Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/02/04erl ' C.~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California Pebruary 4, 1963 RBGUTAR MBETING OP THH ANAHHIM CITY P7ANNING COD4dISSION REGUTAR MBIiTING - A Regulaz Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission war called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. pRE3HNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer. CaMMISSIONIDRS: Alired, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley. E: A~*P~ ~'~ ~oS Pr ~~~ . pB3BNT - COP4dIS3I0NBRS: Hapgood, Perry. pRBSBNT ~ ZONING COORDINATQR: Martir. $reidt. DEPUTY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNBY: Purman Roberts. PLANNING CObNMISSION SBC9tHTARY: Ann grebs. pLHDGB OP ~ Commissioner Mungall led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag. ALI.HGIANCS APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of January 21, 1963, were approved as MINUTES submitted. CONDITIONAL USS - CONTINUBD PUBLIC FffiARING. SIGNAi OIL COMPANY, 1221 South Western, PffitMIT N0. 325 Los Angeles 6, Caiifornia, Owner; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A USHD CAR LdT AND PARKING LOT oa property described as: A rec- icangular parcel of land at the northwest corner of Cypress and Los Angeles 3treets. Property presentlq classified C-2, GffiVBRAL COhA~IffitCIAL, ZONH. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of December 10, and December 27, 1962, to permit the ccrrect readvertising and to permit the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans. Mr. R. W, gaull, 1~21 South Western Avenue, Los Angeles, Califoraia, representing the petitioner, appeared be£ore the Commission and stated that although he had not been present at the previous hearing, he had been informed that revised plans were requested by the Commisaion; that subject property already coatained twa offices and the requi=e- meKt of an additional office suggested by the Commission, would seem to overcrowd the property; that the petitioner intends to blacktop and stripe the area, and provide an anclosed trash storage area, but these would be the oalq improvements that were being proposed; that there would be adequate space for parking and used car facilities on the north side facing Los Angeles Street, and that the service statioa property would not be utilized for parkii,g purposes. _ , CommissionPr Pebley stated that only one use should be proposed for the property front- ing ori Los R.ngeles S4cet, since thit~ street wa5 rapidly developing with new structures, the proposed servicP atai'•on and used car iot Nould be a means of permitting other combinations of uses and thus degrading the eati,:e areap that the petitioner ahould remove ail the junk and clean up the lot adjacent to the service station, and if the used csr lot were approved, the "lube" rack and the car wsah ract would be used to renovate any used car. Cha3rman Gauer inquired whether anyone in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition, ar.d received no reply. TFIR HEARING WAS CL09BD. - 1369 - i ! ; ~ _ .. __ . ,r...._ . ~~ ,....._.._.~-.~ _ _ . .:: .,,.~~«,. ..__.._~..._.._--- --.__.. ._..._._.._~_ r--.._ _ , ~. . _.. . ^ _ ~ _ . i ] • ..,,......'..-_.... C~ ~ • MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Pebruary 4, 1963, Continued: 1370 CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Pebley offered Resolutatoa No. 618, Series 1962-63~ PBRMIT N0. 325 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Coatinued) Chaovs, to deny Petitioa for Coaditional Use Permit No, 325, based on findings. (See R2solution Book.) Commissioner Pebleq stated that one of the findings should be that the proposed development would be incompatible with the developmeat of the surrounding propert3es and in close proximity to subject property, because the general appearance of the combination of a used car lot and a service station would deteriorate the area, and that only oae use should be proposed fcr subject property. Commissioner Chavo.s in seconding the motion, stated that one of the findings should be stated as ia 3ection 18.64.03Q (2-b) except, that it would adversely affect the adjoin- ing land uses. Commissione~ Perry entered the Council Chamber at 2:15 P.M, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote; AYBS: COhAlI89IONIDtS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer. Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley. NOHS: COHMISSIOI~FRS: None. AHSBNT: CONRfISSIONBRS: Hapgood. AB3TAIN: COAAlISSIONBRS: Perry. TENTATIVE MAP OF -- OWNBR-SUBDIVIDffito COMMH2CS PARR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, 1360 South TRACT N0. 4936 Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California. BNGINBBR: W. S. STSVHNSON, 1360 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California. Sub3ect tract is located on the south s3de of La Palma Avenue, 1445 feet east of Dowling Awenue, and contains seven (7) proposed M-1, Light Maaufac- turing, Zone, lots, Zoning Coordinatoz Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Commission the location of subject tract, notiag that it was incorporated within the Northeast Industrial Area as delimited by City Council Resolution No. 62R~335. Commissioner Mungall offered a motioa to approve Tentative M~p of Tract No. 4936, sub- ject to the following condition: ~ 1. That Reclassification No. 61-62-69, as it pertains to subject property, must be ~ompleted prior io the issuance of ang building permit for any industrial develop- ment on subject property. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. VARIANCE N0. 1546 - PUBLIC HBARING. RALPH ''+. MAAS, 118 South Los Angeles Street, - Anaheim, California, Owner; r~qur~ting permission to CONSIRUCT A 3SRVICB STATION on property ~lescribed as; A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 104 feet on the south side of Broadway, and a frontage of 148 feet on the east ~ide of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 418~422 West Braadway. Property presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLH FAMILY RHSIDBNTL4L, ZONB. ,;ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ Mr. Ralph Maas, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was ~ making application for a var~ance, due to the fact that the backgsound of the develop- ) ment of subject property, fronting on two busy thoroughfares, the only practical 3 development of this corner parcel of property would be a service station, that the structure would Ue compatible with other structures in the general vicinity; that the proposed deveZopment would not be a hardship in the future development of that area; that the petitioner proposed a different type of structure which wouid be modernistic in design, and with planters to further enhance the property; that no body or fender work would be done at the•service station; that no trailers would be parked on the I service station property; that a service station presently existed on the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevarfl and Broadway; and that he would dedicate additional ~ frontage on Harbor Boulevard for future street widening. ~ ..__.__._._-~ -----------•, - ..__._.. _-----___...___._.~_.__...__ .._.___..,~.,_.______ _~___. ~ '. ' ~~~ ,`~ ~ 1 i MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING C06AfISSION, February 4, 1963, Continued: 1371 VARIANCB N0. 1546 ~ Commissioner Chavos asked the pe4itioner whether he considered (Continued) there was a hardship in the development of subject property which would warrant his filing for a variance, and the petitioner replied, that any development of subject property other than what was proposed xrould be impractical, since a parking problem would develop if subject property were developed for business and prafessional offices;that a desirable structure would not be practical because parking would be required on subject property, thus reducing the quality and si~e of structure of the corner parcel, and the proposed development would enhance the area because the structures on subject property were in disrepair axi3 thus, cuuld not rent the homes to tenants which were desirable for the area; and that he had owned one home eight (8) yeass and the other home two (2) years. Commissioner Pebley inquired of the petitioner whether construction of the new City facilitiea on Harbur Boulevard was instrumental in his necision to ourchase the property and develop it as a service station. The Petitioner replied that at the time he purchased subject property, no development plans for a public library or police faciiity had been planned; and that he did not decide to construct the service station soley because a librarq was being constructed on the opposite side of the street. Dr. William Kelsey, 1121 Parkway, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that he and his wife owned property two doors east of subject propertyo that he ~pposed the proposed service station for four reasons: (1) that the service station did not seem compatible to the new City facilities being constructed on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, as weli as, structures on Broadway with its many churches within two blocks of subject property, (2) that any structures in close proximi~ty of the City facilities should be architecturally compatible, which the proposed development did not show, (3) that the proposed service station would increase an already hazardous traffic situation, aad with the opening of the library facilitie~, many children would be using the facilities, which would further aggravate the situaYion for both Harbor Boulevard and Broadway, and finally (4) that the proposed service station would depreciate the value of property along Broadvray and adjacent to subject property; and that the present zoning of the property for the entire block was multiple family, which would lend itself very favorably with low- medium siagle story apartments in close proximity to the churches, thus this would be an oppo•rtunity to improve the entire area. Mr. W. 8. Whitman. 518 South Los Angeles Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that he owned the property imaediately adjacent to suuj°:t propezty .^.n Broadway, that he also represented the property owner adjacent to subject property on the Harbor Bouievard frontage, and stated that the pr~posed use for subject property would not only be detrimeatal esthetically to the new City facil- ities, but would prevent properties adjaceat to subject property fsom developing them to their highest and best use as projected by their present zoning. Chairman Gauer asked that there be a showing of hands in the Council Chamber, opposing subject petition, and fifteen (15) persnas indicated their opposition. A letter of opposition from Blra Haskett was read to the Commission. The petitioner, in rebuttal stated that Dz. Kel~ey might not be aware of the =esidents thinking from the standpoint of construction of rental'property on the cornes'of a heavily traveled throughfare; that the schooi located xn the area was being relocated and the property was being quoted as having a value of one-half million dollars which would be a prohibitive price to construct apartments and derive any income from ihe propesty as it was improved, and that he cculd not improve subject property because the cost would be prohibitive. THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ~ 1 ~ ? ~. .~__ 4_ . .. ._ _ . ._ ~ ~ ~ ,,~ .~1 MINUTB3, CITY PLAHIVING COMMISSION, Pebruary 4, 1963, Continued: 1372 VARLINCH N0. 1546 - Chairman Gauer asked Deputy Assistant City Attorney, Purman (Continued) Ruberts, to read the State Code covering the State Planning Act which granted the City authority to designate or create "civic districts" around public buildiags and grouads, since the ~ Planning Commission had already requested the'Planning Department to make a study aad recoma~end the requirements for ihe area encompassed by Chestnut Street on the north, Helena SYreet on the east, Water Street on the south, aad Citran Street on the west, which might be incorporated into a policy to be adopted by the Commission and the City Council comparable to the Disneyland Policy. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission that the petitioner had been advised by ietter that the proper petition to process would be either a petition for Reclassification or for Conditional Use Permit, but that the petitioner elected to f 'a under a Variance. ~ommissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 619, Series 1962~63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Chavos, to deny Yetition for Variance No. 1546, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.) In stating the findings, Commissioner Marcoux stated that the use was incompatible with the developmeni of property on the south side of Broadway and the public facilities on Harbor Boulevard. Commissioner Chavos stateu that two findings should state that °'no variance shall be approved which wuuld have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same zone and vicinity"; and that the proposed i~enerai Plan proposed business and professional development of subject property. On roll call the foregoiuag resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: C~A4ISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSBN!T: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. VARIANCB N0. 1547 -• PUBLIC HBARING. BMIL B. MAZANEC, 1302 West Center Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to PERMIT A-3 USH IN COI~Q~IHRCIAL ZONE, RHDUCB STDS YARD TO FIVE FBHT, AND PBRMIT VBHICULAR ACCHSS PRQ:4 THS SIRBST on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land havin~~ a frontage of 55 feet on the south side of Center Street and a depth of 152 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 85 feet west of the centerline of Cherry St.-eet, and further described as 1302 West Center Street, to establish a two-story ::ve unit apartment building. Property presently classified as C-2, GBNffitAL COMMBRCIAL, ZONH. Mr. %enneth Lae, attorney for the petitioner; appeared before the Commission and sta:ed that subject property had been prevzously secommended for multiple family development by the Commission, but the City Council ruled that subject property should remain as Genesal Commercial, because of many pessons opposing the change; that since that time only one commerr.ial bui-iding on the south §ide of Center Street had been established; that subject pioperty was not useful as commercial development because the traffic flow was along Lincoln Avenue; that a request for a variance for redvction of the side yard was needed because the proposed development would require six (6) garages and only five (5) could be constructed at the rear; and that access to Cepter Street would be required for the one garage proposed for the front portion of subject property; and that the proposed use was the best possible land use that could be projected for subject property. Upon verification by Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, a~ to whether or not Mr. Lae was the authorized representative of the petitioner, Mr. Mazanec stipulated in the Council Chaiaber that he was, ' -~ ': t: 4, ( t , ---------------- --__---------. _..._..._..___._. ___... , tt+~~___~..~~.~ . . . . . ~j ~ ~ ' ~ MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COhAlISSION, Pebruary 4. 1963, Continued: 1373 VARIANCB N0. 1547 - Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council (Continued~ Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply, THH HBARING WAS CLQSBD. The Commission discussed the compatibility of the proposed use noting that subject property is projected on the proposed General Plan as multiple family development; that t5e proposed use would not be iegally valid according to the Code, but it might be possible to initiate a petition for reclassi£icatioa of subject property along with two parcels on either sidE for R-3, MultiYle Pamily Residential, Zone. Commissioner Camp offered Resol.ution No. 620; Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pei~ley, to grant Petition for Vaxiance No. 1547 subjecY to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: COhMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, NOES: COhAfISSI0NHR3: Noae. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONffitS: Hapgood. RBQUBST TO INITIATB - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to instruct the Planning RBCLA3SIFICATION Department to initiate proceedings in behalf of the Planning PROCBBDINGS Commission to set for public hearing a petition for reclassification of property described as 1302, 1310, and 1318 West Center Street from the C-2, General Commercial, Zone to the R-3~ Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion, MOTION CARRITiD. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HAARING. DOROTHY ANTBS, 2021 Blanchard, Anaheim, Cali- PffitMIT N0. 355 fornia, Owner; requestiag permission to OPBRATB A DANCS INSIRUCTION STUDIO AND THE OPHRATION OP A HOFBRAU on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 85 feet on the east side of Stat° Coilege Boulevard and a depth of 97 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 220 feet south of the centerline of Sycamore Street, ann iurtner described as 424 and 4~8 North State College Boulevard, Praperty presently classified C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD COMINBRCIAL,'ZONB, A letter was read to the Commission in which the petitionei requested a two week contiauance of subject petitioa. Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition, before he would entestain a motion for continuance. Mr. John Craven, 423 South Redwood Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that his home was located directly behind the proposed hofbrau and dance studio; that rie had become aware of the subject petition through a public notice being posted on subject property; that the noise emanating from "jukeboxes" and cars being parked until late hours would be detrimental ta the health of the single family development abutting subject property; that although subject property was zened for neighborhood commercial use, the use proposed would not be compatible with the other use• in this small shopping area; that having a children's dance studio adjacent to a hofb.:, would be an undesirable situation £or children; that a laundry or bakery or a similar type of commercial venture would be more practical; and that the building had been constructed oa the property line, which he felt was also an infringe~ent on his property rights, Commissioner Chavos stated that although subject properby was zoned for ne.ighborhood commercial uses, the proposed uses could be protested by Mr. Craven, since children would be in close proximity tc a"hofbrau". ~ ~ f~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Pebruary 4, 1963, Continued; ~ 1374 CONDITIONAL USE ~ The Commission discussed whether or not the request of the PffittdIT N0. 355 petitioner for a two week continuance should be considered, or (Continued) whether or not the Commission wished to consider subject petition at this hearing, and if it were considered, some discussion should be done relstive to the compatibility of the propased uses. Commissioner perry stated that since there had been opposition and there seemed t~ be some doubt as to the compaiibility of the proposed use, the Commission should consider subject petition on this date, and that although the proposed uses were commercial uses, a hofbrau adjacent to a childrea*s dance studio was undesirable. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No, 621, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commi~sioner All:ed, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Pc:rmit No. 355, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYE3: COH4~IISSION~tS: Allred, Camp, Chs:vos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, perry, NOBS; COMMISSIONBEtS: None. AB3BNf: COhAtIgSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONf-L U3S - PUBLIC HEAItING. GORDON L. HODGH, 18681 Crescent Drive, Anaheim, PffitMIT NO. 356 California, Owner; NBIL REITMAN, 10582 West Ratella Avenue, Anaheim, Cali fornia, Agent; requesting permis~ion to CONS7RUCT A 97~UNIT DELUXH MOTffi, on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a depth of approximately 600 feet, the western boundary of said property being 669 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2748 West Lincoln Avenue, property presently classified as R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH. Chaisman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber representing the petitioner and received no reply. Mr. Asthur Hormaxi, 1916 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and asked whether the plot plans submitted by the petitioner incorporated kitchen fa- cilit3es,if the plans did incorporate kitchen facilities, he w:uld oppose any such development. 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, informed Mr. Horman, that the plans as presented did not indicate kitchen facilities. THB HSARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission reviewed the plot plans and noted that theoretically elec*ric plates could be used in motels, which would not constitute kitchen facilities, but the Commission wished to be able to distinguish batween motels without kitchen facilities antl those with facilities; that if kitchen facilities were proposed, many stipu- lations would have to be considered as to diposal of waste, and other sanitary factors: The Commission also noted that the pl~ns di3 not iada.cate adequate trash storage areas, proposed an inadequate turn around a~rea for trs.~h truck pickup or fire equipment, and inadequate ingress and ~gress to the area; and that the height should be limited to one story within 150 feet of the single family development to the south of subject property. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for ' Conditional Use Permit No. 356 to the meeting of March 18, 1963, in order to permit the petitione= 3ufficient time to submit revised plans which would indicate adequate ingress and egresa, adeq~ate turn nround area, adequat:• tra~h storage areas, and revision of elevations to indica~e the hei~hth lima.tation of one story within 150 feet of the single family development to the south. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion, requesting that the petitioner be advi~ed of' the requested revisions and date the petition would be heard. MOT?ON CARRIBD. MINUT~.4, CITY PLANNING CQ~4lI3SION, Pebruary 4, 1963, Continued: 1375 CODIDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC tIBA1tING. KEbAiHTH B, aad HB1TY M. ST[TSSY, 1745 South PBRMIT N0. 358 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; POItRgST and ffiSIB HOLIDAY, 512 South Jeffersoa, Pullertoa, Califor~ia, Agents; requeating permission to HSTAHLISH A H01~ffi POR BLDffitLY AMHUTATaRY P.'+RSONS on property described as; An irregular parcel of land haeing a frontage of 100 feet oa the west side of Brookhurst Street aad a depth of 254 feet~ the southeast corner of said property being approximately 470 fezt north of the centerline of Satel3a Avenue, and further described as 1745 South Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified as R A, RBSIDENTIAL AC,RICULUTUML, 20I~. Mr. Forrest Holiday~ agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa aad stated that the proposed development of subject property would be for the use of ambulatory patients or residents; that no mental patients would be using the facilities; that subject property was large enough to expand to accommodate approxi- mately ten (10) persons; that a decorative masoary wall would be constructed to give privacy, but would not be so constructed as to present a walied-in look; and that the front portion would be landscaped and planted with grass. The Commission aoted that subject property had a six (6) foot masonry wall, and inquired whether the petitioner proposed ta improve the entire frontage with land- scaping, to which the agent replied in the affirmative. C~mmiasioner Perry inquired whether subject property was being leased, and if so, what was the length of the lease. The agent replied that he had planned to purchase snbject property if the proposed qse were approved. Chairman Gauer Yaquired whether anyone in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition, and received no reply. TFffi HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commisaioner Pebley offered Resolutioa No. 622~ Series 1962-03, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No. 358, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Boot.) On roll call the foregoing•resolution was passed by tke following vote: AYB3: CQhMIS3I0N8RS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry. NOS3: COMMISSION~tS: None. A8,4BNf: COh9~lISSIONBR3: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HSARING. STANDARD OIL COI~ANY OF CALIPQRNIA~ ATTENfION: PBAMIT N0. 359 A. C. WARRBN, p, 0. Hox 606, La Habra, California, Owner; Duffy Motor Hotels, Inc., 9412 Royal Palm Boulevard~ Gardea Grove, California, Lessee; requestiag pe.rmiss3.on to pffitMIT TIiH B9TABLISHMHNT OP A LIMITBD COMNBRCIAL ARTIST BUSINESS, HSTABL:SI~ AiV OPP-SI~LB LIQUCYt STQtE Qocated on Harbor Boulevard), CO~II~tCIAL AIRLINH TICBHT.GPFICH, DRUG STORH AND GIPT SHOP~ FLORIST SHOP, CLGTHING STaRB, AND RADIO STATION PM - AM, on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 308 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard~ and having a frontage of 605 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, aad further described as 640 West gatella Avenue. Property presently classified as R A. RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH, Mr. Richard B, Duffy, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he would reserve his comments and answer questions Lhe Commission might have. ~ ' . E ~: E ~ ~ . _~._____ _.- ~. „ - ... , _...r...,...Y„~,~,•„ ....e-..~..-...., . ., : ,. b ~. ~. MIPNTB3, CITY PLANNING C0~lMISSION~ Pebruary 4~ 1963, Coatinued: 1376 CONDITIONAL USB - The Coaimission reviewed the plot plans ttoting that the iiquor PffitMIT N0. 359 store was prnposed to face onto Harbor Houlevard; that ~he (Continued) proposed use would not be eom~+atible to uses defined in the Disneyland Policy approved by the City Council and the Commission, and inquired of the agent for the petitioner his renso~;s for proposing the liquor store in front o£ the motel instead of incorporating the store with the other shops. Mr. Duffy replied, that the liquor store was proposed at the location iadicated to provide a buffec between the motel and the heavily traveled Harbor Boulevard noise; and that it would be impractical to have a motel on Harbor Boulevard because the noise would disrup; the rest of motel patruns. The Commission then stated that commercial development fronting on Harbor Boulevard which was in general agreement with the Disneyland Policy was one of the problems facing the Commission; and that the use would be projected toward other than motel patrons for whom the use should be intended, Mr. Duffy then replied that few mo:els derive much business from the motel patrons, and that it was necessary to have outside patronage to mage the use a going operation. The Commission continued the discussion of the uses permitted in the Disneqland area, the compatibility of the proposed uses, and indicated that the proposed liquor store was incompatible in its proposed location since it would be encouraging the transient trade rather than the visitors to the Disneyland area; that if subject petitioa y~rere approved, the relocation of the liquor store wauld be required, and it could be patterned after the method used in the Disneyland Hotel where a liquor store was locabed within the drug store; and that if the liquor store were permitted to be located on Harbor Boulevard, this would set a precedent for future commercial development not compatible to the Disneyland area. Commissioaer Chavos asked that a revised legal Ue submitted which would incorporate only the property pzoposed for development, that revised plans should be submitted which would indicate the relocation of the liquor store being incorporated in the retail store area fronting on Ratella Avenue, and not being located on Harbor Boule- vard; and that other petitioners were required to bring revised plans before being approved. Chairman Gauer inquired if tP,ere was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply. TH8 HBAitING WAS CLOISBD. 7.oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, informed the Commission that in the approval of the original plans for thE motel in Variance No. 1278, the liquor store was loca•ted where the proposed manager's apartment, lobby and office were located on subject plot plaa; and that under the original proposal, the plans were under two separate owners, whereas there was only one owner presently indicated. The Commission discussed the untidy appearance of the trash storage areas around the kitchen facilities, and that the petitioner needed a new storage treatment to improVe this tight area and hide from general view all trash storage areas. Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 3:40 P,M, Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 623, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissionez Camp to grant Petition for C~nditiona.t Use Permit No. 359, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) r'" I ~ ~ i c:_~ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COB9~lISSION, Pebruary 4, 1963~ Continued: 1377 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Alired in offering the approval of subject petition ' PffitMIT N0. 359 stipulated that the proposed liquor store be relocated aAd made an CCon:inued) intregal part of the motel operatioa and shops and directed toward the hotel guests as stipulated in the Disneyland Policy for commercial retail facilities. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: CQl~4~lISSI01~ffiitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NOB3: COI~lI3SIOI~tS: Noae. ASS~NT: COMAlI3SIONffitS: Hapgood, Pebley. ~C&S~ Commissioner Alired offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes, Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTdON CARRIBD. The meeting recessed at 3;50 P.M. RBCONVffiVB Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting at 4:02 P.M. All members being present, except Commissioner Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBT.IC HBARTNG. CHIP and NORMA CHASIN, 1801 Newport Avenue, PBRMIT N0. 360 Costa Mesa, California, Owners; JOFiN A. MAURICB, 1801 Newport Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permission to USB UNIT N0. 1 OF 1HB SHOPPING CBNIBR POR A HOPBRAU on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 212 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a depth of 200 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being appraximately 195 feet west of the centeriine of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2820 Bail Road. Property presently classified as C-1, NHIGHBOitH00D CCIMNBRCIAL, ZONH. Mr. John A. Maurice, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing fusther to add for the Commission~s consideration, but that he would be glad to answer any questions. The Cummission nnted that when subject property was reclassified, the plot plans did not indicate air-conditioning units on the roof of the structurep that the appearance of the air-conditioning units was rather unsightly, and inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether or not he proposed to enclose the units. Mr. Maurice, stated that air-conditioning had not been originally psojected for the shopping center, and later it was decided to air-condition the shops; that he agreed *_hat the units atop the roof of the structure were not a presentable sight, and that after the roof had been repaired the air-conditioning units would be enclosed by his stipulation. Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing sub- ject petition, and received no reply. TH8 ,~iBARING WAS CL0.SBD. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 624, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 350, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cai? the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYffi: COMMI33IONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. tiOHS: CG;.A~II5SIONERS: None. AHSHNT: CONPlISSIONBRS: Hapgood. ~ '+~. _ __._... ` ~ ,.,._~...... -r- '~:3r,.~... _._'..~~ . ------ ... _... =~w~m~.:^,......~.e,• ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USB - pUBLIC F~nA.AING, PREDBRICS C. snd JBANI~ HOWE,A^:, 7.45 Suuth bVestern PBRMIT N0. 361 Avenue ~ Anaheim, California, n•;~ers; 'tLTER M, sn:: ni ~ T': JO EL3.IOTT, 1210 West 3antu Clara, 9an#a Ana~ i:aliforn.ia„ r~ge•n+:~.; requesting permisaicn te: ~~^NSTRUCT. n 7W0-STORY ~?IAH.'•iSD-'~RVi;'• MULTIl~LS PAMiLY °, aiDffi~TIAL UNIT - WAI1B 01~ffi-STG~Y NSSG.HT LIMITATION oa pro~e.~~:r ~luscribed as; An L- shapec~ parcel of land haviag a frantsge of 99 feet on :he iwest ~si.c~~: of Western Avenue, and a depth of 642 feet, the northeril baundarp of said pr~,pert~ tring ap~roximatel~ 672 feet soiith of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further dirscsibed as 145 South Y~estern Avenue. Prope=;~y Preseutly classified as R-A, RBSIDHN7'IA:L AQtICULT[JRAL, ZONS r:R-y Multipe Famxly ~iesidential, 2one, pencting). Mxs. Jeaiu:e Howard, one of the owners appeared b:fore the Comm~lssioa aAd stated s~he na~~ r_~thing further to add for the Commission's cozsi3eration. Cn:.i.rman, G~uer inqaized whether Lhere was anyaae ia the Council Chamber opp~sing sL~;e:,t pet.ttion, and received no reply. The Commission reviewed the piot plaas and nci~eu that the plans incorporated the suggested changes made at tht+ time subject property was ~•ecommencded for reclassi:iicatim in Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-19. Commiasioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 625, Serie.s 1962-63, and moved for it:i passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allr~ed, to grant Tet?.tion for C~:33tional Use Permit No. 361, subject to conditi.ons, (8ee l:es~:.~tion Book.) CONDITIGNAI, USE - PUBI.IC 2'.~SAni v. HROADWAY VILLAGE OF ANAHEIM, 801 North Loara P~MIT N0. 365 3treet, A~aheim~ California, Owner; HARRY L. JBNKINS, 15104 Bast ' Rosecsans Boulevard, La Mtrada, Califor~ia, Agent; requesting prrmission to OPffitATS A FIDr\LTH STUDIO (~CO,IDITIONING EXCffitCI3BS i-t~l'i 37~AM BATH3) oa propezty described as: A rectar~qular parcel of land having a frontage o~ 740 feet on the north side of ~sescent Avenue, and a frontage of 620 feet on tbe west side of Euclid Street, and further described as 603 North Buclid Street. P~operty presently classified. as C-1, NBIGHPARHOOD CObAffiRCIAL,. Z01~ffi and C-2, G,.at~Rpi CO!%MffitI::Ai:, ZONS, Mr. Harry L. Jenkias, agent 'or the petitionez, appeazed Gefore the Cor.mission and stated tha•e the psoposeilL~eaith studir, would be airailar tu aae he had been operating i:~ La Mirada. Chairm:~ Gauer i~quira~d whether -:h~re wa.s anyone in the Council Chamber opposiag subject retition~ a,~d received no repiy. • Comaissioner Chavos ~ ated that thA proposed stea~e baths were a C-3, Heavy C~wuerical, Zoned use; that t~e conditior.al us,~ per;sit w.s not written to bypass the 2oning Urdinance, but as a supplemeat to the Zoniuiy Ordinance, and to grant aubjeet pet3tion's ~-3 use in a Neigriborhaod Commercial 2one xould t~e in violation of the ZoniAg Code, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ......~n.~..~r~~.r-r~-..-~.~......~+.w..~.u~.a~.naart~n.~J~vr.~Tt.N 'Vi:A'1Ai)Y~f~•.:N.iY.~:~.;:~::1'l~t.:xu^TiY~~.".rN~w.'.i.l.n.r. . -•~,••v.~e s ~i6V~1~'~Yw+"~'w~rn~.~ ~ ~~~~..~~.-~~..~~. .~.~.~. ~ ..~~"'.~ . . _. . . . . . -r~~. ~ . ~ . . . . ......... . ~J MINUTffi, CITY PIAIdNING CQ69dIS3I0N, February 4, 1963, Continued; 1379 ~ONIDITIONAL USB - Ia #rying to clarify the petitioner~s legal description as it PBRMIT I~O. 365 pertained to the proposed use, Depty Assistant City Attorney, (Continued) Purman Roberts, stated that the shopping center was ulready developed, and that by reference to a specific shop within the shopping center would sufficiently cover the legal description. _..2 Commission inquired of the ageat for the petitioner whether he had already begun installation of the health studio, to which Mr. Jenkins replied that the equ3p~ent had been ozde~~ed and delivered and was only being stored on subject property. Commissioner Camp noted taat although the use might be properly classified in the Anahe3m );:tnicipal Code, the Commission would not normally approve a h'eavy coromercial use for Neighborhood Commercial developm~:nt, but that the proposed use was a more compatible use than other heavy commerciai uses, aad, therefore, he thought the use could be approved under a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Camp oifered Resolution No. 626, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adop+ion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, ta grant Petitioa for Conditional Use Per~r,It No. 365, sub,ject to conditions. (:•ee Resolution Book.) On roll call the faregoing resolution was passed by the _ullowiag vote: A!'BS: CQMMISSIO.iBRB: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley~ perry. NOBS: COMM:ISSIOI~S^ Chavos. ABSBNT: COh9rII3SI0Nffit3: Hapgood. Commissioner Chavos Qua_ified l:is negative vote by stating that the proposed use of steam baths was classified as C-3, Heavy Commercial, Zone and was pr.ojected in the C:^1, Neighborhoad Commercial, Zone which would adversely affect th2 establishment of nsher uses not compatible ia the Neighborhood Commercial development. RHCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC i~RIIi~. C. S. BAiSM$1ti~L, 3427 West Orange Avenue and N0. 62-63-63 M,':NCIL P. BHLL, 3424 West Orsnge Avenue, Anaheim; California, L~-~~rs; WILiIAM BSNZ, 12117 Gneise, Downey, California, Agent; ;;~questing that paope*cy dEficribed as: 1W~ PORTIONS: "A" and "H", Portion •'A" beiag an I~-shapec! parcel of lanC having c frontage of 314 feet, plus or minus, on the easY si3e of guott I.venuef and a fr~n•`age c~ 4fia feet, plus ~~ minus, on the nurth side of Orange Ave:nue, except the ~authwesterly 203 fe~t bq 195 feet. portion "A" 3s made of a part r>f Pa:rcel No.. 1 a~nd all of Parc~,~l No. 2, Portion "B" :s a rectengular parcei of lanct hav.ing a fr~intage of 195 fee~ ~~n the east side of %nott Avenue and a frontage of 203 feet ca •~he nor.th side of Osange Avenue. Poxtion "B" being contuine3 in Parcel No. 1, ~ad £uzther flescribed as 3423•-3427 Ml~st Orange Aveaue be reclassified from the ,t A, Re.;;:xntial Agricu].tural, Zone tc R-3, Multiple Fami.'.y Residential, Zone for Portaon "A" a.ud C--1, Neighbonc~~.:l Commerc~.aly Zoae for Portioa "B" to develop a two-stor.y plar.ne.i-~*,;.t dev~;lapment on a~ortion "A". 3ubject petition was fileu ia coajunctic. w;ch Conditionai Use Permit No. 354. Mr. William Benz, agen*. for the petitioners, appeared before the Commis~ion~ and stated that he had :~othing further to add for the Commission's coasideration, Uut that he would be glad tn ansxer any questions the Commission might have. Ttie Commission reviewed the pios plano and noted that the petitioners projected a 400 foot long building; that a stiu::ture of thzs length should be divided into several tailG.Ings sinte sucl~ a long building has the appearance of a"barracks-type" :~uiiding wh.ich would not appeal to prospective tenants; and that although the Sand use was compatibie, the pro~~sed structurP ti~ould not be compatible. Mr. Benz stated that there were foux passageways between the structures, although the plot plan did not iad~cate them, which weulct serve the tenants' use in reaching the p~oposed garages. ~ I I j l[ \` ~ I, .....- . '71 ~'~4~~ .... ._._........_~~~ I 1 ~ _...,-~_. .__.-~____.._._.,~..._'_'w_..._..._~.._ "_'_ ~ ., nqcx~ w....~,,.~...~~.,~..., . ~ '. ( . ' . . ~. .. . . . . ~ . _ ~ ~:.:.:.. __ . . .. . .._ _. _ ....__ _.-..~..~., ~J .,~ . L~ V MINUTES, CITY PLANNYNG C(Y~UlISSZON~ Pebruary 4, 1963, Continued: . • .~ ; ' 1380 ! RHCIASSIPICATION - The Co~omission noted that tLe Code required ten (10) feet between N0. 62-63-63 buildings; that a restaurant and cocktail lounge had been turned (Continued) down recently within a Heavy Commercial Zoned area~ aad that a ~ service station might be a more logical uae for the corner Froperty, since a liquor license would be required, and might not be approved since subject property was located within 600 feet of Orax~geview Jr. High Schoal. Mr. Benz then stated that ^ne of the oil companies has bid for the coraer property, and they would tate this uader consideration before any plaas could be submitted for the development of the praposed commercial property. Chairman Gauer inquired tvhether there was auyoae in the Council Chamber opposiag sub~ect petition, and received no reply. TFffi HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Ccommission continued the discussion of the 400 foot long building; that the petitioners be required to submit revised plot plans iacorporating the required ten (10) feet between buiidings not just wn:ikways as were being proposed; that at the same time plot plans be submitted which would indicate the proposed development for the proposed commereial corner; and that plans as submitted were insufficient for the Commission to make a decision:, and that the plot plans did not project any second story elevations on the gnott Avenue froatage. The Commission further discuased the possibility of requiring deed restrictions on the commercial frontage if aay projected sale of liquor or hofbrau were approved. Mr. C. S. Baumstark, oae of the owners, appeared before the Co~ission, and stated that when subje~t prope=ty was proposed last year for neighborhood commercia]. use~ he did not approve of a cocktail bar, and would not permit oae now if requested; and that subject proper*y had been tied up for almost a year and une-ha1f, and he would do anything the Commission desired to develop subject property to its highest and best use. Commissioner Aiired offered a motion to reopen the hearing aad continue Petition for Keclassification No. 62-63-53, to the meeting of Pebruary 18~ 19•', ia order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to present revised piot pians wh,.:.l~ indicated changes in elevations.separation of the long bu:ldings into two or three units; elevations for the two-story constxuction proposed and plans For the development oi t:~ propoaed commercial zoaed property. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBAAING. C. S. BAUMSTARK, 3d27 West Orange Avenue, and P3RMIT N0. 354 MANCIL P. BBLL, 3424 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM BSNZ, 1'L117 Gneise, Downey, California, Ageat; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A 1W0-STORY PLANNED-UNIT bNLTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL DBVBLOPMHNT on property described as: Portion "A", an L~shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 314 feet, plus or miaus, oa the east side of Rnott Avenue, and a frontage of 469 feet, plus or minus~ on the north side of Orange Avenue, except the• southwesterly 203 feet bp 195 feet. Pfoperty presently clasaified as R-A, Residentiai Agriculturai~ Zone. Subject petition was filed in coajunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-63. Mr. Nilliam Benz, agent for the petitioners appeared before the Co~ission, aad stated that he would like to have subject petitior. heard at the same time as the petitioa for Reclassification No. 62-63-63. Commissioner Camp cffereQ a motioa to coutinue Petition for. Conditional Use Permit No. 354 to the meeti'ng of Pebruazy 18, 1963, in order to permit the petitioner s sufficieat time to submit revised plans, and also that it be heard in coajunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-63, Commissioner Alired secm ded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ~--~-- , . ~,. . --~--~-•~.a~~xacavs+oxm ~.~.•.~..a...~i~,.~-''P ~ . .. ( . ~ ~ ~ . .. , . . '- ~' . _._. .. ......_ , . . . .. y.~ e .. ~/~ , I ' ~ ;c~', x~ ' ~ _~ ~ ;~ _ M?.NUTffi, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Pebruary 4, 1963, Ccnf.inued: 1381 RBCB33 - Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner and to reconvene at 7:00 0'Clock P.M.. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. Meeting recessed at 5:00 0'Clock P.M. RECONVBNB - Chairman Gauer reconveaed the meeting at 7:00 0'Clock P,M. All Commissioners, except Commissia~er Hapgood, being present. RHCTASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HHARING. BMPIRB PINANi,IAL C~tPORATION, 6750 Van Nuys NC. 62-63-64 Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; r2questiag that property described as: ltvo rectang~lar portions of land. Portion "A" having a frontage of 333 fAet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a depth of 255 feet. Portion "B" ha.ving a width of 333 feet, and a depth of 1,019 feet. '~he northern boundary of Portion "B" b2ing adjacent to the southern boundary of portion "A". The eastern boundary of Portions "A" and "B" being agproxi- mately 660 feet west of ':he centerline of Beach Boulevard be reciassified from the R-A, R~~sidential Agricultural, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone for Portioii "A", and R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, 2one for Portion "B", to permit the establ:~shment of a two-story planned-unit muitiple family resideatial development on portio~i "A". Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 357 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230. Zoning Coordinator Martin ICreidt, read a letter from the petitioner requesting a two- week continuance of subject petition, Chairman Gauer asked if anyone in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition. Mrs. A. W. Pile, 30b4 West Lawn, appeared before the Ca;9mission and stated that she was opposed to the plans as presented as they seemed nebulous and were not a develop- ment which would do credit to the City; and that she also opposed two story construction. Commissiaaer Mnngall offered a motion to continue Pe#ition for Reciassification No. 62-63-64, until the meetiag of Pebruary 18, 1963, requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CAfiRIED. CONDITIONAL USS - PUBLIC HBARING. BMPIRB FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 6750 Van Nuys PERMIT N0. 357 Boulevarcl, Van Nuys, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: Portion "B" having a width of 333 feet, and a depth of 1,019 feet. The northern boundary of Portion "B" being adjacent to the southern boundary of Portion "A". The eastern boundary of Portion "B" being sspproximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard~ to permit the constructior. of a two-story planned~unit multiple family residential development and the waiver of the single story height limitation for Portion "B". Property presently classified as R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone. Subject petition was filed in conjuncLi~n with Reclassification No. 62-63-64 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230. A letter was read to the Commission requesting that subject petition be continued to the meeting of February 18, 1963, so that it might be hoard in conjunction with Peti#ion for Reclassification No, 62-63-64. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue Petit~on for Conditional Use Yermit No.357, to the meeting of Pebruary 18, 19G:5, in order that it might be heard in coajunction with Petition for Reclassificatiorc iVo. 62-63-64. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~s~~--,_.....~.~...~ _ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAdIS:;IONBR, Pebruary 4, 1963, Coatinued: 1382 TBNTATIVB MAP OP - OWNBR and SUBDIVIDER: EWIPIRB PINANCIAL (X1RPQ.RATIi,N, 6750 Van Nuys TRACT N0. 4230 Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Subject tract is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue approximata:ly 660 feet west of Beach Boulevard, and coatains 33 proposed R-3, ~lultiple Family, and one proposed C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, "Lone iots. Subject tract was fil~;d in conjunction with Petstion for Reclassification No. 62-63-64 and Conditional Use t:smi:• No. 357. A letter was read requestiag that subject tract be coutinued to the meeting of Pebruary 18, 1963, so that it might be heard in conjunction with the Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-64 and Conditionai Use Permit No. 357. Commissioner Mungall offered a mation to continue Tentative Map of TracL No. 4230 to the meeting of February 18, 1963~ in order that it might be hear3 in conjunction with petitions for Reclassification No. 62-63-64 and Conditional U~: Permit No. 357. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. RBCIAS3IPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING, NBLL OLSBN, 1573 West Katella Avenue~ Anaheim, N0. 62-63-65 California, Owner; RICHARD IAYNB TOM, A.I.A., 1665 West Ratella ~ Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 120 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, and a depth of 339 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 375 feet west of the centerline of Sayless Street, and further described as 1573 West Katella pvenue be reclassified from the R-0; One Family Suburban, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone to establish a one-story professional office building in canjunctiun with fihe maint~nance of an existing residence at the rear of subject property. Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone ia the Council Chamber representing the petitioner, and receiaed no reply. Mrs. Wiliiam McClain, 1585 West Kateila Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated she was in favor of the proposed reciasaification. Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Councii Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no repiy. THH HBARING WAS CLOSBn. The Comaission discussed the possibility of approving a residence on Neighborhood Commercial, Zoned property as being a aon-conforming use, whether a time Simitation should be stipulated for use of the existing structure as a residence and requiring that no commercial use can be made for the residence. '11:e Commission reviewed the plot plans and noted that the front elevations presented a very attractive building, Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 627, Seriet~ 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry., to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica~ion Ko. 62-63-65 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resoiution Book.) Commissioner Allred stipulated that there be a time limitation of three years for the non-conforming use of the existing home as a residence, subject to review and possible renewal at the end of the time limitation. The coaditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recitQd 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. , ., \ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. ~-~.-----~ ~ , -~ . _ . _.,.--~,~.~~-___.__...:....-~ _ ,_. (_) ~ ~ ~ l.j • ,.~ ~ , ~ I ~ 1 ~ , i ~ 1 I i I ~ MINTUHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Pebsuary 4, 1963, Continued: 1383 RBCIASSIPICATION - On roll call the foregois~g resolution was passed by the following N0. 62-63-65 vote; (ContinuedJ AYRS: COhA~IISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: COMMIS3IONBRS: None. AHSBNT: COhMiSSIONffitS: Hapgood. RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. ROGBR W. PANNIElt, 1650 West Ball Road, Anaheim, N0. 62-63-66 California, Owner; MOitT GRBSN, 600 North Buciid Avenue, Anaheim, California, ABent; requesting that property described as: An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 42? feet on the south side of Hall Road and a frontage of 440 feet on the east side of Buclid Street, said property ha~ing a depth of 587 feet along the Ball Road frontage. and a depth of 574 feet along the Huclid Stxeet frontage be reclassified from the R A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to permit the establishment of a two-story pianned-unit multiple family residential development. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 362. Mr. Roger W. Pannier, the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and stated that he had submitted a letter clarifying his reasons for filing subject petition. Upon haviag the letter read to the Commission, Mr. Panaier stated he would reserve any other comments. Mrs. James Bloom, 1722 West Paiais Road, ap~eared in opposition to subject petition, and stated that the proposed densi•ty for the area would increase an already cr~wded condition in the schools with double sessions, churches, public facilities if the proposed multiple family deveiopment were approved, since money had to be projected far in advance to take care of the influx of people to the area; that traffic conditions would become more hazardous; and that he opposed two-story construction because it would t~e an ir.-~asion of the privacy of the homes in the single family subdivisions to the south of sut•ject property. The Commissioz noted for Mr. Bloom's attention that the Anaheim Municipal Code prohibits two-story construction within 150 feet of any single family dwelling; that the request for two-story construction was based on the fact that subject property abutted residential agriculturai property on the east and the south; and that any singl~~ family d.~wellings located in the area were at least 600 feet distant from the proposed muit:ple family development. The Commission also noted that the plot plan.s submitted were the first received by them whic:i met the approval of all concerned. 2'he petitioner, in rebuttai, stated that he had ueen trying Eor a number of years ~o project something which would be beneficiai to the area and the City; that he was ~~x~sed ta stYip commercial development with Yhe possibie establishment of some type _ J' an alcoholic beverage establishment, and high rise office buildings would present r;~re problems than the type of development he proposed, and further stated that he tioped that the Palm trees located in the parking area of Paim Lane would be retained, !~y the City since the trees were a landscaped asset to the area. TF~+, HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Chairman Gauer reviewed for Mr. Sloom the proposed uses for subjAct property as proposed on the Generai Plan, which indicated multiple family development, and that considerable time and study had been expended by the Commission and the Planning Department to propose the best possibie land use for any given area ~.n the City of Anaheim. I ~ r~ ~ , ..........._........___......_,....,,-.-.xx~a . ~ ~ ~' S ~~ _~..:.~ . . , . '_....._ ... ..._a.. ,, ~ ~ ;. MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING C(~F4IISSION, Pebruarq 4, 1963, Continued: 1384 RHCLAS3IPICATION - Commissioner Pebley atated that he was a lifetime resideat of the N0. 62-63-66 City. and was a member of the school board for seven years; 4hat (Continued) many new residents moved into the single family developments which necessitated haviag double sessions for children who attended schooi with his children for eight years. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No, 628, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Alired, to recommead to the City Council that Petition for Reciassification No. 62-63-66 be approved, sub,ject~to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) Commissioner Alired in seconding the motion asked that a finding be made to recommend that every effort be made by the City Council to permit the paim trees to remain in the parkway of Paim Lane. The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessarp prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserv~c the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoiag resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYH3: COhAtIS3I0N1BR3: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, fMarcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOES: COAA~IISSIONBRS: None. AB3BNT: COhMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USB - PUS;.IC HBARING. ROGffii W. PANNIBR, 1650 West Ball R~ad, Anaheim, pHRMIT N0. 362 California, Owner; MORT QtBEN, 600 North Buclid 3+.reet, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSiRUCT A 1W0-STORY pLANNHD-UNIT MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTl~1L DBVELOPMBNT, TO WAIVH ONB-STO~tY HBIGHT LIMITATION, AND PHRMIT CARFORTS on property described as: An irreguiar parcei of land having a frontage of 427 feet on the south side of Ball Road, and a frontage of 440 feet on the east side of Buclid Street, said property having a depth of 587 feet along the Ball Road frontage, and a depth of 574 feet aloag the Euclid Street frontage. property presentiy ciassified as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICUL1VRAL, Z~NB. Subject petition is filed in conjunctioa with Petition for Reciassification No. 62-63-66. Mr. Roger W. Pannier, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that all statements a~de in the hearing of the reclassificatioa of subject property were applicable io sub,ject petitioa. Mr. James Bloom, 17i2 West Palais Road, appeared in opposition to subject petition, and asked that plot plans indicated type "A" and "B" and wished to have them ciarified. Mr. Pannier stated that Type "A" structuzes were singie story aad Type "B" structures were txo story. Mr. Bloom then sfated that he opposed tlYe waives of the o"ne story construction; that this would be an encroachmeat to the privacy of single family residences; and that the two story construction should be relocated on the Huclid Street frontage to preserve th~ privacy of the rear yards of the ~ingle fam~ly homes. The Commission again stated that subject petition was constructing two story adjacent to residentiai agriculturai,land; that if #tA•~ two story structures were being proposed within 150 feet of single family residences, then they would have to be relocated, but that it was more thaa the minimum 150 feet to the nearest single family developments both to the west and to the south of subject property. THB HBARING WAS CIASHD. , .~, ~ . 'l , ~.....: "~:~_~~ c _~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CIT3i PLANNING CQ1~lISSION, Pebruary 4, 1963, Continued: 1385 COAIDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 629~ Series 1962-63~ PERMIT.NO. 362 and moved for its passage aad adoption~ seconded by Commissioner (Cont~aued) Mungali, to grant Petition for Conditional Use permit No. 362~ subject to coaditioas. (See Resoiutioa Book.) On roll call the foregoiag resolution xras passed by the following vote: AYB4: COMA~I33IOI~lt3: lLlired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagail, Pebleq~ Perry. NQB3: COhII~tI3SI0NBit9: None. AB3BNT: COFA[ISSIOI~RS: Hapgood. RBCL133IPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. RALPH A, and LIBOitIA J. RINGO, 7188 Santa Cruz N0. 62-63-67 Circle, Buena Park, Califoraia, Owners; ROBBRT SRAMSR, 115 3outh Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles 12, California, Ageat; requesting that.propertq described as: A rectanguiar parcel of land having a frontage of 305 feet ~n the n~rth side of Bali Road~ and a frontage of 366 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2801 West Ball Road be reclassified from the R-A, Residential Agricuitural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential~ Zone for Parcel "A" and C-1, Neighborhood Comaercial, Zone for Parcel' "B" to CON81RUeT A TWO-STQtY MULTIPLE PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL DBVBLOPMffi~IT oa Parcel "A", and CONSTRUCT A COhAffiRCIAL BUILDING AND SffiRVICB STATION on Parcel "B", Subject petition was filed in coajunction with Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 363, Mr. Robert gramer, agent for the petitioners, appeared before tfie Commissioa and stated he would like to reserve his co~nents until later. Mr. Robert McGonagle, 2822 Elmlawn Drive, appeared before the Commission, and stated he was acting as the spokesman for residents in the single family development to the west of subject property who were protestiag the proposed two-storq multiple family ' residential development; that two-story construction would be encroaching on the privacq of the single family homes, and if the plans proposed to extend Blmlawn Drive, this would increase the traffic hazards for the children of the'area; and that he had a petition signed by 25 persons who opposed two-atory construction. I' The Commission upon review~.ng the plot plans noted for the opposition that two story construction was not proposed within 150 feet of the single famiiy development, that the waive~ of one-story construction was due to the fact that subject property was within 150 feet of residential agricuiturai property. Mr. Yasugi gubo, 1370 Baker Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Commission and stated that he represented the Orange County Buddist Church; that a church was being pianned for the propertq to the north of sub3ect property; and that the Church wouid not be opposed to the multiple famiiy residential development, if the developers of, subject property did not oppose the construction of the Buddist Temple. Mr. V. L. Dauser, 2880 West Ba11 Road, appeared before the Coauoissio~~ and asked that the petitioaer indicate to iaterested persons the possibie changes the Commissioa _ would like to sugg~:st to make the multiple family 3evelopmeat compatib:le. The Commission indicated that the proposed partialiy dedicated alley separating the muitiple family developments to the west of subject propertq aad fronting on Ball Road, shouid be extended through sub3ect property to Dale Avenue to serve both the siagle family development to the west and the proposed multiple fawily development; and that the ailey should also separate the proposed commercial development from the multipie familq deveiopment. THB FIHARING WA3"CL03BD. -.----~ . ,1 ~0 ~ ~. MINUTB3, CITY PLANNIIVG CO~hAlI$SICYd~ Pebruary 4, 1963~ Continued: 1386 RECLASSIPICATION - Purther discussion was held as to any additonal requirements N0. 62-63-67 needed for approval and whether subject petitioners should (Contiaued) submit revised plans indicating all the chaages prior to the public hearing before the Citq Couacil. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 630, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Couacil that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-67 be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution S~ok,) Commissioner Perry in offering the resolution atated that reviseri plans be submitted to the Planaing Department for Development Review incorporating a dedicated alley connecting with the aliey to the west of subject propertq~to separate the commerciai and multiple family development; and that a six (6) foo# masoa*~ ~11 ylsa ~ constructed abuttiag to the south of the proposed alley to provide a buffer between the commercial gad multiple family developments. The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book wpre recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the nse of the property ia order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. On,roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote: f~ AYffi: COAM ISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley, Perry, NQB3: CQAAfISSIOPIDRS: None. ABSHNT: COMA~lI3SIONBRS: Hapgood, CONDITIONAL U3B - pUHLIC F~ARING. RALPH A. and LIBORIA J, RINGO, 7188 Santa Cruz PffitMIT M0. 363 Cirlce, Buena Park, California, pwners; ROBBRT RRAMffit, 115 Sout~ Los Angeles Street~ Los Angeles 12, California, Agent; requesting RBSIDBNTIAI, DgVgLpPAfgNTmie~IVB OIVB-ST(KtY HHI(~iTOLIMITATION ON pORT OANN'L'AIp pNp ILY CONSIRUCT A CUMMffitCIAL HUILDING AND SffitVICB STATION ON PORTION "B" on property described as: .h rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 305 feet on the north side of Ba.ll Road, and a frontage of 366 feet on the west side of Dale Aveaue, and further .i.;scrib~ed as 2801 West Ball Road, property presently classified as R-A, Aesidential qgricultural, Zone. • Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No, 62-63-67, Mr. Robert Kramer, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add for the Commission~s coasideration. The petitioa sigaed by 25 persoas living in close proximity to subject propertq was read iadicating oppositioa to the two-story construc4ion proposed for the multiple family development. 1HB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner perry offered Resolution No. 631, Series 1962-63, aad moved for its - passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Muagail, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 363, subject to conditions. (5ee Resolutioa Book.) On roii call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COhMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, perry, NQHS: CO~AAlISSIO1~tS: None. ABSENT: Cah9~lISSIONBRS: Hapgood, ~! V ~ ~ U MINi1TB3, CITY PLAHI~TING COhUlISSION, Pebruary 4, 1963, Contiaued; • \~ ~ ; 1387 I RBCIA3SIPICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. FIDtR.OCg TSRRAC,B INC., 1605 8ast South Street, NO. 62-63-68 Ansheim~ California, Owners; RAY HUppQltD,1271 Tropicana Lane, Saata Ana, California~ Agent; requesting that pxoperty described as: An irregular parcel of laad approximately 12S feet by 150 feet with a 56 foo4 frontage on the north side of the cul-de-sac of Hilda Street, between Maverick Avenue and Wagner Avenue, the westera boundary of said property being 682 feet east of the centerline of Sunkist Street, and further described as 2606 Wagner 3treet be reclassified from the R A, Residential Agricultural, 2one, and R-1, One Pamily Residential, Zone. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Variaace No, 1548. Mr. Ray Hufford, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing to add for the Commission's consideration, but wouid be gi~d to ans!~e* any questioas. Mr. Wilbur Holmes, 991 Hilda Street~ appeared before the Commission opposing subject petition and stated that he had purchased the home adjoining subject property to the south, and asked that plans be explained ia more detail. The agent for the petitioner then explained what was being proposed uttder subject petition. Art Daw of the Bngiaeering Department, advised the Commission that the State of California nev~r gave a permanent access right to Wagner Avenue, but has given only a tea (10) foot easement, and that he would check with the State Right-of-Way Depart- men4 for further verification. Mr. Holmes upon viewing the plot plans stated that nothing definite had been proposed for construction; that if more definite plans for access to Wagner Avenue were presented, he might reconsider 'r,is opposition; that the proposed garages would be offset and spoil the effect of the cul-de-sac; and that his home was directly to the south of the proposed alley which would rur.. aloagside the bedrooms of his home thus creating a nuisance. Mr. William Pranzen, 996 Hilda 3treet, appeared before the Commission, in opposition to subject petition and stated, that when he purchased subject property it had been understood that only one home would be on subject property; that subject property would be in violatioa of the Code which required a 70 £oot frontage at the setback on the cul-de--sac and #he proposed plaas do not indicate the 70 feet; that no mention was made as to the disposal of the structure on subject property whether a 1ot spiit would be effected; and that the existing home and the proposed home wouid not be in conformance with the Code requirements for the area. Ns. Hufford in rebuttal, stated that subject property was a por.*.i.on of the tract ~riginally developed by the Marjan Corporation; that the only reason subject property nad not been turned into two lots at that time, wao because the state had planned to purchase the property as part of an ~verpasa projected in conjunction wi~h the proposad Orange lreeway, and that all laadscspiag would i~e in conformance with thP. balance of the cul-de-sac. The Commission stated that there seemed to be no reason for holding this portion from the balance of the tract, and inquired whether the petitioner purchased the parcel of land after the tract had been developed. Mr. Hufford replied that he had purchased subject pr.~perty from the developer, Covmissioner Camp stated that sub,ject lot was used as a parking lot to the models on th: cul-de-sac on Hilda Street; that the Code requires property to be constructed in the area of not less than 1,525 square feet whereas the proposed structure would be 1,800 square feet; that the setback line was 60 feet instead of the required 70 feet; that the developer who had the subdivision still owned 4he lot, and should be required to tear down the old home and rep].ace it with only one home for the eatire lot;and that no hardship had been shown which would indicate that the property shouJ,d be split in the manner proposed. . THS HBA1tING WA3 CLOBBD. ~ ~ I I ~.---_.. _ • ......-.~..-.. , - , , ~: .. . . . , _. ,. • _- : ;; . . _,. _. ,. 1, _ ..__., ,~y_ . _ -r- . . ._._ . MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CObAlI3SION, Pebruary 4, 1963; Continued: RBCIA3SIPICATION - Commissioner Chavos inquired wbether subject property could be N0. 62-63-68 rezoned to R-1, and if it remained R A, could they later claim a (Continued) hardship or should the Commission consider the rezoniag of subject property only. Commissioner Pebley stated thafi i£ subject property were to rc~nia as R-A, Residentiel Agricultural, at some later date~when possibiy a different Commission were hearing it, they could again claim a hardship aad it could be approved which would nullify any action the Commission might take•in denying the:petitii~n~nd that the Commission should now consider the rezoning of subject property. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 632, Serias 1962-63, and mot~ed for its passage and adoption,seconded by Commissior.er Camp, to recoiamend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-b8 be approved subjeci io candi4ions. (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 weifare of the Ci•tizens of the City of Anaheim. On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: VAR7ANCH N0. 1548 - HHMLOCK T9RRAC8 INC., 1605 Bast South Street, knaheim, Cali- fornia, Owner; RAY HUPPORD, 1271 Tro~icana Laae, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to ~tBATB A LOT ON A CUL-DB-SAC WITH LBSS THAN SIXTY (60) PHST WIDTH AT SHTBACR - CONSIRUCT A GARAGS LBSS 1HAN EIGHT C8) FBBT PROM MAIN BUILDING AND CRBATE R-A PARCHLS LBSS THAN ONB ACRB, on property described as: An irregular parcel of land approximately 125 feet by 150 feet with a 56 foot frontage on the north side of the cul-de-sac of Hilda Street, between Maverick and Wagner Avenues, the western boundary of said property being 682 feet east of the centerline of Sunkist 3treet and further dascribed as 2606 Wagner Avenue. Property pi~sently classified as R A, Residential Agriculturai, Zane and R-1, One Pamily Resideatial, Zone. Mr. Ray Hufford, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Cormnission aad stated that ail statements made under the petition for reclussification appiied to subject petition; that the variance was filed because they had been unabie to obtain a building permit to construct a house on the cul-de-sac portion of the property; and that the structure,oa the northern portion of subject property would remain. Mr, Wilbur Holmes, 991 Hilda Street, appeared before the Commission and stated h?.s opposition to the proposed variance was identicai as th e statements made under the petition for reciassification. - • - Mr. William Pranzen, 996 Hilda Street, appeared before the Commission and stated his opposition to subject variance was identical as the statements made under the pe:ition for reclassification. Commissioner Camp stated that subject petition did not show any hardship, since subject property had been held out by the developer for a parking lot w~~n prospective buyers visited the modeis on Iiilda Street; and that the developer still owned the Sot, which should adhere to all Code regulations in that :he ald home should be semoved and replaced with a home comparable in design to 4he other homes located on the ~u1-de-sac. ~ f F .~ J f . _. _ ..~... .~,\ \ I I VARIANCS N0. 1548 - Commissioner All=ed offered Resoiution No. 633, 3eries 1962-63~ (Continued) and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition !'or Variance No. 6148. based on findings. (See Reaolutioa Book.) ' In offesing and seconding the resolution, Commissioners Alired aad Chavos atated that the granting of sub3ect petition would be granting a special privilege aot shared by other propertq in the same zone and viciaity; and that the division of subject property wouid be an incompatible lot ditrisioa, and wo41d be detrimental to the propertq adjacent to subject property. , I Oa roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: i AYBS: C0I~9~AISSIONBRS: .Alired, Camp, Q}avos~ Gauer, A;arcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry, j ~ NOBS: COi~MMISSIOAIDRS: Noae. ~ ABSBNT: Ctl~lISSION~tS: Hapgood. ; RHPORTS AND ITBM N0. 1 Orange County Tentative Map of TYact No. 5019, located RHCOh~dffi~iDATIONS at the northeast corner of Coronado and Blue Gum Straets~ northeast of Anahei4, proposing 38 R-l, One Pamily Residential, Zone, lots. Zoning Coordinator !Nartin Kreidt, presented Orange ~ounty Tentative Map of Tract No. 5019, to ttie Planning Commission, aad noted that subject subdivision was composed of approximatel! ten (10) acres located in the Northeast Industriai Area, and proposed 38 R-1, ~ne Pamily Residentiai, 2one, lots. Mr. &reidt further stated that upon an analysis preseated for the Northeast Industrial Area, the City Council in Resolution No. 62R-335, adopted the proposed industrial zoning for the area designated as the Northeast Industrial A*ea, and Pinding No. 8 of said resolution stated; "That any trailer parks established in the Northeast Area as a result of actions preceding this report should be coasidered legal non-conforming uses, and that no furth~ar resideatial uses, including trailer parks or expansion of trailer parks previousiy approved should be oermitted in the Northeast IndustriaS. Area." Finding No. 5 of said resolution aiso refers to the establisbmeat of residential uses in the Northeast Industria7 Area as follows: "That the County of Orange should be requested to establish industrial zoning, which nrohibits all res3dential uses, on ali areas lying w3.thin their jurisdic4ion in the above described areas and to establish staadards of. property development similar to those of the P-L, PARKING- LANDSCAPING, ZONH." Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Plaaniag Commission that Tentative Map of Tract No. 5019 be disapproved, based on the fact that said development would be an encroachment of reaidential use in an industrial development. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion, requestiag that a copy of City Council Resoiution No, 62R-335~ said resolution designating the area referred to as the Northeast Industriai Area, be submitted to the Orange County Planning Commission for their perusal in determining their deciaion on sub,~act tract. Commissioaer Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _... ~:~~.~..--~--- - --- . . ~~. ,:. . ~ , , i -__ ..~ . . __. . .. ..__...., ~/ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COA9.IISSION, February 4, i963, Continued; . :13a9 ~;. ~ ~~~ f~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMQAISSION, February 4, 1963, Continued: ~: 139~ nePORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2.... RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) Orange County Use Variance No. 5097 - Locate a temporary directional advertising sign for a period of six months in the A-1, General Agricultural District located at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Haster Street. Zoning Ceordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Planning.Commission the location of the proposed advertising fiign, and noted that City Conncil.Policy No. 501, regulated the distance for signs within the City limits for 65 feet, but that the proposed location was outside the ~urisdiction of the City of Anaheimo Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to acknowledaa rec~ipt of Orange County Use Variance Non 5097, and to advise the Orange County Planning Commission that the Anaheim Planning Commission had no comment in reference to sub~ect Use Varianceo Com~rissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 1 AND VARIANCH N0. 1538 - Ishmael ~zman and Sarah Guzman, 9331 Cerritos MISCELLANEOUS Avenue. RE: Resolution No. 558, Series 1962-63, Condition No. 4. Zoning Coordinatoi Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission subject petition, and stated thatCondition ~o. 4 required that sub~ectproper::y be reclassified from the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the R-1, One Fa:nily Residential, Zone within six months o: prior to Final Buildin~ Inspection; tha± the letter stated that final building inspection would take place before sub3ect property had been reclassified, and.that sub3ect property was being heard for reclas~if3.cation at the February 18, 1963 Commission meeting, but it would be at least three months until all legal proceedings had transpired, and that within sixty days the petitioner would require final building inspection, and occupancy of the new structure would not be made available if reclassification of subject property would be delayed through public hearing, and that it was requested that the deletion of that portion stating: "or prior to Final Building Inspection, whichever occurs first" be made to the resolution. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to delete from Condition Noe 4 of Resolut?on No. 558, Series 1962-63, dated Decembex I0, 1962 that portion ~tating: "or paior to Final Building Inspection, whichever occurs first" and to notify the petitio:~er tlirough a cor- rected resolution of this change. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion.. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Correspondence - Nutwood Ball Civic Association A letter signed by Mrs. Mary E. Andrews,. presi~?ent of crte Nutwood Ball Civic Association, was read to the Commission, in which Mrs. Pndrews expressed sincere appreciation for the Planning Commission's thoughtful consideration given te the residents in the area with respect to Petition fox• Conditional Use Permit No. 346. Chairman Gauer directec~ that the letter be filed. ITEM N0. 3 ATCHISON, TOPEKA 8 SANTA FE RAILWAY ~OMPANY - RE: Proposed General Plan A letter received from the Sants Fe Railroad, signed by Mr. L. J. LeRoy, Industrial Agent in which he stated that upon a cursary insp~ection of the proposed General Plan, he felt it was a well drafted document £or the future development di the City, and would be a great aid in the railroad submitting industrial properties in the Anaheim area for industrial consideration. Chairman Gauer directed the Commission Secretary read the letter at the ner.t public hearing of the proposed General ~'lan. I'IEM N0. 4 A letter of thanks was read to the Commission from Mrs. Eugene Hapgood, expressing her thanks for all the kind aonsideration given by the Commission to the family during their re.ent bereavement. ~ 3 - .~.~~--~--..,-°......~, i - --- •.., •- --- -- _ . ~ ; ~~ ' . • . . ._ . : ~. _ . ' _._._ . __ .._ _ 4~ ~ ~ . MINUTFS, CITY PLANNING COI~AlISSION, Pebruary 4, 1963, Continued: 1391 ADJOURNMBNT - There being no further business to diacuss, Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION GA.RRIHD. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 ~*Clock P..M, Respectfully submitted, ~iill/~'I/ r~i~r~ ANN KRBBS, Secretary 3T~~Q Anaheim Planning Commission . ,: . . , • ------------ --~---- ----- ' . :. _ly.^~ . . . . __ .. - ... ~