The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1962/02/19~ ~ . ~' ~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California Pebruary 19, 1962 RHGUTAR.MBSTING OP THH ANAHHIM CITY FIANNING COMMISSION g~GUIpR MBBTING - A Aegular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planuing Commission was called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. ~ ~ pgggg~ - - CHAIRMAN: Gauer; COI~A~IISSIONBRSe Allred, Camp, Chavos, Hapgood, Marcoux, M~mgall, Pebley, Perry. qHgg~ - COMMISSIONERS: None. pgBgg~ - PIANNING DIRHCT~t: Richard Reese. ggUTipg plpNNgR; Martin Kreidt. ASSISTANT CITY AT'PORNBY: Jerry Brody. COMMISSION SBCRBTARY: Jean Page. IIJ~/pCpTIpTT - Reverend Stanley Herber, First Free Metkiodist Church gave the Invocation. ~, i pi,g~g pp - Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag. " ALLBGIANCB ~" APPROVAL OP - TYie Minuies of the meeting of February 5, 1962 were approved as sub- MINUT85 R-tted with the foliowing cozrection: i _ ~age No..724, relative to Reclassification No. 61-62-78: ~ °6. Provision that shouid lighting be installed in the P-1, PARKiNG, . ZONS area of subject property, Sight standards shall not exceed ' a maximum height of six (6) feet, shall be directed and reflected : away from adjacent residential properties, and shall be subject to the approval of and i'nspection by the Chief Building Inspector." Commissioner Perry~offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall and carried, that the minutes be corrected as outrlined. Tffi1TATIVH MAP - CONTINUBD RBVIBW OP THNTATIVB MAP OP TRACT N0, 4551: OP TRACT N0. 4551 i (~fA'BR and SUBDIVIDER: S.'V. HUNSAKBR and SONS, 4405 Irwindale Avenue, California. BNGINHF?s: MILLBT, KING & ASSOCIATHS, 1518 West Irwindale ~; " , Commonwealth Avenue, Puilerton, California. Subject tract located on ~ the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street, and con- ~ talins twenty-eig.`at proposed R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDENTrAL, lots. F. ~ Review of subject tract continued from the meeting of Pebruary 5~. ~, 1962 in accordance with the owner's request. A revised map of Tentative Tract No. 4551 was submitted to the Com- mission. Interdepartmental Committee recommendations relative to sub- N ject tract were read to the Commission with the additional recommenda- ~ tion that development of the tract be submitted for architectural re- order to insure a yariety.of elevations for said development. view in ,, ~' - . Mr. Lamar Stewart, representative of the owner, appeared before the eement with the recommendations as outlined, ; ted a di i ~ ~; : g . ca n Commission and ,~. - 728 - i. ;•~,. ~ r a'3r<' ~ - . ' , ~ - ~ f r ~.__-~ ~r. .< ~ i .. , r .... , ... . . .r - . J:+'.. '... .,, .... 'I^ k:'__ ~ ._ .. _.... ~__,._ ~ '~ " '+~'wi".,s'L,'Y,w~:; n ... ~ ~ ..1. , 9~.. , -: ~. .. , ~ - ~ ~~~A ~~~•~ 729 ~`:: 1 b = ~o_ 1962. Continued: ~• . ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Fe rua y TBNTATIVB MAP -- No one appeared in opposition to subject tentative tract map. pp TRpCT N0. 4551 (CONTINUBD) Commissioner A11red offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos and carried, that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4551, as revised, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. ; 2. Dedication of vehicle access on Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue except at street and alley openings. 3, Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in'tentative fo=m for approval. 4. Subject to the approvai of plot and building plans by the Planning and Building Departments and the review of elevation plans by the Architectural Committee. 5. Dedication and improvement of Haster Street in front of parcel that is not a part of subject tract on the northwest boundary of , said subject tract. sC TBNTATIVB MAP - DSVBLOPBRe B• &. K• PROPffitTIBS, 451 62nd. Street, Newport Beach, Califor- S OF TRACT N0. 4582 nia, BNGINBffit: McDANIBL SNGINEffitING COMPANY, 222 Bast Lincoln Avenue, I` Anaheim, California. Subject tract located on the soutandicontai sn i: coln Avenue, 135 feet west of the Brea Canyon Preeway, ~ forty-three proposed R-1, ONB FAMILY RHSIDffiVTIAL, lots, ;. A Tentative Map of i`rac1: No. 4582 was submitted to the Commission. ~ Interdepartmental Committee and Staff recommendations were presented ~ to the Commission. The Commission discussed the necessity for estab- lishing a policy regarding block walls and landscaping for tracts abutting freeways and arterial highway right-of-ways. Mr. Jacobsen, representative for the McDaniei Bngineering Company, appeared before the Commission and stated his opposition to the re- commended block wall construction as a condition of approval. ~ No one appeared3n opposition to subject tentative tract map. Commissioner Marcmux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Alired and carried, that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4582 be approved, . subject to the following conditions: _ 1. Construction of a six (6) foot masonry wali where subject tract abuts the proposed freeway right-of-way, 2. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than ~ one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative iorm for approval. , S ~ - ' ' V 730 MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMDSISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued; ~; ' ~' •- 0 D HLOPMBNT 3 N th W' 1 h' S h' ~. : ~ ~: ~ E ~' i ~. ~. . ;_ . ~.: s _ i. t ~-., ' , r, ~ ~ < THNTATIVE MAP - DHVBL PBR. MIT-MOR BV , UO or i s ire, Suite , Ana eim, OP TRACT N0. 4597 California, BNGINBERs McDANIBL ffiVGINHERING COMPANY, 222 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tsact is located northerly of Wagner Avenue, easterly of Sunkist Street, southerly of South Street, and abutting proposed freeway. Said tract contains thirty-one proposed R-1, ONB PAMILY RHSIDENTIAL, lots, A Tentative Map of Tract No. 4597 was submitted to the Commission. Interdepartmental Committee and Staff recommendations were presented to the Commission. Mr. Jacobsen, representative of the McDaniel Hngineering Company, ' appeared before the Commission and stated his opposition to the re- commended block wall construction as a condition of approval. No one appeared in opposition to subject tentative tract map. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos and carried, that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4597 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of a six (6) foot masonry wall where subject tract abuts the proposed freeway right-of-way. 2, Increase the centerline radius on Hilda Street and Mancos Avenue between the southerly tract boundary and PPAQP Street. 3. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 4, Subject to the approval of plot and building plans by the Planning and Building Departments. RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by FRANCIS W, and MARGARBT N0. 61-62-63 ELLIOTT~ 542 3outh West Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; Leo J. Friis, Talt and MacMahon, 403 California Bank Building, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: A parcel 140 feet by 207 feet with a frontage of 140 feet on Lincoln Avenue and located on the northeasterly corner of Lincoln Avenue and I.a Plaza Street, and further described as the 1400 block on Sast Lincoln Avenue,be reclassi- fied from the C-1, NHIGHBORHOOD COhAlHRCIAL, (Restricted access to Ceme- tery Road), ZONB to the C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD CQMMERCIAL, (Unrestricted ' access to Cemetery Road), ZONH, Subject petition was continued from the meetings of January 8, 1962 and ~ February 5,1962, because iegal problems have yet to be resolved with the ~ , County Counsel relative to the ownership of Cemetery Road. Senior Planner Martin I{reidt read and submitted a petition of protest containing eighteea signatures, dated January 22, 1962 a~hd superseding previous petitions of protest submitted against subject petition. Chairman Gauer noted that the subject petition was continued in order that legal problems might be resolved~ and Assistant City Attorney Jerry Brody advised the Commission that the matter was presently being inves- tigated by the legal staff o; the City but that,definite conclusions had not been reached. I ~ : ~. :~ ~~ __ , _~ .... ~ c~k...,.,~ . , .. < ... _ ,.. , . . . . ,. ` >.,'~ , t ',.. -._ .._J..'; ':, r. . y; i: t ,cs ,l: ti , „ -'' ~ ~~: .. , ._._,..~ . . . -' ~ 1 l _ \ ) O ~ 731 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: RBCIASSIPICATION - Mr. Robert hiacMahon, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the NO 61-62-53 C mmission and verifie~i that conferences were bein held i res ect to ! 7 . o g , n p (CONTINUHD) the legal probiems concerning the subejct property, with the County Counsel, George Holden, and that the matter had been referred to the County Board of Supervisors for determination. He requested that the Commission refer the subject petition to the City Council and indicated that the legal problems were in the process of being resolved. Mrs. Howard Staaton, 495 Bast Birch Street, appeared before the Com- mission and reviewed the past history of the subject property in rela- tion to the subject petition. The Commission discussed the various legal aspects invoived in respect to the subject petition and it was indicated that the matter shouid be , referred to the City Council, without recommendation by the Commission for either denial or approval, in order that the City Council could work with the City Attorney's Office to solve the various problems affecting the subject property. The Commission found and determined the foflowing facts regarding the subject petitiar-; 1, That the petitioner psoposes an amendment of Ordinance No. 963, which reclassified the above described property from the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, by ~the eliminatioa of Conditions Nos. 1 and 3, of said Ordinance, to wit: "1. That there be'no entrances on Cemetery Road. 3. That that portion o.` Lot 4 used for parking purposes shall be fenced along Cemetery Road with a three (3) foot ornamental fence to enclose the parking area." 2, That the ownership of said Cemetery Road must be resolved by legal authorities in accordance with legal procedures. 3, That the conditions of said Ordinance No. 963, estabiishing the use of subject property, were adopte8 and imposed upon said property by the City Councii of the City of Anaheim, therefore, the authority for the =econsideration of said conditions is vested in the City Ceuncil~and it is hereby deemed necessary by the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim that the subject Petition for Reclassifica- tion be referred to the City Council for review and reconsideration •of'said conditions. - Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 233, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebiey that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-63 be referred to the City • , Council without recommendation~based upon the aforementioned findings, On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: CUMMISSI~iSRS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux; Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NO~S: COM.MISSxON~itS: None, ABSBNT: COhAfISSIONSRS: None. t . . ; .. r.:., J'.'.._: k it , i .. ~ . ~~:i ~ 1f~,~ :~~tii~ '~ .. . ...~ ~ „.. _ .~_ ~..._....~.__ w 7;c . ~-~:;ii~~`:~~ 732 MINUT.E3, CITY PLANNING COhA9ISSI0N, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: RBCLASSIFI(;ATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by SILAS LEHMBR, 1554 N0. 61-62~-67 Cris Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; Rothman-Steen and Associates, 223 South Claudina, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting that proper4y described as; A parcel 480 feet by l, 285 feet with a frontage of 480 feet located on the north side of Katella Avenue between Dallas Drive and Nutwood Street; its suuthwest corner being approximately 186 feet east of the northeast corner of Dallas Drive and Katella Avenue be re- classified from the R-A, RBSIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NB to the R-1, ONE FAMILY RHSIDffiITIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of J~nuary 8, 196? and January 22, 1962, in conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-67, to provide an opportunity for the petitioners to confer with Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler relative to the requirements of the Anahei:n Municipai Code in respect to the proposed development of subject property. Mr. John Rothman, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission and =equested that Petition for Reclassificatiott No. 61-62-67 be withdrawn, and that development of subject property be considered under Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 193, only. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall and carried, that Petition for Reclassification No, 61-62-67 be with- drawn in accordance with the petitioner's request. E .l ~ ~:~ l r ~ ci~ ti~ CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by SILAS.LEHMER, ].554 Cris PffitMIT N0. 193 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; Rothman-Steen and Associates, 223 South Claudina, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting permission to CONS4RUCT ONH-FAMILY pIANNBD RBSIDBNTIAL DEVHLOPMBNT on property des- cribed as: A parcel 480 feet by 1,285 feet with a frontage of 480 feet located on the north side of Katella Avenue between Dallas Drive and Nutwood Street; its southwest corner being approximately 186 feet east of the northeast corner of Dallas Dzive and Katella Avenue. Proper ty presently classified in the T,:4, Residential Agricultural, Zone. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of January 8, iSb"e and January 22, 1962, in conjunction with Yetition for Reclassification No. 61-62-67, to provide an opportunity for the petitioners to confer with Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler relative to the requiremeats of the Anaheim Municipal Code in respect to the proposed development of subject property. Mr. John Rothman, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission and indicated th3t the petition for reclassification of su~ject property was withdrawn with the intention of requestir.g the estabiishment of the~ proposed planned unit deveio~ment by the subject Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Rothman described the unique problem affecting the subject pr~perty in that the pe{itioiier owns the subject property under the conditions o£ a life estate, granted by a trust agreement, with the First National Bank of California serving as txustees, and that the petitioner can not seli the property during his ].ifetime. Mr. Rothman staied that in order to develop and utilize the petitioner's property, the only feasible plan that could be devised was the proposed planned unit residential develop- ment. He described the proposed development,indicatiag that it would be a high quality type of development conforming with,all requirements of the R-A, Residential Agricultural, 2one, that the units would be single.story, that he,had offered to review development plans with the property owners in the area, and that because of the 1225 floor srea per ,~ _ ~ ~ . ~ ~ - 1 . '~~ ~:':~^r.;'.~-~.~. . , . , . . ?. "~,T„~n ..,,ti ,.. -..~~~."., f'.~i. . . ~ . ~.;,~'t:fl .~}a`.-'_1,'1;!:~. , :~ ~ ~ . , . ~a g, ' E I ' { 6.... _ ,. ~.,,. ' ;1 _, ~ ~ . ~ .' ~' . ~ .. .' .... :. . !, '. . ~,: F ~ ! ~ - r "':i =:~' ~ ~ 733 MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING COM~lISSION, r~Y~ruary 19, 1962, Continued: CdNDITIONAL USE = unit and the deluxe quality of the units would be approximately $150.00 PBRMIT N0. 193 per month, (CONTINUBD) Mrs. Betty Jane Marquardt, 1665 South Nut•~uood Street, appeared before the Commission, indicated she was not fully informed in respect to plans for the proposed development, and stated that the property owners in t he area were opposed to the proposed development,and that the City Council had indicated that the area would be reserved for single family residen- tial purposes. Mrs. Boles, 12441 Rebecca Lane, Santa Ana, appeared before the Com- missior. and protested against the proposed development on the basis that she was an apartment owner in the area and was concerned about the pro- posed carports which she considered would be creating a slum area. Mr. Rothman, in rebuttal, stated that the proposed development would not create a slum area because the entire development would be surrounded by a,. block wall, the carports would be approximately 50 feet from the pro- perty line, a private drive would provide the only access to the property recreation facilities would be pxovided within the development, and that 6~ units would be constructed per acre, which assured a low density for the property. Commissioner Maxcoux offered a motion for denial of the subject petition on the basis that the subject property was surrounded by R-1, ONII PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, properties. The motion failed for lack of a second. The Commission discussed possible future sale of individual units, Code provisior~. in respect to lot splits, area requirements for the R-A, Resi- . dential Agricultura.l, Zone, and the necessity for approval of a variance for any change in the use of the development at a later date which would require re-advertisement and hearinga in accordance with Code require- ments. The Commission discussed the proposed development in respect to the lo- cation of block walls and roof construction. The petitioner's agent agreed to ±he recommendation that a six foot landscaped setback be pro- vided adjacent to the block wall fronting on Katella Avenue and he in- dicated that shake roof construction would be pzovided. The Commission foUnd and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition; 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a planned unit multiple-, family residential development. 2, That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining.land uses and the growth and deeelcpment of the area in which it is pro- posed to be located. 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for ~e use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area no: to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use wili not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and propused to carry:the traffic in the area. A i 1 - r .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 734 MINUTS3, CITY PLANNI~IG CONA9ISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USB - 5, That the granting of the Conditienal Use Permit under the conditions ~ERMIT N0. 193 im~osed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, CCONTINUBD) safety, and gznerai welfare o£ the citizens of the City of Anaheim, 1 0. That the installation of carports as proposed for the subject pro- ; perty may be developed in accordance with the requirements of the R A, Residential Agricuitural, Zone, I 7. That the specific waiver of the side and rear yard.requiremeats for the subject property is hereby deemed necessar~, in order to develop ~ the subject *roperty in accordance v~ith the plans presented, said ~ ::~i;,er permit#ed s.^.de: :h~ authori:y govern~d by Sac;ian 15.64.070 of the Anaheim hlunicipal Code. 8. Tlaat verbal opposition from t wo owners of property in subject area ~ was recorded against subject petition, Commissioner A11red offered Resolution No. 234, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, saconded by ~~ommissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditianal Use Yermit No. 193, subject to the follow- , ing condiimns: • 1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No, 1, provided that the carport stsuctuses shall be enclosed on the rear and sides. 2. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall aiong the west, north, sud. east boundaries prior to Pinal Buiiding Inspection, 3, Instaliation of a six (6) foot wide landscaping strip abutting and ~ parallel to the southerly property iine of subject property along Katella Avenue with the provision of a six C6) foot masonry wali atrutting said la.zdscaping sfrip, e;:cegt fo: that area reseryzd for ingress and egress to subject property, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Supe:intendent of Parkway Maintenance, and with the installation of said landsc~ping and masonry wall. pr+.ur to Pinal.Suiiding Inspection. 4, Provision of shake roof tonstruction for the residential structures; tu be established on subject property. S. Dedication of sixty (60) feet from the monumented centerline of Katella Avenue (40 feet existing). 6. Yre~arasion of street improvement plans and installation of ail improvement., for Katella Avenue, subject to the approval of the City Hngineer and in ac^ordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Hngineer. 7. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lig:iting purpases on Katella Avenue. ~ 8. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per ciweiling unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit. 9. Provision of trash storage areae as determined by the DeQartment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a soiid fence or wnll, prior to Pinal Building.Inspection. 10. Pxovision of modified caal-de-sacs at the terminus of M~dwood Lane, Tamara Lane and Polsom'Sti;:et, subject to the approval of the Ci-ty 8ngine~r, prior to Pinal Building Inspection. ~ , .., . . .... `,~~~ _ . .'.. .. ... . .. . .. . .... 1 ... . ~ /_'r~~7 ~.,~.,.,;:: ,/?F...~~ _~~i;;~, . . . , ,~t _. . . ~ ; ~ i t..~. t ~ ~ . • , : - Y.~ ~~ R ' ~ ~ ~• ;' ~, E ¢ O MINUTffi, CITY PIANNING COhAtISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: :i- r 735 C~VDITIONAL'USB - il. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accompiish- PBRMIT N0. 193 ment of Item Nos. 5, 6, and 7, (CONTINUBD) The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found io be a necessary prereqpisite,to the use ~f the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of #he City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; CC~MMISSIQN~RS; Alired, Camo, Chavos, Gauer,~Haogood, Mungailt Pebley, Perry. NOHS: C(~IISSIONBRS: Marcoux. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONHRS: None. CONDITIONAL U88 = CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBA1tING. Petition submitted by A, C..WILLIS, 1368 PBRtlIT N0. 201 South Huclid Avenue, Anaheim, ~alifornia and NORI~,AN L. SUTLBR, JR., 1408 South Buclid Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; W. C. Hryant, 12112 Brookhurst, Suite 11, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting per- mission to ESTABLESH A CHURCH on property described as: Yarcel 1: A parcel 121 feet by 626 feet with a frontage of 121 feet located on the east side of Huclid Avenue between Palais Road and Huena Vista Avenue; its northwest corner being approximately 110 feet south 6f the south- east corner of Buclid Avenue and Palais Road. Parcel 2; A parcel 60 feet by 220 feet with a frontage of 60 feet located on the east side of Buclid Avenue between Palais Road and Buena Vista Avenue; its north- west corner being approximately 231 feet south of the southeast corner of 8uc7.id Aveaue aad Palais Road, and further described as 1~68 and 1408 Soath Euclid Avenue. Property presently classified in the R-A, RHSI- DHNTIAL AGRICULTCIRAL, 20NB. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of Pebruary 5, 1962 to allow for proper re-advertiseraent of stab3ect property. Mr. Bzyan Crowe, Paster for the proposed Pirst Sout•hern Baptist Glurch, appeared before the Commission, described the ~ocation and need for the church in the subject area, and submitted a petition of support coa- taining nineteen signatures. He presented a rendering of the proposed church facility, indicating that it was a church in the "round", ~nd- stated 'that'adequate finaricing'was'av2ilable; that the majority of the residents in the area were in favor of the establishment of the facility~ ~ that parking in excess af Code re.quirements v~vulc! be provided, that the church development wiil be compatible with the exir~ting sesidential development and the school in the area, that the hours scueauied for chureh services wiii not aonfiict with the school~s hou^s, and that the proposed development wiil be appropriate on Buclid Avenue and wiil pro- vide a buffer for the residential development. THS HBARIR'G WAS CLOSHD. Seaior Planner MarCin Kreidt cfisplayed mapa relative to Planrtiag Study No. 43-56-i, incorporating the subjPct property of Petition for Condi- tional Use Yermit'No. 20I with the abutting vacant properties. The Commissioa found and determined the follow,ing facta regarding the aubject petition: 1. That the proposed use is properly one fos which a Conditional Use ° Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a church. ..:. . _~ ~...,.~-^~7"~^r ','~~;'7 ~.or:'• 4:..'1...J~°t'. l ~-i'.:i;..:~ ~,~.: ::~.,'.:~i"i; ~./."'..~..}~: ~ Ff.t~ V;~.,O~yy.!C~l.'~t_.,iti."..: .. ~ . '~li::-T~ .. tiSi . ~..F_ ,., ..,... ..,;~,~ ti,:!, ' i:r~ -~ c , i ~rti .... . . . . .... . . ..,x~rv: ~ _~ ~ ~ ;, ~ ~ ~ V ~ r: . MINU1~3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: 736 ~ ~,1' CONDITIONAL U3E - 2, That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land , PBRMIT N0. 201 uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is pro- f~ (COTiTINUHD posed to be Yocated. ~L . . t ~ ~~ 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is ade- ~ ! ~ quate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner ~ ~ not detriment~l +o the particular area nor to the peace, health, ~. safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. r ~:, . _ 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not im¢ose an ''~ undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to carry the traffic in the area. ~ ( . i• ! 5. That the granting of tre Conditionai Use Permit under the conditions ~` imposed, if any, wiil ~.•t be detrimental to the peace, health, : safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~" 6. That no one a eared ui o osition to sub'ect pp pp ~ petition, ~ Commissioner Chavos offered Resolutzon No. 235, Series 1961-62, and ~ moved for its passage and adopti~n, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood, ~ to grant Conditional Use Permit No. 201, subject to the fo].lowing • '~ conditions: I ~:, 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 5, 6, and 7. ~,. 2, Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of Buciid Rvenue (30 feet existing). 3. Dedication of 38,92 feet, more or less, aiong the easterly boundary ' ~; subject property for the extension of Bdda Lane in accordance with the proposed street layout as indicated on Precise P1an No. 1 of Planning Study No. 43-56-1, 4. Preparation of.street improvement plar.s and installation of all improvements for Buclid A~enue, and the extension of Edda Lane, subject to the approvai uf the City 8ngineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engi- neer. 5. Paymecrt of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Buclid qvenue, the extensi~n of Hd3a Lane, and the proposed street indicated on Precise Pian No. 1 of Planning Study li'o, 43-56-1. ~;. ~ 6. Provision of a five (5) foot utility easement along the northeriy ~~, boundary of Parcei 1 and southerly boundary of Parcel 2 of subject 5' property to adequately serve the subject property and other pro- ~ perties, at the time of the instaliation of service facilities. ~,,. 7. Time liraitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accom- piishment of Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5,'. The foregoing conditions were recited at the eeeting and were found to ~ be a necessary prerequisite to the use of ~the property in order to ~ preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~ On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ` f AY&4: COMMIS3IC1r1HRS: ASlred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcouz, ~ ' Mungali, Pebley, Perry. ,~ `•;~':; NOES: ~QZ'FfISSIONBRS: i:one. ~ }~~a ; AHSHNT: COMMIBSTON8R5: None. +-ti~r; P ~,. ~.:~~I ~ ~.. .._ ~~ ~~. ~v~: ~ `~ . MINUTBS, CITY aLANNING COI~IISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: ~' ,;: -~ n< r r~ ~., ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Si ~ ~~;5: F . . ~..:i 1 t `..._"--.~---- - i . _ . i ~ ~ . ~ 737 ~ i , PLANNING STUDY - Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall . N0. 43-56-1 and carried, that Precise Plan Na. 1 of Planning Study No, 43-56-1 be adopted as the projected development for those properties located southerly of and parallel to the southern boundary of Tract No. 3840, ~~te:d~ag 2o'o~2Zly to Lhe wesieriy boundary oi Tract No, 1979, and north- erly of and parallel to the northern boundary of Tract No. 3303, and that said Precise Pian be forwarded to the City Council for review. VARIANCH N0. 1445 - PUBL7 rIBARING. Petition submitted by CAIARIC CORPORATION, 17T3~ West Lincc,n Avenue, Anaheim, California, 4ame*; Ha**y i{nisely, 730 :?as: Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVB MINIMUM SIDEYARD SBTBACK RfiQUIREMBNT AND WAIVB MINIMUM ~VIDTH OP GARAGBS of property described as: A parcel 100 feet by 155 feet with a fcontage of 100 feet iocated on the west side of Rose Street between Broadway and Santa Ana Street; its northeasterly corner being approxi- mately 203 feet south oF the southwesteriy corner of Broadway and Rose Street, and further described as 317 an3 321 South Rose Street, pro- perty presently classified in the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RSSIDBNTIAL, ZONH. The minutes of tlie City Council Meeting of February 13, 1962, relative to subject petition were read to the Commission. It was noted that the City Council adopted a Council Policy relative to the Interpretation of Section 18.32.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, thereby negating the necessity for any acti~oa by the Planning Commission on the subject petition. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the §ubSect petitiiua; 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code: Section 18.0•1.100 (2) to permit the proposed develapment of subject property with side yards eight feet in width; and Section 18.04.030 to permit the proposed development of subject property with garages 9~ feet by 20 feet in size, 2. That the City Council adopted a Council Policy relative to the In- terpretation of Section ;8,32,050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code on February 13~ 1962, thereby negating the necessity for any action by the Planning Commission on the subject petition, Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 236, Series 1961-62, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Variance No, 1445 without prejudice on the basis of the City Council actioY~ taken on Pebru- I ary 13, 1962 in resrect to the Interpretation oF Section 18,32,050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as it relates to the subject petition. ~. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYSS: COhAlISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ' ..._ NQBS: CONA~IISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ~ ~~ i ~ :~ 1 :,;;; VARIANCE N0. 1446 - pUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by BMIL H. VON SSGG~tN, 504 Bast ' Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVB MINIMUM PARCBL SIZH RBQUIRBMENT on property described as: A par- cei 131 feet by 270 feet with a frontage of 131 feet located on t2-~ ~ , ~,. 738 MINUTBS, ~ITY PLANNING CQMMI3SION, l~ebruary 19, 1962, Continued: VARIANCB N0. 1446- south side of Orangewood Avenue between Haster and Spinnaker Streets; (CONTINUBD) its northeast corner being approximately 357 feet west of the south- west corner of Urangewood Avenue and Spinnaker Street, and further des- cribed as 504 BASt Orangewood Avenue. Property presently classified in the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. The petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing to add to the information cantained in the subject petition. The Commission reviewed the plot plan of subject property and the Tenta- tive Map of Tract No. 4545. It was noted .hat the subject petition was ~;::~~,;'_' related to the approval of said tract. ~: ~ %'. 1HB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ~ Tt~e Commission found~and determined the foliowing facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.16.030 (4-b) to permit the establishment of sub- ject property as a iegal R A, Residential Agricultural, parcel of less tfian one acre in area. 2, That tkiere are exceptionai or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property tha.t do not apply generatly to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 3. That the requested variance is necessarq for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other pro- perty in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the proper±y in question. ~ 4, That the requested variance will nct be.materially detrimental to the public welfare ar injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 5. That the requested variance wili not adversely affect the Compre- hensive General Plan. 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 237, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, secondPd by Commissioner Camp, to ' grant Petition for Varisnce No. 1446~ subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of Orangewood Avenue (20 feet existing). 2. P:eparation of street improvement piaas and inatallation of all imp=ovements for Orangewood Avenue, subject tb the approval of the City Hngineer aad in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City .;ineer, 3, Payment of $2.00 per frcat foot for street lighting purposes on Orangetvood Avenue. 4, provision of a six (5). foot util3ty easement along the easterly boundary of subject property to adequately serve the subject pro- perty and other properties, a~ the time of the installation bf aer- ~;~ vice facilities. ~ ~ ~I. I . ~, _: ~ ~ il - '.~:J'~::~ ~ `~ : ,., ,,___~-=-~9 '''<~.~:1~ a r~:~r~::l '~"LVU~ r~;~ , ~ ..7` ,~}~ C~,::: .~~.~ '~ ~ . , . . ~ '• - . i .,;:: ~ ~:~+ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CdMMISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: ~~ ~~ ~ 739 VARIANCB N0. 1446- 5. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of (CONTINUBD) approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4545, for the accomplish- . ment of Item Nos. 1, 2, and 3. , ~ The foregoing condit3ons were rec±ted at the !eeeting and were found Co be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to ~ i preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoirig resolution was passed by the following vote: .~~ AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~ ~ ~~ NQBS: COMMISSIONffitS: None. ABSBNT: COhAfISSIONBRS: None. VARTANCB N0. 1447-• PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MARIA GARCIA HURTADO, 611 Bast Chartres Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; William H. Folsom, 18371 Heach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California, Agent; requesting per- mi~stion to WAIVH MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RBQUIRHMENT OP PA~ POSBD SBCOND DWELLING on property described as: A parcel 50 feet by 130 feet with a frontage of 50 feet located on the north side of Chartres Street bet- ween Topeka and Atchison Streets, its southwesterly corner being approxi- mately 125 feet east of the northeasterly corner of Chartres and Topeka Streets, and further described as 611 Hast Chartres Street. Property presently classified in the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZONE. Mr. William Polsom, *,he petitioner's agent appeared before the Com- mission and discussed the proposed development of a second dwelling to be located on the front portion of subject property. He indicated that the existing dwelling abutting the alley would remain, that a double garage would be provided for use of both residences, that the proposed residential unii would not crowd the property, that it would constitute an improvement of the area, and that access to the garaqe would be provided from Chartres Street. TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ` a The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that a waiver of Code, Section 18.32.100 would be necessary in order to permit access ~ from Chartres Street sather than from the alle•, abutting subject pro- perty on the north. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the ~ subject petition: 1. That the petitione; requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code $ection 18.80.080 to permit the construction of a second single family dwelling on subject property with a liveable floc,r area of not less than 825 square feet, 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 oossessed by other pro- perty in the sam~ vicini+y nnd zone, and denied to the property in question. ,: ~ 'L-'r'''y. ; ~ ~ ! ~ . -~'_._._ , s w: ,;;, ~ ~ ~ ,... : ., _ ~.. _ .- ;;; ~`- : ~:: ~ .. _ . . r-n~..,~ r . ry ~ , ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ . , ~ .. ~ ~~~ .. 740 MIi~1[TfBS, CITY PIANNING CON9ulISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: VARIANCB N0. 1447 - 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to (CONfINUBD) the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 5, That the reauested variance will not adversely affect tl~e Compre- ~ hensive General Plan. 6. That it is hereby deemed necessary to waive the requirements of Code, Sectian 18.32.100 in order to develop the subjecfi property in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1 and 2, thereby permitting access to the proposed garage from Chartres Street, said waiver permitted uadec the authcrity of ~~ctioa 18.6a.474 of th~ naeheim Munic:gal Code, 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 238, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition foz Variance No, 1447, subject to the following condi- tions: ~ 1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Repai= of damaged and/or hazardous sidewall:s on Chartres Street in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Bngineer. 3, Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit, for the new construction only, to be colZected as part of the Buildiag permit, 4. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- ment of Item No. 2. ~ The foregoiixg conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, On roil cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: A]]red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBB: ~ COMt~[ISSIONHRS: None. ABSRNT: COhA4ISSI0I3HRS: None, ~'~~ VARIANCE NO. 1448 - PUBLIC HBARINCi: Petition submitted by HBRMAN RBICH, 1276 Pulton Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVS MINIMUM RBAR YARD SBTBACR RHQUIRBMBNT on property described as: An irreguiariy :•' shaped parcel with a frontage of 49~feet located at the knuckie formec~ by the intersection of Clover Avenue and Pulton Street, and further described as 1276 Pulton Street. Property presently classified in the R-1, ~VE PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONE. The petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing to add to the information con~.ained in the sub,ject petition. THH FIBA1tING WAS CLOSHD. ~ ~ ~ai ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: VARIANCB N0, 1448 - The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the CC~NTINU&Di subject petition: 1. That the petitioner requesis a variance from the Anaheim Municipal ~• Code; Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroachment of 18~ feet ~_ ~ I into the required rear yard in order to'construct a room addition to ~;_ f an existing cinoip fsmil; .esid~:,c2. ~., ' : , - - , 2. That~there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstancea ar condi- € ~ tions'applicable to the property involved or to the intended use nf ~ ' the pro~erty that do not apply generally to tbe property or cla,ss k ' of .use in the same vicinity and zone. [ . E~ ;. '_- -- 3. T!:s: the ra:,;;e~t2u ~ariance is necessary for the preservation and ~ ~ enjoyment of a substantiai property right possessed by other pro- perty in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in ~ question. !: r 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to ~,. the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in i, such vicinity and zone in which the property is located, ' S. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre- i hensive General Plan. K:' 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. 'r, - ~`, Commisaioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 239, Series 1961-62, and ~. moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ailred, to t grant Petition for-Variance No. 1448, subject to the following condition: I. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, ii ' ~ The foregoing conditions was r::cited at th2 meeting and was found. to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre- serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, ; On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote; i. AI'&S: COhA1ISSI0N8RS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mun~ali, Peb2ey, Perry, NOBS: COhAiISSIONERS: None. ABSBNT: COAAfISSIONSRS: None. VARIANCB N0. 1449 - pUgLIC HBARING, Petition submitted by CHARLHS B. GHINffit, 795 Dover. Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVH MINI- MUM RBAR YARD SITBACR RBQUIREMBIVT on property described as; An irre- gularly shaped parcel with a frontage of 63 feet located at the knuckle formed by the intprsection of Savoy Avenue and :.over Street, and further described as 705 Dover Street. Property presentiy ciassified in the ' R-1, ONB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZGNB, The petitioner appeared before the Coaimissier and indicate3 he had nothing to add to the information contained in subject petition. THE HBARING WAS CL0.SBD. . I ~ I _ ~, . _ ~.._ _ ~: . .. ,..; ;~- j ,. ,., , _, ..:, ; ~-,---------~--.--~ ~.:; .....: Y_.t-'S .. i .. , , i:;.. ?,-.. ',...: . ~~..~'.''~ •... ,.`.,x. . .:..... ~ . ~ ..,.... ~ ~._ ip~'p,_..i.r: ~. -"~' ~'~'1 , ~ : r ~;ut .. t~ .;}C. i .i'`W~~~-~..~~,~: ~.L'~f..nJ:.v~~~ F 1• F ~ . ~~ . ~ .. . ~ .. . ~ . . . ' e . ~ ~ i I .~,~~~ ~~. .. ~ ~ - . ' 742 ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING COfrAlISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: ~ d h f il in facts re arding the ~ '` . ~.::: ~~ t. pARIA13CB N0. 1449 - The Commission found and determine t e o ow g $ (CpNTINUBD) subject petition: 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code: 3ection 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroack:ment of 10.75 feet into the required rear yard of subject property in order to construct a family and utility,room addition to an existing singie family residence. 2, That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property invoived or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same viEinity and zone. 3, That the reguested variance ia necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other proper- ty 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 injnrious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in rhich the property is located. 5. That the requested variance wili not adversely affect the Comprehen- sive General Plan. 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 240, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petiti~n for Variance No. 1449, subject to the following condition: 1. DeveZopment substantiaily in r~ccordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1 and 2, i The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre- serv~e the safetq and welfare of the citizens of the Cifiy of Anaheim. On roli ca]1 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYB:i: COh8dI3$IONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COhAlISSIOivBRS: None. AHSHNT: CONAlISSIONBRS: None. VARIANCB N0. 1456 - PUBLIC HBARIN~. Petition submitted by TRUST DBVHLOPI~NT COMPANY, TNC., ~ ?, HBRBBRT N, and BHT-'Y L. KIRR, and JAMHS P, and JBANNB K. UTTBRBACK, ;' c/o 9802 Aoyal Palm, Anaheim, California, Owners; Stephen W. Bradford, 125 South ~laudina 3treet, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting per- ` mission to ~?AIVB MINIMUM PRONT YARD SSTBACR RBQUIRBMBNT.on property t described as: A parcel 99 feet by 620 feet with a frontage of 99 feet ~ _ocated oz the west side of Western Avenue between Lincoln and Orange ± Avcaues; its northeast corner being approxsmately 790 feet more or less !, south of the s,uthwest corner.of Lincoln and Western Avenues, and further 7 described as 205 South Western Avenue. Property presently classified in the R-13, MULTI°LH PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. F ,'. Mx. Pat~1 Calloway, 623 South Ricardo, Buena Park, appeared before the ' Commission and irdicated that an erroneous survey and layout had been ~ s` made of subject property, thereby establishing the eastesnmost'b6ilding , ~~ Y. ~ , 'i ,' `t; ~ ' ~€~~~:~ ~ ~ t :, . ~, F ~ _ .- ~ - p~,- _y,~,. ,r~ °---r-t-'- <,. ., ,. ~~ ...•.:.:'~ . ..:.Y~ ~~ • , ''•. i .; ,.~ ^ ~.. ',.~~..!.~r~.~/'.:::... ~.~... ' ~..w....> , t~ : 1"~, k~! ~. ^:a.'.r.~,.. i ~~--. ~' 1 ~' , ~ ~~J MINUTBB, CITY PIANNILVG COMMISS7!nd, Pebruary 19, 1962, Con2i.:,ued: pARIANCB N0. 1456 - at a distance of ten feet, rather than ihe required fifteea feet, ~s~5 (CpNTINURD) ' ~ from the ~plahned highway right-of-way line of Western Avenue, He i.n- dicated that said building w~s, however, in line with the building to the n~r~h. Phe Comm:.ssi.oz discussed at some Sength the circumstanc::r~ ~~el.ati. ie to the :ui:J$SaC msde in permitting the construction of t;1e b~ilding :n violaf~a~n ~'r' City requirements and che degree of reapo:asibllity b~~ the devel,~?+•°rs rad the various City dep.;rtments concerned. POLICY L~TATEM~N,T: Comc~issioner Chavos offered a motior., secunde3 b~ Crmmissione*~ aiired and carried, that he~~r..-iorth ali pia*:~ submi.tted by the peticioners in filing applir.ations io: processi!x~, by thF~ Com- mission and City Council shall indicate the pxz~nned b.ighwhy ri.ght-of- way ].ine on said plans. Commissioner Perry noted that an error had been made whi,ch could not •.`easibly be corrected, consequently, the variance was nec::ssary, and that to grant the variance could not be construed as es#abiishing a precedent. Commissioner Chavos indicated, however, tbat although thr error migt.t not be intentional, it was evident th.at a vioittion had occarred and he could not agree that the violation should t~e permitted., The possibility of ~e:ferring the aratter to the legr~i staff was discus:•~d. 9fter discus.ion in regard to the referral of :he pro- blem to khe City Attorney's Oifice, Chairman Gaue:r dire~ted the Plan- ning Staff to prepare a thorough ~:eport relative to the er;:*s~ made concerning the subject propert°~. The Con:mission found and aete~..:' ~•;..3 :he following ioc.t;s re~;arding t::e subject g+etition: i. That the petitiotter reguestis a variance frcm the Anaheim Municipal Code: Section 18.32.080 (a) to pexmit an encroachment of five (5) feei into the existing frunt yard with an existing multiple Family residential structure recently constructed on subject property. ~, That the,approval of the requested variance is T:ereby deemed to be based totaiiy upon a conditio.i of hardahip and do•.s not establish a precedent for encroachmemts into the required R-'3~ Multiple Pamiiq Reaident~ai, frant yard setback s~~e~:ifications ~f 4he bnaheim Muaicipal Code. 3~ 'That no ci7.e appear.ed in op1 ,aition to sub,ieci petition. Commissioner Allred affesed Resolution N'o. 24:, 3eries 1961-62, aad moved for its passagQ an~~ adoption, aeconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Peti~io~: fo= V~rian~e Nb. 1456 on the bases of the afosesentioned findxngs. " On *~11 call the forego'.ng ?:esolui~ion was pess~d by thr following vote: AYBS: CCtbiliS~IOPiSRS: Aiired., Caap, Ga~aer, ?iapgood, Marcou:., Mungall, 8ebley, Per.ry; NOH~: COMMIS6IONBRS: Chavose :,SSBNT: COMdISSIOI~HRS: Nonr., CONDITICkiAL USB - PUHLIC Iu~ARING. Peti.ti~n submitt~d by CHIP CHASt:V, 1801 Newport Boule- pBRMIT N0. 202 vard, .:.oata Mesa, Ca13.fornia~ Owne:; kay Mercado, 13016 Huczid Avenue, Garden Grove, Califor.nia, Agent; req~esting pFr~iasioci to BSTABLI3H A BBR~ICB 3TATTON on property deacribed as: A parcei 223 feet by 391 fee4 ~~..~___~_ -- - ~, , ^ ~ '• i ' . ~' _ , ~':_ 1~¢:~~.z:~.. ~ ~ ~_ .~,.~~.! , ~ : '~ '~ ~ 1r :. ~' ..... ~ . . ~ 744 MINUTBS, CIT"' 1•LANNING COhAlIS3ION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continned: CONDITIONAL USB - wit• q frontage of 391 feet on Ball Road and located on the southwest PffitMIT :VO. 202 co: of Ball Road and Dale Avenue. Pro~uerty presently classified (CONTINUBD) in the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH. Mr. Ray Merc~do, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed development of a service station on sub- .]eCt prr.;,en`y. 'I'he Commission reviewed the history of the praposed reclassification of subject property fzom the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone. It was noted that the Commission had recommended to the Gity Council that the property be classified in the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone in accordance witY. a Precise Plan Study made of the .cubjec: area. Subsequent to th~e Comm3.ssion action, the City Council had approved the subject petition sqbject to compliance Kith conditYOns of approval, The final reading _: the ordi- .Kance had not been com~leted, therefore, the subject property is pre- sently classified in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone. RBCFSS - At h:00 0'Clock P.M, Chairr~an ~auer ordered a ten minute recess in order that plans for the proposed dev?lop~rent could be presented. AFTBR RHCBSS - The meeting was reconvened by Chairman Gauer at 4:10 0'Clock P.M, Tt~.= (:ommission reviewed developmerrt plans and noted that a service sta- tion was proposed for the cor;:er portion of subject property wifih the bul!c of ~he property to be utilized for commercial stores. Carcl Bdwards, 1224 Shelli Drive, ap~~ared beforA •the iommission and stat~ed that he was in opposition co subject petiti.on because access drives and parking areas wo!~id be established abuttir.;~ his property and . thct there was no need f^.~r additional service :catiozts in the area. The Commission reviev~ed Pre~ise Plan Study No, 1.-15-2 mu3e in ci ?u~c- I tion with PeXition for Reclass.ificatior. No. 60~-61-66, The Commission ' noted that the aqbject area contained R-1, One Fataily Fesidential. ' developinent i» thc surrounding are.i and .hat the subject petition might establish a precedent for sinilar deve'_op,aei~t of the other ttiree corners at the intersection of Dale Avenu~ and Ba~l Road. Mr. P,ay Mercado, in ~?b~.~t~al, stated that t:e; ~eclassification o~ sub- ject pcoperty was almost c:mpleted, wi.th the es~eF,t?on •:f th~ installa- ~ tion of improvements. ar.d that the progos~d dE.~!el~pm•:.nt_waa_~,iog~c21-oae-, I THB HBI:RING WAS CLUSI3D, The Commission fo~nd and deterinined the f~llowing facts regarding the % subject petitior.: ~ 1. That the proposed use i.s properly one for which a Conditional Use ! Permit is authorized bq this Code, ~o wit: a service station. 2. That the proposed ue~ will adversPly affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the arer. in which it is proposed to be located, 3. That the Ytanning Commias:.on Y.~ceby re-affirms ±heir. ra.ommenda- tion for the projected deyelopmexat of the subject pro}~er.sy for ~ R-3, Multiple Fam31y Residential, de~elopmet.t :s outYined in Plan- ~ ning Study No. I-15-2 and fo-w;::ded to the CitY Council in ?tesolu- ` t?on No. 187, Series 14a0-61, ar.a ~insol~tian No. 188, Series 1960-61, I 1 t ~~' ,_1 ~ . ,. (_~ ~,~ . ~ ~.: ~ ~. r~ ~ -- C.~ 745 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: CONDITTONAL USB - 4. That verbai opposition by one owner of property in subject area was PBRMIT NO. 202 recorded against subject petition. (CONTINUBD) Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 242, Series 1:~61-62, and . moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 202 on the bases of the aforementioned findings. On roll call #he foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AY.HS: COI~AlI5~IONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, MuY~gall, Pebley, Perr.y, NOHS: COI~IISSIONHRS: None. ABSBNT: COMh.dSSIONffitS: None. CONBITIONAL USB - PUHLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by ROBBRT DOWLING, et al, 15622 PBRMIT NO. 204 placentia•-Yorba, Placentia, Caliiornia, Owner; Robert W. MacMahon, 403 California 3ank Building, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting per- mission to HSTABLISH A TRAILBR PARK on property described as; An irre- gslarly shaped parcel with a frontage of 1,180 feet more or less on Dowli.ng Avenue and a frontage of 811 feet more or iass on Orangethorpe Ave:;ue and located on the northeasterly corner of Orangethorpe and ~ Dowiing Avenues. 2roperty presently ciassified in the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQ?IGULTURAL, ZONB. Mr. Robert MacMahon, the petitioner`s agent appeared before the Com- mission and described the proposed establishment o£ a trailer park on property located in the northeast area presently being studied for the establishment of industrial zoning. A letter, zeceived from Mr. Hdward Backs, protesting the proposed estab- lishment of a trailer park on the subject property was submitted to the Commission. A Setter from the City of Placentia requesting that the subjeci pesition be held in abeyance:until the Commission conducts further study in respect to the "Industrial Area Analysis" was also submitted to the Commission. Mr. MacMahon stated that he vras opposed to the requested continuance of subject petition and re~7uested that the subject petition be denied be- cause of lease problems which necessitated an immediate decision. THB HBA.RING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission discussed the matter of the industrial area study and -- ----aatecl- that the-sub~e~-~ pe-~i~iorrcould-be-conti-nued-u~-il-the-mee~i-ng-- of March 19, 1962, by which time a determination may be possible in respect to the prejected develop*,~ent of the subject area. Commissioner Alired offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and carried, that the ~ublic hearing on Petition for Conditional Use Pe:u~it No. 204 be re-opened and continued until the meeting of~March 19, 1962 for further consideration of the proposed development. COPIDITIONAL USfi - C:. B. HURL6Y, 2510 West Orange, Anaheim, California, Owrtez; Noel P. PBRMIT N0. 206 Hatch, 436 Bast Commonwealth, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting permissidn to BSTABLISH A CIiILDR~N'S DAY NURSBRY SCHOOL on property described as A parcel 151 feet by 213 feet with a frontage of 151 feet iocated on the south side of Orange Avenue betwe.n Magnolia and Webster ~ ~ ~' ~ 746 MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CO~RdISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: CONDIT70NAL USB - Avenues; its northeast corner being approximately 300 feet west of the pBRMIT N0. 206 asu2510SWestrOrange Avenur aP oPertYepresently classifiedrin theibed (CONTINUBD) R-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDENTIe1L, ZONE. Mr. Noel Hatch, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, des- cribed the proposed establishment of a children's day nurseryr and indi- cated that the subject property contained in excess of the required amount of area and that the school would be sub'~'ect to all requirements of the State Licensing Board. i Mr. Ted Hudson, 622 South Velare, appeared before the Commission, indi- catzd that he owned apartment units abutting the subject property on the south, an3 stated that he was opposed to the subject petition on the basis that it would create a nuisance and be a source of complaint for his tenants. THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission reviewed development plans and Mr. Hatch indicated that an xisting feace would be removed, that an additional building ~ight be ~dded in the fucure, that he planned to c are for thirty children, that he operated u similar nursery in Pullerton without complaints from the neighborhood, and that he would campiy with all requi*ements. Commissioner Camp indicated that, in view of the residential develop- ment in the area, a more suitable location might be considered for the proposed nursery. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the proposed use is p=operly one for which a Conditional Use Yermit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a children's day nur- sery school. 2, That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. . 3, That verbal opposition by one owner of propexty in subject area was recorded~against subject petition. -- --Commissioaer-C-amp-of-F~r-ed-Resolutio~iVo 243, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Pesmit No. 206 on the bases of the afore- mentioned findings. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, M~ngall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COhAtISSI0DIBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None. i.~ `y ,~: ~ ; U 747 ~^ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COh1MISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: CONDITI~iAL USB -.89 feet with a frontage of 62 feet on South Los Angeles Street and, PffitMIT N0. 207 located on the northwesterly c~orner of Los Angel.es and South Stree~s, (CONTINUED) and further descxibed as 725 South Los Angeles Street. Property pre- sently classified in the C-2, GBNHRAL COMMHRCIAL, ZONE. The petitioner appeared before the Commission and indicated that he intended to convert an existing building at the rear of subject pro- perty for use as a sales office, and that the service station presently on the property would be removed. . THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission reviewed the plot plan submitted with subject petition and a discussion was held relative to the recommendation that the easterly driveway approach on subject property be closed. In response to the ~etitioner's indication that he was in favor of retaining said drive~ay approach, it was pointed out that the Bngineering Department had recommended its removal because of traffic problems and to pro- vide greater safety. The petitioner was also advised 'that t,he tanks prese,ztly on the property would require filling with sand, The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Condi~kional Use Permit is authorized bp this Code, to wit: a used car lot. 2. That the proposec~ use wili not adverseiy affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development 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 ade- quate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental ~o the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4. That the traffic genereted by the proposed use will.not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways desig:.ed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. That the granting of the Condit:.anal Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, wili not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, 6. That no one appeared in oppu~ition to subject petition. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 244, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage 9nd adoption, s?conded by Commissioner Marcoux, to grant Pet}tion for Conditional Use Permit No. 207, subject fo the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Hxhibit No. 1. 2, Dedication of 40 feet from the monumented centerline of Los Angeles Street (34.75 feet existing). 3, Removal of the easternmost driveway approach.on South Street anc; replacement with curb,_gutter and sidewalk in accordance with the ailopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Bngineer. 4. Time }imitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- ment bf Item Nos. 2 and 3, ~ ~ /~ 748 MINUTB~, CITY PIANNING COD9d3SSI0N, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USE - The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to PBRMIT N0. 207 be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to (COIdTINUED) preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, MArcoux, M~ngall, Pebley, Perry. NQHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSSNT: COMMISSiON~S: i1'one. CONDITIONAL USB - RUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by FINLEY and MAXINH LBWIS, 931 pBRMIT N0. 208 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, PAUL E, and MARIBBL TRAVER, 927 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, and MONTB P, and JUANITA P, CRAIG, 923 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim~ California, Owners; Viola B. Murray, 15118 Highway 39, Midway City, California, Agent; re- que§ting permission to BSTAB~.ISH A SHRVICB STATION on property described as: A parcel 120 feet by 188 feet wi4h a frontage of 120 feet on Ball Road and located on the northwest corner of Bail Road and Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 923, 92? and 931 South Magnolia Avenue. property presently classifiAd in the R-1, ONB FAMILY RHSIDENTIAL, ZONB. Mr. C. W. Young, 1040 Bast 46th. Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission, described the proposed instailation of a service station, noted that the other three corners at the intersection of Ball Road and MagnoSia Avenue presently contain service stations, and stated the ~ reclassification of subject property to the C-1, Neighborhooa Commercial, 2one had elapsed because of the time li~:~itation. Mr. Robert W. McCarter appeared before the Commission and indicated that he was in favor of the service station because~of the heavy traffic in the area and that the improvemefits that would be installed wouid eliminate a dangerous situation and wouid provide a safety zone for the children in the area. THB HHARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission discussed the present clessif?cation of subject property in the R-1, One Family Residential, 2one, and noted that technically the recJ.ass:.fication of subject property to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone by Petition for Reclassification No. 60-61-44 had elapsed. Ti., ~etitioner indicated that the reclassification of the ' c • subject property could not Ue compieted because aii conditions of d' approval could not be met untx7. tlne petition~ers had developed a def- ~ nite use f~r subject proper~y. ~ The Commission discussed at some length the problem of t~1e classi- fication of subject p~'operty and Assistant City Attorney Jerry Brody read Code, Section 18.64,020 (3-e), indicating that the present petitirn could not be approved until the proper classification of subject pror~er- ty had been~established. ` ~ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: ~ t 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use ~ permit is autY~orized oy th'•, Code, to wit: a service station. ~~'' .' ~'?:''`P:~ ... ished One ad t :y, , iice ihe vote: arcoux, HER, Asawa, 3016 the eet el N~. ted r the the ZONE arcel ional sion the , indi- eration Zon- diag," the des- b the AL, .E desir- ,So !i ~ , ~ :.:~:k ;~;' , MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CQMMISSIO~i, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued; RBCLASSIFICATIOdV - 3. That it is hereby recommended that the proposed reclassification of N0. 61-62-79 Parcel No. 1 to the C-3, HBAVY COD4lBRCIAL, ZONB be denied, that : {~~,rrTrrttm~l said Parcel No. 1 remain in the R-A, RSSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB and that the establishment of a service station on said Parcel No. 1 be pstablished under the conditions of Cond~tional Use Permit No. 203. ~ 4. That the recommended reclassification of subject property does properiy relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally estab~ished in close proximity ta s~i~ject prcperty snd ~o the xones and their pe~mitted uses general7.y established throughout the com- munity. 5. That the recommended reclassific;ation of subject proFerty does re- ql~ire dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because said property does relate to and abui upon str~ets and high- ways which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which wiil be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circl~lation elemeit of the General Plan. ~ 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition: I Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 246, Series 1961-62, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to recommend to the City Councii that the re- classificatiocl of Parcel No. 1 of the subject property of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-79 to the C-3, HHAVY CObA~IffitCIAL, 20NB be denied, and that the reclassification of Parcel No. 2 of subject property of Petition for Aeclassification No, 61-62-79 to the R-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RBSIDffiVTIAL, ZONB, be approved, subject to the following condi.- tions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 subject to the wsitten approval of the Fire Chief of the An~heim Pire Department. r, 2. Subject to the approval of Fetition for Conditional Use Permit No. 203 for the establishment of a planned unit development on Parcel No. 2 of s~~ject property and the establishment of a service station on Parcei No. 1 of subject proper~y. 3. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the west, north, and 209 foot portion of the eas4erly boundary line prior to Pinal Buildi~ig Inspectim . 4. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of Orange Avent~e (40 feet existing). ~ ' 5. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improvements for Orange Avenue and Rnott Avenue, subject to ±he approval of the City, Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted stanc~ard plans on file in the Office of the City 8ngineer~ ~ 6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Oran~e Aeenue.~ • ' , 7. Payment of a Park and Recrea'sion Pee ef $25.00 per dwelling unit to be collected u3 part of the Building Permit. ' 8, Provision of traeh storage areas as detarmined by the Department of Public Works, Saaitation Division, which are adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequateiy enclosed by a solid fence or wali, prior to'Pinai Building Inspectio~i. 1 i ~ 0 0 ~ ~;..; ~ •'t V v ~ ~si MINUTSS, CITY PIANNIIZG COMMISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: RHCIA3SIPICATION - 9. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- ~ ~ N0. 61-62-79 ment of Item Nos. 5, 6, and 7. (~OiraIi;J?i;3 pn ro11 call the foregoing reso2n:ioa was passed by the following vo4e: AYSSs ' CObAlISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavo§, Gaue~, Hapgood, Marcoux, . ' Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOSS: COhRlISSIONffitS: None. ABSBNT: CONIlKISSIONffitS: None. ~_~ _'~:,:.!',` • COiVDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by SDWARD J, and HELBN J• PISHHR, ~ pBRMIT N0. 2a3 11101 Orange Park Boulevard, Orange, California, Owners; Biil T. Asawa, ~ 925 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, (;alifornia and Ray Mercado, 130ib Euclid Avenue, Garden Grove, California, Agents; reyuesting permission to CONSTRUL~T A MULTIPLS PAMILY PIANI~D UNIT DEVBLUPMBNT AND A SBRVICS STATION on property described as: Parcel No. 1: A parcel 172 feet by 172 fee~ located on the northwest corner of Orange and Knott Avenues. Parcel No: 2; An irregularly shaped parcel wi*,.h a frontage of 293 feet located on the north side of Orange Avenue between Knott Avenue and Hoide~' Street; its southeast corner being approximateiy 172 feet west of the northwest corner of Orange and Knott Avenues. Prope=ty piesently classified in the R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. 3ubject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 61-62-79. Mr. Bi11 Asawa, the petitioner~s agent, appear d before 4he Com- ~ •information contained mission and stated he had r.othing to add to th in the subject petition. . Mr. Grant R. Warner, and Mrs. J. R. Benz, 508 South I{nott Avenue, - appeared before the Commission and sta4ed they were in favor of the ~ proposed two story development of that portion of subject property ~ proposed for the planned unit development. , I ' Tf~ HBARING WAS CLQSED. ~ The Commission reviewed development pians and noted that a waiver of J Code, Section, 1$.32.060 was necessary in order fio permit two 9tory ~ development within 150 feet of property classified in the R-A, RHSI- ~. DENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, in order to develop the property in accord- ~ ance with the pians presented, ~ ~ The Commission found and det~ermined the following facts regarding the ~ subject petition: ~ ' 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit; a planned unit develop- ment on Parcel No. 2 of subject property and a service station on ~ Parcel No. 1 of subject property. • ~ 2, That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land u'ses and the grow#h and develapment 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 ade- quate to a17.ow the full development 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 An:~heim. 4. That the traffic generated by the prcposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to carry the traffic in the area. ' I ~ ~ i i' ~ ._ -: .] j- ~ ( ;y ;i _ ,t3 ~'.:: ~ `.,~ ~ ~'~ . ~ ~ 752 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CODL~tISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: L ~ ~. ~~.ti: rf., =; : t, CONDITIONAL USB - 5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the condi- pBRMIT N0. 203 tions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, (CONTINUBD) ~ safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. That the specific waiver of Code Sections .18.32.080 (2 and 3), side and rear yard requirements, ang Code Section 18.32.060, height limi- tations, is hereby deemel necessAr~ in order to develop subject propei`y in accordance~with plans presented, said waiver permitted under~ ttie authority governed by Section 18.64,070 of the Anaheim Municxpal Code. 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petitio:~ and verbal support by two persons was re~.orded in favor of subject petition. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Iro. 247, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, s~econded by Commissioner Marcoux, to gran4 Petition for Conditional Use Permit~ subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with 8xhibit Nos. 1, 2., and 3 subject to the written approval bf the Pire Chief of ttte Anaheim Pire Department. 2. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the west, north, and 209 foot portion of the easterly boundary line prior to Pinal Building Inspection. ' G 3. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of I{nott Avenue, (30 feet existing).~ , I 4. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of Orange Avenue (40 feet existing). 5. Preparation of street improvement plans and instaliation of all • improvements for Orange Avenue and I{nott Avenue, subject to the approval of the City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted stanaard pians on file in the Office of the City Engineer, 6, Payraent of $2,00 per front foot for stree4 lig:~tiag purpoaes on Orax~ge Avenue and Bnott Avenue. 1 7, Fayment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to be collected as part of the Buiiding PermiU. '~~ 8. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Department of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which a're adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wail, prior to Pinal Building Inspection, ~ 9. Time 3imitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- ment of Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. ~ The foregoing conditions were recite¢ at the meeting and were found to , be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfase of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On io11 call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMIS3IONHRS: Allred,, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, NOBS: COhIINISSIONBRS: None. ~ ~ AB,SBNT: COMMISSIODIHRS: None. _~ 1 ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~:~, ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhA~IISSI~1, February 19, 1962, Continued; 4 753 RbCLA3SIPICATI~JN - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by LS ROY B, and BONNIB L. PBNHALL, N0. 61-62-80 273 North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owners; requesting • 2i~a~ the pxoper~y 3escri5ed >s: .-n irreguiariy sh~pe6 parcei wiiii a frontage of 60 feet]ocated on the southerly side of Center Street be- tween Manchester Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway; its northwestexly corner being appioximately 150 feet east of the southeasterly corner of Cen~ter 3treet and Manchestex' Avenue, and further described as 1408 West Center Street, be reclassified from the C-2, GBNBRAL COMMHRCIAL, 20NB to the M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONH. The petitioner appeared before the Commission and indicated he had nothing to add to the informatio- contained in the subject petition. Mrs. McIntyre, appeared before the Comraission, indicated she was inter- ested in the effect the proposed development of subject property upon ~ adjacent pro~erty, stated she represented the adjacent property owner, reviewed the deveSopmAnt~ plans, and added approval of the proposed devglopment. THR HBARING WAS CL0.SBD. The Commission reviewed development plans and a discussion was held with the petitioner relative to landscaping along the Santa Ana pree- way, the installation of a decorative block wall along the northerly property line aubtting Center Street, and the provision of landscaping in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the su~ject petition: , 1. That the petitioner propo~as a reclassification of the above des- cribed property from the C-2, GENHRAL COhA1BRCIAL, ZONB to the M~1, LIGHT MANUPACTURING, 20NH. 2. That the proposed reclassificatioiY of subject property is necessary and/or de:sirable for~the orderly and proper development of the community. ~ 3, That tk:c: proposed reclassification of subject property does pro- perly ..*elate to the zones and their permitted uses iocaliy estab- lished in close proximity to subject property and to'the zones and their permitted uses generaily established throughout the community. 4. That the proposed reciassification of subject property does not require dedication for and standard improvement of abui,ting streets becaqse said property does relate to and ubut upon ntreets and high- ways which are imaroved to carry the type and quantity di traffic, whieh wili be generated by the permittpd uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the General~+Ylan. I i 5, That due to the proposed industrial use of subject propecty it is hereby recommended to the City Councii that the installation of sidewal$s be ~4aived, 6. .That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ Commissioner Perry offered Resoiation No. 248. Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungali, ~ to recommend to the City Council that Petition ~or Reclassification No. 61-62-80 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1 . _~~~, _ . ~ . _ !". x.. ~ . , . . ` .. .,, .' ~,,~ ~. . ~~t~TAlUT83, CITY PIANNING CohAIISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: I 754 RB^'LA33IPICJ-TI~t - 1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxli3bit Nb. 1. , N'0. 61-62-80 t~1~~ 2, provision of a ten (1~) foot decorative block wall on the northerly property line as indicated on Hxhibit No. 1 with~the installation of landscaping in accordance with said Bxhibit . 3. Instailation of adeq,uate landscaping along the easterly b oundar~y of subjett property to screcn subject property fr6m the fre~way right- of-way, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to 'aad subject . to the approval ~.f the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, ' The foregoing cond.itions were recited at the meeting and were found to bp a necessary pre~:equisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the saf'ety and welfare of the citizens of~the City of Anaheim, ~ On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote; AYBS; COMMISSIONBRS: Aiired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry. NOES: COAAlISSIONBRS: None, i A~SHNT: COhA~tISSIONBRS: None. ~•,,. ~: r,: [' C ' ~ ~ PUBLIC FIBARING - STRBBT NAME CHANGB - Tract No. 3882: Proposed street name change of Niodworth Road 4o Palais Roed,~ lacated west of Nutwood Street and north of Chanticieer Rosd in Tract No. 3882, was submitte~l to the Commissiott, Mrs, Irma Nicely appeared before the Commission, indicated she had re- ~ cently moved into the subject tract, and expressed opposition~to the proposed street name change on the basis that it would create an in- convenience~for the new residents in the tract. THB HBARING WAS CL05ED. Commissioner Alired offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux and carried, that the street na~he designation of Woodworth Road remain the same and that the recommended change in name not be adopted. i RECSSS - At 6:00 0'Clock P.M. Commissioner Alired offered a motion, seconded by Commissionei- Marcoux. to recess the meeting and to reconvene at 7:b0 0'Clock P,M., MOTION CA1tRIBD. , APTER RBCBSS - Cha3ra~an Gauer called the meeti.ng to order at 7:30 0'Clock P.M., ail members of the Cammission being gresent. ~ i Commissioner Pebley requested that he be excused during the Public Hearing cn Precise Plan Study No. 39-6-4. PUBLIC HBARING - PRBCISB PLAN STUDY N0. 39-6-4: Subject Precise Pian Study, relative to that area located on the north and south sides of Ball Read from Beach Boulevard westerly to Knott Avenue, was considered at the Planning Commission meeting held on Pebruary 5, 1962 and was forwarded to the City Councii without recom- ~ mendation for Council review and cansideration. Said Precise PSan was MINUTBS., CITY PLANNING CONAtISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: 1 • PUBLIC HHARING - PRBCISB PLAN STUDY N0. 39-6-4, Continued: tCONTIIVUBD,I ' considered by the City Council at the Council Meeting on February 6, 1962 and referred back to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing on said planning study. • Senior Planner Martin Kreidt displayed twenty-six exhibits prepared by the Planning Department staff relative to the subject area. He described the present zoning and land use in subject area and out- ~: , Sined the proposed developments, indicated on each exhibit, and its ~'_ effect upon the surrounding area, The following persons appeared before the Commission and voiced numerous opinions in respect to the exhibits displayed; Mrs. McConnell; Gordon Douley; Michaei Znrla, 3406 ue:.enhbily Drive; Mr. Wiikerson, Joseph Sey~nour, 3347 West Ball Road; Mrs. $rooks; Mrs. Robert Bruner, 3302 West Deerwood Drive; Mr. John Simpson; Mrs. Manning; Mr. Pletz; Mrs. Cooper; Reverend White; Mr. Ray 2utter, 3160 West Ball Roa3; Gtven Simpson, 3309 Deerwood Drive; Mrs. Sorenson, and Mr. Geor.ge Nakaihi. Mr. Norman Johnson, 3302 West Glenwood Drive, displayed a study of the subject area he had ~repared and a show of hands indicated that 37 of the pexsons in the audience were in favor of his plan. Mr. Walker, resident on Rome Avenue, presented a study that he had prepared of the subject area and a show of hands indicate3 45 persons favored his plen. A show of hands was•also given on the 2b exhibits prepared by the 1'lan- ning Staff, the results being inconclusive. The history of the reason for the study was discussed with the Com- mission, noting that Petition for Reclassification No, 61-62-68 was presently being continued 'oy the City Council for a report on the study of the subject area, Commissioner Chavos complimented the Planning Staff on the prenaration a~1d presentation of thP study and the sudience was thanked for their interest in the development of the subject area. , gBCESg - At 10:45 0'Clock P.M. Cormaissioner Chavos offered a motion,seconded by Ctimmissioner Hap~ood that the Commission Meeting be rec~ssed for ten minutes. MOTION C1.~2RIBD, ppTffit RgCgSS - Chairman uauer called the meEting to or~er at 10:55 0'Clock P.M. Commissioner Pebley being abset~t, Commissioner Chavos indicated that a great deal of evidence had been presented, •that numerous plans had been,prepareri and presented, and that, in order to rende~ a decision iadicating the Commission's best judgement'in respect to the most desirable plan, the matter shou111 tse continued and a decision rendered at the~next Commission meeting. Commissioner Chavo3 offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Camp and carried, that the HBARING BB CL0.SBD, that Precise Plan Study No.,39-6-4 be cbntinued until 2:00 O'Clock P.M, at the March 5, 1962 Plann3ng ~ommission Meeting, that the City Council be natified of said continu- ance, and that a decision be rendered at ~sid meeting in order to for- wa~d a recommendation to the City Couacil reiatfve to the possible i ~, ' i I C. ) ~ '.! ~:'' (~~,~ 756 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COI~A~lISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: PUBLIC HBARING - PRBCISE PLAN STUDY N0. 39-6-4, Continued: (CONTINUBD) ultimate devel9pment of the subject area, Commissioner Pebley entered the Council Chambers at 11:00 0'Clock P.M. PUBLIC HBARING - PROP05BD pMBNDMgNT Tp TITi,E 18, CFIAPTBR 18.08 of the ANAHBIM MUNICIPAL CODB: Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos and carried, that the proposed amendment to the Anaheira Municipal Code, relating to '°Definitions" be continued until the meeting of March 5, 1962 to provide an additional opportunity for the Commissioners to review said proposed amendment. CORRESpONDHNCF - Item No. 1: Communication from ORP,NGB COUNTY HBALTH DBPARTMBNT: A letter from the Orange County Health Departmeat, relative to the establishment of inedicai and surgicai hospitals within th~ cities of Orange County, was submitted to the Commission. The Commxssion indicated agreement with the Orange County Health Department in that every aspect of such proposed projects should be thoroughly examined, Commissioner Perry offered a motiQn, ser:onded by Commissioner Chavos and carried, tHat the letter be r'~ceived and filed, that the Planning Co~¢mission Secretary tiansmit notice to the Orange County Health Department indicating that the qnaheim Plenning.Commission will co- operate in the suggested procedpres, and that the lettgr be made a part of every application for the described medical an$ surg3.ca1 hospi- tal developments within the city Iimits of the City of Anaheim. V ,: O. Item No. 2: ORANGE COUNTY USB VARIANCB N0. 4934: Notice received from the Orange County Pianning Commission relative to Use Variance Permit No. 4934 was submitted to the Commission. 3ubject petition requested. permission to estabiish a real estate office in the R-1, Single Pamily Residence District, and indicated that the proposed building would be substantially of the size and location in- dicated on the plot plan s~bmitted, that there would be 17 off-street parking spaces~, that access thereto would be provided from Bzookhurst Avenue with no vehicular access provided tu Guinida Lane, that there wo~ld be two signs installed, and that v~ariances would be required in respect to the signs, the rear yard requirement and the location of the building a minimum~distance of 13 feet frum Guinida Lane. The subject property is locaTed on the north side of the easterly cul-de-sac end of Guinida Lane at Brookhurst Street, w~sterly oP AnahBim. • The Commission reviewed the plot plan, noted that they had made a field inspection study of the subject property, and indicated that the subject area was more suitable for single family residential purp6ses. Commissioner Chavos offered a motion, seconded by Coromissioner Camp and carried, that the Planning Commission Secretary transmit aotice to ihe Orange County Planning CUmmission indicating that the Anaheim :~ 9 ~ I. ::~ 4:....``'~ ~;` . ~s~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CQ'gfISSION, February 19, 1962~ Continued: CQRRHSPONDHNCB - Item No. 2; ORANGB COUNTY USH VARIANCB N0. 4934, Continued: (CONTINUHD) ~ Planning Commission recommended denial of the subject petition on the bases that the proposed use of subject property would permit an en- crbachment into the *esider_t=a1 distr±c# 2n@ that it would eatablish a precedent for commer~ial development in the area. Item No, 3; LBTTBR PROM CITY OP PIACHNTIA: A resolution of protest from the City of Placentia, relative~to the . proposed reclassification of property located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe and Dowling Avenues,.was submitted to the Commission. ii . Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and carried that Resolutibn No. 531 ~dopted by the City of Placentia be received and filed with Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-58. I Item No. 4: GARDBN GROVB UNCIASSIPIBD USE PERMIT N0. 101-62, Notice from the City of Garden Grove relative to Unclassified Use Permit No. 101-62 was submitted to the Commission. The notice indi- cated that Melddyla~kd, Inc., as applicant, was requeating approval of a per~it for the construction of a tent and accessory buildings to be used in the production of "Broadway Musical Comedies" on approxi- mately nine acres of propa ty located at the southeast corr.er of Chap- man Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. Chairman Gauer described the type of summer stock shows that were successful in the eastern part of the country, The Commission noted, however, that no time limit for the proposed use was stipulated, that the location would increase traffic probiems because of the heavy vehicnlar use of the intersecti.on of Harbor Boulev~rd and Chapman Avenue, that there~would be parking problems, d~st problems, and that rest room facilities would be necessary. Planning Director Richard Reese noted that the proposed use of subject proparty would appear to be inconsistent with the high qual3ty type of aevelopment being established on Hari~or Boulevard. i Commissioner Mungall indicated that the City of Anaheim had received requests for tent activities in the past, and indicated that informa- tion could be obtained from the City Clerk's office relative to the subject for forwarding to the City of Garden Grove. ~ ' Commissioner Camp offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and carried, directing the Planning Commission Secretary to transmit notice to the Garden Grove Plaaning Commission indicating that the Anaheim ~ Planning Co~dmission strongly recommended denial of the subject petition on the basqs of the aforementioned probiems, and forwarding therewith the infozma`~ion obtained from the City Clerk's Office, said information indicating that other tent activities requesting and receiving consider- ation by the City Counci~l had been in connection with advertising cam- paigns requiring definite time limitations for their use, with the ex- ception of a request for temporary summer stock productions which had never developed. ~ ~ i;:, ~ ~'e" • ~. ~ ~ ~ Y ~ _.~_-~-•,. I .1 .~ ~ ., . . ~:,F..~~~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COi~IISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: CpRRBSP0IVDBNCH - Item No. 5: NOTICB PROM ORANGB COUNTY kIANNING COI~AlISSION RHIATIVS (~p~i~gp) • TO LBGAL NOTICBS RECBIVBD PROM ZHB CITY OF ANAHBI~A: A letter received from the Orange County Planning Commission indicated that the Orange County Planning~'Department had no comments or recom- mendations to make in respect to Conditional Use Permits Nos. 203, 204, 206, Reclassification hVo. 61-62-79, and Varianc~ Nd, 1446. Chairman Gauer directed that copies of said letter be Sled in their rAspect?~e files. A notice from the Orange County Plannir.g Commission relative to a proposed'. amendment to 5ectional District Map 1-4-10 and containing Hxhibits C and'D were presented to the Commission. Planning Director Richard Reese pointed out that the subject area was a part o~` the Northeast Industrial Area, which is presen~ly being studied an~ a_s u,.der consideration by the Cormnission in respect to the ulti8~ate develop~nt,•1 of the area for industrial p~irposes. He ~ indicated that the only zoning sit the present time under the existing County~Zoning Orkiinance, which would restrict the use of the subject property fo~ indus~rial purposes only'was the Cdunty'h1-R Zone. The Commission discussed the necessity fer holding in abeyance the de- velopment of any iand in the subject area until the matter hsss been given sufficient study and consideration in order to provide for the proper development of the entire area. The con~lusions and recom-' mendations of the "Industrial Areas Analysis" report were reviewed, ~ I ~ Commissioner Allred offered a motioa, seconded by Commissioner Camp and carried, that the Planning Commission Secretary transmi~ notice to the Orange County Planning Commission indicating that 4he Anaheim Pian- ning Commissio~k recommended that only the M-R'Zone classification be permitted in the subject~area~until such time as~the Orange County Zoning Ordinance has been amended to eliminate any development for residential~ purposes, including trailer parks, of property classified in the M-1 Zone, and that the Planning Director personally contact the Orange County~Planning Department in respect to the problem. i ~ t t ~' E ~ ~ . ~. ::: :, , , ~.. ~- RBPORT3 AND. - Item No. 1: PRACISB PLAN STIIDY N0. 40-33-1: RBCOhA!ffi~DATI~TS ~ ' Senior Pianner Martin Kreidt displayed Precise Plan Study No. 40-33-1 relative to that area located on the west si$e bf Brookhurst 3treet between Broadway and Orange Avenue. He noted that the predominant land use of subject area was for commerc5.a1 purposes and indicated that the plan recommeride3 commerciai zoning with the provision of land- scaping and adequate trash storage areas, and the constructioi of a block wall where the subject property abuts County property. The Commissi.an discussed the pzesent devel.opment in the azea and irldicated that the C-1, Neighborhood CoAimercial, zone would b~ the most Sogical classification for the subject area. Co~amissioner Chavos offered Resoiutbn No, 249, Series 1961-62, and moved for,its passage and adoption, aecpnded by Cflmmissioner Perry, to ( initiate P~tition for Reciassification No. 61-62-96 for the reclassi- i fication,of subject property from the R-A, RBSIDSNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ~ 'f, '. ~ _ ~_.~ ~ O 754 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, February 19, 1962, Continued: RBPQRTS AND - YAECISH PIAN STUDY N0. 40-33-1, Continued; RHCOMMBNDATIONS ~ ~ (CONTINUHD) ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NB and that said Petition fo~ Reclassification be set for Public Hearing on April 16, 1962. CORRESPONDBNCH- Item No. 7: RHQUHST PROM WHIRLPOOL CQRP~2ATION: CCONTINUBD) A letter from the Whirlpool Corporation, relative to a request for Commission interpretation in respect to whether coin operated dry cleaning machines could be considered as an included use in cqnjun~~iqn with a self-service laundry and whether said machines would be permitted in the C~1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, was submitted to the ~Com- ' mission. ~ The Commission discussed the function of coin operated laundries, which are presently established, and it was notbd that Pire Department reguiations would require that an attendant be on the premises when- ever a business oflfering a coin operated dry ileaning machine service w~s open 'for business. ~ Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos and carried, inclicating as a statement of policy that the Planuing Commission does define and interpret that a coin operated dry cleaning machine wou~d be considered as a permissable use in the C-1, Neighbori hood Commercial, Zone, and that the Planning Commis§ion Secretary transmit notice reg~rding said policy to the Whirlpool Corporation. RSPO~tTS AND - Item No. 2: DISCUSSION RBLATIVB TO PRBCISB PIAN STUDISS: RBCOhIIdffiVDATIONS (CONTINUHD) A discussion was held relative to the terminology of Precise Plan 3tudies and PYanning Di~ector Richard Reese that such studies should be iFlentified and designated as Planning ~tudies until such time as . said plans were formally,adopted as a Precise'Plan of Development in accordance witt~ the r~quiremehts of the Stat~e Pianning Law. The Commission aiso discussed the matter of scheduling Pianning Studies for consideration by the Commission and Chairman Gauer requested that the matter be discussed at the next Commission Work Session, ~t which time a policy would be estabiished. ' Item No. 3: POLICY S'I~ATBMHNT RBYATIVB TO INSTALIATION OP BLOCK WALLS, The Commission discussld the necessity for establishing a policy in respect to the requir~ment of the installation of block walls abutting freeways and secondary highways. City Coun~il Policy stetement in respect to the ma:ter~was read to the Commission. Chairman Gauer indicated that consideration should be given to the problem and requested that the matter be included for consideration at the next Commis§ion work 3essio:i. ~ ' ~ j , C_~ ~ ~ 760 MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Pebruary 19, 1962, Continued: INTRODUCTION - Planning Director Richard Reese introduced Ronald Grudzinski to the Commis§ion and indicated th~t Mr. Grudzinski would be preparing the Planning Studies for Commission consideration. ADJOURNMBNT - There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 O'Clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, / G ' PAGB, " ISSION SHCRH ~_ ~ ,:, ~ ~ ~ -~, ,------____~, . ,~ -