The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1962/05/14MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMIS3ION, Maq 14,1962, Continued: 906 RECLASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. MRS. PLORBIVC$ MHiANSON, hIItS. MARY R. ,. N0. 61••~62-58 RBIS MR3 LUCY S CONIGLIO and MRS ANNA A HATFIAWA ~ . . r . . Y, Owners; c/o GEQRGIA C. MANHSTAR, Roberts Reai Bstate and Ynvestment, 9752 Ratella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property clescribed'as; PARCBL 1; A parcel 440 feet by 650 feet with a frontage of 440 feet on Dowling Street and located on the southwest~corner of Dowling Street and Placentia- Yorba Road; pARCBI, 2; A parcei 180 feet b,y 230 f.eet with a frontage of 180 feet on Dowling Street,and located on the south- west corner of Dowling Street and Piacentia-Yorba Road; pARCgL 3; An irregelariy shaped parcel with a frontage of 199 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and an average depth of 575 feet; its southeasterly corner being approximatel'y 1,272 feet west of the intersection of Dowling Street and Oraagethorpe Avenue; PARCEL 4: An irregularly shaped parce.l with i4a east- erly boundary abutting Parcel l on the west; its s~utheasterly corner being approximately 53T feet north of the centierl~,te~oF. Orangethorpe Avenue and 665 feet west of the . centerline of Dowling Street, be reclassified from the R A,' RBSIDENTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHSOitH00D COM- MBRCIAL (parcels 1 and 4) aad 'C-•3, HBAVY COAMBRCIAL~ (Parcels 2 and 3), ZONES. ~. . ' *~:..:. ..:,, ~' Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 27, 1961~ Pebruary 5, 1962.and March 19, 1962 iri order that additional information regarding the subject area could be coa- sidered for the projected development of the northeast section of the City. Georgia Manestar, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that,,a revised plan had been submitted to :he Ca:aQissian which eliminated the service station~ aad that other changes had been made 3n view of the fact that the City Council has recently approved an M-1~ Light Man~ifacturing 2one for the area in which subject property was located, that Mr. Ray Jersin of the C& I Construction Company had made an economic feasibility study on subject property. Mr. Raymo:,d Jersin, representative for the C& I Construction Compan.y appeared before the Commission and stated that the pian as submitted indicated all proposed plans for the aubject area, that the owner of sub,ject property realized that the area is M-1, bu4 fe~is thafi buainess will deveiop trom the adjacent manu- facturiag facilities' personnel; that the feasibility study could be substantiated by Mr. Shaw, owner of the.proposed market~ and that the discount store did not contemplate vendittg food. The Commission asked that the feasibility study be submitted to them in.order-to analyze the petition fairly, Ti~ffi HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ~ The Commisaion discussed the feasibiiity of rec;uesting a study by !he planning Department to determine a more practical appli- cation for property in the northeast area,which was approved for M-1, Light Manufacturing uae. . { %`~ `~ f ,~,.', s~; . ., _ , ~ ,... . . .. . ... - 7 '""}~----~.-~--'.~...~.~..~.n.~ - . ~..,, . _ .., J... , ~ tI . ., . ~ ...t ~~~Ii....n~~.,~.., .._ ..... '_ ~ . `~1(:' ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CCIMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 907 RECIA33IFICATION - The Commission found aad determined the foliowing facts regard- N0. 61-62-58 • ing the subject petition: (Continued) s, . 1. That the petit'ioner proposes a reclassification of the above ° ' described property from the R-A, ItBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ~` ~ ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD CCY~A4ffitCIAL and the C-3, F~AVY C(~AIERCIAL, ZONES to permit the development of a coimnercial F,. j establishment on subject property. ~.. ~ @:' ~ 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is ` not necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper devel- ~ ; ~ ' opment of the community, ,,i' 3, That a letter dated Pebruary 19, 1962 from the attorney for F the petitioners and owners of Parcel 3 requesting that sub- F ` ject property, namely Parcel 3, be withdrawn from the sub- ~. ject reciassification in order that subject property, namely e Parcel 3, may be developed far M-1, Light Manufacturing use, ~ S, That oae person appeared before the Commission, and that a ~ Setter from the City of Placentia was received in opposition ~.' , to subject petition. 6. That in accordance with Recommendation No. 9, page 33 of the ~"Industrial Areas Analysis", subject petition, if approved~ would permit the estabiishment of retail commercial uses for which there appeared to be little economic support. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 311, Series 1961-62, and moved for its adoption and passage to recommend to the City Council to deny Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-58 on the bases of the aforementioned findings. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliow- ing vote: AYBS: CQbMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COhA~IISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC I~ARING. 7~HId D, GRpY, 4055 Wil,nire Boule- PBRMIT N0. 227 vard, Los Angeles 5, California, Owner; GEORGB LARRpHgg, 1568 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A MULTIPLH PIANNSD-UNIT DAVELOPMBNT on property described as: A pazcei of land consisting of Lot Nos. 2 through ll of Tract No, 2911 on Felicidad Circle, which is between La Palma and Greenleaf and west of Magnolia Avenue, Property presently,classified as R-3, MULTIPLB Pr1MILY R$SIDBN- TIAL, ZONB. .~~- . _ 908 ~~ ~,~ CONDITIONAL USB - Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 30, PBRMIT N0. 227 1962, in order to provide the petitioner an opportunity to sub- (Continued) mit reyised plot plans. t,, . G . i" ' Mr. Milton McCoy, agent for'the developer, appeared before the ~, Commission, and stated that revised plans had been submiited to ~'`< the Planning Deparhnent indicating that garages for proposed ;. . t development are now iocated on the side of each dwelling unit. • ;• € The Commission was informed by the Zoning ~oordinator, Martin ~,.:~;~; Kreidt, that the block wall adjacent to the subject property had , ~t ' never been completed, that it woqld seem reasonabie and logical ~' to require completion of said block wall and removal of said ' driveway apron to eliminate such ingress and egress on subject ~ property frum the abutting commerciai property, and that said ~ block wall shouid be a six (6) foot block wall. i. ~ Upon being questioned by the Commission regarding the placing of ~ ~;', palm trees on the pians submitted, which in fact would not be 2 ~lan4ed, the agent stated it was a means of promoting a loan on ,. the proposed development. ~ -. ~ Hearing on subject petition was delayed until the assistant City ~ Attorney could ascertain iaformation fram the City Attorney `' relative to the findings on the Block Wali abutting subject property. TH8 HBARING WAS CIASBD. The Commission foiu-d and determined the following facts regard- ing the subject petition: . 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: to construct ; a plzrzed unit multiple family resic~entiai developmeat: 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 use is ~ adequate to aliow'the full development of the proposed use ~ in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace;~~fhealsh, safet..y, .and gener,~1. welfa;e.of thr•Citizens of '` the City of Anaheim. . ., t . A ,, ~~ 4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the ~ peace, health, safety, and aPneral welfgre of the citizens ~ of the City of Anaheis: r ~,` 5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an qndue burden upon the streeta and highways design- , ' ed and improved to carry the traffic in the area, r , ;. 4~ ! A~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . . , ; t u ~ ~y~,~:,~ h- „ ; ' . ~ . ~ ~ . . . .. . . .. . . . . k{, ~f 1~~1~ ~ ~~ ~ .j~ ~ . . .. . ~ . . . - . ~ ~ . . . . ' .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ . .~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' . ..,. i ~ 4t ' b , ~ . . . . ' . i ~ . ~ ' , . . . . ~ . . 4~ ~ Y > ' ' 3 . , ' ' . . . . . , ' ~ ' F , I rW ~, ~ ~F~ ,~ J.. ~i ~. ~ . ,` ' ~ . . ~ . . - t _ ~i~ ~ ~ '~; .. . , ~ . ~ . ~'~ ~. ~. . . .'. . : . ~. . . ' .. -.-.. Il Linrt.i ~l..rt..J .,. ....~_~~:i\: ~.~••l:7K-~.1T{..S'~i...f.....t.. ~(:,<.~ .: .~.f.:.l ..M..t..._l~ Wl..l~r._~i..7.~.,~:...~~ re.1i-xY<.4.wJ`.u.aucs.r::r~.Yl 1 .:i' ..I .:~~ . ' .,... ° ' :Cx ~ i:w;U`~ ly z t ~, i h ~ ~~ r,, ;-~ "5~i ~ ~ , ... ~• :.9.a °r ' i. ..~.~aiYV. rqn, l}a~.: .-_Nr' -. , t{Y ;~ ~-'CY.s+3''"k}" •7~ 5~•t:.. i a k ' ~ ~ ~i ~:~ ,, ~ . _ ~ . .. - r ;',* , r'-~' t~ ~ ~ --- ~ ~ MINUTES, CITy pIANNING COhAlISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 909 ~ • ~ CONDITIONAL USB - 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. PERMIT N0. 227 '' (Continued) Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 312, 5eries 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner _(~ Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit 227, sub- ~ ject to the following coaditions; 1. Development substantially in accordanee with Hxhibit Nos, 1 ~ ~ ~ through 7. ~ ,~ ~ 2. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry waii along the south, west, aorth and east boundaries of subject property where said walls do not exist, the height of said wall on the east bonndary of subject property Lo be measured from the grade level of the commercial property abutting to the east, removal of the driveway apron providiag access from 4he commercial property abutting to the east to subject commer- cial property, s:td r2placement of`staadard curb and gutter and the installatio:~ of treewells and iaadscaping in the easterly parkway portion of Peiicidad Street between the southerly bounda*y of subject property and Pelicidad Circle in order to help shield the subject ro ert f P P y rom the com- mercial deveiopment abutting to the east~ piaas for said ~ , landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the a pproval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanc ~ e, aad said wails, curb and gutter, and landscaping to be installed i pr or to Pinal Building Inspection. 3. Provision of trash sfiorage area s as determined by the Depart- ment of Public Works, Sanitation Divi i s on, which are adequate in size accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately ' enclosed by ? solid fence or wall prior to Fina1 Buildin I g nspection. 4, l+ayment of a~ar.k and Recreation fee of $25.00 per dwelli ng unit to.be coliected as part of the Building Permit. 5, The installation of fire hydrants as required by the City of A '~~ naheim Pire Marshall, ~ On roll call the foregoing resolpti ~ on was ing vote: Passed by the follow- ~ AYSS: CQMhtI3SI0NffitS: CamP, Chavos Gauer Ha pgood, Marcoux, ~~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry, _ ~ NOBS: CahM ISSIONnRS: None. `, - ~ ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred. •~ TBNTATIVB MAP OF TRACT N0. 4476 - SiTBDIVIDffit: RINKBR DSVBLOPMHNT CORPQRATION 106 nue ~ d0 gatella Ave- ' 'Anahei ~ ' I , m~ California. BNGINggR: Voorheis-Triadle and Nelson Inc,, 1379!~ Beach Boule a d ~' ~ v r , Westminster, California. Sub3eot tract is located between Santa A R aa iver aad Newport Preeway at the northeast corner of t+ae int ersection of the Newport Freewa Y . ,.. ~ _ . . . , , . ~ t . ... . . .~ ~ , . . . .~.r .. : . ~ . .. .~ .~~ . , . ~ : ., . , . ' _..~.` . . . . ~ .;.c. .~.r ~.~: i..~~:~..:' - . . ~ .. ~ . . . . . . ., . . .. . . .. . ~. ~. ~. . . ~ ~ . . .. ~ ' . . . . ~ ... . . . , . ..~ ~ ~ : ~ ... ~: , . . .. . . . . _ .'+, '.:~.~. .':•.'.~ , ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . 4{r: F ~. ,-. . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . .-_ ~ : .~ ..~._ ., , ~""' _ n,roA ~cE i r ~~t Iws ~ i 1' ` t ~ • ~ ~,uP;~~"}!k , .~1`,~ x "'`rt'~-~4 YY4+t3„r ~a,.~ ,~'n4~, aa~ .. . .e r i .~ ..., __._._. ...., .~ =.~..~i~~~~lSS ~~Y~~~+'~~ 1...~i(.7.i...f':~~;t~ . !_11~1 ..l'.."_I.+.. ..~. ~~6`!M1 .'T~~.:iv:FY.~4~}1~~~.:i~~..Y _. Jv ~T~~ " ~'~f r i Pr ~ .a._ .. ~~ y f p, ~y y t I- y 1. k. S 4.t R 4 _` ~~y,. ,~.!vCt. .^ J.'•~~e.~S..~i'~ . 7~M~'•3r-~«.."~i. /~ .''~!~.~x$Y. ~~.. {~'::9. t.:~ ~t ~ J - ~ _L_ ~ ~ ~l ! '.'.~ ' ~ _ '` , ~ ' A ,> . . ~ :- ~.. . '.. " ~~ ~ ~~ . , ~ ~ ~, ~. . ~ ~ ~ .. ' " ~ . .. _ . . ~ . . . . . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . . . _ . .. ' ~ . . ~ . . . . . . ' . ~ ~ . ~ .. ~~, MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMI3SION, May 14, 1962,,Continued: 910 ~ TBNTATIVB MAP OP - and the Riverside Preewa and contains 189 pro osed R-1, ONB Yr P ~ 1RACT N0. 4476 PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZOiVB lots. ~ (Continued) . Zoniag Coordinator Martin Sreidt, read a letter to the Commis- ~ sion received from the Hngineer of subject tract~ asking t::at ~ ~. subject tract be continued to the meeting of Map 28~ 1962, ~ Commissioner l~ebley offered a motion to postpone to May 2$, . , 1962 ruling on Tentative Tract No. 4476 as requested by the ~ . peti4ioner, ~~a~f i Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. `~'~. . , ~ : ' ~~r;: VARIANCB N0. 1472 - PUSLTC I~ARING. WALTBR HAUPIMAN and WILLIAM ISAAC, 130 West Aatella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMBS H. HODG&S~ , ~`. 1709 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim~ California, Agent; Y'" r requesting permission to CONSIRUCT ADDITI~i TO HXISTING MOTSL on property described as:~ A parcel o: iand 95 feet by 150 feet, - a 75'foot frontage on the west side of Haster Street, the north- ` east corner of said property being 130 feet sfluth of the south- ` west corner.of Ratella Avenue and Haster Street. Property presen~ly classif.ied as R-A, RHSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTIAtAL, ZOiVH, Mr, James H. Hodges,,agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission.and rsi•ated that subject petition was an addi#ion ~~'• to.an existing motel to }he south, that additional land was needed in order to'meet,the requiremeats of the Commission, that construction:~was started at the owners risk, that ~ constrvction was started with the fuil i:nowledge of-var~ous " departments of the.citq,of Anaheim, that`this start was , y.; absolutely necessary.to meet conditioas of a lease to have the construction completed by June, tL•at.the Building Department rmission to proceed through a pian check gave the petitioaers pe = , being paid aithough no actual Building Permit was issued. The,Comiaisaion'discussed"this flagrant violation of procedure in coming to the Commisaion for a hearing after construction had been.started. Mr..Harry Nisely, attorney for the petitioners~ stated that the ~ petitioners did not deliberately disregard the City's rules and - `' regulations:~by beginning construction, but were trying to anticipate granting,of the petition in-meetiag the lease require- ment set by the 'S~ssees`. , . , Zoning.Co,ordinator, Ma;tin I{reidt, stated that a stop work _ _ . , ' order had been issued at the time the forms were in the ground, "~ ~` _ but that at the,moraing field inspection the Cd~tinission found the petitioners were still`building. ,,'a; ~. G._ ~ THE HEARING WAS%CLOSBD. o t Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant Petition for G ~ Variance.No. 1472 sub,ject to conditions, seconded by Commissioner ; ~ ,, ; . :_ Mungall. ; _: ' _ i:' ~., ?i , _ , ' `" ,fi The foregoing motion was defeated by the following vote: '. rs 5 ~ ' ~x~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ AYHS: COMMISSIOI~BEtSe' Gauer, Mungall, Pesry. .. . . ,- ~ trr ~. ~ .. _ gsy `"7, . . NOHS:. COMMISSIONBRS: Camp;tChavos; Hapgood;.Marcoux, Pebiey. . `, ; ;: ~} -•• ~" ~ ., ~ ABSffiVT: CQbA1ISSI0NBRS: Ailred. . < < . ~~ta~hi. ~ ~t J Fl'~ ~ t" w . .. _ , ...1 ~ L( ~ i 4 ~ x ~ ~ ~~y+ak V'4,''~ i M' K ~' 3 F , 7Y7~`~,t~~ ~ y` J ~ ~ 7 ; ~ ~ i.L~ 1 ( ~ ) 'Y 0'i 3~~- r` y .~ ~s i ~~h ~( ~ ~ ~ ' fi . ~ e a ylt '~ ~ S ~ S t 5 ~' ' ~~,4d'Y~t~~` f"L' ~ t,'bi ~~`~~~~ %i i C~ __ _ ._W"` _ _ " __.__ . ......... ...._ ... .... . _ __ .. . . . n~ ~ ~ ' v~V,': .,~a.. ~~~F~KI~s E ;i v ° ~ . .'~ , MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COAAlISSION~ May 14, 1962, Coatinued: 911 VARIANGB N0. 1472 - The Commission found and determined the following facts regard- ~ -(Continued~ : ing subject petition: ~. 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim ~ Municipal Code: Section 18.16.010 to permit the establish- ~ ment of a motel on aubject property, and Section 18.04,030 to prrmit waiver of the required parking on subject property. ~ 2. That the petitioner had begun construction on subject ~, property prior to a public hearing on subject petition and ~` -°- i t in direct violation of the rules and s ( ~T ,, Y that sa d ac was regulations of the City of Anaheim. 7 ` ~ r a. , Commissioner Camp, offered Resolution No. 313, Series 1961-62 ti , and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by ~ommis- `~ , ~ sioner Marcoux, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1472 on the ~ ,. ~,,~;;,; bases of the aforementioned findinRP. E F On roll call the foregoing resolution svas passed by the follow- . k ing vote: . ~ ~ AYES: COhAfISSIONBRS: Camp,~Chuvos, Aap~good,. Marcoux~ Pebiey. f ~ NOSS: COMMISSIONBRS: Gaue., Mungal.l, Perry. ;. ~.« :, . r,.•r+ ~ ~ ~ . AHSBNT: C~ISSIONBRS: Alired. . ` ~ : VARIANCE N0. 1473 - YUBLIC I~ffiRRING. t~t. and hIItS. I~IDRMAN. JOT~ffiS, i014 Irene Place, ~ Anaheim,`California~ Owner's; requestiag permission to WAIVB ~ RHAR YARD SHTBACK RHQUIRBMHNT on property described as: A _ parcel of land 100 feet by 61 feet, 61 foot frontage on eas.t ~ ide of Irene Place between La Palma Avenue and Rainbow A~enue, s of said property being 121 feet north of north- orner outhwest ` . c s west corner of Rainbow 6venue and Irene P1acE, and further described as 1014 Irene P1ace. Property presentiy classified as R-1, ONE PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. Mr. Herman Jones~ the petitioner, appeared before the Commis- ' ~ and stated that he had nothing further to add but would i on s be willing to answer any questions the Commission might have. Tf~ FIDARING.WAS CL0.SSD. The Commission found and determined the following facts • F regarding subjectr petition: ~~ ~ 1. That the.petitioner requests a variance fxom the Anaheim E Municipal Code: Section`38.22.030 (3) to permit an y encroachment of twenty (20) feet in~o rear yard to permit E ~. ``. ' ~he• enz,a.osuse of a patio. . ; ~: • 2. That there are exceptional or ext=aordinary circumstances ^ •" or conditions applicable.to the property involved or to the F ` . intended use of the property that do not apply generally to ~ ~ ' the property.or, class of use in the same vicinity and zone. ~ ' 4`-`~ 3. That'the requested variance is necessary for the preser- ,: k R ~ . ~ a ~ of a substantial.property right vation and`enjoyment ~ ~f~~F , :, f,;~x r~, ~ ~ . possessed by otlier property in the same vicinity and zone, and' ;denied to the proper'ty in question. ~ b..r ~: p r ~ ' . ~~ ' ' ~ . ' , ' . , ~ .; ~'., . . . ~~ . . . ~ 1 ' ~4 k' . . . ' ' , . . ~ . . ~~, ~ ti~~~: : '.. . ~ . . . ~. ' ' . . ~ . . . ~ . ~ . . . . , ~ i „ .' ~~~ . , . . ., . . . , ' ~ i ~ ~( y. ~~ t rx ~ ryr . ~ .. . . . . . . ~ ~. ~ /~.'v ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ . , ~~s~ 5 . s s ~M1{ ~'..,~ J ~ ~~ : . ' . . . . . • ' ' . '. . ~ z ~,., ~ , }a~ ~ P . . - ~~ ~i ~ ~~~5~ ~'~ ~ ~ . ~: ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ fsJW d. ~ "4~ , `~' ~+'~y 3 . .,.~.:.1.'~~ ~ : ~ . . .. . , ..:... _ . .,. ... _: ~ ~ ... .. ~ . . '.. ~~ f~ __.-.--rt'"'P7~ f I. ., i ..~.{ K~ ! . .l~ar .., k~ r.. ,.,,~_~*?t'li3 ~., r..~. ..,.2~_ ~. K~ w. . ~c,~? . .:~.,.~r ~. ..~tt~~~d*.n.ib7cr:h s~t~av-..~.xx~a,~u.a.._ . h' ~._ ~ . , ..... . . ,~~ . ~ L.~ . ...v ~h. t . . .. . ... ... ... ~: ..7J , ~{_ : .;i; •~ . ~. • ~p ;:~ MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COD4fIS310N, May 14, 1962, Contin•.~: ;~~, I r~.' ~ . ~~ ~ . ~ . .. 912 VARIANCB N0. 1473 - 4.. That.the requested yariance will not be materially detri- (Continued) mental to•the public welfare or injurious to the property or • - improvements in such viciaity and.zone in which the property is located. 5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Co~n~rehensive General Plan. b, That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 314,.Series 1961-~62 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~ pebley to grant Petition for yariance No. 1473, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Hxhibit Nos. 1 and 2, except that a maximum encroachment of 17+} feet shail be` permitfed. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliow- ' ing'vote: . _ AYSS: CoMMiSSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood~ Marcoux, Mun~all, Yebley, Perry. NOBS: - COMINISSIOdVBRSo None.. AHSffiVT: COMMI3SIONBRS: Aiired. CONDITIONAL,USB r PUBLIC HBARING: CCRNBLIA CONNBLLY SCHOOL OP THB HOLY CHILD~ PBRMI~' N0. 223 2323 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, Owners; STBPI~N P. GALLAGI~R; 305.United California Bank Building, Anaheim, Cali- _ `foraia, Agent;:requesting a,Conditional Use Permit to WAIVB Tf~ ',~; CONCRBTB BLOCK WALL RBQUIRBi~ffiNT on•property described as; A parcel of land 456 feet'by 621:feet with a`f.rontage'of 456 feet on the'north side of'Broadway; the southwest corner,of which is 836 feet east of the northeast corner of Broadway'and Gilbert Streets, and further described as 2323 lVest.Broadway.. Property presently classified as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTIJRAL, 2~1E. Mr. Stephen F. Gailagher, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the,Commission end stated that Exhibit B attached to the Conditional Use Permit iadicated where the proposed chain link fence wouid:be erected, that the solid block waii fence would ' -` • cost $5,000, whereas the chain 3ink fence.wc~uld cost $2;500, ~ : ° . and that the City Council xraived the requirement #o coastruct a ,;' so~id wa~F;on.the~ west side`of,subject'property as this was ap~5;oved 3n the county before subject properbq was annexed to - the City of Anaheim. {, _ , - 3ister Mary Eustas. repreaeating the'Concordia Coneent School,e~FSed before-tlie Commission and stated. that there was aa immediate problem of trespassing by automobiles and people disrupting "•' ,: _ the.privacy of a school and convent. i'Fa , ' TliB HEARING WAS CLOSHD. ~ ., >js ~ ; ~ ` ' ~ , . : ,y r ~ ~ . , . . SY'; ~ ~hy. . . . . , , . ~ . . W N ~ ~ . . . „ . . . . . ~ ~ ~' , . '. ~ : ' ~ .' '' '. . ~ ' ; . . ~' - . ~ .:. . , .. . . . : ., .. . . . ~ ~ .. ~.. ,~:,'y~'~ 4 y ~ s. , - .,,+,~,: i ;s I S~ t ~ is V( i` Y . \ C .. ~ Y-y .. 5~ 1-~'t' •`y 1 1 t ; ' ~ ~ 7 ~\ ~y + ~ ~ kN~,~, `~ ` ~ -; ~~ ,;~ ,. ~~~ . .. ~ ~ > s'r ^rY, '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~ ~"~'~ ~4::~!~Y,> . : ~ . . . „ . : :~~ ~ - :., ~" ~ ....f~.,.~, e . . _ , .... ..c..,...._,_.. ~ . ., ... ....~.. .. ..., ..,~~ . ......~ .._ _ ...... ... .....~. "' ' . . .a .1,. _ , ~~.... ._ ...~«., , . . .. y ~~~~ ' 1 a ~ 5 .. ~ ri. ~,..rK.n,~.~'ri i~W., y c~~`~~ 5 u,.~ ~,.} ~r ~ . :~. ,~ r Lt~ ,: . 3r~,:~~~V9r~~.~a/d'~~... ~~~_ ". i .c ` .. ~ ~. ^ . ~~.~ h r4' ~.; . . ~~ ~ 1 _~ ~ a ~, t ~ ~ _, .. .. . , .. . . , . i ~'` `3~a e~""~. ~ . . . . , . .., . . .-. ~ ' ~ 1 ,::• . -.. .. . :G' . . ti :.. ..~.~ ..~~ ~ . ~ -~~~ ~ .N~> r ....~'. ' -•, . ~ .. . ~ .~~ ~i . ~ ~ ~ ~~ V . . . . . _ ~ ' ' . . . - . : 7 ~. . . . . . . ~ .. . ' . . ~ . . . ' . . . . .. . ~ . . . . _ . . ~ . .p . ~~l MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 14~ 1962, Coatinued: ' 913 • ~ ;,, ,~ CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission discussed ttie prtlposed link fence as to said fence PBRMIT N0. 223 being in'conformance with codd :~tandards and possible serious , i (Continued) consequences to adjacent"•prope'rty owners, that the Commission '•`) might recommend to the:City Coancil the possibility of substituting . 'i a two-year bond in lieu of the $2,000 on deposit with the City to <; - insure the constructio,n of said masonry wall. ; The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding • gubject petitioa; 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditionai ~ ;' ~,, -~; Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: Permit t:~e ; ~ use of subject property for a school and convent without the r3 ~:; t,* . . ~ provision of a~masonry wali as required by the code. ~ . . . 2. That the requested waiver will adversely affect the adjoining ~ ~`' ,.. lann uses and the growth and development of the area in which <; .: it is proposed to be located. ~ ; ,. 3. That the undeveloped R-A,Residential Agricultural property . t boundary of the schooi may, in all proba- abutting.the eas , bility, be deyeloped iato some type of residential develop- ment, and since #he use of subject property is heavier than . = residential use, subjeat:_;pno~r.tSc• s~s_ould be, adequately ~`~ protected by a six (6) foot biock wall.~ - ~ Commissioner Gamp offered Resolution No: 315; Series 1961-62;;and. ~ ~ moved Eor its passage and'adoption to'deny:Peition for Conditionai ~ ~~ - Use Pe=mii No. 223 on ~ the ,bases 'of, ~he . aforementioned find'ings~. On.,:roil cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~ vote• r r:; :AYBS: COMMIS3IONBRS; .Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux~ '= ~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry. _ i 7 ~ NOBS: CObA4IS3I0NBRS: None. ~~ AHSBNTe COMMISSIONBRSe Allred. :i RHCaMMBNDATION T0 - Commissioner Camp offered a motion that'the Planning Commission ~j ~ THH CITY COUNCIL recommend to the Citq CounciT that the petitioaer in Coaditional ~? Use.Permit No. 223 namely the Corneiia_Coanelly School c.`• ihe : ~ Holy Chiid, be permitted.to post,a two-year bond to ir.sare the a ~ estabiishment of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the e.~st boundary a ~ a~ 3tib,jcct property in iieu of.the $2,000 cash ~nd.- ~ ~ Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion: MOTION CARRIBD. i ;, , CONDITIONAL-U&S - -~U$LIC HRARING. ;IAND HSTATSS, INC., r.; 0. Box.1361,.OrCUtt, Cali- : 1 pBRMIT N0. 231 fornia, Owner; WILLIAM L.:RIJDOLPH and'ASSOCIATBS, 2614 West Seventh ; ~ ' Street, Los Angeles 54, California, Agent;.requeatinp, a Conditionai ?. z ~i` CBNTER on.property Use Permit to BSTABLISH A.PAMILY BILI:IARD i , ; " : , described a5; A parcei~of land~!80 feet by i50 feet, with.a frontage ~ Y ss~~; 'feet oa the south side of. Lincoln Avenue, the northeast ~ of 80 ~ ~ V ~; . corner of which is 190 feet.west-of the-southwest corner.of Lincoln ,;i y. ~~u~;•; Avenue aad.Brookhuist Street, sud further described as 2216 Weat '~ _ ~~ -~~ Lincoln Avenue f r ° a . ~ ,, . 'kv~ e. ` A ~~t ~ K~; y, . . . , r 4 `4 . iE` y `~Y' ~ . , ~ . - ~h~ ' ~ '~ ~i~\ ~ry y .~, . ., ~~ ~ .~.: . . . . ~ . . , .. ~, ~ ' " ~ r lf 4t ~ ~ ~ ry,c ~ 4 f ~. ; , ~ ~ ~ . ~. , f ; 4 ': ~ . ~ .. , . ~ : .. . . , _ c t i 1 l y ~ ' ~~ ~ '. y~£ ~ r~ h:~~n ;. r ,. ~, ~ .. . . :.. ~. .~. , . , . .., _. ~~~ .,_ ~ ? t 1 ~' kT~ -~ , ~ ~, "" . < rw r f ~~, ;+~ ~ ", j ~ .~ k,, : ' . ~ ~ x 5~, ~Y,~~Y"' l } ' - ~ • ~~ ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ .., r a~,J M QM 1sC '~,,~J;~ 1 ~ ~.5~ ''91w°pt'h~ ..._..~.~~~fi~..i..'i'G t ~ , ~ ~ : ~ ~' ' ~ . . ~ . . . . - .,~.. ...... ~ ' ; ' ; . ~ . ~ ~ ' . . .._,.. ..,..,.,...,.., :...,. ... _,., .~.. .,... .~..,...._~.~.. ~ ~ . ~~ . ~ _ .. "~ '\ ~.9 f Y ,~d y,'~„~. r.~~,~',._...~w~. ~~'9~'SjC~"~' ~~ 5 ~ ; F l Y { Ci ~~_.~ * KS _' , .~' Y f ~A liK~~.. 3'~~+t.~.+~'.~~A~4vr~ ~~W(',r,~Y• ~ ~ cn,.'i~.:X',t'.CL'(.~'~i..4~~N{I~S.~~~,Y :~'f'.4~ l ~. / I ~ ~ ~ti : V. - _ - -~.; ~ . yi '{~Y~]+F . 1 '. . ~° t . . ~ ~:' f ~ ~ t~ Q ~~~ ~. MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 914 CONDITIONAL USB - Property presently ciassified as C-1, NBIGHBORHOQ~ COMI~RCIAL, ' PffitMIT N0. 231 ZONS. . (Coatinued) Mr. William Rudoiph, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated fiaat the sketch as submitted to the Commission was of a number beiag proposed throughout the state as part of a . ~ nationwide chain. ~ The Commission discussed the lack of sufficient parking as required by the code for commerciai establishments, that there should be a ~.` ~ t ~ thirty-five foot setback and a ten foot of landscaping. . ~ ~Th3~W h: ~} ~, .. . ~ The agettt for the petitioaer stated .that there would be ampie . ; . parking in the adjacent parking lot of the bowling center, and _ ~ ~ that the Planning Department had advised him that there was no € specific parking requirement for an establishnient as proposed. ~ Zoning Coordinator, Martin Kreidt stated,that the code requirements s as pubiished were not spelled out specificaliy in the code book; ~ ~ ~ut ~hat any car~~.a~~1 develcgceat taes zequired to gro••+_de agece , equal #0 509G of'the square footage of a proposed commercial ~ ~ - , development. , , ~ _ THB HBARING WAS CLOSSD. f ~ , _ i i f t ` 6 acts regard ng ag ermined the foliow ound and de The Commission ~ subject petiti~n: " -' 1. :That the proposed use is properiy one for which a Conditionai - ~ , ~ Use Permit is suthorized by this Code, to wit: estabi'ish a family , ` billiard.center. • r :. . , , . . . . _: 4 ~ . . .. . . . , , .. . . , . , 2: That the proposed use wili aot adversely affect fihe adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is propo~ed to be located. _ ' :?~ 3. That the size and:ahape of ,the site.proposed>for the use is ~ adequate to allow the.fall deyelopment of the proposed use in ;;.; a manner not detrimental to the particuiar area nor to.the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of ~ . the City of:Anaheim.. - 4. That the granting.of the Conditional Use Permit under the , conditions imposed,.if any, will not be deterimental to the peace, heaith, safety~ and generai weifare of the citizens of s , ~ the City of Anaheim. , ,.i _~ F ~• `~ 5. That the traffic generated by the:proposed use will:not _,, ~` impose an undue burden upon the streets and highwaqs designed . ~ and im~roved to carry the traffic•ia the area. _ i• ~ '. ` 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject pefition. , , ',~,. ~ Commissioner Marcoux,offered Resolution No. 316, Series 1961-62, - , ,, '^~>. and moved for its passage and'adoption, seconded by Commissioner ; - t;^;'~: ; _ Pebley, to.grant Petition,for ConditionaT.Use Permit No. 231, ,: . ~4~ ~~X . subject to the following conditions: : ,~ , r ~ y ~k ~,~h r ' ' ~~t~; cC ~~E ~c~•~ :i ' ~ ~ ~~,~''~`~'~ C ~ _ ~ j ~ ~ ~. . . . I ~ ~ j` . y } F'yhs ' 'y„a~' r? 4 : ~ . . - ... ~ .. . ~ ~.. ~~ . , . ~ .. . . ~ . ' ' . ~~. .... . ':: ' \ ~- j - ~ ~. 4 ' { '.li. ' ; ~ , , .. .:~.. . . : ~ . ... .. , . :~ .: . . .. . . .. . . , , • - ..~ .i - -~~ ~ y r ~' - a q N ti~,.~ ~ ti} t i -t r ~ ' ~ . ~ . ~. - ~~. ~,~ .-~ ~.' . ?~~1 ~..i. W, .r.: >~~ ,~ { . ~;! ~1r f r~' ', t S~y/~~f ~ ~ . _ ,. \ s`~ sF ' 4 . ~ 1 F " ~~~.,,~ ~~J '~i ~ ^ r ^~ ~~'+ . . : ~~r;i~+; ' ^~, ^ i r ~ ~ #~ r v ~ ~ ~ ~; h,~~ .d l - i #Y 7"'.y ~~~i ."'~~L . . . ~ .. r . . . ~ . ..... a.. ....... ..._. ., . ,.~.~~ ._......... ..-.,.. , ..... , .. ....,. ... _.,_.~. _ ._ . .. . __ _._ ,_ _ _ ... ~ . . . . dMlL. ~ . 1 k~' :F <<~ ~.~~~:~ l~Si~f! ~~ f}f,P~{ j 5~J yhtT~. ~. t 4 ..~?r~~iMFtsy/='`~Ri'~.y:~ ~.~`1~e.Cd 1 b.'~~~4, w:~:r~e' S,~-~~~ 1~`Yx7HT,'r~n ~..7~~wSC,`b 4L' ti,^~.. ~ . ~ r " ~ y~ 1 j L t~ i { y~ t~ .. ~'~ g ::i.. . {~~ . ' .. . . . . ., ... .. .~.. ~ , ~ .,,, , ~ . . ~ . . , ~ . , .. _ ,.., -,. .. .~ ' ~ ... Sl ' . .. . . . :.. . . . ' . . ~ . . . ~ 3.-.: . . . . ~ ._ _ _ a O 4 ; ~` e ~ MINUT9S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 196z, Coatinued: 915 ` ,.. ~`' CONDITIONAL USB - 1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1, • E PBRMIT N0. 231 except that the building area be reduced so as to provid.• CContinued) parking in accordance with the open air parking provisions ~ adopted by the Ylanning Commission and on file in the Planning ' ' Department, that said parking area be in accordance with all code requirements, and except that a minimum ten (10) foot ,~ ~ wide landscape planting Area abutting the Lincoln Avenue right- ~ ` , of-way line be installed, plans for said landscaping to be ~ •".i submitted and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of E. ( Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping to be installed F ;~~ prior.to Pinai Buiiding In§pection. ` ai.~ ~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following . E Y~ { ci. ~ . ~ VOtE C ~ . ~ . . . . _ ,~~~`r~~_ „,_, ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ . . . AYBS: COhAlISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, ,"1' " Mungall, Pebiey, Perry. h ~'F NQBS: COhAlISSIONBRS: None. ~ .'. ";":'~: •..i `.i. . - . . ~ . . . . . . . . ~ - r ; . . . . . . . . . ABS~:T: C.:.uniSoIOiYERS: Allred. ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . . . . , ~ ~ ~ ... . . .. ! . . .. . COiVDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC F~ARING. S. V. HUNSARHlt and SONS, P. 0. Box 1216, Fleetwoal _ ~ PffitMIT N0. 232 Anaex, Covina, Califo ;nia, Owners; requesting a Conditionai Use c '•~ ' Permit to B5TABLISH.A RBCRHATION ARBA on property described as; r' An irregularly shaped'parcel of land at:the southwest coraer of ~ Moraga and Alamo Streets,:-approxima4ely 134 feet by 65 feet, and K further described`as 604.North Moraga;5treet., Property presen'tly ; classified as R-3;: MULTIPLH FAMILY RBSIDffiVTIAi, ZONB.. - ~ '; = Mr. Robert Lowrq; architect for the'petitioner~ appeared before the t, ''. Commission and stated that subject p=operty adjoin Tract No. 2567, ~ which the'petitioner had'approved, that--svbject-developaient wi12 have 44 apartment units when completed, that cubject petitioa is to _ , ;, , build a recreationaT center together with the;apartments for the use of said apartment dwellers, and for.nse of future ~partments to • be bvilx on subject` property,.`which would include a swimming,pool, wading pool, ianai, barbecue pits,,fireplaces, toilet facilities, land~caping, arid.fencing`of subject property; .that one-half (~) incH vertical:plywood-'known as Texture 111 similar to board on ~ board facing, that proposed landscaping was designed for inside the'sidewalk area. THB FffiARING WAS CLOSHD. ~ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding i .... .._.::'. .:. subject petition: , ~ , 1. That the pxoposed us is properly one for which a Conditional } ~` Use Permit is;authorzied by this Code, to wit; to establish a ` ' ~ private recreational facility. ~ < _ ~.' r . 2. That blie proposed-use wi11'nat adversely af€ect the ad,joinieg ,,•~ land.uses and the growth and development of the area in which ;, ~ it is proposed~ to be' located. , i ,, S F ~ ~~k ~ 3, That the size and-stiape of`the site proposed for the use is . ~;'' ,'c~ adequatetn.a.Llow the fuil, development of the propose'd use in a '' j ~ manner not detrimentai to the par~icular area nor to the;peace; ~ ~ kr~~~; ~ : health,`safety; and general welfare of the citizens of the City ;~~ of Anaheim. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ' r- ,~ i.f ~.' ~ P1 .. , .. ' . ' . : ~~Ak~ . t ([ >ys, 11. M ~ . . . . . ' . ' .. . : . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~l . . ~'Y~. ' . . , 7 .~e t. ~ u5~i: ~~ 'S . ~ ~ ~.' u~~~ ~cF ..~T ! . ~ ~: . . , . 'J ~j ~ ~'~~.°l~, w ~ ~y r~ t ~~: Sj ~~J~ } r a q "~ ~+`~~ Y~i. - ""try;"+~wFR ~;1~ i ~ i S>~~{ ' °r' i~ 1; N ~`~SCY 1 1 ~ ~~ ~; - r ~ ~ t C ~ ~~ .4,.~ 4 R ., 't Y ? yF~ ~ ~ { ~~i~!'. ~ ... . . . ,.r~ _ . . . _._ ~ i ~ ,. . . . . . . . . _ s . .cR, ~~.k ~,~~n_d&~ • 4 S~ t ' '...~~.•.:~~: . . ... . ~,.:.. ~ ~..-.~;. . .~.~.... , ..~ - -r µ - , . ~ . ~ T Y . •'', :~_. ~.. ~: ,~ ,~ . . ~ . , ~. . MINUTB3, CITY PYAIVNING COMMI3SION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 916 CONDITIONAL USH - 4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the ~ ~ ~ YBRMIT N0. 232 conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the (Continued) peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 5. 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. ~ 6. That no one appearad in epposition to subject petition, ' ~ Coromissioner Marcoux offered Resclution No. 317, Series 1961-62, {~ and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~ Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 232, sub- i f;::~:`; ject to the foilowing conditions: ~ i l. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1. ~ 2, Dedication of Moraga Street from the southeast corner of ~ Tract No. 256? to the northwest corner of subject property. ~ a 3. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the f ~ i completion of Item No. 2. ' On roli cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowiag ~ vote: y j AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, ' Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~ • NOBS: CODIMISSIONERS: None, ,_~ i ~ a A°SBiVT: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred. . j CONDITIONAL IISH - PUBLIC HBARING. MR. and.MRS. JHRRY DOIAN, P. 0. Box 2, Anaheim, ~ ~ pBRMIT N0. 233 California, Owners; requesting,a Conditional Use Permit to BSTAB- ~~ LISH A CHILD CARB NURSHRY on property.described as: A parcel of ;~ land 62 feet by 108 feet, with a frontage of 62 feet on Yhe north ~ side-of La Palma Avenue, the southwest corner of which is 176 ~ feet east of the northeast corner.of Citron,and La Palma Avenue, ~ and further described as 723 West La Palma Avenue. Property ,~ presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. ~ , Mr. Jerry Dolan, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission i and stated that subject property wili be improved with repairs on ,,~ three sides, completely repainted, roof repaired, the roof ~ ~ overhang is to be cut back to three (3) inches, that a six (6) ~ foot chain link fence is proposed for the east boundary of sub- ject.Qroperty, that the pre.sent fence is an iriter i in ke d boar d ; fence which is in disrepair and inadequate to protect the children, , 4hat a wooden interlocking fence wi11 be constructed on the west ; wall, that the fence at rear of subject property would remain, that the driveway will be locked at all times, that the petitioners ~' e.ldest daughter will operate said n!~rsery, that the play axea ~ ~ ~ 1,100 square feet, and that he had the written approval of covesed , property owners within'a four hundred foot radius of subject ~ i _ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 917 CONDITIONAL USB - Mrs. Jessica Buck, owner of the property abutting subject property PBRMIT N0. 233 appe>red before the Commission, and stated that she was in favor (Continued) of the petition, but objected to the type of fence proposed as her home was only three feet from the proposed slab fence, and asked that the Commission consider a six (6) foot masonry wali as one of the conditions for approval. TEffi HBARING WAS CL0.SED. The Commission discussed the pazking facilities as being somewhat inadequate. :he Commission found and determined the following facts regardii:g subject petition: ; 1. That the proposed use is propErly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: to establish a child care nursery. 2. That the proposed use wili not adversely a'fect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be iocated. 3. That t)ie size and shape of the site propased fur the use is adequate to allow 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 Anaheim. 4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use wi11 not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to carry the traffic in the area. 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. 7. That two fully improved parking spaces shall be provided for employee parking. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 318, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissidner Chavos, th:a.t Petition for Conditional Use Perm.it No. 233 be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Development s~bstaat3s11~ 3_^. a~cordance with Exhibit No, 1, ex- • cep;;hattte structure be painted completely on all sides, repair work to be done on all sides of subject structure, c=rezha;.g on front of structure to be cut back to three inches and facia board to be pl~.ced on front of said overhang. 2. Pzovision for a solid board fence painted a redwood finish to be erected on the east, south and north side of subject property, anfl a chain link fence erected across the front of subject property facing La Palma Avenue. 3, Provision for parking facilities for two cars at least ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet, plot plans for said parking facilities to be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. . 4. Installation of landscaping in the parkway portion of subject ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COA4IISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 918 CONDITIONAL USB - q• property,:iplans.for said landscaping to be submitted to and PBRMIT N0. 233 subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway (Continued) Maintenance, and said landscaping to be instalied prior to issuance of a Business License. 5. Subject to Building Department inspection and approval of the existing structure for the propased use, and that the improvements as stipulated by the applicant be approved before the issuance of a Business License, 6. Limitation of children`s play area to the side and back of subject property. • 7. Subject to the written approval of the State Department of Social Welfare prior to the issuance of the Susiness License. 8. Dedication of fifty-three (53) feet from the monumented center- line of La Palma Avenue (50 feet existing). 9. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment of~Item No. 8. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYSS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSIONHRS: None. ABSffiiT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RBCHSS AT - Commissioner Marcoux moved for a ten minute recess by the Commissim, 4:15 P.M. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. RBCONVBNBD - Chairman Gauer called the meeting to order ag~:tn at 4:29 P,M. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC t~ARING. VBRA M. STaRMBR, 1109 aast North Street, Anaheim, PffitMIT N0. 234 California, and SBVBRIDGB G. CHAMHERS, 1101 Sast North Stree~t, Anaheim, California, Owners; DAVID A, RUSSSLL, 272 Wa.terview 3treet Playa del Rey, California, Agent; requesting a Conditional Use Permit to BSTABLISH A SBRVICB STATION on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land at the northwest corner of North Street and East S"reet, approximately 160 feet by 160 feet, and further described as 1109-1101 Bast North Street. Property ' p~esently classified as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICU;LTURAL, ZONE. Mr. David A. Russell, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that the area was too highly traveled to be considered in the R A or residential zones, that the Shell Oil Company planned to build a modern service station in ranch house style, that wouid conform to the architecture of the surrounding homes. Mr. Thomas Geiher, 1025 Bast North Street, appeared 'oefore the Commission representing 83 adjoining property owners protesting sutr ject petition~ and stated that subject petition would be a detri- mentgto all property owners, that the noise from cars using this ~ ___.. ~ ; , ~ ~ ~ i . ~ ~ ~ ;~:; .<-; ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 919 CONDITIONAL USH - service would greatly depreciate the value of adjoining property, PERMIT N0. 234 and that there were more than enough sesvice stations within a (Continued) mile radius to adequately take care of needs of the community. Mr. P. Stanley Backland, 1015 Bast North Str.eet, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that traffic conditions would be aggrevated considerably if subject petition were granted, and t~at subject area should be kept residential as it presently is, that most of the r~sidents in the area had been living in the area 8 to 12 years. Mr. Thomas J. Whildon, 1007 East North Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that he has lived in the area 8 years, and that to grant subject petition would cut the residential area in half with manufacturing on both side of subject property which would again depreciate the value of property in the area, and that a report to the City Council several months ago indicated an insufficient amount of residential area in the city of Anaheim. THE HFARING WAS CLOSHD. 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: establish a service station. 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 tne size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manr~zr 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 impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. That two persons, one representing 83 property owners adjacent to subject property, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition. i. That the proposed petition would constitute an encroachment in a residential area, and would not be in accordance with the proposed General Plan. Commissionex Marcoux offered Resolution No. 319, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 234 on , the bases of the aforementLOned findings. , . - _ .._ • -------~~--------• ---- ' . ~ ~;. •. . ... . . . .._ .. . _ .___._ ~~ MIIVUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMIS~ION, May 14, 1962, Continued; 920 CONDITIONAL U3B - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following PBRMIT N0, 234 vote; (Continued) A~: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, NOBS: COhAlISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: CQMMISSIONBRS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLBS R. SIMON, 1204 8ast La Palma Avenue, PBRMIT N0. 235 pnaheim, California, Owner; DAVID A, RUSSELL, 272 Waterview Street Playa del Rey, California, Agent; requesting a Conditional Use Permit to BSTABLISH A SBRVICB STATION on property described as; An irregularly shaped parcel of land, approximately 250 feet by 275 feet at the southeast corner of La Palma pvenue and 8ast Street, and further described as 1204 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RSSIDBNTIAL AGltICULTURAL, ZONB, Mr. Carl R. Simon, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated subject property was a dangerous corner, that it could not be developed into a residential area because of the danger op cars failing to make the turn from North Street, that the vacant area was to be included in the service station, and that sidewalks and curbs wonld be installed around the La Palma Avenue and B~st Street sides of subject property. Mr, ~o~as Gelher, 1025 8ast North Street, appeared befose the Commission representing 83 adjoining property owners protesting subject petition, and stated that subject petition would be a detriment to all property owners, that the noise from cars and Sights using this service would greatly depreciate the value of adjoining property, and that there were sixty-three (63) service stations within a mile radius of subject property to adequately serve the community. Mr. P, Stanley Backland, 1015 East North Street, appeared before the Commission, and stated that traffic conclitions would be aggrevated considerably if subject petition were granted, that the children using sidewalks and streets would be in jeopardy if subject petition were granted because the traffic hazard would be increased. Mr. Tte mas J, Whildon, 1007 Bast North Street, appeared before the Commission, and stated that he had lived in the aie a 8 years, that to grant subject petition would cut the residentiai area in half with manufacturing on both sides of subject residential area, that this then would tend to depreciate the value of properties in this residential area, and that a report to the City Council several months ago indicated an insufficient amount of residential area in Anaheim. Mr. A. B. Van Pile, 1216 Bast La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and stated that he was in favor of the petition, because subject property now did not have curbs and gutters, and that walking in the street to get to a mailbox subjected the people to the possibility of being hurt by passing cars. THB HFARING WAS CLQS:,D. The Commission found and determined the following facts in refer- ence to subject petition: ~ ~ c-~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 921 CONDITIONAL USB - 1. That the propased use is properly one for which a Conditional PBRMIT N0. 235 Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: establish a (Continued) service station. . 2. That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area iia 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 development of the proposed use in { a manner not detrimentaJ, to the particular area nor to the ~ peace, heaith, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim,. ~ 4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the condit3o ns imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use ~vili impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 6. That three persons appeared in opposition to subject petition, one representing 83 neighboring property owners, and one person appeared in favor of subject petition. 7. That the proposed petition would constitute an encrcachment into a residentiai area, and would not be in accordance with the proposed General Plan. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 320, 3eries 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Yermit No. 235 on the bases of the aforemention findings. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: COMM15SIONSRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: CON,MISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONHRS: Alired. Commissioner Camp left the Council Chambers at 5:10 P.M. RBCLA3SIk~ICATiON - PUBLI~ I~ffiAFtING. ALHBRT B. HUGHHS, 8232 Jefferson Street, Anaheim, N0. 61-62-102- California, Owner; THD PISH, 1234 Bast Center Street, Anaheim, Cali:arnia, P.g°n*_; *eqLesting that nroperty described as: A paxcel of Sand 280 feet by 76 feet, with a frontage of 76 feet on the east side of Jefferson Street, the so:::*west corner of said property being 450 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Jefferson Street, and further described as 8232 Jefferson Street be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTIJRAL, ZONB to the R-1, ONH PAMILY RSSID&NTIAL, 20NH. Mr. Ted Pish, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject reciassification was requested simply to conform with the code requirements, since property . 4 I i • .1 _ _ -__---- _ _--- ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COh4~tISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 922 RHCLASSIFICATION - abutting subject property was all a R-1, Single Family Residen- N0. 61-62-y02 tial ~ubdivision filed and approved. (Continued) THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission fv~nd and determined the following facts regarding subject petition: 1. That the petitiones proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-A, Residentiai Agricultural, Zone to the R-1, One Family Residential, Zone, to permit the continued use of subject property as a legal non-conforming use. 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject psoperty and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established through- out the community. 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which wili be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the General Plan. 5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 321, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to annexation to the City of Anaheim. 2. Dedication of fifty (SO) feet from the monumented centerline of Jefferson Street (20 feet existing). 3. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improvements for Jefferson Street subject to the approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Bngineer. 4, payment of $2.00 per front foot for street Sighting purposes on Jefferson Street. 5. Subject to the recordation of Pinal Map of Tract No. 4644. On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYSS: COMMISSIONHRS: Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. pHSBNT: COMNISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp. Commissioner Camp returaed to the Council Chambers at 5:20 P.M. ~ -- _____--__.._..___._._ ...--~..~ _. ._.__..___----__------___ _____ -----•-------- . _._.______ _ __~ . . .. r t i ~ I • ' . z,S ; ~ ~d V , `~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued; 923 RBCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARIPIG. HARRY R. DHITSCHMAN and BVBLYN I. DHITSCI~AlAN, N0. 61-62-103 11231 Haster Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; BOB UNGHR or CHIP CHASIN, 354 Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: A parcel of land 630 feet by 330 feet, with a frontage of 330 feet on the west side of Haster Street, the southeast corn~r of which is 1300 feet north of the northwest corner of Haster Street, and further described as 11231 Haster Street, be reclassified from the R-A, R~SIDBNTTAL AQtICULT[JRAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit IVo. 230. Mr. Bob Unger, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and stated that the petitioner, will pay for curb and gutters and services, tnat a change in elevations of five being noted on the revised plan submitted, and that the height of the buildings will be two-story studio-type apartments, that there are eight inch walis between each apartment, that the living room is located on the first floor with the bedrooms and bath on the second floor, that the carports are along the south side of subject development and will be separated from the abutting property with a block wall, and that there will be two pool and recreation areas. THB HEARING WAS CL0.SSD. The Commission found and determined the foliowing facts regarding subject petition; 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclascification of the above described property from the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone t~ the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to permit the establishment of a planned unit multiple family residen- tial development. 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary or desirable for the orderiy and proper developement of the community. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their p~rmitted uses generally established through- out the community. 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets becavse said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the permitted uses, i.n accordance with the cire~~lation element of the Genera2 Plan. 5. 1Y~atno one appeared in opposition to aubject petition. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 322, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Reclassification No. 61-62-103 be approved subject to the foliowing conditions; . ~~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 924 RBCLASSIFICATION - 1. Developmer_t substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1 N0. 61-62-103 (revised), except as amended herein. CContinued) 2. Dedication of forty-five (45) feet from the monumented centerline of Haster Street (30 feet existing). 3. Preparation of street improvement plans and instaliation of all improvements for Haster Street subject to the approval of the City Hngineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the office of the City Bngineer, 4. Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Haster Street. 5. Payment of Park and Recreation fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit. 6. Subject to the approval of Betition for Conditional Use Permit No, 230. 7. Installation of fire hydrants as required by the City of Anaheim Pire Marshall. 8. Provision of trash storage ar.eas as determined by the Depart- ment of Public Works, Sanii;ation Division, and which are adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wall prior to Final Building Inspection. 9. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7. 10. Completion of the interior walls of the proposed carports with stucco, installation of proper bumper guards to protect the interior walls from 3amage, and the installation of enclosed storage cabinets in the carport areas. il. Installation of landscaping in the parkway portion of the Haster Street right-of-way, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Pa~k,vay Maintenance, and said landscaping to be instalied prior to Pinal Building Inspection. ' 12. Development of subject property with a minimum of five different elevations, subject to the approval of the Archi- tectural Control Committee, provided that the three buildings fronting on Haster Street, shall be constructed with three different elevations. The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to 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: AYBS: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. --~4 -- ~ ----~--- -. . . ~.. . . . . _.. _ _ _ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Cont.iitued; 925 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HBARING. HARRY R. DBITSCHMAN and BVBI.YN I. DBITSCHI~WN, PBRMIT N0. 230 11231 Haster Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; BOB UNGBR or CHIP CHASIN 354 Orangewood Rvenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the CONSIRUCTiON OP A MULTIPLB HOUSYNG DHVBLOPMHNT on property described as: A parcel of land 630 feet by 330 feet, with a frontage of 330 feet on the west side of Haster Street, the southeast corner of which is 1300 feet north of the northwest corner of Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 11231 Haster Street. Property presently ciassified R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 61-62-103. Mr. Bob Unger, agent for the petitioners, appeared before thP Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add than what had been stated in the reclassification previously heard. THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding subject petition: • 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional ~ Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a two story planned unit multiple family residential development. 2. That the proposed use will not adverseiy 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 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 Anaheim. • 4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~ 5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an u~c°~~,e burden upon the streets and highways designed and pr n^::ed to carry the traffic in the area. 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Mun~all offered Resolution No. 323, Series 1961-62, - ~ and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissionex Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 230, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1, except as amended herein. 2, Dedication of forty-five (45) feet from the monumented center- line of Haster Street (30 feet existing). 3. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of ali improvements for Haster Street subject to the approval of the City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans -- ....._... --- ,--- - ':~.T . . . . ~ ~ ~.l ~ ~ ~~ MINUTHS, CITY pTANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: ~. 926 CONDITIONAL USB - on file in the office of the City Hngineer. PffitMIT N0. 230 (Continued) 4. Payment of $2.00 per front foot fo~~ street lighting purposes on Haster Street. 5. Payment of a Park and Recreation fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit. 6. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-103. 7. Instailation of fire hydrants as required by the City of Anaheim Pire Marshall. 8. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Depart- ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, and which are adequate in size accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wall prior to Pinai Building Inspection. 9. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accompiishment of Item Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7. 10. Completion of the interior wail of the proposed carports with stucco, installation of proper bumper guards to protect the interior waiis from damage, and the installation of storage cabinets in the carport areas. 11. Installation of landscaping in trie parkway portion of the Haster Street right-of-way. Plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approvai of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance~ and said landscaping to be installed prior to Final Building Inspection. 12. Development of subject praperty with a minimum of five ' different elevations, subject to the approval of the Archi- tectural Control Committee, provided that the three buildings fronting on Haster Street, shali be constrncted with three different elevations. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the folioudng vote: AYHS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Ciavas, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NQHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, RACLASSIFICATI~i - PUBLIC HBARING. IARRY B. MOORB and PATSY P. MOORB, 916 Bast N0. 61~-62-104 Everett, Orange, California, WILLIAM R. ALLHN and GLHNNA 2, ALLBN, 1713 Bast Sycamore Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: q parcel of land 74 feet by 250 feet, with a froniage of 74 feet on the north side of Sycamore Avenue, the southwest corner of said property being 121 feet east of the northeast corner of Century Drive and Sycamore Avenue and fu=thes described :.s 1609 Bast Sycamore Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULT[TRAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, 20NB. ~.~ -r-- ~_...--..,.~ '._~ . . . i 1 i ~ ~ .. . . _.... :. t i ~, _ _ : - _ • - ----=_---" . ..._--------.._..__._.._._-- -__ : ~---- _ -..~_ ---..__._. ~ . Q _~ MINUT&S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 927 RBCLASSIFICATION - Mr. Don iverson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the N0. 61-62-104 Coa~mission, and stated that a R-1, one familq development is to (Continued) the west of subject propert~~, and a R-3, multiple family residen- ~ tiai development abutting *~ the east, that subject development would act as a buffer as••°. to the multiple family devel opment to the east, and that the existing structure would remain on the property to be removed at some future date. The Commission asked why there were no current plans for the removal of the existing structure. Larry Moore, one of the petitioners, stated that existing : structure was being used as income property, that subject peti~~. tioner had previously ~slsed for a variance on subject property which was denied, that existing structure would be painted and cleaned up, and that a loan would be more easily obtained if existing structure were not removed. THE HBARING WAS CLOSfiD. The Commission found and determined the foilowing facts regardinQ subject petition: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the A-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, 2one, to permit the establishment of a tripiex on subject property. 2:: That the proposed reclassification of subject propesty:.is necessary or desirabie for the orderly and proper dPvelopment of the community. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and ~eir permitted uses locally established in ciose proximity to subject property and to the~zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. 4, That the proposed reciassi£ication of.subject property does not require dedication far azxlsiadard improvement of abutting streets because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which are improved to carry the type and quantity of #r~ffic, which will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the Getleral Plan. 5. That no on~ appea=ed in opposition to subject petition. 6. That subject petitioner planned to leave existing structure and garage, that subject property is considered suitable for E~ R-3 development, but that all existing buildings on subject , property should be replaced with a ne.v sitlgle story R-3 con-~ struction. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 324, Seriea 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to recommend to the City Council that Reciassification No. 61-62-104 be denied on the bases of the foFegoing findings. , ; _ ' ::i ~ ~ ~ ' ' i ~: ~ . ,<~)'. V ~ , ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 928 RHCIASSIPICATION - On roll c~.i1. the foregoing resolution was passed by the following N0, 61-62-104 vote: (Continued) AYHS: COdA1ISSIUNSRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mangall, Pebley, Perry, NOBS: COMMISSIONHRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Ailred. Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chambers at 5:25 P.M. RBCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIr I~ARING. C. S. BAUMSTARS, 3427 West Orange Avenue, . N0. 61-62-105 • Anaheim, California, and MANCIL F. BELL, 3434 Wast Orange Avenue, AnaheiN~ California, Owners; H. RALPH LOVSTT and JBRRY A. ~.. PATTBRSON, 4921 Durfee Avenue, Pico Rivera, California, Agents; requesting that property described as; A parcel of land 300 f.eei by 462 feet with a 462 foot frontage on the north cide of Oraage Avenue, subje~Ct praperty being t~he northeast corner of Orange ,~:~d ICnott Avenues, and further d~scribed as 3423-342h West Orange AVen~~e, and 422 South Knott Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, RFSIDBNTItiL AGRICULTURAL, Z01~ to the C-1, AffiIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB. Mr. H. Ralph Lovett, agen: :~~r the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioin and stated that subject property is bounded on the east with an existing apartment development and that subyect property is separated from the said apartment ievelopment by a six (6) foot masonry wall, that on the north a twe:ity (20) foot alley separates subject property from garages abutting said alley, thxt on the northwest corner of Knott Avenue a service station is being constructed, and that if subject n~~operty is zoned C-1, when plans for~subject property are ready, the peti~ioner plans to petition through a Conditional Use Permit to erect a service station. The Commission asked the agent for the petitioner if an economic s;arvey had been made on the subject Fr.operty to see if it woul.d snp~ort subject type of business proposed, to which the agent replied that no survey had baen made which would indicate that the entirP area should be projected, but that a service station would be the most ir.~mediate type of business propo§ed with a m~rket and about one-half of the stores shown on the plot plan. THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioaer Pebley returned to the Council Chambers at 5:43 P,M. The Commission found and determined the foilowing facts regarding subject petition: • 1. That the peti.tioner propases a reclassification of the above described property from the it-A, Residential Agricultural, 2one to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone #o establish a neghboxhood shopping center. 2, That the pro~osed reclassification of subject property is not necessary or 3esixable for the orderly and proper deveiopment of the Community. ' ~ . :. ,~ ~1 ~ ` ~ MINUTS3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 929 RHCLASSIFICATION - 3, That the pronosed recla~aification of subject property does N0. 61-62-105 not properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses (Continued) locally established in close proximity to subject ~broperty and to the zones ~nd their permitted uses generaliy established throughout the community. 4. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition, S. That the proposed shopping center does not conform with the proposed General Plan for the area, that the proposed shopping center~constitutes a premature development in the area, and that no supporting evidence was presented in conjunction with subject petition. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 325, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner i Camp, ;o recommenC to the City Council that Reclassification No. ~ 61-62-105 be disapproved on the bases of the aforemen tioned ; findings. On roll call the foregoing rrsolution was passed by the following vote: , AYBS: COMMISSIONSRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Yone. ABSfiNT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. AESTAINSD: COI~IISSIONBRS: Pebley (because he was absent through most of the hearing of subject petition). RBPORTS AND RBC ENDATIONS - ITBM N0. .l; PLANNING STUDY N0. 45-114-4 Background: The Anaheim City Planning Commission on March 19, 1962, directed ; the Planning Depar~ment to "prepare Planning Study No. 45-114-4 ~ for the ultimate development of the area bounded on the north by South Street, pn tHe west by State College Bbulevard, on the south by Ball Road, and on the east by the proposed Orange ~ Freeway (Route 19) and that said Planning Study be pre'sented at ~ the meeting of April 2, 1962, for Planning Commission consi~er- + ati~t~".~ Ran Grudzinsici, Precise Planner presenied the sfudy. ; ; Subject planning study was postponed on the April 16, 1962, j meeting to be heard on the May 14, 1962 meeting. ~ Said Study was conducted and the results are as follows: i Problem: To determine the optimum development of a section of the City whi^h is experiencing rapid single family housinE growth and which lacks c;•ouate planned shopping center facilities. The determinati~: .•~ptimum 3evelopment will act as a guide for future det•~ ~~ ~ ~ petitions. ' ~ t~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 930 RBPOitTS AND 1. The Study Area has had an agricultural character until the RHCOhA1BNDATIONS - present time. 2, The Study Area is rapidly acquiring a low-density, single family character. 3. Approximately 208 acres or 23% of the niarket service area of a neighborhood shopping center will be used for public purpose; i.e., schools and parks. 4. Time did not allow a highly valid analytical study to be conducted concerning the shopping needs of the future popula- tion. However, the Advance Planning Division has prepared very tentative data which indicates a need for a shopping center within this section of the City. The information prepared by the Advance Planning Division is as follows: a. Ultimate development should provide approximately 2700 dwelling units within the Study Area. b. Assuming an occupancy of 4.2 persons per dwelling unit, the ultimate population for the Study Area is expected io be approximately 11,300 persons. c. 11,300 people will zepresent a base aggregate income ef $22,033,000. It is expected that 20.9% or $4,605.000 of the base wiil be spent on food alane. At $200 per square foot, this will necessitate a food store sales area of 23,024 square feet, Assuming store sales area to be 75'~ of gtoss floor area, 30,700 square feet of gross fioor area will then be needed to~handle the demand for food alone within the Study Area. Using the same base aggregate income, it is expected that 9.2% of the base, or $2,027,000, will be spent on other convenience goods; i,e., drugs, etc. At $100 per square foot of floor space, 20,270 square feet of Eloor space wili then be needed for other convenience goods. Assuming store sales area to be 75~ of the gross flooz area, 27,027 square feet of floor space will be needed for convenience goods other than food. The total amount of floor space needed for all cbnvenience goods is expected to be approximately 57,800 square feet, This amount of convenience goods floor space requires 198,860 square feet of parking area to be of optimum service. A site of 6 acres would be adequate for the expected shopping potential of the Study Area. d. A close examination of the eastern section of the City of Anaheim shows` that the closest shopping center to this area is over a mile distant from a major portion of the whole Study Area. This would indicate that a"neighborhood" shopping center and allied facilities; barber shop, beauty shop, dry cleaner, etc., is warranted. ~ 5. The Stu~y Area is bordered on the west and south by industrial land which provides formidable limits to residential expansion in a westerly or southerly direction. 6. The Study Area is serviced by two primary highways: a. Ball Road in an east-west direction. b. State Coilege Boulevard in a north-south direction. --------- - _ _ .._ _ _.... _. _ _ . __ . _ _____- - ----• - --- . _. _ _--- . , :Y^' ' ~ ~. _ _...._ -_---- , - ~ ~ i . ~ ~ ~ <~ ~ btINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued; 931 RBPQRTS AND - These two arterials intersect at the southern edge of the ~ RBCCYNI~IDNDATIONS Study Area providing adequate transportation for shoppers. i (Continued) ` Conclusions: 1. Single family residential growth will continue and result in a demand for commercial and public facilities, The need for public facilities has been satisfied by land acquisition ~ for proposed schools and parks. The future demand for commercial facilities should be satisfied. 2. If a shopping center is proposed, it shculd be located to fill in the present gap between existin~ shopping centers and in this way provide maximum service to shoppers. i 3. The expected population and density within the Study Area and the distance between existing shopping facilities ~ indicates that a neighborhood type facility can be located within the Study Area and be economically supported. Bvaluation of Aiternatives: ~ 1 On the basis of the aforementioned findings, and conclusions, s three sites were selected for evaluation as proposed neighbor- ~ hood shopping center locations. S ;~ Site 1: The southeast corner of State College Boulevard ; (Placentia Avenue) and Wagner Avenue. ; 3 ~ Site 2; The northeast corner of State Coll~ge Boulevard f (Placentia Avenue) and Wagner Avenue. ' ~ ~ Site 3: The northeast corner of State College Boulevard ~ (Placentia Avenue) and Ball Road. ~ Site 1: ADVANTAGE.; ~ ~ 1. The land area available could adequately hold a ~ neighborhor,d shopping center of up to 10 acres in size. ; 2. The site fs centrally located within ~-e Study Area, i 3, The site is located on a north-south primary highway, State ('ollege Boulevard, : DI~ADVANTAGBS ~ 1. Due to the nxoposed ]ocations of school and park ~ facilities within the Study Area, it is felt that this ~ite would present a vehicular traffic hazard to i pedestrian traffic; i.e., school children. ~ ~ 2. The site is not well located :rom a circulation stand- ~ point; i.e., only served by major highway, ~ Site 2; ADVANTAGES ~ 1 i 1. The land area available could adequately hold a shop- i ping center of up to 9.25 acres in size. ~ ~ 2. The site is centrally located in the Study Ar.ea. ; 3, The site is located on a north-south primary highway, ~ State College Boulevard, i ! ' I _ .__ _.. _.__.. ___._. _ _. _. _ _ _- _ _ _.._ _. _..;-_ ___ _ , _ _._..~.. .---.._..: ~ ~--~ ~ ~: - : .: -__ . __ _._.~.. . _ . t i i ' ~ ;<' Sr :.~ ~ ~ `/ MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING CONA4ISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 932 RHPORTS AND - ~ISADVi ApTpGgg RHCON9dBNDATIONS (Continued) 1. Due to the proposed locations of school and pazk facilitie~ within the Study Area, it is felt that this site would present a vehicular traffic hazard to pedestrian traffic; i,e., school children. 2. The site is not well located from a circulation stand- point; i.e., only served by one major highway. Site 3; ~4DVANTAGHS 1. Land area available is adequate enoug3s to hold a neigh- borhood shopping center of up to 19 acres. 2. This site is well located at the intersection of two primary highways which would provide adequate trans- portion for shoppers, 3. This location fills in the gap in the existing shopping center network in the southaastern section of the City, 4. As the southeast ir.3ustrial area begins to develop, there wiil be an increased need for such services as restaurants, barber shops, beauty shops, dry cleaners, cocktail lounges, and perhaps a r.ecreatinnal type facility such as a bowling a~.~ay. These service facilities covld be very nicely located and allied to Site 2. DISADVANTAGES 1. The site is located at the southern boundary of the area which it will basically serve. Recommen.tations: On the hasis of +he afor.emention findings, conclusions, and evaluatior., it is r~:com:nended that the Study Area descri~~d by Planning SYudy No. 45-114-4 be developed substantially as is indicated on Exhibit No. 3 with a neighborhood shopping center at the northeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard. It is further recommended that the sitc be six (6) acres in size and that ttic shopping center construction plans be subject to review by the Anaheim Planning Commissior. The Commission viewed the various alternatives presented by Mr, Grudzinski. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to accept alternative Plan No. 2, which includes a single tier multiple family development to the north of the projected neighbhorh~-ca shopping center and a two tier multiple family development to the east of subject shopping center as a transitional use between the neighborhood shopping center and the single family residential development to the north and east of subject shopping center. The remainder of subject Study Asaa is projected mainiy for single family ~ . . ... . .._.. .. . . I ~ i _ ._ .-..__-~_ ~ .__..._.. _._... - -----_~__ . . - - _.__ _ _. _. ...__ . _-~ ----- -•------~-~ --+t~ . 1-------- . , . a • -~.- o ~ 1 ' ~ ; .I ;,:. " - ~ .'.,! ~ _ ~ ---._ __._... ' ----_ _ .. . ._ 7 - , - ... . a ~._ \...J ~~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CONIMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: 933 RBP~tTS AND - residential development and corresponding public uses such as RBCOMMBNDATI~TS schools and parks. The total development of subject Study Area was (Con4inued) depicted by Mr. Grudzinski on exhibits which accompanied his presentation. The ea:~.bits are part of the Planning 3tudy File. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. ITBM N0. 2: Clarification of Variance No. 1462, Resolution No. 280 Rotating Investment Inc., c/o Jack "Ja~%" Jacobs, 205 B~st Broads:~ay, Insurance Bxchange Building, Long Beach 2, Califorriia Owners; requesting permission to WAIVB RBAR YARD SBTBACK on certain lots of Tract No, 3777. Subject resolution read a ten (10) foot encroachment, whereas the petitioner asked for a fifteen (15) foot encroachment. Pinding: No. 1 should read "That the petitioner requests a variance ; from the Anaheim Municipai Code: Section 18.24,030 (3) which would i grant a maximum encroachment of fifteen (15) feet in the required rear yards of subject lots." , Condition No. 1 and 2 should read: 1. That the approval of subject petition shall apply to Lot.Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Tract No. 3777 namely where said Sots abut the Riverside Freeway and State Coilege Boulevard right-of-way, provided that the conditions of block wall con- structiun listed as Condition No. Z shall be complied with in order to protect the residential integrity of thesE lots, i• insofar as possible.` 2. Construction of a six (6) foot masonry wall where Lot Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 abut the Riverside Preeway and State College Soulevard right-of-way. CORRB3PONDBNCB - ITBM N0. 1: Orange County Use Variance No. 4944. AND MISCBLLANHOUS The Commission discussed subject petition as being another addi- tion to previous petition which the Commission had recommended for denial. Commissioner Mungail offered a motion to advise the Orange County Planning Commission that subject notice had been received, and that there was "No Comment". Commissioner Chavos seconded the motia• MCTION CARRIBD. ITBM N0. 2; Orange County Use Variance :Ja, 4975 The Commission discussed the rules and City Council policy regard- ing real estate signs on subject variance. Comnissioner Marcoux offered a motion to inform the Orange County Planning Commission the rules set up by the City Council poiicy regarding real estate signs as follows: _._-...__._ . _.,~ .~..___....__..~_. _ . _ __.._._. ._ __..._ _ _. __.... . ____ _.- _.... _..._ . . ---- - ~ ~ _ ~ l . --- _ _. , ~~~ . . _- -- - - ----. -- - ~ . . ---..._~ _ _.. r._.,- ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 2962, Continued: 934 CORR&SPONDBNCS - Policy Na. 501 effective May, 1955. AND ~ MISCBLLANHOUS Subject:. Signs Advertising Sale of Tracts. (Continued) It is the policy of the City Council that for the erection of signs advertising sales of tracts, the following must be done: 1. Size of signs to be ten (10) feet by twenty-five (25) feet. 2. Signs to be at least six (6) feet off ground. 3. Name;'of company to be on sign. ~ 4. Obtaining of permit from the Building Department. 5. Maximum period, six (6) month's duration. 6. Mznimum setback of ten (10) feet from right-of-way line. 7. Signs to be set back twenty-five (25) feet from corner. 8. No sign variance be allowed for tracts outside of the City Limits. 9. Permit fee $25.00 each. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ITEM N0. 3: RBCOhAMBNDATIONS OP VARIANCE N0. 1472. The Commission inquired of the Assistant City.Attorney, Mr. Geisler under what circulnstances the cons'truction of a. motel on subject prbperty had proceeded. Mr. Geisler stated that the construction on subject property constituted an addition to a large motei develop- ment abutting to the west. That said development to the west was approved on a separate petition for variance; that subject petition was filed a~t a later date; that the petitioner requested of the Council an interim approval to proceed on the construction of subject property based on the fact that the establishment of motel units on this property was a compatible use to the area, and it conformed to the approved motel development constructed on the abutting~property to the west; but that the City Council referred the petitioner to the City pttorney's office and the City Manager~s office for solution, that the Building ,7epartment was subsequently reqnested to unofficially inspect the foundation and plumbing, that said inspec- tion was the only one required up to the present step of development; that the construction as observed by the Commissioners on the mcrning af the meeting was being done at the petitioner's own risk there,in conformance with all building codes with the exception no Building Permit was issuerl; and that owing to the directive from the City Manager's office to grant unafficial inspection, the Huilding Department had not placed a stop work order on the construction as oUserved by the Commissioners. Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to request the City Council set for public hearing at •rUeir earliest convenience subject petition for variance, and that during the course of said hearing that all facts revealed to the Planning l;ommission both beiore and after their decision on subject variance be considered. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. _.--- -.~. _ .- ----.. _.._..__..__..._----- ----___ :---_:___._...--:--------- -.~~_.., ~~ r---- • ~--..__....---._ . .. MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 14, 1962, Continued: - There being no more business to transact, Commissioner Perry offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. Meeting adjourned at 6;30 0'Clock P,M. Respectfully submitted,