The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1961/10/30~ _ __--=----- ~ ~ ~ , ~- ~ ~ F ~ ~. ~ P` , ~ ~ .~,, ~ 'RHGUTAR MHBTING City Hall Anahc?m, California October 30, 1961 MINUTE3 OF THH RSGUTAR MHHTING OP TH8 ANAHHIM CITY P:ANNING COhAfISSION - A Regular Meeting of the City Planning Commission was called to order by Chai*man Gauer, at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. - CFi4IRMAN: Gauer; COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Summess. n - COhAMIS3I0NBR3: Morris. - Senior Planner Assistant City Attorney Commission Secretary - Martin Breidt - Joe Geisler - Jean Page - Reverend Hmery Collins, Pastor of the Pirst Southern Baptist Church, gave the Invocation. _ Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. - The Minutes of the Meeting of October 16, 1961;were approved as submitted. RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUSD PUBLIC HF.ARING. Petition initiated by ANAF~IM PLANNING N0. 61-62-37 COMMISSION, 204 Sast Lincoln Avenue~, Anaheim, Caiifornia; requesting that the property described as: A parcel 113 feet by 250 feet with a frontage of 250 feet located on the east side of Zeyn Street and fur- ther described as the southeast corner of Zeyn Street and Midway Drive and also described as Lots 22 through 26 of Block 1 0£ Tract No. 419 be reclassified from the R-1, ONB FAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL and P-1, PARKING, 20NHS to the M-1, LIGHT MANUPACTURING, ZONB. Subject Petition for Reclassification was continued from the meeting of October 16, 1961 for review L•~ the Interdepartmental Committee and for the preparation of Precise Plar. No. 27-28-2 containing studies and re- commendations in respect to the subject and adjacent properties. Maps of the subject area, indicating existing land uses, existing zoning, and a Precise Plan for ultimate development of the subject a=ea we=e presented to the Commission. The Precise Plan study recommended the recia~sification of the subject properties, consisting of a tier of lots located on the east side of Zeyn Street extendxng northerly to Midway Dri~ to the M~1, Light Mass:~facturin6, and P-L Parking-Landscaping, Zones subject to tre dedication of Zeyn Street for"street widening pur- poses in order to accomodate the recommended industrial use of the pro- perties. The Precise Pian also recommended that properties located westerly o£ subject property be developed for trailer parks in con- formance with the existing deveiopment extending westerly to the Santa Ana Preeway, that the property situated northerly of Midway Drive present. containing,R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, development and vacant land be projected for multipie family residential development where said pro- perty abuts an.existing.elementary school, and #hat the property abutting :t=~ Los Angeles Street easterly of subject prcpexty be considered for com- mercial development. ~` ~ , - 469 - ~ ~ ,. • ~ ; ~~ ` . . . . . .., M,.... . . -T"'""--~ --~--:--- ,,, : ., _ . . . ... ~. : ~. , , . . ~. , , . _ ,. ,. . ., , , ~ t- ..,~,,,~?i : '~~Y~. ..'. .. - : .. . - . ;~ . r ~.,•+:: ~ ~ ~. ,': , ...__. ,. h_' ~ ... _ '<:. . : ~ , ...:. . _;., : . ~~ ~ ~.... 470 ~`: MINUTE5 CITY PIANNING COhAMISSION, October 30, 1961. Continued: ~ RBCiASSIPICATION - Mr. Jack &ianey, 1441 Sou~h Lo3 Angeles Street, appeared before the Com- I t ~ •~ ~ i s N0. 61-62-37 mission and stated that he was in favor of the proposed reclassification Continued of subject property.to the M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zone although he was opposed to the recommended street dedication and the ten foot parking- landscaping strip. He stated that he did not consider it necessary to widen 2eya Street because of the 300 foot leagth of the street and its termination at the existing trailer park site. Ti~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Comm3seian diacussed at some length the necessity for providing stree:s with adequate widtha in areas utilized for industrial purpoaes with the posaibility of increased truck traffic. Thc Commission dis- cussed the possibility of limiting access to the subject properties and Commissioner Mungail suggested that the alley, extending southerly of Midway Drive and located at the rear of subject properties, be a[iandoned, thereby eliminating object3.ons ta the recommended street widenicg. The Commi~ssion found aad determined the foilowing facts regarding the . subject petition: , 1. That the Anaheim Planniag Commission proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-1, ONH PAMILY RHSIDBNT3AL, and P-1, PARBING, ZONSS to the M-1~ I.IGHT MANUPACTURING, 20NH. 2. That the proposed reclassification of se~bject prc+perty is necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per- mitted uses generaily established througnout tne communtiy. 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for abutting streets because said property does relate to and abut upon streets which are preseatiy inadequate to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which wili be generated by the per- mittes uses, in a~cordance with the circulation-element of tY.e General Plau. _ 5. That a ten (10) foot landscaped buffer is necessary #o provide a ~: minimum buffer between existing and the proposed industrial pro- perties to the east of said buffer and the existing and proposed - ~ trailer park properties west of said buffer. 6. That Precise Plan No. 27-86-2 is adopted by the Commission as a logical and orderly ultimate development of land use of the pro- perties indicated thereon, including the abandonment by the City of Anaheim of the alley abuttiag subject propezties of subjett petition For reclassification.on their easterly property lines and extending southerlq from Midway Drive. m i. '.~ .: y . . ~ y ~~ . ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ E K ~ ! ~4 t ~ Cy t' k ~ .. . ~.. ~, ~a.n.k_ . .. , . 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. i Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 117, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Munp,ali to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassificatioa No. 61-62-37 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1, Development substantially in accordance with Precise P1an No. ~ 27-86-2. 2. Dedication of 32 feet froia the monumented centerline of Zeyn Street, ~ (26.5 fePt existing). I 3, De¢ication of 32 feet from the, monumented,centerline of Midway Drive, ' (28 feet existiqg). . ' .. ~ . . , .. . . , ... . „ . ~ 'i . . ~„ ~ . .. ~ .. . . ' . . ~ ; ' , . ~ . ~ `; ''~~_ . . .. , . . ~ ~~.~,.~ ,~ ,:~:!i , . ..~:y..::.. ..~.._~....'.,~,.~... . ~~.,.1':; v.. ...~.~.L i,.t(~~~.. r. .i...n. .....i. ~m...,_.,. ~ ...~-~.~~ ..~ ..~. .. . .'.l ....... ~~ 1 ' . ~ ~ , ...__________.__ ~~ . ~ MINUT83, CITY PIANNING COI~IISSION, October 30, 1961, Continued: i ~w -: ': ~ :. .. . ~~' . . . . . . , ". . i ~ • ~ 471 RHCIASSIPICATION - 4. Payment of $2,00 per froat foot fc~r street lighting purposes on 2eyn N0. 61-62-37 Street and Midway Drive. Continued ' S. Time limitation of ninety (90) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 6. Provision of a ten (10) foot iandscaped buffer, along Zeyn Street, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and said lanc:scaping to be installed prior to Pinal Building Inspection. The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prereouisite to the use of the property in order to pre- serve the sa£ety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: CQI~MISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, blarcoux, M~sngall, Pebley, Perry, Summers. NOHS: COI~A~IISSIONSRS: None. AHSHNT: CUA9dISSIONBRS: Morris. ~ . ~ .' E- ~ ~:,. ~ ;; ~ ~ ~` s :~" ~- E~~~ t Ep E,~ ~." y ~.:_ VARIANCB N0. 1412 - PUSLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by KSN GBORGB DOI, 2966 Linco2n Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; M. L. McGaughy, 2966 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVB SINGLH STORY HHIGHT LIMITATIONS on property described as: A parcel ~38 feet by 1,275 feet with a frontage of 338 feet bcated on the south side of Lincoin Avenue betweea Seach Boulevard and Dale Avenue; its northwest corner being approximately 270 feet east of the southeast corner of Beach Boule- vard and Lincoln Avenue aad further described as 2958 Lincoln Avenue. property presently classified in the R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.. Mr. M. L. McGaughy, authorized agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed construction of tvro story multiple family residential units. He indicated that the area was snit- able for the proposed development because of its proximity to motels, a trailer park, and proposed R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, development on property presently zoned in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone and abutting subject property on the east. TFffi HBARING WAS CL0.SBD. The Commission reviewed development pians and the petitioner's agent indicated that single sto=y units would be constructed on the front portibn of the p=operty with apartments over the gazages and providing. aCCess from the proposed ailey. He stated that two stozy constructiott was proposed at the rear where subject property abuts the Flood Control Channel. The Commission discussed the distance from the subject property of exist- ing singie family =esidential development located across the F1ood Control Channel on'the south. The Commission discussed whether or not ti,e alley, in addition to tha Plood Control Cha~el,would provide an adequate buffer between the proposed two story development and the existitg single family development. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the `~ : subject petition: ; ,~ ' . : X'~;,ri ' T. That the petitioner =equeats a variance.from the Anaheim Mureicipal ~„?;,~; Code, Se~tion 18.32.060 to permit the development of subject pro- ~~ ~ perty with two story multiple family residential'units within 150 s~. ~" ~s,~,k~~ feet of proper~ty class'sfied;:in the R~A, Residential Agricultural, and the R-1~ Oae .amily Reaidential, Zones.~ :. ,. ,, _ .~+.~:fm~ , `. ~~ . "~6~~~7~?~(.a?'4w~..'::.ta ~.,. f_"~"; ,:.~': °' .~.;:~ .. .. „ . ~~ ,..., ., .: ,. , ...i,~.~-r,..a-.,.nc.t.~. r..,.,. . ~ ~ - -- --- . .-.:t .'.1~ . , )~ ' . ~ ~~~:. . ~: .. ' , ,., , ~ , ::: . ~ .. . _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 472 ~~ MINUTS3. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 1961, Continued: _~^.-- VARIANCB N0. 1412 - 2, That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or coudi- ; (Continued) tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of j ~ the property that do not apply generaliy to the property or class of ; use in the same vicinity and zone. ~ 3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and ~ enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. ~ 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the oroperty is located. • 5. That the existing flood control channei and proposed alley would pro- vide an adequate buffer between the proposed ~two story multiple family development and the existing single family development at the southern ~ portion of subject property. g~, That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Comprehen- 1 sive General Plan. :7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Mungal.l offered Resolution No':~ 118, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1412, subjec4 to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. Subject to the reclassification of Lot Nos.2 through 23 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4261 to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone. 3. Recordation of a Pinal Tract Map of subject property. The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the us~: nf the property in order to pre- serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY&S: COA4~iISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Summers. NC1SS: COMMISSIONSRS: None. ABSBIVT; CODIMISSIONBRS: Morris. VARIANCB N0. 1413 - PUBLIC HBARING: Petition suhmitted by MA~ JOHNSON, 315 South Bush Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVB MINIMUM FLOOR pRBA RBQUIR~MF•:fS on property described as: A parcel 50 feet by 155 feet with a frontage of 50 feet l~~cated on the west side of Bush Street between Broadway and Santa Ana Streets; its northeast coraer being approximately 153 feet south of the southwest cosne= of Broadway and Bush Street and further described as 315 South Bush Street. Property presently classified ~ in the R-2, TWO,PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONS. Mr. M. B. Parker appeared before the Commission, stated that he represent- ed the petitioner, and described the proposed construction of a single family residence on the rear of subject property, the removal of an exist- ing residence on the front portion of subject property, and the eventual construction of an additional single family residence o:; the site now occupied by the existing residence. He stated that the residence which would be constructed at the rear, would be occupied by the petitioner. THB HBARTNG WA3 CLOSBD. ; ',` F •j ;'i ~~, ~ - ;-, , -- b~,, N ~ ~~~. ~ 473 ~ MINUTBS CITY PIANNING COHAlISSION October 30 1961 Continued: VARIANCB N0. 1413 - The Commission reviewed deyelorwca~ plans and noted that the subject ~• (Continued) petition indicated that carports would be provided rather than garages., The pet~tioner's agent.indicated that'two carports would be provided, ~ one for each residence', and that tlie residences would have identical _ floor pians. The Co~missioa discussed Code requ}rements in respect to garages,'~nd it ~ was indicated that the Code does not require garages for the subject ~ . property. Teerefore, the proposed eonstruction of carports rather than ~ garages would not require the approval of the Commission. The Com- mission also discussed the ad,visability of limiting the height of the ; ' proposed structures to one story and the necessity for requiring~the re- 4. '-"r'~,"` moval of the existing residence upon completion.of the first phase of ~ °.; < . r+~~- :>; construction. Commissioner Pebley indicated tnai`. the existing residence on subject property appeared to be in conformance with the present deveiopment in the surrounding area. 7: was noted, however, that the petitioner had indicated the intention to remove the existing residence in order to omplete the proposed development of the property. Commissioner Perry r t ~ o noted that the proposed development would coastitute an improvement the area. The Commissioa found and determined the foilowiag facts regarding the subject petition: . That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipai 1 . Sectioa 18.80.080 to permit the construction of t~ro (2) single Code , family reaidences on subject property ~ach with a minimum iiveable : floor area of 1,008 squa~re feet, one (1) of said residences to be constructed on the site 'of an existing single family residence, pre- aently located on subjec,t property, after its removal. • That there are exceptional ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions 2 . applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the pro- perty that do not apply generally to.the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. That the requested variaiice is necessary for the preservation and 3 . enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,.and denied to the property in question. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the 4 ~ . public welfare or inj.,sduus to the property or improvements in such , vicinity and zone in which the property is located: 5. That the requested variance wiil not adversely affect the Compre- hensive General Pian. • • 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 119, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoptian, seconded.by Commissiones Perry, to subject t~ the following conditions: 2413 No ia , ~ nce • grant Petition for Var 1. Development substantiaily in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3. _ : , Repair of damaged and/or hazardous sidewalks and curbs in accordance 2 ~ . the Cit.y with the, approved standard,pians on file in the Office of Bngineer. , 3, ~Payment of.$25.00 per_dwelliag unit Park,and, Recreation fee to be collected as:past of Building Permit. . . ~ [._ .. ~ - " ; ~~,~,:i ,_ . . .. . ., ~,. . .. _ . . . . . . . . . , , ..~F,'~:~: .. ... . .7I~:Y.YW>KMS:Si !;^.+;1N. ~rY Y~..!:~.~L_ .l..~i..:ALy 2 ~i:?.I~LF'~{py.a.h+t,Fn.n:L.,.D~.'.,T+.~R~ . ~l.t.n.:.:~._~,. .,1.f1..:1.1 /G!LWIlX1YrvY.i~. . .. ,. ~. .ii; ~~ '~# ~ ;_74 . ... .~ . . . ~ ~ ~ _ ~ . ~} ,~ 1 MINUTSS CITY PTANNING COhA4ISSI0N ~October 30, 1961~__Continued: 1 ~ .~i . . . ~' ~~h ~ 474 # , VARIANCB N0. 1413 - 4. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accom- (Continued) plishment of Item No, 2, S. Limitation of structural height of proposed development to one- • story construction. ! 6. Removai of existing residence, presently located on front portion of subject property, upon completion of proposed construction on rear of i subject propertY• . The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to ' be a necessary prerequisite to the use of.the property in order to pre- ~'.' ::~;~,:;:; serve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Summers. NOHS: COhAtISSIONBRS: None. AHSBNT: CONMI3SIONERS: Morris. VARIANCB N0. 1414 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by Mr. and Mrs. H. L. Sharp, ?OS South Verona Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requ~sting permission to WAIVH MINIMUM REAR YARD SBTHACK RHQUIRBMENTS on property described as: A parcel 75 feet by 100 feet with a frontage of 75 fee4 on Verona Street and located on the southwest corner of Verona Street and Keys Lane and further described as 705 South Verona Street. Property presently ~classified in the R-1, ONS PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONfi. Mrs. B. L. 3harp, the pe*itioner, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed revision of original plans for the conversioz of a garage attached to an existing single family residence into a family room,in order to provide a new garage and driveway in the rear yard of subject property. She stated that the partially completed structure would be altered to function as the p*oposed family room and that the existing garage would continue to function as a g.arage. She statcd further that a wall, ::::: a small gate, would be provided ad- jacent to the family room and.that the proposed driveway would not be constructed as originally intended. THE HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ~ The Commission reviewed development plans. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject ~etition: 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.20.030 (3-a) to permit an encroachment of twenty (20) feet into th~ required rear yard of subject property in order . to.construct a family room addition to an existing residence. `' 2. That these are exceptional or ext=ao=dinary qircumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended ` use of the property that do not appiy generally to the property or class of use in the same. vicinity and zone: 3.' That the requested variance is necessary:for the preservation and ~ other pro- enjoyment of a substantial.property right poi;sessed by perty in the same vicinity"aad zone, and denied to the property in question. ' >~ i~ ;, y ~i ;' ~~ ; ,x ~ T ~ ~ ~ ._..R.. ..~~ 1.k:. ..~ . ., .i....,_ ...;~..5.'M17'a.:.,.?:.Sn:Y .t r ~.qn r ~< ... .._~ Y,(. ...~Y..._ .:.~e9. , r.1..;..Jn.azJ.~..... N4y,~_V..eE:uvlM.u~,._u_r-~-..~ S J~:' ~ .i... . ~ .3.4.,._Fi~:~.. ~. ~ V . ~~ MIAIIITES CITY PIANNING COMMISSION October 30 1961 Continued; ~ . .. -, ., .~ . ~ ~g 475 VARIAPiCH N0. 1414 - 4, That the requested yariance will not h~ materially detrimental to the Continued pubxic welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in'which the property is located, 5. That the reqyes~ed variance will not adversely affect the Compre- ~ hen§ive General Plan. ~ ~ ° 6. That no one appeared in opposition to sub;ect petition. + Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 120, Series 1961-62, attd moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ldarcoux, to grant Petition for Variahce No. 1414, subject to the following condition: 1. Developmeat substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1 and 2, € r ~ as amended. The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be a necessary prerequisite to #he use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYSS: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Summers, NQBS: COA4dISSIONHRS: None. ' ABSBNT: COhAtISSIONHRS: Morris. VARIANCH N0. 1415 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by PAUL and NANCY CREWS, 2443 Level Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to WAIVB MIr;~ IMUM RBAR YARD SBTBACK REQUIREMENTS on property described as: A par•:el 60 feet by 100 feet with a frontage of 60 feet iocated on the north side of Level Avenue between Topo and Monument Streets and further described as 2443 Level Avenue. Property presently classified in the R-1, ONS FAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, 20NS. Mr. Paul Crews, the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and stated he had nothing to add to the information contained in the written petition, THB HBARING WAS CL0.SED. The Commission reviewed development plans for the proposed construction, The Commission found and determined the foilowing facts regarding the subject petition; _ ~. ; 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.20.030 (3-a) to permit encroachment of nineteen (19) feet into the required rear yard in order to construct an addition to aa existing single family residence. ' 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property ~ in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question, 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public:welfare or injurious to the property or imp=ovements u- such vicinity and zone ~n which the property is located. • , - ~ ,'~; '. , '--. : ~ ~~1='~ku:+.:,_... ...t.,~.,. r,__... ..,. .. ..r.. c ~........ ,_,.. r. F.~~_2+;Srt_ ..:.*~..:r3d1't,[x±.~;.. . a ~ . .. . . . <,_... ~. , ~ ; , ~_:.._.~ ______ ~_____ _._----. ~ . E ~ ---._.....~ `=~ `~ . ~ ~ 476 MINUTH3 CITY PIANNING COMA~IISSION, October 30, 1961, Continued;_ VARIANCB N0. 1415 - 5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Com- Continued p;ehensive General Plan. 6. That no one appeared in cpposition to subject petition. Commissioaer Marcoux offered ResolutS.on No.121, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Coaunissioner Pebiey, to grant Petition for Varian~e NO. 1415, subject to the following condition: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Hxhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be a necessary prerequisite,to the use of the psoperty in order to preserve the safety and welfare of tkle citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Yerry, Summers. NOBS: COhA~IISSIONSRS: None. pBSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Morris. CONDITIONAL U3H - PUBLIC HBARING: Petition submitted by PRANR KROGMAN, 2344 Wagner Street, pBRMIT N0. 169 Aaaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to BSTABLISH COCR- TAIL LOUNGB IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RSSTAtJEtANT, on property described as: p parcel 240 feet by 320 feet with a frontage of 240 feet on La Palma Avenue and Socated on the southwest corner of Y.a Palma Aveaue and Magnolia Avenue; excepting a parcel 135 feet by 135 feet located on the southwest corner of La Palma and Magnolia Avenues and further describ~.d as 1027 North Magnoiia Avenue. Property presently classified in the C-1, NBIGH- BORHOOD COM~~RCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Prank Krogman, the petitiotter, appeared before the Commission and ~~ describPd the zoning and land use of the surrounding area. He indicated that he considered the proposed estabiishment of a cocktail lounge, to i be operated i n conjunction with a restaurant, to be the best use af the subject property because of the M-1, Light Manufacturing, zoning across La Palma Avenue on the north, the location of small neighborhood stores on the property, and the iocation of an existing cocktail lounge across the street from subject property. Upon inquiry by the Commission, the petitioner indicated that he owned ~ the root beer stand located on subject property. The Commission dis- cussed the matter of the lack of completion of the wall and .'.~.ndscaping reguirements for said property and the petitioaer•stated that he had paid the City at the time of development a fee for laudscaping, which had never been instalied, and that the developer of t he adjacent tract was responsible for the ].ack of completion of the installation of the : wall. He stated further that the subject property and abutting proper- ties were within the City limits at the time of development. ~ ~_ The Commission reviewed the history of the development of the subject ~ and abutting properties and Commissioner Pebley indicated that he considered it advisable that an investigation be._made in respect to the . installation of walis and landscaping in the subject area to determine I the requirev,ents imposed as conditioas of approval on the development of these properties. The Commission directed the Planning Department to make an investigation '- aad 3eteimine the conditions imposed upon the development, the degree of compliance with said conditions; and to investigate the matter of the • landscaping fee paid by the petitione*. ,., ..-----xr , '--Z->- -, , ,..; -: , . ;:,t . . _.r;•. r.;.,, . ~; ~ '~....-.i~...,... .. _ . ~o...~ [ ~.::: r, a:.::l'rl.~..,,.,qi.-.~_ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . a:~i ~?' ~. ~, 477 MINUI~S CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 30, 19$1, Continued: CONDITIONAL USE .- The Commission xeviewed plans snbmitted with the sub3ect petition and PffitMIT N0.169 indicated that more detailed elevation and development plans wouid be (Contiaued) necessary. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. .Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion~ seconded bq Commissioner Misngali and carried, that Petition for Conditional Use Yermit No. 169 be con- tinued until the meeti.ng of.November 13, ~961 by which time the peti- tioner shail have submi#t~d €uily dimensioned development plans for review and conside;a~i~dn,lhy the Commission, und at which time a report shall be submitted by the''Nlarining`Departmeat relative to the land- seaping and wall reqpirements~imposed for the sub3ect and abuttiag pro- perties. OONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC FIDARING: PetiLion aubmitted by CRAIG JEWETT and COI~ANY~ 1303 pBRMIT N0.170 Weat Valencia Drive, Puilerton~ California, Owaer; requestiag permiasion to ffiTAHY.ISH A DRriB-IN RHSTAURANT, on property deaeribed as: A 4ri- aqgulariy ahaped parcel with a froatage of 127 feet~ more or lesa, on Ba11~Road aad a frontage of 78 feet, more or lesa, oa 8nott Avenue and located on th~e aouthweat coraer of Ball Road snd Knott Avenue and fur- ther dsscribed as 3500 Ball Road. Property presently classified in the R-A~ RBSIDHNiiAL AGRICULTURi+L, ZOI~. Mr. Craig Jewett, the petitioner~ appeared before the Commiesion aad dea- eribed the proposes construction of a"Pat3e Paatry" aimilar to one pre- aeatly in operstioa in Coata Mesa. He s4a~ted that the fis~rking area ahown oa the piaas submitted were an estimate,and thaL he had a ietter fro~n the pacific Hlectric Raiiroad Company giving permission for him to utiiize their property within 15 feet of the tract for additionai parking area, provided the area was filled and maiatained :r 4he pet3tioner. 1'he Commission discussed Code requirements in respect ~o the amount of parking area required for the proposed use aad it was indicated that 45 parking spaces would be re9uired for the proposed development. THB I~IDARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission reviewed development p lans and Commissioner Perry indi- cated that he considered the proposed use of the property to be an improv~ment, provided that additioaal parking area could be obtained from the railroad company. The petitioner stated that he could obtain the written permiasi~on of the raiiroad company to file with the sub3ect petition. The Commission was infoxmed that the sub,~ect petition would require re- advertisement~ inc?.uding the legal description of the,land that would be 'incorporated in the parkiag area, It was noted that the petition could not b~e re-advertised untii the written permission of the railroad company and the legai description of the property had been submitted for incorporation with the subject petition. Commissioner Pebley o€fered a motion, seconded by Commissianes Marcoux and carried, that the subject petitio,~ be continsed nnti3 the meeting of November 27~ 1961 in order to provide an opportvnity for the petitioner to obtain permission from the Pacific Blectric Railroad Company to utilize prapertp ah~t='-ng the rail*oad tracks for additional parking area for the propoaed development, aad that the petitioner shail submit said written permission and }he legal deacription of said property to the Planning Department in o;der to re-advertise the subject petition incorQoratiag said property into the proposed development. E. ~..~ .. 478 MIN[]TBS CITY PIANNING COhUdISSION October 30 1961 Continued: CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by SIDNSY M. ABBOTT, 11150 South pffitMIT N0. 171 Main Street, Los Angeles, Caiifornia~ Owner; George Randell-Architect~ 6th St eet Los Angeles California, Agent; requesting per- 1052 West r r + mission to SSTABLISH A RBSTADRANT WITH COCKTAIL LQUNGB AND Hl1NQUHT PACILITISS, on property described as; A parcel 200 feet by 250 feet with a frontage of 200 feet on the easterly side of Los Angeles Street and located on the northeasterly corner of Los Angeles Street and Cerritos Avenue. Property presently ciassified in the M-1, LIGHT MANUPACTURING and P-L, YARKING IANDSCAPING, ZONBS. ' I Mr, Craig Kelford, 1052 West Sixth 3treet, Los Angeles, appeared before ~ the Commission end stated that he was represeating the petitioner. He ~ presented renderinge of the proposed construction containing a restaurant, coffee shop, cocktail iounge, banquet facilities, and parking area. ~ ! The Commission discussed the location of the sub3ect property across ~ Cerritos Avenue to the north of the recentiy completed Buzza-Cardoza factory and the close pscximity of the C. M. A. development. The petitioner's agent was informed that the sub3ect petition would not change 4he existing M-1 zoning on subject property but would establish the requested use. TH8 FII'ARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that adequate ~ parking area would be provided. + 9 Assistant City Attorney Jse Geisler entered the Council Chambers at 3:05 0'Clock P.M. The Commission found and determined the foliowing facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditionai Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: restaurant with cocktail. ionnge and banquet facilities. 2, That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining Sand uses and the growth and deveiopment of the area in which it is pro- posed to be located. 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full deveiopment of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the oarticular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and generai welfare af the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undne burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. That the granting uf the Conditional Use Permit under the conditioris imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and generai welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution Nu. 122, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Pezmit No. 171, subject to the following conditions: .., ~~~d~i. ~~ .. ~~ 1. Developmen# s~rbstantially ir, accordance with Hxhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, ~' . 4, and 5. . ~ 2; Installation of Sandscaping as required by Code in the existing ;; fifty (50) foot and twenty-five (25) foot P-L~ Parking-Landscaping, Zones on subject property, plans for said landscaping to be sub- i mitted to and• subject to the approvaT of the'Superintend~nt of P~rk- I , way Mainteaance, and said landscaping to'be instalied prior to Pinal 'i Building inspection. ~ ~u~, r c ~_,~t. .~: .,. ,.,~... I ~%_'. .~._..:... , .1 ~::'~ .i~..) ., :., .. ~..:,'.~.i.~tN _.,c5..:4I .'. ....'._~' "~~_:~ ... i .r.,..~ . . . . . . . . .... . . . ~ ~ . F . ; , ,. . . .; .. . . . . . _ R ~ . .. . . . :If ~ . . -: , ..... . . . . - '"d.: . _ . . I ~ ~; ~ . .. ~ . , ~ . . . ,.. ,~ . 479 MINUTSS. CITY PLANNING C0~4~fISSION, Octolxr 30, 19611 Continued: CONDlTIONAL USB - 3, Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Los PBRMIT N0. 171 Angeles Street and Cerritos Avenue. (Continued) 4, Installation of sidewalks and driveways ia aecordance with the approved standard plans on file in the Office of the City Bngineer. ~ i 5, Time limitation of one hundred eighty <180) days for the accom- ' plishment of Item Nos. 3 and 4. ~.• ! The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to ~~ be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property 3n order to pre- c serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of AAaheim, ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYBS: COHAlISSIONBRS: Alired, Gauer~ Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,' i Pebley, Perry, ~mmers. j N~BS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. € ABSBNT: COhAfISSIONBRS: Morris. ~. r ' CONDIT`IONAL USB - PIIBLIC F~IDARING, Petition submitted by RANCHO IA PAZ CLUB, c% George pERMIT N0. 172 A, Gade, 501 Bast Orangetho.rpe Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; ~ N. H. Smedegaard, 401 West 8th Street~ Santa Ana, California, pgent; ~ requesting permission to BSTABLISH A TRAILffit PARK, on property described ~ as; A parcel 890 feet by 1,290 feet with a frontage of 890 feet on the k north side of Orangethorpe Avenue between Raymond Avenue and Lemon Street. F Bxcepting a parcel 120 fee4 by 150 feet with a frontage of 150 feet loca- ~ ted on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue between Raymond Avenue and ~ Lemon Street; its southeast corner being approximately 410 feet west of - ~ the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and the westerly right-of- ~- i way of the Union Pacific Railroad, i~roperty presentiy classified in the ~ M-1, LIGHT MANL'PACTURTNG and P-L, PARKING IANDSCAPING, 20NBS. ~ ,. ' Mr. Norman Smedegaard, attor3-ey representing the petitioners~appeared ~ before the Commission and described the proposed expansion of the re- creational facilities of the existing trailer park, He stated that the _ expansion would eliminate three trailer spaces and would constitute an ' improvement to tF~ park, He stated further that he did not consider ` the street dedication, recommended by the Interdepartmental Commitiee, ~ to be fair because it would reqaire the removal of two garages in ~ addition to the loss of a landscaped strip along Orangethorpe Avenue ` and he made reference to a court case. Mr. Smedegaard indicated that the ° subject petition was not similar 2o those requeating the estabiishment of a trailer park on vacant laad, at which time conditions imposed wouid nat create a hardship, because the subject trailer park had been estab- lished since 1953, ' Chairman.Gauer read a letter of protest, submit:ted by Irviag C. Chapman, ~ based upon the contention that because a trailer park,in which he had ~: an interesti had been deni2d for establishment in aa M-1~ Light Manu- ~ facturing, Zone he was, therefore, opposed to the subject petition, The ~ Coromiasion agreed that the subject petition did not have any bearing ' upon the cs~se mentioned in fihe letter of protest. ~ , ~ THB HBAItIN~3 WAS CLOSED. The Commission reviewed development plans submitted with the subject petition and discussed recommended conditions of approval. Assiatant City Attorney Joe Ge€sler adviaed the Commission that 4he existing trailer park had been established ia the M-1, Light Manufacturing, 2one when it was an allowable use and that the sub,ject petiti~n would be estab].iahing the present non-conforming uae of the p roperty as a con- forming uae.' He stated that 'sae immediate and any fqture expansion could be included in the approval of the sub,~ect petition if the Com- miss3on so desired. ~ . ~ r k . ~* r_.__._.__,_»: ~~±n'e+ ~ : • __ ~ E ~~ t ~+ ;i:;; x ~~ ` ~:a ` ~ .~ 480 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COI~MISSION, October 30, 1961, Contiaued: CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Geisier advised the Commission that, in respect to the recommended PBRMIT N0. 172 street dedication of 53 feet from tk-e centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, CContinued) it would not have to be included in the approval of the subject petition~ that generaliy the matter of dedication or improvement would be con- sidered by a conrt of law as a reasonable requirement, whereas, if com- pliance would require the remoVal of buildings and the loss of land- scaping as indicated by the petitioner, it might not be considered by a court of law as a reasonable requirement in view of the minor request for the expansion of recreational facilities. ~ Commissioner Marcoux indicated that he considered the suggested re- commendations as sevese in view of the fact that the changes would cost approximately $5,000 in addition to the loss of a 23 foot wide fror.tage along Orangethorpe Avenue. ~~ Mr. Smedegaard stated that the petitior.es was aware that the City pianned to widen Orangethorpe Avenue~but that they did not think the recommended conditions were reasonable because of the loss of the buildings and the landscaping~for the minor cnange of adding to the recreation area~ and that the i;ity could get the required property under ~ regular condemnation proceedings if they considered it necessary. The Co~ucoission discussed the lack of curbs and gutters, which were not installed at the time the trailer park was established, and noted that the property was annexed to the City of Anaheim after it had been established in the City of Pullerton. Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that to impose a condition requising the street dedication, which wculd necessi- tate the removal of buildings and loss of landscaping, migiit be consi- dered severe in view o: the nature of the request. He stated, however, . that the installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks might be a proper . and reasonable condition. ' ~ Commissioner Pebiey indicated that he did not consider it reasonalile for the City to impose a requirement that would r.reafe a loss to the petit.ioner.. Mr. Smedegaard informed the Commission that the petitioner, in order to cooperate with the City, would be willing to dedicate ten feet to the City for street widening purposes. He also indicated that the City aiready had thirty feet, and the Commission discussed the fact that the offer to dedicate would provide a forty foot dedication from the center- line of Orangethorpe Avenue. The matter of attaching conditions in re- spect to the installation of approaches and street iighting payments were discussed. Coamissioner Marcoux indicated tliat he did not consider if fair to attach any conditions in view•of the nature of the request. The Commission noted that the subje;:t petition was unique in that the trailer park was already established and that the approval of the minor request would not be setting a precedent. The Commission found and determined the following facts regasding the subject petition; 1. That the proposed use is p~operly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: to establish an existing trailer park as a conforming use and permit the expansion of recrea- tional facil3ties thereon, 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land '`.~ uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is pro- ,.,. posed to be located. ~. ~ ~:~ ; ~ , - ~ - ~ , ° -= ~-- `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 481 „~ MINUTBS. CITY 4LANNING COI~IISSIODi, October 30. 1961, Cantinued; , . COIdDITIONAL USH - 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate PBRMIT N0. 172 to aliow the full develoQmeat of the; proposed us~ in a manner not (Co--tinued) detrimental to the particular area:nor to the peace; health, safety, - and general welfare"of'the ~itiznes of the City of Anaheim. ~ •. , ~ 4.. Ttiat the traffic generated by the proposed alteration of an existiag ~, uae wiil n ot impos~, aa undue burdea upon the atreets aad highways , desi~e~ to~carry the'traffie in the area. 5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the coaditiona impoaed~ if any~ wili aot be detrimental to the peace~ heslth~ aefety; aad geaeYai welfare of the citizeas of the Citq of Anaheim. 6. That the attachmcnt of coadStions of approval~ requiring atreet dedicatioa and improvementa in accordaace with the oirculation elPment of the Geaerai Plan, and the payment of $2.00 per f*ont foot for street lightiag purpoaea would not be equitable~ givea t~e - cainor~ change requested for the exi$ting.use. 7, That the petitioner proposes a dedica<.ion of forty (40) fect from the centerline of Orangethorpe A~enue notwi.±hstandiag Pinding No. 6. 8. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No, 123, Series 1961-62, and inoved for its passage and adoption, seconded by C~mmissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 172, subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. Development substantiaily in aecordance with Bxhibit Nos, 1~ 2, 3, and 4. 2. L~edication of forty (40) Eeet from the monumented centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue C30 feet exis.ting). 3, Time limitation of one huadred eighty (180) days'for Lhe accomplish- ment of Item No. 2, . The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequi~~te to the use of the property in oxder to Fre- . serve the safety and welfare of the citizeas of the City ot Anaheim. On itoli ca11 the foregoing rasolution w as pasaed by the following vote: AYRS: CQhMIS3I0NBRS: Alired, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry~ 3ummers. , ~ NOffi: COt~AiISSIONBRS: None. ~ pBSBNT: CObAfISSIOi~IBRS: Morris, - CONDITIONAL USB - FUBLIC HBARING: Petition submitted by ROHHRT G. and MFLVA WILLIAMS, ' PBRMIT N0. iT3 4~5 West Sycamore, Anaheim, Cslifarnia, Ownera; George N. McTnnis, 5130 Clifton Way, Buena Park, Califarnia~ Agent; requesting permission to ~STABLI5H A DRI~B-IN RBSTAURANT, on proper.ty described as: A parcel l00 feet by 133 feet with a frontage of 100 feet located on the north side of La Palna Avenue between Bu~l9.d Avenue and Onondaga Street; its southeast eorner beiag approximately 397 feet west of the northwest cor~ . ner of Buc13d aad La Pa1ma Avenues and further described as 1743 and 1747 Neat La Palma A.versue. Property prese~tly classifi~d in the R A, RHSIDBN- TIAL.AGRICULTUA:-L~ ZONB. Mr: Georqe McInnis, authorized agent for the;petitioners~ appeared before the Commissioa and rsta~ef that he would be the operator of the proposed , d=ive=in'restaur.ai~t. • I ' _ _ . . . ~~1}lY-. ~.~ _ ~~a.'r2,C, ~... , .. _ ...i? ~:.. ...~ ai~^.5 .. ........... . r~..?„_~_ . ~i ~ ..~:.!i„ .r~.,r:.~.~...Rt'. ..,..,, . ~ . ~ ~ . ., . i `': i i ~ i ~~ ~ .~ 3 ~ ~ • ,':~ ~ a ... F ~ Y.''..~~' '~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~,'`~ ' . ~•. ~ `s R. . ~;:` W MINUTES ~IT7( pIANNING CONAlIS5TON October 30 1961 Continued: a:.l~ :~r ;T;~ . ,`~, i~ ~ ?N _.. . J Y: '. ^ , ~ ~ ~'~~ ~ . 482 CONDITIONAL USB - THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD.- PffitMIT N0. 173 ' (Continued) The Commission reviewed development plans and the petitioner indicated that the restaurant would be a"Big Hen Root Beer" stand~ that food would be served in conjunction with root beer, and that the installation ~ ~~~,n ti,~, a~mitA~ to sta,ndard "A and W Root Beer" ,stands. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the `. sub3ect petition: I . 1. That the proposed uae is properly one for which a Conditional Use I Permit is authorized by'this Code~ to wit: a drive-in restaurant. + f 2. That the proposed use wiil not adversely affect the adjoiniag land I uses and 4he growth and development of the area in which it is pro- ~ posed to be located. I 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to aliow the full deveiopment of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace~ health, safety~ and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaiieim. 4. That the traffic generated by the pzopoaed use wili not impose an undue burden upon the s~:reets and highways designed and proposed to carry the' traff ic in the a rea. 5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health~ safety~ ! 7 and geneial weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~ 6. That a sign application is required for approval of the sign indicated ~ on Hxhibit No. 1 of plans submitted with subj~ct petition. ~ ~ ?. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ , Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 124, Series 1961~62, and moved ! for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungali, to grant petition far ConditionaL Uae Permit No. 1T3, subject to the foilowing conditions: 1. Development substantialiy in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1~ 2, and 3. 2, Installation of Sandscaping, as indicated on Hxhibit No. 1 as amended, and in the uncemen~ed portions of tHe parkway, plans for said land~ scaping to be su'~mitt~ed to and sub3ect to the approval of the Buperin- tendent of Parkway Maintenance and said landscaping to be instalied prior to Pinal Building Inspection. 3. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented cen~eriine of La Palma Ave- nue (SO feet existing). q, ?syment of $2.00 per front foot for street iighting purpases on La Palma Avenue. , 5. Installation of sidewaiks and driveways in accordance with the approved standard plans on file in the Office of the City Bngineer. 6. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- ment of Item Nos. 3, 4, and 5, The foregoiag conditions.were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisife to the use of the property in order to pre- serve the safety,and weifare of the citizeris of the City of Anaheim. ~ ~ ~ t ' e ~. ~'.. .`..-~,..:~:~.a, > >; . ,. , . , .;,. _. V ~ ~._ 483 R i : ,yINUTSS CITY.PIANNING C01~4dIS3I0N October 30 1961 Continued: Cpd~TDITIONAL U'SB - On roll pffitMIT N0. 173 (Coatinued) _ ~~S: . NOBS: ABS~NT: call the fore~oiag resolution was passed by the following vote: COl~4+lISSI0N~1,tS: Alired, Gauer~ Hapgood~ Marcoux, Mungail~ ~ Pebley, Pe=ry, Summers. COhA~IISSI011BRS: No~e. COhA~IISSIONBRS: Morris. gg~~ggIpICATIpN~ PUBLIC Effi~4RING. Petition submitted by SIIAS W. LBFA~IBR, 1554 Cris Avenue~ N0. 61-62-38 Anaheim~ Cslif~;~a9a~ Owner4 Rpthman-Steen and Associates, 223 South CSaudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestiag that the property deacrib~ed as: A parcel 480 feet bq 1~185 feet with a froatage of 480 feet located on the aorth aide of Ratelia Avenue between Nutwood Avenue end Dalias Drive, its aouthwest coraer being approximately 186 feet east of the aortheast cortter of ~atelle Avenue an~1 Dailas Dzive~ be reclassified ~row the R A, RBSIDHNT7AL AGRICULTURAL, ZtuiS to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY R9SIDBNTIAL, ZONB. Sub,~ect petitioa ia sub-._tted in con3unc4ion with Coaditional Uae Permit No. 168. ~ A letter received from Mr. Gordon Steen, the petitioner's agen~~ was subm~tted to the Commiasion~ requestiag that the aub3ect petition be contii}ued untii November 13, 1961 because aa error had been made in the Preliminary Title Report aubmitted with.the sub,ject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motioa, seconded by Commiss3oner Ailred and carried~ to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-38 until the meetinP of November 13, 1961 ia aceordance with the request aubmitted by the petitioner`s agent. CONDITIO~iAL USB - PUBLIC l~IDAitING. Petition submitted by SIIAS W. LHHIdBR, 1554 Cris Avenue, pBRMIT N0. 168 Anaheim, California, Owner; Rothman-Steea and Associates, 223 South Claudina Street~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A PIANNHD UNIT DBVSLOPNBNT; on property described as: A parcel 480 feet by 1,185 feet with a fro;.cage of 480 feet located on the notth side of Katella Avenue between Nutwood Aveaue and Dalias Drive; its south- west corner being approximately 186 fPet eas~ of the r.ortheast corner of Katella Aveaue and Daliat Drive. Property pr~sently ciassified in the R-A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AQIICULi'URAL, 20NH. Sub3ect petition is submitted in conjunctioa with Petition for Reciass- ification No. 61-62-38. A letter received from Mr. Gordon Steen~ the petitioner's ageat~ was submitted to the Commissioa, requestiag that the ;1ub3ect petition be continued untii November 13, 1961 because aa e~tor had been made in the Pselimina=y Title Report submitted with the subject petition. Commiasioner Marcowc offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and carz3ed, to continue Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 168 ~ in coajunctf~n with Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-38 in accordance with the request submitted by the petitioner's ageat. RBCIASSIPICATION- PUHLIC.tIDARING. Petition submitted by JOSBPH ANTON~ 414 West La Paima N0. 61-62-39 Avenue; Ilna6eim,~Califosnia,'Owner; requestiug that the property des- cribed as: An irregularly shaped percel with a frontage of 112 feet on I.a Palma Avenue and a frontage of li4 feet on Harbor Hculevard and Yo- cated on the southeast corner of La Pa1ma Avenue and Harbor Soulevard aad further described as 950 North Harbor Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-2, 1W0 PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONS to the C-3~ HHAVY COMMHRCIAL~ ZONB. ~ ~ ---,---- ~ ~'~"' ,.., ,. . . . _ . r . ~, , . ~: . ~ ~ . .. , . . ;f' ~,..~ ,.,.. ; ~ _ ~ .~,., ....:._ . .:._ ~ ._..:: ..: _ . 1 _.._ ~. ~` ~ .....~.._.---...~ k ' ;~ r, ". t. fl f:..•. ~., : ! ~ .'E ~ ~: MINUTBS. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 30,_1961, Cont_inued: ,, ~: t ~ 484 RHCLASSYPICATION- Mr. Renneth Lae, 914 West Center Street, the petitioner's agent, N0. 61-62-39 appeared before the Commission and stated that Mr. Anton, the peti- (Continued) tioner, had protested against the establishment of a service station directly in front of sub,ject property across Harbar Boulevard on the west because he didn't want to live across the street fxom a service station. He stated that; ii view of the City's action in permitting the establishment of that service station, the petitioner had decided that his property was no longer'suitable for residential use and would be more valuable for a service station because of the increased traffic at the intersection of Ia Palcua Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and because of the La Palma Park across La Paima Avenw: on the north. Mr. Lae s• •ed furthez that the aubject property was 106 feet by 115 feet in size, t.t there was an alley at the rear of the property, that the existing residences and garages would be removed, and that the property would require grading~ because of the high elerration of the land~in order to permit access to the proposed service station. Mr. Dave Nickey, 945 North Helena Street, app~ared before the Commis- sion and submitted a petition of protest against subject petition con- taining the signatures of elevea owaers of property within a 300 foot ' radius of subject property. He stated that the subject and abutting properties to the south and east were entirely developed for resi- ~ dential uses, that the surrounding resideaces wese of good quality~that the service station would be detrimental to the area, that the traffic i generated by a service station would increase the pedestrian nnd ve~ii- ; cular traffic problem to the abutting residences that now exists because ~ of the La Palma Par~ activities, and that the existing alley at the rear ~ of subject property extending southerly to La Verne Street is too narrow to be an asset to the property, Commissioner Pexry read the petition of protest to the Commission, and ', a letter of protest~ signed by Mr, and Mrs. Wiiliam Smith, was submitted to the Commission. THH HHARING WAS CLCSBD. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassific ation of the above des- cribed property from the R-2, Two Pamily Residential, Zone to the C-3~ Heavy Commercial, Zone. 2. That the proposed reciassification of subject property is not nec- essary or desirable for the orderiy ana proper developmer:t of the community. 3. That the proposed reciassification of subject property does not properly relate to the zones and their permitted uaes locally established in close proximity to sub3ect property and to the zones and their permitted uses generail.y established throughout the com- munity. 4. That the properties abutting the subject property to the south and eas.t are developed far residentiai use, and the petit±oner had ob- ,~ected in the past to the establishment of a s~rvice statioa ou property located a distance of 100 feet from subject property, on the basis that it was an encroachment into the resid;~ntial sectioa, where- as~ the requested uae of sub,ject proper4q nouid conatitute au en- croachment of a coamercial use immediateZy ir,to the existing resi- dential developm~nt on.,the abutting properties to :he.south and east, and that the requested use of sub,ject property would be detr3mental to the owners of fihese abutting properties. . . . ... ~. _ _ . :, . .~.,~ ~.. ...-. .. ~Yi..~.'.:~.f ~ ..^5 . :.M,~ ~;~?E• .. _ . ~ _.f ..e ~ . 11'_ .' .. . ~ ~ ~ - Q ~ ;• ~ 485 MINUTBS CITY PIANNING CODMlISSION October 30 1961 Continued: RHCLASSIFICATION- 5. That a~etition of protest containing li signatures of abutting i addition to verbal protest and one letter of 1 . i! N0. 61-62-39, proper4y owners, n (Continu_ ed)~ protest, were recorded against subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 125, Series 1961-62, and moved fox its passage asld adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-38 be denied on tne basis of the aforementioned findings. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYSS: COb41ISSI0NBRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Summers. NOHS: CONMISSIONBRS: None. AHSBNT: COAM~IISSIONBRS: Morris. RBCIASSIFICATION- PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by THCIMAS T. INCH, 160 Indian Road, N0. 61-62-40 Yiedmont 10, California, Owner; Loren fi. Wagner, 1503 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Agent, sequesting that the property des- ci•ibed as: A parcel 140 feet by 250 •~eet with a frontage of 140 feet located on the east side of Harbor Bculevard and located on the north- east corner of Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, be reclassified from tne R-A, RESIDffidTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NH to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMt~ffiRCIAL, ZONH. Mr. Loren B. Wagner, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Com- mission and explained that the Bank of America intended to construct a branch bank on the subject property. He stated Yhat he did not have elevations plans for the proposed development but that it would be similar to the bank located at Los Angeles Street and Ball Road. Tf~ffi HHA1tING WAS CIASED. ; ~ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the . ± subject petition: ~ 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above des- ' ; cribed property from the R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS to the ~ C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD CODM~IBRCIAL, ZONE. ~ • , j 2. That the proposed reciassification of subject property is necessary i or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly ' relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in •close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per- ' mitted uses generally established throughout the community. _ . 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because . said p:operty does relate ta and abut upon streets and highways which ace proposed to csrsy the type and quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the permittteB uses, in accordance with t he circulati~n elemeat of the General Pla~ 5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. I Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 126, Series 1961-62, and moved I~ for its passage aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ailred, t o re- commend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. ; 61-62-40 be approved, su6jecC to the following conditions: `"7 'I 1. Development substantia.ily in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1. ' .. -~7:ii'c:i ~ ,, ~,,~' ~ _ :j ~ ~:L', - -- --.. ,_._ ~~ . ... ; + r? .:i ; j. :,;,~y'ES.. ~r,ja'~:+~r~" _"~ .n . i~~ .' ~ i;1 I_ - - ~ t~, . ~ _ ,~ ~r':~ ~ ~ ~ . . `r .._-'o, " ~ ~ ~ .. ' ~~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ 486 ~, , , . MI~JTgg ~ITy pIANNING COD9dTS3I0N October 30 1961 Cqnt3nued: E . ggCIpgSIpICATION- 2. Pr4nision of landscaping ia.accordance with Bxhibit No. 1, P1a=oval N0. 61-62-40 fQr said landscapi~ig to be submitted to and sub3ect to the app (Continued) of ~he $uperintende~t of Parkway Maintenance and to be instailed pr~ior to Pinal'~iiidiag Inapection. 3. ~edication of 45 feet from the,monumented centerline of Orangewood veaue (20 feet exist:~ng). R, . : . . . . 4, pteparation of street improvement piaas and iastaliation of ali im- provemeats for Oraa3ewood Aveaue aad_Harbor Boulevard in accordance with the,approVed st~ndard p,lans on file in the Office of the City Hngiaees. ~ g, payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Or~ngewood Avenue`and Harbor Boulevard. 6. Time Iimitation of n3nety (90) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos. 3, 4, and 5. The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to trie use of the property in order to preserve the safety~and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On rc11 ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COl~fISSIONBRS: Ailred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, pebiey, Perry, Summers. NOHS: COhMIS3I~iBRS: None. pgSHNT: CO[~lISSIONERS: Morris. RHCIASSIPICATION- PUBLIC HBA1tING. Petition submitted by NBLL OLSBN, 1675 West Ratell.a ~ N0. 61-62-41 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that the property des- cribed as: A parcel 73 feet by 100 feet with a frontag~ of 100 feet on Katella Avenue and Socated on the northwest corner of Ratella Avenue und Tiara Street and further described as 1793 Tiara St:•_et~ be reciassified from the R-1, ONS PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ~ONH to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COhQlBRCIAL, ZONS (Restricted to business and professional offices). Mrs. Nell Olsen, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that she had difficnity in keeping t'.^e existing single family resi- ~ dence rented, that she was maintaining her ,.~al estate office S00 feet westerly of subject property at the present time, aad that she wished to remodel the residence into a real estate office and move her business to that location., THH HEARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission reviewed plans submitted with the subject petition, and noted that an adequate amouat of parking could not'be F•:ovided on the subject property, that•the subject proFertY was located in a singie family residential tract, and that in othES areas where similar conver- sions had been permitted, the result had been detrimental to the ap- pearance of the area. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclaESification of the atove des- cribed property fro;a the R-1, ONB PA6iII.Y RBSIDBNT7AL, 20N8 to the C-1 .~Tn_unnnurv~n r.cv~IBRCIAL. 20N8 (Restricte~ to business~and Professioaa >I _ „ :~~1~rSN.~~i~,:~ ' . ~_, ~ - MINUTgB CITY PIANNYNG COMMISSION October 30 1961 Continued: ~ 1 ~~sSIPI~Ti~ 2~ ar~torhdesirabie forCthegorderly andfpropercdevelopmentiof thencomg N0. 61-62-41 . (Continued) mqnitq. . .. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does aot properly relate to the'zoaeg'and their permitted uses locaily estab- theirdpexmitted uaeaigenerallyuea~ablishedrthroughout~theZCOmmunity. 4. That the proposed reciasaificatiop of aub,ject property doea require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streeta becauae said property does relate to and abut upoa streeta aad highways which are proposed to carry the type aad quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the permitted uses. in accordance with the. circulation element o£ the Generai PSan. 5, That the proposed reclassification of the subject property wouid not constitute an improvement of the area. 6. That the proposed zeclassificatioa•of subject property would permit the encroachment of a commercial use into a single family residential development. 7, That adequate parking could not be provided on subject property after compliance with the provisions of the circulation elemeat of the Gen- eral Plan. g, That no one appeared in cpposition to subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 127, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-41 be denied on the basis of the aforementioned findings. On roli cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYSS: COhA~IISSIONSRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley, Perry and Summers. NQHS: COMMISSIONffitS: None. AgSgNT; COARdISSIONBRS: Morris. ggCIpSSIPICATION- PUBLIC HBARING . Petition submitted by ARTHUR and DORHBN GRf-Y~ ilii West ' N0. 61-62-42 _ Broadway Street, Anaheim, California, Owaers; requesting that the property I described as: A parcei 50 feet by 158 feet with a frontage of 50 feet I located on the north side of Broadway between West and Walnut Streets; its southeast corner being approximately 110 feet west of the northwest cornet of West Street and Broadway, be reclassified from the R-2, 1W0 ppMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDENTIAL, ZONB. Mr. Asthur Gray, the petitioner, appeared befo=e the Commission and des- cribed the proposed constsuction of a two unit apartment building, mith the units to be erected over the garages at the rear of subjec~: pro- perty and providing access fram the siley abutting subject property on the northeri.y bouadary line. He stated that he intended to remove the existing garage and that similar units wEre constructed on adjacent pro- perty located northerly of subject property. Mr. Gray indicated that a petition,containing the signatures of tea owners of psoperty in the area, had been filed•in favor of subject petition requesting that the en.tir.e,block be reclassified to the R-3, Multipie Pamily neaidential, Zone. . .. i~.~l~:. 5 r;j.. ... .., i... ... ~_..... , i.~l:'.~ ~ .~~..'. ... . . . . .. . e. b .. ' ~ . ~ : ~. . s P. . M_ CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, October 30,_1961,_Continued: 488 RBCIASSIPICATION- Mr. J. R. White, 809 West Broadway; appeared before the Commission and N0. 61-62-42 stated that he was ttot opposing the snbject petition but that he consi- (Continued) dered it connected with the Prqcise Pian Study of ~roadway easterly of sub~ect property which did not'include the sub3ect property, He stated ~ that ali #he pzoperties on Broadway were affected by the existiag pro- biems ia the area and that he cnought the entire stree: should be re- classified to~the R-3, Mµltiple Pamilp Residential, Zone from the freeway easterl}y rather than recl~ssifying one piece pf property at a time. He stated further tk~at su4h actions would permit a property owner to inveat iit the development of his property for multiple family residentiai use and then perhaps a commercial bniidiag wouid be permitted next to it, thereby injuring property values. Upon iaquiry by Commissioner Allred, the petitbner indicated that the existing residence on the front of 4he subject property would remain at the present time but that he hoped to remove the hnuse wiChin ten years and build a single story structure. He stated further that he would be limited in respect to the number of units that could be placed on the aub3ect property because of its size~and that only four garagea couid be accomodated at the rear. Mr. Gray added that he thought entry to the sub3ect property should be restricted from Broadway. TFID F~ARING hWS CL09HD. ' The Commission discusaed the possibility of reclassification of the entire biock to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residentiel, Zone and the ad- visability of the preparation of a study of the subject area to determine ita relation of sub3ect property to other properties ia the aurrounding area. It waE noted that a recent request for reclassification of pro- perty located westerly of subject property had been denied Secauae the owner of that property iatended to remodel an existing residence for • multiple family residential ur~a. The Commission c!iscussed the ad- visability of haadling each request for reclassification on its own merits. It was indicated `.:~at a group nf property owners could initiate ~ a request for reclassification and provide suitabie plans for the de- velopment of the properties if they so desired. ~. I The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-2, 1W0 PAMILY RHSID,RNTIAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPIE FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary or desirable for thE orderly and proper development of the community. 3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted use3 localiy established in close praximity to aubject property and to the zones and their per- mitted uses generaliy established throughout the community. ' 4. 5. ~~ , f ~ ,,w!:.: That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not re- quire dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because said pr~perty does reiate to and abut upon streets and high- ways which are improved to carry the type and quantity of iraffic, which wiil be genera~ed by the permitted uses, in a,.cordance with the circulation element of the General Plan. That ac one appeared in oppo~ition to subject petition and a peti- #ioa of support, cor;taining l0 signatures, was filed in f avor of subject petition. , ~; . ~ ; ,':. JL ,.;,{'.. ;'~,~ ~ . ,.~... , _i~~:R2.~ C,~ ... 490 ~ M?hZ'~BSiCITY F~IANNING COIY'N~I3SION. October 30; 1461. .Continued; ~ 1't1P'LIC HBARIN3 - iar. greidt also stated that 'in v_Pw oi 4He fact that t3~e P~ati:.ic F3brarq ((:ontir.ued) end 8ulice Faciiity had been degigi.ated fbr location .a Ciity ~n,;a+:~~i property betweeA'Broadway and Santa Ana Street west of Ha.rbor 13c;,ievard, ~ and in v~.ew o~ pendipg considerations relstive to the possible location ~ ; af add3tional civic fac.alities, m ar in close prox:lmity to thz e:s:iatiag ~ I ~~i'c; owaed propert~r, it arould appear that the sub3ec:t are~ iri in a state , of' ~tsssneit9:an, tha,~ the pro jection of the optimr~m deNelopap:r~'. for the sn~:,~ec* a,;~a of the Pseciae Plan wotild be prema? ure. He ata•ttzd further ~. ' tYu.: hr had no iaformation oa t-te ia4ent of th~^ Scho~l Diac:rir.t to I &~e-uir~ aay of the abuttiag ree~identiai proprrtiea tc~ the ena,t of the f ezs~tin~, lchool for schooi expaasion puspos~s,. He coacluded that due to tu~ ~tabe c~f flux that the area ia ia at the preaent tia~e v~nd also be- m`~ • cau~: .^,'c tte preliminary atage of Che study prese~tly Y,,eing coaoucted ' ~ ~ withia the Department of the Cr•ater C.i^.•,~ Ares, no apecific recommend4tioaa ~ ahould tie made at thia time because they might be fn conf.+.ict with recom- max'eG:cioas made at a later clate foilowing a:i i.-.censive ir:veatigatioa of ~ th= eatire Ceate~ City Area, and that ia re~pec+. to the Petition for ~ Variance beiag conaidered by the Council~ that the C~mr~isaion re-affirm i tHat the case be conaidered oa ite own meri4s. ~ Mr. Geraid A. Johnaon appeared before the Commieaian and atated ihat hG ,N~.~d.s home in the aub3eet ares ia which he had eatablisIud ~ r.~;.i cstate office. He ~tated .further that he wae definitely in fAvor of the sec).aeaificetion oE a;+~,~e~~t property for cpmmercinl aee, ~..:~,d he { deacr:t:Kd the presen! locatica of the achnol, Lhe City oa:~ed property acrosa #he atr~et oa Hroa:~~a~~, end the eatabl.ishmen# of a cafe oa Loe ~ pagelea 3treet. ~., ~ Mr. S. T. Hammond~ 901 Norfh ~aily ~4re.~t, appeasr::i befuz^ the Com- mi~eioe 6-Ad 8L8tCA tI19t Yl! O:"~+.!'. 8 mult:ple. E8ma1+" res:idett'sfsl unit • on Qhestaut Street and ty,a•t re und other otanera of multiple fuiaily ; reaidential properties ^.n the area conaidered R-~3, Multiple Pamily ~' Residential, zoning to 'be the beat clasaifalcation for thoae propertiea F aituA:~d on Chestnut S#reec. ~ 1 ~ ~` ~ ~ .....~.s.~1 h!_. Melvin Nitz, 918 West Geater Street, app.~ared before the Commis- aiion ~sd stated he svas the ownar of the sqb,~e^t property of Petition f'or Variaace No. 139~, iocated at S25 Weat Brosdweq. He stated he ~vaa in favor of co~aerciai zon9nQ fnr the sub,~ec~ ares~ and that there wa8 aa extreme am~uat of uutomobil,- parki~g on the atreet because a recently eatabiishe.~d church at thc corner of Broadtvsy and Citron Streeis was approved wiLhaut adequate off-s.creet parking, thnt there was a service static:~ on ~he corner oi Iiari,c.: Bcaievard and Hroadway, th:s the ~ity owned proFprty acress •h~ stree~ oa the eouth which was to be de- veloped f,ar civic ~urposas, aa~ that i: tUe propertiea w~ere limi*.ed to busiaesa or profe_sioaai offices oa~.y, additiona? traffic probleme ~aauld aot be created as might res~lt from mui%iQle family residential uaes. Mr. ,juc White, 009 Wcst Broadwzy, appeared before the Commiasion and complained aboutthe preseat condition of the City owne~ pranerty and the amouat aad type of im~rovementa instalied by the School Diatrir,t on the schooi t~roperty. ;?e stated f~rther that the entire atreet w,sa a problem and hP presente3 picl:eres of a~~aidence o:. Broadway that had been converted into a real.estate office. He made nofie of t','ie appear- ance aad nusber of signa anll statad that he ob,jected to that t~qe of deveiopmeat. He then reviewed tiae sction by the Ciiy Council in per- mitting the estabii,ahmeat of the chusch ua the uorts-earst corner of Citron St~eet and Broadwsy witho~_: t~e req~,i.ted ama~,~n4 of parking aren, and he 3ndicated that the developmeat k-ad cr.eatect aa extrtme tsaffic probiem. Mr. White atated that he ab3ected t~~ the convr.rsi.on of old residences ~nto cqmmerciel usea~ thati syclt ar,tiona sould not helg +.he parking pro~ blew, ~hat aithough the area wag suppoaed to be in a state af fiux it wae not~appAreat ag yet, thati a chauge weis an$:iripace3 i:e the future bnt t:lat~ to peim3.t' the use of"SO foot lots '~or coq~mercial purposea would only iACrease the ~xisttng prot~~e~:, ~hat ~tt}r deve~.op~ncnt o~' the area wae de- peadept y,pqn the locatiop ;of ~h~ C~ty: He~.l a~td/c~r att~er civic buiidin~s , ,, . , ~ ! . ~ ~ i~~.._.,3 - -- -- ~ C ~ ~ ~ 492 ~ tiINU~,~GiTY•PLANNING CdMMTSSIOt~. Octobe"r 30. 19b1, Continued: p~ PUI3LIC F~ARING - one owner of property ia the area to tonvert aa existing single family F: (~^,otttinued) eaidence into an attorney!s office. ~. The Cominission discusaed the effect thet the establi3hmer.t of civic ' , ~ ~ builn:ngr.~ on yroperty situated south of Broadway, would have on the ~ sub,~ect propertiea. 'It wae noted that, if triesa propertiea were de- veloped for auch use, th:° ad,~acent properties could then afford the ~.` r.er^_~~: ~ of existing atructures for the 3,astal.tabion of a suitable ~; ~ c~~mmercia~ development because of their'inCreased value. They iadicated, ~ however, that definite kaowiedge of the proposed City improvements was ~ ` aot available at the present time, that the conversion of the aubject ,~ propertiea for a suitable commerciai development was nct economically ~ feas~ble at the preaent t~.me, and that even if the civic ceater were establiahed at the Eroadway-Harbor site, it would aot nu113fy the uae of s ~ the subject psopert7 for reaidential purpoac~s as has beer provea in i other citiea. Commiasioner Alired indicated that the Commission had recently recom~ ~ mended deaiai of the requested coaveraion of one of the sab,ject pro- per~ies, that it was premature to reco~cmend any definite development G. for the aubject area, and that no action ahould be taken until addi- ;, tional iaf~rmation is ~.va~lable and exhibita aad proposals have been ' prepared incorporating the atudies thzt have heea diacuased, so that `+ further conaidezatio:i,could be g.tven the matter. t Commiesioner Marcoux offered a motion, secoade3,by Commiasioner Ailred ~ a,r:d carried, that the ~aatter be continued until the meeting of November ~ l3, 1961~ that three exhibitis be'prepared by the Planning Departmrnt ~ ~taff indicating a plan for R-3, Multipie Family Aesidential~ develop- ~ ment of sub3ect area; a pian for development of the sub,ject proper:ies :ln ~ _ groupa of three lots with remova! of residencea from one Sot in each ` group for the provision of qarkir.g facilities in c~aformance with Code s' requiremeats; and a p;an indicating rem~vai a.' ex.isting structures for ~ development of an intep,~:ated cocemercial compiex. Commissioner Allred tiisected fur:her ihat the S~::ool District be contacted in order to obtain definite aif~~roation in rospect tc the ex -~s3on of school facilities in the subject azea. ~ ~. ' TBNTATIVH TRACT - DBVBLOPffit: SYCAMOR3 HOMSS, INC „ 36336 9a*t Whittier Boulevar3, Wl;itties, N0. 4425 California. PNGINBBR; NAT NBPP BNGINHffitYNG .:OM1dANY, 13016 South 8uclid - Avenue, Gerdea Grove~ California, Stihja~` tr~cf; is iocated at the no,rth- ~.. :ast corner of d~!n~~st Street aud WagL~s Arenue, and coataia;. 33 pror~oae~f R-1, ONH PAMILY RHSIli~~v'fIAL, Lf7fS. ~ Zr.Yerdepartmental Cammit•iae and Stafi re::om.,zudation:, for tk~e develop- u'~ meat of the subject tract were read and submitted to the Commission. t; ~" Mr.. Ray Mercado, representative ior the developer, appeared before the ~ Comaission and stated that they had no objections to any of the condi- ~ tions except Eos the condition =elative to the planting stsip and the 7 foot sidewalk. He cited instances where other tracts ~n the area had been developed in accordance with the adopted standard condi~ions of the ~' City of Anah~im for which a 5°oot sidewa3k had been requi.-ed. He atated further that Wagner 4vem~p is pr~posed as an elevated overpasa f~u the freeway N~hich would eliminate foot traffic at the inteisectioa of Wagner Ayeaue and 3unkist Street, and that the pattern set in the immediate vi- cinity wauld have more asthrtic valuc at ttie intrrsection. Mr.Mercada addod that he had worked tiith yhe City fa: tiie atandazdization of condi- ¢ :: .`~ tioas for tract de~~elopm~nt and t'•at he xas requesti~g ;:hat the sub3ect ~ `; tract br, approved 3~n accordanr,e wit}: the ap~xove3 anJ adopted staadarda ~~ of the City of Aae#~eim.. He st~ted'tt~at he :iad aa o~jections ~to the ~Y !~ V ~ Y ' ~. . _.. . . :Y~(~1,~.. "1 . . ~ . . ~..I • . ~ . ~ . . LEA~ ' ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ a ,1. ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ! ~I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' . ~ . ~ .~..~.. • ~ r--- '~.'. ~-~... ~. . . /e~f...',,.:`.~,.,~'~ .T_- ::.'..:: .'..:;"'. . :... , f_~ .nl ...^~- r~.:..ri(x_ ' • .. .._ '.. . . ..' _ _"-' . . ,.... ~ ~{ . . ~ ,'~ ~~ ~- . -- --__ -____- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:.` ~ MINUTBS CITY PIRNNING COhAlISSION October 30, 1961, Continued: TBNTATIVS TRACT - instal].3tion of the wail, and in response to inquiry by the Commission, N0. 4425 relativ: to the.recommended instailation of a landscape;l strip with (Continued) mairitenance by City fbrces, Mr. Mercado stated that he did not :.onsider it necessary where the street is proposed for eievatioa but that a reasona- ble amount of landscaping would not be objectionable. The Commission discussed tlie motive for the requiremt~nt of landscaping, namely, for beautification of the City for tiie genera: welfare. The Commission also discussed possible maintenance costs, tf;e elevation of Wagner Avenue and the amount of benefit that would be derived by the installation of the landscaping and the sidewalks. Commissionez Perry ' indicated that he considered the iastailation of standard sidewalks at the point of intersection to be adequate in view of the proposed ele- vation of the s~reet. .. " > , : ~ ~ 493 Seniox Planner Martin Rreidt informed the Commission that pictures and landscaping standards were presently being ~repared by the Park and Planning Departments for approval by the Administrative Office for re- ferral to the Commission and the City Council for recommendations and adoption, which would then be automatically required for the develop- ment of tracts within the City, and that in the meantime in ii.eu of the adoption of landscaping standards for the City, the recommended im- provements for the subject tract were suggested in order to obtain said improvements at the present time for the subject property. After further discussion, it was noted that it would be more realistic to require a five foot sidewalk with standard iaadscaping rather than the installation of a seven foot sidewalk as recommended. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Perry and carried, that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4425 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Coastruction of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the planned high- way right-of-way line of Sunkist Street and Wagner Avenue abutting Lot Nos. 13 through 21 and the side yar.ds of Lot Nos. 21, 22, 3? and 1, provided that said six (6) foot wa:~l shall be reduced •to 42 inches within the required front yard setback of Lot Nas. 21, 22, 33, and 1. 2, Installation of reasonable landscaping in ihe ?~ foot wide uncem~nted j portion of the parkway for the full distaace of said wall construct- ~ ion, except where the road-way is elevated for the overpass of Wagner Avenue, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and to be installed prior to Final Building Inspection of the subjecc tract. ~ The City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for the main- i tenauce of said landscaping following installation by the developer I aid acceptance by the City of said landscaping. 3, pertiaent plot and building plans in connection with this Subdi- vision Map shall be reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments. 4. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in ten#ative form for approval. 5. Dedication of vehicular access rights to Y~agner A'venue and Sunkist Street, except at street openings. TBNTAT~VB TRACT - DBVHIAPffit: WILLIM~II:OGffitS, 20211 Amapola, Oraage, Caiifornia; HNGINEBR~ N0. 4443 McDANIEL BNGINBSRING CQ"~ANY, 222 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Caiifoz•- aia. 3ubjecb tract is Socated on the northwest c~rner of Snnki.st Street and Wagner Avenue, and contains 35 proposed R-1, One Pamily Residentiai lots. , .., . , . , . . ~; . . ~, . ,.s . . . N.<~:;;~. , ~ : ~: -- -'- - - ~ ~l _ _ _. ~- - ~ - ~ ---- v ~~ ~ 494 MINUTBS, CITY P?ANNING COhA9I5SI0N, Octobcr 30, 1961, 'Continued; ~ - ii i f~_.'~.~..~ . ~. ~ ~ a: ua TBNTATIVB TRACT ~ The Commission reviewed tne tentative map of subject tract and Staff N0. 4443 and Interdepartmental Committee recomm~ndations were submitted to the CContinued) Commission. ' Mr. Jacobsony rep:esentative of the McDaniel Hngineering Company, ~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he had no objections 1 to the recommended conditions of approval, although he took exception i to the landscaping requirement in respect to the amount that would be required and the degree of responsibility of the developer. ~ I The Commission discu ssed the landscaping recommendati-ans and it was ~ noted that standard landscaping requirements were in the process of i preparation, that the degree of responsibility of the developer would be established, and that the amouat of landscaping would be reasonable and subject to the xecotnmendations of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. It was pointed out that a request could be transmitted to the Superintec~dent of Parkway Maintenance that the recommended standard ! l:.ndscaping requirements be prepared before the subject tract is sub- : mitted to the City Council for review. Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Comm~ssioner Allred and carried, to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4443, subject to the foliowing conditions: 1. Construction of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the planned highway right-of-way line of Wagner Avenue and Sunkist Street abutting Lot Nos. 15, 22f 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 1, provided that said six (6j foot wall shall be reduced to the height of 42 inches within the required front yard of Lot IVos. 1, 35, 22, and 15. 2. Installatioa cf reasonable landscaping in the 7+~ foot wide uncemented portioa of the parkway for the full distance of said wall construction. plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the ap- proval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and to be in- stalled prior to Pinal Building Inspection of the subject tract. The City of Anaheim shai.l assume-the respoasibility for said iandscaping foilowing the instaliation by the developer and acceptance by the City of said landsr,aping, 3. Pertir.ent piot and building plans in connectior_ tvith this Subdivision Map shall.be reviewed by the Planning and Building Depa=tments. 4. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereot shall be submitted in tenta- tive form for approval. 5. Dedication of vehicular access rights to Wagner Avenue and Sunkist Stseet, except at st=eet openings. 6. Stretts "A" and "B" to be a sixty (60) foot right-of-way with forty (40) feet between curbs. ~ ~ Cc.~missioner Summers left the Council Chambers at 5;30 O'Clock P.M. ~ CORRBSYONDBNCB - ITSM N0. 1: Pield Inspection Trip - Standard Oil Company: ~~=: ~~::; • ~ A request submitted by the Standard qi1 Company,.relative to a field • ~ ~~t ' inspection trip of company operations, was presented to the Commission, ~: said inspection to be conducted, at 2 P.M. on Navember 6, i961, of ex- PK~i;~ istin~ oil drilling operations coaducted in similar locations, in t?~;~~r ~ ~ , ';.~ ~ ~. ,:.; ~ ~ ~ _. V z~~ $~if ~ {,A;s. -c----- ".. ._.. '`., ..'-.' , . ,. .. . - ` .._"- .',~_ . . * :.,. . ', .~hf~,'*::.,..~>~t~;'~r: . CORRSSPONDBNCB - ITEM N0. 1: (Continued) (Continued) addition'to field observations of subject property, located in the vici- nity of the Corral Shoppi~g Center s±tuated at th~ intersection of Euclid and Brookhurst Avenues. In response to inq!~iry irom the audience, the ~~mmission pointed out that a request for po~,ible oii weil drilling ~ W88 in the process OC preparaiioii aiiu i,ila~ i~ w&b u2CfC2Q ueccs3ary •cnas the Commission obtain pertinent information in respect to such operations. The Commission directed that the Planning Department arrange a field inspection trip to be conducted on November 6, 1961, in response to tfie request outlined. ITBM N0. 2: Southern California Planning Congress - November Meeting: Notice of the preparations for the Novemb.:r meeting of the Southern Califoraia Planning Congress Me~_~,ing to be held at the Disneyland Hotel, were submitted to the Commission. The Commissioa noted that, in vieN of the fact that the Planning Com- mission of the City of Anaheim ras servin~ as host, the members of the City Couacil and their wives, in addition to members of the Urban Re- newal Comc¢ittee~should be invifed to attend the meeting sche3uled for Novembes 9, 1961 at the Disneyland Hotel. The Planning Department was directed to extend said invitations as outliaed. ITBM N0. 3; RBVIHW OP CONDITIONAL USH PBRMIT N0. 147: ;: ~ ~f.' ~; "A letter submitted by Reverend Ralph Wilkerson, Pastor of the Pirst Christian Church, was presented to the Commission. The letter requested that only a portion of the church building program, approved by Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.147, be required at the present time. The letter indicated that to provide the required cul-dP-sacs at the termina- tion of both streets (Candlewood and Norwood Streets)~would present a problem to the newly formed church. The Commission discussed the necessity for reviewing the precise plans for development, indicating the actual intention of the proposed church, be- fore a suitabie recommendation could be made. The matter of posting a bond to insure the instaliation of the required cul-de-sacs was also discussed by the Commission. Commissioner Alired offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux and car~ied, that either revised pians be submitted, indicating the pro- posed development at the present time or that a boad be posted for a two (2),year period of time to insure the installation of said cul-de-sacs in order-to conform with the conditions of approval stipulated in Reso- lution No. 52, Series 1961-62, amendtd by Resolution No. 106, Series 1961-62, said resolutions granting approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 147 by *.he Planning Commission on August 21, 1961 and amen3ed on October 2; 1961.° s~ ITEn! N0: 4: Cammunicatian from Centralia Schoal District: ~ A letter dated, Octaber 18, 1961 and received from P. G. Campen, District '! ~ SuperintendenC of Schools of the Centr:.lia School District, was submitted ~ • to the Commission. The letter reqqested that the Commission work with ~ ' tY~e,School~District in order to provide a baiance of industrial and com- ~ I i mercia~, zoning w~.th that o~ residential and~ oth~r land uses. I ~ I ~ I . . .. . . . . . , . . . I i ~ i . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ .-- { i r ~ ~~~. ~'~ ~ I V ~'-.. . . ..I . . . ~. . ' ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS CITY PLANNING COhA~IISSION. October 30. 1961. Coatinued: ~;x~ . ;~. ~T L':rJ ~3 ~.:~r r': . ,- _. ',~~ ~.. 496 CORRBSPONDBNCH - ITSM N0. 4;(Continued) (Continued) Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood and carried, that the Pianning Department transmit notice to the School District, acknowleding receipt of the aforementioned letter and indica- ting that the Commission appreciates and welcomes any suggestions in respect to the problems indicated in the letter and sLating that the Com- mission is desirous o~ working with and resolving any problems that the School District consi er's pertinent. ITBM N0. 5: Orange County Use Variance No. 4861: ~ ~ Notice received fro~ the Orange Couaty Planning Department relative to Variance No, 4861 was submitted to the Commission. Subject petition requested permission to construct a family room addition to an existiag single family dwelling in the rear yard in the R-1, Single Family Residence Uistrict. It was noted that the subject property, located on the southeasterly side of the cul-de-sac of Strong P1ace east of Laramie Street, was re- cently annexed to the City of Anaheim in the Wapaer-Sunkist Annexation. The Commission discussed the fact that a fee had been paid to the County for a Pubiic Hearing. The hearing was conducted by the Orange County Plan- iAg Commission at which time the County Planning Commissian did not take action because the property }ad been apnexed by the City of Anaheim. pssistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that a legal determination should be made as to the proper procedure for processing the requested variance. He indicated that the County ao longer had juris- diction over the subject property aad that the matter shouid be discussed with tre administrative office before a defiaite ruling is made. The Commission directed the Planning Department to refer the requested petitioa for variance to the legal staff and that a determination be made by the City Attorney's Office as to the proper procedure for hand- ling any fc~ture requests which may be filed under simiiar circumstances. RBPORTS AND - ITBM N0. 1: Street Name Change - Tract No. 3370: RSCOhAlBNDATION3 The tract map of Tract Map No. 3370 was submitted to the Commission for review. The Commission was infe*med that a request had t~eea submitted by the City Atfcorney's office reyuesting that the nomeaciature of the street designa- ted as Banyon Court be changed to Banyan Drive., . Commissioner Marcoux oifpr.ed Rescl;:~ioa No. 129, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage a:~. ~Gdoption, secoaded by Commissioaer Mungall and carried, tL:~t the fo11oG~•~~; street name change be adopted: PROM iv_ LOCATION Banyon Court B~nyan Drive Tract No. 3370 ~ .} ITBM N0. 2: Review of Special Use Permit No. 48: I ~ Discussion was heid relative to Special Use Permit No. 48 which granted I ' permisszon for the estabiishment of a church on properiy locafed on the ~ ~ s.outh s3de of Orange Avenue easteriy of Bnott Avenue. . ~ `y : `i ~ ...._- , ~II~I..,:, ~~ _:;:` ... . =' :''; ;';. ,. .~'%_"`_ . ~..,:i ..,. ~-'..___. ._..~., ..~_~~'~~ "~ , "r . ~ ~':_. : ~; <: ~ ~ 497 MINUTES. CITY PIANNING CObW1ISSI0N. October 30. 1961. Contiaued: RBPQttTS AND - ITBM N0. 2, Continued; RHCOi~9~iBNDATIONS " (Continued) Mr. Bob Mickelson of the Planaing Deaprtment Staff informed the Com- missioa that the plans were esseatially the same as those originally submitted with the sub3ect petition. However, the buildings had beea moved and i.n order to locate the buildinga~as shown on the revised plans~ there was some reduction in the amount of par(cing area and the building setbacks had been reduced to 10 feet. Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissianer Pebley and carried, that the review of Special Use Permit No, 48 be con- tinued until the meeting of November 13~ 1961 in order to provide aa oppoxtunity for the Commission to make a£ield inspection of the sub- ject area before a determinatioa could be rendered on the matter. ITHM N0. 3: City Gouncil Resolution No, 5644; City Council Resolution No, 5644, requesting that the Planning Com- mission ascertain all pertineat facts and by resolution set forth its findings and recommendations pursuant to Section 9200.14 of the Anaheim Munic3pal Code~ was submitted to the Commission It was noted that the resolution stated that aq ambiguity has arisen in respect to certain temporary uses sueh as the sale of firewor&s and Christmas trees, and the temporary installation and operation of amuse- meat devices, facilities and advertising signs and devices to be used for a limited period of time. The resolution also requested that the Coamission ascurtain all pertinent facts relating to said temporary uses and by resolution report findings and recommendations in respect to the regulation of said uses. Assistaat City Attoxney Joe Gezsler advised the Commission that an ordinance :ad been adopted regulating the sale of fireworks and that 4he Citq Councii was contempiatittg a similar ordinance to regulate the s~le of Christmas trees. ~ ~. i. , ; i~~~ ~. ~~~; ~ ~ i 6 S ~ 0 .+::,. _ ~1-;~z~ The Commission discussed the present policies pestaining to temporary uses and agreed that an ordinaace similar to that governin~ the sale of fireworks should be adopted in order to establish and regulate the uses ~ outlined in City Councii Reaolution No. 5644. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 130, Series 1961-62~ and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Hapgood and carried, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does deem it nec- essary and does recommend to the City Council the adoption of an ordi- • nance similar to that contained in Chapter 6.40 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to regulate temporary uses that are not presently included in and -~ regulated by the Anaheim Municipal Codc: . ITBM N0. 4: Southwest Annexation: . An annexation map, prepared for the requested annexation of that area known as the Southwest Annexation, was submitted to the Commission. The properties involved consist of tkose properties presently contained in the unincorporated section of the County, b ounded on the south bq ~ the Southern Pacific Raiiroad Right-of-wap~ oa the west by Gilbert Street~ on the east by Brookhurst Street, and extending northeriy from Lincoln Avenue to the existing City Limits. ( -----~ ~, :i _ ^r. . .. ~ . , ... ~~ - » ,.: ~ .. _' ~';.. , _.., .:i.'', ~,s . ,, ,. ~ ,S ~ ~},{ '„ 'r.K..t .• . . . . . . - ~:.GL. p j ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ q;, y ~ ' . . ~ ~ _ ~ -•~s__ ~~'~ . . -_ ~~~~ . . ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ Ae~ .. ~. ~ . ."' ~ . ~ .. . . . . . ~ - . ~ ' 498 ~ . MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COl~9~lISSION, October 30. 1961, Contiaued; RBPORTS AND - ITBM N0. 4, Continued: . RSCOMdffiVDATIONS (Contiaued) • Commissioner Mungail offered a motion~ secoaded by Commissioner Perry ' aad carried, that the territory described as the Southwest Annexation ~- ~ ! , be xecommended to the City Council for the iaitiation of anaexatioa ~ ~ proceedings in accordance with the proponents' requests. ~: ; ~ ADJOURHIdffidT - There being no further business~ the Meeting was adjourned at I ~ 6:15 0'Clock P.M. I t> ,.~' ~ i . ~ ~ ~ Aespectfully aubmitted, E ~ r ~ AGB, Secretary ~ € F F -~~-, ~r:'.~.-. ~ . .. ~ 1 7 i .~:~ ~_. :. . I ~ FE- ~ ' C'. ~ ~~~.~~. ~ . ... . ~ .