Loading...
Minutes-PC 1962/03/19i ~ ~ • i :K'' A ~`~ ;1 . '2~~a33Y~: .... . , ~~~ ~ ~ ~,~,i,~ r~.,,^',.^~~.'J."' : '~^'`~-~'rv.X;L "'9°`c°-° --`'- ~ ' s++--~~..:Jn;,~..i } ~/ . .~ . . . ~ . .. ~ :~~` . ,~'P' ~ ' .: ~ ~~! City Hall .. ~ Anaheim, California March 19, 1962 ~ RBGUTAR MHBTING OF THE ANAHHIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RHGULAR MBBTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was cailed to order by pice-Chairman Mungall ut'~gQQ 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. pRESBNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer (entered meeting at 2:15 0'Clock P.M.) CCMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebiey, Perry.' ABSBNT - COMMISSIONHRS: Hapgood. PRBSBNT - SBNIOR P:ANNBR: Martin Rreidt. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNBY: Joe Geisler. CQMMI3SION SBCRBTARY: Jean Page. INVOCATION - Reverend Renneth Fischer, Pastor Magnolia Baptist Church, gave ~ the Invocation. ; PLEDGH OF - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Ailegiance to the Rlag. ALLEGIANCB APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of March 5, 1962 were approved a~ `, MINUTES submitted. ~•, RBCIASSIFICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by MRS. FLORHNCS ' N0. 61-62-58 MBIANSON, and MRS, MARY K. RBIS, Owners; GBORGIA C. MANHSTAR, ~~; c/o Roberts Real Estate and Investment, 9752 Katella Avenue, 4, Anaheim, California, Agent; re~c~esting that property described as: PARCBL 1: A parcel 440 feet by 650 feet wi.th a frontage of 440 .' feet on Dowling S~treet and located on tha s•uthwest corner of ~ .:)owling Street and P~acentia-Yorba Road; PARCHL 2: A parcel 180 f::et by 210 feet with a frontage of 180 feet on Dow?ing Street and located on the southwest corner of Dowling Street and Placentia- Yorba Road; PARCHL 4; An irregularly shaped parcel with its i easterly boundary abutting Parcel 1 on the west; its southeasterly k corner being approximately 587 feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue and 665 feet west of the cent~rline of Dowling _ Street, be reclassified itom the R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGR:CULTURAL, ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL (Parcels I and 4) and C-3, HBAVY COMMHRCIAL (Parcel 2), ZONHS. ' ' Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 27, 1961 and February S, 1962 in order that additional information regarding the subject area cou~id be considered for the projected development of the northeast section of the City. Georgia Manestar, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that, aithough a portion of the property -791- ~l ~„ , ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ • 792 MINUTBS, CITY PLAIdNING COMMISSION, March 19, 1962, Cuntinued: RBCIASSIFICATIO~I - that was originaily included in thP subject petition had been N0. 61-62-58 withdrawn by the owner*s attorney, she was presently authorized to (Continued) remain as agent fo~ Mrs. Reis, Mrs. Melanson, and.Mr. Jerry Maler. Chairman Gauer entered the Council Chambers at~2;15 0'Clock P,M. Mrs. M2nestar reviewed the action taken~py the Commission and re- ferred to the City Councii,upon the study and Yndustrial nreas Analysis; relative to the noctheast section of the City, in addi- tion to the evidence and corxespondence submitted in respect to the subject petition. She di:>tributed revised brochures, outlined tract informatzon sh~ hsd obta:ned :rosa the "Orange County Census Tract Book", quoted population estimates for the surrounding area, indicated that a study was being prepared by a commercial-indus- triai coordinator, stated that leases and construction data was be- ing processed, and cited a need for some type of commercial-recre- ational facility in the proposed industrial section of the City. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Camp, Mrs. Manestar indicated that definite development plans would not be available until leases were obtained, and she described difficulties in obtaining leases with- ont the definite establishment of the requestec'. zone classification. She emphasized the fact that a study was being conducted to deter- mine the feasibility and the type of commercial development for the subject property. Chairman Gauer reviewed evidence obtained in respect to subject petition at previous meetings, citing letters of opposition received from the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Placentia, and noted that a study and hearing had been conducted by the Commission recommending industrial development for the subject area. THB HBARING WAS CLQSBD. Commissioner Chavos complimented Mrs. Manestar on her presentation and the amount of data and information she had co~ipiled for the subject petition. He indicated, however, that precise plans for the proposed deveiopment of subject property would be necessary to serve as a guide fot the Commission, The Commission discussed continuance of the subject~peb'ition and Mrs. Manestar indicated that sixty days would be sufficient time in which to obtain more specific plans for the proposed develop- ment of subject property. Commissioner Marcoux ~•:fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to re-open tl» hearing on Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-58 and continue said pptition until the meeting of May 14, 1962 by which time the petitioners shall submit'detailed plans for the development of subject property. On roli call the £oregoing motion was passed by the following vote:: AYBS: CQMhlISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, NOBS: COMMISSIONERSf: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONffitS: Hapgood, ~.~~ .. '~• . I~ ~~ i{ '1 ~ . 't~ ~ ' 793 MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COhAtISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. Petition submitted by ROBERT R. DOWLING, PffitMIT N0. 204 et al, 15622 placentia-Yorba, Placentia, California, Owner; ROBfiRT W, MACIdAHON, 403 California Bank Building, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permissi.on to HSTABLISH A TRAILBR PARA on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel with a frontage of 1,180 feet more or les~ on Dowling Avenue and a frontage of 811 feet more'or less on Orangethorpe Avenue and located on the north- easterly corner of Orangethorpe and Dowling Avenues. Property presently ciassified in the R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. Subject petition was contintsed from the meeting of February 19, 1962 in order that additional information regarding the subject area could be considered for the p:ojected development of the norin- east section of the City. Mr. Robert McMahon, representative for the petitioner, appeared be- fore the Commission an~ reviewed the discussion held in respect to the subject petition at the meeting of February 19, 1962. He stated that the petit+.oner had been unable to sell the subject property for a consiciarable length nf time, that the petitioner had obtained a lease contingent upon the approval of the subject petition, that the size, shape and location of the parcel make it ideal for a trailer park site, that the park would be a luxury type deveZopment with adequate recreational facilities, that block walls would be provided where necesnary, that access to the subject property and to the industrial area was adequate because of the existing road system, that the facility would be fully eqtsipped with concrete pads and a11 other necessary improvementsr .snd that a total investment of approximately $450,000 was anticipated. THE HBARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and determin~d 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 trailer park. 2, That the proposed use will advessely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be iocated. 3. That the projected development of subject area has been recom- mended for industrial purposes as a result of the initiation of Petition for 4teclassification No, 61-62-69, Planning Study No. 34-110-20, and the~~Industrial Areas Analysis~of the north- east section of the City of Anaheim, of the subsequent hearings on said Petition for Reclassification and said Planrriag Study, and of the adoption of Resolution No. 263, Series 1961-62,! recommending to the City Council that those properties as delimited in said Petition for Reclassification be reclassified to the M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zone; and that the proposed trailer park would be incompatibie with the projected industri- al zoning of subject arc.. aa recommended in said Petition for Reclassification No. 61-b2-69. 4. That two letters of opposition were recorded against subject petition. •a ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 794 MINUTBS, CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 264, Series 1961-62, and PBRMIT N0. 204 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, (Continued) to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 204 on the bases of the aforementioned findings. On roll call the foreeo vote: AYSS: CaMMISSIONHRS: NOBS: CQMMISSIONBRS: ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: ing resolution was passed by the following Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. None. Hapgood. TBNTATIVB MAP OF - OWNHR-DBVELOPBR: LU3K CORPORATION, 10522 Santa Gertrudes Avenue, TRACT N0. 4567 Whittier, California. ENGINBBR: Buyle Hngineering, 331 Spurgeon Building; Santa Ana, California. Subject tract is located on the east side of Anaheim Reservoir Access Road, south of Newport Pree- way Frontage Road, and contains forty-eight proposed R=1, ONE FAMILY RSSIDBNTIAL, lots, Subject tract map was continued from the meeting of March 5, 1962 at the request of the petitioner. A report was submitted to the Commission indicating that the otvner of subject property ~a~ requested a further continuance of the consid?ration of .~ubject tract until the meeting of April 2, 1962, Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to coniinue the consideration of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4567 until the meeting of April 2, 1962 in accordance with the developer's request. MOTION CARRIBD. TBNTATIVB MAP OF - SUBDIVIDSR: S. V. HUNSARBR and SONS, 4405 Irwindale Avenue, TRACT N0. 4060 Irwindale, California. &NGINBER: MILLET, KING and ASSOCIATBS, 1518 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California. Subject tract is located on the north side of Crescent Avenue between Gilbert and Brookhurst Streets and contains twenty-three R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 1ots. Subject tract map was continued from the meeting of March 5, 1962 in accordance with the developer's request. A report was submitted to the Commission indicating that the developer of subject property has requested a further continuance of the consideration of subject tract until the meeting of April 2, 1962. Commissioner Pebley offered ~d motion, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to continue the consideration of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4060 until the meeting of April 2, 1962 in accordance with the developer's request. MOTION CARRISD. ---- '~ T^ ~• ~ i i i ~ ' ~ ,~ ..~ .j 1 `~: ~ ' i 795 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhtAISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: TBNTATIVH MAP OF - SUBDIVIDBR: VIRGINIA BOGGS, 17117 Ciark Street, Beliflower, TRACT NO, 4612 California, HNGINEER: M~DANIBL HNGINEBRING COMPANY, 222 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiq. Subject tract is located on t}1C ~80~ Siu~. Oi S~?LC' (',Oi12~2 Soulevard~ b$o iee~ 53ii~ti Of Wagner Avenue, and contains thirty-five R-1, ON& FAMILY RHSIDEN- TIAL, lots. Mr. A. R. McDaniel, engineer for subject tract, appeared before ;he Commission and indicated that the developer would comply with the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee. Mr. Herbert Lenz, owner of property abutting subject tract on the north, appeared before the Commission, submitted a letter indicating his intedt to develop a shopping center on the property located on the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Wagner Avenue, and expressed opposition in respect to the street design of the subject tract. The Commission discussed the loca- tion of the subject and abutting property in relation to the proposed high school, elementary school~ and park faciPity, and the possible future development in the area. Commissioner Pebley indicated that he considered a planning study should be made of the area to serve as a guide for the development of the affectied properties. It was pointed out that it would not appear that the entire ten acres located at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Wagner Avenue should be developed for commercial purposes and that a combination of neighborhood commercial deve~- opment with possibly single famil;~ residential development might be the most logical development for the property owned by Mr. Lenz. The Commission discussed the advisability of continuing the con- sideration of subject tentative tract map until such time as a planning study could be prepar~d for consideration, Mr, McDaniel indicated that a postponement would create a hardship for the developer because of the matter of timing involved in filing tentative tract maps. The Commission reviewed the tentative tract map and discussed possible street alignments and it was indicated that a ntamher of layouts had been attempted for the subject property to devise the most desarable plan. It was noted that the acquisition of the property adjoining the subject property on the east for school purposes had jeopardized the development of subject property in so far as continuing the street alignment of the property to the south. Mr. McDaniel point~d out that the proposed street align- ment would affect only approximately 20 percent of the property abutting on the north and that it should not be objectionable on that basis. Mr, Lenz indicated that he was not in a position ~No work out a joint endeavor io_ tbe ~ubdivision of his property, where it abuts the subject property,and he expressed concern in respect to his property beccu~ing land-locked. The Commission noted that the property owner to the north could install a block wa~ll if he did not wish to subdivide his property for residential purposes and that the development of the subject tract would not affect his property. Interdepartmental Committee recommendations were read and Mr, McDaniel agreed to all conditions. Discussion was also held on the provision of a walk-way to permit access by the school children tu the sahool property, Mr. McDaniei agreed to the in- stallation of a, pedestrian walk-way providing access to the school pzoperty. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,- ~"~ . ; ~ ; 796 blINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~lM~SSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: : TBNTATIVB MAP OF - Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner ~, TRACT N0. 4612 Camp, to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4612, subject to i the following conditions: ~ ~ 1. Lot A shall extend fully along the northerly line of the " dedicated right-of-way of "A" and "D" Streets. ~ 2. A predetermined price for Lot A shall be calculated and an agreement for dedication entered into between the developer and the City of Anaheim prior to the approval of a final tract map, The price for Lot A shall include land cost and orie-half ~ the cost of all improvements for "A" Street. 3, Provisions for a five (5) foot utility easement and an addi- tional three (3) foot ovenc~ad easement along the west°rly i boundary of the tract. ? t i 4. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be sub- mitted in tentative form for approval. ~ 5. Subject to the approval of plot and building plans by the Planning and~Building Department. 6. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall a.long the State ~ College Boulevard right-of-way of Lot Nos. 1 through 7 with the installation of landscaping in the uncemented parkway portion of the State College Boulevard highway right-of-way, plans for said landscaping subject to the approval of the Superi~tendent of Parkway Maintenance and upon installation and acceptance of said l.andscaping, maintenance to become the responsibility of the City of Anaheim. 7. Provision of a pedestrian walk-way along the south<rly ten (10) feet of Lot 12 and the dedication thereof to the City of Anaheim. ~ On roll call the forego vote; AYHS: CaMMISSIONHRS: NQBS: COMMISSIONSRS: ABSBNT: COMMISSIONHRS: ing motion was passed by the following Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, kungall, Pebley, Perry. None, Hapgood. PIANNING 3TUDY - Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, directing the Planning Department Staff to prepare Planning Study No. ~45-114-4 for the t~ltimate development of the area bounded on the north by South Street, on the west by St~te College Boulevard, on the south by Ball Road, and on the east by the proposed Orange Freeway (Route 19), and that said Planning Study be presented at the meeting of April 2, 1962 for Planning Commission consideration only. MOTION CARRIHD, VARIANCE NO. 1453 - PURLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by CHRISTINE M. LICHTHARDT, 836 North Zeyn Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ,~ 7 97 MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued; VRRIANCB N0. 145~ - DONALD B, WOODS, 12349 Bast 8verest Street, Norwalk, California, (Continned) Agent; requesting permission to WAIVB MINIMUM FLOOR ARBA RHQUIRB- MBNT on property described as: A~arcel 54 feet by 117 feet with . a frontage of 54 feet located on the easterly side of Zeyn Street between North and LaVerne Streets; its northwesterly corner being approximately 173 feet south of the southeasteriy corner of Zeyn and LaVerne Streets, and further described as 836 North Zeyn Street, Property presently classified in the R-2, 1W0 FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB, Mr. Donald 8. Woods, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed construction~ of a sin- g1e family residence on the front portion of subject property. He indicated that the existing dwelling at the rear of subject property would remain and that the proposed construction would constitute an improvement to the neighborhood. THB HBARING WAS CLQSSD. The Commission reviewed development pians. The Commission found and determined the following facts regard- ing the subject,peti.tion; 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipai Code: Section 18.80.080 to pa mit the construc- tion of a single family residence with a liveable floor area of 900 square feet. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions 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 preser- vation and enjoyment of a substantial property right pos- sessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, aad denied to the property in question. 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or impt~bvements in such vicinity and zone in.which the property is located, 5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Geaeral plan, 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissior_er Marcoux offered Resolution No, 265, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1453, gubject to the followiag condition: 1. Development ~ubstantially in accordance with 8xhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be a nece~sary prerequisite to the use of the prpperty in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~ ~~ i~ i ,1 V~ 798 MINUTES, CITY PIANNING C01~4dIS3I0N, March 19, 1962, Continued: VARIANCH N0. 1453 - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; (Continued) AYES: COPRdIS~IONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. -~ NOHS: C(~h1MISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. VARIANCB N0. 1454 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by M. DOUGIAS, 626 West Common- wealth, Fullerton, Califom ia. Owner; requesting permission to WAIVB GARAGB DOOR RBQUIRBMffiVT ON 46 OP THB 51 GARAGBS on property described as: A parcel 200 feet by 250 feet with a frontage of 200 feet located on the south side of Pampas Lane between Huclid Avenue and Loara Street; its northwest corner being approximately 280 feet east of the southeast corner of Buclid Avenue.and Pampas Lane, and further described as 1666 Pampas Lane. Property presently class- ified in the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. No.one appeared before the Commission to represent the subject petitiom, THB HBARING WAS CLQSBD. Commissioner Chavos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1454 on the basis that standards have been established for the protection of citizens and of property, and that to deviate from the minimum standards wouid encourage crime, as indicated by incidents in the area and as stated by crime preven- tion officials. The Commission discussed at some length the problems presented wher- ever garages have been insta].led in multiple family residential de- vElopmatts and it was noted that, if the interior of the garages were finiened and if cabinets were provided for storage purposes, a betcer appearance would be possible, It was also noted that the petitioner should be present in order to discuss the aforementioned items. On roll call the foregoang motion was defeated by the following vote: AYRS: COMMISSIONBRS: Chavos. NQSS: COhWiISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Camp to continue Petition for Variance No. 1455 until the meeting of ppril 2, 1962 in order that the matter of the finishing of the interior of the garages and the provision of storage cabinets there- in could be discussed w:Lth the petitioner. On roll cali the foregoing motion was .,~passed. by the foilowing vote; pyHSo • COMMISSIONB.tS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOSS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. VARIANCB N0. 1455 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by RBAL HSTATB DISPOSAL COR~ pORATI0N~935 South La Brea, Inglewood, California, Owner; Arthur N. Reynolds, 7921 De~phinium Circle, Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting permission to OpB[tAT& BC1AT SALHS WI1H RHCONDITIONING on property described as: A triangular shaped paL•cel with a frontage of 94 feet located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and located on the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and I I ~ . ----- ------___...._.--- --._.__.-_ ___..._._~__- ~ ~ r ----- - ---•------_ ~ ~ v .C ,-• .,l ~.~ ~1 ~;.,•. ~` : 799 MINUTE3, CITY ciANNING CCMMISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued; VARIANCH N0. 1455 - the Santa Ana Preeway, a:•--d further described as 145$ West Lincoln (Continued) Avenue. Property presently classified in the C-2, GENHRAL COMMHR- CIAL, ZON&. No one appeared beforP the Commissicn to represent the subject petition. ' Commissioner Camp offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley to continue Petition for Variance No. 1455 until the meet- ing of April 2, 1962 to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to appear before the Commission to represent the subject petition MOTION CARRIBD. VARIANCS N0. 1457 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by DIBIRICH LeBBAU DBVBLOP- MBNT CoMPANY, 1720 West La Paima Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; P, I. G. HOLDING COMPANY, 4680 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 54, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONS7RUCT A 1W0-STORY PROPBSSIONAL OPPICB BUILDING on property described as: A parcel 75 feet by 205 feet with a frontage of 75 feet located on the south side of Katella Avenue between Harbor Bou?.evard and Haster Street; its northeast corner being approx- imately 500~feet west of the soutl~west corner of Katella Avenue and Haster Street. Property resently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL, ZO~. Mr. Robert MacMahon, attorney representing the pefiitioners, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed con- struction of an 'office building. The Commission reviewed development plans and discussed the encroachment of the pylon, on which the advertising siga wouid be installed, into the required building setback. The petitioners' agent indicated that the parking area exceeds Code requirements and the Commission discussed the possibility of utiliziag a portion of the parking area in order to provide a more desirable building front setback. The petitioners' agent described the sur- rounding area and stated that the proposed plan would be compat- ible with the existing signs and development in the area, that it would permit adequate landscaping, that it would be an attractive addition to the area, that it would not interfere with any develop- ment on the street, and that the type of building would sequire as much parking area as possible for client's use. The Commission discussed the advisability of revising the proposed projection of the building and that the face of the building should be setback twenty feet, thereby losing approximately four parking spaces in the parking area, in order to comply. THB HBARING'WAS CLOSBD. The Commission discussed Code requirements in respect to the prova.- sion of walls abutting undeveloped property and the petitioners• agent reques'ted that the posting of a bond be permitted to insure the installation of a wall if necessary at a later date. The Commission found ar~il det2rmined the fall~uing facts ragarding the subject petition: ~ _ ~ ~ i Q soo he Anaheim ~e establish- ng on subject .rcumstances lved or to the r generally to ~ity and zone, the preserva- right pos- and zone, and ially detri- tke property ~vhich the y affect the petition. Series 1961-62, by Commissioner subject to the Bxhibit Nos. 1 ~t setback of ;hway right-o~ ~llation of ~ears to insure ill on the east i bond to be ting and were ~F the property ie citizens of by the foSlota- auer, Marcoux, M COMPANY, 1613 ~uesting permis- iroperty `6.-. _ oi s- a =nt d- ion or 0 ie . t- .nd ~ or :rty 62, one= e . 1, to in- re J . 3 . ; ~ l _ - 7 ~ ^y .. : . ~ . :.-I'.. :e ~ $OZ MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COMMI$•SION, March 19, 1962, Continued: VARIANCH N0. 1458 - 3. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Depart- ~~ (Continued) ment of public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size, accessible 4o trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wa11, prior to Final Building Inspection. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote• pyg$; COMMIS3IONiHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Ga~er, Marcoux, g bfungall, Pebley, 4erry. NOH3: COMMISSIONBRS: None. pBSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC ??3ARING. Petition submitted by L-C. 1RUST, 11920 Old PBRMIT N0. 212 River School, Downey, California, Owner; C. P. STBINBN, 11920 Old River School Road, Downey, California, Agent; requesting permis- sion to CONSTR:UCT A 48 BED SANITARIUM FOR AMBUTAT~RY OR NON-AMBU- IATORY PATIffiV'fS on property described as: An irregulariy shaped . parcel with a frontage of 300 feet 7.ocated on the west side of Magnolia Avenu~° between~ Lincoln and Crescent Avenues; its south- east corner being approximately 485 feet north of the northwest corner of Lincoln and Magnolia Avenues. Yroperty presently class- ified in the R-A, RASIDBNTIAL AGRICULTt1RAL, zONH, Mr. C. F. Steinen, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed expansion of an ::xisting sanitarium facility. The Commission reviewed develor,ment plans and aiscussed the stipu- lation by the Pire Departmeni~ that the acces3 drive be widened in order to provide adequate fire protection for the development. The petitioner iiidicated agreement with the recommended 30 foot width. THB.HBARING WAS CLOSBD. . The Commission foun3 and determined the foilowing facts re8arding the subject petition: 1, That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional - Use Permit is authorized by this Code, tb wit: a sanitarium for ambulatory or non-ambulatory patients. 2, That the proposed vse will not adversely affect the adjoining . land uses and the growth and development of the area in whicfi it is proposed to be located. ~ 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for Lhe use is adequate to aliow the fui? development of •the proposed use in a.manner not detrimentai to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of , the City.:ef Anaheim. 4. That the traffic generated,by the proposed use will not impose ~ an undue burden:'upon the streets and highways designed and proposed'to carry-the traffic in the area. ~ _ ;,;:; : . f ;: :ti' . ., .~ i~ ti4~*F t+w1l RS!9C. ~t. AHC'.fP.MSn!K::l'eGM_K~~r1fi~_i'li. wuf:w:.. .,a~r~ r I.+_ ... . ..stmfrinv.~tl.x~isrlnev ~~~~..,..,.., . .. ~~r e -. MINUTH3, CITY PLANNING COhAlIS`ION, March 19, 1962~ Continued: ~. ~ CONDITIONAL USB - 5. T:~at the granting of the Conditiona1 Use Permit under the PffitMIT N0. 212 conditions~imposed, if any, will not be detrimental-to the peace, (Continued) ~ health safety; and general welfare of the.citizens of the City of Ana{~eim. 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 268, 3eries 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to grant Fetition for Conditionai Use Permit No. 212, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with fixhibit No. 1, as amended in accordan~e with Condition No. 2, an3 Bxhibit Nos.2 and 3, 2, Provision of a thirty (30) foot wide drive along the southerly boundary of subject property with the relocation of the pro- posed building to the north. 3. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of Magnolia Avenue, (30`feet'~exi'sting). 4, Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improvements for Magnblia Avenue,'subject to.the approval of the City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file an the Office of the City Hngineer. • 5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Magaolia Avenue. 6. Provision for the discharge of drainage directly into the Carbon Creek Plood Control Channel. 7. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting ard were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety a~nd welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. • On ro11 cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloHd ng vote: AYBS: CoMM1ISSI0NBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Yerry.~ NpgB: CaMNtISSI0I1BR3: None. ~ pHSHNT: COMMISSIONffit3: Hapgood . ~ ~.;. . I ,: ' `^ ~.;::•~~:~:_:`', .:.::.~ ~ .. CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by Mtt. and 1~4tS. RAYMOND YOUNG, pffitMIT N0. 213 236 North Normandie, Anahe±m, California, Owners; requesting permission to OPBRATB A NURSffitY SCH00L POR APPROXIMATBLY 50 CkiILDRffiV on property described as; A parcei 62 feet by 140 feet with a frontage oi 62 ieei loCa2zd oa the esst side ef State College Soulevard between La Palma and Underhill Avenues; its north- west coraer being approximately 345 feet south of the southeast 1 Boulevard and further y _ .~ ~ ~ corner of La Palma Avenue and State Col ege , i i ~ , ~ : _ , -~ ': ~ 1 _ ,r~ . . c ~-.~~- ~ V .. , . 1 ~ ' ~ • , ~ sea MINUTBS, CITY PLIWNING COhAtISSION, March ~.9, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONALUSE - described as 504 North State College Boulevard. Property presently ' PBRMIT N0, 213 classified in the R-A, RHSIDffi1TIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. CCon~inued) Mr. Raymond Young, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission . and described the proposed establishment of a pre-school nursery r,. sck~ool for forty children in an existing single family residential dwelling, He indicated that the building would be remodeled in accordance with the regulations of the Health Department, the,Fire Department, and the State Licensing Board, and that the operation of the school would be subject to the supervision of State agencies. Mr, fidward Colling, representative for the Anaheim-Sunkist Civic Association, appeared before the Commission and stated opposition to the subject petitian on the basis that the proposed use of sub- ject property would not be compatible with the surrounding area and might establish a precedent for the property across the street. He indicated that the subject property could be utiiized and devel- oped in such a manner that it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Young, in rebuttal, stated that he considered the proposed use to be an asset to the area and that there was a need for the propos~d typ~ of nursery school. THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission reviewed 2levelopment plans and Commissioner Mungall indicated that commercial use of subject property should be permit- ted only if the existing residence were removed and a suitable commercial structure constructed on subject property, The Commis- sion also noted that the size of subject property did not appear to be adequate for the proposed use. The Commiss:ion found and determined the foliowing 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 nursery 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 psaposed to be located, 3. That the size of the site proposed for the proposed use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrime;ztal to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4, That the proposed use of sUbject property would not be com- patible with the existing development in sutiject area. 5. That it is hereby deemed necessary~in order.to accomplish the proper development'of subject property for commercial pur- poses~that the existing residence shouid be removed and a suit- able commerciai development construcsed caereoa. 6. That verbai opposition from the Anaheim-Sunkist Civic Associa- tion was~Yecorded'•against~subject petition: ,,., . _ < ..s%.i~at.:..,..: _ ""r-.___~is~ -'d= .. r r ~,..s;,sf ;~„S."..~.....~ ~..~.-r_, ..:.}~,;c r _..~z:_~~:~. ;`z, J_;;~: ~....M,vrA..rT~ h l:l~;tg>.h<'d'i+~a.~4.Mx:K ill. ...._.. . ~ ~,~\,.. . .. .,. ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ , ~?~ ,1 ~ ~ __...----- ~ , ~ ~ :, _ ~ 805 MINUT83, CITY PLANNING CoMMIS$IOi~i, March 19, 1962, Cox~tinued; • CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 269, Series 1961-62, PBRMIT N0. 213 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner (Continued) Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use permit No. 213 on the bases of the aforementioned'findings. , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following - ' vote: ~ AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONfiRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MR, and MRS, PABLO DOMINCUF.7_ PBRMIT N0. 214 1523 Bast $anta Ana Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A SIDtVICB STRTION on property described as: A parcel 173 feet by 173 feet with a frontage of 173 feet on State College Boulevard and Socated on the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road. Property presently classified in the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. Mr. Ralph Allen, representative for the Shell Oil Company, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed establishment of a service station on subject property. THB HBARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and detesmined 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 service station, 2. T'nat tha proposed use ;~rill not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located, 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full deveiopment of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor 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 will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to csrry the traffic in the area, 5. That the granting of the Conditionai Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, heaith, safety, and genesal welfare of the citizens of the C3ty of Anaheim. 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ _- ~;Y.1~4rd. '~.Kt.. .., . , ..,.-....".. ~..... ,. . ..t::S:..~ i .. . ~~~~ .~ r 1.'..'~--.. HW,T'17L5i: .~~F4rtr.Y~rr_Y:_.1 ~ . ~ i f a E i ~x i; ~ ~ ~ .., ' I . ~J , ''t I , ~, r ' '4` } ~' i: }y~ '1 ;YJ t ~Y ~y{F 2 l ~ r~,. L 4~ ..:,.~' ~e '.{;; r . .f ` l 5 ;~ i ~ ~~• ~ . t 5 f : y : *' z ~ ~ s . ' _ ' ~, ~ ~ " 1 , .. ~. .. . ._, .. ,. :: , . ~ 806 ~„ _ MINUTBS,-CITY PI.~INNING CqHMI5SI0N, March 19,;'1962,.;Coatinuede COI~IDITIONAL USE = -Commissioner Mungall,offeied Resolu:ion No.,270; Series 1961-62, PBRMIT No;;214 and:moved-for'its,passage and adoption; seconded by Commissioner ; (Continued). . perry; to,`grant Petition for. Conditional:Use Permit.No. 214;.sub- ,:. r . ject to::the.folTowing conditions -. ' . ~ 1 Development substantially ia accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1; and 2, ~ 2. .Installation of a forty-two.(42) inch masonry.wall along the ,' east and south boundaries of subject property prior to Fina1 ;k` , Building Inspection. ' .. .E, , _ , y ' 3. :Dedication of :53 feet from',the monumented centerline of State r; -' College,Boulevard,arid.Bal1 Road, (30 feet existing). ~ 4. Preparatiori.of street improvement plans:and iastallation of ~~ ' ' . all,improvements for State CollAge Boulevard and Ba11 Road, ' ' `'subject to.,the approval of.#he>City Engineer aad in accordance "x ivith .the'ado~ted standard plans'on file,in the Office of the ,` City;Bngineer. .~ , ' ~ ~:, ' S. `Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes " .. : , . on State College,Boulevard and Bali Roa~. " ~ 6.. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the ~ 'accomplishmerit of IYem Nos. 3, 9,, and 5. ' ~ The;foregoing cond'stions;were,.recited'at the ;meeting and.were ~ ^ , found to he:a aecessary prerequisite:.to the qse of the'property ia ` ordez'to "piese~pe the safety'and'welfare of the citizen§'of the City:-of:Anaheim. On roll call.the foregoing resolution was passed by the following : vote: ' AYBS:, COhAdISSIONERS:. Allred; Camp;,Chavos, Gauer, Marcovx, . Mungall; Pebley~ Ferty.. NOHS: ' • C~RlIS6IONBRS: . None. ` :, .. i4HSHNT COMNfISSIONffitSe::`.Hapgood. ~,;; CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I~ARING Fetition submitted by ARDMORB DSVELOPMffiVT COMPANY, -_ PERhfIT N0: 219 ;: ;129~~I~$twaod ~Boulevard,'Zos Angeies`. 2~i, Caiiforaia; (hvnes~; request- =r. , `. ;. ing,permsssion to'CONSZItUCT A~IANNHD UNIT~DBVBLOPMBNT on`property '~ desciibed a's An;.irregularly shaped;parcel located.l00.feet south ~ of 'Catalpa;l--venue;;.bonnded oa-the east.;by~Ctiippewa _Street,:.the ;. ooutfi by :th~ O~~np~ Count~ F1opd=Cohtrol Ch~~+nnl•ond thcy~~uthw~est :~; by~.;the Santa Ana.Freguvayy and :fiirther;descriLed as`:Tentative ':ract cdo:~~i10~ ,,_Property:presently;'classi~fied in''fhe R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL,,ZONE..,.; ' `; ~`' 'Subject.petit=on ss,filed in con~unction ws.tii-the Teatative Maps of ;~ Tra"ct Nos '4107, 4617, 4618, 4619, 4620, and,`4621 1,~, ~ , ` ~ ' ' ' 'j ~~,4, , Mr Leonard;~3chneider the ~ ' , _ petitioner,.a peared befo;e the Commis- P ; et . - eion,`an~+ described_tha propa d;.aa~2.a~'.~ ~1a~ca3 urs~ fSC~9C1rlp " ~4p mtnt:on a twenty setren acre site He indicated that;the deyelop ;; ~~~ - ~ ~ Y~ ~I ' ! ~ / )' _ } ., ... ._ ~ ~ . 1 ~ ; ~ :. . '. .: a r . ~ .. ~r; i . ., ~'. ~~ ~ ~~ - . ~.~ i. .:.' i J. : ~ :. ~.. ~ .., . ~.'.: .1.. - r / ~ r - . .. .. ,., r.~ ~. , . .. . ,.. . . ,., . .. .. .... ... ,,..,, , ,.._ . _..,, . ,, s4V.. ,.... .._ ,. ~ ~~ ~.. .~ V ~ so~ MINUTES, CITY PSANNING COMhfISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USE - ment would contain single family residences and apartment units, PBRMIT N0. 219 that each unit wouid be sold indi,vidually, that the F.H.A. (Continued) requires the pre-sale of 80 percent of the units before construc- tion commences, that there would be no surface parking, that there would be an area reserved for a park with other recreational facilities, that full grown trees would be planted in the develop- ment, that swimming pools would~be installed to serve various groups of buildings, that the entire development would be enclosed by a decorative wall, that there would be peripheral driveway access only, that most of the parking area would be subterranean with provisions for guest parking, and that the entire project would cost approximately $9,000~000.00 (nine million dollars) and financed unfler F.H.A. Section 213 with individual units ranging in price from $15,000 to $30,000. Mr. Robert Lesser, architect for the development, appeared before the Commission and described the order in which the tracts wonld be developed, indicating the tracts would be developed in sequence commencing with the eastern- most tract and completing the development with the westernmost tract and the park area. He explained the various improvements in more detail. The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that a total of 446 units were proposed, T'ne petitioners indicated that elevation plans were not available until such time as the project had been definitely established for the subject properties. Renderings were presented and nictures were distributed o£ the type of develpment that was proposed for the property. THB HBARIN~ WAS CLOSBD. i•': , '.i ~ The Commission discussed at some length the type of elevations that wouid be utilized for the proposed development and it was indicated that the plans could be subject to architectural review in order to control the type of development and prevent an appear- ance that would be detrimental to the City. 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 development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for~the nse is • adequate to allow the full devel opment of tte proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the garticular area nor to the peace, health, safefy, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4, That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the atreets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic zn the area. 5, That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, an3 generai welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~ MINUTBS, ~ITY PLANNING CO~A~IIS330N, March 19, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USE - 6. That the approval of subject petition requires substantial PBRMIT NO~. 219 conformance with the conditions of approval of Petition for (Continued) Reclassification Nn. 60-61-86 pending for the reclassification of subject property, said conditions containing the requirement that a six (6) foot masonry wall be installed along the norther- ly boundary of subject property prior to any other construc~ tion, and that it is hereby deemed permissible to aliow the petitioners to grade a distance of fifteen (15) feet in width along said northerly boundary line prior to the installation of said six (fi) foot masonry wall as required by Petition for Reclassi~ication N~. 60-61-86. 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Czmp offered Resolution No. 271, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 219, subject to ' the following conditions; ~ 1. Subject to the reclassification of subject property from the R A, A.'..SIDBNTIAL AGRICULTtJRAL, ZONB to the R-3, NNLTIYLB FAMILY RHSIDffiVTIAL, 20NB and subject to the finalization of Petition for Variance No. 1354. 2. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, 3. Provision of elevation plans for each section, as delimited on the Maps of Tract Nos,4107, 4617, 4618, 4619 4620, 4621, said elevation plans to be submitted to and subject.to the approvai of the Architectural Control Committee prior ta issuance of the respective Building Permits. Development of tracts in the order of Tract Numbers 4107, 4617, 4618, 4619, 4620 and 4621. Prior to the occupancy of any tract,a looped private roadway, 24 feet in width, sha11 be constructed between ~treet "A" and Street "B" on the contiguous westerly tract. In the event the vubject property is not developed to the ultimate plans, a !~ermanent easement and 64 foot wide street shali be provided to the City of Anaheim. Psovision of a modified cul-de-sac at the terminus of Nutwood Str.~et and Fern Street subject to the approval of the City Hngineex pxior tv the final building inspection of the first phase of development. ~ Parkwa; and easement planting areas to be subject to the P,;proval of the 6uperintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Trees planted along the north property line of subject property shall be of such variety to avoid electric and telephone lines. Provision of drainage facilities to discharge drainage water into the Plood Control Channel to the sa#isfaction of the City Bngineer. ---~---.~----~--- ... , .: . - , , . . . . , .`r,..~.~ s _ .. NV MINUTgg, CITY pLANNING COMMISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued; CONDITIONAL USH - 10. Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25.00 per dwelling PffitMIT N0. 219 unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit. <Continued) 11. Posting of a separate bond for the construction of temporary roadways prior to final building inspection of the first plans of development. The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and was found to be a.necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: COMMIS~IONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gduer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. COMMISSIONBRS: None qgSBNT; CoMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. TBNTATIVB MAB ~F - DBVBI.OPBR° ARDMORB DHVBLOPMHNT CCMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, 1RACT N0. 4107 Los Angeles 24, California. BNGINHBR: BNGINBERING SBRVICB CORPO- RATION, 1127 West Washingto;i Boulevard, Los Angeles 15, California. Location; 100 feet south of Catalpa Avenue; bounded on the east b Freeway. Subject tract map filed in conjunction with Petiton Por Conditional Use Permit No. 219 and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 4617, 4b18, 4619, 4620, and 4621 and contains three (3) proposed R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, lots. The Tentative Map o£ "':'act No. 4107 was submitted to the Commission. Mr- Ray Mercado, the developer's agent, appeared before the Commission and indicated that the developer would comply with all conditions. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungail, to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4107, subject to the following conditions: 1. This tract shall be recorded prior to tracts 4617, 4618, 4619, 4620 and 4621, 2, prior to the occ+spancy of this tract a temporary private~~road- way 24 feet wide, shall be constructed between Street A and Street "B" within tentative tract,number 4617. 3. A separate bond to be posted for the construction of the temporary roadway. 4. Provisions for drainage water to be ultimately discharged into the F1ood Control Channel to the satisfactior. of the City Bngineer. ~:. ~ . ~ (. ~) LJ ~ aio . a.~;; _ MINUTBS, CITY ~L;4NNING COhAtISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued; TBNTATIVH MAP OF - 5. Parkway and easement planting areas to be subject to the TRACT N0. 4107 approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Trees CContinued) planted along the north property line of the subject property shall be of such variety to avoid electric and telephone lines. 6. Subject to the approval of plot and building plans by the Planning and the Building Departments. 7. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Family Resideniial, Zone and subject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 219. On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the fc!lowing vote; AYHS: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Camp, Chavos, Ga~er, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley; Perry. NQBS: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSHNT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood. TENTATIVH MAP OP - DHVBLOPBR: ARDMORE DEV3LOPMBNT COMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, TFtACT ii0, 4b17 Los Angeles 24, California. BNGINBBR; BNGINBERING SERV~CB CORTC- RATION, 1127 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 15, California. Location: 100 feet south of Catalpa Avenue; bounded on the east by Chippewa Street, the south by the Orange County Flood Control Channel and tne southwest by the Santa Ana ~ Preeway. Subject tract map is filed in conjunction with Petition for Condi- tional Use Permit No. 219 and Tentative Map of Tract Nos.4107, 4618, 4619, 4620, and 4621 and contains one (1) proposed R-3, Multiple Family Residential, lot. ~-y ! The Tentative Map of Tract No. 4617 was submitted to the Commission and Mr. Ray Mercado, the developer's agent, indicated agreement with all conditions of approval. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to approve the Tentative Map of Tract~No. 4617, subject to the following conditions: 1. Tiiis tract shall be recorded prior to Tract Nos. 4618, 4619, 4620 and 4621. 2. Prior to the occupancy of this tract a temporary roadway, 24 feet wide shall be constructed between 6treet "A" and Street "B" within Tentative Tract 4618. 3, A separate bond to be posted for the construction of the tempo- rary roadway. 4. Provisions for drainage water to be ultimately discharged into the Flood Control Channel to the satisfaction of the City Bngineer, 5. Parkway and easement planting areas to be subjec# to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, Trees planted along the north property line of the subject property shail be of such variety to avoid electric and telephone lines, _. ~~ ~ .. . ,. ~ . _ ~_.. . . ,. .. ~.~ . ~ sii ~ MINUTBS, CITY pLANNTNG COMMISSIpN, March 19, 1962, Continued; F .1 g; TENTATIVB MAB OF- 6. Subject to the approval.of plot and buiiding plans by the 1RACT N0. 4617 Planning and the Building Departments. (Continued) 7. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone and subject to the approval of Petition for Conditionai Use Permit Ho. 219. On roil cail the foregoing motion was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Gauer. N08S: CQbIMISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: COMMIS$IONBRS: Hapgood. TBNTATIYH MAP OF - DHVBLOPBR: ARDMORB DBVBLOPMBNT COMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, TRACT N0. 4618 Los Angeles 24, California. HNGINBBR: BNGINBHRING SffitVICE CORPO- RATION, 1127 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 15, California. Location: 100 feet south of Catalpa Avenue; bounded on the east by Chi etra St-eet *he ~e+!±h b~ the Oran e Countv Flood Control Channel and the southwest by the Santa Ana _ Freeway. Subject tract map is filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 219 and Tentative Map of Tract Nos.4107, 4617, 4619, 4620, and 4621 and contains one (1) proposed R-3, Multiple Famiiy Residen- tial, lot. The Tentative Nap of Tract No..4618 was submitted to the Commissiun and Mr. Ray Mercado, the developer's agent, indicated agreement with all conditions of approval. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4618, subject to the foliowing conditions: 1. This tract shall be recorded prior to 4619, 4620 and 4621. 2. Prior to the occupancy of tais tract a temporary roadway, 24 feet wide shall be constructed between Street "A" and Street "B" within Tentative Tract 4619. 3. A separate bond to be posted for the construction of the tempo- rary roadway. 4. Frovisions for drainage water to be ultimately di.scharged into the Fiood Control Channel to the satisfac.tion of the City Bngineer. 5. Parkway and easement planting areas to be subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway tdaintenance. Trees planted along the north property line of the subject property shall be of such variety to avoid electric and telephone lines. 6. Subject to tiie approval. oi plo~ and building plans by tha ~lanning and the Building Departments. ~.J V ~ s12 MINUTffi, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mar~h 19, 1962, Continued: TffiVTATIVH MAP OF - 7. Provision of modified cul-de-sac aic the terminus of Nutwood 1RACT N0. 4618 Street subject to the approval of the City Bngineer. (Continued) 8. Provision of a 20 foot utility easement for sewer and water between 6treet '•A" and Street "B". 9. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, 2one and subject to the app~oval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 219. On roll call the foregoing motion wa~ passed by the following vote; AYBS: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, P~bley, Perry, Gauer. NOBS; COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONffitS: Hapgood. a: - ~k. . C N' E. ,.. ~ ~ .~.. ~ >:,;:~. TBNTATIVB MAP OF - DBVBLOPBR: ARDMORB DHVSLOPMENT COMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, TRACT N0. 4619 Los Angeles 24, California. HNGINHER: BNGINBBRING SBRVICE CORPO - RATION, 1127 West Washington Bc~ulevard, Los Angeies 15, California. Location: 100 feet south of Catalpa Avenue; bounded on the east by Chippewa Street, the south by the Orange County Flood ~ Controi Channel and the southwest by the 3anta Ana Preeway. Subject tract map is filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 219 and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 4107, 4617, 4618, 4620, and 4621 and contains one (1) proposed R-3, Multiple Family Residential, lot. The Tentative Map of Tract No. 4619 was submitted to i.he Commission and Mr. Ray Mercado, the developer~s agent, indicated agreement with all conditions of approval. Commissioner Marcoqx offered a motion, seconded by Commi,ssioner Mungall, to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No, 4619, subject to the following conditions: 1. This tract shall be recorded prior to Tracts 4620 ar.d 4621. 2. Prior to the occupancy of this tract a temporary roadway, 24 feet wide shall be constructed between Street "A" and Street "S" within Tentative ~'ract 4620. ' 3. A separste bond to be posted £or the'construction of the temporary roadway, 4. Provisions for drainage water to be ultimately discharged into the Flood Control Channel to the satisfaction of the City BnginPer. 5. Parkway and easement pianting areas to be subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Trees planted aloag the north property line of the snbject proper:y shall be of such variety to avoid electric and telephone lines. / ~ . . i E ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ c_ ~1 U ':~ . 813 MINUTBS, CITY PLANNIhG ~OMMISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: TBNTATIVB MAP OF - 6. Subject to the approval of plot and building plans by the TRACT N0. 4619 Planning and the Building Departments, (Continued) 7. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone and sub,ject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 219. On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the following vote: AYBS: CCIMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Gauer. NOBS: COI~A~IISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: CUMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. THNTATIVB MAP OF - DBVBLO°BR: ARDMORB D$VBLDPMBNT COMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, TRACT N0. 4620 Los Angeles 24, California. BNGINBBR: BNGINHBRING SBRVICH CORPO- (Continued) RATION „ 1127 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles~i5, California. Location: 100 feet south of Catalpa Avenue; bounded on the east by Chip~ewa Street, the south by the Orange County Flood Control Channel and the southwest by the Santa Ana Freeway. Subject tract map is filed in conjunction with Petition for Condi- tional Use Permit No. 219 and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 4107, 4617, 4618 4619, and 4621.and contains one (1) proposed R-3, Multiple Fam- ily ~tesidential, lot. The Tentative Map of,Tract No. 4620 was submitted to the Commission and Mr. Ray Mercado, the developer~s agent, indicated agreement with ail conditions of approval, Commissiona Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4620, subject to the following conditions; ~ 1. This tract shall be recorded prior to Tract No. 4621. 2. Provisions for drainage water to be ultimately discharged into the Flood Control Chaxuiel to the satisfact3.on of the City Hngineer. 3. Parkway and easement planting areas to be subjeet to ttbe. approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Trees planted along the north property line of subject property shall be of such variety to avoid electric and telephone lines. ' 4. Subject to the approval of plot and building plans by the Pianning and the Building Departments. 5. Provisions of a modified cul-de-sac at the terminus of Pern Street subject to the approval of the City Bngineer. 6. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone and c~abject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 219. ~ , ~ ~ ':: ` f ' ~~ ~ 814 MINUTfiS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: TBNTATIVS MAP OP - On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the following vote: TRACT N0. 4620 (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Gauer. NOHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood THNTATIVB MAP OP - DHVELOPBR: ARDMpRB DBVSLOPMENT CCMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, TRACT N0. 4621 Los Angeles 24, California. BNGINEBR: BNGINBERING SBRVICB CORPO - RATION, 1127 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 15, California. Location: 100 feet south of Catalpa Avenue; bounded on the east by Chippewa Street, the sonth by the Orange County Flood Control Channel and the southwest by the Santa Ana Freeway. Subject tract map is filed in conjunction with Petition for Condi- tional Use Permit No, 219 and Tentative Map of Tract Nos, 4107, 4617, 4618 and 4619 and 4620.and contains one (1) proposed R-3, Multiple Pami~y Residen~ial, lot. The Tentative Map of Tract No. 4621 was submitted to the Commission and Mr. Ray Mercado, the developer's agent, indicated ~greement with all conditions of approval, Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4621, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provisions for drainage water to be ultimately discharged into the Flood Con!_ol Channel to the satisfaction of the City Bngineer. 2, Parkway and easement planting areas to be subject to the approval of the Saperintendent of Parkway Maintenance, Trees planted along the north property line of subject property shall be of such variety to avoid electric and telephone lines. 3, Subject to the approval of plot and building plans by the Planning and the Building Departments. 4. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Fa~aily Residential, Zone and subject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 219. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote : AYES: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chambers at 4:45 0'Clock P.M. I RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. ?etition submitted by DR. HHNRY L. FOUCI~R, 3326 N0. 61-62-86 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A parcel 50 feet by 243 feet with a frontage ` -~ ~" • 815 MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COt~11MISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: RBCLASSIFICATION - of 50 feet located on the south side of Lincoin Avenue between Knott N0. 61-62-86 Avenue and Western Avenue; its northeast corner being approximately (Continued)_ 1,160 feet west of the southwest co=ner of Lincoln and Western Avenues, and further described as 3318 - 3320 West Lincoln Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONB. Dr. Henry Foucher, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed construction of a medical building to be operated in conjunction with an existing medical building on adjoining property, The Commission reViewed development plans and discussed the proposed ten (10) foot wide driveway access. After discussion relative to the driveway width, Dr. Foucher indicated that plans could be revis- ed in'order to provide driveway access twelve (12) feet in width. THE HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner propoces a reclassification of the above ~described praperty from the R A, RBSIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB ~to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZON& (restricted to busi- ness or professional offices). 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary or 3esirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 3, That the proposed reclassificati~n of subject property does ~ properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally establxshed a.n close proximity to subject property and to the ! zones and their permitted uses generally established through- j out the community. ! i 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does !~ require standard improvement of abutting streets because said i property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways j which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, ~ which will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance j with the circulation element of the General Plan. ~ 5, That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 272, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Covncil that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-86 be approved reclassifying subject property from the R-A, RESIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD CQNMBRCIAL, ZONB (restricted to business and professional offices only), subject to the following conditions: 1. Developmen4 substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 as amended. 2. Revision of the proposed circulation of sub.lect property with a minimum twelve (12) foot wide entrance drive and a m'inimum twelve (12) foot exit drive, and with final plot plans subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee. 3, Provision of the installation of landscaping in the thirty- five (35) foot setback area except for access drives and walks, ze 3 1 e s nt ze , 6 rty 23 t in, :o ~se t it r- RHCIASSIFICATION - The Commission inu.icated that tbep did not consider reclassification N0, 61-62-87 of subject pr~~perty advisable at the present time and discussed with (Continued) the petitioner the a.dvisability of withdrawing the subject petition and filing a petitian for variance, The petitioner indicated, however, that he wished to continue with the subject petition and requested that it be referred to the City Council. The Commission found and determined tte following facts regarding the subject petition: That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from 4he R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRZCULTURAL, ZONB to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary or desirab]e for the orderly and proper development of the community. That the oroposed reclassification of subject property does not praperly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted us~s generally established throughout the community. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for and standard improvements of abutting streets because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which are proposed to carry the type and quar.tity of traffic, which will be generated by the perc+itted uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the General Pian. That the proposed reclassification of subject property at the present time, mithout the development of subject property Nith suitable improqements for commercial purposes, would establ3sh a precedent that would be detrimental to the surrounding area. That a petition of protest containing eight signatures was recorded against subject petition. Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 273, 6eries 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclass- ification No. 61-62-87 be denied on the bases of the aforementioned findings, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chambers at 5:15 0'Clock P.M. Chairman Gauer requested Vice-Chairman Mungall to take the chair and left the Council Chainbers at 5;15 0'Clock P,M. . ~ . _- ° . - --.- _ . - -. ; ,- _ '- _ _.. ~. _ __ l ? ~ ~ 818 MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISBION, March 19, 1962, Continued: ° RBCiASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by RAYMOND SPEHAR, 1532 Beacon N0, 61-62-88 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described as; A parcel 100 feet by 136 feet with a frontage of 100 feet on Huclid Avenue and located on the southwest corner of Euclid . and Chalet Avenues be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZONH ta the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COhMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Raymond Spehar, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and distributed a plot plan which he indicated was an alternate development proposal. He requested that the reclassification of subject property be granted subject to the approval of elevation plans at a later date, ~ Vice-Chairman Mungall read a letter received from Samuel Freedman indicati.ng no objection to subject petition provided the property was deed restricted. A letter from Dr. Budd, requesting deed restrictions limiting subject property fo: medical-dental offices only, was snbmitted to the Commission. Mrs. Highland, 1330 Falcoln Street, appeared before the Commission and requested information in respect to a statement made by Mr. Spehar that the subject property wc~!1d be utilized for a real es'tate office and an attorney's o;:ice, Mr. Spehar indicated that he considered a real estate office suitable for subject property provided the type and size of signs were restricted. The Commission discussed the necessity for precise pians for the proposed development and Mr. Spehar indicated that he did not consider plans necessary until such time as he had established the type of office to be situated on the subject property, THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ' The Commission discassed the recent approval of a Petition for Reclassification for the establishment of a nedical center at th~ nortHwest corner of Euclid and Chalet Avenues. Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to re-open the hearing on Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-88 and continue said petition until the meeting of April 16, ~ 1962 at which time substantial elevation plans for the proposed development shall be submitted to the Commission for consideration. MOTION CARRIBI?, RECIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by AGAJANIAN INVBS2MBNT N0. 61-62-93 CORPORATION, 405 A West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Ov,mer; requesting that property described as: A parcel 630 feet by 660 feet with a frontage of 660 feet located on the west side of Haster Street between Katella and Orangewood Avenues; its southeast corner being appsoximately 615 fget north of the northwest corner of Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2001 Haster Street be reclassified from the R A, RHSIDHNTIAL AGP.ICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, 20NB. Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 217. Mr. Tom Coughlin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the ~ Commission and described the proposed establishment of a planned ~ - -r------~----~---- _____._.---, ---- -- --._._--- ~ ~: ~.? ~._~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued; ~ 819 RBCLASSIPICATION - unit multiple family residential development, indicating that it would NO« 61-6Z-93 be the most outstanding garden type 'tevelopment in Ozange County, that ;Continued) there would be 144 apartments ea.ch with a separate lanai~ and that ~` there would be a distance of forty feet between buildings. The Commission reviewed developm ~t plans arri it was pointed out that the Pire Department stipulates thizty foot wide dzive along the rear of subject property in order to pro.:.de adequate fire protection. Mr. Coughlin indicated that the petitioners would comply with the stipu- lated thirty (30) foot wide drive. The Commission also discussed the proposed two story buildings along the reas boundaries of subject property. Commissioner Chavos indicated that adequate plans, complying with all Code requirements, shonid be submitted for consider~tion. Mr. Coughlin stated that final plans would be available within a few days. 1}iB HBAItING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Camp offered a motion, seconded Uy Commissioner Chavos, to re-open the hearing on Petition for Reclassification No, 61-62-93 and continue said petition until the m_eting of April 2, 196~.at which time the petitioner shall p:Asent revised plans and elevations for the Commission's consideration. MOTION CARRIBD. ~ommissioner Allred left the Council Chambers at 5:40 0'Clock P,M, CONDITIONAL ~OSH ^ l'UHLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by AGAJANIAN INVIiSTMBNT CORPO- PffitM?T N0. 217 RATIUN, 405-A West Katella Avenue~ Anaheim, California, Owner; r.equest+ng permission to CONSTRUCT GARDffii TYPB APARIMHNTS on property described as: A parcel 630 feet by 660 feet with a frontage of 660 feet located on the west side of Haster Street between Ratella and Orangewood Avenues; a.ts southeast corner being approximately 615 feet °~orth uf the northwest corner of Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 20U1 Haster $treet, Property presently c:assified in the R A, RBSID~ITTAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS. Subject petition is filed in ~~njunction with Petition for Reclassi- Eication No. 61-62-93. Commissioner Camp offered a motion, secanded by Commissicner Chavos, to continue the hearing on Petition for Conditional Use Pe•rmit No. 217 until the meeting of April 2~ 1962 at which time the petitioner shall present re;ised plans and elevations for the Commission's consideration, MUTION (:ARRIHD, AMBND-,1BNT Tp - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. Proposed Amendment to Title 18, Chpater TITLH 18, CHAPTBR 18.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to "Definitions". 18.08 Proposed amendment was continued from the meetings of Pebru~.-;~ 19, 1962 and March 5, 1962 at the request of the Commis~ion in oraer that further consideration and study might be given to said pruposed amend- ment. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Perry to continue the public hearing on said amendment until the meeting of April 16, 1962 and that the proposed Code amendment be considered at the Commis.^•.ion Work Session scheduled for March 23, 19G2. MOTION CARRI$D. CORRHSPONDBNCB - Item No, 1: ORANGB COUNTY TRACT NG. 4321: UWNBR: BBT-HffitITAGE COMPANY, 4100 West Commoneaith Avenue~ Pullerton, California; BNGINB'tict: DUTCFI HOLZNAUBR & ASSOC.- 41nn , ~ . _ _____ ___._ . air - _. ~ ... ~~ ~~ • $20 MINUTffi, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued; CORRESPOIVI'BNCE - West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California. Subject tract (Continued) covers approximateiy 25,31 acres ard is proposed for 123 single family residential lots. Property located easterly of Rio Vista Street, northerly of Lincoln Avenue, abuts the Santa Ana River, and is situated in County territory. Notice received from the Orange County Planning Commission, relative to the revised map of Tentative Tract No. 4321, was submitted to the Commission, The Commission reviewed the revised map and nofed that it was an improvement of the previous map submitted in August, 1961. Interdepartmental Committee recommendations and a report were sub- mitted to the Commission. The report indicated that a telephone call had been received in the Plannzng Department from Mr. Huarte, owner of property abutting subject property on the north which was presently classified in the County M-1 and Buffer zones and was being utilized for industrial purposes. He requested that the development be required to install a wall on the north boundary line of subject tract in order to protect the residential develoP- ment. ~.'O!Il@].SSIOIIES MSSCOlSX offared 2 SqOt102i~ SCCOIIiC'~ ~Jr ~vuiTuiSSi'vii2F Chavos and carried, that the Planning Commission 8ecretary transmit notice to the Orange County Planning Co~mnission that the revised Map of Tentative Tract No. 4321 be approved as submitted, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wail on the nor±herly boundary of subject property of revised Map of Tentative Tract No. 4321. ' 2. Tract to be graded to permit as much surface drainage as possi- ble to Gregg Street and ultimate discharge into the Santa pna Aiver. 3. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be sub- mitted in tEntative form for approval. Item No, 2; ORANGB ~COUNTY USE VARIANCB N0. 4944: Notice recei-~ed from the Orange County planning Commission, rela- tive to Use Variance No, 4944, was submitted to the Commission. Subject petition requested permission to establish a rest hom~ for a maximum of 14 persons in the R-2 Group Dwelling District. The petition indicated further that living, dining and kitchen accom- modations for said persons will be in the existing two bedroom unit and the proposed addition thereto, substantially as shown on the plot plan subraitted; fhat the "existing recreation building" attached to said two bedroom unit will be for the use of resi9ents of the rest home; that tfie four persons presently accooodated in the existing dwelling will be transferred to proposed quarters and said dweliing will be used exclusively for singie-family oceupancy; that off-street parking for approximately eight cars will be located as indicated on plot plan; that existing sterage building will be removed; and that iherc will be no sign. Svbject property is located appror.imately 420 feet east of Giibe*t Street on the north side of a 30 foot private road (Hutson Lune) which extends east from Gilbert Street at $21 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COh4dISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued; CORRHSPONDBNCB - a ooint approximately 600 feet south of Ball Road west of Anaheim, (Continued) The Commission discusse3 the location of the subject property and the problems presented in the area because of the deep parcels and the various types of scattered development. It was indicated that a precise plan study for a low density development of subject area would be o: benefit in order to encourage a more desirable type of developmz~nt in said ares. Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, that the Planning Commission Secretary traremit notice to the Orange Coanty Ylanning Commission inditating tnat the Anaheim Planning Commission recommended that the determinati~n in respect to Use Variance No. 4944 be held in abeyance until such time as a planning st•udy of the subject area for a low density residential developme.it could be prepared by the Orange County Plai~ning De- partment staff for presentation to the Orange County Planning Com- mission for their consideration in order to provide a plan fo- the ultimate development of subject area and to encourage the hig.ast and best use of subject prc~erty. ~MOTION CARRIBD. RBPORTS AND - Item No. 1; PIANNING STUDY N0, 41-6L-1: ~ a ~rr~•;a~ ~~na^:: .a Planning.qssistant Ronald Grudzinski presented Planning Study No. 41-61-1 relative to the area located on the west side of Citron Street between La Verne Street and La Palma Avenue; said study prepared by directive from the City Council., • Bxhibits were displayed and discussion ensued relative to the sub- ject area. It was noted that the subject properties consisted of deep lots,and Buhibit No 3 of suhject study projected the develop- ment of subject area for multiple family residential use with the exception of a parcel located at the southwest corner of Citro~ Street and La Palma Avenue which was projected for business and \ professional office development. Commissioner Marcoux indicated that he considered the recommenda~ tion for a multiple family, one-story, residential use of subject properties to be premature and that no action should be taken by the Commission at the present time. After lengthy discussion, relative to the adoption of a policy that would serve as a guide and tend to up-grade the subject properties, Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Com- missioner Chavos, that Planning Study No. 41-61-1 be recommended for adoption as the ultimate development of subject area and that said recoinmendation be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration, On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMiIS3I0NBRS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Marcoux, ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood. ,... ~ ~>> ~~ . ~ ~~ $22 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhQ~tISSION, March 19, 1962, Continued: RBpOR15 AND - Item No, 2: SHCTION 18.32.050 Paragraph (3): RHCOMMBNDATIONS (Continued) A report, relative to a request from the Planning Department re- garding a statement of policy on minimum liveable floor space of single family dwelling units, was submitted to the Commission. Vice-Chairman Mungall requested that the matter be discussed and considered at the Work Session meeting of the Commission to be held on March 28, 1962. ttem No. ?: POLICY STATEMENT RBGARDING RBAR XARD HNCROACHMENTS: Vice-Chairman Mungall submitted a tent ive chart for rear yard variables and requested that the Planning Department.staff review said chart and discuss the matter with,the Commission at a later date. Item No. 4; DISCUSBION - INDUSIRIAL ARBAS ANALYSIS: Discus.sion was held on the recent action of the Commission rel~- tive to the Industrial Areas Analysis and the Sapse of time between the Commission's action thereon and the March 27, 1962 Ci{y Gouncil tienring. Commissioner Camp offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the Council hot consider any City or County requests for non- industrial ~ses in the Northeast Industrial Area prior :o their comprehensive review on March 27, 1962 in order that they might have the benefit ci the research, analysis, and findings of the Planning Commission which were the basis of the Commission's recommendations to the City Council for the projected develop- ment of the Northeast area. MOTION CARRIBD. ~outtNnlB'rIT - There being no further business, the meeting was adjourr.~ed at 6:15 0'Clocb P.M. Respectfully submittt::, .~'o~~~ JBAN PAGH Commission Secre ary . _ _ .._._..._ -~._......._..~ ..~ ._..._._~ _-----.__._.__..__.~_____..._..___._... , ~- . . . - . ~~ O ~~