The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1962/11/14\ n ,..:~c~.v~..,~~..,,f ..~:.7~,~' r,°,~1'7"c..d~ ~ ~ oF{: ~r:,w. .. . : Y` - ` !~* - , . . .. .~ ~ ~ ~~ . . i ,- .. ...... ~r.~:x~.. ~ ~ • . . ~~ ry . . ~ +~ x ' . . . ~ -e~ ~ , . City Hali , Anaheim~ California l , Nopember 14, 1962 ~ RHGUTAR MBBTING OP TFB ANAHffiM CITY PIAHIdING CODAdIS8I0N R~[TIAR MHSTING - A Regular meetiag of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order.bq Chairwan Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. p~g~ - CHAIRI~AN: Gauer. COI~9~IISSIOI~EtS: Camp, Chavos~ Marcoux, Mui~gall, pebleq, Perry. AHSBNT; - CO~QdISSIOI~RS: ASZred, Hapgood. pgggg~ - ZONING COCRDINATOR: Ma=tin Yreidt. DBPUTY.ASSISTANT CITS( ATTORNBY Purman Roberta. PIANNING COA9~lISSION SECRBTARY: Aiin ~Breba. INVOCATI~1 - Reverend Stanley J. Herber. pastor of the Free Methodist Church~ gave the Iavocation. • PLBDGH OP. - Commissioner Chavos led the Piedge of Ailegiance Lo the Plag. ALLHGIAIVCB . ApPROVAL OP - The Minutes of the meetiag of October 29. 1962~ were approved as MINUTBS submitted. ~ i RBCIA3SIPICATION - CONTINU'8D PUBLIC FffiARING. MR, and MRS.,JAMEi.4 A, ALLBN~ 9562 I. ~ N0. 61-62-124 Harvest Lane, Anaheim, Califoraia, Owners; PRANK TURLSY or BILL ~ ~ gISGSN, 9562 Harvest Lane, Anaheim, California, Agente; requesting ~ s that property described as: A rectanguiar parcei of land l00 feet ~ ~ plus.or minus by 300 feet plua or minus, with.a frontage of l00 feet plus ar minus on I j the south aide of Ball ~oad, the northweat coraer of which is 477 feet plus or minus i east of the southeast coraer of Bali Road and Beach Boulevard~ and further described as g ` 2944 West Bail Road~ be reclassified from the R:A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULT[TRAL, 20NB to r the R-3, M[JLTIPLE PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ ZONS to permit the consLruction of two story ~ muitiple family reaideatial apartments. ~ 3ubject petition was continued from the meet.~ngs of June 25, July 9~ August 6, ? 3eptember 17~ and October 15, 1962, in o.der to permit the petiSioners time to aubmit s revised plans and to file for a Varianci:. _ Mr. ,james A. Allen, the petitioner,'appeared before the Commission and stated he had noLhiag further to add for the Co~omission's coasideratioa. _ Chairman Gauer iaquired if there was aay one in the Councii Chamber opposiag aubject ~ petitioa, and received no reply. Tf~ HE~~ 3Nr wsS CLOSBD. .~• ~, : The Commiasion reviewed the lateat revised piaas oa sub3ect.petition~and noted that ' ,;;;; , they<conformed with a11 previous requests indicated by the'Cos~ission'for a more '.~.: compiete plot plan. ., ; ~~k i . ti ;; . j*~;, - - 1245 - t~+ q~ L y ~ . . . . . . . ~ . }I`~ZF`~'~~t . . . ~ . : . ~ . . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . . . , . ~ _. . , ~.. ~ . . . . . _ ~ . ~ . .. . . - . . ._ . . - . . . . . ,_ _ i i .. . ~ .. ~ .. ~ . .' - ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ . . . . . , . . . ~ . .... ~ _.. . .~ ., .: ~. .. ,,~ . 5~.~,, . ' ~ . . - . ' . . ?i ~ ... .' . . . . ~ y5 ~x;'~. .,~ ~' u..v ~. -..:. ~: ~~ ~?y .r~, ,~i ~ + e ' ~ 3~ ;i.l ~r '+a r -.vi+ k9fra ~ i':y~< <„{, ~~~~' . „y..;4 ~ ,. ~ y ~, % . ., , . (~.._ .., ,. i., _..i r S N. .. ,~ . ., ~~ , , ._ .1 _ . ~;tc-.. , .~. .'w ._. . .. n. , .a c.M+,.F: ..,._. ..,1... _ ..i .. ._,~~ _.._.....~ .. . ~ ~J r.. ' i M~w:,.'°.{wi. ~..:~f~~Y~'~'i ; ~tru.t~.:k~, -'n.v::'.;'Xi ~`r'~'i`''. u'~~~+r.:e;~,%. ;~ i ~ _ ~i r ~ , ~ :' . ; _ ~ ..,.' .:.. . . ' '~ } . ' . . ' .. . ,. ......, ....~.. .,.... ~C.1't.~,.~~~~~(__ . ~ ' . . v`~U~h~T15'~ .. ~ . R~< , . . . . 5~ r.., ~_l t z . . . ~att . ~ ~ i . ~ . . . . ~. . -.. ~ . . . ' ~ . ~ ' ~ MINUTBS~ CITY PIAHIdING.C01~lISSION, Novemtfer 14, 1962, Contiaued; 1246 I ! a . . ~ I ~' RBCLABSIPICATION - Commisaiones Pebley offered Re@olutioa Na..523, 3eries 1962-63, ~ N0. 61=62-124 and moved for ita:paesage aad adoptioa, aeconded by Commisaioaer i ~~ ~ ~ (Contiaued) • Marcoua~ to recomaend 4o the City Council that Petition for Reciassification No 61-62 124 a ' ; ~ . , . - be pproved sub3ect to conditione. • (See Reaolulion BookJ • i ~ The coaditions as stated ia the Resolutioa Book ~ere~recited at the meeting aad were found to be a necessarq prerequisite~to.the'use oF the property in order to preserve K the safety and ~veifare of the Citizens of the City of Aaaheitn. On roil caii the foregoing resalutioa was passed by the foilowiag vote: AYBS: COMMI3SIONBR3: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, 4 - ~ NOBS: COi~lI33IOI~IDRS: None. ` ABSBNT: COAflyI33I0NERS: Alired~ Hapgood. ,:• _ VARIANCH N0. 1525_ - CONTINUBD PIJBLIC HBARING. JA1~3 ALL•HN, 9562 Harvest Lane, Anaheim, Califoraia, Ormer; PRAIaC 1VRLFy, 9662 Har.veat Laac, ~ . Anaheim,'Califo;aia, Ageat; requestiag permissiori to WAIVB • +? SINGLS 3TQtY HEIGHT LIMITATION oa property described as; A rectangular parcel of iand with a 200 foot frontage.on the sauth side of Ba11 Road, and a depth of 310 feet, the aorthwest corner of said'pioperty being 473 feet east of the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard nad Ba11 Road, and_furtbei described as 2944 WesL Bali Road, property presently classified R:A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL~ ZONB. ~:;bject petition was filed itt corijunction with Reciassification No. 61-62-124. Subject petition was contiaued from the meetiag of October 15, 1952, in order to permit the petitioners sufficient time.to submit revised plot plaas. Mr:,James Alien, the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and atated he had nothing further to add for the Commiasionta eoasiderabion. • ~ . . CkaiaQaa Gauer'inquir~d if anq oae opposed sub3ect petitioa~ and received ao reply. 1HH HBARING WAS CL09BD. _ The,Commiseion noted tha~,the proposed develop~+ent rras bounded-oa the east by a church ' and Neighborhood Comuercial developmeat zoniag on the'south. Commissioner Pebley offered.Resolution'No. 524, Series 1962-6.3, and moved for its paesage.aad adoption, secoaded by Commissioaer Marcoux to grant Petition for Variance ` No. 1525, subject.to cottditioas. (See Resolutiun Boo~ On roii call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the.following vote: AYES: COMNIISSIOPIDRS:~ Camg; Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: COMMISSIQNBR3: None. , - ABS$NT: COI~AlISSIOI~tS: Allred, Hapgood. _ • ~ €t RSCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD pUBI,IC.HBARING.` PLCAIBNH SANDffitSPHLD, 9621 Brookhurst ~ r t f - ' NO 62-63-27 Street Anaheiin California O~vaer R03SRT W,. MAC MAHOd~i~ 560 Cali- ~ ~ 4 w fornia Pederal,3avittgs Bank Builditt '~Cresceu g, t at 8uclid~ Anaheim, ~ ~,~, E,t ~ . CalifoYaia; Ageat;'requesting that property deacribed ase ,i ~ R ~ PARCHL NO 1; A rectanguiar parcel of._.land.with a'S6 foot;froatage oa the aouth''side r -. " ~" + of Orange Avenue, and a.depth of 325 feeL, the-northwest cornei of"said property beiag , ' ' ~ t~~ ~'`~ . 180 feet east of .the southeast:corrier of Oraage a:td~gnott.Avenues. , PARCBL N0. 2: A ' ! ~ ~ ~ . rectangular..parcel:of land with>a 92,foot frontage oa:`the aouth side of Orange~Avenue, ~ ~ a ' and a;depth•of 325 feet,.~,tke no;thweat;corner,of said,;property being 236;feet east of . ~, ~ , the southeast coraer of Orange and Snott Aveauea~ be reclaesified from the R-A, RHBI- ' DENTIAL AGRICULTURpL 201~ N ~ ~t ~~.~ , ; ,.to C-1,, 8IGHB~iHQOD COAMHRCIAL, 20NB; for Parcel No. 1• ~nd R-3, htIJLTIPLB' PAM I L Y R B S I D B N T I A L Z O N B - f o r P a r c l N 2 e ~ ~ $y ~~ ~;~i 1 , , e o , ; t o x paa d preaen t commerciai f,ecil3,ties and;cons+zuct a mn2tfple;famiI;q. planned ynis iieveiopmeat ; ~~~~ ' ~ ti .. . . )~~ ~` ' t yf~ ' _ Y ' r+ ~ ~ `.n ~ i i " tiF~ ~~~'`L+ l` ii ~ ~ } ~' ~: S` ,f t. ~a~ 3~ 1 , ~ } ~ .,: :. _ .. ' ~ ~. . . . . . ~ ' ~1f ~ ~ ~ ~ sNy 1 x " . ,_ . , _ , ~h .; :. , ~~ ,. . . ,... .. . . : ~~~"y'~; ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ 7 '~M ' ' Sr o , ~.. _ . +~e a.~_..,~..'~Sy'y^h ~.u..1.1,,:~1FT+..~.'1J~.,..71a'7vT.a:r..~ ~x:a,. ntf t~c~iFi1 _„~.c~.u-.~,~,.~ot~mm,B , .. . ; G ` ~ , .. ... .ri.,-r.-~ ,..:~,~„ 5 .~',,,~', ~.. ~. ~ ... 124? ~ ~ RBCIASSIPICATION - 3ub3ect petitioa was filed ia conjunction with Conditional Use N0,'62-63=27: Permit No. 306. CContinued) 3ub,~ect petition was continued from the meetings of October 1 and 0ctober 15~. 1962~ in order to allow the petiti~ner time to submit a complete set of plans and elevations for both the R-3 and C-1 request. Mr. Robert W. MacMahon~ agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~iasion and stated that revised plans as requested by the Commission were submitted; and that hia remarks were being addressed for bo4h petitions, Reclassification No. 62-63-27 and _~ Conditional Uae Permit No. 306. Mr. MacMahon further stated that under Conditional Use Permit No. 306~ their request for a cocktail lounge with a restaurant was being withdrawn at this time; and that he ~~; . would submit a letter for the Petition file verifying the statement. ~6~ The Commission inguired of the agent for the petitioner the proposed loeation of [ trash storage areas foz the Mul"ttple Pamily Residential development, at which time Mr. MacMahon then indicated on the plot plans the area; aad that it would provide a ~ - tweatq-four (24) foot coacrete wall with adequate turtt arouad.space being provided in ' the alley of the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial development abutting the Muitiple Familq ' development. ~ Mr. John P. Simpsoa, 3309 Deerwood Drive, appeared in opposition to subject petition ~ and stated that the p;oposed plot plans had several aimiiarities between this proposed deqelopment and the apartments oa Baii Road; that the garages as propoaed at the rear of the property would rarely be used; that cars were parked in the commerciai zone rather than ia the area provided'for them; that the proposed two. story construction would be detrimental to the property owners abutting or in close proximity to sub3ect property; that hardship could be clsimed by the avners of the abuttiag multiple family development to Lhe east who were required to construct a ~ single story development; and that sub,~ect property was within~150 feet of R-A, ~ Res33ential Agricultural property which pre,vented any two~story construction in acc+ordance with the Code. Mr. MacMahon stated that with the extremely deep lots of sub,~ect propeity ~nd ~ multiple family residential developmeat adjoiniag or abutting subject property~ it wotild not be economically feasible t~ construct single story as required by the i Anaheim Muuicipai Code.. ~ The Commiasiott asked Zoning Coordinator"Martin Rreidt, ta seview the Planning Department~s fiadiags on deep lota as they abutted subject property~as well as~ incorporating the study of subject property for future development.. 2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt,`reviewed for the Commission Lhe staff findings which 3ndicated that the precise line of demarcatioa of ihe medium and 1ow density should be drawn on the south of: the propertq line of;subject property; that the area south of sub,ject'property be limited to low denaity developmen~ until euch time as a problem of multiple ownership and difficult lot cuts could be resolved And an orderly and efficient-development could,take place; that although medium density residential developmeat currently existed on.the west side o£ %nott Avenue; the density of the development of the easL side should be limited~and a precise plan of the area should be developed end agreed to by the property owners to insure 'that`the:.development taking place on the frontage, would not Sandlock the rear portions of these properties so as to reader them their development impractical or impossible. ~ It:was noted by the Commiasioa that propertq to the north.of sub,~ect property.had been deaied C-1, Neighborhood Comaercial~-zoniag at a prenioua heariag; that the muitiple fami'ly,developmen,t:'of a portion of subject propertq was compatibie to the area since it abutted an•R-3'development:to the east; and fhat the 'rear portion of aub,3ect prop2r'ty would be utilized for a parking area. Commisaioner Alired entered the Council Chsmber at 2;20 P.~1. - _ I . ~~5n~^~;,'~.fiF~~,`~Lr.°,s;~": ~ .. ~T ti~ t~'i '~ , t ~.fs-I ~ .! .` .~. !'~ ~ ~~~`" i~ ,}, , ~ '~5 .:K e SJP+~'": , ,_, ~ ~. , - ~. ..~,r . d ~tr.._ .i' ~,~,^'~'~.',. .~_.1,>~'!«.~.,~4~.;n~fn }t.__:,1~_LW. ~_ _rrrr:7..~..~ . ~ y{ ~f i'~ y~Y \ L ~ t 4) i~~' ~C. , Jx`.Yj.Ltry.4,".:. Sti~~~7+T'~~Sr ~~. l~j: a~. ~~7;7. . ',.Sy.,~"^}~'.t~5kil~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ' . ~ . [ e i . . Y: ~ .~1 _ ~~~ _ ' . },~R j5 ~x . ' ... . . . ~ .~. .~, 1 N~~ ; . ~ ~. - n`sh~'f•r ~~~ Q . . ~ ' f ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ . ' ~ . . ¢ . ~ . . .. .. ~, . ._.. . . . ~ .. .. .:~ :_ ..~ . ._ .. MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COI~fISSION, November 14~ 1962, Continuede 1247 . . ( ~~ ~ RBCIASSIPICATION - 3ub~ect.petition was filed in con3unction.with Conditional Use ' " N0: 62-63=27 Permit No.:.306. ~ (Coatinued)- . I 3ub3ect petition was coatiaued from the meetings of October 1 and ! ~ +•~ ~ October 15~ 1962, in o;der to allow the petitioaer time to submit a complete set of ~ _ • r plans aad,elevations for'both the R-3 and G-1 regt~e$t, _ ~ I ~ i ,Mr. Robert W. MacMahon~ agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and . • - , stated that revised pians as requested by the Commission were submitted; and that his ~ ~. , remarks were beiag addresaed for both petitiona, Reclassificatioa No. 62-63-2? and ~ ~; Conditionai:Use Permit No. 306. _ . ~ ~ - ' ;, Mr..MacMahon further stated that under Conditional Use Permit No. 306, their request for a cocktail louage with a restauraat was being withdrawn at #his time; and that he ~ ti, would submit a letter for the Petition file verifying the statement. _ ~}; ~, The Commiasion inguired of the agent for the petitioner !he proposed location of trash storage areas.for the MuI'ti'p]e Family Residential development, at tahich time r Mr. MacMahoa then iadicated oa the plot piaas the area; and that it would provide a ~ ``'' tarentq-four (24) foot coacrete waii with adequate turn around space being provided in ~ ' the alley of the C-1,'Neighborhood Commercial development, abutting the Multiple Pamily E `` . development. _ s~" Mr. Joha,P. 3impson, 3309 Deerwood Drive, appeazed in oppositioa to subject petition ` . aad stated that the proposed.piot pians had severai aimiiarities between this _ proposed development and the ~artments on Ball Road;.that the garages as proposed - at the rear of the proper#y would rarely be used; that cars were parked in the . commercial zone rather than in the area prodided for them; that the proposed two . story construction wouid-be detrimental to the property owners abuttiag or in ciose ~ , proximity Lo subject property; that hardahip couid be claimed by the avae=s of the ~ abutting multiple family dedelopment'to the.east who were reqaired to conatruct a ~ eingle_story development; attd that aubject property was withia'i50 feet of R A, ~ " Residential Agricultural:property which prevented any ttvo.story construction in , ~ , accordaace with the Code. i Mr.,'MacMahon stated that with the extremeiy deep iots of sub3ect propertq and j multiple family,resideatial.deyelopmeat adjoining or abuttiag sub;~ect,property, it . ~': ~ would not be economically feasible to construct'single story ae required by the j. Anaheim Muaicipal Code. , t . The Commission.asked Zoning Coor~iaator Martin 8reidt; to review :the Planning i Departmeni~s findings on deep lots as they abutted:aub ~ect property as well as • , ~ ~ iacorporating the_s4udy of subject property for_future developmeat. Zoning Coordinator Martin Breidt, reviewed for the Co~ission the.staff findiags which iadicated that the precise line of demarcatioa of the medium and low density should be drawn on!the south of;the pioperty iine of subject property; that t5e area:south of subject property be limited to low'deasity deyelop~en~ until auch time as a problem of muitipie owaership and difficuit lot cuts could be reeoived 8nd an orderly and efFieieat,development could take place; that although medium'deasity residential development currently,existed on the weat aide of &iott.Aveaue, the density ~ of`the development of the east side should be,limited and a precise plan of the area - ~ should be developed aad agreed to_by the property owners to insure 'that'the_development ~ ~~. taking place on the fron4age, would:not landlock the""rear portioas of these properties ... ..:,: k , so as to.render them their development impractical or imposaible: ~ It was noted by the Commission that property;to the north of subject,property.had beett denied C-1, Neighborhood Commerciai, zoniag at a preqious;hearing; that the muitiple ~ -; , , famiiy development of a portioa of subject propertq was compatibie to the'.area aiace ' , ` ' , it abutted an R-3 development::to the'east; and that:the rear portion of subject ,t i' property would be:utilized for'>a parkiag areai 5 S 7 :, ~,~i J~' ~~ ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ .. ~ ~'. '~.~ , ., . ~. ~ ;':' , ~ , ' . ~ ~'~~ ''Y :rM y ~ Commissioner Ailr.ed entered the Council Chamber at 2:20 P.{d. . .. ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . E ~M ~ rri ~~ s ~a' *M ~ . , .. . . . ~ s .f.M~ ~`k~ . ~ ~ e.~~~ ~ ~~ . . . , ~..- ~, ' . . . ~. ' : . - ~ . . . ~ . ... ' ' . - ~ ~ ~ .-:M d . ' . . . ~ . ~ . . . ~ r h . ' ~ .~ ~. ~ 4 ~ r ~ ~, ~ . , ~ .u~.a:~. J 3 7 `. I ~ ~ ~ h ~.~, 4. 1 ~ ~,v , : qi~H " t'Q tG"' dri . . ,. .~_ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . : ' ~ F ~Y 4Neti~ r~ 4 ~'•LNI I ~': . ~' ~' ' . MY f~ ~' . . „ ~ ~ ,. (~.,~/ ~ ~':k~ r~¢1~i.S~L',y'~"..:. .~.r.x~~~i N.:~.,,~.."':'t~,~~ i'r'~s.(Y~i, tt °~r..:...Y!{~na1~..i.~~ 1,i •`f.~.'.:h~n ~.1.:?.'~:'~ . .FS;~:'4~~1f' '~:~~5'i(~4ti~nil~.:elln~ . 1 .:.~, v t _ 'f~. . „ _..a.~e%.'.~..4! ° . . ..I'. . . .. ~ ~~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMYlISSION, November 14, ~462, Continued: ~ '4ii 1 1248 RBQASSIPICATION - The Commission further discussed the two-story deveiu~,~ent as N0, 62-63-27 proposed on subject property~and noted thatthe'R-3 development to (Continued) the east of subject propertq had been r.equired to develop as one story muYtiple family uaits; and that the same coadition should apply to svbject petition in order to be coasistent with previous rulings by the Commission. Mr. MacMahon stated that he was requesting siagle story waiver in the Coaditional Use Permit in the hope that the Commission would approve this waiver of height limitation; and that if the Commissioa did not approve said height limitation plot plans would require rearrangiag to aome extent. 1F1H HBARING WAS CLOSED. The Commisaion inqaired of Mr. Kreidt whether or not a study had been made of the ases in which the sub,ject pr~perty was located. Mr. Kreidt informed the Commission that the oaly portion of subject property tihat the department was concerned about was the southeriy 20 feet; that it had been determiaed through layouts of the deep lot areas what the uitimate deveiopment of the property couid be; and that a precise plan was not preseated becauae it would aot affect subject property, The Co::aission noted that the land uae as proposed uader aubject petition was proper in the area, but that the Commission felt they could not alluw two story conatruction since the multiple family unit to the east of subject property was required to construct a single story multiple family development. Commissioner Camp offered Resolutioa No. 525, Series 1962-63, and moved for its paasage and adoptioa, secoaded by"Commisaioner Perry to recommend to the Citq Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-27 be approved subject to conditiona. (3ee Resolution Book.) ' The condi~ions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting aad were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the uae of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roli call the foregoing resalution was passed by the foilowing vote; AYBS: CQhAfISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mu:lgall, Pebley, Perry, NORS: C(~A4ISSIONBRS: None. AB3TAIN: COFAlISSIOI~RS: Alired. AB3ENT: CJI~4dIS3I0NBR3: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HHARING. PLORIHNH SANDBRSPBLD, 9621 BrookhUrst PBRMIT N0, 3a6 3treet, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROHffitT MAC MAHON, 360 Cali- fornia Federal Savings Bank BuiYding, Crescent at Euclid, ~naheim, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A RBgTAURpNT, COCKTAIL LOUNGB, and .'3RVICB STATION on property deacribed as: PARCEL NG. 1: A re!c- tangular Qarcel of land with a 56 foot frontage on the south side of Orange Avenue, and a depth of 325 feet, the northwest corner of said property being 180 feet east of the southeast corner of Jrange and Knott Avenues. PARCHL N0. 3: A rectangular parcel of property at the southeast corner of Orange and Rnott Avenues, w:[th a 32S foot frontage on Rnott Avenue, and 180 feet on Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDENTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZGNB. 3ubject petition was filed in conjuaction with Reclassification No. 62-63-27. I ~ ~~~~ , ~_ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COt~4fISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued: 1249 CONDITIONAL USB - Subject petition was contiaued from the meetings of October i~and PBRMIT N0; 306 October 15, 1962, in order that it might be heard with (Continued) Reclassification No. 62-63-27. nir. noberi i.iatMa;.cr,, ~sa~t for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had addressed all his comments with regard to subject petition at the same time he was discussing Reclassification No. 62-63-27. Mr, bfacMahon further stated that the request for a cocktail lounge with a restaurant was being withdrawn from this petition; and that he would submit a letter confirming said withdrawal, Chairman Gauer inquired if there was any one in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply. • THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 526, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 306 £or the service station only, subject to conditions. (See Reso- lution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo::ing vote; AYHS: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Yebley, Perry. NOSS: CCIMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL 'JSH - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. BMPIRB INVBSTMBNTS, 11059 Wrightwood PHRMIT N0. 311 Place, North Hollywood, California, Owners; INTBGRATED INCORPO- RATBD, Attention: W. R. Baker, 7668 Telegraph Road, Los Angeles . 22, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT AN AUTOMOBILH AGBNCY - NHW, USHD, AND SHRVICING on property described as: A rectangular paicei of land with a 300 foot fronta~e on the west side of Los Angeles Street, and a depth of 326 feet, the northeast cor;ier of said property beiag 365 feet south of tYae southwest corner of Vermont Avenue and Los Angeles Street. Property presently classified C-l, NBI~HBORHOOD COMMHRCIAL, ZONB. Mr. William Picker, agent for the petitioner, appeared'before the Commission and stated that revised plans had been submitted for the Commission's approval which were in conformance witb the Commission's recommendations. • The Comm:ssion inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether plot plan pictu~es were as the rendering indicated, and received an affirmative reply, Chairman Gauer inquired whether any one in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition, and received no replq. THB HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Commission the plot plan as presented, notin~ that the plans indicated a 52 foot setback from the future right-of- way line of Los Angeles Street; that the petitioner had indicated that the Neighborhood Commercial facility to the south of subject proper~y would be alig~ed with their proposed development; and that upon field check by the Planning Department, it was determir~a that the overhang of the Neighborhood Commercial development to the south of subject property measured 52 feet from the future right-of-way line of Los Angeles Street. ~~ ~ MINUTH3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. ICreidt a~o reviewed for the Commission the requirements for PBRMIT N0. 311 landscapiag conditioas of Ordinance No. 161~ which indicated a (Coatinued) six (6) foot wide landscaping strip was required. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 527, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to grant PetiYion for Conditional Use Permit No. 311, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roli call the foregoing resolution was ~~assed by the following vote; Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley, Perrv. DIRSCTIVB TO THB - Commissioner Alired offered a motion to direct th~ Planning PIANNING DHPARTMHNT Department to change the preiiminary General Plan map on the west side of the Council Chamber wall'where a strip of gray on the weat side of Los Angeles Street, south of Vermont Avenue to Bail Road Appeared~ be changed to red to indicate the ehanges as incorporated with the granting of Conditionai Use Permit No. 311. Commissioner Maxcoux seconded the moi3on. MOTION CARRIBD. CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUSD PUBLIC I~IDARING. CHIP and NORMA.CHASIN, 1801 Newport PffitMIT NO, 315 Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California~ Owners; JOFIIV A. MAURICB, 1801 Newport Bouleyard, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permission to HSTABLISH A COCICTAIL LOUNGB on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a 269 foot frontage on the south side of Ball Road, aad a depth of 253 feet, the northeast corner of said property being 195 feet west of the southwest corner of Ball Road and Dale Aveaue, and further deacribed as 2820 Ball Road. Propezty presently classified as C-1, NHIGHBQtH00D COI~A~RCIAL, ZONH. Subject petitioa was continued from the meeting of October 29, 1962, in order to ailow the Planning Department sufficient :ime to readvertise subject uae. Mr. Thomas Smith, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and atated that he proposed to serve beer and sandwiches in the cocktail lounge; and that f;a would be glad to answer anq of the Commission's questiom they might have. The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether he planned to serve mixed drink~ or would beer be the oniy type of alcoholic beverage servede , Mr. Smith advised the Commission that as far as he knew beer would be the only thing served. Deputy Assistant City Attorney~Pnrmaa Roberts, advised the Commi.ssion that the "on-sale" of any form of alcoholic beverages was not permissible under the C-1 zone. Zoning Coordinator Martin I{reidt, advised the Commission that the City Council has generally conceited that a variance was not the proper vehicle for filiag a subject use; that a reclassification wouid be spot zoning; and that the conditional use permit was the most conveaienfi method of applying for said cocktaii lounge, Mr. Aoberts further adviaed the Commission that if subject petition were denied, ihat under Code Section 27.930 of the Business ancl Profession's Code the "oa-sale" of beer would aot be allowed; that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board would not grant a. license to a petitioner where the Zone Ordinance did aot allow said operation: Mr. Roberts further stated that if subject petition.were approved,the Alcoholic Beverage Controi Board would abide by the land use zoaing of the area. ~ ~ ~ ~ >; I 3::~1 t~>r- MINU'FBS, CITY PIANNING C(k~AlISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued: 1251 CONDITIONAL USH - Chair~han Gauer inquired if any one in the Council Chamber opposed PHRMIT N0, 315 subject petition, and received tto reply. CCoatiaued) TfiS F~ARING WAS CL03BD. The Commission further reviewed the piot plans and discussed with the agent for the petitioner the prabable use of sub3ect property; that plans as pxesented iadicated a "beer bar"; ' that it did not present any form of a hofbrau type of developmeat; and that iF subject development would ha;re been preaented as a cocktaii lounge with a restaurant for the purpose of aerving meals,1~h~ axea in which subject property aas located would be an appropriate place to locate this 4ype of development, but the pians as presented did not indicate euch.a proposed development. Commissioaer Pebley offered Resolution No. 528,"Seriea 1962-63, and moved for its passage aad adoption aecoaded by Commissioner Ailred to deny Petition for Coaditional Use Permit No. 315 based on fiadings. (3ee Resolution Book.) On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: C0~9~fI3SI01~ffiltS: plired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungall, pebley, Perry. NOB3. COhAlISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. RSQASSIFICATIOPI - PUBLIC HBA1tING. INITIATHD BY 1fiB ANAH$IM CITY PIANNING CObAtI33I0N, N0. 62-63-43 204 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California;•requestiag that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a 124 foot frontage on the south side of Bal2 Road, and a depth of 3b5 feet. the northeast corner of said property beiag 190 feet west of the southwest corner of Nutwood St:reet and Ball Road, and further described as 1916 West Ball Road be reciassified.from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTIJRAL, 20NB to the C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD COF4~1tCIAL, 20I~, (limited to business and professional offices oaly) to permat the interim use of an existing residence for a doctor~s office, and a subsequent removal and replacemeat with business and professional office facilities. Subjeet petition was initiated by ihe Planning Commission at the meetiag heid on October 29, 1962 at which time a variance filed bq Clifton M, and Anne Mae Martin was heard o:n subject property. Mss. Ann3e Mae Martin, one of the petitioners, :.ppeared before the Commission and stated she had nothing further to add for the Commission~s consideration, but would be glad to answer any questions they might have. The Commission reviewed the plot plans as presented by Mr. and Mrs. Martin, which indicated the floor plaa and general use of the existing residence; that the use of the existiag buildiag should be limited as a condition of use; and that some action might be required of the petitioaer regarding the variance iile¢ on the subject property. . . Commissioaer Camp offered Resolution No. 529, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, aeconded by Commissioner Mungall, ta recormaend to the City Coancil that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-43 be approved subject to coaditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~ The conditions as stated in Lhe Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were'found to be a neceasary prerequiaite to the uae of Lhe property ia order to' perserve the safety and welfase of the Citizena of the Citq of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOffi: COhA~fIS3I0NBRS: None. ABSBNT: COhAfISSIONBRS: Hapgood. ~y~ L~ ~ . MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CONMISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued; 1252 VARIANCH N0. 1528 - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. CLIPTON M, aad ANNIB MAB MARTIN, 1916 West Ball Road, Anaaeim, California, Owners; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A DOCT~t'S OFPICH on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a!24 foot frontage on the south side of Ball Road, and a depth of 365 feet, the northeast corner of said property being 190 feet ~vest of the southwest corner of Nutwood Stree4 aad Ball Road, and further described as 1916 West Ball Road. Property presently classified R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICt1LTURAL, ZONH, Subject peti•tion was continued from the meeting of October 29, 1962, in order that the Commission might initiate proceediags for reclassification of subject property, Mrs. Annie Mae Martin, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that she would like to formally withdraw her Petition for Variance No. 1528. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to accept the withdrawal of PetiYioa for Variance No. 1528 as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHiI. YAAIANCB N0. 1530 - PUBLIC F~ARING. RUTH CONGHLLIHRH, 1522 Shateau Avenue, Anaheim, j California, Owner; PAUL LBCHMAN, 160 Guiaida Lane, Anaheim, ' California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A 1W0- STORY BUILDING AND WAIVB PRONT YARD SBTBACK TO PERMIT A TEN (10) POOT PRONT YARD on ' property described as: An irregular parcel of land with an approximate depth of 100 feet, and a frontage of approximately 53 feet on the northwest corner of Jacalene Lane and Casa Grande Avenue, the northwest corner of subject property being approximately 400 feet south of the center~ine of Rateiia Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, Zt~iB. . Mr. Paul Lechman, agent £or the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated , that most of the property in the area where subject propertyy~ras located was z~ned and developed for multiple family two story apartments; that multiple family units to the east were permitted to construct two-story multiple family dwelliags; and that only the two corner lots were required to build single story construction. The Commission noted that if plot plans were approved, garages marked "A" and "B" as curzently located would be difficult to have ingress and egress to said garages due to the fact that the garage designated "B" was located only eleven <11) feet from the frontage of garage "A". Mr. Lechman stated that the complete drive was twenty-five (25) feet in depth which would permit users of garages "A" and "B" to back up and then turn around. ~ Chairman Gauer inquired if any one in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition, and received no reply. ~ 17~IS HBARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commissian inquired of the agent for the petitioner, whether or not he knew if the single family dwellings had been built prior_to the time the apartments were built. Mr. Lechman advised the Commissiun that Che homes had been built before, che apartments. The Commission further inquired whether windows could be eliminated where they faced to~aard the single family development to the west. Mr. Lechman then stated that opaque glass could be substituted for clear panes. V `~ ~ . ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued: 1253 VARIANCB N0. 1530 - Cormnissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 530, Series 1962-63, CContinued) and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1530 subject to conditions, (See Resolution Bool~J an roil caii ti-e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: CQMMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Percy. NQ&S: C(ri1MISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: CObMISSIONSRS: Hapgood. ,~ 1 ~ CONDITIONAL US8 ~ PUBLIC HBARING. LIN-HURST CLUB, a corporation~ 219 North Siesta ~ PERMIT N0. 31.6 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; RALPH SLATON, 302 North j Siesta Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission i to CONSTRUCT PARK AND RHCRBATIONAL PACILITIHS on property described as: A rectangular ~, shaped parcel of land 165 feet by 80 feet, said property adjacent to Lot No. 39 of Tract No, 2625, on the south and haviag an approximate frontage of 34 feet on the north side of Woodly Avenue, and further described as 400 North Siesta Street. Property presently classified R-A, RHSID~iTIAL AQtICUL1URAL, ZONH. ; Mr. Charles H. Kirk, 306 North Siesta Street, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that it took the members of the club two years before this area had been annexed into the City of Anaheim; that subject property had been used as a children*s playground as well as other recreational facilities; that funds had finally been accumulated to construct swimming pooi facilities; and that the nearest residence was seventy-five (75) feet away from the swimming pool which would be shelteredfrom the pool by the bath house and shrubs. The Commission determined through questioning the representative of the agent for the petitioner that members of the club would lx residents of the Tract No. 2625; that the ~se of the swimming facilities and playground would be limited to oembers and their guests only; that the property had been donated by the builder for recreational facilities; that membership in the.club would be limited to twenty (20) families; that the buiider paid for the corporation to be set up bq the property owners of Tract No. 2625; and that the park would be under the supervision of an adult at all times with a certified instructor in swimming to teach all users of the swimming pool facilities to swim. Mr. Kirk further stated that the swimming pool and bath house facilities would be located at the westerly end of subject property; snd that the balance of the area would be used for a playground and picnic recreational facilities. Mr. John Misity, 313 North Siesta Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stiated that the proposed swimming pool would be dangerous and a hazard to the children who had been using the area as a playground for some time; that the gate could be left open even if a chain link fence surrounded the swimming pool; that additional traffic would cause a hardship to the adjacent property owners; that noise, lights and other nuisanc'~s cbuld cccur as late as midaight~which would be injurious to the ~ealth and general welfare of the abutting property owners; that there was an insufficieat number of owners of the tract who wanted the swimming pool; and that 44 persons had petitioned the Commission to deny subject petition and require subject property to remain as a playground and a safe area for'the child~ren, The Commission inquir.ed of Mr. Sirk whether the playgzound area would be available to all the children in the neighborhood as a play area. Mr. Kirk replied that use of the area would be to dues_paying members and their families only. The Commission noted that there were no other playground facilites for the children available in the area; and that Tract No. 2625 had fifty-eight (58) homes in it. ;. _"`."-w •',:~~ ? `~ - `~ . . . . . . se ii~ _ .:_......,...~ `._;: ~. ' ~~ . • { ~i ~~ ` V MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL U~B - Mr. Arnold Gaynor, 219 North 3iesta Street, appeared before the PBRMIT N0. 316 Commission and stated that he wish to present to the Commission (Continued) a petition favoriag the proposed swimming pool and bath house; and that the petition was signed by 32 of the 58 property owners; that the increase,traffic and parking problem would not be a factor aince subject property was located within a short waiking distance of everyone's ~ome; and that membership was to be limited to 20 families,~~g ~f w}iom had already paid their dues. The Commissioner inquired of the petitioner whether the facilities were pla:med for more than 20 families, and Mr, Gaynor replied that the proposed swimming facilities would not accommodate more than 20 families aad their guests~ but that if any tract owner wished to become a member, he would be placed on the list and then would be accepted wheneves an opening oc.:urred. Mr, Gaynor further stated that the proposed use of subject property was part of a "sales pitch"used by the developer of the tract , and that pictures~showing a typical use of this prop~rty~was placed on the wall of the Sales Office for everyene to view. THS HBARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 3:45 P.M, Deputy Assistant City Attorney Purman Roberts, advised the Commission that the members of the club would be required to conform to all pool requirements as specified in Code Section 6.56 of the Anaheim Municipal. The Commission discussed the possible development of the easterly portion of subject property for general recreational purposes of all children in the neighborhood; that construc- tion of the bath house could be made compatible with the homes in the area with both landscapiag and a shake roof for subject property. ' Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 531, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry to grant Petition for Conditional ~Tse Permit No, 316, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CObAfISSIONHRS: Alired, Camp, Gaqer, Marcoux~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COhalI3SI0NBRS: None. ABSHNT: COMMI3SIONHRS: Chavos, Hapgood. CONDITIONAI: US$ - PUBLIC HBARING. DINRLSR MANAGHMBNT CQtPORATION, c% JOHNSON, PffitMIT N0. 318 BATES aad SHBFPIHLD, 727 West Seventh Street, Roosevelt Buildiag, Suite 340, Los Aageles 17, California, Owners; CHARLES BOXENBAUM, 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hilis, California; Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A COPFHH SHOP AND RBSTAURANT OPffi2ATION on property described as; A rectaagular parcel of land, approximately 661 feet by 90 feet, said propexty haviag a 90 foot fron4age on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, the southerly bouudary of subject property being approximately 1,835 feet north of the centerline of Rateila Aveaue. Property presentlq classified R-A, I.ASIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NH. Mr. Irvin %eener, 1902 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Comrrission and presented the Commission a final rendering of the proposed development, and stated that he would be glad tc an~wer any questions the Con~ission°might have. The Commission discussed the setback area as propased on the original plot pian which indicated parking ~n the front. ~ The Commission advised Mr. Seener that the plot g=ans indicated more than the ? minimum number of parking spaces required; that parking should be coafined to the rear of subject property; that by, eliminating the par~iag spaces indicated on the •front of subject property, the development then ~xould be: in accordance with Code ';~ ;., ~.,~.... , _. ....,, ..,_ _- :~~~ _ , . ~ i .. . ~-~ ~ . . • ~ ,. ~. y'rt;:;, - . s ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COA9dIS3I0N, November 14, 1962, Continued: 1255 CONDITIONAL USB - requirements which require a fifty (50) foot setback on Harbor PffitMIT N0. 318 Soulevard; and that additional installation of landscaping (Continued) surrounding the proposed development would then be in order. Chairman Gauer 3nqnired if aay one in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition, and received no replq. 1HB H$ARING WAS CIASBD. Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 3:53 p,M, The Commission discussed the possible viewing from Harbor Boulevard of air-condition- ing equipment and noted on Bxhibit 3, as presented by the agent for the petitioner, that ao air-conditioaing units were visible on the front of subject property. Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt, advised the Commission that a special waiver by finding would be required if the Commission saw fit to waive the required six (6) foot masonry wail abutting R-A property to the south. Coa¢nissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 3:55 P.M. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 532, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, aeconded by Commissioner Mungali, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 318, subject to conditions. (3ee Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AY9S: C01~4dISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebleye NOiBS: COhAlISSIONffitS: None. ABSENT: C01~41ISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Perry. RECBSS - Chairman Gauer moved for a five (5) minute recess, Commissioner Marcoux ~ secunded the motion. MOrt'ION CARRIBD. The Covmission recessed at 4:00 0'Clock P.M. RHCONVBNB - Chairman Gauer reconvene the meeting at 4:12 P.M. All Commissioners but Commissioners Hapgood and Perry being present. CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC F~ARING. GH(YtGB R. McCLAIN, 112 Hast Rosslynn~ Fullerton~ PffitMIT N0. 319 California~ Owner; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A RBTAIL TIRB SBRVICB WITH OFP-STRBBT PARKING, AND NO RBCAPPiNG OPBRATION INTSNDHD on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land approximately 109 feet by 100 feet, said property having an approximatr 100 foot frontage on the east side of Los Angeles Street, the northwest corner of said property being approximately 92 feet south of the centerliae of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 946 North Los Angeles Street. Property presently classified G2, GBNBItAL COhA1BRCIAL, 20NH. ~ Chairman Gauer inquired whether any one was in the Council Chamber to represent the petitioner, and received no response. Chairman Gauer inquired if any one opposed subject petition, and received no reply. TI~ HBARING WAS CLOSHD. ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, November 14~ 1962, Continued: 1256 CONDITIONAL~USH - The Commission noted that subject petition~s requested use was a PBRMIT N0. 319 compatible use for the area~since other properties to the south (Continued) of subject property had been established with other types of autonotive services; and that this portion of Los Aageies Street _ has been constant with the proposed use. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 533, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 319 subject to conditions. (6ee Resoiution Book.) On roli cail the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote; AY83: CObAlI3SIONBRS: Allred, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux~ Muagall~ Pebley. NOBS: COhQ~fISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COhAtI3SI0N8RS: Perry ABSBNT: COhAfISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USH ~~UBLIC HSARING. 1~4tS. ARTH[1R H. tIDhAfffitLINS, et al, 114 Coffman PBRMIT N0. 320 Street, Anaheim, California, Ohmer; LLOYD E. MOUNT, 600 North Suclid Street, Suite 509, An~fheim, California~ Agent= requesting permission to Ii3TABLISH A PIANNBD-UNIT DSVffi.OPh~NT~ WAIVS 2~ STORY R-3 RHQUIRHMHNT, WAIVH 2~ ST(YtY C-1 RBQUTABMHNT~ WAIVH GARAGHS POR CARPORZS, AND WAIVS C~1 DHHD RSSTRICTIONS on praperty described as; p rectangular parcel of land on the west side of Buclid Street extending south from Lincoln Avenue to Broadwaq, with a depth of 610 feet. Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH, and(C-1, NHIGHBQRHOOD COFAIBRC:AL, ZONH, and C-3, HBAVY COMMHRCIAL, ZONB, pending). Mr. Lloyd Mount, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented revised plot plans for their viewing as well as interested parties in the Council Chamber. Mr. Mount further requested contiauanee of subject pesition for two weeks~because plot plans as yiewed by the Commission~were aot complete with elevations siace the new plans were oaly partially completed the morning of the Commission meetiag. Mr. Mount further stated that plot plans indicated a reduction of the pla:med-unit development to one-story on a major portion of the plaaaed~uait development with two story for studio apartments for affect only; that subject development would be ' similar to the Sherwood Riviera development; and that the entire area woaid be land- scaped down the center of the proposed development. The Commission discussed with the ~~h~: for the petitiotter his method of presenting plana to the Commission at the time i heariag; that it was not the policy of the Commissica to accept revised plot plans without their having b~en reviewed by the Davelopment Review Function and the In4erdepartmental Committee members; that the Planning Commission's statement of policy for the receipt of plans was that they be in the Planning Department no later than Monday morning'9:00 A.M, tfie week before the Commission meeting. Purther discussion was~held by the Commission ia reference to the waiver of deed restrictions for us~ of subject property being limited to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial use, and whether it was advisable to permit multiple family developments in the area as proposed. '~~ ~ r I Com.~nissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 320 to the meeting of November 26, 1962, in order to allow the petitioner ; sufficient time to submit complete revised plans ia accordaace with the standard9 as set by the P2anaing Commission in their policy, that only plot plans f.or the multiple famiiy development,and that further readerings,for the proposed 20-story office buildings be submitted at the same time. Commissioner Alired seconded the motion. -- MOTION CARRIBD. . _ / . ~ • ..: ~ ~J U :~ ~ C~ MINUTBS,. CITY PIANNING CQAAiISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued: 1257 ~..\ ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Mount stated that his only desire in reference to the 20-story PBRMIT N0. 320 office building was whether or not the Coamissioa would~approve (Continued) waiver of ti;~ height limitation, and that if such approval were givea~any future plans would be subject to automatic review of the development either through appearance before the Commission or through Development Review Puaction for the Council. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBL.TC FffiARING. MOTEN M, and MAUDH A. DIZNHY, c/o Harry M. P~tMIT N0. 322 HalstEad, 617 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, California, Owners; CHIP CHpSIN, 1801 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A ON8-STORY NURSING AND CONVALHSCENT HOhffi on property described as: A rectaaguiar parcel of land with a 281 foot frontage on the south side of Ball Road, and a depth of 257 feet, the eastern boundr~ry of said property being 719 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2860 Ball Road. Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTpRAL, 20NB. Chairman Gauer inquired if any one was in the Councii Chamber to represent the petitioner, and received ao reply. Mr. U. L. Dauser, 2880 West Bali Road, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was a property owner of the chickea ranch abutting subject property to the weat, and inquired of the Commission if subject petition were approved what would happen to his chicken ranch. Deputy Assistant City Attorney Furman Roberts, quoted from the 2oning Code Chapter 18.16.010 <9-d) in which it is required that any fowl for any pen, coop, stable, barn or corral must be maintained not less than forty (40) feet of any window or door of any restaurants, resideace, dwelling or building used for human inhabitation~ or withia 100 feet of the front line of the lot. . Chairman Gauer inquired if there was any other opposition to subject petition and rece=ved no reply. ' THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD. ;, letter received from the Orange County Area of the Hospital Planning Objectives Committee regarding subject Qetition was read to the Commission, said letter approved the granting for the construction of the proposed development. The Commission reviewed the plot plan as preseated and noted that no periphery drive was indicated on the plot plan which would be a aecessity for fire protection and sanitary pickup; and that said perimeter drive would be essential in the removal of 126 patients from a convalescettt home in the event of a fire, and that this safety factor shouid be taken into consideratioa. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 534, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by'Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional U~e Permit 322~ based on findings. (3ee Resolu•tion Book,) On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYSS: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry, NOH3: COhMIS3I0NBR3: None, ABSTAIN: COMdISSIONHRS: Pebley. ABSHNf: COhAfISSIONBRS: Hapgood MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CONA4I33I~i, November 14, 1962, Continued: TSNTATIVS MAP - OWNBRS•.and SUBDIVIDffitS: COORDIIVATED BUILDING MAINTBNANCH CO., OP TRACT N0. 4896 VISAIA INDUSTRIAL CO., and REB3B MILNBR, 1360 South Los pngeles 3treet, Ariaheim, California. BNGINBffit: W. S. 3TSVHNSON, 1360 South Los Aageles Street, Anaheim, California. Subject Tract is located on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, extending east from State Coilege Bouievard for approximatelq 1,251.60 feet, and contains five (5) M-1, LIGHT MANUPACTURING and P-L, PARKING-IANDSCAPING, ZONB lots. Zoning Coordiaator Martin Kreidt, reviex~ed for the Commission the subject tract noting that it was in the vortheast Industrial area. Commissioner Chavos of£ered a motioa to approve Tentative Map of Tract No, 4896, subject to the following: 1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof, shali be submitted in tentative form for approval. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIfiD UNANIMWSLY. RBPatTS AND - ITHM N0. 1: Termination of Petitions for Variance Nos, 1120, RBCOMMBNDATIONS 1160, 1217, 1233, 1249, 1269, 1272, 1279, 1280, 1281, and 1286; Petitions for Conditional Use Permit Nos, 65 and 160. 2oning Coordinator Martin ICreidt, reviewed for the Commission the requests of subject Variances and Conditional Use Permits, and stated that all conditions as required in the approved resolutions by the Commission had not been complied with and that the time limitation had already expired. Deputy Assistant City Attorney Purman Roberts, advised the Commission that any termination of Petitions for Variances and Conditional Use Permits granted by the Planning Comnission must be by resolution. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 540, 3~~•les 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to terminate ~etitions for 9ariance Nos. 1120, 1160, 1217, 1233, 1249, 1269, 1272, 1279, 1280, 1281 and 1286; and Petitions for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 65 and 160, due to noncompl3ance with conditions as required in the resolution of approval or the ti.me limitation had expired. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vate: AYBS: COMMISSIO[~RS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOSS: COMMISSIOPffiRS: None. AHSBNT: COhatISSIONBRS: Hapgood. ITBM N0. 2: Terminatioa of Reclassificatioa No. 56-57-56, rezoning property located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Magnolia Avenue from the P-L, Parkiag Landscapiag, 2one to the M-1~ Light Manu- factoriag, Zone. 2oning Coordinator Martin greidt, reviewed for the Commiasion the conditions, the area of subject petition and the conditions as required by the City Council. He further advised the Commission that oaly a l0 foot by 300 foot atrip of land would be rezoned if the latest street dedica23on of Ls Palma Avenue were made. `~~ 1 ~I I ; ~. ~i • . ~.~ . .~. . . . " {. l r ~~'..~3,.Y.: .4:n f _ ..1 v ! ~. ' . , ~' 1I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . . . . ' .. ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ' . ~.~~ FT~' . .. . ~ ~ . . . i}~;~. - ' .:1 ~ ~ - ..~ _ ... . ~ ~ ~7 . ' . :. -Y r*x ~nw,. , ~ ~ ~~WEt~c~.{ . . . .. ' . . { ~ } '~.'_ ~ 7 ' - f . ~ ~ .. . . ~ . ?, V ~ Y . . ~~ .. . ~ ~ ~;`F~ ~ . . . . . . , ' . . . ~ . . ~ . ' . . , . ~ . .. ... ' . " . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . . ' ~ MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,`November 14, 1962, Continued: 1259 ~ .,: . _ , , { , RHPt~tTS AND - ITBM NOr 2: (Contin~ed) ~ RBCOhA4ENDATIONS . (Contiaued) - Commissioner Mungal"l offered Resnlution No. 539, 3eries 1962-63, and moved fr,r its'passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner • Ferry, to recommend to the C~ty Council that Petition for ~ ~_ Reclassification No. 56-57-56 '~:~ terminated based on findings. ~ ' (See,Resolution Book.) • ' Oa-roll call ~he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~ AYHS: C~MtISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOB3: COMdI3SI0NBR5: None. ~ . , ABSSNT: C05ASISSIO,'~RS: Hapgood. RBCS3S Commissioner Marcoux offtred a motiun to recess the meeting at 4:55 4.M. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTI~I CARRIED. Meeting recessed at 4:55 P,M. RHCONVH;vH Chairman Gaucr *econvene the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 P.M., a11 Commissioners being in attendonce, except Commissioner : . ;Sood. ~ RBCIASSIFICATION - BUSLIC ~2ING. ROBHRT G. ROBB, 1707 South Buclid Avenue, N0. 62-63-3T . Anaheim,;California, Owner,• requesting that property described as: , A~:ectangular parcel of land located on the nosthwest corner of " ~ Bu::lid Street and'Sumac Lane, said prope=ty having an approximate 1 frontage-of 106 feet on the west side of,luclid Street, and an approximate frontage of ; 49 feet on the north side of:Sumac Lane, and further described as 1703 3umac Lane, be 1 - reclassified from tL~~ R=1, ONB PAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, ZONH to th2 C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD ~ COh11~fFRCIAL, ZONB. , Irir.:Robert Robb,. the petitioaer, app~ared before the Commission and stated that f curbs and gntters on t2:e plot p2ans would.remain essentially the same; that several ; years ago a similar.reque,st had been denied; and .that the-use of subject p~operty ' would be for the petifioner'~ use:only in maintaining a dental office on subject ; property. _ A letter of opposition"was read to ~the Commission from Gilbert Pesez, 1703 West Sumac I LanP, Anaheim, California, Chairman Gauer'inquired if any,one in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition, aad~received no reply. • i THB FIHARING WA3 CLOSBD. Upon inquiry from the Commission regarding the extent of remodeling the petit3oner _ inLended to do,, Mr. Robb advised the CoRnaission that o4her than painting the ~~ 'exte='ior of the building, aothing wouid be done; that the existing garage wouid be used by' himseif 'for parking his car;,that' a gaieral clean up of the property would be done in order ~ ~ to present a more profeasiunal appearance; that the masonrywall surrounding . - subject':property was only four (4) fee~ high, and 4he petitioner pianned_to extend said four,(4);foot masonry wall to,the front' and build'it.up;to a six (6) feet tieight; that he:,did not intend to,removr the bu~i.lding at the.present timep anci that he ' ~ ` intcnded to.occupy the present'buiiding indefinitely for use as a'dental office; ~ , ~ '. _ ..: ~ ~ ; '. _ r E~,r ~.i.~N.r~ . ~` , , , ~~ , ~ . ~ _.~~~ . . •' ~ ` :~ . . . . _.~,~. ~ . . . . .~. . ~ ~ ... . .. i ~ . .. ~ ~ ~ . , ~ , ~:~ ,,: :; ,,~ . . . . .. .. . , ~~i :-{ , „ ,,' ,; . . . . . . r ; ; , ` , { „ , . ., ..»,~.K ..a '~"'°""" + ' w n ~~~~L..,. ,,.',"... ~.~e . . 'w R,.S,<i.? I r ~ ' . `'<: , f . . 1 . . , ,! ~ . ~ ~. , . .~ ` .. ;` .? . :'~_. . ~ti:..-• ,. , ......,-Y.......,~ ,., .i ri ,.~.~c. ,~~ „r._ ..n. - . _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ i . ~ ~ .. I . ~ . . . . ) ~ . . ~ ~ , ~ ~ , . : '.I ' ~,5~ ~ . ~.. ~ . ! ~ ~~ r . ~ l '.'i~~2~f1 •.~...~.~ww..wv ~ ~ ~.., t ~. . , ~ . . .. . n~ 5 ~`ts~a1 - . yn S i i ~ _ /~ w .r ~ ' W ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . . ° . ~` r~ ~~` . . . . ~ . ~ . . . ~~ . . ~ . . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ .' , ~ ~i ~ . i . , MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING C01~4tISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued: ~ 1260 ~ \ RHCIASSIFTCATION - The C~mmission reviewed-~lie plot plans,attd noted that little ; .. N0. 62-63-37 was proposed to p;esent a commertial froutage for the structure ~ ,'(Continued) on subject property; that if.the Commission were to ailow said reclassificatioa,'it should r?~~_3.-e remodeling with a commercial i . facia•front or a stipulation to remodel the home after a definite . . ~ , period of time had elapsed; that oniy two places remained as residentiai homes adjacent to subject property; and that by leaving sub,ject property to remain as it is, wouid aot enhance the area or the City of Anaheim. ~~mmissioner Marcoux ofiered a motion.to approve sub,~ect Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-37, seconded by CommissiQner Pebley. After coasiderable discussion was held, the motion was withdrawn by Uo4n Commissioner Marcoux and Coirm~issioner Pebley, Commissioner Ailred offered a motion to reopen the heazing and continue Petitionfor Reclassification , No. 62-63-37 to the meeting of'November 26, 1962, in order to ailow the petitioner sufficient time to p=esent revised elevatioas. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. ; RRCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FffiARING. ,CLARENCS CIA1tA,3410 Lincoln Aveaue, Anaheim, .. , 2iC. 62-63-33 Ca1:fa;aia, C~caer; ~;AT.~R±RT;Si)ILDSRS, IhC., 254 SOU`L$ TCO8Cmead Boulevard,-Pasadena, California, Agent; requesting that property ~ described as: A rectaagular parcel of land appr~ximately ~ 350 feet by 330 feet,„said propertq having an appr~ximate 220 foot,frontage on the '~ rrest side of Bella Vlsta 3treet, the northerxy~boundary being 660 feet sou:h of the centerline of Lincoln:Avenue.and Lhe`westerly boundary beiag.660 feet east of the centerline of Kr.itt Avenue be reclassified fxom the R 6, RHS:LDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, 20NH, to the R-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RESIDHNfIAL, ZONE. to constr::~* eight (8) 4-ua~:t rental apartment buildings. 'i Sub,ject petition was filed in conjuacti.on with Conditional iJse 1Permit No. 317. ~ ' ; Mr. Claxence Clar•k, the owner, appeared before the Comnission and stated that he was represeatia.g the Ralkraff Corporation; and that he would be ~iad to,answer any ' questions the Commission.might have.. , ' 'i The Commission vieiwed;the.plot plans as presented:and noted the i`indings of the ` ' Planuing Department in refer ence to.subject development. j Mr. Holland, Principal of the Danbrook School,of Buena Park~aad represanting the Centralia School District., appeared before the Commisaion and stated th,at he opposed ,~ the proposed development on s~abject property; that with the additional apartmente~ the facilities of the D~nbrook School would be additionally taxed bq the influx of more children; that tl~ere were.•846:apartmenL units in the school district; that the schooi district would li&e to"recommend to.the Planniag Commiasioa that subject , ~ property be reclassified,for commeicial.aad iadugtrial^uae in that area; that ~ income for:the school district was compa=atively:more.'if commerciai,and industriai ; use was made of subject propertq as compared to~residential~ ase; and that fihe schooi . enrollment of the Danbrook School had increased.itt one year from 515 students to 733 studeats. - .. Commissioner Pebiey stated that the tax.aid from the state wae identical regardless "i whether an apartment or a single family development.was being-constructed; that from his observation of apartment buildings,when he was a member of the 3chool Hoard, indicated tihere was considerabiy les§ numbers of'children from,#he apartment unita as compared to`'the single family residences;and that ten acres of sittgle family • -~'isidencea'wouid produce more chiidren t}ian.ten (-10) acres'of apartmenta according to • a i.;.: '~hooi Boards in the City of Anaheim. . ? •:~~~man,~auer noted that the plot pla,as,as:preseated were a fiaed aet of pians; that ~ ••~ pir~as. did aot ~easure up to the ,requi.red; amount of o;oen apace as atated in the , l•~heim Mun3cipal Code; and that~he would like to see coasiderably more improved piot ' plans befarc he would consider sab3ect:peti~ion. ~' ~ ~ , . ` , ; MA~~1Jd Al .i~~/ .: , , .. ~ . . .. . . .. . . . . ' . . ~ . . ~ . „ . . . . . . . .. . ~ .., ' . . . ~: . ~~ ~ ~ . .' j ~ ;': .. ..... . ..,. , .. . . . . .. ' ~ _-. . , ~~ :.~','.:.~._....~._~ ,_.~.:_..._ ..::..:.. .......:.:.....:..~..... , .: . ... ~ .. - ~:. . ..- .. . .-. ~ ~ . ~ . ._ ' .~:9 . ... ..~ ~ ;~~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~- ~ '- ' ~'~ . .~ ~M 1 .'..i.~ .. _ _ ~..~.r~ .. , - ~ ~ ,i.`,'..'.~J~:~.._....e. .~A jt.-' :, `~ 1 ~ '.~~. ..-.:,:.' ~~,~ S 1~ 4 l~1" SI t h .`s-w+- . i '. ' . ...' .:~ . :.,~ ~. ..- r:. -:: .. ;.~. ... ..._'er.~,...~ :~.~. „.~ Y ^. ' '1'1~ . _' .yy ~ .. l.:1 ~ ~ f%i., . ~,~;_-~~ ~. ~wr,~,T;;~~ . dr.,. ~.~;c„r.,~+., ,.~k'R..v~~r.l~:'~,: ~.~~.`~"kw''.tx~anu., x ~ , .. . ~~~~ ,~ ' ~ . ~ . , .~ . . . . .-~i h~ 3hS?r~4.F? "^'Y ~~~~:"~ris2 `'rt~ 5S7`n~ ''l~t t ~ x~r~i~S?~.'j~`iif sc u9M4 y ~' . . . . _ :.-~ .;1 ":r ; ~ '~ ]`~.: ~ . ~ . (f ,~ ~~~ ~~~ , ' . . . . . .. . .. . . . ..r..! .. '. . ' . ~ ' ~ ~ .:. .. ~ .~~.- : ~~'~-~..' ~ .: . . . .. . ..~ .. . ~ . . ~,~. ~; . .:.. . . .._ ~ .. :. :... .',.: ' _ ~ .. ~.: . .~,: ~ .....-. ~ , ~ '' :. . ' . .~ . %MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CQbIIdISSION, November 14,' 1962,-Continued: 1261 • _ ., . _ _ _. ; ~}tS('.IA$SIFICATION - Ns. Clart'advised.the Commission that. he would:.have the plans , N0.,:62-63-38 redrawn incorporating the'Commission's suggestions and then would , ;(Continuedj" xesubmit them to'the:Commission,at a later date. ` ~ • `. Commisaioner Perry.offered a motion,to continue hearing of ~• Petition for,Reclassification No. 62-63-38 to the. meeting of December 10, 19b2, in •' `•order to aliow the petitioner aufficieat time'to present revised,:piot pians. ~ ° ~ Commissioner MuagalT seconder~'the motion. MOTION GIRRIBD,, • • CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC fBARING: CIARSNCS CIARK, 3410 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, . . ,: ' PBRMIT N0. 317 California, Owner; Kalkraft Builders, Iac., 254 So:•th Rosemead Boulevard, Pasadena, California, Agent; requesting permission to C~i$1RUCT A"PIANIlVBD-UNIT bSVffi.OPMBNT on, property described as: A rectP.cigular parcel ,, of lattd approzimatelq 350:by 330 fe.et; said property having;an approximate-220 foot ' frontage on the west side of 3e11a~Yista Street, the northerly portion being 660 feet ~`:~ • south of the centerline'of Lincoln Avenue and'the westerly boundary beiag 660 feet • ~ast.of the centerliae of Rnott Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, R~"DBNTIAL ~ AC3tICULTURAL, ZONH. Subject petition rvas filed in con,~unction with Reclassification No. 62-63-38. i- Mr, Clarence Clark, the petitioner, appeared berore the Commission and stated that ~.:• since subject pet±tion was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-38, '+` previously'heard and contiaued, he would like the Commission to continue:Petition for ~• Conditionai Use Permib No.. 317 to the meeting of:December.`10, 1962, Commissioner Perry' offeied:a motion to continue Petition for Coaditional Use`Permit ;. No. 317 to;the meeting of;£~ecember 10;;1962, ia order to permit the petitioner ! sufficient time. fio?sutimit revised,plot pians; and thaL it be heard 1a :to~,~Yll\.41V11 Wy:.`. - ~ Reciassification`No..62=63-38:> Commissioner Muagall seconded the motion. MUTION ~_ CARRIBD.. . , : . .' .. r ' RECIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. RHflD S.-aad DIANB I. GLOVER, 4627,Paisfield, N0. 62-63-39 Co;ona De1;Mar,,Califurnia; Owners; RSNBAR'INCCYtPORATBD, 1422 North ~ Central Fark Aveaue~ Anaheim, Califo=::i'a,,Ageat; requesting that ~' ~ ~ property deacribed as; A~ rectaagular parceT ,of' land with .an approximate depth of 250 feet, and an'approximate width of'90 feet, said:property having a.90 foot frontage;on the south side of Broadwaq; and the'eastern boundary.be.'ng approximately 410 west of the centerliae oE Laura Street,:;and further described as ~ 1652 West:Broadway, be reciassified from the R=A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICUL1YJRAL, 20N8 to- the ' ~ C-1, NBIGHBCRHOOD CObA!ffitCIAL, ZONB, to~remodel an existing atruc.are for use 3s ~ profesaioaal offices. - ' . ~ Mr: Nicholas Barletta, agent for Lhe`petitioner,.appearPd before`.~the Commission and ~ g ~'~tated that they;proposed to use the`preseat'structure.for app;oximately 18.months ~ at which time they planned to construct a commercial structuse on subjec4 property ~, " . ~.;;; Chairman Gauer inquired if aay one opposed sub3ect petition, and received no reply. ' TFffi- FffiARING WAS CLC16B~: _ The Commission inquired of the agent.for the petitioner whether.he felt it was a waste. of moneq to remadel sub3ect structure for commercial ase,and then-remove'said structure : ,.. , ' yqithin~ 18 months: ` ' . ; . ,: M,r. Barletta stated.that'he.had aent a'ietter to;clarify;and ,justify the requeat for , . . ;; reciassification;'thax=purpose;of purchaaiag:,sub3ecL.property,was to construct a ~+rofessional office builGing oa>the site; but~that:ttieir over-all corporate'.planningi could nnt:be completed for at least one year,,`aud:that"if subject reclassifica'cioa ~': ~ were acted_upott favorably,.the;agent :for the;petitioner would:thea submit•permaaeat ' plaas when'ready,for the:Planniag Departments`'approval. ' 4.. "'• ~ ~ . ~;i .1w~ ~:a ~ i ~ . . . . . :t.`: . ~ ~ , . . ~ ~~~~~, ~ .. ~ . }~; IK' ~ .t..rr,h ~ . . ~ ~ . ., . . ~ . : ~:. ;~,~ .. .. . . .. .. . .:. -. .. ' t ~ . .... :.. .... ~ . . . . _ ..~ . . .. . . . , , ~„ ~ ~ ~. ~. : . . . . ~ ..:. . ~:.~ ~ r { i r + 1., ~ + ~t i ~ ~ .. ' ' ' . ' , ,. , ~~~ S ~,~. . ,"'~ ~7V `s"~~ ~ °'T-` ;p ~ ~~r~ {~ {dyv i ~ r~Y_~7+'d.~YiY~ 1 ~t"'~+~`A ~~ .._. k..w,i ' 1 ''~^:~ ,-^-r--•.+.Ci~'~1~w: ~.•n~ .. _ -,.,.,~~, u.,. f..~i, . .r ..Iv,,., r l..C. , n. ~.,. 'C` ii7c v„ , . p . ~r c. ~ <~5-ti~- lv~d: ~ . ~~:. . . . ;1 .~ ~ .~wn.+.~~ .: : . ~ . . . . . . . ~ ~ ,... ~~.'!1 Nf~z~ . ~ r-r~ M ~MYL13=1`fi` : ~.,~.F .A~~~ `S4'G^e ~'F,' "y' ,. ; f 'F.,~"::: ~.. ~,,. t ~ ' r . :Y~~ . . ~ . . S' .*':i f;} a r - ~ i ~ ~ r ~ :'~;~ . ~• .,~'~ ~ ~ MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING CQMiISSION~ November 14, 1962, Cont'inued: 1262 ~ : RBCLASSIPICATION - The.Commiasion noted that aubject propertq.was ia need of N0. 62-63-39 coasiderable repair work; that t~e area was completely surrounded (Continued) with debris; and that if the Commisaion.were act upon subject . petition,;either for or against,~~they:could not make a fair , deciaion without complete plot plans being presented. bq the .petitioner. ~ . k , 'NIr. Barletta further stated that he did not iatend to petition the Commission after ~ the 18 moaths had expired for an additioaal exteasion of time; that the front would F. .. be co,mpletely.reaovated with a moderaisti'c front; that the existing front doors made of wood would be seplaced with glass doors; and that the existiag dripeway ~ would be seblackto~:ped. €{'': Commissioner Marcoux offered a n;,ption to coatiaue Petition for Reciassification ~ No. 62-63-39, to the meetiag of November.26, 1962, and asked that the agent for the ~ petitioaer;contact the Planning Depar#ment to determine what was reqr~ired for the °. azea as well as the propoaed setback for dedication. Commissioner Pebleq seconded ~ ,the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ap ; RECIASS~PICATION - PUBI,IC HHARING. INITTAT9D BY Tt~ ANAHBIM CITY COUNCIL, 204 Bast r N0.,62-63-40 Liacoin Av~aue, 7~naheim, California; TAgITO and ldA15tTH YAMAGITMA, ~ c% McDANIBL BNGINBBRING COMPANY, 222 Sast Lincola Avenue, Anaheim, Calif.ornia, Owners; proposing,the reclassification of I- property desc;ibed ase A rectanguiar parcei of land il0 feet by 292 feet, said ~ propertq having a 110 foot frontage on the east.side of Western Aveaue, the southeriq t boundarq of'sub3ect propertp tieing approximately 550 feet north of the centerline'of ;` ' Ba11 Road, aad further described as 850 South Western Avenue, from the R-A; RB~IDBN- ~ TIAL AQtICULTVRAL,,ZONS to.the R-1~ ONffi PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, Z02~. ~ ` Subject petition was submitted to conform with, a,condition of the recent approval of Tentative Tract No. 4629, filed on the abut.tiag.property to the eastj which redaced sub3ect prc~perty to les§ than an acre for any residential flevelopment of subject prop~rty. Chi,irman F;auer ina~iired if atty one in the Council Chamber opposed sub3ect petition, and rece,ived no.reply. T!~ FffiARING WAS CIA3BD. . ` Commissioner Muagall offered Resolutioa No, 535~ Series 1962-63,.and moved for its 'passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Camp, to recommend to the City ~:.ouncil that Petitio~ €or R~c2assif3cation Ho: 62-63-40, be app=oved sub3ect to conditions. (3ee Resolution.Book.) The coaditions as stated`in the Resolutioa Book were recited at the meeting and were found 4o be a necessary prerequisite to the use of tbe property_in order.to preserve ' the safety and welfare of the Citizena of the City of Anaheim. ~': On roli,cail the fo;egning reaolution was passed,by the following vott:: ~. A1'BS: , COI~9~lISSIONBRSe. Ailred,~Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~; NOBS: COI~lISSIONSRS: None. F F . .. . ~ . . ~ ~ ~. ~ . . . . ~ . . . . .. ~ ~ .. ~ ... .. A x . ---, r ~rt~.~'~~~: F,~ ~~. . . . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~. . ~ ~~ ~ .. ~ ~~ .- ~~.. . . MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CCIMMIS3IOIQBR, Novemtier 14,,.1962, CoAtinued: 1263 ~$CIA3SIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. .INITIATSD BY THB ANAHAIM PIANi:.TNG CQh9~lI3SION, N0..62-63-41 204 Bast Lincoln Ayenue, Anaheim, California; p.r:oposing that: A:series of Lot Nos. 1`through 31 in Tract No. ~583, subject properties having a combiae~'frontage of approximately 1,600 feet on the aorth side of La Pa1ma Avenue, aad aa average of an approximate depth of 130 feet, said properties being located on the riorthwest corner of La,Palma Avenue and Buclid 3treet be reclessified from the R:A,, RHSIDBNT]AL AQtICULTURAL, G1, NBIGFIDOitH00D CONA!ffitCIAL; C-2, GHI~RAL COI~9dffitCIAL, C-3, ~AYY COMI~ffiItCIAL, ZONB3, to the C-1, • ~NSIGHBORHO~ COI~ABRCIAL, ZONB to provide for.proper classification of parcels contained within an area pro,jected for commercial development. ~...,, _ Zotiing'Coordinator Martia Kreidt, reviewed for the Commission with renderings, the subject`properties with'"their present land use compared it to the actual zoning of subject properties. Mr, Sreidt further reviewed for'the Commission the City Council's attempts to develop a consistant patern of zoning in the area of subject property; and that said reclassification would facilitate the reclassification of respective parceis as the necessary conditions were completed by individual property owners. Mr. Lewis Disiager, i815 West La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and asked that the,additional dedication of three (3) feet for the widening of La Paima Avenue be clarified for him; that if tie were required to dedicate this additional three (3) feet, the City of Anaheim would own three (3) feet of property under his resideace which he was also using as a Rez1 Bstate office; that Lot Nos. 22 and 23 which have-a swi'mming school constructed on the property were built to the edge of the property line; and that if he were:to setback any building on his property after the requi=ements for C-l zoniag were met, a ha=dship would be created since any commercial huilding would be hidden by the swimming school. Mr.Lynn Thompson~ 1658 West Mells Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated that he owned oae oF;the.).ots under coas3deration for C-1 reclassification, and that he was interested in what ~ras proposed for the'area 3a general. The Coomission ~iscussed the proposed dedication of 53 feet from the monumented center line of La Palma-Avenue, and felt that the Engineering Department shouid give serious con~ideration snd study to the area, and perhaps modifying the`additional dedication of three (3) feet on properties which had already ded3cated iand to the Gity; and that if t~e seqi3re~+ sixty (60) foot setback were met by.many of the owners of propert3es in sub3ect area, some hardship might be.presented. '!HE FffiARIr'G WAS CLOSBD. Zonittg Coordinator Martia Sreidt, stated that the City only wanted dedication of the street for street wideniag purposes when all conditioas were met and the structures on the various properties in subject petition were removed and replaced by ~ com-lercial facilities. ' . Commiasioner'Chavos offered a motion to reopen and continue Petition for Reciassification No. 62-63-41 to the,meeting of November 26. 1962, in order to allowthe Bagiaeering and Plannug " Departme~s time fo make furthex studr'of tue dedication of p=opexty oa La Palma Avrenue. Commissioner Alired seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD: ~. RHCLAS3IFICATION - PUBLIC FffiARING. MIN(RU and HA15UB SHIOTA, 3139 West Orange Avenue, H,O: 62=63-42 Anaheim~ CaliforaiA, Owners;'THOMAS J. BBffitMAN and CO.~ 3730 Wes Comnarr~alth Aveaue, Fallerton,.Califoraia, Ageat; requesting 4 tbat property described.as: PARCBL N0. 1:,A 140 foot aquare pa=cel of;iand at.#he ~. northeast:corner of Orange Avenue and Westera Avenue. PARCSL N0. 2: An L-abaped parcel of 1and,'with a 100 foot`frontage on the easL aide-of Western:Aveaue, and;80 ~eet on.the ; north,aide'of.Orange.Ayeaue, said property abutting Parcel No. 1: PARCBL N0. 3: A + rectaaguiar par.cel of land,with a 484.faot"frontage.on the nos.th aide of Orange~Avel~ue, '~ and abutt~7~ Parcel No. 2, ~ith a depth of,240 feet~ and.further.described ss ,.. { 3139 West Dsange;.AVeaue be .reclasaified from ,^.:;A, ~HSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZpNB ~ - to„C-1, IvBIGH80RH~> CQFitai}°,CIAT., ZONB, fox Ya 7 Nos. 1 aad 2; ~,and R-3, MULTIPI,E PAMILY ~ ,. { ~, RBSIDBNTIAL~ Zl'&iH for Parcel No. 3, to establi '~~ervice etatioa for Parcel No, l, ~ v~~ y shopa and.o£fice;for Paicei No. 2 and a piaanP t multipie'fa¢iiy deVelopment on ~~f;"+..:c Parcel-No..3.- ,~ !!4~..r.~n.+ti. _ i ~. , ' , ~ ,. . _. . : ,:; t i ~ . ~ . . . ~ . . ~ . . . f . S_'.,.._. _15,~-1!~h!~,J~ . . ... . 1 . .. _ .. . , .._. .. 4 .. '''_ _'. ~.r_._.~, ,. . . ........ ... ',~;; . . .. . . . . _ vur~.wrmak ~ :~~i ~",; ~ ~ ~~ ~ :T` ~~ ~: .: ~ , . ~~. ~' MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COI~AAISSION, November 14, 1962, Continued: RHCYASSIPTCATION - 3ub3ect petition was filed ia con~uncti"oa"with Conditioaai Use ~0. 62-63-42 Permit No. 321, '.(Coatinued) : . . Mr. ~omas J. Beerman, ageat for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that~he proposed to have a.service station on Parcei No, l, small shops and stores on Parcel No: 2 and two-atory multiple family development on Parcel No. 3~ because of the Orange County P1ood Control Channel disecting the southeast corne; of Parcel No. 3; tha! plans as pEesented were the most economically feasible for the proposed use of the property; that to propose development ,of Parcel No. 3 for single family units would create below Code requirement iots; and that with medicai and hoypitai faciliti.es at Orange.Avenue and Beach Boulevard, professianal offices could be established in Parcel No. 2 to supplement the needs ~f physcians using the hospital facilities. ~ Mr. Iris Gordon, 3134 West Olinda Lane~ appeared before the Commissioa and stated that she lived in the single family tract,directly to the aorth of subject property; that the Coamisaion should consider subject property for single family residential use; that there were fiye shoppiag centers~available in the area Lo provide.for the needa of residents in the area; that if subject petition~were granted thia would inject apartments in a single.family area and would set a precedent for any other vacant land in the area to request reclassification to multiple family use; and that the prelimia~ry Geaeral Plaa, although aot ~pproved, projected subject propertq for siagle fsmilq resideatiai homes. Mr. Dewitt Bdwards, 3172 West Vallejo ~rive, appeared before the Commission in oppoaition to subject petitioa, aad atated that the drawing as presented did not ~I, present the proper perspective and scale for iand use of subject property; that he had spent considerable money improving his property which xould decrease in valuation if i, the proposed development rvere approved; and that the service station at the sovtheast corner of subject property was sufficient to s.erve the needs of .the commuaity in that area. Mr..Holland, Priacipai of the Danbrook School, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated that•he again,opposed development of subject propertq for multiple family dwellings because of the greater influx of children into the Danbrook Schooi which was alreadq overcrowded with children. Mr. Rita Pliat, 3131 West Vallejo Drive, appeared before the Commiseion in opposition ta suSjec~ ~titian and stated that the only reason it would not be economically feasibie to develop subject property for single family homes was because the realtoss or the oAaers insisted upon an exorbitaatly high price for sub3eet property. Mrs. Laara Yawl~ West 3138 Vallejo Driqe, appeared before the Commisaion in opposition to subject petition and stated that tfie'high school across the s'.reet from subject propertq kept a cioaedcampus in which childre.n yere tept at the school at lunch time, and that the closed campus,had been quite successfui; and that if the proposed neighborhood shopping ceater were approved~ this might create "hangouts" for the, achool children in the aren. A letter from.the Anaheim ITs:ion High Schoo! District was sead to the Commiasion in which the District expres,bed coacern about the pariing problem around Wea#era High Schooi with the projectio~.ai ama11 shops and multipie family dweilings in.the immediate vicinity: . 2oaing Coordinator Martin Steidt, reviewed,the preliminary General Pian map for the benefit of the Coawisaion, the petitioaers aad the oppoaitioa and noted that sub~ect propertq was propoaed for lo~r density development. fn rebuttal~ Mr. Beerman,staLed that the ahopping ceater wouM oaly coasist of amaii shops aad seraice atores aad.would not contain a large food store; that the_propoecd Rropertq co.nid bnly be developed ~or,~sedium.density use; aad that he'•feit that ther^ ~qould be no pa;king problem aear the high schooi,.s3nce.eufficient parking f.acilities would be provided for both the'commercial deyelopmeat aad the muitiple.family develop- '' .' ment. ! ~ , THB HBARING .NIAB CLOBBA. t~ • _ . . ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CObAIISSION, November 14~ 1962, Conti~ued: 1265 RBCIASSIPI~:ATION - T~e Commission expressed concern rega:u.`ng the considerable time N0. 62-63~42 anc' stud'• mhich had been made ia for~ulating the preliminary General (Continued) Plan, tha: it y,rould be presenied to the public after the first of the year; and that to consider subject petition favorably would be an unrealistic approach to approvaT of the Geaerai plan as it was being proposed. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 536, Series 1962-63, and ~oved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to recommend to the City Councii that Petition for Reciassification No. 62-63-42 be denied baued on findings. CSee Resolution Book.) On roil call the ioregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COhAlISSIONHRS: Aiired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NQBS: CObAlISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: COhPYIISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBA1tING. MINORU and HATSUB SHIOTA, 3139 West Orange Avenue, PHRMIT N0. 321 Anaheim~ California, Owaers; TH~iAS J. BB~tMAN & CO., 3730 West Commoawealth Avenue, Fulierton, California, Agent; requeAting permission to (1) &STABLISH A SffitVICE STATION ON PARCHL N0. 1; (2) CONS'IRUCT NBIGHBOltH00D SHOPS ON PARCSL N0. 2; (3) CONSTRUCT A PIANNEl1--UNIT DHVBLOYMBNT ON PARCBL N0. 3; (3) WAIVER OF PARICING RBQUIRBNIHNT POR THB PLANNINHD~-UNIT DBVffi.OPMHNf, WAIVHR OP BUILDING HSIGHT I.IMITATION FQR THH PIANNBD-UNIT D~BLOPMBNT, AND WAIVffit OF BUILDING SEPARATION FOR TFTB PIAIaiSD-UNIT DBVHLOPMdNT on property described as: PARCSL N0. 1: .A 140 foot square parcel of land at the northeast corner of Orsnge Avenue and Western Aveaue. PARCBL N0. 2: An L-shaped parcel of land with a 100 fuot frontage on the ea~t side of Western Avenue, 80 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue, said property abuttiag Parcel No. 1. PARCBL N0. 3; A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage`of 484 feet on the west side of Orange Avenue, and a depth of 240 feet abutting Parcel No. 2, and further described as ~139 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICOLTtAtAL, ZONE. Subject petition was filed in canjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-42, Mr. Don Dodge~ 809 South Oakhaven Drive, Real Estate Agent for the property, appeared before the Commission and stated that he lived in the area and was tryiag to propose the best possible use in the area; that he had many develoQers view sub,ject property and none seemed to feel subject property would be practical for its development into a single famiiy residenciai use. Commissioner Pebley noted that he formerly owned property abutting subject property to the north, and that at the time he sold said property, the owncrs of subject property.coUld have developed at tiiat time, aad that no hardsh3p could.be proven in ihe development of sub,ject property for singie family residentiai use. ~iB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolntion No. 537, $eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Marcoux, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 321 based on findings.. (See Reaoiution Book.) On roll cali Lhe foregoiag resolu;:ion was passed by the foliowing vote; AYES: CQMMISSIONHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry . ,.; ;.. NOHS::::;: ,.CO~UdIS310NHRS: ,.w . None. ABSANT: ~ ;., CONAIIS3I0*IBRS: Hapgood, ` ` ` . "~ .__-,-------~ ~ ' ~( , '------~-- _.1 ~ ~~-M . ,.,. .. ._ _....__ '~~'. _ .~' rra' , ~j~,~ ~ • ~ ~ . . 9 ~ ~ . . . . . ~' f .~ . I .~'. • . ~t.~ ti; ~. _ '~r~f7+. tr .. ~ TAaA j ~ . .~;~ „ . . ,+...... . ... ~.. , . :~,s .. . . . . ~: . ~..~ ~ .. ', . . M' . . . . .. r ,i.~; ~ ,c_ ~ _ ._... . ~ ~,5 ~ , ~ - ~ :~ ~ ~ MINUT83, CITY PLRNHING COIQdI8SI0N~ November 14~ 1962~ Continued: 1266 :~ ... AMBNp1~A1T TO - PUBLIC FiBARING. INITIATBD BY THH ANAI~IUf CITY PIANNING COMdI3SI0N~ ' CODE SHCfION 204 5aet Lincoln Avenue,.Aaaheim, CaYiforaia, said Amendmeat covers ' 18,80` 9ection 18.80.090 - s:aisna 1idz81e ases $#~te College Boulovard on the we$t~ Saata Aaa River oa tht'east~ Bail Road oa the south and the Riveraide Preevraq oa the`iiorth, mnd the deietion of • 8eetioa 18.80.100. 2oaiag Coordiaator Martin g:eidt~ reviewed the reviaed propoaed amendment for the Commission, no~ing that the pubiic hearing beiag heid oa thia date was ae a reauit of the ,~oint Commisaioa-Council policq mee4ing, at whic,h tia.e the or.iginai actioa of the Pianning Commisaioa was ameaded and in wh'ich the boundaries covered by thia 8ectioa were reduced. Commieaioner Perry offered Reaoiution No. 538, Seriea 1962~63~ and moved for its pasaage aad adoptioa, aecoaded bq Comniesioner Chavos,, to recommead to the Citq Councii the amendment to Code Sectioa 18.80.090 of the Anaheim Muaicipai Code~ and that 3ectioa 18.80,100 be deleted. (See Reaolution Book.) Oa roii cali the foregoiag resoiution was passed"tiy the foilowiag vote: AYBS: COMdISSI0iV8RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley, Perry. NOS3: CaFAlISSIONffit3: None. pggBNT: ppMMISSIOAffiRS: Hapgood. ApJOUgI~NT - There beiag ao further bnaiaesa bo transact or diacusa, Co~omisaioner Cainp offered a motioa to ad~du;a,the meeting of the Planning Coumiasioa, Commiseioaer Mtlngail secoaded the motion. MOTION G~RRIBD. ~ The meetiag ad,~ourned at 9:05 0'Ciock P.M. Reapectfuliq submitted~ /.~~ ,~,~~ N Bl~ , Sec etary Maheipn Pianniag Commissxon ~ • - , --`''.,. ~ _ _-- - - - _ - ---~ -----~ , ., . , , _ . . , ~, , ~.~.:.,:;.,w _.._,. _ ._._...