visual intrusion into the R-1 development surrounding subject property, F,'' _ y .. . . , ; . ;. y ` w+ a ~ . .~. ~ .', ~:. „~ ; : ~ tc S1 ~i~ . ~. ,.n '~.~~..~ .... ~. . ' ,.',~. . .. . . .. , ~'.. ~ T ,~t~ a~ ~ s l k ~ .~%, s r t I~. r ~. ~r ~.. 2` r.~t ~ -~ Y , 5 • n 4 i.l :n L ._-~_ - v~ ~ . . . ~ .< :. +..~ ~ ' ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~ ~ + t.ay ~ ~1 . _ MINllTES, CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION,.January 29, 1968 3749 . . . ~ `.~.'j ; rn ~~ r`' CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission noted this was the first time they had heard the .1 ~~ PERMIT N0. 992 clientele of a mobile home park was selected so carefully and ""~.' (Continued) inquired why units no older than two years were permitted; whereupon ' ~.:';;~ '' " Mr. Knisely stated that persons renting adjoining spaces were just ; ' . as concerned with ~th2 quality and types of residents for the area as ` l; were the single-family ~omeowners. ;;~ '; ~i Mr. Knisely, in response to Commission questioning regarding the type of commitment made ,K~+ by the Southern California Edison Company, stated he had held several meetings with the ~• ~ local representatives of Southern California Edison, and they were in a9reement with the `;.,. proposed development; however, official agreement from the main office still was forth- ;'~ "~~ coming, and if no agreement were reached regarding the use of the easement, then any ;;;;:~ attempt to develop subject property for the mobile home park would be terminated since ~i;;~ the recreation facility was of utmost importance to the development of the park. ~•r Mr. Allen requested answers from Mr. Knisely for some questions he had; namely, how could ' enforcement of the rules and regulations for mobile home parks just indicated by the agent be accomplished. Mr. Knisely replied that these rules and regulations would be handled by the owner of the mobile home park. Mre Allen then inquired whether or not the standards would be lowered if difficulties were encountered, thus further reducing the desirability of the area. Mr, Knisely •replied that the investment in the mobile home park was considerable, and the interests of the residents of ihe park were more demanding than that of an R-1 area. Mr. Allen then noted that their bedrooms would be adjacent to the access road of the mobile home park, and since the~mobile home park residents would be leaving the premises earlier than the average family, this would be very disruptive to the health of his children; furthermore, the single-family homeowners would have difficulty in refinancing ' their properties if a mobile home park were approved, thus affecting the desirability of i these homes and their market values. i ' Mrs.!Shankman again appeared and stated that the residents of the area were fortunate in ~ ; t~ having within the community an outstanding junior and senior high school, with many people ~ .'' being desirous of purchasing homes in this school area - thus it seemed lo9ical that sub3ect property could be developed for single-family use and be sold without any difficulty.' ~ ;;~ ` Mr. John'Wright, the property owner, appeared before the Commission and advised that it was ; , ' ;,; not his intent to sell this property and then read a letter which indicated a type of lease , :. propoeed for the mobile hoine park, and at its conclusion noted it was•good business to have a high-quality mobile home park in this area since it would reduce the amount of policing now being done; that he also had two children going to schools in the area and it was his intent to purchase a home in this area since he also fovr~d it a desirable environment in which to rear his family; that he had looked at other mobile home parks which were ad3acent to R-1 homes and no difficulties seemed to have arisen from possible incompatibility since any undesirabie residents were removed from the park as part of the lease of the mobile home park. Mrs. V. G. Manke, 1666 West Cris Avenue, appeared in opposition, noting that the Commission questioned the amount of guest parking provided; that she had a very close association with mobile home parks and many of the residents were not complei:ely retired persons - thus many would have at least two automobiles, and thase families with adult children would increase the number of automobiles, and, therefore, it was important to require as much parking as possible without having the minimum requirement s3.nce many parks would not have areas which would permit parking on public streets. Furthermore, the statement made that a masonry wall would be constructed around the periphery of this property was of concern to many of the homeowners in this area because their walls were only five feet in height, which would not provide the privacy necessary between the,proposed use and the existing uses, and it was urged that higher walls be required, and then Mrs. Manke inquired whether the proposed wall would abut the existing walls since the existing walls were on the single-family homeowners'properties. The Commission advised interested persons that the height required for a six-foot masonry wall was measured from the highest finished grade level of subject or abutting properties, thus assuring complete privacy. Mrs. Gordon Davidson, 1601 South Loara Street, noted she had heard many disreputable persons lived in mobile home parks,which could have an undesirable influence on small children living in the R-l homes abutting subject property. 4'1' c"~. ~~'t~b ~'4"t:~.~ ti;L k ~t'`~'rj +c~ }v . a .;. ~ .;~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 29~ 1968 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 992 (Continued) .~~ ~ • `~ ' .. .~ I 3750 ~ ,';';;`?~ ~ - A showing of hands indicated 15 persons present in opposition to ,~ sub~ect petition. ;.~~ THE HEARIIS WAS CLOSED, ,':.:~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that 3f sub3ect petition were ~ ~~` considered favorably, recommended conditions of approval required compliance with plans ' presented and,:therefore, the Edison Company approval of the plans would be necessary, ~'~~'~ and if any changes were proposed, plans would have to be presented to the Commission for ~ " approval. i ;; Commissioner Herbst expressed the opinion that prior to the public hearing he had driven I ; around sub3ect property trying to analyze the use for the property; that sub~ect property ~ could be developed for R-1, R-2, or R-3, and one of the things to its advantage was that ~ a trailer park which in hi ti i ~ ~ , s es mat on would become a rather large one, would be entirely isolated and would have no access to the single-family development su di ; =' rroun ng it, provid- ing only access to and from the property via Euclid Street; that subject property had the ail d ~ r roa and the easement on the south side of the property, and the easement could be utilized for recreational pur oses fo th t i :' p r e ra ler park - therefore it was his opinion there would be no detrimental effects on the single-family homeown i ~ ers s nce protection was being provided by a six-foot masonry wall, and with the State law permitting removal of the h l w ee s on which the trailer rested~ this would further reduce any visual intrusion; and that he h d ' a an opportunity to check the newer aspects of trailer park living condi- tions, and in many instances found them considerabl bett th th ~ y er an e R-1 environment. ~s r~' Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-30 and moved :or its passage and adoption, seconded by Cotmnissioner Allred t t P i ~ , o gran et tion for Conditional Use Permit No. 992, subject to conditions as outlined in the Repcrt to the Commission a d f ~,,,. ' ..;,,;'. ~ , n urther provided that a six-foot masonry wall shall be required along the north and east boundaries of ~ ~ °;~ sub3ect property as measured from the highest finished grade level~ and further provided that a six-foot landscape stri h ll b l p s a e p anted along said six-foot masonry wall. (See Re l ti so u on Book) On roll call.the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OONWIISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOESe COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. TENTATIVE MAp OF - DEVELOPER: EMPIRt FINANCIAL WRPORATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, TRACT N0. 4230, Van Nuys, California. ENGINEER: Millet, King g Associates, Inc., REVISION N0. 9 511 South Brookhurst Road, Room 107, Fullerton, California. Subject tract, located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue approximately 660 feet west of Beach Boulevard and containing approximately 9.72 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 29 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL and 2 C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONED lots. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Revision No. 9 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230 to the Planning Commission, noting that subject property had been considered at the December 18, 1967 meeting in con~unction with Variance Nos. 1925 and 1926; that Variance No. 1925 had been withdrawn at said public hearing; and that the Commission had recommended to the developer that the tract map be revised to incorporate standard 70-foot width and 7200-square foot lots, instead of those p•ropcsed of 66-foot width and 6600-square foot lots, It was further noted that the developer had complied with the recommertdations of the Commis- sion and had further provided for the extension of Del Monte Drive westerly. Mr. Roberts further noted that if the Planning Commission considered sub~ect tract favorably, - a recommendation by resolution to the City Council amending the 1e9a1 description of the R-3 portion of Reclassification No. 62-63-64 should be made since the present tract map indicated that the C-l lots would be only 164 feet instead of the approved 189 feet; this 164 feet plus the 20-foot alley would still leave 5 feet of the two abutting R-3 lots zoned C-1. Mr. p. Edelsohn, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and noted that in addition to the one-foot strips known as Lots "A", "B", and "C", another 1ot known as Lot "D" should be designated where it abuts the westerly property line adjacent to the proposed extension of Del Monte Drive to prevent any crossing over of the dirt area and utilizing the alleys to gain entrance to the tract or onto Lincoln Avenue. S X 7~~~ ~ ~~ _-~'.' _- ~ N n~r~ ~: ~'x* t~,tu ;,, . ~ c ~ ~~ ~, xS ~iC`~".~ta~ r ~Ak " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ A~ ~1 f .P a ,ya r ~ ..~ c_ s ~J ~. ~ . r . ~ a ' ~ 1 ~e ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ._~~... _._ . . . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~,' . . . . . . ~I . 1- ~-.._: ,~T MINUTES, CITY PLA NNING COMMISSION, January 29, 1968 3751 '~`.~ ?ENTATIVE MAP-OF - Office Engineer Representative Robert Jones indicated that the `? TRACT N0.~4230, developer could dedicate "in fee" Lot "D" for a one-foot wide ! f; REVISION N0. 9 64-foot strip at the time the rinal tract , was approved - this, then, `..~ (Continued) would give the City of Anaheim some measure of control for access ~~ purposes. ~ :~ i ^;: Commissioner Rowland offered a moi:ion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230, ~x ; Revision No. 9, subject to the following conditions: ~a ~ P~ 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230, Revision No. 9, is ~s~•-,~ granted subject to the approval and completion of Reclassification Noe 62-63-64 and Variance No. 1926> :, ~k,~'P',,ca ' °:s+ '~' p '~~'~ 2. That should this subdivision be develo ed as more than one subdivision, y ; y~ ~` ~ each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. :'~' '~:kw `~•- •~ 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ~T~j:.... }3 :; 4. That a predetermined price for Lots "A", "B", and "C" shall be calculated r;;;.'~; and an agreement for dedication entered into between the developer and ~ the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map. The cost ~'~ of Lots "A", "B", and "C" shall include land and a proportionate share ,~ of the underground utilities and street improvements. ~ ' 5. That the drainage shall be discharged into the Orange County Flood Control "~:,;;,,~ District channel by means oi an underground system meeting the approval of ;?-i3..;:,~; the City Engineer and the Orange County Flood Control District. ~;,','':t''~ ~'`~°';'y 6. That Lot "D", one foot in width shall be shown at the westerly terminus ~~,~~:F;:,~. of Del Monte Drive and shall be dedicated in fee on the Final Tract Map sst~';; to the City of Anaheime k,` ` ;;,L ~~ °ti; EyM;. 2~„s~;~y Commissioner Gauer seconded the moiion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ _. ,,,. _ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution t~o. PC68-31 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that an amendment be made 4,, to`the legal description of Reclassification No. 62-63-64 to incorporate an increase in .';~ the square footage of the R-3 and a reduction in the squaxe footage of the C-1, as depicted '~ on the legaI description. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONQv1ISSI0NERS: Alired, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. VARIANCE N0. 1942 - PUBLIC HEARING. CALIFORNIA ~MPUTER PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, 305 North Muller Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT '11N0 TEMPORARY SIGNS IDENTIFYING TIiE SITE AS THE FUTURE HOME OF AN INDUSTRIAL FIRM on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Gilbert Street and La Palma Avenue, having frontages of approximately 830 feet on Gilbert Street and approximately 780 feet on La Palma Avenue, and being bounded on the north by the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Santa Ana Freeway. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the proposed request, noting that the types of signs proposed were permitted in the M-1 Zone; however, the property must be occupied-while subject property would be the future home of the Cali- fornia Computer Products Company, and ground would be brnken within a year for t.his facility,; and the signs were necessary for identification purposes f~~r builders, contrzctors, potential employees, etc.; and the petitioner indicated that the siyns would be removad at the time the building was occupied. Mr. Roberts further noted that if the Commission considered subject petition favorably, they might also wish to consider directing the staff to draft.an amendment to the Sign Ordinance permitting this type of sign on proposed locatinns of future industries. Mr. Robert Sharp, Facilities Nranager of Cal-Comp Products, appeared before the Commission, stating they had purchased the property.being considered by the Commission, and there weie plans to develop this site to saturation occupancy for manufacturing purposes, and ground ~~ ::; '~~i. '.;~~ < p~. !-.` i ~' ~"' fS.'}c '~nr ; _ `~t '~ ~*~~i ~ r3Y ~ 3 .: r~ ~ ~.. :, - vt ~ ~~ Y., . ,. . . . -: ~.::.:..-,_, . ~ .. . . . . . ~ ~ ~~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~ COINMISSION, January 29, 1968 3752 VARIANCE Np; 1942 - would be broken for a 250,000-square foot facility within nine months. (Continued) Furthermore, that a master plan for ihe site occupancy of 27 acres would be available within six to eight months, in order that the City would be apprised of the proposed development and what was proposed for development of the balance of the property; however, in the meantime, it was desirous to have identification of the site as their new location to inierest future employees and customers. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that t}ie proposed signs were temporary, and a time limitation could be granted for these signs if the Commission considered subject petition favorablye :;~:c Mr, Sharp advised the Commission that in his estimation a time limitation of not more than „~? 18 months was necessary since the signswould be removed upon completion and occupancy of t,' the building, at which time a diffe,rent type of sign permitted under code would be constructed ' Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that at the end of the time limita- r tion established by the Commission if subject petition were granted, the petition could be reviewed, and if additional contiquance were necessary, this could be determined at that time; however, some type of a cash bond to guarantee removal of the signs should be required. Mr. Sharp advised the Commission, in response to questioning, that it was anticipated to have approximately 1,100 employees in the new facility, while presently they were employing under 700 personse No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-32 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1942 for a period of 18 months, subject to the filing of a bond to insure removal of the signs at the expiration of the time limitation. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the staff to consider amending the Sign Ordinance to permit temporary off-site signs identifying sites as future homes of specific establishments, such as just approved for Cal-Comp Products. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NJ. 1943 - SoI.R. DEVELOAMENI' COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 1314 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH EXISTING AND PROPpSED REAL ESTATE SIGNS AND BANNERS AS A~NFORMING USE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 1,275 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 430 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENI'IAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the proposed signs and the Report to the Commission, noting that the petitioner was requesting 11 existing advertising signs and banners to be established as conforming uses and permission to instell an additional 12 signs in the public right-of-way where the R-1 and R-2-5000 subdivisions were proposed to be developed northerly of those existing.signse Furthermore, the Anaheim Sign Ordinance was designed specifically to permit a total of three temporary, for-sale or for-lease signs of a maximum area of 250 square feet to advertise new tracts of homes within the city, and at the time the ordinance was developed, both the Planning Commission and the City Council felt the permitted signs were sufficient to advertise new residential subdivisions consistent . with the objectives and goals of the community, in order to retain its special character and economic advantages which rested primarily in the quality of its appearance and eliminating sign clutter. Mr. Robert Solomon, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the existing and proposed signs and flags were important to provide direction and information to prospective buyers who were driving up and down Brookhurst Street tryin9 to locate the sales office of the tract. ~ ~~4~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 29, 1968 ~ ~1 3753 - VARIANCE N0. 1943 - Mr. Solomon, in response to Commission questioning, noted that there (Continued) still were four homes to be sold in the present tract, and they antici- pated constructing 20 more homes. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition< THE HEARIIS WAS CLOSEDe Discussi~n was held by the Commission relative to the proposed request, and it was determined that the Sign Ordinance provided adequately for any signing of new~tracts, and any deviation from the Sign Ordinance would set an undesirable precedent for similar requests of other single and multiple-family tracts requesting the same permission; furthermore, the petitioner was asking for waiver of 800~ more than normally allowed under the ordinance, and regardless of the time limitation that might be assigned to granting such a request, its deleterious effects would be monunentale Commissiona~r Gauer offered Resolution Noa PC68-33 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1943 on the basis that there were no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to warrant granting subject petition;~ that the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a sub- stantial property right enjoyed by o~hers and not enjoyed by the petitioner; that the request~ for encroachment in the public right-of-way could be granted only by the ~ity Council - ~ however, the proposed request would be contrary to all regulations of the Sign Ordinance, and, therefore, should be denied; that the petitioner's request for waiver of more than an 80d,~K increase over that permitted by Code would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests of other subdivision developments now being constructed or proposed to be constructed throughout the cityo (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campa NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSEN'I': ODMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~ ~ Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:30 P,Ma ~ i 1 ~, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIEARII~. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNII~ COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 58-59-65 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider DELETION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS WHICH PRESENTLY LIMIT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IU CERTAIN SPECIFIED USES on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and West Street and having frontages of approximately 385 feet on La Palma Avenue and 220 feet on West Streete Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEe CONDIT70NAL USE - PUBLIC fiEARING. INITIATED BY THE C7.TY PLANNING ODMMISSION, 204 East PERMIT NOe 998 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; requesting permission to USE AN EXISTING REST F~ME AS A FDSPITAL ANNEX FOR AMBULAI'ORY PATIENTS REQUIRING MINIMAL CARE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel having a frontage of approximately 80 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum' depth of approximately 680 feet, being bounded on th~ south by the Carbon Creek Flood Control channel and the easterly boundary being approximately 350 feet west of the centerline of West Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL (~~MAIERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted that both Reclassificati~n No. 58-59-65 and Condi- tional Use Permit No. 998 we:e initiated by the Planning Commiss.Lon to consider the request of the Anaheim Memorial Hospital relative to utilizing the existing Hillhaven Convalescent Hospital as an annex to the Anaheim Memorial Hospital, permittin.g ambulatory patients who would requiie minimal care to be housed in the rest home; therei`ore, both petitions would be considered at one time. Mr. Roberts also noted that a request by Mr. McAlvin, Administxatox of the hospital, had I been considered at the Commission's January 15, 1968 meeting, and the staff had been directed ; to advertise for public hearing subject property and the proposed use since tna strict ' interpretation of Ordinance No. 1422 would not permit consideration of the limited uses permitted un~er the C-1 zoning which was deed restricted to a hospital. ~_ Mr. James McAlvin, Administrator of the Anaheim Memorial Hospital, appeared before the Commission and stated that the staff had thoroughly covered the request for clarification at the previous Commission hearing. - ~'. ~ r •,,p4 ~~tl~q~ ~ t~K~l~,,~'4F,. ~i~~F"'~,~, .,~'~w'~~~;,~s~aF~ .~e`~ .ry i e . ~ { ~ r _ n . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ ~~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY pypNNING Cp ~ ~~ MMISSION, January 29, 1968 I~ECLASSIFICATION - No one a 3754 ~. 58-59-65 APeared in opposition to subject petitions. , CONDITIONAL USE THE HEpR=~, yyqS CLOSEDe PERMIT`N0. 998 (Continued) Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the bY the hospital of the existing rest home pT~Posed use located for provision of extended care at~greatig that it was ideally in the event a medical problem would arise, the hospital was directly across the ~'~~ from the rest home to Y reduced rates, and provide for this emergency care, street ;- 2oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if subject considered favorably, the Commission might desire to direct the staff to amend the defi 5_~,~ tion section of the Anaheim Municipal Code to include hospital convalescentthomessaseae ~~ permitted use in the C-1 Zone. ni- yyY '~ i.•~; Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. the Mayor be requested to approve an amendmen8 to~deedrrestrictionstto include hospital uses in the uses heretofore Y Council that Commissioner Mungall seconded the motionmitted in the C-1 Zone on subject 9eneral ~'?;? (See Resolution Book) Aroperty, ;;~' On roll call the fore oin resulution was '~ g 9 passed by the following vote: 1~ A~S~ ~MMISSIONERS: NOES: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Atungall, Camp. ` COMMISSIONERS: None. 'Y~ : ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, PC(g-35 and moved for its seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 998 unconditionall Aassage and adoption, ye (See Resolution Booky On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followi ' AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst °g ~ote: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ~ Mungall, Camp. ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the staf£ to ~ consideration of a change to the definition section of the Anaheim Municipal Code to ~ include hospital convalescent homes as a p Prepaxe for public hearing the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ermitted use. Commissioner Mungall seconded j Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3d40 P.M, RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLIC HEqRING, WILLIA;:, DpyyLIN~',~ 3115 Flintridge Drive, Fullerton, ~• 67-68-48 California, and FRANCIg DpyyLING p~ Owners; R. A. WATT ~MPANY ' ~• Box 412, Beaumont, California, TENTATIVE Mpp pg California, Agent; requesting6thatsouth Western Avenue, Gardena, TRACT N0. 5389, sha ed pro ert described as: REVISION N0, 3 P parcel containing approximatelyp27 acres, bounded onAthernorthaby Crowther Avenue, on the west by Kraemer Boulevard, and on the south by TEMATIVE INpp Orangethorpe Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURpI, TRACT Ap, ~F~ to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILy Zp~, 5623, , 20NE REVISION N0, 4 Subject tracts, located at the northeast corner of Kraemer Boulevard are proposed~for subdivisiontinton83aand~ximatel lots. 76 R-2- OOO,a0NE1FAMILYSZONED Associate Planner Charles.Roberts reviewed the location of the which was R-A, but had a resolution of intent to R-3 on which conditions had not completed and which had been a Property.and'existing ioning proposed R-2-5000 zoning on twoPtractsb oneeconsistingcof 83 lots;andathehother 76elots and that as a result of a petitioners ~ Plan was amended to reflect medium~density~forlthearcels in this trian le ; azea was deemed a property instead of9M-7~, the General logical. APropriate for medium density, the request for R-2-5000 wasaconsideredhe Mr. John M. Grindle, representing the developer of the proposed subdivision, a ~ the Commission and stated that subject property was under option to be ~ and conditions of approval of the tracts met with their a APeared before ~ to build houses only, pproval since itrwasstheir intent ~~r ~.~.:~...~,*,n,K~ ~~ ,~5+~ _ ~. ~ . ~_ . .., . ,_., ~} ~ t~f i, ~t y w~ xF".~~ r c' t ~ sY .Y' "~. ' I x~ ~ { S, , . . ...-.... .:_"_: .. . . . -- _.......""""'_. "" _- ' .. ~ ~ ' - . ~\ . ` ~~ . . ~/' ~ . V ! ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 29, 1968 3755 RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso N0. 67-68-48 TEHTATIVE MAP OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. TRACT N0. 5389, REVISION NOe 3 Commissioner Herbst expressed opposition and concern regarding allow- TENTATIVE MAP OF ing construction of single-family homes in the industrial area, even TRACT N0. 5623, though the :.ity Council had approved R-3 zoning, since he did not feel REVISION N0. 4 this was the intent of the City Council when this was app=oved; (Continued) furthermore, the owners of theee homes were more permanently located while residents of apartmente could move-if-the living environment became unbearable - this being the difference between permitting the apartments and homes; that the proposed subdivision would be located in the heart of the Anaheim-Placentia industrial area~ and it would be the first time a single-family subdivisior had been approved for a parcel within the industrial area; and that he was unalterably opposed to this encroachment into the industrial area since subject property was bounded on the north by a primary highway and the main line of a railroad, which would have spurs into the ind~.astrial properties, thereby creating considerable noises which were not compatible to the combined reaidential-industrial useso This, then, would be the start of a breakdown of the prime industrial area of the City of Anaheim, and, furthermore, with the additional homes, this would place properties formerly self supporting, such as industrial properties, to be dependent on other areas for support and would require another school and park - which had not been provided for in the General Plan. Commissioner Allred concurred in Commissioner Herbst's statements, noting that this would be a form of spot zoni.ng even though this area was designated by the City Council for residen- tial purposes. Commissioner Herbst also noted that the Placentia School District had expressed concern about similar requests before, and to approve subject petitions would be a disservice to the taxpayers of the County - appxoving a use which was not self supporting, and then inquired whether or not the City of Placentia had voiced any concern about the proposed petitions. ' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that no official correspondence had been received from the City of Placentia; however, he had talked with the Planning Director who had indicated he was aware of the shift in policy for this property through the General Plan amendment, pro~ecting medium density for the property within this triangl,e, and that the City of Placentia was still considering the area northerly of subject,property for industrial purposes. Commissioner Herbst noted that the property on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard had been zoned C-1 and C-3 on the basis that the property would be developed for recreational facili- ties which would be supported by industrial uses which were established in the area; however, the property was never developed for the intended purpose. ,r~ :'i~ :;~ Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission'should take'a long-range view when consider- ing the proposed development, even though the Commission had previously voted against any intrusion of resident~ial uses for subject property, since the advisory board, namely the City Council, had decided this residential use was appropriate - thus the proposed density and in3ection of traffic into the industrial area would be considerably less than if sub~ect property were developed for multiple-family apartments. Therefore, any denial of the pro- posed request would only delay development of subject property which eventually would be approved for the use since the :t-?-5000 Zone was written to accommodate a less intense use of property approved for R-3 ~.•~•': g. Commissioner Herbst then stated that as a Commissioner he felt he would be 9oing an injustice to taxpayers and the existing industries in this area by favorably considering homes for this area, which in his opinion were in direct conflict with the industrial uses. Furthermore, this area was rapidly being developed for industrial uses and in a few months would be devel- oping into one of the finest industrial areas in the State. Commissioner Herbst, in response to the discussion by the Commission as to the reason why Autonetics decided to expand into Laguna Beach, stated that there were other reasons than lack of living quarters for the employees, which he was not at liberty to discusse Mr. Thompson noted that the City of Placentia had approved a hospital and a trailer park adjacent to the commercial uses shown on the General Plan, and directly ad~acent to the southwest of the trailer park a planned residential development had been established. 7 1:' ' s~4. ~~~ Z~t . .. . ~. .. ~~(~~v. r . , . ~. ~ ~ . ( V~. ~ . . ~ MINUTES,. CITY PLANNING OJMMISSION, January 29, 1968 ' RECLASSIFICATION NOe 67-68-48 TENTAI'IVE MAP OF TRACT NJ. 5389, REVISION NOe 3 TENTATIVE MAP OF `; TRACT N0. 5623, REVISION N0. 4 (Contiwed ) VJ ~ ' A~ M"i 3756 :;~a :~;"t - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion i:o recommend to the City Council thet Petition for Reclassification Noe 67-68-48 be disapproved on the basis that the in~ection of single-family homes into the heart of, the industrial area was an.incompatible use even though subject pioperty had been approved for medium density development. Commissioner Allred seconded the motione The motion failed to carry on vote ofa "ayes" - Commissioners Allred and Herbst; "noes" ~ Commiseioners Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, and Camp. Commissioner Camp noted that although he agreed with the statements, made by Commissioners Allred and Herbst, the City Council for the past several years had indicated to the property owners that if an R-3 development were presented and accepted by the City, the property owners could develop the properties for residential purposes, and this had been done by the petiticners. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noo PC68-36 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-48 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OONWIISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbsta ABSENT: CO~IMISSIONERS: Faranoe Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5389, Revision No. 3, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5389, Revision No. 3, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-48. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings to Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 4. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating Lot Nose 1 through 14 and 77 through 83 from Orangethorpe Avenue and on the west property line separating Lot Nose 69 through 76 from Kraemer Boulevarda Reasonable landscaping, includ- ing irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said land- scaping to be submitted to and sub,ject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilitiese 6. That Tract No. 5389, Revision Noe 3, shall be developed prior to the development of Tract No. 5623, Revision Noe 4, in order that adequate drainage of sub~ect property may be assurede 7. That Streets "A" and "F" sha11 6e named Landfair Street; that Street "C" shall be named Rutherford Street; that Street "E" shall be named Kent Street; that Street "G" shall be named Sheffield Street; that 5treet "H" shall be named Oxford Street; and that Street "B" shall be named Radcliffe Avenuea Commissioner Gauer seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe Commissioners Allred and Herbst voted "no"e Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5623, Revision No. 4, subjeat to the following conditions: ~ 1. That the approval of Tentat.tve Map of Tract Noe 5623, Revision No. 4, is granted sub~ect to the approval of Reclassification Noa 67-68-48a 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivtsion, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval, ;4''~.~' ~. - ~.~ ~ `~ . MINUTES, CIT7G PLANNING COMMISSION,:January 29,_1968 3757 RECLASSIFICATION - - - -.3. That the.vehicular access rights,except at street and~or alley N0. 67 68 48' ' openings to Crowther Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard~ shall be TENTATIVE MAP.OF . dedicated'to the City of'qnaheime- ; TRACT 'NO,. .5389, REVISION NO.. 3 ' 4e That in accordance with City Council,policy~ a G-foot masonry ':TENTATIVE MAP,°OF - ` ' wall shall be constructed on the north property line separating .TRACT,ND: ~9623, ' Lot Nos.,6, 7~ and.19 through 36 from Crowther Avenue and the • 'REVISION N0. 4 west pioperty line seperating'Lot Nose 37 through 45 from (Continued) Kraemer Boulevard, except that the walls for corner Lot Nose 6 and 7 shel~l be stepped down to a height of thirty inches in the ' front yard se,tback, and'except that pedestrian openings`shall be'provided'in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned ~ highways right-of-way line of an.arterial highwayo Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed . in the`uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of sa.3d wall~ plans for said landscaping to be - submitted to and sub~ect to the approval of the Superintendent of Perkway Maintenancea Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for main- tenance of said'landscapinga 5e That all lots within this tract shall be,served by underground utilities. 6. That Tract Noe 5389, Revision Noa 3, shall be developed prior to the development of Tract Noe 5623, Revision No. 4, in order that adequate drainage of sub~ect property may be assured. 7< That Street "C" shall be named Rutherford Street; that Street "D" shall be named Lancaster Avenue; that Street "E" shall be named Kent Street; that Street "F" shall be named Landfair. Street; that Street "G" shall be named Sheffield Street; and that Street "H" shall be named Oxford Street. s'~. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe Commissioners Allred and ~~G" . Herbst,:voted: "~o~~, ,z~p, - . i:,;,~ Commissioner;Mungall offered Resolution No, PC66=37 and moved.for its passage and adoption, ',;. seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to terminate all proceedings on Petition for Reclassification~ No> 62-63-112; based on the`fact that approval of R-2-5000 zoning under Reclassification ~'ti Noe 67-68-48 had been recommended by the Planning Commissiona (See Resolution Book) ;-~ ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes `~ :. ,r,: AYES: OOMMISSIONERSe Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. Y- NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~ ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: Faranoe ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Amendment to Conditional Use.Permit Noo 1294 (Horse Stables) - Amendment to permit rearrangement of the plot plan for commercial stables for a maximum of 40 horses. Property .located east of the present terminus of Winston ~ Road northerly of the Southern Pacific Aailroad and Cerritos `:~ Avenue ia the Southeast Industrial Area. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a report to the Planning Commission regarding ~ an amendment to Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1294 as,follows: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`. ~~t "1e Subject property is a large Courty A-l parcel located generally east of i Winston Road, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad and Cerritos Avenue, ' and west of Wasser Road, in the Anaheim Southeast Industrial Area as defined ; on the General Plan. ~ !;~t 2e Request is to permit rearrangement of the plot plan for a cummercial stable for e maximum of 40 horses. ~ ,. ~ - ~;: ~ ~ . ~ MINUIES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION, January 29, 1968 3758 REPORTS AND REOOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NOe 1 (Continued), FINDINGS: 3o The.original Conditional Permit No< 1294 (to establish.a commercial stable) was reviewed by the Anaheim Planning Commission and.City Council in Apri1, 1967e The Planning Commission recommended that the Orange County"Plenning Department initiate a study regarding precise alignments of Sunkist and Cerritos, and that the.proposed use be recommended for:approvaY on an interim basis only, subject to dedication of ultimate right-of-ways on both ~ streets, and that any construction relative to this use and lying within the ultimate right-of-ways be removable at no expense to the appropriate ~urisdictione ~ The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendations and further recommended a time limit of one year on said usea . 4. The Orange County Planning Commission approved the request, subject to a 5-year time limitatione 5. Recent Orange County Road Department Preliminary Hearing studies on the alignment of Sunkist indicate a possible alignment along the Rancho line which bisects the subject property from northeast to southwest. The present plans for the stables and riding arena would place them generally northwest of this proposed alignment and outside of any ultimate right-of-way, The property owners in the area have suggested a further study for possible ali9nment of Sunkist along the western boundary of subject propertye This alfgnment would affect the location of the stables as proposed in this requesto EVALUATION: 6e The present request is basically a revision of the plot plan layout originally approvede ,Both the stables and.riding arena have been moved northtivard from, the,vicinity of tHe Edison Company easement,,which.lies northerly of the ':Southern PacifiC Railroad right-of-wey and Cerritos. ' This newly proposed locetion is far more suitable as regards any future precise ~ alignment of-8unkist along the Rancho line, since the old locatio.n would be . affected by the ultimate right-of-way; however, if further Ordng~: County Road Department studies indicate a preferred location along the westerly property line, then a portion of the stables would have to be relocated. This woul'd constitute little difficulty, since no truly permanent structures, per se, are being erected." Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the precise alignments of Sunkist Street and Cerritos Avenue, and the reorientation of the stables to allow for said aligru^ents, ',~~ and the fact that a time limitation as recommended by the City of Anaheim had bee;~ estab- lished by the County of Orangee Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to appxove the reorientation of the proposed horse ' stables approved under Conditlonal Permit Noo 1294. Commissioner Gauer seconded the i'" ~ motion. MOTION CARRIED. ` i~, i : ITEM N0, 2 Orange County Use Veriance No. 6015 - Requesting' I" temporary postponement of the installation of i~ required street improvements and landscaping fo:~ !± property located on the south side of Coronado ~~!; Street, approximately 850 feet west of Kraemer ~'`; Boulevard (Dowling Street) in the Anaheim Northeast t; Industrial:Area. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Orange County Use Variance Noo 6015 to the 1 Planning Commission, noting +.he location of the property and the proposed expansion of l: an existing structure, together with a request for temporary postponement of the required ~• street improvements and landscaping for a period to be determined by the Planning Commission ~. of the County of Orangea • ~-:~~~ -.~ ' ~. . .. . ~ . . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 29, 1968 REPORTS P.ND RECAMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) ~ 3759 Mre Roberts noted that the use.requested for the property was permitted under County zoning ordinences in which G1 and C-2 uses were permitted in the M-1 Zone, and that no :,treet improvements existed on Coronado Street in the vir,inity of subject property; howeverf a 40-foot dedication on Coronado Street was obtainea from the property owners on January 12, 1968 since County local industrial streets required this half-width dimension. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to receive and file Orange County,Use Variance Noe 6015 and directed the Comir.ission Secretary to submit a le~ter to the Orange County Plo.~ning Commission expressing appreciation of the Anaheim Planning Commission for an opportunity to ' ~ review Orange County Use Variance No. 6015. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. ~ MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 976 - Mr~ and Mrs< Frank Golemba - Establish a day care nursery in an existing residential structure at 715 North Anaheim Boulevard - Request for approval of revised plansa Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented revised plans for a nursery school approved by ~ the Planning Commission at 715 North Anaheim Boulevard, noting that the petitioner was now proposing the addition of a 1200-square foot building on the front of the existing ~_ f reaidential structure, and the petitioner indicated the new structure would be used for a pre-achool nursery, while the existing structure wou;j be used as a single-family ~ dwelling; tha_ the'revised plans indicated the proposed addition would take up the entire lot frontage of subject property except for a 10~--foot driveway, and this driveway would be insufficient for normal commercial building uses which required a minimum of 20 feet ~ to meet City standards; that the Planning Commission :ni9ht wish to consider the desirability of requiring a minimum building setback af 20 feet from the northerly property line so that ~ adequate access to the rear of the property could be insured in the event the property was i redeveloped for commercial purposes; and, furthermore, the Commission might also wish to ~ consider requiring a 5 or 10-foot landscape setback along the Anaheim Boulevard frontagE ~ 4' in an attempt to enhance the esthetic qualities of this area, i: The Commission reviewed the ~ proposed plans and the recommendations made by the staffe Commiasioner Rowland offered a motion to approve revised plans, subject to the pro4ision of a'20-foot setback from the north property line for future driveNay purposes, and the provision of a 5-foot landscape setback along the Anaheim Boulevard frontage. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe ITEM N0. 4 Conditional Use Permit No. 136 - Grace Baptist Church - 530 West La Palma Avenue - Request for approval of proposed revised master plan and amendment to conditions in Council Resolution No. 7194, dated September 19, 1961. Associate Planner Charles'Roberts presented the re4isPc1 master plan.for the proposed Grace Baptist Chuzch located on the south side.bf La Palma:Avenue, easterly of Magnolia Street, noting that the petitioners were requesting approval of the revised plan and the granting of a temporary waiver of compliance with certain conditions which included dedication for the extension of Haron Stseet to provide access to the adjrcent vacant property to the east; preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improvements for the exten- sion of Haron Street; a time limitation of 180 days for the accomplishment of Items 2, 3, 4, , 5, 6, and 7~ and installation of a 6-foot masonry wall along the east, west, and south property lines. Mre Roberts further noted that on January 21, 1Sb4, the City Council gxanted a two-year permit for the installation and use of a portable mission building, subject to compliance with the Electrical, HeaCing, and Plumbing Codes; that on March 1, 1966, the City Council approved a request for a two-year extension of time for use of said portable building, and an additional condition of approval of the two-year extension of time was that the petitioner submit to the City Planning Commission for approval a revision of plans for the entire development at such time as the plans were available, ancl the'se plans were now before the Commission fox consideration. ;. ~ a a,=. ,~,~. , ~ E. "~„~'~f~Kr ~,..,, t'[~p-~ yu.,a~s +~:, 3 .: ~ , .:+ ~ r :Y: f~ t. •. - ' ~~~ • ~ ~t'r r ~ _ &" , }~, y,,. - -i"'~" ' r n-r ~., ~ ~ n . . . . ... . _ ... .. .. , . . ~ . ~ . , . ~ . .~L . .~'1 . . . . . ~~~r~ ~ f~"'",~', h ,e~t~, a ; `^~cx t~*;;`;'~~-,i'n~rv ~u `w''7-,` ~ ~ ~,, ~ ~~ ~ ~~;,, ' ., ,."; ~~, '; ~ i:., .. .- . , ~, ~. ' ,. e r , . ..~._ . : ~ ~~~~ ~ .. I..~...'...~. . . ~ _.__..._.._._.._~ ~ O MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~MMISSION, J,anuary 29, 1968 REPORTS AND RE~MMENDATIONS - ITEM NO„ 4 (Continued) i w~ ~ 1 3760 It was also noted that the petitioner had proposed that Condition Nos. 5 and 6 be deleted, and that Condition No. 10 be temporarily waived, pending the future development of abutting parcelsa Furthermore, the plans presented by the petitioner indicated that a total of approximately 80 parking spaces would be provided once ultimate construction of the entire facility was completed; however, the Zoning Code would require a minimum of 100 parking spaces for the facility based on main auditorium seating of 500 personse The request of the petitioner for deletion of Condition No. 5 would seem to be appropriate, Mr. Roberts further n~ted, since the condition was originally imposed based on the assump- tion that the property to the east of sub~ect property would develop for some type of residential purpose; however, since that time, a portion of the property had been acquired by another church group, and this church building already had been constructed - therefore it would seem reasonable that Haron Street could be terminated at the southerly boundary line of subject property, and a modified cul-de-sac established at that location. Condition No. 6 could be deleted to the extent that all improvements for the extension of Haron Street could be eliminated; however, a condition should remain requiring installation of a modified cul-de-sac at the terminus of Haron Street. The Commission reviewad all data submitted by the staff and the recommended amendments to conditions, with considerable discussion being held on what type of waivers should be permitted for the six-foot masonry wall along the east, west, and south boundary lines, and at its conclusion Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No, PC68-38.and~moved for its passage~and adoption, to approve revised plans of'development for~the church and related facilities~under Gonditional Use Peimit No. 136, and further subject to amendment to condi- tions as follows: That Condition Nos. 1 and 5 be deleted since portions of the abutting property to the east had developed for a church and there was no longer a need to extend Haron Street. That Condition No. 6 be amended to read: "That a modi:ied cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of Haron Street in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer". That Ccndition No. 8 be amended by deleting Condition No. 5 from the list of conditions to be completed within 180 days. That Condition Noe 10 be amended to read: "That temporary waiver of the installa- tion of a six-foot masonry wall be granted for the southerly 220 feet of the west boundary line and the northerly 339 feat of the east boundary iine, and permanent ..waiver of the south 217 feet of the east boundary line"a That a six-foot masonry wa11 shall be constructed along the soi~th boundary line prior to final building inspection. Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECESS - Commis~ioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutese Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:20 P.M. REGONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:30 P.M., all Commissioners except Commissioner Farano being present. ~ "`-,~ "'~ ~~t~ ~~~` ~ ~. , - , . > ;, _ . . , . ,._ ' , _..: ... . .. ~ ~ ~~ ... ' ''. ~ ~~~E':~ h Ct~' . "c,7'~,~'~' *t'^" 4c:'` ~7 31"°s f",c4 '4 ~ ~ '.'7 ~ .~ J d _i -~ ..... . .>r~'k~' .L ..,.A,. ?~°e : r -v',?Yk.xr;a.T(},'.n"..:C'*'? Ls?": , rK~? ~'~~~`sF~s,, n }' r' ` .~ :..naM`, ~.~, .: ~. ~ ~ 1> , .,- ...: .~.;,:.. , ..: .- .s. :~._,.~",_~ '~r-+. ~. ~~.~ .• .~ .- .... ~.., . .,. . .. ~ ~~L ~ ~~ ~: ~~ ...., ..~~~ ., : ."- '. ,~,.,.: . ~- . :. ~ . MINUfES,;CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 29, 1968 3761 WORK SESSION -,~hairman;Camp•-reconvened,the meeting:and'~requested Planning Supervisor. Ronald Grudzinski to.piesent the ar.ea locations proposed for possible heavier'residential density .than~was.pro3ected on the original General `. . Plane _. _ , Aiea Nos". 16.and 20 through 37 were.reviewed, with commentary being made by the Commission relative`:to any possible changea to that being proposed,by.the staff. Decisio~i on Area No. 32 rias held in abeyance until a full Commission,could be in attendance: ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to di.scuss, Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting Gdjourned at 5:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~" ~ ~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~`~' _ ~ _ ,.,, . . ~ ; `':~ , A~ ~ar' "?:~ a 9 N 'Y('~~ ., y~ ~'I.C~i~*,vT.y~ ~ 1~, rW.'~ ~ ~F {. . . ~ , ' K l Cr . . 4s 1 - ~. ~. i '7~ ..~Yh ~ 'tc ~. \C 1 '~ ~ ~ Y1k ] f ~ ~h' ~ ' ~' 'i t \ ~ ~ ' ' r ~ : ~ ; ..r ~ ~ ~~ . . i ~,-.,. ~tt i i ~ ~ ..t i~a~,h."~f T ~~ ' ~ ~ 4 t ~ ir ~' ~141.1 ~ t +#c.~~ r~ r z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ry ;{ i .F ~ ~.. . . ~ ~ i~ ~' ~ #~ S ~'~~J LYS '~ r Ny + a~i ~,~ 6-t t, ~ ~ ' ~ . ` 4 T ) ~ ~~ . E '} r. ~: ~ ~ i - , . a ~' Y ~ f M ~ , , _ r , i,. ~ ., ; r ~ ~ 5,~~;, j-e ~. , ~ , ~ : ~ ~ . ~.ti ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ - ~~ , ~;:~ + ' . _ . . "~ ~ ~ ~' y . 't _ .. ry . ~~~~ i i ... i t f ~ zl i F ~' -:" ~ ' ~ . ~ . : ' . ~ ~~ . . . : , ::: .. . . , ~ •'. ..,. .. ,. , ,, .. .. ,. .. ,~" ,.' :.. ~. ., . -. '~... ..,,... . ... . ... . . .. L ~ ~ t ~ ~ r: ~ , ~. ~ i I 1 i . f, r ~ f ~, Z . ~,- - ~ .~ .~~ ; ~ ,~ f t r: ~ j < ~ -, ) ~ 4 ~ i ~.: .~:i r - " :y '' i~- i, 1 :I ~. T ~t ~' ` ~ ~ ~ a , ' 'j , ~ " + ~ ;- ~ ; } - t ,~` ; r ~i . 7 , ~ , . i: . , . . ::.'~ ~ . i I I . .,,~~... _ '.._; . ,. ". . . ..t`. , ..',.. . c. ' .. . . . " ~ . , ~ I ~~ ~ '_ * '~ ~i ~ ~ ~t;r :i 1 ~ ~~ , ~ ~ ' F ~ I . ,. .• r ..~~; . . . _ ~.: ., 1 ~ ~ '~,t ~ i:~: : ' .i.. , . ,..~~ . . . ... . ~. . :.~ : ~- ~ r. . ~. ..: . - +.ea -:, . ,__._,~ . __ i .._..._ . ,r~ 1 .! .• ~ . .. ,.. . . , ~ .. . . . . . . . ' . ~ ~ ' . .. .