The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1962/07/09, _ . ._ . .. , ,... .. ;: . . . ~ a v. 1 . . ... . . - ' :~ 4 . , t ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4~ , City Hall Anaheim, California July 9, 1962 REGIJLAR NIHETING OF TFiE ANAHEIM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR_.I~ETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Plannj.ng Conenission was called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESEM. - CHAIRMANs Gauer. COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mascoux, Nfua9a11,• Pebley, Perr.y. ABSENT - C'~u1MxSSIONERSt Hapgood. PRESENT - ZONING COORDINATORs Martin Kreidt. - " ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYt Joseph Geisler. CONaIISSION SECRETARYi Ann Krebs iNVOCATTON - Reverend John Kimball Saville~ pastor of St. Michaels ~~:°.-~opa1 Church, ~ gave the invocation. k PI,EDGE OF - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. - ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - The MinUtes of the meeting of June 25, 1962~ were approved as submitted. MIMITES CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CAR~. G. HAYS, WILLIAM A. HUTTON, JESSEE:N. PERHIIT N0. 254 HAYS, 323 East Ball Road, Anaheim, California, ~wners= JOHN 5....1~Ni, 118 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Ageats..rec{ueating permission to ESTABLIBH A SERVICE STATION on propert.y..descr.ibed.as.: A~square parcel of land 178 feet by 178 feet at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified in the R-A, RESIDEM•IAL.AGRICULTUHAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 25, 1962~ at the request of the petitioners in order to permit them time to submit revised plans. Mr. John M. Kent, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that there still seemed to be a difference of opinion between the Commi.ssion's requ~.ring a block wall on the west boundarv of the ~service station; that +.he..applicant - wished to present to the Commission the need for an openinq in.~he block.wall:to allow circulation of traffic if necessaryy or to allow the F3re Department, in the...ercent._of. aa emergency, to have ingress and egress through the prop~osed opening in the wall~ that walls are normally, required between commercial and residenti.al areas for the protecx.iaa..of.the ad~acent property owr-ers~ that an agreement be±ween the owners of the proposedsez~ci.ce. station and the ovmers of the trailer park ad~acent ta subJect property had.been r.eached; that the owners of the trailer park would net.e~p~se '• the proposed opening as.a aafety factor for the residents in the trailer park, tl~ub complying with the City's fixe.regula- tions~ that the proposed lessee did not object to allowing the.proposed openin.g; that the State Highway Department had taken a portion of the access rood when the fr.eeway vras_con- structed, that because of this the trailer park did not have the usual drixeway.._~.ir.culatinn :' that a trailer park would normally havef and that the trailer park was not the highest.and ' best land use of the property, that because of the high value of the property it would _'~' obviously necessitate using the property for oiher purposes. >?.~- . r~ .~ -1~73- E ~ F A•~.'.:~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ...f~rY v . . Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidty.informed the.Commission that.#he Fire Department examined sub~ect property and felt.it would.be ~esirable tb have some access into the trailer park on the,:northern side of the parke The C'ommission asked the petitioner whether he felt the highest.and best land.use for the trailer park.property would inc2ude a service station near_single family ~nd multiple f2mily deveIopmentst that if this were true the Commissioa usually requiiwd.at ieas# a forty- two inch biack wali between commercial ancl residential properties to prevent oars from intruding into..and from the abutting property; that any trailer'park shouid be comp~etely encTnseds that if the proposed opening were to be alloxed, perhaps at a later date when the trail~r park area was later utilized for a higher and better use.said opening:mig2~t be a detriment .to this later proposed useT that the wall was considered not only as a-protection to the abutting owners, but to children living in that goneral vicinity of the trailer parkf that the proposed entrance through the servi'ce station, if granted9 might later psesent a problem to the City if ttie the trailer park area would eventually bR used for any other purpose9 and ttius.create a detrimentg and that to provide•the,access road into the trailer park from the northern side of the park, the frontage and t~vo icrailer spaces.woold.have to be removed in order to'provide this additional requiremento Office.Engineer Art Daw, adyised the Commission that at the time +.he petitioh came in,the proposod use was analyz~d,by the Engineering Department and a 95=foot curb seturn radius and a five foot offset from the BCR to cover the driveway was deteimined as necessary; that upon review of this BCR the Engineering Department recommended that a~raiver of the 35-foot return could then be x'educed to 25-foot curb return but the #ive foot..effset`'would remain the same; the applicant then requested further consider3on of this~'and..the tPaffic engineer then reviewed this and recommended a further reduction af .the.'fiats.foot~offsat to three feet, and.that the trafftc engineor felt this three fe.et:should be maintafned for the provisiop of signaq lights,~ street signs, etc, to be installed later~ The Commission stated that the potitioner was requested to briryg in a ca~plete plot plan regarding the circulation of ~the trailer parkq that.the dsawinq presented Mas only an overlay which did not show any ohange and waB quite skatchy as far a~s.the devel- opment was concerned; that the land use was a proper one but the:circula#ion pattern rras not in conformance with the Commission'~ desires, and then asked the petitioner if he.would bring in revised plans as the Commission originally requestedo The petitioner stated that he would prefer to have the Commissioq act on the matter at the current meeting and on the plans as presented. The Commission (See Resolution Book) Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny,the petitiony stating that the plot plans we're contrary to the principals of good planningo Commissioner.Pebley said'.he ~rould sec'ond the.motion, but would reconsider if the petitioner would close the~apening proposed on the west boundary of sub~ect property in order to provi,de a physical.separa- tion betpeen the resider~tial and commercial development proposede Commissioner Cha-vos then withdrew his motione Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noa 391, Series 1962-63~ and moved for its passaqe and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to gran~k P.e.titioa for Conditional Osa Permit No. 254, sub~ect to c'onditions„ (See Resolutfon Bo~k) foreqoing resolution x~as passed by the following votet ~ ~ fJ- ~ ~~ O MINUTES~ CITY.PLANNING COIY~ISSION, July 9, 1962, Continued: 1075 ' ~ RECLASSIFICATION - CDMINOED PUBLIC F~ARING. BENJAMIN DABULIS, et al, 250+4 Urange A~nue, N0. 61-62-111 . Anaheim, Californta, Owner; requesting.that property..descrihed ass A rectangular parcel of Xand 120 fc+et by ~8 f~st yith a frar.taga of ~ 120 feAt on the south side at Orange Avenue. the.nor.theast corner af i said property being 180 feet west of the sovthwest corner of Webster and.lh~ange Avenues, l and further described as 2504 Orange Avenue. frpm the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURR,L, ZONE ~ to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONHo ( Sub~ect pe.tition was filed in con~unction with Conditional Use Permit No. 249. Sub9ect petition was continued from the meeting of June ll, 1962, in order to permit the petitior~er•an opportvnity to submit revised plansd . Nfr. Frank E. Horpel, Jrd, Agent for the petitioners, appeared_before the Commission and stated that due to a preliminary examination and a subsequent disctssion.of the matter, with the Planning.Department, the petitioners have decided to resubmit new plans, that the revised pIans had not been completed, and due to this the petitioners vrould like to have a continuance to the meeting of July 23, 19620 Coimnissioner Alired offered a motion to continue the hearing:of Reclassification No. 61-62-111 until the meeting of Jvly 23, 1962, in order to permit the petitioners additional time to submit revised plot plansa Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL U5E - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo BENJAMIN DABULIS, et al~ 25U4 Orange Avenue, PERMIT. NOe 249 Anaheim, California, Owner, THEODORE Ee PEAR50N, 1855 West ~lm Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agentp requesting permission tn CONSTRUCT p.ON~ STORY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEIdT on property dascribed as~ A r~ctangular parcel of land 120 feet by 348 feet with a frantage of I20 feet on.the.swth:side of Qrange Avenue, the northeast corner of said property being.180 feet xest..of the southwest corner of Webster and Orange Avenues, and further dascribed as 2504 Orange.Avenuee Prop- erty presently classified in the R-A, FtESIDENTIAL.AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. SubJect petition was filed in con~unction with Reclassifi~ation Noe 61-62-111. Subject petition was continued from the a~eeting of June 11, 1962, in order to permit the petitioner an opportunity to submit revised planse Nfr: Frank E. Horpel, Ja, agent for the petitioners, appeared'before the Co~nission and etatecl that he would like to have sub~ect petition heard at the same time as Reclass- ification No. 61-62-i1i. CommisBioner Alired offered a motion to cpntinue the hearing of Conditional.~Use Permit No'e 249 nntil the meeting of July 23, 1962, in order to permit the.peti.tioners to have additional time in which to submit revisecl plot plans in conjunction with Reciass- ification Noa 61~62-111. Commissioner Marcdux seconded the motiono .MOTION CARAIE~. ~ - RECLASSIFICATION - CbNTIMlED PUBLIC HEARING. MR. 8 MRS. JAN~S A. ALLEN, 9562 Harvest N0. 61-62~124 .. LNne, Anaheimy California, Oamers~ FRANK TURLEY or BILL KIS(~N, 9662 Harvest Lana, Anaheim, California, Agentsq.requesting•that property descrilied as: A rectangular percel of land 100.feet plus or_minus by 300 fe~et plus or.minus~ piLh a frontage of l00 feet plus.or minus en the sovth side of BaTl Road~ the.northrrest corner of which is 477 feet plvs or minus east of the'snuth- east corner of BaT1 Road'and Beach Boulevard, and furthex_described.ae.2944 Hfest 8~11 Road, be reclassifie~# from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL,..2QNE tc..the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,.ZONE to permit the construction of trro gtory multiple family resid- enttaT apertments: Subject petition Nas continued from the meeting Af Jilhe 25, 1962, in order.khat the petitioner mfght submit'revised planse No one.~appeared to represent the petitioner.~ and Zoning Coordinator Martirj3~reidt informed the Commission tha~ no revis~d plans had been received by the Planning Department. ~. . ~ i _ ;:' . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 9, 1Q62, Continued: 1076 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Pebiey offered a motion to continae hea ng of..Reclassi- N0. 61-62-124 fication No. 61-62-194 until the meeting of Auqust , 1962 in erder ~~COT1L10U@a~: ~' LO permii zne petiiiioners 5ci~e in~~wi~i~~~ ~O~~atiW i~.ii,~ iv'ria'vu Niai~`ao ' Commfssiorrer Mungall secortded~-the u~oiiorro MUTION CAR?~IED, Crnmnissioner Pebley left-the~Qmincil Chambers~at 2s37 p,m, RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MR, 8 MRSo CECIL Mo LAI~CASTER~..6136.C~een- NOo 61-62-Y25 meadow Road, Lakewood, California•, Jusuke.Oraanus,.Oxange.AYeaue.8t. Stanton Avenve, Aneheim, Californ~ia, O~mer.s;-•JOSEPH..P.....~Fes~u`,...M.-D., 6189 La Palma Avenve, Bvena Park, California, A.genty..req-:esting..that. property described as: A rectanqular parcel of land 615 feet.by 520 feet at.the.noxth- west corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard made up of Parcel Noso-•1,...2, and_.3...he. reclassified from the R-A, RESIDEN'fIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-I, NEIC3~ORHOOD COMNN~RCIAL, ZONE to permit the establishment of commexcial facilities..on subject.propertyo Sub~ect petition was filed in con~unction with Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 260. • Svbject petition rvas continued from the meeting•of June 25, 1962, in•order..to permit the Planning Departm~nt time in which to contact Dro Russell, Health Officer of Orange County, for his consideration and recommendationso Mr. Kenneth I.ae, repre~senting Ura Gleasony 9i4 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and stated that he noted that all the letters reoeived on..suhjeot_pe#iitian did not ind~cate any opposition. but that the County Medical Assocation wanted.time..in which to conduct a survey to determine the actual need for hospital facili.tiesy that from 1958 to 196~, 97Q beds in the general Anaheim area were constructedy that-during-t~a.-last 18 months an additional a14 beds were constructedY that the City vras in need-af.sub~ac.t- development in an area which would econamioaily support the develop~snt4_t2~at.tha petitioner would like to begin,construction as ~oon as possible~ that according to.the lettars.#rom-.. Dr. Rus~ell and the Orange County Medical A«ocation were not in opposition but were pri- marily interested in the economie feasibility for the erection of any hospital.facilities in this area. Dr. Samuel Gendall', 117 N. GTaudina, appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition,. and stafed that he was aopearing as an individuai doctor who knea the haspital needs.in Anaheim; that during the past 16 years he~ had long been interpsted in fiospitals for. the people; and that he would like to have the Coimnisfion cont3nu~ the hearing until Dr. Ru «ell'and the Orange County .Medical A« ocation had completed a stai:istical anaiysis to support the need for ~ub3ec+ proposald Ntr. Robert J. Hammond, 463~ Kingslavm Avenue, Hollyarood, California, appear.ed before the Cortanis~ion and ~tated that sinc9 the last meeting he had isiade furthe~.inv~es.ti-_ gation and had some 'questions on the proposaTe 1- Wouid he be assured that ttie.appliran} would be recauired to construct in all det~ils as presented? 2- That the proposed..plaas_ indicate a separate wall along the west propeity line, and would.this be complied.rrith to guard'property:and Tives?: 3- That the proposed.pians indicate-an ambulance-entxance:.~s+am drange Avenue and he would like to have sirsns limited as the ambulances approach and leave the hospital site.~4 - Were there any limitations covering the treatment of inental patients in the rest home or hospital7 5- With the hospital being constructed on•Orange Avenue would this result in,providing a sewerage facility along this street? • Mr. Ha~mnond further stated that he would like the assurance of the.pe#i~icner.that he woul~l have no objection to future zoning of C-1 property from-his..east property_line to the Flood Cont:ol Channel and north of Orange Avenue on the bases of land locking his property. Assistaqt City Attorney Joe Geisler, informed Mro Hammond that.#he•City.Cod2 required block rvall's to be reinforced every so many feet~that the wall would have ta.pass inspeciion when the"last construction was done'on subJect developmenty and that the City , He~!•no control over phyGical encroachment of thR Flood Control ChanneT. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~, , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~'~'~ MINUTES, CITY P~NNING CONd~lISS.ION,.Juty 9. Y962. Continu~d: RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission discuesed the request of Dr. Russell to continue N0. 61-69-195 subject petition, that the Comaission.rvas to cortsider land uses, (Continued) not economic factorsy inai ine i.I~y Cu~'n~~I ~~.~2d ba hearing subjeat petition within 4 weeks, Nhich would give .Dr..Russell suffi~ient time to obtain the necessary statisti~Cal data on hospital needs.in the County, and that it could be s f3nding that the City.Council.should consider any recoimnendations from Dr. Russell at that time. ~• ~ The Commission found and determ~ned certain facts regarding subject petitiOn< (See Re~olution Book) Cortanissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 392, Series 1962-63, and moved.for its passage and adoption, seconded by Couenissioner.Marcoux, to secomm~end to the City Council that Petition for Reciassification No. b1-62-125 be.approved, subject to conditions. (See Re~olution Book) The conditions as stateTerequisitestouthenuse~of the property in~orderQtonpreserve were found to be a nec~ssary p the safety and welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheimo On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the follawing votes pyES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoinc, Mungall, Perryo NOHS: COMMISSIONERSs Chavoso ABSENTt COMM2SSIONERS: Hapgood, Pebleyo Commissioner Chavos qualified his vote by stating he felt the Comanission should have granted Dr. Rus~ell's request for continuance. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo .NQ2. & MRSn CECIJ. M. LANCASTER, 6136 4een- PER;~IT.NOe ~ meadovr Road, Lakewood, California,.Jusuks Ononue, Orange Avenue at Stanton Avenue, Anaheim,.CalifoTnia,.0amersy Joseph Pa Gleason, b!. D,~ 6189 La Palma Avenuc, Buena Park, California, Agentt.requesting per- mission to ESTABLTSH A HOSPITAL AND CONVALESCENT H01~ on .Parcel Nod l.j and.ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION on Parcel No. 2 on property de'sciibed as:. Parce_ 1 No~ l- An irregularly shaped parcel of land ap~+roximatel.y 450 feet by 620 feet, with a.frontag~s flf 450 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue, the southeast.corner of said.property being 165 feet west of the northwest corner.of Qrange Avenue and..Beach Baulevard;:and Parcel Na.•_2 - A rect- Beach Boulevard.f Pr perty presently classffiedtas R A,hRESIDEN!'IAL AGR~CUL9TURAL,nZONE d ~. Kenneth Lae, aqent for Joseph ~. Gleason, appeared before the-Cormaission, and stated he had nothing furtlier to say to the Couenission for their consideration. ~, Samuel Gendell, appeared_before the CoaeaissiDn, and'stated -he opposed subject petition on the same basis as Reclassification No. 61-6~-125e ~, Robert Hamnond, 4632 Kingswell Avern~e~ Hollywood, California, appeared before the Co~mnission and stated he was in favor of the development as proposedo TFI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Comanission found and determined certafn .facts regarding subject petition. (See Resolution Book) Com~nis~ioner Perry offered &esolution.No. 393, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage'and adoption, seoonded by Commission~SeeuResolution9Book)petition for Conditional U~e Permit No. 260, 'subject to conditions. On roll caTl the foregoing..resolution was passed by the foYlowing vote: AYESt COMMISSION~RS: Allred~ Camp~ Gaqer~ Marcoux, N(nngall~ Perry~ NOESs CONaIISSIONERSs Chavos. • ABSEM: COA9ulISSIONERS: Hapgood, Pebley: ' ' Coimnissioner Chavos qaalified.hi's vote-by steting he felt the Comnission should hava granted Dr. Russell's request for continuance. _ . 3 _ ,,....~ _ i -- ------ - -- --- , . ,---- „ ~:" . . : ;::. ' ~: , :; . _. _. ; ;, . '':: ~:,:~:. _ . . : z-M.-- • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONHuIISSION, July g, 195?., Continued: ~~ :r ~ ._ `~~.;' I. f~- ~ ~ io~s 'fENfATIVE MAP OF - SUBDIVIDER.: RINI~A DEVELOPMENi' CORPORATION, 1f16G~ Katella Avenue, TRACT.NO. 4476 . Anaheim, California; ENGTNEERi Voorhgis~Trindle and Nels~n Inco, 13794 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, Californiaa Sub3ect tract is located between Santa Ana River.and Newport Freewey at the north- east :orner of the Intersection of the Newport Freeway and.the Riverside Freeway, and contains 189 proposed R-1, ONE FAMILY RESID$NTIkL, ZONE lotso SubJect tract was continued from the meetings of May 14~ 196?_~ May 28~ 1962 and June 95, 1962 at the request of the petitioner. Zon~qq Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a I~,etter addre~sed to the Crnmnission from the engineer for the developer requesting that Tentative Map of Tract No> 4476 be with- drawn and that the filing fee be waivedo k Upon being questioned by the Commission whether trie Planning Department had F~ recommended the.sequest of waiver of the fi2ing .fee~ Mr. Kreidt stated tha.t the Chairman of the Department af..Public Works suggested that the waiver be requestedp that the devel- , oper was having some problem with the development regarding the proposed.freeway which ~~ prevented the engiireer from completing the tentative mapo € A~sistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Cownission that the Commission s : could only recommend to the City Council that the filing fee be waivedo ` Cc~nis~ioner Mungail offered a motion to recamnend tn the City Councii that ` Tentative Mao of Tract No. ad75 be withdrawn, but that the riling fee shall not.waived ~, when the Tentative Map is resubmitted. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION ~ CAARIE Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chambers at 3:35 pomo E, c TENTATIVE MAP OF - SUBDIVIDER.s NANARCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 1101 South Rebertson Blvd>, ~• TRACT N0. 1454. Room 104, Los Angeles 35, Californiao ENGIN~ERs McDaniel Engineering t` Company, 977 East Lincoln Avenue, Anahefm, California. Sub~ect tract is located near the ~ northea~t corner of the inteiesection of ~uciid Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue and covering ~ approximately 7.2 acres,is proposed for subdivislon into 27 R-1 lotso f Mr. A. R. McDaniel, representing the engineer~ appeared before the Commission, and sta~ed he had nothing further to add for the Commission`s considerationo ~; The Commission determined from the engineer that the f~ontage on Euclid Avenue would be improved. 'F: . Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to recorcanend to the City Council that , Tentative Map of Tract No> 1454 be approv~ed, subject to the following condi.tionsx lo Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision that each subdivision thereof, shall be submitted in tentative form for approval< 2. Dedication and impr wements of Euclid Street in front of "NOT A PARTa" Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono N10'fI013 CARRTEDa VARIANCE N0. 14Q7 - PUBLIC HEARINGo THEODORE Jo PIETROK, 905 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, Cal3fornia, (Avner~ requesting permission to WAIVE S.INQ.E STORY HEIGHT LIMTTATION on property described as:• An t-shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 75 feet on the south side of Vermont Street, 1~8 feet plus or minus west of Lemon Avenue and.60 feet plus or minus on the west side of Lemon Street Q5 feet,south of Vermont Avenue,.and further described as 208 West Bermont Avenuee Property presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLE FAMSLY RESIDEM IAL~ ZONEe -~-;. . - ---------~:. ~. _ .. ,. . . ~~ --- -- MINUTES, CI'fY PLANNING COMMISSION, 7uly Q, 1Q69,, Continueds 1Q7o V RIANCE ?10. i'447 - 10r. Kenneth Lae, Q1'4 West.Lincoln Avenue, agent for the petitioner, •.~Continued , ~,_ appeared before the.Coimnission, an3.stated that sub3ect property ~-as ~ rezoned to R-3, Multiple..Family Residential', Zone from the R-A, ~~ Residential Agricultural, 2otie in December 1934y' that construction on ~ the development Mas not pursned until Nk+rch 7, 1962t tt~at'on Apri,'1 13, 1962y a building permit was issnedi that upon c~mpletion of the first phase of the constrvction.and Upon inspection a"sttfp work" order.was issued becav'se it was noted that the Code.requirement of single stoxy construction was be~.ng violatedi and tha't`a permit had been issued on plans which indicated tNO sterv construction. Mr. Lae then submitted;a petition signed by 41 individuals who clid not oppose subject petition. _ Zoning Coordinat~•r Martin Kreidt, informed the Co~mnissi'on that plans had been submitted to the BuiTding Department which in turn rVere checked by the Planning Depart- mentt that after the permit xas issued and the first inspection made, the error aras noted in the proposed two-story construction in an area within 150'feet of a single family home. Mr. Orlo E. Fast, 407 Sout;~ Lemon, appeared before the Commission and stated that he opposed sub~ect petition, that his pr~perty abuts to'the south subject property within only 50 feet of the proposed structuret that any two- story structures referred to by the petitioner have been in the area for a number of years and most of them are located to the rear of the lots, and that he ~ould like to see all homes on Lemon and Vermont Streets in this area remain single story to p.resent a better appearance and allow privacy to the ad~acent homes now single story. . Mrs. George E. Beals, ?95 West Vermont Avenue, appeared before the Commission. and stated that she opposed sub3ect petition because she felt the petitioner should comply rvith Code requirementst that by granting sub3ect petition it would create more conqestion to an already conjested areaf and that the City should keep outlying areas from decl.ining by stabilixing requirements for residential use. Three letters of opposition to sub~ect petition and a petition signed by 34 adjacent and neighboring property owners opposing sub~ect petition;and a petition signed by 41 persons favc.ring subject petition was read to the Commissione THE FiEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commis=ion found and determined c~~tain facts regarding sub~ec'c petitione (see Resolution Book) , Commis~ioner Allred offered Resolution,No. 3Q4, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passaqe and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Variance No. 14Q7 based on findings as recorded in the Resolution.Book.. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perrye NOES: CONWiISSIONERSs None. ABSENTi COA~uIISSI0NER5: Hapgood. VARIANCE N0. 15Q1 - PUBLIC FiEARING. GEOR(£ Ai MARTIN, 1266 East Will rn-, Anaheim, California, Owner~ requesting permission to WASVH REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREII~NT on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 62 feet on the south side of Willow Street, depth of I00 feet, the northwest corner of said property being approximately 500.feet east of the southeast corner of Santa Ana Street and Dawn Street, and further described as 12!i6 East Willow Street. Property presently classified as R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDEt~'fIAL, ZONE. Ntr. George A., Martin, the petitioner, appeared before the.Commission and stated he had nothing further to say to the Coannissian for their consideration. THE HEARING WAS CLOSHD. Upon inquiry, the Commission was informed that the roof on the rear of sub3ect property will be the samq but the roof for the present patio which will be conver+.,Ad would be a rock roof. Co~mnissioner Pebley left the Council Chambers at 4:05 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ • ~ • ' ~ ~ ~~.h !. ' ! ~ ~ • V O MIMITES, CITY Pr,ANNING COIu9NISSION, July 9, 1962, Cor~tinued: 1080 VARIANCE NQ. 1501 - The Co~ission found and determined certain facts regarding sub~ect (Con~inue'd) : petition. (See Resolution Book) Commissioner Camp offered Re~olntion No. 3Q5, Series 195?-53, and moved for i#s passage and adoption, seconded by Conenissioner Perry to grant Petition for Vari3nce No: 1501, snb~ect to conditions. (See Resolutiott Book) . On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasced by the following vote: AYESi COMMISSIpNERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Nfarcoux, Mungall, Perry. NOESr COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs CONA~IISSIONERS: Hapgood, Pebley. VARIANCE N0. 15b2 ,- PUBLIC HEARING~ WILLIAM J. GIEHL, 4Q5 Syracuse Street, Anaheim, California, Owner! requesting permission to WAI116 REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 70 feet on the rvest side of Syracuse Street, a depth of 104•feet plu~ or minus, the southeast corner of said property being 285 feet plus or minus, north of the northwest corner of Monroe AvenUe and Syracuse Street, and further described as 4~5 Syracuse Street, Property presently classifted as $-1,•OA1~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. ~ Mr. William Giehl, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and.stated that with a growing family he found it necessary to enlarge his home> Mr. Andre~r G. Watson, 4~4 Colgate Street, appeared before the Couenission, and. stated he was opposed to subject petition because it would interfere with cross venti- lation since subfect property abutted.his property, that if the petitioner needed additional space there were homes in the cul-de-sac street at the time the tract a-as built which would suit his needs, and that the proposed addition would be a detriment to his property. A letier in opposition to subject patitfon was read to the Comoaission, and a notice returned with no opposition pehned thereto, was read to the Commissione TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that on the morning inspection that sub~act.propexty had ample space in the rear yard for sub3ect addition, that although waiver of the required rear yaxd requirement was not a max•ginal petition, there did exist sufficient space far a rear yard. The Commission found and determined certain facts reqardinq sub~ect petition> (See Resolution Book) Commissianer Marcoux offered Resolution Noe 409, Series 1962-63, and maved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Ccmmissioner Allred, to qrant Petition.for Var- iance No. 1502, sub~ect to conditionso (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs CONQutISSIONERSs Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muttgall, Perry. NOESe COA9~AISSIOIVERS: None. ABSEMr CO~M,IISSIONERSe Hapgood, Pebley~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING.COMMISSION, July 9, 1962, Continuedt 1081 ~ VARIANGE N0. 1503 - PUBLIC HEARINGa LEON M. 8 MARJORIE C. WINGFIELP,, 2525 (~amercy.Av$nue, Anaheim, California, Ormers~ ADD-A-ROOM CONSTE~ciCTION CORPORATION, 1777 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting-permissicn ~ to WAIVE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT on property described as: A rectangi~lar parcel.of. ~ land with a 60 foot frontage on the north side of Gra~nercy Avenue, and a depth of 100.feet, the southeast corner of said property being 62 feet plvs or minus, aast of the n~rthaest. corner of Gramercy Avenue and Hampton Street, and further described as 2525 Gramercy i Avenueo Property presently classified as R-1, ONE FAAdZLY RESIDENLTIAL, ZONE. ' No one appeared before the Co~mn~ssion to represent the petitionera THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and determined certain facts regarding sub3ect petitiane (See Resolution Book) . , Commissioner Mungall offered Resolutitm No. 396, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Connnissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance Nor 1503 sub~ect to certain condit5.onso (See Resolution•Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by~ the follow3ng vote: A1lE5s COMMISSIOIVHRSi Allred,,Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcovx, Mungall, Perrye NOES: COMMSSSIONERS: NONEo ABSENT: CON~NISSIONERS: Hapgood, Pebleyo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGaCAROLINA P. GRIFFITH, 30 5rreetwater Road,.Portuguese PERMIT NOe 262 Bend, California, ONmerp To Sa BRUNDAGE, 1540 Santa Fee Avenue, Long. Beach, California, Agent: requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land 170 feet plus or minus by 173 feet plus or minus at the southxest corner of. La. Palma Avenue and State College Boulevarde Proper~y presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mro R; Co Runyon, Sro, 529 Concorc] Place, agent for the petitioner, appeared. before the Co~mnission ahd stated that he had nothing fvrther to say foi the_Commission's consideration, but that he would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might hav,e o Upon being questioned by the Crnmnission as to the plans for iaiproving the area to the rear of subject propArty, the petitioner ~stated that dUe to the fact that the property ~as undeveloped to the of subject property he found it difficult to meet the grade at a later date~.that because the petitioner did not havo permission to.drain onto the rear property they would have to drain to La Palmag and~tha~ if.sub~e~t property aere raised it might interfere rvith the development'of property abutting sub3ect property, although the petitioner was willing to pave the entire propartyo The Cotmnission d!:scussed the possibility of an unsightly xeed patch forming at the rear of sub~ect prcperty~ and that if draining were done by the.abutting property it would have to have the same level of grao~ end drain onto La Palma Avenuee TF~ IiEARING WAS CLOSED. The Cenonission found and determined certain facts regarding sub~ect pe#itivne (See Resolution Book) Couonissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 397, Series 1962-63,- and moved for its passage and adoption; seconded by Coimnissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Con- ditional Use Permit Noo 262, sub~ec~t to conditions<(See Resolution Book) , ~3 ~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMN(ISSION, July 9, 1962, Continueds ~o~ CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following wtes PERMIT N0. 262 (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall., Perry. NOESt COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: CONMIISSIONHRSs Hapgood, Pebleyo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo RAYMOND Ce 8 FLORENCE L. TROUTNWN, 816 North Zeyn PERMIT N0. 263 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM P. WEBB, 407 California Bank Building, Anaheim, California, Agents requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT on property described asi A rect- angular parcel of land with a frontage of 50 feet on the west side of Los Angeles Street and a depth of 125 feet, the southeast corner of said property being 229 feet north of the northwest cor~~er of Los Angeles and North Street, and further described as 821 North Los Angele Stre:~to Property presently classifiad as C-2, GENERAL COrNu~RCIAL, ZONEo Mr, Leo Go Webb, agent for the petitioner, sppeared before the Commission aad stated that requested petition was to establish said sales lo~ so that the other twro lots adjacent to subject property might be combined, and that two of,ices would be needed because there wauld be tvro separate operating groupso THE I~ARING WAS CLOSED, The Coimnission found and determined c~rtain facts regarding sub~ect petitione (See Resolution Book) Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution Noo 398, Series 1962-63, and moved for. its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Con- ditional Use Permit Noo 263, subfect to certain conditionso(See Resolution Book.). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavas, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perryo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: blOneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSe Hapgood, Pebleyo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH, 1275 East Broadrray, PERMIT NOo 264 Anaheim, California, Owners~ CHARLES J. HINKLE, JRo, 1921 Lodi Place, Anaheim, California, Ager:t; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO EXISTING CHURCH on property described asi An irrernllar parcel of land at the northeast corner of Broadway and Fahrion Place, rrith a frontage of 210 feet on Broadway and approximately 540 feet on Fahrion Place, and further descxihad as 1275 East Broadway,e Property presently classified as R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, AND R-2, 1W0 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONESo Mro Charles J. Hinkle, Jro•, agent for the petitioner9 appeared before the Commission and.stated he had nothing further to add for the Coimnission's consideratione The Coimnission noted that according to existing buildings there rras sufficient parking facilities, but if the Cownission Nere to consider the future sanctuary xi.th a seating caoacity of 1,000 that said parking requirements wouid be considerabley i~aas than required by code~ that the petitioner was unable to provide any off street parkingt and that if approved, sub~ect ~±etitien would not include the proposed.future.saactuarye TE~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Upon being questionad relative to the possible different styles of arahitecture, tha petitioner stated that the facade vtould be removed fram the existing strUCtvre, and that the artichectvre would be changed at the time of the proposed additione ~ _._-- --- ____ _ _.._~_~__,_._._______ -__ _... . : . - . - ----- __ _.._. _ _ . _ __ ----- . , , . , , , , : _ • , ~:_ . __ .. .. . .._._ . _..._._._~ , _.. ~ . , --- 1 . _ ~~~~~ ~ . t./ ~ ~ ~ • ~~~ ~ ~~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CON9VfISSION, July 9, 1962, Continuedi 1083 CONDITI014AL USE - The Commission found and determined certain facts regarding F=RMIT N0. 264 sub~ect petitiono (See Resolation.Book.) (Continuec~._ Coamnissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 399y Series 1962-63, i and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by~Coaomissioner Camp, to grant Pet- ition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 264, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booka. i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votei ~ , AYES: CON-NISSIONERS~ Allred, Carnp~ Chavos, Gauery Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NOESt COIIM~ISSIONERS: Nonee AHSENTt COIVUNISSIONERSe Hapgood, Pebleyo RECESS Commissioner Alired offered a motion to recess the meeting unti2 7:00 p,m. Commissioner Camp seconded the mo.tiono II~TIO~i CARRIED. RECON ENE Chairman C~sUer reconvened the Anaheim Planning Commission meet~ng at 7:03 p.m. Commissioners Hapgood and Pebley being absente ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HHARINGo MR. B,IuQtS. CALVIN E. PEBLEY, 824 Ramblearood Drive, PERMIT N0. 265 Anaheim, California, Owne~:~J SYDNE`: GROSS, 1656.1 l/entura Boulevard, Encino, California, Agentf requesting permission to CONSTRtICT A • HOSPITAL AND IY,~DICAL CENTER on property described as: An irregular parcel of land with a frontage of 416 feet on the south sicie ~r' Bail Road and a depth of 1122 feet, the northeast corner of said property being 103 feet plus or minus xest. of the southwest corner of Ball Road and 0akhaven Drive, and further described as 3354 Bali Road. Property presently classifiecl as R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mrb Byron MacMillan, 12511 Brookhi~rsty Garden (irove, representing the pet.iti.oner, appeared before the Commission and stated t'hat if the Coinmission ~aere..iateres~e.d..in_.an outsi~a consultant un the hospital needs of the greater Anaheim area, he xould have. said consultant present statisti,cso The CoAaaission indicated'~;~eir interest in any information which might be helpful in rendering a decision on subject petitione Mr.~Sterling W; Angel, hospital consultanty appeared before the Commission' and.. stated that from a survey made from figures'compiled by the Department of Public Health's... survey on the State Pian for Hospitais based on ceneus figures as of July, 1961 for._.the.... greater Ana;eim area indicated that 1061 beds were needed a1loMng 2?~ beds per 1,000 and.pro~ecting for populatfon increase in five yeare and additional 4H0 beds would b~. needed;~that based on the existing, proposed and under construction hospital facilities a.total of 1281 was compiled, which aouYd leave a totai of 280 beds short of the pro- ~ected 5 year need' arid tHat all the information rrould be made available to..the public ' when the survey was completedo • Zqning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, informed the Coamission, that in his lenqthy ~' discussicn with Dr. Russell, Dr. Rirssell'asked that hearing of svbject petition be post- poned for two weeks in order to'make a study of the needs, but .that a letter later received asked for a four week postponemente The Commission inquired of the pbtitioner the usage to which the taro~s'tory addition would be put. The petitioner informe~d the Coimaission that.the two-story.addi- tion would be Used'as a library,~storage purposes and office space•fvr the doctors, but•that the offices wovi;l not be used as consulting rooins for patients or the treat- ment of the patients. Tl~ t1EARING WAS CL05ED. ~ Letters received from the Oranqe County Medical Association, the Orange County Health Department and the Westridge Hrnne 0~mera Assooi8~ion riere raed to the Coamntssion. ~ : r i ~ ~ Y .. . . . .. ,~~::4 •~• ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CObOdISSION~ July 9~'1•9b2y Continueds 1~84 CONDITIONAL U5E - The Cor~missi'on found and determined certain fact's regarding BubJect PERA~IT ft0. 26~ petition. (Sde`Resolnticn Book) „ (Continved) : Co~fssionei 1Narconx offered ~tesolviion ivv. 4uu, Series. iyo2 03, ac,~ moved for its' passage ar~d adopti'onY Be~onded 'by Co~issicnbr Perry~ to grant Petition fcr Conditional Use Pex~nit Noe 265~ sub~ect to cextain conditic+nse (See R~solutiorr Book) ~ ~ On rail call t~he foregoing resolution was passed by the folloerinq vote~ AYES: C010~ISSIONERSI All'red~ Camp~ C~uer, MarCOVxy lrittngally Perrya I NOES~ C01~NISSIaNERSs Chavose ABSEMe Cd1~9NTSSIONERSi Hepgobdr Peb'ley9 s Coeaqissioner Chavas qyalified his wte by statinq that the Co~maission did not ~ give consideration to Dro Russell's request for a conttnvanoe of subfeat petition, ~ ~r ~:! COND~TIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGe STANDARD OIL OF CALIFOE3NIA, 6U5.Weist Oly~e~p.ic.Baulevard, • PERMIT N0. 266 Los Angeles 54, CaYifornia~ Owners~~ FOSTER.B KLEISER, 1550 Yl~st _ Washington Boulevard, Los Ang~les 7~ California; Agentq requesting ' permission to BUILD '[WO (2) 10 FEET BY 25 FEET STEEL BILLBOARDS on '; property described as: An irregular parcel of land at tha southeast carner of Lincoln ; Avenue and Beach Boulevard, with a'200 foot frontage on bot'h streets, and further ; described as 9012 Beach Boulevardb~ Property presently dlassified as C-3, HEAVY COI~RCIAL, ~ ZONE. • r . Mr> David H. Larson, 1800 McMahon Avenue, Long Beach, agent icr..the.pafii'r_ionei, appeared ~ ~~ before the Commission and stdted he vras arware of the problems of signs on.Lincoln Avenuef ~ _ that sub~eot property was located south of Lincoln Avenue~ that the petitionex.planned to ~ erect cantilever signs in order not to interfere Nith the use of-the property~ and that ` advertisittg on the signs would not be limited to'the petitioner's productse Mre Ben Rochelle, 130 South Beach Boulevardy appeared before the Conenission in opposition to subject petition and'stated that the'signs will be well within the proximity of.the 5tandard Oil Company property, but that it would infringe on his property which. was.the American Motei, an auto wash and a business.development imnediately.east nf.-the ~ motel, as well as a group of four unit apertment building's'; that it would.clu#ter`up.his..... development and the area with considerably more'signs than the area warrantsq that the ~ proposed signs would be detrimental to business in the areae ~ THE }iEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission noted'that the City Council had recently requested t~-e City Attox~ey~'s ~ • office to begin preparation of a sign ord3nance't that t~he area in.close proximity to sub- 4: . ject property had an abundance of signsy that the Commission should consider halding the ~ E: sub~ect petition in abeyence until t~e sfgn ordinance ~ad been formalized in order to ~ consider any petitions fo'r sign applicattonso ~ Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petition for CondiLional Use . Permit Noa 2b6, until such time as the City Attorney's office had foimalized an ordinance covering signs in the City 'of Anaheimo Asststant City Attorney Joe Getsler ad'vised the Commission that.considerahle-research-.•-• would be done before any cohcrete recommendations could be presented to the City Council~~ arni.that it would be sometime in September before the ordinance could be finalized. ~ Crnmnissioner Perry then offered a motion to reopen and continue Petition for Conditional Permit No. 266, ~mtil`September 5, Y962 in order to permit the City Attorney's office. ~ time in which to foz^malize an ordinance covering siqns. Commissioner Chaws seconded the motiono MDTION CARRIED. ~.:~ Commissioner Pebley entered the Council Chambexs at T~38 p<mo , ~ ` ~ , - ~ _ . - " ' , . ._.~ ,,..,. ""::.~ ' - ,. -~v~ ... _ . . . ..___~ ____ f ~ ,._ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, JUly 9, 1962y Continuadr 1085 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo 1NRe 8 N~iSo R< D. BOOG$, 17117 Clark, 9eilflower. ~°~~' ~~~- 2~% ~aiiiornia; uwnersq requesiing permission to ~uiv~iiiwT A SEini- PRIVA'I'~ CLUBHOUSE AND POOL on property described as'i Lot Noe 12, Tract Noo 46~2 and furthex described as an irregular parcel of.land with a frontage of 113 feet at the northeast corner of Turin Avenue and Torry Place and also abutting 1102 South Torry Flace.on the southe Property presently classified as R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo Mrse.Ro :.o Boggs, one of the petitioners, appeared..before'the Commission, and stated that the proposed .lubaduse and pool was projected as a sales enducement to sell the 34 lots in the tractq that each property owner would be a 1/34th ovmer of the club- house and poo11 that the home proposed :or the tract would have a minimum s•c~uare foot area of 1,800 feet; that a chain link was p.roposed to provide the mothers an opport~nity to watch the children in the poolp and that each 1/34th share vrould be unencumber.ed by each purchaser in subject propertyo The Comnaission inquired of the petitioner whether the recreation area.would be cc~nplete before the homes wese to be offered for sale, to which the petitioner replied that if the petition was granted construction would begin i~aediately and it would.be cc~pieted before the homes were since this was a sales enducementp that the cost would be $28y000'q that the pool would be unattgnded and that care for the pool nould be a coet borne by the awners of the tracta THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe The Co~mnission discussed removal of the southeriy ten feet of subject property for an easementf that a special waiver should be made for a front yard setback under Code: Sectfon 18,640070; an~ that the proposed clubhouse and swimming pool should be designated for the sole use of ~he property owners of Tract Noo 46120 The Commission found and determined certain facts regarding sub~ect petition, (See Resolution Book) ' Commissioner Pebley left the CoUncil Chambers at 7s55 peme _ Commissioner A7.lred offered Resolution Noo 401, Series 1962-63~ and moved..for. its passage and adoption, secondad by Comonissioner Campy to grant Petition for Con- ditional Us~ Permit No. 267, sub3ect.to conditionsd On roll call the foregofng resolution was passed by the follovring votes AYES: CONMfISSIONERS: Allred, Cam~, Chavos, Gaver, Marcoux, Mungall, Perrye NOESs CODM~ISSIONERSi Noneo ABSENfs COMMISSIONERSs Hapgood, Pebleyo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CARL RAU, 923 West Lincoln Avenve, Anaheim, PERMI'T N0. 268 California, Ownerf r.equesting permission to ESTABL25H A KENNEL FOR DOGS AND CATS on piuporty desoribed asr An irregularly:shaped parcel of land with a fron+.aqp of 1b0 feet on th~- north aide of Anaheim Road and a depth of 360 feet, the southwest cornbr of said property being approximately 1450 feet east of the northeast cvrner of Dowling Avenve and Anaheim Road, and further described as 32'33 East Anaheim Road~ Property presently classified as R-A, R~SIDEMIAL AGRICULTt1RAL, ZONE. Nh~a Carl Rau, the petitioner, appeared before the Coannission and stated .that ths Flood Control Channel cut across the lrnrer southeast portion af sub~ect property which cut down the frontage and made it difficult to sell For TA-1 purposese Mrn R< D. Van Horn, 1901 Bellflower Blvd<, Long Beach, California, the propo'sed o~erator of the kennely appeared before the Commission, and'stated that the six.kennel hous~es proposed would be to the rear of sub~ect propertyY that he and his aife.had raised dPgs professionally for 8 yearst and that the proposed site was the best place for their proposed kennels. C .) ~ C.) ~ ~ `' -- L.J MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 9, 1962, Continued t,1 1086 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission inquired of the petitioner the approximate footage PERMIT N0. 268 of the petitioners property being considered for M-1 zoning, to (Continued) which the petitioner •replied it was 1,300 feet by 330 feetf that the house would remain and the kennel constructed to the rear of sub3ect property abutting the Flood Control Channela Mro Henry Blowsey, 2409 East Anaheim Road, appeared before the Commission in oFNOSition to subject petition, and stated that he felt the proposed use was not in conformance with the proposed M-1, Light Manufacturing zoninga TFiH HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the proposed use as it •related to the M-1 zone use, that the Planning Commission and the City Council had established this area to be developed for M-1 use and that the proposed use was incompatible~ and ad~rised the petitioner to consult the Ptanning Department for suggestions for the proposed uses of subject propertya The Commission found and determined certain facts regaxding subject petition. (See Resolution Book) Commissioner Chavos offered Resoiution Noa 402, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comtnissioner A11red, that Petition for Condi- tional Use Permit Noo 268 be denied on the bases of certain findings (See Resolution Booko On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONPAISSIOIVERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perryo NOES: COMMISSIONERSe Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Pebley9 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WIiL'IHM LYON, 552 Miguel Place, Fullerton, California, PERMIT N0. 269 Ownerp MASON CASE, 1105 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 17, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: A 150 feet square parcel of land with a frotage on the north side of Ball Road, the southeast corner of said property being 150 feet west of the northwest corner of Bali Road,and Gilbert Streeto Property presently classified as C-I, NEi~,FBORH00D COMA~RCIAL, ZONEa Mra B, Bo Quirk, 2072 Flippen Drive, representinq the McDonaid Company, appeared before the Commission, and stated he had nothing further to say for the Commission's consideration, but that he would be glad to answer any questionso The Commission determined from 1:he petitioner that the restaurant would be company owned and operated by salaried employees, and that the company had a five year franchise, on the Harbor Boulevard restauranto Mre Peter W, Hamill, 917 South Bruce Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub~ect petition and read a petition signed by 57 persons living in the general vicinity of subject property, requesting that if subject petition were granted, a six foot block wall along the north side of sub3ect property be erected, that the proposed restaurant be enclosed on three sides to protect the children in the neighbor- hood from excessive and unregulated traffic, to diminish access to the site by small . children, to enhance the beauty of existing property ad3acent to subject property, and to insure separation of the commercial and residential area, Mro Harold Long, 909 South Bruce Street, appeax•ed before the Commission in opposi- tion to sub3ect petition and stated although sub9ect property was zoned commercial, the area would be a hazard to small children if cars were allowed to drive through the vacant property abutting to the nortli and westo ~ ; , V ` ~ MINUTES~ CITY CONDITIONAL U PERMIT NOo 26 ~Continued) { '. from subject use onlyo ; . In rebu that a full t to build subs r which include THE HEA The Com than code req seemed to be The Com (See Resol.uti Commiss passage and a Use Permit Na On roii AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECLASS IF ICA'I N0. 62-63-1 land with a f and a depth c approximately and further c RESIDEMIAL p struct Light Mro Wi] and stated tt would be glac The Con buildings woi would requirE and the park'. with any reg~ THE HEI The Cot (See Resolut'. ':. :`:` :.~:; Commis~ _ its passage ~ Council that (See Resolut: . ~- ----•--°- ~, , ~ t_ . . _. . . . _ . . . _ . ~ : ~ ~~ 1NIi+]ttTES, CTTY PLANNING CONU~ISSION, 7uly 9, 14629 Contim~eds REGLASSIFICATION - The conditions as stated in the Reao~lution Book Nere reeited at the N0.-62-63-1 meetinq and rrere found to be a necessary prereqviaitA.to'the'vse of ~.(Contirrued) . the property in order to preserv¢ the safety and s-~elfare of the .~...,,__ r .__~_,_: • Ciifzens oz cnv va~y va nnatmiow On roll ca21 tl~e foregoing resblvtion rras paased by the foll'o~eing y~ot~t AYES~ COIuGAIS5I0NERS+ Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcotncy Mungall,~ Perrya NOES~ CONGRISSIONERSe Nonee ABSENTs CO1~AulISSIONERS~~ Hapgobd, Pebleyo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I~AKINGo EVEREi~ T. ]]YfAARTINEZ, 1135 North V~est Street~ NO _,§2-63-2 :.• Anaheim, California, Owner~ JOHN Da VOM DER HEIDE, 924'North Euclid Street, A.naheimy CaYifornia, Agent~p requestinq that..property described ase An irregular parcel of land rvith a frontage of 259 feet plus or minus on the ~rest side af Nfest Street and a maximum.depth of 497 feet plus or minuo, the southeast corner of said property being 451 feet.plus oa minns north of tha northwest corner of La Paima and West Streety and further described aa 1135-1145 North West Street be reclassified fram the R~Ay RESID£NTIAL AGRICULTUEtAT., ZOP18 to the R-3~ NNLTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEy in order to construct a multipie femily planned unit develop~ento .. Zoning Coordinator Nfartin Kreidt read a letter from tha egent for the petitioner~ whiah requested a continvance to the meeting of July 23~ 1962 in order thet the.Planning Department might readvertisa the petition to cover al?, prarperties as originally requeated. Coaanissioner Camp offered'a motien to continu¢ public Y~earing 'on Petition for ReclasBification Nod 62-63-2 until the'nteeting of Jnly 23, 2962 as rs~ussted..by-the petitioner~ and to'allow the Planning De~~artment time tn readvertise sublect praperty~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motion., ldOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARINGo JAIY~S Bo KERWIN, 24653 North.Valley, NeKhall, NOo 62-63-3 California, Ormery John Jo Maqrann~ Do Oo, 407.•South Archer Street, Anaheim, California, Agenty requesting that prope.rty described as'+ An irregular parcel of land at the southwest corner of.South Street and S'.ate College Bovlevard, with a 200 foot plus or minus frontage on South Street and 160 feet plus or minus on State Coilege eoulevard, and further described as 1920 East South Street be reclassified frorc the C-l. NEIGE~ORHOOD COI~I~ACIAL, ZONE, (Bestriated) to the C-ly NEIG[~ORHOOD COI~RCIAL, ZONE (Resiricted to Professional,and Medical:Offices) to permit the development of a tvro story medical center with a pharmacya Mrso Elizabeth Mc Carter, 1i12 North Brookhurst, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Couaoission, and stated that the proposed dev'elopment was needed in • the East Anaheim areaT that the architec+nre and a~sthetic.beauty of.the,proposed stru~ture spoke f~, itselft aud that she would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might Y~avea The Comdnission then viewed the plot plans of the proposed medical center, and discussed the original plot plans in reference to property fronting State College Boulevard reclassified under Reclassification Noo 59-60-94 and chAcked-the proposed development with the original conditions as stipulated in the earlier reclassificatione The agent for the petitioner stated that there aas a complete change from'the orginal.,plans filed by the petitioner xhich called for a 70 foot setbackY thet sub~ect plot plans of the building Mere so deeigned that it would alTorr for a coneiderable between the single fami.ly develo{iment to the west and ~sti~ll made maxi~mure use of the land. Mr. Joe Brauer, 1836 Diana AvenUr, appeared before the Commission~.and stated' that he xas not definite~y opposed to the proposed development but rrould like to see the plot plans, and upon viewing the plct plans noted tbat an outlet ~ras`proposed on ~ ~ _..,~ • ~ .... .. . -- "~' • - . ~.._~' ,... ~~.:..._. . . . . . ._._. , .. .._.... ~ . . . . , .: .. . .:. ... _ r_. : , , ; ._ .. ..,. .,.., .. ,:. ,. ,._ ,, .._., . . . . ~ . :~ s<~ ~ < ' ' i ~; ~y=; ~ ~~ ~ ` ~ ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING CONfl1(ISSION, July 9, 1962~ Continaed: ~,pgg RECLASSIFICATION - South Street dira~tly across from the Cliff Anderson home both N0. 62-63-3 of whom were unable to attend the.hearingp tha.t.the Andersons ~ContinuAd) arere'opposed to an entrance or exit on South Street since the ~~iy~i=1 rr,ei6ssiiir,ation approveci stipulated no outiete Mr, Brauer aiso wanted to know whether there woald be any change as to the wall and a landscaping strip as required in the original reclassificationY that if subject petition were allowed would this eventually develop Diana Ayenue into piece- meal cortnnercial development and open up Diana Auenue.for traffic'g and that two-story deeelopment would be the only questionable feature of sub~ect proposale The Coimnission assured Mlr, Brauer that a six foot masonry wall above.gxade level separating the crnmnercial development and the single family.development to the ~rest would be required$ and that the ttvo-stery structure would only be a 650 square foot area at South Street and State College Boulevard, The agent for the petitioner in rebuttal sta.ted that copies of the plot plan were uhown to the people in the ad,joining area and all expressed thely delight in the new proposed use~y that one ob~ection ivas expressed in that ambulance service might stop at the.proposed medical centerp and that the petitioner wished to assure the abutting property owners that no ambulance service patients would be treated at the building, but would be used for offices onlyo Mro Gerald Clewthy, 830 South State College Boulevard, appeared be.fore the Commission and stated that he aras one of the original sic'ners of the previous plot plans, and that he had no ob~ection to the proposed developmen.te: THE I~IEEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission expressed their pleasure in seeing a proposed.dev~elopment which had auch a p2easant appearance for a corner other than a service stationq and that the ner- proposed vse was im,~ch more compatible to the area than that.~rhich ~aas ariginally proposed9 and also to leave property to the south open for future develvpmento ~ The Commission found and determined certain facts xegarding subject petitioho (See Resolution Book) Commissioner Camp offored Resolution Non 405, Series 1962~63, ar.d moved.for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Chavos, to reeo~end tu the City Council that Petition for Reciassification Noe 62-63-3 be approved sub~ect to certain conditionse (See Resolution Book) • The conditions as stated in trie Resolutions Book were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre- serve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheime On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinr,3 wte: .. AYES: CON~(ISSIONERSs Ailred, Camp~ Chavosq Gaverr Marcoux, Mungall~ Perry. NOESZ COMMISSIONERS~ Nonea ABSENT: CONflNISSIONERS: Hepgood, Pebleyo RECLASSIFICATION - PtlBLIC HEARINGo PAUL S. LONG, 606 Marigold, Corona del Mar, NO< 62-63-4 , California, Ownerq Rayco InvestmAnt Cooy Incb, 10502 Alest Katella Avenue, Anaheim~ Californiay Agentp requesting_#hat property described ass A reotangular parcel of land with a frontaqe of .150 f.eet.on the tirest side of Rose Street and a dept~h of 155 feety the woiitheast•corner of said property being 241 feet north of ~he northwest corner of Broadway and~Rose Stre§t,.and further dASCribed as 129, 203, 205 Rase Street be reciassifed from the R-2, 11N0 FAMILY RESIDENT.IAL, ZONE to tha R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEMIAL, 20NE to constrcct vne four-:unit single story apartment building~: on each of the ttiree l~otsa ' Mrd Harry.Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appearetl before.the Commissiony and statad ~hat the pe~titioner planned to improve the ralley'abutting sub~ect prqptlrty as well a's several ad~oining propertieso ~~_.__._._ __._ ._ . --~11 }~, ~ ~:. --- -------~-,- - ` `'. ~ ~ ~; ~,~.: ~E ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ ... . ~ . ' ~ ~ . . ' . MIMTfES, CITY PLAIdNING CO1~iflSSION.; July 9> 19b2y Contintied: • f~.. r•y`? ;. ~ ~ 1V7Q RECLASSIFICATION - The Cortmission noted i,hat garages were proposed as ten foot garages N0. 62-63-4 with a nine foot opening~ that the petitioner should consider_the SContinued) - use of I beams to increase the~sizn2 that it would be possible:to store items in the ~jareges and still leave the cars on the street, which had been the complaint nf propeity ormers in close proximity of other multiple family'dev914ements. ,. THE tffiARING WAS CLOSED. , The Comm~ission discvssed the proposed development and noted tha::.the.lots.comp~ising sub3ect property were substandard in size~ and that tt~e Cortm-ission preferred ta sEe the location of the garage p'laced on the center'Tot to provide easiar access_to.the..gara3es and trash storage areasR and that the trash storage area s~-ovld comprise of one of the proposed garage space to ba locat9d in the center axea which would make it completely enclosed, that a findinq indicate lots to be substandard. . Ths'Coumaission fwnd and determined certain facts regarding subject petition. (See Resolntion Book) • Commissioner Allred offered Resoliitien No. 40.~, Series 1962-63~ and moved for 'its passage and adoptton, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recoimnend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-4 be approved sub~ect to certain conditions: (See ReseTution Book) ' The conditions ~s`stated in the Resolution Book, were recited at the.meeting and were found to be a neces'sary preraquisite to.the use of the prnperty in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheima On roll ca'll the fbregoing resolntion was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: C~NUd'lSSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavosy Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perryo NOES: COIilOiAISSIONERSs ~None. • ABSENf: CONflVfI55I0NERSs Hapgood, Pebley: RECESS: - Commiasioner All'rect offered a motion to recess the meeting..for..ten_minutese Commissicner Camp•seconded the motion. Motion Carried. AFTER - Chairman Gauer reco~nvened the'P13r.ning Com~ission'meeting at 9:59 pome RECESS . REPORTS AND - .TTE~I 1d0. 1 RECONAI~NDA'f IONS Orange Covnty Planning Co~nissioh~Pia'b~.ic.Heaxiag_on the proposed ' amendment to Seetional ~District. ~b[ab. ~19-4-10.~.:Exhibit L loaated on Brookt~uret Street abovt 185'feet seuth of-Cerritos Avenue to rezone from R-1, Single Family Residence District to t~~a RP R~sidelntial Professional District. ' ~ . The proposed change~of zoning rwas presented to the;Planning Co~ission as received from the Countyy by Zoning Cooidinator Martin Kreidt, and vras•thoroughly discussed by the Coi6mtssion~ ; ' ' Commissiontrr ATlred,offered a motiain:to have a rACOmmendation forwarded to the Orange Coimty P1"anning Cowaission:reeo~nding that subject petition be denied 'on the basts t~at„it would constitute an encroachment into.a single..fan-ily residential ;area,• and rrouid,;therefore, be a detriment to the other propesties in .the.areao Coc~missioner Chavos seconded t'he motion. M07ION CARRIED. Courtnissioner Pebley returned to th~ CounciY Chambers at 10:41 p.m. ~ .. . ,•. ~ . .. ,, . . . .R_:~- - - __ . _ _..____-. ------ -- - _.. . - ~~.~,~ r f, . ' :'~ti;` r,' ;.~ . . L ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ " ~ ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~4ulISSION, July 9~ 1962, Continned: • 1~1 . REPORTS AND PLANNING 5TU17Y, N0. :47-122-5 . ' RECAIV91~NDATIONS :(Continupd)•-. Planning Aide Rona2d (~vdzinski prese~ted Planning S.tudy Noo 47-122-5 ~hich coirora~ tha a:sa b;,~«~~: ~~~ 41iC AQOii. by Rfa Vi~~a 8~ree~~, or7 : ~ the north by the Rivers:lde FreeMay, on the east by the Santa Ana ~ Riyer and on the south by Ball Road. Mr: Grudzinski pre'sented ~ ~lumber of overlays + with suggested us~s for the intersection of Rio Vista Street~and:Lincoln Avenuee ; The Commission discussed the presentattvn ahd heard the v3s:rs of interested per- sons in the Council Chambers, as well as the attorney for one of'the petitioners for reclassification of property in general proximity to the area reviewed, and.detex- mined that the proposed freeway`would not appreciatively increase traffic on Lincoln • Avenue and Rio Vista Street, but'would.only serve to alleviate traffic from the streets presently used by empl'oyees in the manufacturinq area n~rth of the Riverside Freeway9 and that the best use for the land covered under subject planning study vrould be for siagle family devel'opment. .Com¢nissioner Mungall offered a motion to recom~nend that the land covered.by Planning Study No. 47-122-5 remain-and be develup'ed 'for sinyle family homes, and that if other uses for said land are desired the Commi•ssion would hear and rule on ea'ch individual petitiono Commissi'oner Mercoux seconded the motion> MOTION CARRIEDe PLANNING STUDY N0.:48-144-4 Planning Aide Ronald Grndzinaki presented Planning Study Noo.48-144-4, which covered the area bounded on the north by Romneya Drive, on the west by Enclid Avenue9. on'the south by La Palma Avenney and on the,east by the single family subdivision in response to a request made by the Planning Commission on June 11, 1962e . The Commission'reviewed the various'overlays of pioposed uses of the proposed erea`and its relation to land uses as proposect~,•and concluded thet the best and.highest. use for"the Tand covered by i:he planning study would be a multiple family.developmente. Commi'ssioner Chaws offered a motion to:..re~odanend tor the City' Council that the. Planning Comnission found.and determined the best and highest vse for.property covered. by P1aMing 5tudy No. 48:144.4 would be P1an TJoo 3 iirhich recommended`multiple..family plannod unit development for subject areae Commissioner Camp seconded the motiona NpTION CARRIED. . • DELIMITAT~ON OF THE DISNEYLAND AREA Planning Director Ric~hard Reese"gresented:a study of the possible land.uses in ' tfie D3sneylsnd area to the'Commissianb Ssid stuay was reques`ted~by the City Council for the P'lanning Department and the Pianning Commission's recommnendationse . Co~i§sioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 410,.Series 1962-63T and:maved__for its.passage and adoption,.sec'onded by Co~issioner Allred~ that the Disneyland Area, as.delirnited on Exhibit No. l be recommended,to.the.City Council; and that a11 appli- cations for Uses ef land in said area.as delimi'ted on'Exhibit Noe 1-and/or the pre- liminary General P1an sha11 be by Conditional Use Permit'only. On ro11 ca1T the foregoing resolution:was'pas'sed by the foiloMrin'g vote: AYES: C01~1ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gaver,'~Narcoux, l~lungall, Pebley~ Perryo NOES: COII~NISSIONERSt 'None.- . ABSENTs 'CONOu(lSSIONERS:. Hapgood, Y ~... 1 Ri. .. . . . ~ . . . . • ~ . ~ . . . . . ~ .. ~ . . . ' . " ~ . .. . . ~ . . .~ . . . . , . . +tjt?~ u( . ', ... .. , . ~. ~. ,.~.}~ ~ . , . • . .:. . ~ . . . .. . '~ .. . .. . . , ~'...' .. - ~' .. ~ . ~ . . . (`~ ~ ~.~ . . .. .. . ~r':.i ...1 . . .. .. .. . . . ~ _ . ---"~'~e. .. .I-:: , .~ . ..,,.., ), Y:. . }~1, ?,.~:'r - .. ... ~ ' . . '' . . ~ ~~ ~ ~~~, ~ ~ ~,~ --- _.. _ , , ~, ~„~`_~~, . ~__ _"_. . . . ~ . ~ .~ . . . . . .rl. .n,R ~N~ ~ ~ .~. ~ • ~t ~ . .. - ~ . ~ . . ~ . ' ~1~ ' . '~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 9, 19b2, Continued: 109Q '~ r ~ ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0.~5. ~ REGOMNN~~NDATIONS ~~-! : !` .(Continued) •- O~cange County Tentati~e ldap of Tract Nod 4716 loca±ed north ~•. € of Ball Road, east-or" .ine prop'v3&~ FiBv:.eyy 8:~~ ~~~ ~~ ~r. t• , the'north by Wagner Avenue and on the east by Rio Vista Street~4 ~ ~_. ~ said tract consi's'ting of 37<B acreso Orange County Tract Map No. 4716 rras prasented to the Commission with an explanation that it had notbeenreceived in time fc~r the Interdepartmental Conmittee's recommendations'o• Co~nissioner Perry offered a motion to have Tract Noe 471G xeviewed by the Interdepartmental Co~mnittee for their recrnmnendations, and that the recammenda- tions of the Interdepartmental Commi+_tee be referrtld to the Orange County Planning Conmission'in the event tl~e tract r-as continued from the meeting of July 18, 1962, and-that in any case, a report of the Interdepartme~tal'Committee recommendations.he submitted to the Plaiming Coimuission at the meeting`of'July 23, 1962 for review by the Planning Cot~missionr Commissinner Chavos secbnded the mo`tiono~ MOTION CARRIEDe pflEtQDlu~Nf T0 - Planning Director Richard Reese pres~nted to the Co~mnission proposed GEDiERAL PROVISI0N5 changes to the General Provisions of Title Eighteen, Chapter 18.04, Zoning Code which revis~d the parking raquirements in Section is.oaooso (a) and 18ooae030 (b)o ~ Coam-issic~ner Marcouic offered Resolution Nvo.4Cd, Sar3as 2962-53 " and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by.Commissioner Camp, that it.be. ~. recoAenended to.the City Council that an amendiaent of Title Eighteen, Chapt~r 18s04, Zoning Code~ Gen~ral Prmiisions be made in accordance with revisions as set forth by:the Planning Directora (See Resoltiti~on Book) r ~ ~` On roll call the foregoing resolntion vras passed by the foYloriring votet f AYESs CON9NISSIONERSi Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux~.-Mun5a11 ~ . Peb1eY,_ Perryo ; NOES: CONWfl55IONERSs Noneo~ t ~ R ABSENf: CONW(ISSIONERSs Hapgoodo f` pAI~NDN~N?' TO - Planning Director Richard Reese presented to the Commission the propesed " R-1.SEGT.I0~1 changes ta T3tle Eighteen, Chapter 18e24, Zonin Code - R-1, One.Family ~' Residential Zone, amending Section 18.24>030.(2~ Side.Yard; Seation ~ 18.24.030 (3} Rear YardT Sectton 18.240030 ~5) Parking.Areas;-and adding ; ~ 5ection i8o24.Od0 Coverage to the.Anahaim Nhmicipal Cadeo ~ F A discussion w?s heid as to.the Sdvisibility of providing tT~irty-five ~ percent of the existing rAar yard'may be covered by said additinns to the rear yard, ~ ' or to have a forty per cAnt ininimum'yard.areaa Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No,'407, Series 1962-63, and`moved.foi its passage and adoptior., seconded by Comm~issioner Allred,,t'o reco~~nd to the City Council that amendment lie made to the T3t1e Ei hteen Chapter~18.24 Zoning Code.- R-1, One Family Residential zane as pr.esentedo ~See Resoluti'on Book) - .. On roll `caY~l the forA:qoing resolvtion was passed by the : fn~ 1....ing votes AYESs CO1~DIfISSIOIJERSs AYy TMuY ~:amps Chavos,. Gauer, Marcottxs .1Nungall~ . P9bleys Perryo' NOES: COI~IIISSIOIJBRS~ None. ABSENT: CONWflSSIONERSi HaP9ood. • ;_ .;`, _ . . , .., `,, . •, . ..... _~-~-~--•~--~---~ . -'"'_!_., - . , . . l . ,•,: . ~_' -- .. _ - ~ t. ~~ ~' ~~ ~ . . F .. ~ H4~ • • f,t' - {t ... . .~..r ~"::~~ h N).t hl" l ~~~ 1` 5'-0 ~ . ~~, . ~ ~ .. ~ -. f~ `~> . . . . - ~. . ~ ~ - ~ !:'~"%r~`'~' < . . . "'~ +~ ~ . ~ ~ MINUTESy CI1'Y PLANNING CON4u(ISSION, Ju2y 9y~ 1.9fi2, Continued: 1093 CORRESPONDENCE - REPORTS TO THE.PLANNING GOMMISSION AND MISCELLANEOUS Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt requested of .the:Commission:.their pp7_fcy reqa*~3jng .i.gr~~~2nr.o tn ±t,o ~oae*al puhli~ ~.f. the gonnr± tn .±ho Commission as i'ssued by the Tnterdepartment'aI' Coioiaittee and the Planning Department~ due to an unusual demana ior copies of this reporte A'fter considerable discussion,-'and after raceiving a legal opinion.from Assis.tant~. City Attorney Jae Geisler regarding'withholding•said recommendations from the general public ~the Coioamission arrived at a decisiono Co~issioner Perry.offexed a motion to permit the general public vieMi all reaommendations as;made to the Commission in tbe Report to the Planning Comon3ssion in the Planning Departmentn Commissioner Chavos seconded .the.:mationo M0i.I0N CAREIED. DEADLINE FOR REVISED PLANS ~ Zon.ing- Cooxdinatox.~Nla'rtin..Kreidt~ advised tha Co~mission t3~at the Planning. ~epartment .- _rrauld like to. :recommend ;to the' Coimnission that tkie Co~maission's ~clicy; iegar~iing. submissian is;.revised plans:.for.r.eview by the-Planning Depart~nent be changed #rom.5s0.0.p;m, the Mond`ay before the Commission meeting to 9s00 aomo on the Monday preceding the Coirenission °' meBtl.ng o . C'ommissioner Chavos offered a mc..ion that it be the policy of the Pianning Coamaission to requii~e revised plans as requested of a petitioner for the Commission's consideration be received in the Planning Department no later than 9i:00 aemo the_Monday pre~eding'the Coumiission.meetingo` Cownissionex Allxed seconded the.motiono MO'fION ~ Cp.i2RIED. ~ ~ e 50UTHERN CALIFORNIA.PLANNING CONGRESS. __ ?~ A Yetter:wa5'read to ttie Commission informing them that the 'iouthern California Planning Gongress was holding the July,inee•ting in 1Nhittiere. Commissioners Chavos,• Gaues, Marcbux, Mungall and Perry indicatecL their..intention ~ of attending the meeting, and reques~ed the Commission Secretary make the necessary reservatiens for themo ' :LEGAL OPINION Assistant City Attorney.Joe Geisler requested that.the`minutes.indi~cate.thst the , City Attorney's office had not been consulted regarding the presentatfon of tlie Amendment:'to' the General Pr'oetsittns'i ~Amendment.,to the R-I.Section `of Title 18 or the Delimitation of ~the Disneyland Areae ~ WORK SESSION Cfiairman Gaver asked Planning Directo'r Riehard Reese to scfiedule:a t~ork session ~ ~ -- in.order to adeqiia~ely cover any items which the Commission would have"to'give'.their ~ considered opinion, and Nhich were not t'tems covered'under the.PetStioris in:a:.Public ~ Hearin:ga' . ! . • AA70URNMENT ~ There being no'mbre~ bu'sineBS-•tn:..transacty Commissioner Allred`~of.fered a motion i to.ad~ourn the'meeting. Commi'ssioner Perry seconded the motione! MOTION CARRIEDo , /~?/5 i Meeting adJovrned at ~o'cToc'k ~:M. • ~~ : •::. ;: i Respectfully su~mitted,; ` ' ,,; ANN`iKREBS~:Se retaxy , ` ' Planning Coemnission, .. ;,.~ ~.~; . , , , •. , • ~: ~ , . : : .. , ~ ;:~: - ~~I ,. , . r . . . ~ . .~.. t. . ," `. ~ t':` ....'. _: ". .d..:. _.. , . ,. . . . . ..~.. ~ {