The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1963/01/071.tBGULAR h1BSTING OP THB ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING COAfdISSION ,', RBGUTAR MSSTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning (;ommission was , called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 O'Clock P.M., a quorum Leing present. FRHSHNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer. CObAfISSIONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey. Perry. AB3HNT - COhA~Ii~SIONHRS: Camp, Hapgood. I~RBSENT - ZONING COORDINATOR: Martin Kreidt. DBPUTY ASSFSTANT CITY ATTOFtNBY; Purman Roberts. PIANNYNG CUMMISSION SBCRBTARY: Ann Krebs. INVOCATION - Reverend Robert Van, pastor of Pirst Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation. PLBDGB OP - Commissioner Mungall led the Pledge of Ailegiance to the Plag. ALLSGIANCB CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. STANDARD OIL OF CALIPORNIA, 605 West PBRMIT N0. 26b Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles 54, California, Owners; FOSTBR AND ! KLBISHR, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Los Ange].es 7, Caiifornia, Ag°nt; requesting permission to BUILD'7W0 10 FSHT BY 25 PBHT STHSL HILLtlQARDS on property described as: An irregular parcel of land at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue aad Beach Boulevard, with a 200 foot frontage on both sides, an@ further descr~.bed as 9012 Heach Boulevard. Property presently classified as C-3, HBAVY COMMBRCIAL, 20NH. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 9, Septembex 5, October 1, and October 29, 1962, in order to allow the City Attorney's Office sufficient time to formulate the Billboard Ordinance. Zoning Coosdinator MarLin Kreidt, advised the Commission that, although the Biilboard Ordinance had been formulated, all departments of the City had not given their reports and recommendations t~ the City Attorney's Office so that a final draft might be made. Cocmisaioner Camp entered the Council Chamber at 2:12 P.M, Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber representing the petitioners, a1d received no reply. ~iE HBARIAr WAS CLOSHD. The Commission inquired of Deputq Assistant City Attorney Furman Roberts, the approxi- mate date on which the Commission might be able to expect the finai draft of the proposed Billboard Ordinance, and Mr. Roberts stated tha4 it might take until the first of March, 1963. - 1332 - ~: ~ ' i ':t: : ' 1 . ~.,! ~.~` ~~ ~ MINUTA3, CTTY PLANNING CQhO~lISSION, January 7, 1S63, Continued: 1333 CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing and PBRMIT N0. 266 coatinue Petit:on for Conditional Use Permii: No. 266, to the meeting (Continued) of March 18, 19~53, in order that the final draft of the Biliboard Ordinance might be completed h~ the City Attorney~s Office. Commissioner Chavo~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUED PUBLIC HSARING. ROBHRT WASSBRMAN, 1123~ Kalle Vista, PIItMxT N0. 293 Beverly Hills, Cz~liforaia, Owner; LLOYD B. MOUNT, 600 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, ~alifornia, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A PIANNHD UNIT DHVBLOPMBNT, on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land with a fzontage of 571 feet, plus or miaus, on the east side of Kaott Avenue, and a depth of 612 feet, pius or minus, the northwest corner of said property being 378 feet, plus or minua, south of the southeast corner of Lincoln and Snott Avenues. Property presently classified C-1, NEIGHBQRHOOD COM'~~IDRCIAL, ZONB. Su~,ject pe4ition was continued fro~ the meetings of August 20, September 5, October 1, November 14, and November 26, 1962.. in order to permit the petitioner an opportunity to submit revised plot plans which would indicate strset dedicafions as well as being in generai conformance with the architecte*al desires of the Commission. Mr. Lloyd Mount; 1769 Colonial Avenue, appeared beforE~ the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission's considerai;ion. Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Couacil Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply. THB HBA1tING WAS CLOSBD. ~ Zoniag Coordinator Martin Breidt, at the request of the Commission, read the recommended conditions for subject petition. Mr. Mount stated that he was opposed to the condition of reclassifyiag subject property from C-1, Neighborhood Commer.ial, Zonc to R-3, Multiple Family Residential, 2one, because that at the time subject petition was filed, the Anaheim MuniciFzl Code permitted multiple family development in a C-1 zone, and if it had bePn approved at that time, no change in zone would have beea required. The Commission advised Mr. Mount that if subject petition were granted~ it would have to meet the requirement of the Code as it presentiy stood, and that no except3on wouid be made in consideration of subject petition. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 589, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage ana adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 293, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMTSSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcaux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. IVO&R: COMMISSIONBRS: None. AASSNT: COMMI33IONBR3: Hapgood. R8CIA8SIFICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~ARING. CHARLBS V. AMADQt, 2628 West 78th Street, N0. 62-63-32 Inglewood, California, and MR, and MRS. E, L. OVIBDO, 1627 8ast 3ycamore Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; BLAS MARRON, 741 North Pauline, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestiag that propesty described as; A rectangular parcei of land with a 124 foot frontage en the north side of Sycamore Street, and a dep#h of 175 feet, the southwest corner of said property being 320 feet east of the northeast coraer of East Century Drive aud Sycamore Street, and further described as 1627 3ycamore 3treet be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDBHTIAL AGRICULTIJRAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, Z02~ffi to construct a four-plex one-story apartment building. ~ ~ f, , , ~ l , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ -i-----~---------~- ----.._.._. •----~---- ---------------- ~ ~ ~ ~.,...e....~as.~..._.~,._......._.~... . ~ . ~ I ' ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ MINIJTBS, CITY PIANNING COtM~tISSION, January 7, 1963, Coatinued: ' 1334 RBCIASSIPICATION - Subject peti•tion was continued from the meetings of October 15, N0. 62-63-32 October 29, and November 26, 1962, at the request of the agent (Coatinued) for the petitioner in order that a more complete set of plans m3ght be submitted, and to cn~tA~t the adjoining property owners in order to incorporate said property into the proposed develop- ment of subject property. Mr. Blas Marron, agent for the petitioner, arrived in the Council Cham~~r after the CormnissioL had cont3.aued subject petition, and asked that he be r;eard, Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to reopen the hearing. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. Mr. Marron stated that one of the owners of subject property, Mr. Charles V. Amador, had attemoted to nurchase the adjoinine orooerty ia order to develoo both oarcels of property in a manner acceptable to the Commission, but he was unable to do so, and has expressed the intention to develop the L-shaped parcel of property as originally proposed. Zoning Coordinator Martin %reidt, advised the Commission that the Planning Department would be glad to assist one of the petitioners :.n trying to develop his parcei of land if he wouid presen# revised plans, and work with the Department in solving any of his development problems. Commissioner Pebley offered a moti~n to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-32 to the meeting of March 4, 1963, and requested the petitioner and agent to contact the Planning Dapartment for further assistance with revised plot plans. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. RBCIASSICIATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. ROBHRT S. and AHI1& T. UNGffit, 2008 Bast N0. 62-63-46 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAlA F. WOLSBORN, 1731 South Huclid Street, "P", Anaheim, Caiifornia, Agent; requestiag that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 200 feet on the south side of Romneya Drive, and a depth of 330 feet, the easterly boundary being approximately 460 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and further described as 1826 aad 1830 Sast Romneya Drive be reclassified from the R-A, RBSID~iTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZO1dB to the F.-3, MIJLTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, Z~VB to conatruct a multiple family planned-unit development. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 324. 3ubject petition was continued from the meetiag of November 26, 1962, to allow the petitioners and the Planning Department an opportunity to meet with prope,rty owners to the east of subject property to discuss possible development of the deep lo•cs to the east af sub,~ect property. Mr. Harry Rnisely, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioners had met with other property owners and the Pianning Depart- ment. ~ ~ Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Councii Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply. ~ffi HBAItING WA9 CI.09BD. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Commissioa the meeting held on January 3, 1963, in which two of the three adjoining property owners of the deep lots to the east were in attendance, that tlie Staff.preseated possible developme~at of the entire southeriy frontage east of the school site, and that Messrs. Sloan and Perez left the Council Chamber intQnding to encourage the third property owner to combine land and resources for a large planned unit multipie family development. ~ ~-- _ ^ i I t ,~ ' ~ ~ ~ r MINUTBS, CITY PLAHIdING COA9~lISSION, January 7, 1963, Continued: 1335 RBCIASSIFICATION - Mr. Sreidt further stated +,nat the proposed development was N0. 62-63-46 generaily in accordance with the Preliminary General Plan except (Continued) that the density was slightly above the low-medium density projected. The Commission noted that the proposed carports were located 320 feet from the street curb; and that it might be suggested that walkways be provided for residents to use to reach said carports; that the petitioner might wish to incorporate the rear of the carports as a portion of the required masonry wali which could be built up to eight (8) feet; and that no additional guest parking was provided in the carport area of subject developmeat. The Commission continued discussion as to the advisability of limiting the time of park- ing on Romneya Drive in order that the future residents would utilize the carports as they we.re intended, since Romney Drive would only be 64 feet wide if both sides were developed after street dedication, and inquired oi ~7eputy pssis4an~ Citj~ ML4OIilZr Purman Roberts, what type of time limitation could be placed on Romneya Drive to prevent tenante of the proposed structure £rom parking in the street. Mr. Roberts stated that time limitation for parking on any City street was at the discretion of the City Council, and that it might be suggested that the Commission request a traffic studp of the street to determine what might be suggested to the City Council as the best possible parking limitation on Romneya Drive. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 590, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Councii that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-46 be approved, subject to conditions. iSee Resolution Book). The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary ;,rerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and generai welfare of the C•_*±~.ns of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYB3: COAAIISSIOnIDRS: Alired, C~vnp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagali, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: CONA~IISSIG~RS: None. ABSBNT: COh4dISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. ANN~ T, and ROF3HRT S. UNGBR, 2008 Bast ; pBRMIT NO. 324 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheiw, Califor.nia, Owne~rs; WILLIAM P. WOLSBURN, , 1731 South Buclid Street "'P", Anaheim, ::alifornia, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A!eULTIPLB PAMILY PLANNFD-UNIT DHVHLOPA~NNT WITH CARPORTS on property desc:ibed as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 200 feet on the south s~3e of Romaeya Drive, and a depth of 330 feet, the easterly boundary being approximatelp 460 £ee*. west of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and further described as 182o and 1830 Sast Romneya Drive. Property presently classified R A, RBSiDBNTL+l[ "~tICULTURAL, ZOI~ffi. ~ ~ • Subject petiti~~n was filed in conjunctioa wit, !?eclassification No. 62-63-46. 3ubject petition was continued from the meeti~:~~;~~f Nw ember 26~ 1962, in order to allow the petitioners time to co.~tact adjoining pro~;:rty owners and discuss with the Planning Department the best possible devel~pm~ent of the deep lots comprising of the subject property and three additional lot.~ to thf: east of subject property. Mr.. Harry Rnisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~emission and stated that he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration. Chairman Gauer inqu:.red if anyone was present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition~ and received no reply. 1FR HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ~ ''~ I • ' i ~ ~ i ~ ,, -~---.- __ -,------ --------_---.--~--- ~- . I --___-~~. _ . ~------. _ ~ ~ MINUT83, CITY PIANNiNG COMMISSION, Jaauary 7, 1963, Continued: 1136 CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 591, Series 1962-63, PffitblIT NO. 324 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner (Continued) Csimp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 324, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMr[I3SION~t3: Allred, Camp, Chavas, Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry, NOB3: COhPlISSIONHlt3: Noae, ABSBNT: CQhA~IISSIODffitS: Hapgood. SPECIAL RHQUBST - Commissioner Mazcoux offesed a motion to direct the City Traffic TO 1HB TRAPPIC Hngineer to conduct study of the flow of t*aff±c a~d px~~ing of ffiIGINffiR vehicles on Romneya Avenue, and to make a comparison to similar street parking on the type of width as Romenya Drive where apart- ments were located to determine whether or not a parking time limi- tation should be estabiished for that portion of Romneya Drive which will front the proposed multiple fsmily development in ReclassiEication No. 62-63-46, located at 1826-1830 Hast Romneya Drive which proposes 22 two-bedroom apartments and 2 one-bedroom apartments for property with a 200 foot frontage, and which aiso provides 30 carports. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion by adding that said report should be prepared and submitted to the City Councii to be heard at the time of the public hearing before the City Council on Petitions fo: Reclassificatioa No, 62-63-46 and Conditional Use Permit No. 324, and a copy of said study forwarded to the Commission for their perusai, MOTION CARRIHD, CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. CAPITOIA A, and HASRBIy A. KRTTy, PffitMIT N0. 329 852 North West Street, and M. FRANCIS .MSNN, 900 North West Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM DITZHAZY, 855 North West Street, Anaheim, California~ Agent; iequesting permission to CONSIRUCT A pIANNBD-UNIT DBVHLOPMBNT on property described as; A recEa agular parcel of land having a frontage of 213 feet on the easterly side of West Street and a depth of 295 feet~ the sou'theriy oaundary of said property being approximately 630 feet northwesterly of the centerline of North Street, aad further described as 852 and 860 North West Street. Property presently ciassified as R-0, ONB PAMILY SUBUABAN, ZONS. Mc. Wiiliam Ditzhazy~ ageat For the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and requested that the Commiasion continue subject petition for two weeks, because the engineers were drafting the piot plans faz a subdivisiun. 1he Commission inquired whether a two weeks continuance was sufficient for the submission of complete plans, to which Mr. Jacobson, representing the engineering concern,stated that complete plans would be suboitted in time for the Interdepartmental Committee meeting. T's-e Commission restated its policy of requiring revised plans to be submitted to the planning DeQartment no later than the second Priday at 5:00 0'Clock P,M., prior to thc next Commission meetiagT which in this instance meant January li, 1963, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 329, to the meeting of January 21, 1963, Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. TBNTATIVE Mpp - SUBDIVIDBR: BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPBRTIBS, 146 East Orangethorpe ~P TRACT N0. 4960 Avenue, Anaheim, California. BNGINEER: MCDANIBL ENGII~EffitING COMPANY, 222 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract is locatea on the east side of Lemon Street, approximately 328 feet north of Orangethorpe Avenue, and contains 11 M-1, Light Manufacturing and P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zone lots. • .l i 1 t ~ ~ -~, ----~- . ~"Yj ~ , i • : .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PYANNING COMMISSION, January 7, 1963, Continued: 1337 ~ THNTATIVS MAP - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed subject tract's i OF TRACT N0. 4960 location on the northerly boundary of the City limits. r (Continued) f Mr. Jacobson, representing the subdivider and the engineer, ~ appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing to add for the Commission~s consideration. i ~i Upon the reading of the conditions for approval by Mr. Rreidt, Mr. Jacobson stated ~' that no mention was made for the dedication of access rights m to Lemon Street as a ~ condition of approval, that according to the City Ordinance, anless the right was ~ specifically granted as an exception to the ordinance for dedication of access ri.ghts to secondary highways, said dedication would be a requirement for the approvai of the map, and that as a representative of the subdivider and the engineer he would like to have these access rights specified for the four corner lots fronting on Lemon Street. Mr. Kreidt stated that he was not aware of this item being discussed at the Inter- departmental Committee meeting, and suggested that the Commission continue considerat•ion of Tentative Map of Tract Nos 4960 and 4961 until later in the meeting or until another meeting, in order to allow the Bngineering Department*s reFresentative time ta determine from the Pubiic Works Director the required dedication of access rights. The Commission suggested that perhaps a condition couid be stipulated whereby the access rights dedication could be subject to review with the Ciiy Bngineer prior to the tracts being approved by the City Councii. Mr. Jacobson acceded to this suggestion. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of 1Yact No. 4960, subject to the following conditions: 1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenative form for approval. 2, Drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfactory to the City Hngineer. 3. D~e to the location of the common boundary with the City of Pullerton, the improvement plans v~ill be reviewed and signed by the City of Puilerton's City Hngineer. 4. Subject to the approval of the City Hngineer for the dedication of access rights to Lemon Street, or other recommendations as deemed aecessary by the City Bngineer at the time subject tract is considered by the City Council. Commissioner. Marcoux seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIBD. THA'TATIVB MAP - SUBDIVIDBR: BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPHRTIHS, 146 Bast Orangethorpe OF iRACT N0. 4961 Avenue, Anaheim, California. HNGINBER: MCDANIEL BNGINHBRING COMPANY, 222 Sast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract is located on the east side of Lemon Street, approximately 328 feet north of Orangethorpe Avenue, and contains 11 M-1, Light Manufacturing, and P-L~ Parking Land- scaping, Zoned lots. Mr. Jacobson, representing the subdivider and the engineer of said tract map appeared before the Commission and stated that all comneats made for :eaative Map of Tract No. 4960 were applicable to subject tract, - Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. ~i961, subject to the following conditions: 1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as moze thaa one sub- divisien, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~---- ~---:--.-. -- ~ MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COhA1ISSI0N, January 7, 1963, Continued; 1338 TBNTATIVB MAP - 2, Drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfac- OF TRACT N0. 4961 tory to the City Engineet. (Continued) 3. Due to the location of the common boundary with the City of Full?rton, the improvement plans will be reviewed and signed by Yhe City of Fullerton's City Sngineer. 4. Subject to the approval of the City Hngineer for the dedication of access rights to Lemon Street, or other reco~nendations as deemed necessary by the Ci~~ 8ngineer at the time subject tract is considered by the City Cauncil. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. VARIANCS N0. 1543 - PUBLIC HF.ARING. FORTUNATO R. MARTINEZ, 506 Bast Cypress Street, P_naheim, California, Owner; ALBBRT HHLLER, 10650 Beach Boulevard, Stanton, Califor.nia, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A SINGLB FAMILY RfiSIDBNCB - WAIVH 3STBACK AND ~235 SQU,~RH FOOT RBQUIRBMENTS on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land having a 50 foot frontage on the s outh side of Cypress Street, and a depth of 130 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 80 feet east of the ce:,:~-liize of S:inta Fe S*reet, and further described as 506 East ~press Street. Property presentl7; classified as R-3, MUI,TIPLS FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 'LONS. Mr. Albert Heller, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and stated he would reserve any comments until later in the hearing. The Commission noted that the alley aubtting to the south of subject property was only 13 Feet wide, that the petitioner proposed an encroachment to within two feet of the alley, that if the City pursued an alley wi3ening program said encroachment would then deter widening of that a11ey oz require removal of the proposed garage along said alley; that in order to maintain the minimum distance between the existing and the proposed homes an entrance must be provided from the side of the garage; and that the o•v~-allckvelopment of sub,ject property, as proposed, was not compatibie with new dwelling to the east of subject property, and a det.~iment to the City. The Commission inquired of Beputy Assistant City Attorney Furman Roberts, whether it was within their jurisdictioa to require the p~titioner to improve, clean up and paint the existing structures, Mr. Roberts ~=plzed that as a condition of approval this cauld be stipulatecl. Mr. Charles Ybarro, 508 East Cypsess SYiee:, appeared before the Commission in opposi}ion to subject petition, and stated that the existing dwelling on subject property was over 30 years old; that the ~roposed structure would not enhance the neighborhood, since it would present a dist?nct contra;:t to the old run-down structure existing on the front portion of subject property, that many buildings in the area had been condemned since 1938 and had not been demolished up to the present date; and that to grant subject~petition would be detrimental to his property. T1~e agent for the petitioner, in rebuttal, stated that the petitioner planned to occupy the new structure and improve the existing structure a~pd use it for rental purposes. Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission discussed the proposed use with the projection for subject property on the Preliminary General Plan, in compatibility to }he present zoning of the property, and felt that the proposed use would not be utilizing the land to its best and highest use for the benefit of the City of Anaheim. `'~, ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ e l..i ~ ~ ~`; < i ~ MINUTE9, CITX PIANNING COh9~tISSION, January 7, 1963, Continued: 1339 ~ ~ VARIANCB N0. 1543 - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 592, Series 1962-63, (Continued) 2nd moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ; Mungall, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1543, based on findings, (See Resolution Book). , On roll call the f~re„oing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~'~ AYB3: COI~ASISSIOt~IiRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOB3: COMMIS3xCWBRS: None. AB3HNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONP.L U3E - PUBLIC I~ARING. GBCQtGB and DOROTHY BBNNBTT, 919 North Shaffer PBRMIT N0. 343 Street, Orange, California, Owners; LHINIS GARRITY, 3030 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permissioa to BSTABLISH A COCKTAIL LOUNGH WITHIN THB pRBSgNT RBSTAURANT on property described as: A rectanguiar parcel of land having a frontage of 116 feet on the south side of Lincnin Avenue and a depth of 255 feet, the eastern boundary of said property beiag approximately 430 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, and further described as 3030 West Lincoln Avenue. Property preseatly classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULIURAL, ZOI~, (C-1, NHIGHBOitH00D COM- MHRCIAL, ZONB, pending). Mr. Lewis Garrity, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that he operated the restaurant currently located on subject property, and that the proposed cocktail lounge would be in the existing restaurant, occupying the westerly portion of the existing building. Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition, and re~.~ived no reply. THE HBARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No, 593, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 343, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the f ollowing vote: A"tH3: COhQ~fISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: C06AiISSIONHRS: None. ABSENT: COhG1ISSI0NHRS: Hapgood. Commissioner Marcoux left the Councsl Chamber at 3;30 0'Clock P.M. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HHARING. ELVBB, INC., 200 West Midway Drive, Anaheim, PffitMIT N0. 344 California, Ownet; L. V. BOSIWICF, 200 West Midway Drive, Anaheim, California, pgent; requesting permission to BXPAND Tf;g EXISTING TRAILBR PARK FACILITIBS on property de~cribed as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontageof 50 feet on the east side of $outh Zeyn Street, and a frontage of 114 feet on the south side of Midway Drive, and further described as 118 Midway Drive, Property classified as M-1, I.lGHT MANUPACTURING, ZONH. Mr. L. V. Bostwick, agent for the petitioner, ~ippeared before the Commission, and stated he had nothing further to add for the Cammission*s consideration. A letter of opposition was read to the Commission from Antonio Covarrubics, owner of property immediately to the souSh of subject property. TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ~. J ~ _._. ~- - - -- -- ------- - f . -.. ---- ~---- -- ~: - - -- -- - ~ ~_ ~_ ~ . _ . ~. ~ ~ . ~'' ,~ _~...~ ~ . " c ~ ~ ~ MINUTB9, CIT3t PI.ANNING CObAlI3SION, Js-auary 7, 1963, Coatinued: 1340 CONDITIONAL USB - The Commission'discussed the proposed use as it was projected on PBRMIT N0. 344 the Prel3minary General Plan and aoted that it was the concensus CContinued) of the Commission that the easterly boundary of the residential area for South 2eyn Street should be the west side of said street; that subject propertq was proposed for M-1, Light Manufacturing developmeat on the Preliminary General Plan; and that subject ase by these fiadings would be an incompatible use for the development in the City of Anaheim, Commissioner Marcoux retrned to the Council Chamber at 3:37 0*Clock P.M, Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 594, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 344, based on findings. (See R:solution Book.) On ro11 ca12 the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: C01~4lISSIONHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebleq, Perry. NOBS: COhAtISSIONHRS: None. AB3TAIN: COAAlI3SIOh'~tS: Marcoux. ABSBNT: COi~AlIS3IONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC IIDARING. WOODBN SHOB RANCH, INC., 8431 Monroe Avenue, Stanton, PHRMIT NO. 346 California, Ownezs; HARRY LINDBNBBRG or HARRY 1{NISLSY, 8431 Monroe Avenue, Stanton~ California, Agents; requesxing permission to CONSTRUCT A SINGLB STORY PIANNBD-UNIT DBVSLOPAffiNT on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 380 feet on the east side of Nutwood Aveaue, ar.d a depth of 640 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 290 feet north of Ball Road, and further described as 906 3outh Nutwood Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB, (R-3, MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB, pending), Mr. Harry Snisiey, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property was reclassified by Resolution of Intent sometime ago; that in November of 1962, revised plot plans were submitted tu the City Council for approval, ~.1 at that time the petitioner was advised that any Pir~ned Unit Development must be approved by a Conditional Use Permit; that on December 26, 1962, the City Council granted the petitioners permission to proceed at their own risk oa the construction of the planned u~it development until such time as subject petition was heard; that first read- ing of the Ordinance of Petitioa for Reclassification No. 60-61-38 would be read within a week; and that subject petition was the northerly portion of property being reclassified from R A, Residential Agricultural, Zone, to R-3, Multiple Pamily Resi- dential, Zone. Mrs. Mary Andrews, 927 Nutwood Street, representing the Nutwood-Ball Service Associ- ation, appeared before the Commission and stated. that the associat~on was not oppoaed to the single story planned unit deveiopment, but was concerned because one of the conditions.of approval of Reclassification No. 60-61-38 was•dedicatioa.of property for widening Ball Road; that a large tree stood at the coraer of Nutwood aad Ball Road:atid "' " presented a hazardous condition to the many children using the street to and from ~cho~l,. and the opening of the new neighborhood park would increase traffic accidents and '`~~!y'•'~"~• injuries to the children bccause the tree jutted out almost to the traffic lanas on ~~~ Ball Road; that the plot plans as presented did not indicate any ingress and egress to Ball Road; that the traffic from the development would be uaing Nutwood Avenuet a coilector street, for parkiag purposes as well as a means of eatering the proposed development; and that parking was provided to meet the minimum of 1~ cars per dweiling unit, which could create a parking problem with many families haviag two care each. Mrs. Rodney Hensler, 908 Hcho Place, appeared before the Commiasion, and inquired whether the present 20 foot alleq wouid be used as a means of ingress aad egress to subject property, and inquired whether there were any plaas for an alley being proposed to run southerly to Bail Road for use by the future residents of the development. i I .S ; ~ , , ----------__---~. ~-___._ _~_ _ __ . _ --~., . ______-~ . . ~ I ' .i • ~ ~ . • MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januazy 7, 1963, Coatinued: 1341 CGNDITIONAL USE W 1he Commission informed Mrs. Hensler that no alley was being pro- YffitMIT N0. 346 jected on the plot plan. (Continued) THS HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission further discussed the possibility of ~roviding a peripheral drive around subject development; that the present "pseudo" alley on the northerly portion of subject property might be converted into a dedicated alley; that subject property~s legal description did not include the proposed 30 foot alley to the south between the proposed development and tl:e proposed C-1, Neighborhood Commercial development to the south~ ail properties being incorporated in the Reclassification No. 60-61-38; that the revised plans had been approved by the City Council; and that the first reading of the Petition for Reclassification No. 60-61-38 was based upon the filing of a bond to insure the improvement and dedication of Hall Road at the time the City planned to widen Ball Road. Mr. Knisely then requested that the Commission continue subject petition in order that the developer, owner, contractor, interested neighbors and the Planniag Department might meet to discuss the best solution to problems which had arisen. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 346, to the meeting of January 21, 1963, in order to allow the petitioner, interested parties and the Planning Department an opportunity to resolve differences. Commissioner (~avos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. Commissiuner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 3:40 P,M. RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. J. HAROLD and MARION 3MITH, 3405 West Ball Road, N0. 62-63-53 Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as; p rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 152 feet on the north side of Ball Road, and a depth of 117 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 858 feet west of •the centerline of Western Avenue, and further described as 3311 West Ball Road be reclassified from the R A, RBSIDHNTIAL tiGRICULTURAL, ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB to permit the estabiishment of a aeighborhood shopping center on sub,jsct property. Mr. J. Harold Smith, the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion, and stated that because of the size of t}-e pa:cel of land which is 117 feet by 152 feet and located on Ball Road, it would be an ideal location for commercial development since a conva- lescent hospital had been recently approved ia c2ose proximity to subject proper.ty; and that the property owners on Ball Road approved the development of subject property for a small commercial center. A letter of opposition was read to the Commission, THS HBARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission reviewed previous action by the Commission and the Council on subject property, its close proximity to single family development on the north and scrraund,ed on the other sides by R-A, Resideatial Agricultural, zoned property; that subject property was proposed for low-medium density on the Prelimiaary Geaeral Plazi, and that the Commission at their meeting on March 5, 1962, adopted Bxhibit No. 3 of Planning Studq No. 39-6-4, and recommended that it be the Commission policy to concentrate commercial development at the intersection of arterial highways so as to prevent strip commercial development a~.ong said highways. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 595, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioaer Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-53 be denied based on findings, (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYSi: C(YNI~IISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perrq. NQH3: CObAlISSIONBR3: None. ABSBNT: COhAfIS3I0PIDRS: Hapgood, Pebley. )t 1 ~~ , ~ ~~ ~. ,3 ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COh9~lISSI~i, January 7, 1963, Contiaued; 1342 ; ~ 1 y ~ ~ i RHCBSS - Commissioner Ailred moved for a ten minute recess. Commissioner Camp ;~ ; seconded the motioa. MOTION C•RRISD. ~ ~ i ; 1he meeti;:¢ recesaed at 4:00 0'Clock P.M. ~ I ~ ,! gECONVBNH - Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting at 4:14 0'Clock Y.M., all ! Commissioners beind present except Commiasioner Hapgood. RECUIBSIPICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. STANTON NURSSRY, INC., 3730 West Ball Road, N0. 62-63-54 Anaheim, California, Owners; HAUPTbWN-ISAAC-R. B. JOHIV90N, 1741-D South Buclid Street, Anaheim, California; Agents;requesting that pIOp2ltf d'cSCii`~cu uo: n i2C~oTi~yiiZoY ~oIC2i O: ZwAG~. .~'.o~+:.a ~ froatage of 330 feet c:n the aouth aide of Bali Road~ and a depth of 607 ieet, the wastera boundary of said property 'Deiag approxisately 670 feet east of the centeriiae of Holder SYreet~ and further described as 3730 West Ball Road be reclasaified fxom the R A~ R&4IDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS to the R-2, TYVO-PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20I~ffi 4o permit the development of a aingle story plaaaed-unit multipie family residential development with carports on sub,~ect property. 3ub,~ect petition was filed in conjuaction with Conditional Use Permit No. 342. Mr. R. A. Johnaon, agent for the petitioner, sppeared before the Commisaion and stated that the proposed development was a low-density, that only 54,000 square feet of the 200,000 qquare foot iaad area wouid be utilized for the planaed unit developmeat with 56 units planned and an approximate 286 persons occupqing said uaits; and that the entrance to the development would be from Hall Road, Mr. Robert Mann, 1215 Premont Street, appeared befor~ the Commiasion in opposition to sub3ect petitioa, aad stated that sub3ect property was completely surrounded by siagle family developmeat, and that the propoaed use of the property would be incompatibEe to the area and a detriment to the surrounding property. Mr. Bdward Slock, 1219 Premont Street~ owuer of property abutting aubject property, appeared before the Commission and atated that the propoaed R-2. 1lvo Panily Residential, Zone was just another term for multiple family development which had been denied by both the Commission and the ~ouncil; that the traffic g~nerated by the deveiopment would be a further hazard to the many chiidren living in the single family developments surrounding sub,ject property; and that previously the City had propoaed that Berkiey Street be exteaded to Ball Road for better circulation for the propertq to the south when sub,~ect property was developed since at the present time Premont Street was the only through .~treet from the single family development to the south. Mr. f:arry &iisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion in rebuttal, and atated that some of the propertq owaPrs had been coatacted and that a three to one rat3o favoring the proposed deve].opment was determined; aad that the main isaue for the Com~ission to decide was whether the proposed development was low density, an<;; whether 3t was the highest and best land use of the subject property, because the petitioner could aot develop sub,ject property for sing7.e family homea. 1~ffi HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commissioa i:c:ed that ihey,as a body, had denied a similar request previously because it e~a in confiict with the Preliminary General Plan, and that the petitioner had not proven aaY hardship or phqsical change in the area to warrant the Commission*s consideration as bein~ a more compatibl~ land use. --- ~ ~---~- -- _~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITIt PIANNING COhU1I8SI0N, January 7, 1963, Continued: ~ 1343 RBCUISSIPICATION - Co~issioaer Chavos offered Resolution No. 596, Series 1962-63, N0. 62-63-54 and moved for its passage aad adopti.on, seconded by Commissioner (Continued) Marcoux, to recommend to the Citq Council that Petition fur Reclassificatioa No. 62-63-54 be deaied ~ased on fiadittgs. (See Resolution Book), On roli call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYB3: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Munigall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: CObMISSI0NBR3; None. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL U38 - PUHLIC FffiARING. STANTON NURSBRY, INC., 3730 West Ba11 Road, Anaheim, PBRMIT N0. 342 Califoraia, Owners; HAUPTMAN-ISAAC-R. B. JOHN90N, 1741-D 3outh Buclid Street, Aaaheim, California, Ageats; requeating permission to CONSTRUCT A SINGI.B-3TORY L(~V-DBNISTY PLANNBD-UNIT DBVBIAPMBNT on nroperty described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 330 feet on the south side of Ba11 Road, and a depth of 607 feet, the western boundarq of said property being approximately 670 feet east of the centerline of Hoider Street, and further descriUed as 3730 West Ball Road. Property presently classified as R-A, RSSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT[TRAL, ZONB. Subject petitioa was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-54. Mr> Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioners waived the reading of the petition since the reclassification filed in conjunction with subject petition had been denied by the Commission. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 597, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 342, based on findiags. (See Resolution book). On roll cail the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote: AYFS: COM'dIS3I0NHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOES: COF~AfISSIONEltS: None. ABSHNT: COi~AMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. RBCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBA1tING. ROSSRT L. WBTZLBR, 929 Spring Street, Anaheim, NO. 62-63-55 California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A rectaagular parce! of land having a frontage of 165 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a depth of 300 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 413 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, and further described as 2052 West Bail Road be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COhA1BRCIAL, ZONH to enlarge the commercial development abu*fing to the west of subject propertq for additional parking facilities as well as ~ne construction of a 9,250 square foot commercial building. Mr. Robert L. Wetzler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and stated that he would like to c?arifq some of the statements made on the petition in reference to pre- sent and previous zoning action on subject property; that approximately four years ago a previous owner requested neighborhood commercial zoning on the property which had been withdrawn by the previous petitioner because he was unable to meet the condi4ions imposed by the City in approving the reclassification; that the petitioner now proposes to develop five shops and stores with the general design to conform with the architecture of the commercial develr,pment to the west; and that he hoped to extend commercial development as far east on Ball Road as he would be permitted by the City. ,; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s t ; t i i ~I l~ i \~_.__ ... ~_.__.. _ ___.-~- ------ _.._~~`____-_-- , - .._._~! . • ~ (.~ ~ MINUTBS, CITIt PLANNING CQ64AI3SION, Jaauarq 7, 1963, Continued: A`' 1343 R8CIJ133IPICATION - Commissioner Chavos offered Reaolution No. 596~ Series 1962-63, N0. 6L-63-54 and moved for its passage and adopt3.on, seconded by Commissioaer (Contiaued) Marcoux, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-54 be denied based oa £indings. (3ee Resolutioa'Book). On roll cali the foregoing reaolutioa was passed by the following vote: AYB3: COhA1I3SI0NSRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, M9rcoux, Mungaii, Pebley, Perry. NQB3: COM~IISSIONffit3: None. ABSBNT: COFA4ISSIONffitS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC F~iARING. STANTON NURSBRY, INC., 3730 West Ba11 Road, Anaheim, PBRMIT N0. 342 California, Ownera; HAUPIMAN-ISAAC-R. H. JOF~T80N, 1741-D $outh Buclid 3treet, Anaheim, California~ Agents; requeating permiesion to CONSTRUCT A SINGLH-3TO~tY LQN-DBNISTY PIJIM~D-UNIT DBVBIAPMBNT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 330 feet on the south side of Ball Road, and a depth of 60? feet, the western boundary of said property beiag approximately 670 feet east of the centerline of Holder Street, and further described as 3730 West Bail Road. Property presently classified as R A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULT[IRAL~ ZONB. 3ubject petition was filed in conjunctioa with Reclassification No, 62-63-54. Mr. Harry gnisely, attoraey fos the petitioner, appeared before the Commission aad stated that the petitioners waived the reading of the petitioa since the reclassification fiied in conjunction with subject petition had been denied bq the Commission. ' Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 597, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage aad adoption, aeconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Condition~l Use Pe=mit No. 342, based on findings. (See Resolution Hook). Oa roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed bq the foilowing vote: AYB3: CObA~tIS3TONffitS: Aiired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. HQE3: COI~SISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CObMISSIOi~TBRS: Hapgood, RECIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. ROSBRT L. WSTZLBR, 929 Spring Street. Anaheim, N0. 62-63-55 California, Ownex; requesting that property described as: A rectangular ~arcel of iand having a frontage of 165 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a depth of 300 feet, the western boundary of said property beiug approximately 413 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, and further described as 2052 West Ball Road be reciassified from the R-A, RBSIDHN~IAL A(~tICULTURAL, ZONS to the C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD CahAtHRCIAL, ZONS to enlarge the commercial developmeat abutting to the west of subject propertq for additional parking facilities as well as ~he construction of a 9,250 square foot commercial building. Mr. Robert L. Wetzler~ the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and stated that he would like to clarifq some of the statements made oa the petition in refetence to p=e- sent and previous zoning action on sub,ject property; that approximately four years ago a previous owner requested neighborhood commercial zoniag on the property which had beea withdrawn by the previous petitioner because he was unable to meet the coadiiions imposed by the City in approviag the reclassification; that the petitioner now proposes to deveiop five shops and stores with the general design to conform with the archi4ecture of the commercial development to the west; and that he hoped to extend commercial development as far east on Bali Road as he would be permitted by the City, I E,. ~ `~ , •:'.~ ~~ ~9 _--=_~ RSCLASSIFICATION - Chairman Gauer inquired whether anyone in the Council Chamber N0. 62-63-55 opposed sebject petition, and received no reply. (Contiaued) TFID HBARING WAS CLOSED. Zoniag Coordinator Martin %reidt, noted for the Commission that the Preliminary General plaa proposed commercial development for subject property. Commiasioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 598, Seriea 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassificatioa No. 62-63-SS be approved, sub,ject to coaditions. (See Resolution Book). The conditiona as stated in the Resolution Book Wese recited at the sae2tiag aud ;;~re found to be a neceasary prerequisite to the use of the propertq ia order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizeas of the City of Anaheim. On roil cail the foregoing reaolution was passed by the followiag vote; AY83~ CONMI3SIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley, Perry, NOBS CQhAiIS3I0N~tS: None. AB9BNT: COh~lISSIONHRS: Hapgood. RHCIASSIPICATION ~ PUBLIC HBARING. CQRPQRATION OP Tt~ffi PRBSIDING BISHOP, CHURCH OP N0. 62-63-56 JB3US CI~tIST OP IATTBit DAY SAINTS, A UTAH CQRPCRATION, Salx Lake City, Utah~ Owners; LBROY ROSB, California Pederai Savings Buiiding~ 8uclid at Crescent, 3uite 686, Aaaheim, Califortd a, Ageat; requestina that property described as; pn irregular parcel of land haviag a frontage of 400 feet~ pius or minus, on the aortherly side of Wiiahire Avenue, and a froatage of 230 feet~ plua or minus, on the east side of Loara 3treet, aad further described as 400 North Loara Street be reclassified from the R-0, ONE, PAMILY SUffiJRBAN, ZONB to the R-3~ MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONB to establish a aingle atorq piaaned-unit multiple familq resident3al development with carports on subject property. 3ub,ject petitioa was filed in coajunctioa with Conditional Use Permit No, 345. Mr. LeRoy Rose, ageat for the petitioner, appear~d before the Commission, and stated that sub,~ect propertq was projected on the Preliminary General Plan for buaiaesa and professional offices, that the southerly irregularly shaped parcei of land was being proposed for development as a single story multiple family development which wa8 located directly across from the Broadway Anaheim shopping center; and that the development wouid act as a buffer between the commercial development to the west aad the single family developmeat to the east. 2oning Coordinator Martin greidt, advised the Commiasion that the Bngineering Department recommeaded that Beverly Drive termin~te et the easterly property line of aubject property; and that the easemeat for drainage would be required so that evea though the six (6) foot masanry wall phqsically closed off Beverly Drive, the dxaiaage from - -Heverly Drive would be westerly to L'oara 9treet. Mr. Raq Link~ 513 Meadowbrook Place, appeaxed before the Commission itt opposition to subject petition and stated that the Commiasion kad denied the construction of the existing church, but that the City Council had approved i~; that the onlp laadscaping, a requirement in the approval by the City of the church. was the plantittg of a few trees and ivy along the wall; and that the presen~ drainage from the east should be maintaiaed together with the elimination of Beverlq Drive to Loara Street. ~ ~ t MINUTES, CITY P7ANNING CQhSriISSION, January 7, 1963, Continued: 1344 .... _ _.. . ._ . . ... ._ _. __ ~ ~ , (~ ~ `~:~;;. MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COD9~tISSION, Janu~ry 7, 1963, Continued: 1345 RHCLA3SIFICATION ~ Mr. Cris Petersen, 417 Meadowbrook Place, appeared before the Com- ~ N0. 62-63-56 mission and stated that he was opposed to the location of the (Continued) swimming pool being located diz~ctly across from his property; ~ that the noise and lights from the use of the pool and recreation facilities would be infringing oa his privacy. ~ Mr. Rose, in rebuttal, stated that the six (6) foot masonry wall would afford privacy, ~ as well as miaimaze the noise, and that the future tenants of the development wauld i also like to have their own privacy, i The Commission inguized what was planaed for the northerly 126 feet remaining between the proposed development and the church to the north. Mr. Lynn Thompsen, 520 Dwyer Drive, appeared before the Commissioa and stated tha: he '~ was the developer of the subject pzoperty; that he was not at liberty to divulge the ~ identity of the developer o£ the northerly 126 feet abutting subject property, but that ; a buainess aad profeasional office was being proposed for said property. The ~ommission expressed the desire of development of the northerly 12F feet to be ' compatible to the multiple family development to the sarth if subject petition were approved; thst upon completion of all the commercial facilities in the Sarge ahopping center, 4he traffic would be considerably increased if a business and professional office buiiding were propoaed for the northerly 126 feet, but that it was only the Commisaion's concern to pass on subject petition. THS HBAAING WAS CLOSBD. The Coromisaion discuased the circulation elemeat of the proposed development with ~`he suggestion of Mr. $reidt to have ingresa and egress oa the easterly portion of aub,~nst property to Wilshire Street; that it wouid be desirabie to have more parking facilities for gueats withia the development, so that parking would not present a hazardous traffic condition on Wilshire 3treet; and that the turn around area indicated on the plot plan would be utilized for parking purposes unleas provisions were made for additional parking. Mr. greidt stated that if the Commission wished to permit an encroachment into the required twenty-five (2S) foot minimum space betweea buildings; the architect might redesign the easterly structure marked "D" on Bxhibit No. 1, by relocating the building in order to pravide additional parking at the southerly ettcl of the turn around. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 594,. Series 1S62-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petitioa for Reclar~sification No. 62-63-56 be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: ' CQh9~lISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMI3SIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONHRS: Hapgood, ~ ~: ' ~ ~. _ ~ . .:L ~ !.X`,'1 -'' . ~'_~'; ~ ~. " . ~ ID MINOTES, CITY PLANNING COMAlISSION, January 7, 1963, Continued: 1346 CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. CORP~tATION OP THB PRHSIDING BISHOP, CHURCH OP ~ PBRMIT N0. 345 JHSUS CHItIST OF IATTER DAY SAINTS, A UTAH C~tP~tATION, Salt Lake City, Utah, Owners; LBROY ROSB, California Federal Savings Building, ~ Suciid and Crescent, Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CON3TRUCT A SINGLE STOitY'PIANNBD-UNIT DBVHLOPMBNT on property ~ described as: An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 400 feet, plus or minus, on the northerly side of Wilshire Avenue. and a frontage of 230 feet, plus or min~~s, on ~ the east side of Loara Street, and further described as 400 North Loara 3treet. { Property presently classified in the R-0, ONE FAMILY SUBURHAN, ZONH. 3ubject petition was filed im conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-56. Mr. LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Co~ission and stated all his comments made in the aearing of Reclassifica~ioa No. b2-b3-56 were applicabie. THB F~ARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioaer Marcoux offered Resolution IVo. 600, Ser.ies 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petitioa for Conditionai Use Permit No. 345, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing i•esolution was passed by the following vote: AIB3: COMMIS3IONHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gaue;, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSYONHRS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONHRS: Hapgood. RHC~iD REVISION - Commissioner Mungail offered a motion to recommend to the TO TFffi PRBLIMINARY Planning Departmeat that the area bounded on the west by Loara G6I~RAL P7AN 3treet, on the south by Wilshire Avenue, on the east by the present R-0, Residential Suburban, Zoae, and on the north by uaextended Heverly Drive, from the C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD CQD9~ffiItCIAL, Z01~ to R-3, MUT,TIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONS, in order to incorporate the area approved by tSie Commission under Pc4ition for Reclassification No. 62-63-56. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motioa. MOTION CP1tRISD, Commissioner Allred opposed. RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARFNG. CHARLBS and IDA P. LBVY, 719 South Harbor B~ule- N0. 62-63-57 vard, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as; A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 58 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, and a depth of 110 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 125 feet north of the centerline of South Street, and further described as 719 South Harbor Boulevard, be reclassified froa the R-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDRNTIAL, ZONB to the C-1, NBIC,~iB0AH00D CQI~9~AHRCIAL, ZONH to establish a real estate office in an existing residence on subject property. Mr. Stephen Gailagher, representing the petitioners; appeared before the Commission, and stated that the petitioners were curreatly usiag subject property for a real estate office and residence; that use of subject property ~ould be for a real estate office oniy, if subject petition were approved; and that homes in the general vicinity of subject property were beiag used for similar business and professioaal offices. Chairman Gauer inquired if anyone was in the Couecil Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply. THB HBARING WAS CL06HD. MINOTE3, CITY PIANNING CQU4~lISSION, January 7, 1963, ConEinued: 1347 RBCIAS3IPICATION - The Commission discussed the possibility of setting a time N0, 62-63-57 limitation on the use of the reside*ttial structure as a possible CContiaued~ solution for the developmeat of Hari~or Boulevard from Broadway to Vermont Street to prevent a disorderiy development of propertq in ciose proximitq to public bUildings, said time limitation to inciude requiremeat of the removai of the existing structure, whether or not structural changea had beea made, and replacament with an accpetable commercial type structure in harmoay with the developmeat of the area in which the subject property was located. 2oning Coordinator Martia Sredit~ at the request of the Commiasion, recited the =ecommended conditions if subject petition were approved, and after the time limitation stipulatioa was requested by the Com~iasion, asted that Deputy Asaistant City Attorney Puroan Roberta. render a legai opinion on the validi.ty oi placing this time iimitation, aince on previous occasions #he Commission had pl~ced time limitations ia graating petitioas, and upon being reviewed bq the City Council, this validitq was queationed ea to whether it could be eaforced after an ordinance zoaing the sub3ect propertq for C-1, Neighborhaod Commerciai purposea had been read; and the time limitation aet by the Comiaisaiaa had expired what 1ega1 recourae could be offesed to enforce this time liaitation for the uae of an existinq structure, Mr. Robeita replied that, even though the ordiaaace had beea read aad a apecified time limitation had beea placed on the uae of the property, if conditioas had beea impoaed which were re?ated to the reclassification, evea though it wae a aubaequeat conditioa, if ~he time llm3tation aet by the ordinance requiring removal of an exiatiag reaideatial atructure and replacement with commercial type facilitiea had not beea complied with, ea a coadition of rexoning, the property could be by law reverted to ita originai zoning prior to the reciasaificatioa. Mr. Roberta fuxther atated, thst at the League of Cities. this same questioa had beea diacuased at leagth and the opinion as atated was coasidered vaiid. Commisaioner Marcoux offered Resolutioa No. 601, 3eries 1962-63, aad moved for ita passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Camp, to recommead to the Ci4y Couacii that Petitioa for Reclasaificatioa No. 62-63-5T be approved aub3ect to coaditione. (3ee Reaolution Book). ' The coaditiona as atated in the Resolution Boot were recited at the ~eaeting aad were found to be a aeceasary prerequiaite to the use of the propertq in order to preaerve the safety aad generai welfare of the Citizens of the City of Aaaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote; pYB3: CO~fI3SI0:~P.S: Alired, Camp, Clsavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry. NOBS; CON.'r.lISSIONBRS: None. pBgBNT: C(k-4dIS3I01~ffiTcB: Hapgood. RBCIA83IPICATIQN - PUBLIC FffiARING. I~4t. and MR3. PHTS HILTSCFffiA, 918 West Romneya pp. 62-63~58 Drive, Aaaheim, California, Owners; RICHARD M. POLBNTZ, 423 Parkway. " Anaheim, Califoraia; Agent; requesting-that property deacribed as: A rectangular paxcel of land 40 feet bq 70 feet, the southera boundary of said reoperty being approacimatelq 253 feet aorth of the centerline oF La 8alma Avenue. the western boundary of said property being appsoximatel,> 470 feet east of the ceaterline of West Street, and further described as 1011 West La Palma Avenue, be reclasaifaed from the R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONID, to the C-1, 1~IDIGFID~tH00D COFV~tCIAL, 2~QB to permit the development of a medicai-deatal building on subjeat property. Mr. Richard Polentz, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commissioa and stated that the proposed 40 feet would be utilized for additionai parking facilities for the developneat being proposed for the southerly 200 feet from aubject pxoperty.. ~ ` `. ;. . . , ~ ';~ ,f ~ .~..~ T . . _ . __ ._ __ ~ i :`r ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMI~SION, January 6, 1963, Continued: 134~ ~ ~ 2 RHCIA33IPICATION - Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone ia the Co:~~rs'.s ; N0. 62-63-58 Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no replq. ~ ~ (Continued) ' ; TFIB HBARING NU1S CLOSBD. , The Commission reviewed the plot plaas and aote& that the proposed development of sub;~ect I property would be incorporated in an original reclassification of the property to the ' south. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 602, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded bq Commissioner Mungall~ to recommend to the City Council ~ that Petition for Rpclassification No. 62-63-58 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). , The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meetiag and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the ; safety aAd general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the foll~wing vote; A~S: COhafI3SIUAIDRS: Alired, Camp, Chsvos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley, Perry. NOH3: COhA4ISSI0I~RS: Noae. AH3BNT: COI~AlISSION~tS: Hapgood. RSCIASSIP'CATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. DAVS DOI~IltIBS. ?06 South Knott Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 62-63-59 California, Owner; NBIL RHITMAN~ 10582 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Californi., Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregular parcel of land haviag a frontage of 107 feet on the east side of Bnott Avenue, and aa average depth of 560 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 790 feet south of the centeriine of Orange Aveaue, and further described as 706 South Knott Avenue, be reclassified from the R-~A, RffiIDENTIAL AGRICULTVRAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONE to coastruct a two- story planned unit development. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditionai Use Permit No. 347. Mr. Neil Reitman, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property was basically multiple family property as the best possible land use of the land, and it couid not be economically possible to develop subject property for single family use. The Commission noted that the subject property if approved for development as proposed would landlock the property to the south because of its odd shape as well as being considerablq smailer and could not be developed as an asset to the City; and that it would be more beneficial to the petitioner to contact the property ownersto the north and the south to develop the properties into a more compatible development. The agent for the petitioner stated that property to the south could n~± be financed for R-3 development because over haif of the property was bounded by the Orange County Plood Control Channel. Commissioner Cazap left the Council Chamber at 5:20 O'Clock P.M. Mr. John Andersen, 3421 Paircrest Drive, Mre. John C. McMiilan, 3425 Paircrest Drive, and Mr. Aenneth Allison, 3424 Paircrest Drive, appeared before the Comaission in opposition to subject petition, stating :ha± they opposed two story construction; that ti~e proposed de~elopment wouid present a high density factor for the schools and traffic congestiea cf the a.r.ea, and tha~ two story construction would be an invasion of the privacy of the single family development adjacent to the Flood Control Channel. THB F~A1tING WA3 CLOSBD. MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CONAlISSION, January 7, 1963, Continued: 1349 RHCLASSIPICATION ~ The Commission noted that subject property was included in open N0. 62-63-59 land assemUiy Study Area No. 6-2, which suggests the best develop- (Continued) ment of property sdjacent to and including subject property should be a joint effort because all lots were deep narrow lots which did not lend themselWes to the best land use if individua2ly developed; that two~story construction was proposed adjoining to :he south by singie family develop- ment; that inadequate circulation was 3 s~rious factor to be considered when viewing the plot plan; and that subject prope~ty was projected on the Preliminary General Plan for low-density residential use, whereas the propused planned unit development proposed medium den~ity residential development. Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 5:35 0`Clock P.M. Co~?ss?ener Ma*coux offered Resolution No. 603, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-59 be disapproved based on findings. (See Resolution Book). On roll call :`s foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS~IONffitS: Alired, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NOES: COhMISSIONBRS: None, ABSENT: CObAfISSIONHRS: Camp, Hapgood, Pebley. CONDITIO'IU-L USH - PUBLIC HHARING. DAVB DOMRIHS, 706 South Knott Avenue, Anaheim, PBRMIT N0. 347 California, Owner; NHIL RBITMAN, 10582 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A 1W0-STQRY PIANNHD-UNIT DEVBLOPMHNT - WAIVB ONH-STORY HHIGHT LIMITATION ox~ property descr3bed as: An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 107 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue, and an average depth of 560 feet, the northern boundaxy of said property being approximately 790 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avent~e, and further described as 706 South Rnott Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A., RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-59. Mr. Neii Reitman, agenf for the petitioner, appeare3 befcre the Commission and stated trat hP had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 604, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, secc•nded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Reclassification No. 347, based on findings. <See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, P<:rry. NOES: COba(ISSIONBRS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Hapgood, Pebley. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t RHCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. GULP OIL C~tPOdtATION OP CALIPORN7A, c/o MRC DBVHL- N0. 62-63-60 OPBR INC., 511 West Wilken Way, /~naheim, California, Owneis; LEROYR03H 600 North Huclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 411 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue, and a depth of 630 feet, th~ southern boundary of said property being approximately 253 feet nosth of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 201 North Dale Avenue be reclassified from the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COD9dBRCIAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONH to construct a two-story planned unit multiple family residential development. Subject petition was filed in conjmiction with Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 348. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUIB9~ CI7'Y PLANNING COI~BYSISSION., January 7, 1963, Gontinned: 1350 RECiASSIFICATION - Mr. LeRoy Rose, ageat for #he petitioners,appeared before the N0, 62-63-60 Commission and stated that the proposed development would be lContiaued) compatible with the Commission~s desires to propose multiple family development between singie family development and commercial development; aad that the pians proposed single story construction within 150 feet of any single family structure. Commissioner Yeble; returned to the Councii Chamber at 5:45 F.M. A number of persons in the Councii Chamber stood up to oppose subject petition, but asked to be permitted to review the plot plans before they could present logical opposition to subject petition. k,:, g.~~=r~ 4lcC1_sp, 3851 'lWle* Avenue; agr~eared before the Commission and stated his property line abutted the proposed driveway oa the multipie family development which he opposed. Mr, John Brylo, 2846 Tyler Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed development vrould be a detriment to the Community because it wouid decrease the land valuation of the single family development abutting subject property. Mr. Edward Matura, 2851 Tyler Avenue, appeared.before the Commissioa and stated that he opposed multiple family dwellings abutting the single family development, and in~7uired of the agent if the proposed apartments were compar,~ble in size and architecture to the single family homes surrounding subject property. Mr. Rose repiied that the apartments ranged in size from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet and were proposed to rent in the vicinity of $175 per month, that each 4-unit building coats in the vicinity of $38,OOQ to $40,000; and that all requirements as noted in the Anaheim Municipal Code had been complied with. A letter of opposition from Mr, and Mrs. H. K. Lewis, 227 Coolidge Avenue, was read to the Commission. T1~ HBARING WA3 CL05ED. The Commission discusaed subject property as it was projected in the requested study for that area on both sides of Liacoln Aveaue between Beach Boalevard and Magnolia ~lvenue, its compatibility to the development of the area, if the area should remain C-1, Neighborhood Commercial as it vras zoned several years ago, the requirement of a masonry wall abutting the southerly boundary of Tyler Avenue; that Tract No. 3099, recorded on March 4, 195? reserved Lot "A", along the southeriy line of Tyler Avenue for street dedication; said dedication to become effective when the adjoining property was improved; that the owner of subject property and the abutting property to the south stipulate to the widening of the balance of Dale Avenue, since this would create an uneven street alignmeat; and that some form of drainage should be provided for Kendor Drive other than to 1~lez Aver_ue. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 605, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Councii that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-60 be approved, subject to conditions. . (3ee Resolution Book). The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting ani were found to be a aecessary prerequisite to the use of the propertq in order to preserve the safety snd general welfare of the Citizens of the City o£ Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYE3: COI~AIISSIONHR~: Alired, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: COMMISSIONBRS: Noae. ABSBNT: CODAlISSI QJBRS: Camp, Hapgood. ,;_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ i i ~ ~ . ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING OOhAfISSION~ January 7, 1963, Continued: 1351 CONDITIONAL IISB - PUBLIC HBARING. GULP OIL C~tPORATION OF CALIPORNIA, c% hIItC. PBRMIT N0. 348 DHVBLOPHR, INC., 511 West Wilken Way, Anaheim, California; Owner; Lffit0Y R06B, 600 North 8uclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A 1W0-STORY PLANNBD-UNIT MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDENTIAL DEVBLOPMHNT WITH CARPORTS on property described as: A rectaagular . parcel of land having a frontage of 411 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue, and a depth of 630 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 253 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 201 North Dale Avenue. Property presently ciassified as C-1, NBIGHBOdtH00D CQAAfBRCIAL, ZONB, 3ub3ect petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassificatia* *To. 62-63-60 Mr. LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and stated that ali comments made in the hearing of Reciassification 62-63-60 were applicable to subject petitiott. 'i'~i3 i~iivG WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 606, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 348, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: ~OMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: (.'ObAiISSIONffitS: None. ABSffiiT: COMMISSIONffitS: Camp, Hapgood. RBPORT3 AND - ITBM N0. 1: City of Plac:ntia Planning Commission Zone Change RHCOhP~NDATIONS No. 62-121, M-1 to R-3, west one-half of Lot 6, Block 8 of the Goldea State Tract located on the south side of La Joila Road east of Avenido de Pio Pico. 2oning Coordi~tor Martin Areidt, reviewed subject zone change with the Plaaning Commission, and noted that the area in which subject property is located is projected for medium deasity residential deveiopment on the Preliminary General Pian. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to advise the Planning Commission of the City of Placentia that the proposed Zone Change No. 62-121 is in conformance with the Preliminary General Plan of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ITBM N0. 2: Orange County Use Variance No, 5089, West Coast Refining Company - Lot 2, Tract 952, east side of Jefferson Street, approximately 300 feet south of Pine Street, east of Piacentia. _ . _ Zoning Coordinator Martin ICreidt, reviewed subject Use Variance with the Planning Commissioa, and noted that the petitioner proposes the establishment of two 15,000 gallon propane storage tanks on a parcel of property presently developed with oil production facilities in aa area projected for industrial development on the Preliminary Generai plan of the City of Anaheim, Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to advise the Orange County Planning Commission that the Planning Commissioa of the City of Anaheim had no comment on Use Variance No. 5089 given the existing use of subject property, Commisaioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. \,~ ~T ,_,.,y,_ ----._:.,~ ,. ~ _ , i:. ~ . .•.~.. .~ , ~lINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, January 7, 1963~ Cont3~aued: ~ 1352 CQRRBSPONDBNCB - ITEM N0. 1: RHSOLUTION RBC~-RDING H-1 ZONING IN PIRALTA HILIS. AND MISCffiLANHOUS Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt~ read a letter to the Commission which had been addressed to the City Council regarding the proposed annexation of approximately 400 acres }.ong referred to as peralta Hills, in which recommendations by the Peralta Hilis Bstates Improvement Association enumerated the desired•type of residential development for that area; and that a brochure was submitted which illustrated the proposed development with the desirable type of residences and the undesirable type of residences in the above mentioned area. Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to accept and file the letter and brochure, and to send a letter of appreciation to the Peralta Hills Bstates Improvement Association, as well as informing them that every consideratioa will be given to their recommen- dations at t:~E tiae the Commiss3oin would consider any deveiopmeut of the Peralta Hilis area in the preparation of the hills zcd canyon areas as it pertained to the Geaeral Pian, if and r~d~en it is the annexe~3 to the C3ty of Anaheim. Coamissioner Atarcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ITBM N0. 2: Request of John Brown and Associates, establish a motel real estate desk in space to be provided by the Saga Motel, Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, informed the Commission that Mr. Brown had submitted a written request for the establishment of an office in the $aga Motel to the Planning Commission; 4hat he had re£erred the letter to the 2oning Representative for handling, but had just been informed that Mr, Brown was in the Council Chamber to present his request. _ Mr. Brown then reviewed his request with the Commisaion and stated that he had his generai offices in Beverly Hills, bat with the development of motels in the Disneyland area, which was his major real estate field, he felt that the use of a desk, provided by the operators of the Saga Motel, and no display of signs, except the required licease to operate as a real estate broker, he hoped that the Commission might coasider his request favorabiy. The Commiasion reviewed for Mr, Brown the Disneqland Policy, established by the Commission and approved by the City Council, which permits only related uses compatihle with the needs of the many vacationers and coaveationeers using the facilities of the Disneyland area, such as restaurants, motels, hoteis, service stations~ traasportation companies such as airlines, railroads and bus companies, would be permitted in the area, and advised Mr. Brown that the use he proposed would be incompatible to the established policy. ITBM N0. 3: Southern California planning Congress Meeting~ January 10, 1963 ~ Hawthorne. Commissioners Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley and Perry ins4ructed the Commission Secretary to make reserv.atioas for the January meetiag of the Planning Cong'ress. • ~ ' AD30URHI~ffiNT - 1'nere being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to ad,journ the meeting. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. l~OTION CAFtRIHD. The meetiag adjourned at 6:25 0'C1ock P.M. Respectfully submitted, /' •~9, . ~/'~.~ ~ ecretar ANAFIDI~! PLANNING CaMAlISSION ~ ~ . ~