The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1963/04/01~ ~_ ~ .j ; City Hall ' Anaheim, California ~ April 1, 1963 REG[1IAR MBBTING OP TH8 ANqHSIM CITY PIA2~AVlNG COA9~(I38ION ~- RHGUTAR MESTING - A Reguler Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a yuorum b..ing preaent. ~~ ' ~~~N: Mungail. CQI~RlIS3IONBRS: Camp~ Cha*,~os, Craig, Gauer, Pebleq, Perry, 33dna. ~~T - COhAlIS3IONffitS; Allred. ~~T - ZONING COQRDINAT~t; Martia greidt. DBPUTY CITY ATPORNBy; Purman Roberta. pIANNING GOhAlI3SION 3BCRBTARY: Aan Krebs. . ~ I~~TI~'1 - Reverend Bari C. Mason, Pirst Preabyterian Church Iavocation. ~ 8av~ the p~ ~P - Commisaioner Perry led the Pledge of Ailegiance to the Piag, ALI.BGIpNCg PBTITIOIJBR~S - Chairmaa MuAgall requeated that Deputy City Attoraey, Fuzmaa Roberts, RIGHTS review the rights of a petitioner ia the granting aad/or deaiai of a Conditional Uae permit, Variance or Reclaeaification, that this would be done at the beginniag of the meeting, and that if the regular scheduled meeting was ad,journed for dinner it would agaia , be recited at the begianing of the ad3ourned meeting ia the evetting, APP~INI'l~NT OP - Diacusaion was held bq the Commission oa the appointmeat of the CQMMI33ION Com~niasion Secretary, noting that eiace the limitstioa of acheduling S~BT~Y for hearing before the Comm3ssion of not more than 12 new petitioae had been removed~ a conaiderable increase ia volume of work was aoted making it difficult to procesa all the work iavolved betiaeea Commiasion me•~inga; that at the Wosk Session held on March 25, 1963, thie ~rork load aad discueaed~ iTheiCommiaeion~thoughtlit{wouldrbe~bmatAtohrecommeadethax~aahadditionai aecretary be eecured to asaist the Commieaion Secretary in taking the Minutea of each mteting, aseisting in the preparatioa of the reaoluLioas and the miautea, sad such ethe= dutiea deemed a6cesaary for efficient2y procesais,g all.data igvolved for each Commiaeivn meeting, and that the asaistant be aecured immediately, rather than waitiag fos the new fiacal year to atart, Commisaioner Chav~s moved for the re-appoitttmeat of Misa Aaa Kreba ae Commisaioa Secretary for the coming year, and requeated that the City obteia aa edditioaal aecretary to assist the Comaiisaion Secretary iA performing efficiently and aromptly aii duties fou~d aeceasary ia the proceaeing of petitiona to be heezd by the Commiaeion and tlu City Coqncil, and that thia aeaistaat be obtaiaed as soon as poas~Gle. Commiaeioner Gauer aeconded the motion. MOTION CpRgIBD, - 1478 - _._._.._~~--- --_.~.________--------------A..,_--__._ m' . ~"._ ""_.~._.~._......,-.. '_."~ . . ' .~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . . ' ' . , . . . ~_.. MINUTB3~ CITY PIANNING COhAiISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1479 CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. CHIP CHASIN, 1801 Newport Boulevard, PffitMIT N0. 379 Suite 221, Costa Mesa, California, Owner; NSWHI.L LITTLB, 1425 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California~ Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A SBRVICB STATION on property described as: A rectangular pascel of land having a frontage of 'l10 feet oa the east side of Beach Houlevard and a depth of 192 feet, the northerly boundary of said propertp being approximately 1,240 fec•t south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZOI~. 3ubject petition was continued from the meeting of March 4, 1963, at the request of the petitioner. Mr. Newell Little, agent for the petitioner, appeared befora the Commission and stated he was available to answe~ any questions the Commission might have. The Commission determined that the petitioner did not propose any development for the rear portion of subject property, and that i: would be blacktopped to the rear property line. Commissioner Chavos asked the ageQ.t for the petitioner to justify his thinking for constructing a service station on subject property. Mr. Little replied that 3each Boulevard being a heaviiy traveled street, and Stoneybrook Drive being extended with multiple family development. and no independent oil company has developed on Beach Boulevard,the proposed location seemed iQeal. Commiseioner Sides inquired whether the petitioner found it logical to propose a service station in the centez of a biock. Mr. Little replied that psoposing service stations at other than corners depended upon the location, and that the proposed locatioa would be ideal since it was located on one side of a divided highway, and would insure business from traffic traveling north past subject property. The Commission determined that the present owner of subject property was the Waiker Oil Company, tliat tY:e company was the first one in the Ci~y to be required to landscape their re q a e stzd eervice station in accordance with the latest proposed service station requirements; that the proposed location would be similar to an existiag service station on Harbor Boulevarc}; -~nd that t:~e petiticners ha3 ~ubmitted revised plans indicating •that the entire parcel would be blacktopped as suggested by the Planning De~artment. Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone in the Couacil Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no repiy. THH HBARING WA3 CLOSHD. The Commission zontinued discussion of the proposed development of the entire parcel of laad and noted that Stoneybrook Drive was Socated to the north of sub,~ect property. Commissioner Pebley offered a moti.on to approve sub3ect petition for a se=vice station only seconded by Commissioner Sides. '~ ' "' - Commissioner Pebley in offering his motion stated that the existing motels and commercial facilities in close proximity might benefit with the installation of a service station, that a professionai office would add as much traffic hazard as the proposed service sLation, and that the propoaed use would be compatible along Beach Boalevard. Commissioner 3ides stated that there was no opposition to subject petitioa, therefore the Commission should consider the petition favorably. 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read the suggested conditions applicable, and then noted that i£ the Commission approved the service station site only, the requirea~ent of a six (6) foot masonry wall at the easterly boundary of aubject property would not be applicable since it was legally im?ossible to apply a condition on property aot included ~ in the petition of approval, and that onJy a smali parcel of 110 feet in depth wouid remain, which could later be petitioned for a use ihrough a variance claiming a hardship. ~. ...,,,~.~ I I ~~... . '~__"'___._"i.'_'_.__ . ..'"__.... ......._. ~ . . . .. . . . -......~.. . ~i i 3 ~ i ~ ~i i • `~~~: . .._ ~...... . .. ~~. ~ e %~ ~J' ~ ~; F MINUTES~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, April 1, 1963, Continned: 1480 CGNDITIONAL USB - The Commission then contiaued the discussion of development pians PffitMIT N0. 379 for the entire parcel which would indicate the proposed development (Continued) for the rear portion of sub,~ect property; tha4 the service station could be so arranged to incorporate the entire parcel of land, but that no trailers, ice machines, etc,should be approved for the service station, since it was in such clos~ proximity to the muitiple family development,. Commissioners Pebiey and Sides withdrew their motion and second. Commissioner Perry offered a moLion to tcntinue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 379 to the meeting of Msy 14, 1463, in ordes to milow the petitioner sufficient time to present revised plans which would in~:icate development plans for the parcel, including elevations and a cleax consise pictuxe on the metho~d of land development. Commissioner Pebl~y seconded the motion. MO'~EON ~:ARRIBD. CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUHD PUSLIC HHHRING. CHARLIB N. and MAE P. ~tOCIC, 31?S Orange PffitMIT N0. 381 Avenue, Anahaim, California, and MINOdtU and MATSUB SHIOTA, 3139 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, Califoxnia, Owners; CARL BBLVHDffit8, BHMA INVBSTMBNT COMPANY, INC., 2101 West Sdinger, Santa Ana~ California, Agent; requesting permisssion to CONSTRUCT A SINGLH STORY PIANNED MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL DFSI~BLOPMBNT WITH CARPOdtTS AND OPBN PARKING - WAIVB FRONT YARD AND PARAING RBQUIREMHNTS on propesty described as: 1~vo irregular parcels of land located on the northeast cornex of Orange aad Westexn Avenues, pARCBL N0. 1 having a frontage of 240 feet on the east side of Western Avenue, and 320 eet~` on the aorth side of the Carbon Creek Plood Control Channel. PARCBL N0. 2 having a frontage of 500 feet on the north side of the Carbon Creek Plood Control Channel, aad an approximate depth of 300 feet, the westerly bou~ndary ::f Parcel No. 2 being adjacent to the easterly boundary of Parcel No. 1, and further described as 3133 ,~nd 3139 Orange Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL A(~tICtJLTURAL, ZONE. A letter was xead to the Commission from the agent for the petitioners in which a request for a.~ additioaal two weeks vfas asked in order to submit complete revised pians. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commissioa that the developers of subject property had met ~•ey~zai tines with membexs of the Plaaning Department, and as a result of these meetings, the developer felt he needed more time in which to redesign the plans for p:esentation :n the Commission. Commissioner Perry offered a motion ta continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 381, to the meetang of April 15, 1963, at the request of the petitioners, in order to allow sufficient time to prepare revised plot ~lans. Commisaioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD. RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~ARING. RUSSBLL MOORB, 11752 Garden Grove Bouie- N0. 62-63-69 and vazd, Garden Grove, California~ Owner; BUILDBR SHRVICB UNLIMITiSD, 11752 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Agent; CONDITI~NAL U~H property described as; A rectangular parcel of land haviag a PffitMIT N0..367 frontage of 140 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, and a depth of 620 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 1,290 feet north of Ball Road, and further described as 727 South Beach Bonlevard, shali be reclassified and permission requested to construct a twc story multiple family residential development. Property presently classified as :-A, RE3IDHNT7P.L AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. RBQUBSTBD QASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLH PAMIJ,X RBSIDENTIAL, ZONH. RHQUBSTHD CONDITIONAL USE: CONSIRUCTION ~P A TWO-STORY 44 UNIT PLANNaD MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL DByBIAPMHNT - WAIVB ONB-STQitY HBIGHT LIMITATION. 3ubject petitions were coqtinued from the meeting af Pebruary 18, 1963 and March 18, 1963, at the request of the petitioner, in order to allow the pe#itioner 3•ifficient time to revise the plot plans. ..._.._ ..._ - ~ • _ ----- ~ ( f. _ ~ ~ s MINUTBS, CIT'3~ PLANNENG CO[~AlISS30N, April 1, 1963, Coatiaued: 1481 RBCIASSIFICATION = Mr. Hdward Cronan, represeating the agent for the pe7itioner N0. 62-63-69 and appeared before the Commission and stated that every effort hsd been made to present acceptable development plans~that it w~.s CONDITI~IAL USB impossible to obtain aa easemeat or purchase parcels of land PBRMIT N0. 367 ad,~acent to sub,ject property; that sis•;e the Commission felt thac (Continued) the subject property was too small for proper developmettt, it was , the request of the petitioner that the Commission render their decision on the pians as submitted; tha~ although the Commis.iion could not take economics into consideration in renderiag their decision, this was a prime factor to the petitioaer siace he rouid not fe sibiy dev~lop sub,~ect propezty for both commercial and reaidential uae; and that there ~ere aeveral alteznatit2s~ either approve multiple famiiy resideatial zoaiAg sttb,~ect to the submisaion of adequate piana at a later date, or rendering a decision of plaas as presented, since ~he petitioa~i had tried to resoive probiems for deveiopment which wouid be compatibie s.nd wc3 uaabie to do so, The Commisaion noted that after a coaference with the Piarmis~g Department, the petitioner iadicated his inteation of pxoceeding with a restaurant and motel for aub,~ect property, attd inquired of the agent why thia deciaioa was made. Mr.'Croaaa repiied that at conferencea with the Planaiag Departmea! it was agreed that aub,~ect property did preaen4 a aumber of probieme for proper multipie family deveiopment aad one of their suggea#~,oAa was the reetaurant end motel for poaeibie developmeat. Commiaaioner Pebley inquired how Soag the petitioaer owned the p:r,plrty, to which the agent replied three •yeara hsviag purehaaed the property thiAtiag tha~s developmeat of Highwaq 39 wouid move f~ater than it had, snd that he purehaeed the praperty taowiag this waa a epeculatioa and could not be conaidered a hardehip, Commiesiones Chsvoa atated he feit the petitiorc~c~Nas expreeeing thst he now waa enduriag a hardahip in the deveiopment of the property, to which the agettt replimd that a4 the time the petitioner purchased the property there were not as maay require- meate or reetrictione f os~ devielopmeat aa multiple family use. Comini~sioAes Chavos then atpte6 that the staadards set by the City f~= developma»t of property would iaerease the value of property aot decrease the vaiue, TFJB HBARING WAS CL088D. The Comaisaioa noted that eub,~eet psopezty eould be develaped or ~oi.~l for ~aultiple family uae if reclassiPicatioa were approved, bqt that developmeat avuld aot be started uat31 plaaa had beea submitted throuQh s conditional uee permi4, and t~at bha petitioaer w~~ requesting a ehange in zoning without preseatia~ preci~e or 4r.ceptable pians which wara contrsry to requiremeats of the Commiesion and Couasil who requised preei~e plot plans. Commi~sioaer Perry st;ted that the daveiopmeat pisae oa whieh the Commi~~ioa wouid have to reader Ra qpiaion were iacompatible for maltiple family deveiopment, unle~e thE ra~r portion wa~ developed for muitiple family uee aad the froa! portioa deveioped fos aeighboshood coaraercial u~e. Commi"saioaer aauer offered Reeolutioa No.~693~ Seriee 1962-63, iad moved for its paseage sad adoptioa, eeconded by Commissioaer Chavos to recom~ead to the City CouAail that Petition for Reelsaaification No. 62-63-69 be disaDproved, baeed oa fiadiaQ~. (See Reaoiutioa Hook.) Commiooior~er Oauer ia offering the foregoing reeolution stated that eub,{oct property was aot large eaough to deveiop into an aeceptabie multiple family deveiopmeat ~i propo~ed. On roli call the foregoiag resolutioa was paeaed by the foliowing voLe: AYBa: COMM2,9IONBR3: Cunp, Chsvos, Craig, G~ner, Mungali, Pebiey, Perr•y, aidee. NQBas COMMI3,IONSR9: N~ne. ABBBNT: COUIlKI98IONBR9: A12red. _..____ ----._~..~._-. ...._._.___.__._.._~...._ _._.__... ---, ~.~:.;,.:::~-- i ~ . A ,~ I ' i .i t~ ~~ ~ ' i MINUTB3, CITY PIANNP.NG CQt~9NISSION, Apr31 1, ].?a3, Contiaued: 1482 f RBCIASSZPICATION - ~omm~.~ai~~n~r re.:.;a: o~':.~ ed Resolution No. 696, Series 1962-63, 1 N0. t2-63-69 and and aoved f.~ ~Ys ~acsage and adogtion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos'to ~len+/ Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 367, bgsed i COiil:7;:[f;::9L USB on f.ind~t.~g;+, e.'~r:e Resolution Book.) E PHA6tI; N0. 367 ; (Contiuued) pn rol]. caii #?r: foregoing reso~ution was ~+asse3 by the followir~g ~ v~~te: AY83: COMhlISSIONBR3: Casg, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, &idef~. ~ ~ NOH3: COMMISSIObBRS: None. ABSffi7T: COhAlISSIC~S: Alired. ~ '°~ COND:'TIOAWI, USB - C~NTT.~ilBD 1~UHLI~ HHARING. U. S, HOBF/S, 105~ South Magaolia, PBRMIT N~~., 389 Pii:~lcrtan, California, Owner; L'. W, nGaai~ t.S3 Rose Drive, F.lleston, California, Agent; s~questing per.a~isaion to BSTABL:SH AN ICb PdNDING MAQiINH oa property describe.d es; A rectan~ular parcel of iaad having a fr~~ntage of 104'feet oa the east aide of Los Aageles Street, snd a frontage of 109 feet oa the south aide of Water gtreet, ar.d further deacribed . i as 600 South Los Angeles ;3treet. Property presently classified ~-2, GBNpgpL CakIMSRCIAL~ 20NH. 3ubject petition was continued fsom ;;:ie meetiag of l~,larch 18, ].963, in order to provid= the petitioner an opportunity to ~.~,pear before the Commiesion. ~ A letter was read from the petitioner in which he s~ated he had been calted out .f town and would tx unablf• to appaar before the ~Commi~ts3on, and that he Y:a,; briefed the agent on questioas and~..:c•^ers Lhe Commissicn might have. ~i ~ K.T, Lee Wat!:s, reoresr::ntina ;~~e petitioner, appeared L+~:fore the Commission and stated ~ 7t, ,t oae of the p:tizhinu; spa~:es ~.vc~ld be utilized f~~r .he ins~:al'tatiora of the proposed ( .ce venc[ing ma<:hine. [ ~ The Commission noied that the proposed ice vending machine would be so lecated that it wu~~d exteAd out from the.front of the dwelling to the east of aub,jec: property, aaQ :hat it would be. mose practical 'co reiocate the ice machine to the southeast eorner of f subject property, where Parking Space No. 3 was indicat~+3 on the piot plan. ! Chairman Mungall inQuired whether there was anyonP ia t,ae Council ^„hamber opposing sub,iect petition, anc: received no re~ly. ~ THB HHfil2ING WA3 CLOSBD. ~ ~ Comv.lsaic,:~* p:rry affereG Resolution No. 697, Series 196~-63, and moved far ita ~ j nassage ttnd adoption, secoade3 by Coamissi,ner Camp, to graat Petit ion for Cor:Gitional Y I iJse permi.~t ~Io, 389~ sub,ject t~ woaditione. (See Reso.lutivn Pook.) Commissioncr Perry ir. offerinQ the foregoing resolutioa required that the ice vendang macl:ine be relocated to Parkiag Space No, 3, as indicated ia the plot plaa~ aad ihat _ the propoqed use was compa:~tl~ for the z~ne in which it was located. • On roll ca31 th~ foregoing reaolut~.on wa~ passed by the foliowing vote: A,YRS: CO}.lMI33IONBA~: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Ga,ier, Mungail, Pebiey, perry, $id2e. Nu83: CC~Rti~3I0NBRS: None. A?~ uVT: ~~.~MlISS7'JIV~tS: Allred, . .._. ..,__ . ---- ------- - -- -----_._------ -- --- -- -- - -- _ __._.,__. _ - ti. _ ~_ :--. . i~ ~ ~ , . . . ...__:... . t ~ ~ ' t' . -- ,' • I _... ..,.. _ ., , .. r ' ~, ~ ~ I ~ MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1483 CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. CAIARK C~tPORATION, 10502 West Ratella PBRMIT N0. 395 Avenue, Anaheiw, California, Owner; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A SINGLH PAMILY PIANNSD DHVSLOPMBNT CONSISTING OP PIVB t5) SINGLB PAMILY DWBLLINGS on property deacribed as~ An irreg- ° ularly L-shaped parcei of land having a frontage of 90 feet on the west side of Westera Avenue, approximately 130 feet norta of S#oneybrook Drive, said property being 310 feet, plus or minus in depth~ and also having a froatage of 49 feet on the north side of Stoneybrook Drive~ approximately 285 feet west oF Weatern Avenue. Property presentiy classified R-A, RB3IDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZOHIl. 3ub,ject petition wa,s coatinued from the meeting of March 18, 1963, to provide the petitioaer ai~ oppartuaity to contact the abuttiag property owtter to the aouth and the Plaaaiag Depar:ment for pseparation of reviaed plane. Mr. Harry Kaiaely, attorney for the petitioner appeared before the Comaission and atated that the reviaed plans had been aubmitted to the PSanaing Department~ but were not in time for the plaas to te reviewed before being suba4ltted to the Commisaioa. The Commisaion inq~ired of Ms. Rniaely whether he had cotttacted the propertq owner of the property to the south ar.' eaaL af subJect property for posaible developmeat of sub3ect and abutting propertiea. Mr. Knieely replied that due to an illnesa and being out of town~ he hsd been unable to mate a concentrated effort to coatact the prope•r•ty owaer, but had apokea to the tensnt of 4he home~ who sdviaed him that the new owner had ao iatention of aeliing the ad,~~ceat property or pesaibly devaloping Lhe property for multiple family uae, Chairma~+ Mungali 3aquired whether there waa aay edditiaaal oppoeitioa to aub,~ect petit~on, end received ao reply. RF~ F~ARING WAS CLOSHD, The Commisaion diacueaed the diapoeitior:• of aub,~eet petition, and felt thst piot plaae ahouic' be completel~y reviewed by the Interdepartmeatai Committee aad the Plaaaing Depar:meat, befoxe bei:;g conaidered by 4he Commiaeion~ aad that the petitioner ahould m:ke a diliaes-t effect to contact the owner of the adjaeeat property for poeaible iacorporatioa int~ anc developaient for aub,~ect and abuttiag psoperty to the south aad eeat. Co~er~isaiaaer Cam;; off4res a mati ~ to contiaue Petition for Conditional Uee permit No, 39s,, to thi, meeting of Avrii iS, 1453, ia order that the revised piot plan~ might be revi~ewed by tht Planniag DepRr:meat aad the A~ent for the petitioaer might be given t,ime t~ cantact the propesly ownrr of the ad,~acent property to the ~onth and ea~t. ~ommiasi~~ner (~auer aecor,ded the ~rotion. MOTION CARRiBD. Commie~ioner C:caop laft the Coun~:l Ch~mbes. ax 3:32 P.M. i j ARCIJ~QIT3c;.9?!ON - CONt1MJ8A F'JBLI: I~ARING. UNITBD 9AVIN(i9 tad LCAN A9SOCIATIOM, N0.-62-63-81 and 423-South I.s 8rea, Iaglewood~ C~liforai~, O~ctessi RICHARD M. ~g~~ g~ OUBTZCA~l, P. 0. Hox ~12A, Oxnard, Califosnia, AQeat= property ' TJBNTATIVB MAP OP deseribed as: Aa irregular parcei of land havi~ ~ froa4a~e of ; TitAc.`T N0. ~643 approximatcly SOS foet m the north bide df Saat• Aaa Canyoa Rosd, snd havin,g aa aaproxiasate froatage of 1,750 fcet on ~the weet side o@ 3eEfeseoa $tceet. Property pre~eatiy cia~aified R-A, ` A83IDSNTIAL A(~tICULTUAAL, ZONB. ~BQUSSTBD CJJt3~IPICATIONs R•3, MULT~PLB PAMILY R~9IDBNTIAL~ ZONB. 8U8J8Cf 1AACT: ioeated at the aorthwe~t eorAer of Santa Aaa Canyaa Road aad Jefter~oa Straet covering approximately 20 ~cree, is propo~ed for ~ubdivisioa i-rto 63 R-3~ Muitiple Pamily Aeaideati~l, Zone lot~. ' ~ ; , . _.____.._________~ .._ --- , . _ __ __ .__. . _ _. . ... _ .__ -------._._ ... _. _ _._ .__.__,__ r . ._, ~ _ '*`-. .__.__..._ .....r& . i : __.: _ . . . f 1 ' 1 " _ _. . .. _ -. .: ~ - _ _--- ------._..__----- _-- _~-_--•-------------.- --. _'~z . .. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ' MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING .M.•,~AlISSION, April 1, 1963, Contiaued; 1484 RHCIA33.IPICATION - 3ubject petition aad tentative tract map were contiaued from the N0. 62-63-81 and meeting of March 18, 1963, in order to provide the Commission an RHYI3BD additional opportunity to field check the new single family T~NTATIVH MAP OP development to t~he east and weat of sub,ject property. TRACT N0. 4643 CCoatiaued) Mr. Richard•Guetzow, developer aad agent for aubiect prope:ty appeared before the Commisaion aad atated that he had aothiag additional to add for the Commisaion*s conaideration except that he propoaed to develop aub,~ect property for multiple family use, that he would adhere t~ ali Code requiremeata, aad that nP uaderatood there were n number of ad3acent ~ property ownera who might :iave some queationa he should aaswer, Idr. William Liaseabard~ 1640 Rivervicw Aveaue, Orange, appeared before ~he Commisaion aad atated that he represented tweive peraona oppoeiag sub,~ect petition who were preaeat in the Couacii Chamber~ thst they had been uASble to attend the previoue haaring becauae 4hey had not received a notiee, perhape becauae the tract ia which they were located wae comparutively aew, namely, :he Peraita Hille, Orange Village and Royel Hilie devetopmenta; ths: the reeidenta felt ~hey were at s dia~dvaatsge beeaqee theq did aot live ia the City of AaRheim= that the pro,~ectior, of muitiple family reaideatiai zoaing into s aingie family reaideatial are4 would be detriment~i by reducing the ralue of the single fa mily homee~ credte aa adverae effeet oa the eathe~tie value of w ~ingle family eaviroameat, and aa increase ia the aoiee and traffie iri t-ye ad,~aceat area comprised of eingle fanily hoaas; th~t khe reaidents of :he ainaie familv homea had iaveatigated the zoaing of the City o€ Aaaheim before they had purchaaed theix homea~ aad had been iaformed yubJect sad ad,~~ceat areaa would be eneour- aged to davelr~p for 1ow deneity residential develapmeat; that they would like to h~ve it remaia for aingle family devaiopment, and that Mr, 3. V. HunsRker, the developer of the tracL to the weat had verbal7.y iAformed the reeidente of the tract that he wa• opposed to mnltiple family developReat for eub,~eat property. The Commiaeioa det~rmined thst the oppositioa had Aot aeeA the p1aAa for the multiple faroily development, tha~ there aeemed to be a coaflict of opinioa aa to w._ether Mr. Hunaa~er spproved or dieapproved the multiple family developmeat~ beeauae the developer stated hc haA Mr, Hvneaker~s vexb~al apprn~ai of a muitiple €am~ly development~ and thet the ~d,~~cent treaf to ~he weat had beea ;~rtinlly compieted far occupsacy aince the fiset og Mareh~ 1963. Mr. Quetzow ia cebuttal, etated that the oypoai~~iaa w~e oppoein~ ~omethieg for which they had aot seev platts, that rather thsn dimin~ah the v~iue snd the,eathetic 'beauty of the araa, aub,~ect development would eahsaae i;i that tha ad,~oiaiuu~ trn~cts wera now setlins.for no moaey dawn, and these wss more chaace of triaaiaata iA tha home~ where ao down payment waa saQuired~ becauae thia was ,~u,~t iite reatina • homp~ aad tha p~saeata~a of home~ bein~ tarned btck to the developer or bsin~ foreeioaed zanged from 69G to 2096; that the propo~ed davelopnent w~~ aot ,~u~t ~r.y multiple famiiy barrack~- typ~ developmeat, but was con~idesed a very hiQh qualitq of davelopmant and tha nun~ber of unit~ per acre wa~ eon~idesabiy beiorr the permittad nambes for mul~iple family developmeati that sit apartmant~ were two~bedroom, which would diocoura~e fwmilia• with ~avarai childr~a~ in faot, would be la~~ thaa ~ny ~:a~le ~'cmily davelopmaat~ that •li~y twra beinQ psovided for tr~~h truck pictup, sad lhat in`ra~~ and e~r~~a to the eubJact development wa~ ~o da~i~ned that ears wouid naver u~a the ~tr~at~ to th~ si~la family developmeat~~ and that th0 propo~ed davelopwaet would act aa a buffet betw~aa oommarcial davelopment and the Rivereida Preeway. Mr. t4~n1Ay Rittar~ formes davelopar of ~'entative Map of Tract No. 4643~ ~ppear~d befora the Catnmi~~ion aad ~t~ted tha4 he hrd t~lked with Mr. Hunsakar prior to bhe praviou• Commi~aioA meatin~ aad at that time he had voieed eo oppo~ition to ou~b,~act deveiopmenti that osiQinally he had propoeed ~23,000 to 330,000 homea~ but before they could eomplata their davelopment p1an~~ the ad,~ecaat tract~ had beea ~~~rtad in the City of Oranse sad ia the Couaty, aad the home~ beias build wara bei~ offarsd for ~ ~13~000 to ;20~000= that tha ma,~ority of the paople who own hone~ ~re proqd of them= ~ and that if he had developad ~ub,~ect tract sa propo~ed~ thi~ wanld ravo p3RCed homa~ of s hi~hez quality betweea two traeta of home,~ of ie~~er auality, aad whieh th~y 's. would Rl~o uot be abin to ~e11. ~ ~ ._._ . ~..._.____..._.._-.---__.__._------.__.._-----•-------- ___ ___..___..___. . , -- ~_._._ _.._._---- _ .~ ~--3~ . ~ ~ .._ } i ' .. .i / r ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAMISSION, Aprii 1, 1963, Continued: 1485 RBCLASSIPICATION - The Commission inquired of the deveioper whether he could develop N0. 62-63-81 and subject tract with single story apartments, to which Mr. Guetzoh stated that the tract was so designed that the two-story apartments RHVI3HD would be the center tier, thus placing two-story construction wi~3n ~e TBNTATIVB MAP OR 150 foot requirement adjacent to single family residences; that TRACT N0. 4643 ail singYe story would be on the outer perimeter of the develop- (Continued) ment, that quality constructed apartments with a great deal of landscaping and recreational area was be+ng provided. Mr. Linsenbard stated that there wer.e a number of homes to the west and northeast now under construction costing considerably more than those referred to in the other tracts, and the allegation that Mr. Huasaker approved or did not oppose subject multiple family development was untr~e. Mrs,William Linsenbard, 1640 Riverview Avenue, Orange, appeared before the Commission and stated that her family had formerly lived in an apartment, that they felt they were of a high caliber apartment, but residents would aot have moved into the homes if they though# apartments were going to be constructed in so close proximity to their homes, Mr. Gue4zow stated that there was a need for high quality type apartments in the east end of Anaheim with the large industriai development wbich would eventually have 20,000 employees, many of whom were scientists, electronic engineers and highly trained technicai well paid individuals wanting to live in close proximity to their wbr~~ and who would be looking for a home, but felt they could i.~ot purchase a home because in their type of work they would t+e transferred. THH HBARING WAS CL0.SBD. Commissioner Chavos stat~d that the Commission was charged wi'th plasining for the City and to ronsider sabject petition favorably when it was to be located between two single family developments, would in his estimation, be shirking the responsibility the Commission was charged with; that if the sin,3le family developments were not already in existence there might be some justification for approVing 9ubject petition, but to compound an error in previous pianning did not mean the Commission shou]d continue this ersor, but should try to remeQy it by sound pianning for future development on subject and abutting properties. Commissioner Perry stated that it was unfortuaate that two goveraing bodies were deciding the fate of property in Has't Anaheim; that the single family development should not h:.ve been allowed on the easx side of Jefferson Street, which was in close proximity to the Riverside Freeway; that Anaheim did need multiple family development in the Bast Anaheim area for people who do not like to live in homes and have all the probiems of the upkeep of the home and the yard, and that the proposed development had its own circuiation for traffic which would not create traffic problems and hazards for children whzch in ifiseif made the development desirable. Commissio:,er Gauer inquired how the developer planned to maintain the recreation area to which Mr. Guetzow r.ep.lie~ that the entire property wouid be under one ownership, and that adeqi.at~ measures had been taken to maintain the piay area and recreational facilities; t~+~; the recreation area had been placed next to the neighborhood comnercial area to the east, and adequate parking facilities were~also provided there, and the cost of maintenance would be incorporated in the rental of each unit; and that if subject property were sold in 5 to 6 years, individual lots would be sold which would have a share in the recreational area. Commissioner Camp returned to the Coune.ii Chataber at 3:50 P.M. The Commission determined from the developer that the play and recreation area wouid be constructed simultaneously with the construction of the first unit. ~~ ~. ~-_ __..._._.. ,;.,.. , - -_..__ __..__.~..----- _..._.._.._._.__ ._ _ __. ._.. -. . . --~ i ~ - ,.~ '- - _. . ._ ....~ i • ] __ . . : a _--- __..__. _.. . ___ ___ ~~ ~..11' ~ MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING COhAIISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1486 itHCU1SSIFICATION - Commissioner Pei+s'.r.y offered Resolution No. 598, Series 1962-63~ N0. 62-63-81 and .' snd moved for its passage and adoption, secon~led bp Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for RHVT.SSD Reclassificatioa No. 62-63-81 be approved, aubject to conditions. 'iot`lTATIVH MAP tir _ . . -- -~ ~ ; . . ,.: ,.- : ,.:,: ~, TRACT N0. 4643 ;i Commissfoner Pebley in offering the foregoing resolution stated that , the proposed development would be an asset to the City and would be (Continued) ' compat3ble use although it was located between two single family sub- ~ d~ivisions and because of.the:qua.lity of the homes in the~tract abuttin the'west_side,'of subject property, and loc8ted in the City of Orange, that'commercial and multip;e family had been established to the east of sub3ect_property, that i,ne southerly portion•of sub3ect property wa On roll call the ! adjacent to the Newport and Riverside Freeway interchange; and that the norther,ly portion abuts onto the.Santa Ana River. AY83: Cd~9dI83 NOBS: COA9dISSIOI~RS: Chavos. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIO?~'BR9: Camp. AB38NT: COI~9~lISSIOIJBlt3: Allred. Commiaeioner Chavoa qualified hie vote of "NO" by atating that the propoeed zoaiag wouid be ia violatioa of eound pianniag by the ~I~~of the multipie famiiq develop~nt betweea two aiagle family eubdivisiona. G Sub3ect tract was coasidered ia con,~unctioa with Reelaasif:tcation No, 62-63-81, The Iaterdepart=e:.4a1 Committee reeommeadatioae were revieaed bq the Comaii~~ioa~ sad a~&ed of the rapreee~tative of the Bagiaeerina Departmeat for an expiaaatioa of the requirement that the deveioper participate in the coet of the S~nt~ Ana Ritror levee psotection. Arthur Daw, Office 8n~ineer, advi~ed the Comwi~~ion that~the lavee proteetioa rvn~ eeeeati~lly ~ condition of Tract No. 4600, which wa~ loeated sout,h of the S~ata Ana River attd north of 9anta Ma CaayoA Road approxima#elq 6/i0th~ of a 4iie weat of ~ub,~eet proper~q~ that every traet ia the Citq of Orna~e aaa aleo required to partici- pate in the levee protectioa~ thst the coat wa• determiaed by a~eartaiais~ the tot~i area to beaefit, and ia the ceae of eub,~ect tract aithou~h it eovered 20 ~cra~~ approximateiy 7 acre~ would beaefit or ~ totsl eo~t of approxiaately ~4~000.00. Commi~aioaer Perry offered a motion to approva Revi~ad Teatative Nap of Trac4 No. 4943~ ~ub,~eet to the followi~ coaditioa~: 1. Requiremeat thst shouid thi• ~ubdivi~ioa be developed ~• aose thaa ona ~nbdivi~ioa~ aach ~ubdivi~ion ther~of ahali ba ~ubmittad in taatative for~ for approvai. 2. That there be provieioa~ of sa adequate dr~ia~~e plan, bq !'iliia~ th~ Aortharly ead of tha tract to diechar~e into the rivar at it~ presea~ Flowliae, pnmpin~ to the river~e preeeat fiowiioe, di~ehariiag into the City of 6z~:.:•: or saq ~~ther mathod which i• to the sati~faetion of the Cifiy 8a~iaeer. 3. Zhat 4he doveioper ~hall participata ia 4he eo~t of th~ Scc.ta Aaa River levea protection ia proportioa to tha area beae~ited by •~id iev~~~ ba~~d upoA the ara~ of benefit ~nd eontraat pricas for ssid Sevee proteetion~ aub,~eet to revieM by the City 8a~ineer and the tract e~iaear~ and ~ppsoval thereof by tha L~i=eator of Publit, Work~. 4. Provi~ion of aoraer eut-offs oa the aiiey~ whieh ~hali ba eu~da ia accordaACa v-ith ~ad the approvai o4 thm City 8a~iaeer, 3, Pnii improvemeat~ to be in~talled oa ~~t+-via 8tra~~, with the Citq to do th~ centar tw~iaty-t'our (24) feet of pavi~, ~ 6. Dedieation of aece~~ risht• to Jaffes~oa ~nd Batovi~ Str~et~, axeep! at ~breeti aAd ailey openi~~. ~------- . _.. ._..----_ -- ---- -_~_... ._--. _,_______._-___----- ~. _____._._._ - . __._ . __... . i _ ._.. _ ~ : ~ i • 1 ... . .: ~' ....1.__._"__'~___. ~~._.__.._.._._..._..... _ ..:~:~-- ~ ~~ ~ AtINUTS3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1487 ~ RHCIASSIPICATION - 7. Kodiak Street shall be a sixty-four (64) foot right-of-way. N0. 62-63-81 and 8. Full dedication of Batavia and Jefferson Streets shall be RBVISHD provided within the property ownership, with full improvement THNTATIVE MAP OF of Jefferson Street south of the northerly line of Batavia TRACT N0. 4643 Street, with the City to do the center twenty-four (24) feet (Continued) within the City Limits. 9. Subject to the reciassification of subject property from the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, as approved and completed under Reclassification No. 62-63-81. Commis~'oner Craig seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECBSS - Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten (10) minutes, Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD, The meeting recessed at 4:15 P,M. AFTSR RHCH3S: Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:25 P,M., all Commissioners being present, except Commissioner pllred and Commissioner Perry. THNTATIVH MAP OP - DHVBLOPBR: ASSOCIATHS FUNDING, 700 West Orangewood~ Anaheim, TRACT N0. 5084 California, BNGINEBR: PAUL CALVO CaMPANY, 1833 Bast 17th 3treet, Room 212, Santa Ana, California. Subject tract is located on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the east side of Lewis Street, and contains six (6) M-1, Light Industrial, 2one, lots. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the location of subject tract for the Commission noting that it was in the southeast industrial area and covered approxi- mately 5 acres for subdivision into Light Industrial, Zone, lots. Commissione: Camp offesed a motion to approve Teatative Map of Tract No. 5084, subject to the following conditions: 1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted ?n tentative form for approval. 2. Provisions for an alley cut-off at the southwesterly corner of Lot No, 6. 3, Relocace Lewis Street a minimum of one foot to the east. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTIOdV CARRIBD. VARIANCS N0. 1531 - PUBLIC HBARING. PRANK A. NBLLBSHN, 1109 Cherry Way, Anaheim, • California,~Owaer; JOHN'D. VON DBR FI~IDH, 924 North Huclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAI~B ONE- PAMILY DWBLLING AND MINIMUM ARBA RBQUIRMHNTS TO PBRMIT TFffi CONSTRUCTION OP A DL.?LBX on property described as: A rectangular portion of iand having a frontage of 115 Ft~et on the south side of Romneya Drive and a frontage of 63 feet on the east side of Cherry Way, and further described as 1109 Cherry Way. Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. Mr. John D. Von der Heide, agent for th~ petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property was ±o be developed for multiple family use and sut,;ect property abutted to the west a series of multiple family developments, that there had been no expressed opposition to the proposed development since it was the iast lot to be so developed, that the proposed development wocld improve the appearance of the Romneya Drive side of subject property, and that one unit would face Cherry Way and the other Romneya Drive. ' __~___...,, .,...._~.^--r._.~___._---•------ ---------._.... __._..r____~..--------- ' , _ ---~ _..._._ __..----~---- ~ _ -_._ _ _ .. 11 ~ . ~ ~~ MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING CObAlI33ION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1488 f VARIANCS N0. 1531 - Chairman Mungall inquired if there was anyone in the Council ' (Continued) Chamber who opposed snbject petition, and received no reply. Commissioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 4:35 P.M. THB HBAitING iVfiS C;A,;aD. The Commission discussed the compatibility of a duplex with single family to the north and south; that the proposed development should be two three-bedroom units rather than one two-bedroom and one three-bedroom. The Commission also reviewed all the suggested changes on the plot plan with the agent for the petitioner, whereupon he agreed to submit revised plans for Architectural Control approval which would incorporate two three-bedroom units and agreed not to reduce the size of the rooms. The Commission further noted that the City was preparing an improvement plan for the installation of curb, gutter, and paving on Roinneya Drive, which would mean an automatic dedication of property fronting on Romneya Drive for street improvements. 2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt informed the Commission that the plot plans indicated a 20 foot front yard setback; that the petitioaer did not request a waiver from Code: Section 18,16,030 (1-a), which stipulates a twenty-five (25) foot front yard requirement; ana that the petitioner filed subject varianco kn.~wing that he was establishing a use rather than requesting relief from a tardshi, for development of subject property. Coamissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 6 99, Serie~ 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to gran•t Petition for Variance No, 1531, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) Commissioner Gauer in offering the foregoing resolution stated that he did not feel subject property should be reclassified to the R••3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, and that the proposed development would be an iv,provement. Oa roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYBS: CON4dISSI01VBEtS: Camp, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley~ Sides. NQ:tS: COI~AlISSIONHRS: Chavos, ABSTAIN: COb41ISSI0NBRS: Perry. ABSBNT: COhAtISSIONHRS: Alired. VARIANCB N0. 1559 - PUBLIC F~ARING. WALTER H, pINR'rIAM, qttorney in Pact, 2763 Outpost Drive, Los Angeles 28, Californ3a, Owner; M~DANISL HNGINHHRING COMPANY, 222 8ast Lincoln pvenue~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to REDUG& THB BUILDING SBTBACK pRQM 25 PBBT TO 20 PHBT WITHIN THOSB PROPffitTIE3 ABUTTIIV~• INTHFT_qg INpUSTRIAL STREBTS on property described as; A rectangular portion of lan3 having a frontage of approximately 994 feet on the east sid:: of Lemon ~treet and a-depth of 1,180 feet, the southerly boandary of said propeity being approximately 328 feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further described as Tract Nos. 4960 and 4961. Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and P-L, PARKING IANDSCAPING, and P-1, AUTOMOBILB PARRING, ZONHS. Mr. John Jacobson, sepresenting the agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated that, Tentative Map of Tract Nos, 4960 and 4961 had been approved for subdivision by both the Commission and the City Council, and between the time of the approval and the development, the M-1, Ligh4 Industrial, Zo.ae Section relative to setbacks on interior industrial streets had been amended and an Ordinance passed. Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone in the Couacil ChambPr opposing subject petition, and received no reply, THH HHARING WAS CLOSHD. _ _ _ __._ _ ._ - -- ,},~y~. -...~..._...__..ep~ _. .__ _._... -~~it3 _r_.~. 54 .. . ._ _._. MINUTB3, CITY PIANNIN~ COMNISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1489 VARIANCH N0. 1559 - 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt,advis~d the Commission that (Continued) there was a 55 foot setback from the aortheriy property line indi.cated on the Tract Map. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 700, Series 1962-63, and moved for its psss~ga w.z3 wdag;ioa, ~eccn~ed b~ Cow~sasioAe= Perry~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 1559, subject to conditioas. CSee Resolution Hook.) _ Commissioner Sides in offering the foregoing resolution stated a finding should indicate that plans were under development prior to the effective date of the new M-1, Light Industrial, Zone, Ordinance. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos~ Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NQBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: CODA~IISSIONBRS: Allred. VABIANICB N0. 1560 - PUBLIC HBARIt?~. R. B. and VIRGINIA CIANTON BOG(',S, 1067 Reseda Street, Anaheim, Cali fornia, Owners; requesting permission to RBDUCB THB SIDB YARD SHTBRCEC FROM PIVB (5) PBBT TO 0118 (1) POOT TO PBRMIT TF~ COMPLBTION OP A SINGLS FAMILY RHSIDBNCE on property described as: A rectangular parcel of Sand having a frontage of 75 feet on the west side of Reseda Street and a depth of 100 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 640 feet south of the centerline of Wagner Avenue, and further described as 1031 Reseda Street. Property presently classified as R-1, ONH PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20NH. Mr. Gail Bagleton, attorney for the.petitioners,appeared before the Commission and stated that during tHe process of the development of the subdivision in which subject property is located, a dispute arose between the petitioners and the property owner to the north of subject property relative to the boundary iine of Tract No. 4612, approved by the Commission and the City Council, and the long time proper~ry owner to the north of the tract; that in order to resolve the completion of the home on subject property whi?e awaiting litigation relative to the boundary line, subject petition had been filed to permit the encroachment to within one foot of the north property line for the rear portion of the subject property in order to construct a garage, and that it was hoped to resolve the problems of both property owners without litigatiott, The Commission inquired the exact time the wire fence had been constructed, to which Mr. Hagleton replied that the fence had been erected after the subdivision and improvements had been made. Commissioner Chavos stated that by requesting the approval of subject petition, the petitioner was adding to the problem of rPSOlving a legal problem, and by so doing would create a substand.ard home, and Mr. Ss,4leton replied that construction had already been started wh~n the dispute arose. The Commission then inquired of Deputy City Attorney Pu=man Roberts, the Commission's position if subject petition were approved, would the Commission be compounding a felony? Mr. Roberts replied that it depended on the outcome of the dispute, by app=oving subject petition the Commission might be compounding a problem. The Commission continued discussion as to their position in the solving of the dispute, that since the Commission and the Council had approved Tract No. 4512, and which had been recorded, that the Council had withheld home ~ccupancy for homes on Lot Nos. ! and 35 because of litigation o.f'the boundaries of said lots, and that if the curb and gutters were completed for the subject property, this would reduce the size of the lot to 100 feet less than the minimum of 7,200 square feet. i ,\ '~ __..._ -- ------ ., `____'_'_-~~.~- -~--„_._ 1 __ . . . ..._.. . . , ~ . . ~ . .~ . . -~ ' 1 . . . . ~ . . __...-_. .. .. . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _. . .~_-..._._.....................~_.~._.__.~._~__.._ ._._..__.~___.__..~_. _~_..______' ... .. .. . . . . ..... :(~- : . _ i ~ ~;~ "~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 1, 1963, Continueds 1490 VARIANCE NC1. 1560 - Mr~ Herman Lenz, representing Mrs. Lenz, owner of the property to ~ontinued) the north of subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had brought the bounda*y dispute to the attention of the Building Department, who had issued a stop work order until a solution had been made; that he had no dispute with the developers in wanting to complete the house; that the Lenz property had ~een in the family for 65 years and the surve.~ors stakes were in the ground since 1916; that the only additional requirement the petit:~.~er would need would be a retaining wall along the block wall of a two foot rise; that the fence had been erected after the surveyors came in and wanted to bypass the existing survey stakes; and that he was not opposing the request for encroachment to within one (1) foot of the property line. Further discussion was held as to the City and the Commission's position regarding the granting of subject petition; that the Commission could not rule on property that was in litigation, and that in order to avoid compounding a felony, the Commission must withhold their decision on snbject petition until that time. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Mr. R. D. Boggs, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that such a litigation might take 18 months to two years; that he needed some relief since at the time he purchased the lo•t he had assumed he had a legal size lot, and if the neighbors wished to give this relief all the Commission needed to do was attach conditions. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission that the reasons behind the "stop work" order should not be the concern of the Commission, but whether or not the request for approval of a one (1) foot wide side yard was acceptable. Commissioner Camp stated irom the preceding conversation it was his assumption that the title company and the engineers were in error in their survey of the tract. which had been approved by the City, that the Building Department should not have issued a stop work order unless ordered to do so through legal proceedings, that since no in3unction had been filed work should have proceeded, and inquired of the petitioner what had the Building Aepart- ment stated as their reason for issuance of the "stop work" order. Mr. Boggs stated that when he contacted the Building Department thsy advised him that the order had been issued because subject property was in violation. Commissioner Pebley then stated this should be a problem which the City Attorney's office i should handle, and that the Commission should not consider subject petition, until the ~ Commission's legal rights had been established in considering subject petition. 1 I Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance IVo. 1560 to the meeting ' of April 29, 1963, to allow the City Attorney's office sufficient time to work with the ~ petitioner in resolving litigation problems and to determine the Commission's legal position ? in considering sub3ect petitiono Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MDTION CARRIID. ! WNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HFARING. MARGUERITE E. SMITH~ 510 South Ohio Street, Anaheim, PERMIT ND. 397 California, Owner. JAMBS L. MaRRIS~ 906 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ~NSTRUCT A WALK UP RESTAURANT - WAIVF. STANDA~tD P9RKING REQUIRFaAENT on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Citron Street, with frontages of 57 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 77 feet on Citron Street, and further described as 719' West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified as C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ~ONE. Mr. James Morris, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and atated that the petitioner for 25 years had utilized sub~ect property for a similar type of restaurant, that upon retirement the former restaurant was closed and the building was torn down, that the petitioner desired to supplement her retirement income through the sale of subject property, that an attempt had been made to obtain the rear portion to the north of sub~ect property to develop both parcels into a restaurant whi:.h would comply with standards of the Zoning Code, but the petitioner was unsuccessful in this attempt, and ~hat the proposed walk-up restaurant would not permit car-hop sales of food. /i --~_.___-.--.-~ -.__._--._._~_---_ ._.._.__~__~___.______-~._--•-,--- ' _..______.°e~ ......_..: -------._.. . _ • ` , . " . ~ . . , 1 ~~~ +~: . . - ' . . . . . ~ . \ \ _ ' . . r~ . 1 ~~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CObAtISSION, April 1, 1~963, Continued: ~ ~ 1491 CONDITIONAL USB - Mr, William Visser, owner and operator of the Macres Plorist Shop PBRMIT N0. 397 located to the east of subject property appeared before the (Continued) Commission and stated that he had been required to purchase additional property for parking purposes when his shop was established; that tenants in his building opposed having parking spaces in front of their business estabiishments used by other than their customers; that the trash and litter from the proposed type of restaurant would be a detriment to the adjoining properties; that the proposed development would adversely affect the existing land uses in close proximity to subject property; that he owned three of the remaining lots in the block where subject property is located; and that tenants in his buildings had informed him that they would move if they were deprived of their parking privileges in front of their establishments. Mr. J, D. Barriagton, 715 West Lincoln Avenue, owner of the property immediately adjacent to subject property, appeared before the Commission~in opposition to subject petition and stated that at the time he purchased his property, it was his intention to construct a building that would improve the appearance of Lincoln Avenue; and that the proposed development would not supply sufficient parking facilities, thus encroaching on the parking facilities of adjacent developments. Mr. Wiiliam Rader, 800 West Lincoln Avenue, owner and operator of the Tastee Freez located at that address, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that he did not want te :uraish the extra parking for the proposed development; that as part of the approval of his request to establish a walk-up restaurant, he had to conform to the required parking regulations; and that sufficient parking was a necessity because the traffic on Lincoln Avenue was too heavy to permit on street parking. Mr. Morris, in rebuttal, stated that the petitioner could not afford to develop subject property for other than what was being proposed, whereas the three people opposing subject petition had the means to acquire additional land; that the proposed development xould provide six <6) parking spaces; and that he felt the proposed development would be an asset to the neigfiborhood. TH8 HSARING WA3 CLOSED. Tt~e Commission reviewed the plot plans and discussed its compatibility to the surrounding structures. ~ Commissioner Pebley noted that if the former restaurant building stili existed, he might approve the devclopment. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 701, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption. seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional tise Permit No. 397, based on findings, (See Reso'LUtion Book.) Commissioner Sides in offering the foregoing res~~lution stated that the proposed development as indicated on the ~lot plans •r~as 3iot a compatible use for the area in which it was proposed to be located. !:ommissioner Chavos in secondins the foregoing resolution stated that 3ection 18.64.030 (2-b,c, and e) of the Anaheim Municipal Code indicating the required showings were not substantiated by evidence presented. On roll call the foregoing resolutio~: was passed by the following vote: AYS3: COAQIISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavo~, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NQB3: COhAfISSIONHRS: None. ABS6NT: CCIMMISSIONffitS: Allred. _~_ ---~------.____-- ---- - - -------- ,,,,:..-~„_._,~~._~ - --------- - -- --- ----------- ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CQWNI3SION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1492 RHCB3S - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner and to reconvene at 7;45 P,M. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. The meeting recessed at 5:40 0'Clock p.M. RBCONVBNB - Cha3rman Mungall reconvened the Regular Meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission at 7:45 0'Clock P.M., all members being present except Commissioner Alired. CONDITIONAL IISH - PUBLIC HBARIA'G. Blt00RHURST SHOPpING CHNTBR, 2293 West Bali Road, PBRMIT N0. 399 Anaheim, Califarnia, Owner; GpRCIA`S, 9U5 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, Califorr;ia, Agent; requesxing permission to ESTABLISH A MBXICAN RBSTAURANT WITH ON~SALB BBBR ON pROPffitTY DBSQtIBBD AS: A rectangular parcel of land 85 feet by 196 feet, the ea3terly boundary of said property being approximateiy 104 feet west of the center.liae of Brookhurst Street, and the northerly boundary of said property being 365 feet south af the canterliae of Colchester Drive, and further desczibed as 905 Sonth Brookhars# Street. Property presently classified as C-1, NSIGHIBORHOOD COt~lIDtCIAL, ZONB. Mr. Robert Garcia, representing the agent ~for the petitio:~er appeared before the Commission and stated that ihey proposed the on-sale of beer only in conjunction with the serving of food in the restaurant. Chairman Mungali inquired whether there was a~yone in the Council Chamber opposing subject petitiun, and receive3 no reply. THH HBARING WAS CLOSSD. The Commission discussed the sale of beer and liquor in conjunction with the sale of food or the operation of the restaurant, and inquired of Deputy City A~torney Purman Roberts, to review the rights of a petitioner, as well as, the conclitions the Commission might attach to assire that the sale of beer wouid be in conjunction with the sale of food in the opezation of the proposed restaurant. Mr. Roberts then reviewed the petitioner~s right's relative to any conditioas attached Ar any decision the Commission might make in approving ~r disapproving a petition, and further advised the Commission that theq could stipulate that the sale of beer was approved if sold in conjunetion with the serving of food in the restaurant. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 702, Series 1962-63, aad moved for its passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner Perry to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 399, subject to conditions. (See Resolutic+a Book.) Commissioner Pebley in offering the foregoing resolution stipulated that the sale of beer should be restricted to it being sold in conjunction with the sale of food in the restaurant. On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~ote: AYB3: CObAfI3SI0N!~tS: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, perry, Sides, NOE3: COhAfISSIUNBRS: None. ABSBNT: C01~IIS3IOiVffitS: Allred. i 1 i ! ~ __ _ _ ... . „:., . --, , _ . --y~; . _...~..»_... . _ . __. _ _ --_.. . ~. _ ._ _._ i ~ .~ . ....._.._"'...__...__._. . .._-____ ' -'_'___"'_'"__~.. ...~._..___._ ._ . ~ . ., ;` ~7 ~ . ' i / ~~~ ~v ~ L MINUTH9, CITY PLpNNING COA9NISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1493 CONDITIOdVAL USH - PUBLIC F~ARING. MAURICB PINTO, 1813 3outh Manchester Avenue, PffitMIT N0. 400 Aaaheim, Caiifornia, Owner; 1{BNNgTH g, IpB, 914 Weat Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestiag permisaion for ON-SALB OP ~ H8ffit iN CONJUNCTION WITH AN BXISTING RBSTAURANT on property ! deacribed as; An irregular par~el of land haviag frontagea of 56 feet oa the east ~ side of Mountain View Avenue~ 75 feet on the weat side of Manchester Aveaue, and an ' average depth of 345 feet, the no~therly boundary of said property being approximately 355 feet south of the ceaterline of Ratella Avenue, aad further deacribed as 1813 South Mancheater qvenue. Property presently classified as C-1, NBIGHBOdtHOpD CC1YA~itCIAL, ZOivB. Mr. Kenneth Lae, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the Commissioa and stated that the petitioner in the past had requested the sale of beer for subject property when it was proposed for a hofbrau; that the petition now has a tenant specializing in the sale of Dutch type food ia a restaurant; and that the petitioner had received requests for beer to be sold in conjunction with the sale of food in the restaurant; and that the existing restaurant was a family type restaurant which had upgraded the area with a compatible use. Coromissioner Gauer stated that in reviewing the plot pians the Planaing Department questioned the omission of landscaping; and that 90o parking required a miaimum 25 foot turning radius; and that during the field inspection by the Commissioa, it was noted that both Moantain View Avenue and Manchester Avenue wouid be improved by the addition of more iandscaping. Mr. Maurice, pinto, the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasioa sad stated that land- acaping h.d been inatalled on the Maacheater pvenue aide of aub3ect property; aad that the peti.tioner propoaed to aell wiae and beer ia con3unctic+n with the aerviag of food in the reataurant. Zonfng Coordiaator Martin 8reidt, adviaed the Commisaion that if a building permit wese to be approved for the propoaed on-eale of beer and wiae~ parkway maintenance approvai would require landecapiag in aecordance with City atandarda; aad that if the Commiaeion deeired additional landecapiag, thia couid be a coadition of spproval, Chairman Mungall inquired if there wsa anyoae ia theCouaeii Chamber oppoaing aub,~ect petition~ and received ao reply. THS FIDARING WA3 CLOSBD. A ietter vna read to the Commiasion from the operatora of the P1Rnt~tioa Mobile 8atatea, tx~a~ler paskin~ sd,~acent to sub,~ect psopezty~ in which no oppositioa wae indicRted~ but a requert rvRa made to limit !he aale of bees and wiAe to a ra~tauraat operati~a~ for th~ pra~eat aad ~ay ~ub~eqqeat ownar. Comai~iioner l~aar offered Reaoiutioa No. 703~ 9eriee 19d2-63, aed moved for it~ paua~e ~nd adopbion~ ~e~~nded by Oommi~~ioaer ~ide~, to ~raat Patitioa fos Conditioaai U~e Permit No. ~00, sub,~ect to conditiotts, (See Reoo9.utioa 8ook.) Commi~aioner Gauer ia offeria~ the foxe~oing reaolution requested that•the•aald of beer ~ad wiaa ~hRli be sold in con,~unctioa with the eerving of food ia the opesatioa of #he exiati~ reetiurant, and th~t landscapiag ~hail be ia~tailed which ~hail be oub,~ect to the City of Anaheim Sand~eapiag ~tandarde. On soll ca11 the foregoing re~olution wa~ paaaed by thn foilowing vote: A7l8d: CW~9~IISSION8R8: Camp, Chsvos, Csaig, Gauer, MungRli~ Pebiey, Parry, aides. NOB9 s CONIMI98I@lHEt3 t None . ASSBNT: COhAlI9AIODi8R8s Alired. -----------____.__._ . ... ---- _. _.- -- - -- -- - -----•-- ----•- -----r. . ,-- _~ , , , ~ ~. ~ . s I ' ~ -- ~ " ~ ~ ~ i ~ I i ~ MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Agrii 1, 1963, Continued: 1494 RBCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. ANTONIO VHSCB, 2181 West Porest Lane, Anaheim, N0. 62-63-87 California, Owner; RICHARD L. PIffitCS, 119 East Occidential Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting that property described as; A rectangular parcel of land at the southesst coraer of Center and Cherry Streets having frontages of 110 feet on Center Street and 152 feet on Cherry Street, and further described as 1224 West Center Street be reclassified from the C-2, GB~THRAL CObA~BRC]fAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSIDffiVTIAL, 7n*IB to construct a 14-unit apartment buildiug on subject property. Mr. Richard Pierce, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioner proposed to remove the existing building and construct a two-story apartment; that with traffic being relocated to Lincoln Avenue. Center Street from West Street, no longer was compatible for commercial development; and that two-story construction would not be a detriment to the area because there were other two-story residential bnildings adjacent to subject property. Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone preseat in the Council Chamber who opposed subject petition, and received no reply. THH HHARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission noted that the proposed apartment building wouid be loeated across the strePt from theree parcels of land on which multiple family residential zoning was pend.ing, and that with the removai of the existing str~scture wbuld eliminate an undesirable structure. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 704, Series 1962~63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-87 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolutien Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONHRS: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry, Sides. NQ:~:;: COMMISSIONHRS: None. ABSHNT: COt~4rlISSIONBRS: Allred, Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 8:05 p.M. RBCLASSIPICATION -,°UBLIC HBAItING. BDITfi W. GILMOR~i, 849 North Oakland Avenue, N0. 62-63-92 and Pasadena, California, Owner; ART PILANT, 2401 East 17th Street, ~anta Ana, California, Agent; property described as; An irregular TBNTATIVB MAP OF parcel of land having a frontage of 242 feet on the north side of 1RACT N0. 506? uanta Ana Canyon Road and an average depth of 550 feet, the south- western corner of said property being approximately 631 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street. Property presentiy classified as R-A, RE3IDHNTIAL AQtICULT[JRAL, ZONB. ~ ~ ~ RHQUBST CIA3SIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. SUBJBCT 1]WCT: Located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and contains ten (1G) proposed R-3, MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDHNT7AL, ZONH, lots, DHVELOPffit: THD PI8H, 1234 Bast Center Street, Anaheim, Caiifora~a. BNGINHHR: PAUL CALVO COMPANY, 1833 Bast 17th Street, San~a Ana, California. Mr. Ted Pish, developer of subject property appeared befere the Commission and stated that two-story was being proposed becavse of the shallowness of some of the lots at the south end of subject property; that the property abutting to L~+e east and north was in the process of being annexed to the City and the owners of that property have a.imost completed plans for high density condiminium type development in the county; and that property to the northwest +vas previousiy considered by the Commission for multipie family development. ~ ~ ; \ !. : \ _ _ _ _ _-- ---------------'. ~._--------^ -. ____r.-- ____ _ .. , _. ..._~ . . ~ ~ _ _ . _. . .._ I ~ ~ .•. ~ __ _..._ . . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY PIAiVNING CQ~RdISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1495 RHCIASSIFICATION - The Commission noted that no plot plans were submitted indicating N0. 62-63-92 and the type of development beiag proposed for subject property; that the Council and the Commission require through policy, complete TENTATIVB MAP OF plot plans before rendering any decision; and that to permit 1RACT N0. 50(s3 consideration of the proposed development without complete plot <Continued) plans would be setting a precedent if approval was granted on subject petition, since the Commission has previously re~uired development plans from other prospective developers of property. Mr. Pish stated that development plans had not been submitted with the tract map because of time limitation in the filing and escrow closing; that the developer in intended to subdivide subject property and sell these subdivided lots for subsequent developmento therefore, submission of development plans would be irrelevant. The Commission discussed deviation from the standard policy of requiring development before consideration co~.lr be made for approval of any property, that if the Commission approvec'i subject petition without development plans, this would be a "wedge in the door" for other developers to request a similar treatment for their proposals, and to refer any submission of plans to Development Review; and that the Commission would be by-passed in requiring special coaditions for approval. ~ ~ ~--d~ -~-e.-~ ~...~ ~ ~ . ~~,:.-- C~mmis ioner.Chavos ststed th y the Commi sion ha approved ' rezo o r ' ; that cheap housing. would not be profitable or an a~set to the City; and that i£ the Planning Department had multiple fan:ily development standar3s available, the Commission might permit rezoning without requixng development plans. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that conditions could be attached to the approval of subject petition by requiring submission of development plans to the Commission, or to the City Council, or to Development Review or all three prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Chairman Mungall inquired whether th~re was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply. TFffi }~AitING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission continued the disrussion on t he merits of making an exception in considering subject petition, bec~use the developer proposed to subdivide subject propertq for resale; that this was the first request of its kind, aad no policy or Code requirements had been established to govern the proposed type of development; that the Planning Department knew the basic requiremeats the Commission desired in a multiple family development such as sh3ke roof, outside treatment of flagstane,and hardwood floors on the insideq that any proposed development of subject property should be comparable to the multiple family devPlopment approved on the west side of Jefferson Street with similar low-madium density; and that the Planning Department might be able to develop the type of standards permissible •~:hen the developer proposed only the subdivision of the property for resale fox a later development. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that a reclassification ~. upon which the Commission recommends its approval or~disapproval to the City Council, if the Council approved of the subdivision, the Resolution of Intent can so be worded that the rczoning takes place only for the parcel of land on which development plans have be~n approved and all conditions have been prov~d up on. Mr. Fish advised the Commission that he would like to have the density on the proposed development at 20~units per acre. Mr, Rreidt advised the Commission that 20 units per acre was for the gross acreage, not the net acreage, as the approved multiple family development oa the west side of Jefferson Street computed theirs; that the proposed development would require garage areas which might cut down the number of units permitted per acre; and that the proposed development of 20 units per acre wouJd be twice as dense as the approved development on the west side of Jeffesson Streek. MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CONIMISSI~i, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1496 RHCLA5SIFICATION - Mr Pish stated that the two parcels of land were not comparable N0. 62-63-92 and and should not be tied together for density development. TBNTATIVB MAP OP Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, 705, Series 1962-63, and TR.ACT N0. 5063 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner CContinuedj _ Pebley, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reciassification No. 62-63-92 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the .foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONSRS: Craig, Gauer, Mungall, P:bley, Perry, Sides. NOE3: COMMISSIONBRS: CI73{iJS. ABSTAIN: COMh1ISSI0NERS: Camg. AHSBNT: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred. Commissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating that the City Council and the Planning Commission have no previous requests for petitions requiring precise plans for development; that the Commission has some doubts in their =inds as to the density of development for subject property and that to approve subject p•+.i±:on would be setting a precedent in the approval of subsequent petitions for siwilar zoning requests. Subject tract was coasidered in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-92, The Interdepartmental Committee reco:~nnendations were reviewed by che Commission. 2oning Coordinator Martin B~reidt, advised the Commission that the 8ngineering Department had two additional conditions for the Commission's consideration, namely: 1. Provision of a modified cul-de-sac at the terminus of Merriaac Drive, which stub ended at the northwestexly end of the subject property, subject to the approval of the County Road Departme~t and the City Hngineer. En~ineering to be by the City of Anaheim and construc m by the developer. 2. Provision of a dedicated 64 foot street on Merrimac Drive (in accordance with R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone requirements), instead of the 60 foot street being proposed. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5063, subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to the zeclassification of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone, as approved and completed under Reclassification No. 62-63-92, 2, Provision of a modified cul-de-sac at the terminus of Merrimac Drive, sub,jQct to the approval of the County Aoad Department and the City Hngineer. Engi~7g@r,iry~ tp be by the City of Anaheim and construction by the developer. 3, ProVision of a dedicated 64 foot street for Merrimac Drive,~in accordance with ~ standard R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone requirements. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RHCIASSIPICATION - TVAN J, and IVA L. SCOTT, 141 Thirteenth Street, Seal $eaCh N0. 62-63-93 and California, Owners; T~I B. LHINI3 and MOiRRI BITlCRR~ 220 8ait 17th VARIANCB N0. 1558 Street, Costa Mesa, California, Agects; request~ag that psoperty described as: A rectangular parcel of land haVing a frOAtage of 80 feet an the nozth side of Sall Road, and a depth of 335 feet, the weetezly boundsry of said property being approximately J.35 feet east of the centerline of Dale $treet. Proper:y presently classified as R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTUkAL, ZONH. _.._.._..-.__~ ' _.._-`~ l ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CCIMMI3SION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1497 RBCLASSIPICATION _ RBQUHBTBD CIASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. NQ: 62-63-93 and RRQUffiTED VARIANCB: WAIVB ONB-3TORY HHIQiT LIMITATION AND VARIANCB N0. 1558 CONSTRUC: CARPORTS IN CONJUNCi'ION WITH AN (Continued) BIGHTBffid UNIT APARTMBNT SUILDING, bir. 1bm Lewis, agent for the pe4itioner, appeargd before the Commission and stated the petitioner proposed only 18 units, whereas, 36 units are permitted in the multiple family zone; and that a new shopping center was presently under construction on the opposite side of the street which Would ma&e the proposed use a compatible oae. Mr. Clifford Vogel, 2761 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed development would jeopardize development of commercial facilities fronting on Ball Road; that the proposed development would add to the traffic on Ball Road, which would be a six lane road; that neighbors in the immediate vicinity were opposed to multipie family development for narrow deep lots with the balance of the narrow deep lots to the east being owned by individuals; aad that the proposed development would encourage continued development for multiple family use by the owners of these deep lots, adjacent to the junior high school. Mr. Albert Anderson, 2947 West Lincoln Avenue, appea=ed before the Commission in conditional opposition to subject pet?tion and stated he owned the lot next to the Jack-in-the-Box and would oppose two story construction, but he would not oppose single story with a six (6) foot masonry wail; and that on the south side of Ball Road both apartments an3 a shopping center were being proposed, Tf~ H8A1tING WAS CLOSHD. A letter of opposition signed by four persons was read to the Coimaission. The Commission reviewed tbe plot pians noting their box-type elevations which represented a 300 foot long barracks; that the Commission had projected subject property for low-medium density residentiai development which would permit one dwelling unit per 2400 square feet of buildable area, whereas, the petitioner proposed one dwelling unit per 1386 square feet of buildabie area or approximately twice as much as that proposed by the Commission; and that the proposed General Plan projected low-density residential development for subject and abutting properties. Commissioner Pebley inquired of the agent whether ttee petitioner would consider a four week delay in order to present revised plans and to consult with the Planning Departmeat in determining if subject aad abutting properties might be combined to develop a more presentable development. The ageat for the petitioner replied that this was the t:Lrd attempt to get plans approved by the Commission, and that the petitioner waattd the Commisaion to render a decision on the plans before them. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 706, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adopl;ion, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommead to the Citq Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-93 be denied based on findinga. - (See Resolution-Book.) ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ • - - - ~ Commissioner Pebiey in offering the foregoing resolution stated in the fiadings it be noted that the density for the proposed development was too heavy for a compatible living environment~ and that plans were incomplete. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYB3: COMMI9SIONBRB: Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOBS: COMMI3SI0(Vffit9: None, '~ ~ ~ 1 .~ a ~ ~ ~ i ~ AB3TAIN: COUAlI9SION~t3: Camp. AHSENf: COMMI39IONffit9: Allred. ~ ~ .., ~ . ,- ~ i _ . ________~---_.___----...___~ ____. . _------..._. ___._.._.:,,, ____.._ . ~ _ , i ~ ~ • ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COM~lISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1498 RBCIA89IPICATION - Commissioner 3ides offered Resolution Noe 707~ Series 1962-63, N0. 62-63-93 and attd moved for its passage and adoption, secoaded by Commiasioner Perry to denq Petition far Varianee No. 1558, based oa findings, VARIANCH NO. 1558 (See Resolution Boot.) (Continued) Qn roli call the foregoing resoiution taas p~ssed hy the ;oll~wing voi.ee AYB9: CQhAlI3SIONHR3: Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NQBS: COMMISSIONBRB: None. AH3TAIN: CaMWI3SI0NHRS: Camp. ABSSNT: COhAlISSIONHRB: Allred. RBCIA9SIPICATION - PUBLIC I~ffiARING. GB~tGS P. McCIJ1IN, 112 8ast Rosalyna, Pullerton~ N0, 62-63-94 California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A rectangular portian of land having a frontage of 141 feet on the ea5t side of Los pngeies Street, and a froatage of 93 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, be reclassified from the C-2, GBPIDRpL Cpt~ttCIAL, ZONB to the C-3, HBpVy CCNlN1~tCIAL~ ZONB to permit the est:sU2ishmeat of an aut~~mobile agency oa subject p*~perty. Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was aayone preseat representing the pet±tioner~ and received no responae. Chairman Muagall inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposiag subject petition, and received no reply. TH8 HHARING WAS CL03BD, The Commission reviewed the piot plan, and the Report to the Commission, an3 aoted that aubject property could not be utilized for sales purposes accordiag to the plot plan. Commisaioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassification No, 62-63-94 to the meeting of Aprii 15~ 1963, and requested that the petitioner be advised to be preseat to answer questions the Commisaion had relative to the development of sub~ect property. Commissioner Gauer seconded the notion. MOTION CARRIBD. RBCLABSIPICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. ROffitT R, and NOXIB L. STBARNS, 8662 8e1 qir~ N0, 62-63-95 PRBD T, and BDNA C. ldACBNY~ 2936 Weat I.iacola Avenue, and MICHABL J. aad PRIBDA D. ROLL, 2950 West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim, VARiANCB N0. 1561 Caiiforaia, Owners; M. L. M~GAUGH7t~ 2966 Weat Lincola Aveaue, Anaheim, CalifozniQ, Agent; property deacribed as; aa irregular TBNTATIVS MAP OP parcel of land having a froatage of 307 feet on the south aide of TRACT N0. 5090 Lineoln Avenue and an average depth of 1,035 feet, the westerly ~ boundary of said property being approximately 671 .°eet east of the ceateriine of Beach Bouievard, the aforemeatioaed ~roperty heiag divided into portions "A~~ and '~B". Portioa "A" being deacribed as having a frontage on Lincoin Avenue of 307 feet and a depth of 275 feet. Fortion "B" being deacribed as the remainder of said property, aad further deacribeH as 2937 and 2950 Weat Lincoln Aveaue. Propertq preaently clasaified as R A, RESIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAI.~ and C-1~ NBIGHB01tH00D CdMMffitCIAL, 20N8S. RBQUBSTBD CIAS3IPICATION: PORTION "A" - C-1~ NHIGHBQRHOOD CQ6A~l8RCIAL, ZONB, P(YtTION "H" - R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY R83IDBNTIAL, ZOi~B, REQUB9TBD VARIANCS: WAIVE BLOCK WALL R8Q'UIRBMBNT ALOdVG TF~ BASTBRLY BOUNDARY - WAIV8 TF1S 01~ffi-ST~tY I~IGH~ LIMIT~ITION TO PffitMIT TFffi CONSIRUCTION OP A 1WQ-8T(x!Y PLANPffiD MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAI. DSVSLOPAQNT, ~' , ~ ~ ~ MINURH3, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1499 RHCfASSIPICATICN - Subject tract, covering approximately 7+} acres, is proposed for N0.~62-63-95 subdivision into one C-1, NHIGHBORHOOD COMMffitCIAL, 20N8 lot aad 18 R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONS lots, VARIANCB N0. 1561 Mr. Mel McGaughy, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the TBNTATI:B ""-°-' ~° Commission and Si.o~c3 ~hat the petitioners and the property 1RACT N0. 5090 owners adjaceat to the east of subject property have 'been friends (Continued) for a long time; that because of thi~ friendship the petitioners proposed to devote a iot for the purpose of permitting ingress and egress to sub3ect property; that this lot will be sold for the cost plus improvements if the easteriy property owners so desire; that property to the east has been tentatively sald to subdividers; that he had several meetings with the subdividers ia order to resolve problems of ingress and egress to the easterly propertq; that the easterly property had a commercial frontage of a 20 foot easement to the southerly portion of that property; aad that he hoped to develop sub,ject property as indicated on the plot plan. The Commiasion inquired whether the easteriy property would be landlocked if the lot proposed to be dedicated to ingress and egress to this property. The agent replied that the easterly property consisted of 15 acrea; that a street could be ~leveloped, but an exiating home was presently located on the southerly portion of the ~roperty to the east; that some trouble might develop if a semi-cul-de-sac atreet was propoaeds and that he propoaed to sell one 1ot of subject development for an outlet for the proposed subdivision of the easterly property. Mr. Wi7.23am Gile, 1535 South Los Aageles 3treet, appeared before the Commiasion and atated that he represented th~ buyer of the property to the east of aub,~ect property; that the flood control channel was located to the south of the easterly property; that a divided highway was to the north and if a cul-de-sae street were to take additional traffic from both subject property and the property to the east onto Lincola Avenue, a divided highway, this might create a traffic hazard; and that the easterly property will be developed if access was granted from the weaterly property ownez. THS HBARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission determined that the buyer of the easterly property intended to conatruct multiple family residential unita aimilar to the proposed; that thia property owner had a half intereat in the water line which bisecta aubject property aad the easterly property; that a 64 foot street or 1/3 of an acre would have to be dedicated to the City of Anaheim, The Commisaion then stated that the tentative map muat be approved with changea within a given period and that the easterly property owner muat have resolced the purchase of s L~t "B" or the extension of a stub street would aot be required of t;:a petitioner. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 708, 3eries 1962-6~, and moved for ite passage and adoption, aeconded by Coamiasioaer Chavoa to recoamend to the City Council that Petitioa for Reclasaification No~ 62-63-95 be epproved, sub3ect to conditions. (3ee Reao2ution Book.) _ _ • ._ _ . Commisaioner Gauer in offering the foregoing resolution atated that a coadition that a "Lot "B" shouid be indicated on the Piaal Tract Map which would be located between Lot Nos. 2 through 9, and shall be 64 fee~ in width and 131~ feet in depth, ahall be offered for sale to the abqtting property owner to the east at a price reflecting the cost of the land and improvements, ualesa within 60 days of the City Council approval of said tentative tract map, the abutting property owner does r.ot acguire said Lot "B", If the lot is not acquired, it shall become a portion of the buildable tract area, aad no stub s4reet shall be provided to the east. If it is acquired, it shall be fuily improved to provide a stub gtreet to the east. Oa roli call the foregoing resoiution was pQSaed by the followiag vote: AYH9: COM.MISSIONffit8: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry, Sides. NQBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. AB3BNT: COMh1ISSI0NHR3: Allred. ~: -' ~ ~--... -. . --_ _ _ .. . ,:f ~ ~ Q,:;+ . G.+ ~ _ .._ ...... . . . ._.'_.'__ " ___ '_""-"'_-'.._..:_..._. . .. "'_ ........... .. /..--- . .. "' -_' . ,I V" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSIONHR, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1500 ~ ~ ~ RBCLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 709, Series 1962-63, ~ N0. 62-63-95 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 15.61, subject to ~ VAR7ANC8 NO. 1561 conditions. (See Resolution Book.) t TBNTATIVB MAP OP On roll csll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~ TRAGT N0. 5090 vote; ~ <Continued) ~ ~ AY83: COMMIS3IOI~BR3: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOH3: COWA~IISSIONBRS: None. ~ e1B3BNT: COMAlI3SIONffitS: Allred. Subject tract was considered in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-95 and Variance No, 15.61. TY~e Interdepartmental Committee recommendations were reviewed by the Commission. Discussion was held as to the requirement of a dedicated street stubbing to the easteriy tract boundary in which the cost of land plus improvements would be borne by the owners of property to the east of the proposed street within a specified time; and that if this property was not purchased within the specified time, it wou13 revert back as a portion of the buildable tract area. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5090, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Requirement that shoqld this subdivision be developed as more than oae subdivision, each subdivision thereof shail be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, Muitiple Pamily Residential, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zones as approved and completed under Reclassification No. 62-63-95. 3, A predetermined price for Lot "A" shall be calculated ancl an agreement for dedication entered into between the Developer and the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final map, The cost of Lot "A" shaii include land and a proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvements. 4, Acquire Lots A, C~ and H of Tract No. 4261 to provide access to the existing street and alieys. S. Ridgeway 3treet shall be abandoned prior to the recordation of the tract map. 6. A Lot "B" shall be indicated on the Pinal Tract Map, shall be located between Lot Nos. 2 through 9, ahall be 64 feet in width and 131# feet in depth, and shall be offered for sale to the abutting property owne= to the east at a price refiecting the cost of land and improvements. If, within sixty (60) days of City Council approval of subject tentative tract map, the abutting property owner to the east does not acquire said Lot "B", it shall become a portion of the buildable tract area, and no stub street shall be provided to the east. If it is acquired, it shall be fully improved to provide a stub street to the east and shall be so indicated on the Pinal Tract Map, Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. , -_.___.~ . , r T ~ l ~ _ . , ~ ,.;Z'': • ~ ~ -`.e MINUTBS, CITY PIANN~i•4:; ~'l}'nk :'i~iON, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1501 ,gHCHSS - Commiss~~5:.=r t*~~t,,~. ~s~i~rzd a motiontorecess the meeting for ten (10) minutes, l:c:<+~:.:; ;.z:;i~nt af,c9es seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD, The meeting xecesyed at 9:50 P.M. APTER RHCHSS: Chairman Mungail reconvened the meeting at 10:00 P.M., ail Commissioners being present, except Commissioner Allred, RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC tffiARING. A,RNO H. STOVALL, 1771 Monita Drive, Ventura, N0. 62-63-96 California, Owaer; RUSSBLL JAY and/or M. L. M(~AUGHY, 2966 West Lincoln Avenue, Agents; property described as: A rectangular VARIANCB N0, 1562 parcel of land having a froatage of 339 feet on the west side of Western Avenue and a depth of 642 feet, t•he northerly boundary TSNTATIVB MAP OF of said property being approximafiely 330 feet south of the center- TRACT N0. 5102 line of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A,.RESIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL~ ZONB. RHQUBSTBD CIJISSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAI,, ZadVH. RBQUB3T~D VARIANCB: WAIVB BLOCR WALL AN' J1VB-S' YtY HSIGHT LIMITATION TO PffitMIT T1~+ CONSTRUCTION OP A'iW0-STORY PIANNBD MULTIPLB PAMILY RESIDHNTTAL DEVHLOPMBNT. Subject tract contains 16 proposed R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, 2one, lots. Mr. Mel McGaughy agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission altid stated that he proposed to subdivide the land and construct 4-unit deluxe apartments on subjecY property; that the proposed development will improve the appearaace of the land and complement the multiple family development to the west; that a dedicated 64 foot street was being proposed through the ceater of sub,ject property; that trash storage areas were being provided for each apartment within a unit; and that at the In4erdepartmental Committee Meeting a cul-de-sac was not recommended•for the westerly end of the dedicated street because an alley around the perimeter of the property was proposed, Mrs. Pred ~. Howard, 145 South Western AveAUe, property owner immediately adjacent to the south of subject property appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and state6 that she opposed the two-story construction, because in the approval of her property for multiple family development, she wi;~s required to reduce the height of h2r development to single story; that the two storq development would look down into her home and yard; that the proposed alley would be located ad,~acent to her bedrooms and the noise would be a nuisance; that no masonry wall was required of the petitioner; and that residents of the westeriy multiple family development will use the alley as an easy means to Western Avenue. 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the ~:ast zoning aetion on the property to the sputh in which the Planning Departmeat had recomnended a garden type apartment because t::P southerly property was within 150 feet on a single family residential development to the east, and subject property had neighborhood commercial across Western A~enue to the east; and that the property to the south was required to construct #he six (6) foot masonry wall because it was at that time adjacent to residential agricultural zoned property. The Commission noted that subject property would have existing multiple FLmily development to the west, proposed multiple family development tb the south aad with this type of development the requested variunce from the biock wall was only because the property to the north was still undeveloped aad zoned residential agricultural. 'Ihe Coamission aiso advised the property owner to the south that the alleys most likely would not be used with a dedicated 64 foot strec~ 3own the center of subject property. THB HSARING WAS CLOSBD. ~ ~ - ~ _..__----~ _ - -- -- _ __ __ . ~ ~_m _ .- . ~.. I k` ~ ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CQhAlISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1502 ; z ~ RECLASSIPICATION - The Commission continued discussion of single story for the ~ N0. 62-63-96 southeast corner of subject property noting that with the y dedicated street and setbacks only a small portion would be 2 VARIANCB N0. 1562 within the 150 foot limitation. ~ TENTATIVH MAp OF A letter was read from the Centralia School District opposing ~ 1RACT N0. 5102 subject petition noting that the addition of more apartments ; (Continued) would continue to overload the school facilities. 3 Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 710, Series 1962-63, ~ and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Perry, to recommend ~ to the City Council, that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-96 be approved~ ' subject to conditions. (See Resolution Hook.) I On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ; ~ AYBS: COMMI3SIONBR3: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, 3ides. ~ NOH3: COMMISSIONffitS: None, ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Ailred. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 711, Series 1962-63, and moved for its ~ passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for ; Variance No, 1562, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Hook.) ! On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COAA4ISSIONIDRB: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOBS: COMMI83IONffitS: None. ABSBNT: CO1~AfISSION~tS: Alired. Subject tract was considered in con,,unction with Reclassification No. 62-63-96, and Variance No, 1562. The subject tract map was reviewed by the Commission, and the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations for subject tract were considered. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map o' Tract No. 5102, 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 tentative form for approval. 2. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residentiai, Zone as approved and completed under Reciassification No. 62-63-96. 3, provision of an alley cut-off on the southwesterly corner of Lot No. 9. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD, RHCLASSIFICATION _ PUBLIC F~ARING. PRBE MSTHODIST CHURCH OP ANAI~IM, 1171 North N0. 62-63-97 West Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 39 feet on the north side of Broadway 3treet and a depth of 80 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 188 feet west of the centerline of Lemon Street, and further described as 215 West Broadway, be reclassified from the P-l, AUI~OMOBILB PARKING, ZONS to the C-2, GBNHRAL CO~A9dffitCIAL, ZONB to utilize an exi.sting structure for a real estate office. ___ ___ _. --~----- ,-. ._.._....___ ~ . --- . . . ~ 1 _ _ .. ~ i ~~ . ~~ • ~ +`3 :j' 1 MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1503 :, E RBCLASSIPICATION - Reverend Stanley Herber representing the petitiones appeared i N0. 62-63-97 before the Coamission and stated that they had been under the j (Continued) assumption the subject property had been zoned for general 9 commercial use, and upon the sale of subject property through > escrow, it was determined that the proposed use of subject property could not be accomplished because the zoning was for automobile parking. The Commission inquired whether the petitioner or the prospective owner planned to remodel the front of subject structure so that it would present a compatible commercial front. The petitioner stated that the home will be upgraded in appearance according to Code requirements; that it wiil have a professional appearance; that subject property could not be developed for general commercial use, because the parking requirements would reduce the structure to being an incompatible building; and that a sfgn would be constructed only to advertise the type of business, but Ao blatant siga was necessary because the prospective buyer did most of her business by telephone and had no drive- up or walk-up customers since she dealt in commercial and industr~al properties only. THB HHARING WA3 CLOSHD. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 712, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-97 be approved for C-1, NHIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB, instead of the C-2, GBNBRAL COMMBRCIAL, ZONB as requested, subject to conditions. (See Resoiution P,ook.) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYH3: CONAlISSIONBR3: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOBS: COhQfI3SI0NBRS: None. ABSffiVT: COhM ISSIONBR3: Allred. AMBNDMHNT TO - PUBLIC HBA1tING. INITIATBD BY 1HB CITY PIANNING TITLH 18 OP THS CONAlISSION OF THB CITY OF ANAHBIM, 204 Bast Lincoln ANAHBIM MUNICIPAL Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider the addition CADB, ADDITION OP CHAPTBR of Chapter 18.18 to the Anaheim ~unic3pal Code. R-B, RBSIDHNTIAL HSTATB, ZONH Chairman Mungail asked that any comments relative to the proposed addition to the Code would now be heard by the Commission. Mr. A. M. Anderson, 17651 Peralta Hills Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that he spoke for a majority of the Peralta Hilis Civic Association; that the association had reviewed the Ordinance No. 1826 recently passed by the City Cauncil as an emergency measure and found it to be in accordance with the wishes of the property_ owaers, and expres.sed his appreciation with the prompt action the City had ' taken prior to the Yorba-Linda annexation voting; and ttiat the only opposition that ' had been expressed was from persons who planned to sell their property as speculation. Mr. F. S. Liggett, 12882 Plint Drive, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was a member of the Civic Association; that he owned some acreage for a future home in the Peralta Hills area; and that he appreciated the action taken by the City relative to insuring the use and Sot size of the property in the Peralta Hills area. Discussio.r~ was held relative to the minioum ground floor space whether the minimum floor space was for one or two story and whether homes could be built with less than 1600 square feet, whether horses were permitted when the lot shape was irregular, and if the law was the Code of Anaheim or whether the governing factor relative to the location of animals and fowl was a state health regulraiion. ,. ; ~ 7 i 1 , ._~_~ .. ...... .~ - ~--- - -- --- ---- _ _ _ _ .._....~ . ~ ~ -. _ ,._ ~ _ . . _ ._~. - 1 I i • ' :~ _ .~.._..---__.. _.,,,,t.~ ~. . . _ . .- - - -- ., _p " . ..-. ~ ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION, April 1, I963, Continued: 1504 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that the State OF THE AN1~IM MUNICIPAL Health Code required that buildings housfng animals and fowl CODE, tiDDITION OF CHAPTE3 must be located not less than 40 feet from any window, and R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATE must be 100 feet from the front property line. Z01dE . ~ Commissioner Gaue- stated that the Peralt Hills development was such that any deviation from the code wo.~d have to be worked out among their neighbors, and that only a guest house would be permitted as an additional building on the lot, said guest house was for the purpose of sleeping and was in no way to be used as a home with cooking facilities. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue the Publ.ic Hearing of Amendment to Title 18, of the Anaheim Municipal by the proposed addition of Section 18.18 to the meeting of Anril 29, 1963, in order to allow the Planning Department sufficient time to revise th~e ordinance in existence so that it wou7.d meet all the necessary specifications. Commissioner Perr~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0..1 RECONIM~NDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 312- Mrs. Gertrude Howell, 1131 Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; establish a child care nursery at 956 Hampstead Street. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a written request submitted to the Planning Com- mission from the petitioner of subject conditional use permit in which an extension of six months' time was requested to comply with all conditions stipulated in Resolution No. 519, Series 1962-63. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to grant the request for a six (6) months' extension of time to complete conditions in the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 312. Commissioner Craig seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 359 - Duffy Motor Hotels, 640 West Katella Avenue, establishment of a limited commercial artistbusiness, an off- sale liquor store (located on Harbor Boulevard), Commercial Airline Ticket Office, Drug Store and Gift Shop, Florist Shop, Clothing Store, and Radio Station FM~AM. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the action taken in approv- ing subject petition in Resolu~Lion No. 623, Series 1962-63 dated.February 4, 1963, and noted that the proposed liquor store was to be relocated so that it would nnt f.ront on Harbor Boulevard, and requested that the Commission clarify for the petitioner the Com- mission's interpretation of the permitted uses in the motel facility. - The Commission discussed the compatibility of the various facilities being re-located to the Harbor Boulevard frontage af the proposed addition to the existing motel facili- ties, noting that an airline ticket office can be interpreted as a normal phase of business in a travel agency, that no retail sales could be conducted on the Harbor Boulev,.ard frontage, and t}~at any retail sales stores shall not be located on the Harbor Boulevard frontage, but must be so integrated as to be a service to the patrons of the motel facilities. Commissioner Camp of.fered.Resolution No. 713, Series 1962-53, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to clarify Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 623, Series 1962••63, dated February 4, 1963, in which the permitted uses are substan- tially as indicated on Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, piovided that the proposed liyuor store operation ad~acent to the Harbor Boulevard frontage shall be relocated to the Katella Avenue portion of the existing motel development and integrated within the cievelopment, and that in lieu thereof, the AM/FM radio station, and the coimnercial airline ticket office (travel agency) may be established on the Harbor Boulev3rd frontage, but that in no case shall any retail sales be conducted in the proposed store location on Harbor Boulevard. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes ' 1! . _. ._ .._ ._ ___ -- -- -i---•---- - ~. . --~ . ~ . > .... . . _ _ . .. _ i __ __.._. _... _......_ ._ _ ___ .._._ ..---. ..---. ~ ..~.. _..-- _ _ t ,. _ - --...____ _ -~~ . __. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 1, 1963, Continued: 1505 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2. RECOMMHNDATIONS ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSt Allred. ABSTAIN: CONUuiISSIONERS: Craig, Sides. ITEM N0. 3 RECLASSIFICA'fION NQ. 62-63-61 - DAVID S. 8 MARION G: COLLINS,1077 West Ball Road, Petitioniers; property located at 1541. West Broadway, Anaheim, California; requesiing ~one change from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was denied by the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 616, Series 1962••63, dated January 21, 1963. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission their action and findings in recommending disapproval of subiect petition. Mr. Kreidt further stated that the City Council had referred back sub~ect petition to the ~'lanning Commission, reGuesting that ~he Cortanission consider the possibility of approval of C-1, IVEIGE~ORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, Zoning for sub~ect property, limited to business and professional offices. The Commission reviawed the original plans and their resolution recotmnending disapproval of subject petition. The Commission further discussed the compatitiility of the suggested commercial use in an area r*~;;acted on the proposed General 1'lan for light industrial use on the north side, and lo~ •;:.~sity residential development for the south side of Broadway. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to advise the City Council that the Planrting Commis- sion emphatically disapproves any projection of comraercial development for the north side of Broadway east of Loara Street, basec~ on the fact that approval of any commercial zoning would set a precedent and pattern of development for the south side of Broadway, thereby creating "strip commercial" development, and further that such commercial development would negate and discourage the present trend for development uf industrial facilities on the north side of Broadway, between Lo~ra Street and the Southern•Pacific railroad right-of-way. Co~mnissioner Pebley seconded the motion. IdOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 CASE N0. 611 - Sectional District Map 19-4-10, Exhibit "N", R-1, Single Family Resiclence District to RP, Residential Professional District. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented to the Commission Orange County Case No. 611 (Sectional District Map 19-4-10, Exhibit "N") for reclas~ification of a single family lot located at the southwest corner of Pacific Avenue and Brookhurst Street to the RP, Residential Professional District. It was noted by the Commission that single family development existed to the north and west, and on the east side of Brookhurst Street to the east. It was further noted that RP, Residential Professional zoning in the County was not conditioned on various site development standards in order to insure compatibility of professional office use with abutting residential~structures. ' " " Commissioner Craig offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning Commission that Case No. 611 (Sectional District Map 19-4-10 Exhibit "N") be denied on the grounds that the requested use of an R1, Single Family Residence lot fronting on Pacific Avenue constituted an encroachment of co~-miercial use into ~ single family residentia]. areaf that adequate parking facilities could not be provided; :md that no all~y circulation was available for sub~ect property. Cormnissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. - _ ._ _...._ ~ ____-_..----~--- -----------~--_-_-__.__,_ ~ _ -._ -_-- . . ' . _ : .._ . . _ .._ .._.__ I ~ ' . : ~ _____..~....._.,.a,...__._._~._..._.. ---.._ _._ _--l ----:- __ _ __ _ _ ~ ! `~ , MINU'IES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, qpril 1, 1963, Continueds 1506 CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 1 ~ AND SIGNS - HA&BOR BOULEVARD MISCELLANECUS Not ~n conformgnce with requireraents Commisstoner Sides oifered a motion to direct the Planning Department to check signs 1 Iocated on Harbor Boulevard to note if they conform with City standards and whether said signs were constructed as approved by the City Council. Commissioner Chevos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO• 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 295 - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - proposed new church located at 3890 West Orange Avenue. A letter was read from Bishop Hugh J. Sorensen, The Church of Jesus Chriet of Latter Day Saints, requesting an extension of 60 days in which to comoly with Conditions 1, 2, and 3 of Resolut3on No. 469, Series 1962-63, dated August 20, 1962. C~mmissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a two month extension of time for the completion of Conditiona 1, 2, and 3 of Resolution No. 469, Series 1962-63, dated August 20, 1962 permitting the construction of a church at 3890 West Orange Avenue.' Commissioner Craig seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. IT,,,_EM N0. 3 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-SO and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 330, Larrimore Builders, Owners~ planned Multiple Family Residential Devslopment, 1250-1322 South Magnolia Street. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised ths Commission that the above Petitions were refer:ad back to the Planning Department to re-advertise and schedule~for public Fiearing beiore the Plenning Commi'ssion because the owners had changed before the City Council hed heard subfect pet3tions, and thet the presen~t owners were Doyle and Shields. ITEM N0. 4 "` CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 344 and 349 - L. V. Bostwick, 2d0 We'st Midway Drive, expand an existing trailer park facility. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Conanission that the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office were trying to resolve the legality of the above trailer park facilities, and that a report was to be submitted to them for their consideration at the April 29, 1963 meeting. ITEM N0. 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRESS Co~nissioners Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley and 1'erry indicated that they would attend the April, 1963 Southern C~lifornia Planning Congress to be held April 11, 1963 in Huntington Paxk. Co~nissioner Chavos stated that he would have to advise the Com~ission Secretary at a Iater date. ADJOURI~uIENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to ad3ourn the meeting. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjouraed at 11~25 0'Clock P.M. Respctfully submitted, ANN KREBS~ Seeretary ANAHEIM PLANNING CONWIISSION • ~ _ / _ ... ,; .,_.. _ .... _ _- - -- -- - -- ...._.~....._...._.._.__,._.___..r._., ..h , ~ ~ • 1