Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/05/13City Hall Anaheim, California May 13, 1963 REGULAR MBSTING OP THE ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION RHGULAR MBETING - A Regalar Meeting of the Anaheim City planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0•Clock P.M„ a quorum being present. PRBSENT - CtIAIRMAN: Mungall. COhA~IISSTONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry~ Sides. ABSENT ~ COhAlISBTONBRS: None. PRHSENT - ZONING COORDINATOR: Martin Kreidt. DBPUTY CITY ATTORNBY: Furman Roberics. PLANNING COMMISSION SBCRHTARY: Ann Rrebs. ~NVOCATION - Reverend Solomon Munoz, Pastor of the Horab Methodist Church, gave iche Invocation. PLBDGB OP - CommSssionez Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ALL8G7ANCE APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of April 29, 1963, were approved with T;-~ MINUTBS the follow±ng correctione; Pa,ge t531, PI,EDGE OF ALLHGZILNCB: Commissiones Sides led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Page 1548, paragraph 13, lines 1 and 2 should read; "The Cammission then advised the agent that they desired drawings of f:ont elevations, which were more precise and which would indicate the outside detail ar.d materials". CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OP CALIFORNIA, PffitMIT N0. 266 605 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles 54~ California, Owners; P0.STBR AND RLEISER, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 7, California, Agents; requesting permission to BUILD 1W0 10 FOOT BY 25 POOT STBEL BILLBOARD3 on property described as: An ir:egular parcel of land at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, with a 200 foot frontage on both sides, and fuxther described as 9012 Beach Boulevard. Property presently classi- fied as C-3, H8p_yy COMMBRCIAL, 20NB. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 9, September 5, October 1, October 29, 1962, January 7, and March 18, 1963, in order to allow the City Attorney's Office sufficient time to formulate the Billboard Ordinance. No one was pse~ent in the Conncil Ch~.mber to represent the petitioner. Thc Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts, the status of the drafting of a sign Ordinance, since subject petition had been continued a number of times to allow the City Attorney's office sufficienf time to formulate the oxdinance. Mr. Roberts replied that a draft had been submitted to the Planning Depar4ment, that the draft was under considezation by that department; and that most likely there would be further study of the retommendations presented prior to its being submitted to the City Council for consideration. - 1558 - ~' ... -~ -- --,- ~ ~~t t ~ I I I ~•_;_,_ -- .. _ .._._ . ~ ~ ~ ~,:J ~ . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COD4lISSION, May 13, 1963, Continned: 1559 CONDITIONAL USH - Considerabie discussion was then held between the Commission and y PffitMIT N0. 266 Mr. Roberts relative to the yS'vSi2Ql$ which haG arisen relative to ~ (Continued) the final draft of the ordinance, and it was suggested that the = Commission and the Council meet in joi.nt session to discuss ali ~ the difficulties, in order that the bii.iboard ordinance aight be ; finalized. Zoning Coordinz:or Martin I~ e~dt seviewed the past action of the Commission together ~ with their reasons for continuance of subject petition, and further advised the ; Commission that the City Council wanted an ordinance which could be administered for ~, the eatire City; that Assistant City Attorney John Dawson, had been assigned the task of ' formuiating the billboard ordinance; that he had been delayed by other legal actions ~ taking place which had to take precedent; tha: ±he San Diego Sign Ordinance had been ; submitted to the Planning Director who had stated that in order to properly draft an i ordinance for the City of Anaheim, more time was necessary to review all the suggestions # submitted, since this should be not only for the present, but for the future ~ administration of the ordinance, and that the Commission might desire to consider the t validity of the subject petition on its own merits, a The Commission then discussed the proposed signs and its compatibility to the surrounding area, noting that an excessive number of signs presently existed in close proximity to subject property, and that the proposed signs would not be used for petitioner related products. THB HBARING WAS CL03HD. Th° Commission in discussinp the possible solution to subject petition noted that the City of Los Angeles had lotc~ which were specifically dedicated for signs only; that there many types of signs for which specific regulations must be set up; that the State Assembly had not been able to draft suitable legislation governing siga ordinances, and had given the cities and counties a law which would give them more power to effectively enforce any billboard ordinance which the cities or counties might have; that the issuance of signs had been out of the jurisdiction of the Commission for three years; that the proposed signs were not considered an asset to the City, and that the ultimate fate of the proposed sigasshould be decided by the City Council, Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No.749, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Pesmit No. 266, based on the fact that the proposed signs would be incampatible to the area in which they weze proposed to be located. (See Resolution Book,) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: COhAtI3SI0NBR9: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley. NQB3: COMhlISSIONHA3: Perry, Sides. ABSHNT: COhMISSI0NBR3: None. Commissioner Perry qualified his "NO" vote stating that nothing would be solved by denying aubject petition, that it would not be in the best interests of the City, and that subject petition should be continued until an enforcable ordinance was formulated. RHQUBST POR - Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to suggest to the City Council JOINT WQtK that a joint work session be scheduled at their earliest convenience, SS33ION in order to resolve problems which had arisen relative to the drafting of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CA1tRIBD. -- _ .._._. -. . __. _ . - __.~ ------ -~_~__._.._ - r~ ~ _ ~ ~ l _ _._ . ..._ . (,: I ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Nzy 13, 1~63, Co~`inued: ~ 1560 RBCLA3SIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC H&1RING. DAVH DOA4tIHS, 706 South Anott Avenue, N0. 62W63~104 and B. T. Schroedi, 712-714 South Rnott Avenue, Anaheim, Cali- and fornia, Owners; NHIL RBITMAN, 1919 Bast Center Street, Anaheim, CONBITIONAL USB California, Agent; prope*tq dss~xibed as: An irregular portion PffitMIT N0. 407 of land consisting of two (2) parcels. Said land having a frontage of 206 feet on the east side of Rnott Avenue, the northerly boundary of said portion of land being approximately 805 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue aad the southeasterly boundary being adjacent to the Orange Coun4y Fload Cca=esentl~~classifieduashRrAdeR~i ~TIAL 706-714 South Rnott Avenue. Property p Y ACdtICUL.TURAb, ZONB. RBQUBSTHD CLASBIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RB3IDBNTIAL, ZONB. RHQUBSTSD CONDITIONAL ~SB: DBVE OPMffiVT ~~TWAIVBPO IL(1) STC)RY HBIGHT L MITATION. 8ubject petitions were continued from the meeting of Apzii 15, 1963, to permit the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans. Mr. Ne;l Reitman, agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and stated that the revised plans indicated the deletion of two buildings, and that a larger recreationa_ :..:e~. r>d baen p.~~~i~ed. In response to 4he Commission's yuestioning relative to providing ~':~.lf street on the northerly side of subject property, Mr. Reitman stated that the hali street would not serve the stsuct+ares on the south side of subject prope=ty; that he had tz:ied sather unsuccessfuily to interest the property owner to the north to develop his property in ordez to incorporate the street suggested by the Commission.. and had been firmly convinced that the northerly property owner was aot interested ia developing his property, thus it might be a aumber of yeara before the othes half of the street would be 'completed. No one appeared in opposition to oppose subject petition. THH HHARING WAS CLOSBI?. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt noted that the p: osed devel pment was higher •lhan the density desired by the Commission,in that 47.8~w~ts per net residential acre were proposefl *c the 40~m~ desired~~ 0 The Commission cont~nued discussion of the possibility of the northerly parcel being developed later with substandard units if no street was provided; that the petitioner had tried to interest the northerly property owner to develop his property in conjunction with snbject property; that it would be unfair not to allow the petitioner to develop his property if the praperty owner to the north wese not interested in developing the northerly property; and that it should be a matter of record that if _. _____~ e.,_ ae..e~.....~,e~+ nn hardshih could bC In response to the Comm3ssion's question relative to the amoun4 of footage required for dedication of a haif street, the City Hngineer representative, Art Daw, replied that approximately 40 feet wouid be required, ~nd that a 12 foot parkway was usually necessary aithough sometimes a 10 foot parkway was permitted, and that curbs and gutters wouid be an additional expense if in the future the property to the north were developed. Mr. Rreidt advised the Commission that if there were aay deviation from the Code relative to a reduction in the parkway, this could be=esolved thr.ough contact by the petitioner with the Bngineering Department, and that if the Commission elected to cont+.nue subject petition,the Depac•tment would like to have a statement of policy by the Commission relative to the density for subject property. ~ . r ~~\ .,...-• ~-------~._..._~._~_._._ _ _r`^ ~ -. _ _ _ --° ----- ° . .... ----.: ~~ . 1. ~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ . - . ~ . . ..~ . . . .._ .. . . __ . " • i I i` ;; ' s . s; (,~ 'V' ~ .__.. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1561 RBCLA9SIFICATION - Commissioner Sides offered a motion to deny subject petition, N0. 62-63~-104 Commissio ner Gauer seconded the motion. and CONDITIONAL USH After considerabie discussion relative to continuance of subject PHRMIT NO. 407 petition, the requirement of a half stzeet, the requirement that (Continued) subject development be self-contained, and that the proposed development would enhance the area considerably, Commissioners Sides and Gauer withdrew their motion for denial. Upon the reading of the recommended conditions, the petitioner stated that garages would be conslructed, and that the structures would have variable setbacks to average 12~ feet from the 25 foot driveway. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 750, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comroissioner Camp to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63~104 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolntion was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOB3: COMMISSIONBRS: None. AB9ENT: COMMI39ZOI1~iRS: None. Commissioner Ch:~:os offered Resolution No. 751, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 407, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roil call the foreg_ing resolution was passed by the following vote: pyBg; C(~AlI35IONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavus, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NO&R: COMMISSIONBR3: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBR3: None. COND?TIONAL USB ~ CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. D. COLLINS, 1077 West Ball Road, PBRMIT N0. 415 Anaheim, California, Owner; RBNHAR, INC., 1422 North Central Park Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to E3TABLISH AUTOMOBILB AND TRUCK PAINTING, BODY AND PSNDBR RHPAIR SBRVICS on property described as: A rectangular parcel of ir~nd having a frontage of 80 feet on the north side of Broadway and a depth of 170 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 850 feet east of the centerline o4 Loara Street, and furthes describ~d as 1531 West Braadway. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND P-L, PARRING LANDSCAPING, ZONBS. 3ubject petition was continued from the meeting of April 29, 1963, in order to ailow - the petitioner time to submit revised pians. Mr.•Nick Barletta, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Com~aission and stated that they stili proposed to establish a body and fender repair and paint service. The Commission reviewed the revised plot plan. In response to the Commission's question as to the use of subject property for parking purposes by the business to the east, David Collins, the patitioner, stated.that a strip of land 70 feet wide had been sold separately from the origina], purchase for parking purposes, aithough the property owner. to the east had not as yet blacktopped the parking area, and that subject property was westerly of this 70 foot strip of land. f- telegram of opposition from the property owners of property on the south side of Broadway opposite subject property was read to the Co~ission. ~: r_..... . __ ._ .. _ _ _.,. MINUTB3, CITY PLANNIN6 COt~AtISSION, May 13, 1963, Continued; 1562 CONDITIONAL USB - THB HHARING WAS CLOSBD, PffitMIT N0. 415 (Continued) Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt~ advised the Commission of the possible condemnation proceedings for school purposes for a portion of the property on the south side of Broadway, The Commission then stated that if this were a fact, the frontage of the south side of Broadway might be more desirable for multiple family development rather than the low density development projected on the proposed General Plan, and felt that this might be a topic of discussion at a future work session to determine whether the light industrial uses for the north sf.de of B=oadway might be cnore compatible with possible multiple family deveiopment for the south side. Commissioner perry offered a motion to continue subject petition for four weeks to await the outcome of the school condemnation proceediags before decidiag whether or not subject petition shouid be considered. The motion lost for want of a second. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 752, Series 1962-63~ and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 415~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On zoll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol~owing vote: AYB3: COF9NISSION~tS: Allred, Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOB3e COMMISSIOIVHRS: Chavos, Gauer. AB3HNT: CO~AfISSIONERS: None, Commissioner Chavos qualified his vote of "NO" by stating that the proposed nse would have an adverse effect on the development of the land on the south side of Broadway~ which was projected on the proposed General Ylan for low density development. DZRBCTIVE TO THB - The Commission as's:ed that the Plaaning Department make an PIANNING DBPARTMBNT inspection of the M-1 development to the east of 1531 West Broadway, to determine if there were any violations of the M-1 standards, and to make a report to the Commission at the May 27, 1963 meeting. CONTIA'UBD PUBLIC HBARING. P81BR & ANNS DBMANN, 5825 Myrtle, RSCLAS$IFICATION Long Beach, California, Owners; LYNN THOMPSBN, 420 South Buclid No. 62-63-109 Street, Anaheim, Califarnia; Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 132 feet on the east side of Western Avenue, and a depth of 310 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 264 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, be reclassified from the R A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the R-3 Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone to permit the construction of an eighteen (18) unit single story development. 3ubject petition was continued from the meeting of April 29,,1963, in order to permit the Planning Department an opportunity to coatact adjacent property owners in ~esoiving development of deep lots. Mr. Lynn Thompsen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he would reserve his comments until a report was given by the Planning Department relative to the joint meeting held with the property owners relative to develapment of the deep lots adjacent to subject property. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that all but two property owners had met with members of the Department, that the owners had been informed of the problems of development which faced all deep lot owners, that the Commission was deepiy concerned ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ t 1 ; .~ ~ ., l ,.._. _.__ _ _ _--- _ _. _ -- -- - - - __.._ _ . . _. .. _ _._ _ __ ~. ~._._.~.~.-_____. ~ ~ .~' ~... ~ t '- ~ t.»----~. ~"~ -- ,. . ..__. . . _ _. . . ..._ _ . ~ ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COM,-iI3SI0N, May 13, 1963, Coatiaued: 1563 with the proper development of deep lots in all the areas in the City, that subject petition was discussed with the group, and if subject petition were approved, this would create development problems as it pertained to low density development on the Ball Road frontage, that the Commission was trying to resolve this with an ultimate plan of development which would be the highest and best use to be established for all thcse properties on the south side of Ball Road from.Courtright to Western Avenues, and that in addition to the property owners of the deep lots, all adjacent property owners ad3acent to the east and south of the six acres were notified that they might be in- terested in ai~iending ~he hearing a: subject patitieno Mro Fred DeMgelo, 3150 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in favor of the subject petition, that there was a need for singlQ story dwelling units for the use of employees of the new hospital, and that the proposed General Plan projected Ball Road for a six lane thoroughfare which would make single family resi- dential development along Ball Road impractical. Mr. Ca Hughes, 3144 West Ball Road, Mr. Robert Jackson, 6502 Crafton Avenue, owner of the lot facing Lanrose, two lots east of Western; Mr. Stephan F. Smith, 1234 S. Western, all appeared before the Commission and stated they were in favor of inedium density multiple family development for the 6-acre parcel. ~ir. R. L. Dolezal, 1226 S. Western Avenue, appeared in opposition to the proposed devel- opment, stating that he had invested a great deal of money in developing his home which was adjacent to the south of subject property, tihat he realized that something must give in the way of progress, but did not want the value of his property lessened, and that he wanted to keep the privacy of his residence, that at the time the single family homes in the tract in which he lived were developed, a minimum price level was established in order that a more select group of residents would purchase the homes, and he would like to see this to remain, as a single family residential area, rather than the transient type of residents who occupy apartmentso Mra A. R. Zutter, 3160 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and asked that the Commission make a decision as the ultimate development of the 6-acre parcel of which he owr.ed one parcel east of the service station at Western and Ball Road, that all the property owners must realize a return for their investment,since most of them would have to find living quarters elsewhere at a price considerably higher than they had paid for the Ball Road p•roperty, that to require single family residential development for the property would create a hardship due to the heavy traffic on Ball Road, and that the property owners could not appear at each hearing for property in the 6-acre parcel at the time a petition was filed. The Commission noted that many other streets in the City were well traveled which should not be a reason for non-rlevelopment as resideni:ial, and that everyone owning property had a right to petition for a change in classification of their propertyo Mr. Thompsen, in rebuttal, stated that the proposed development would have one three bedroom apartment, a number of two bedroom and one bedroom apartments, that all apart- ments were above the minimum required, and that the apartments would rent upward of $90 a month~ . THE HEARII~ WAS CIASID. I Mr. Kreidt noted for the Commission that the proposed development had a density of 28 units per net rasidential acre or a 67e796 coverage, and that no recreation area was being provided such as normally required of a planned unit development. The Commiss..on expressed some concern regarding the piecemeal development of the 6-acre parcel, and were advised by Mr. Kreidt that no development plans had been submitted for the remainder of the propertyo The Commission defined the southerly boundary of subject property as the furthest south that multiple family development could be projected and would then extend easterly to the rear of the single.famiLy development fronting on Courtright Street. _.._ _ _ _._. _ _, _--...- - ._...-- - ' .- ~-, . _--_.~ .. . ~ ~ _~ . . . . , / . 1.. . . l JnY..~.:.:r ~. ` f'-~- " _ . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . '. ~ i Vl'~ ' . . . . ~ . . :~J - . . . ' ' . . - ~ . I ~-4 • M1 .a! . /._____ . . . ~ . . ~ . . .. ~. ...... -... , - .... ~,.. .. . ~ .. ... „ .,... ~~! . ~ /~ . ~ .. . ~ . . ., . . . .. . - ~ . ~ ~. ~ ~.~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION, May 13, 1963. Continuedt 15b~t Mr. Kreidt suggested to the Commission that if sub3ect property were considered favor- ably this would then set the pattern of development for commercial development of the Ball Road frontage, and that the Commission should consider at the next work session the utility of the 6-acre parcel of land together with a request to change the Pioposed General Plan to indicate multiple family residential development for subject ~ property and the adjacent property, of deep lots fronting onto Ball Road. Commissioner Allred cffered Resolution No. 753, Series 1962-53, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council • that Pet~tion for Reclassification No. 62-63-109 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votei AYESe CONaAISSIONERSe ALLRID, CAMP~ CHAVOS, GAUER, M[1NGAI.Ly PEBLEY, PERRY, SIDES. NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: NONE , ABSENTs OOMMISSIONERS: NONE REVISED ~ - OWNER SUBDIVIDERs ODMNERCE PARK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, 1360 Sou',n TENTATIVE MAP OF Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California. ENGINEERs W. S. TRACT N0. 4936 STEVENSON, 1360 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California. Sub3ect tract, located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 1445 feet east of Dowling Avenue, a~,~ins five (5) M-1,Light Industrial, Zoned lots. "^.. Zoning Coordir.ator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Commission their past action of subject tract, and further noting that in the revised map a reduction from 7 lots to 5 lots, and an alteration of lot cuts was indicated. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 4936, sub3ect to the following condition: 1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. NqTION CARRIID. VARIANCE N0. 1571 - PUBLIC HFARING. MRS. RAY GRUBER, 2512 Chanticleer, Anaheim, California, Owner; LEE E. ORR, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE 1~ GARAGE REQUIREMENT AND WAIVE ONE SIDRY HEIGHT LIMITATION on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 68 feet on the south side of Wilken Way and a depth of 143 feet, the westerly boundary of said ~ property being approximately 190 feet east of the centerline uf Haster Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ~NE. Mr. Lee E. Orr, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that two story apartment structures were in existence to the east and west of sub~ect property. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt informed the Commission that an approved variance waivir~g the height limitation had been terminated last Fall after the time limitation ~. on conditions had expired without having been completed. A letter of opposition was received from the Planning Department of the City of Gardem Grove. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. -(.; : ~_. _._.._,_ t . _.~ ... F,~.,..4x..._. ...~ . ~- ..' _' /, '~'~'^."..`~r~ - . ( ... . . ' . . . , , ' . , .. ., . . l.. ... . .. . . :' 3 .~ h ~~ : ~ 11 .._`_"_.-.....~.'~°'^^^^^""~.._~._.___ __.. , . . . . . . . _ '~~.~.- ~- ~,~ ~. `.~ . ~ c~ . ~ MIMffES~ CI~1F PLA.~~1'1li~i• ~IAMISSION~ Mey.13s 2963, Continu~d~ ' . . . '. . .15~5 Comnissioner Pebley offered Resolut3on No. 754, Series 1962-63, and moved for ita - paesage and adoption; 'seconded~ by, Cotmiissioner Gam~i, . to grant ~ Petition 'for Var.iarice No~; 1571, •sub~eet to conditions., (3~e Resolution~ Book.) . ' . ~ ;., . . . . . ~ On roll call~the foregoing'resolution.was pass~d:by thq ~Following vpte~.. pYESt OOMWISSIONE[tSt ALLRm~ ;CAWP~ ~CHAV~OS~, C~l-UER.~ f~11J0ALL+ PEHLEY~ ~PFARY~~ SIDES ~ESt OOMAlISSIONERSt NONE . .~ . , .~ .~ ABSENTr'.COMMISSIONERS~ AANE• . • : . Cop~aissioner Chavos left~the.Counc:il.Chamber~.at,4ib8 p.m. . ~ .. VARIANCE I~q. 1572 - PIIBLIC H~IRIIQG.~ .&.' lA. 6 W. lA. C~NlQ.IN~ 835 North'Los, Nigal~es ,; Streat, ~Ar~aheim, Celiforriia, ~•Owners{ roquestitfg"PERldISSION 1~'PARK ~ • ON THE R-2 POR'fION,OF. PE~PERTY~ NAIVE AIINII~lUM PARIQ~lG RBqUIRF.M~MS~~ • AND EXPAtm EXISTING.PRINTING PLANi ON C-2 PORTION,of property., • dascr~,bed as~ An L-ahaped portion of land, consisting of two (2) percals.and=•having a;. frontage of 120.feet on ~he vreat s3da of. Los •.A~geles S•;:reet; a frontaga.of~ 20;feet•on: the east aide of Zeyn Street, and an•averaga depth of 185,faet, the southerly boundary. ~ '~-.';~aaid.property being approximetaT.y'3'1~,foet north of thQ Contarllne of~North,Streat~ ; ..end ;furthar described as 831 and 839 Nort'h Los Mgelas Streat. Property presently .~ cles~ified as C-2;;General Comaercial, a~d R-2, 'fwo-Fainily ReaidQntial, Zon98. • Irir.. Alfred C. Bonney, repreeanti~ng'the petitiona~r; `appoared before the Comibieeion and roviowed tha proposed;development,•~1nd furthar~stetad thet he felt thQ proposod°:develop- ment~wes quite iea~onebl'a. ;. . . • ' . , ~ 'In respor-ea to quastioning by ttie Coa~aai~sion,~ tha agent repliad that~ it wae~ not t~Alt .. nece~aary to provide an qntrartce•. `to sub~oct~. propQrty from Los Mgalos Str~e`L, entl., that . the 1'ot.spllt occurred.in~19D9::at~tha;time Ae hed daaigned the pra'eni aiructiura.' The Commisaion furtriar'dis~us.sacT with~tho, egent for the patitioner. the reatricti'ons ' and disadvantages to the• petitioner~ if~ inqraea,.and egress wera~ not.prbvidod•f.pr eid- ployees and.cuatamere, and that.'it wes not to ;Ehe bed~ intareets of tha.Cixy.to.haWj' commercial .tra:fic emptying onto a sasidantial atreet.(..ayn'5trvet)i ~~ The agent .th~n'stipulated that a 20,foot access..driveway.oq~the•aoutherly b0undary of 'sub~ect property would be•providad::• ' . No one appeaied: in :opposition to,~.silb~ebt• ~ietition. ~: ~ ~ . . . • . • , • , THE ~ HFARING WAS' CIA5FD. ` ~ ' . • . . . ~ , • • , ~ Coimmmissioner~ Perry".offered Resolution No.. 755~~ 5eries 1962-63~ :erfd mpved .fo-r •ita pessage'• and adoption; 'seconded'~by Con4aissioner Gauer to grant Petitiord ~or Variance.No. 1372, aub~ec~'to•conditions.','(Seo Ree'p~ution 8ook~ • .. Comnissionar Ct~avas retuxned`to the Council Chamber at 5~02.p.m.;~. ~. : On roli~ call ~the foragoing•;reBOlution;we~'pasead by. the following 'votw'~ - AYES1 ~ OOMMISSIONL~R§t•: A1.LRED~'CW+IP~ GAU~~ ~~~~ PEBLEY~. PEHRY~ SIDES NOESs ~ ' OOMMISSIONEASt~~' DqI~E ,': ABSENTi OOMMISSIONP.tiSr. : I~DNE: .' ~ .. . ' . . AHSTAINt :. ~bIMIS8I0NRA6~ CHAWS . ~ _ . __ . ... __..__ ,.... -,-- __-..-.,,_ _.,_.~.,..~._..,~ _ ." ,~._..-~ . ~ ~ ~ . . . _ MINUT83, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, May 13, 1963, Continued; 1566 VARIANCH N0. 1573 - PliBLIC HBARING, CSCILE C. LOIABHLI.B LUTHULTZ, 2428 Level a Avenae, Anaheim, Califo=nia, Owner; SWAN POOLS, INC., 12691 Harbor S Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permissioa ~ to WAIVB RBQUAtHD FRONT YARD SHTBACK TO PBRMIT TFiR CONSTRUCTION OP A SWIMMING POOL IN THE i FRONT YARD of property described as: A rectangular parcel,of land, having a frontage of ~ 60 feet oa the south side of Levei Avenue and a depth of 100 feet, the easterly boundary i of said property being approximately 152 feet west of the centerline of Topo Street. ~ property present!.y classified as R-1, One Family Residentiai, 2one. ~ i Mr. Bd Cronan, agen: for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission, and stated that the petitioners w~re not opposed to the recommended. condition of a six (6) foot masonry wali, and that he would be availabie to answer any questions the Gommission might have. The Commission reviewed the plot pian, noting that a similar request had been granted a year ago. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 5:06 P.M. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 756, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1573, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote: AYB3: COM.dISSIONBRS: Alired, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOSS: COMNIISSIONBRS: Nane. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONTffitS: Camp. CONDITIONAL U3H - PUBLIC I~ffiARING. ANDRBW and ANNH LOGAN, 3603 Savanna Street, Anaheim, PHRMIT N0. 416 California, Owners; rec~uesting permission to BSTABLISH A DOG I{HNNBL on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 89 feet on the north side of Savanna Street, and a depth 338 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 672 feet west of the centerline of Knott Avenue, and further described as 3603 Savanna Street. Property presei-tly classified as R A, Residential Agricultural, Zone. Mrs. Anne Logan, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that she had contacted the neighbors and had not received any opposition to the proposed dog kennel, and that she would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might have. In response to questioning by the Commission, the pe4itioner stated that there would be individual dog houses, but these would be outdoors at the end of the runs. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, in response to a ciarification request by the Commission, reviewed the City ordinance covering the housing of animals and their control thereof if the animals became a nuisance, particularly noting that any violation or numerous complaints could be construed as a nuisance and make the petitioner liable to prosecution. The Commission noted that the plot plan did not indicate any parking facilities, to which the pet'itioner replied that there was sufficient parking available in the long driveway on subject property. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THH FIBA1tING WA3 CLOSHD. Co~issioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 5:20 P.M. _.,_ ~ ~~ ~ ---.._ _.. _----._._ . . -. . ~. _ , _ . . . . _ _ _. . ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIdN, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1567 CONDITIONAL USH - The Commission discussed the requirment of a time limitation for the PffitMIT N0. 416 use of subject property as a dog kennel in the event any land (Continued) chsnge took place, so that the proposed use could be controlled to permit the ultimate development of adjoining property. Upon hearing the Interdepartmentai Committee recommendations, the Commission felt that street dedication and street improvements wouid be a hardship to the petitioner, because the balance of the property in close proximity to subject proFerty was completely undeveloned, Zoning Coordinator Martin ICredit advised the Commission that the recommendations :!c-xe ' made subject to acceptance ar rejection by the Commission. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 757, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 416, subject to conditions. (See Resolutioa Book.) On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY&4: COhAlISSIONBRS: Alired, Chavos, Gauer, Muagall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOB3: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMI33IONffitS: None. ABSTAIN: COhASISSIONBRS: Camp. CONDITIONAL USH PffitMIT N0. 417 was held over to the evening session, because the agent for the petitioner had left the Council Chamber. CONDITIONAL U3B - PUBLIC HHARING. JAMBS and MONICA LOMSARDO, 503 West Vermont Avenue, PffitMIT N0. 418 Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to RBNT ON A DAILY, WBHKLY, OR MONTHLY °:SIS AN BXISTING APARIMBNT BUILDING on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 95 feet oa the north side of Vermont Avenue and a frontage of 80 feet on the west side of Hampshire Aveaue, and further described as 549 West Hampshire Avenue. Property presently classified as R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, Mrs. Monica Lombardo, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the location of subject property and the use being proposed stipulating that the use would be on a daily basis for the summer months only and would revert to apartment use in the winter months, and that sufficient parking would be available. Mrs. Mary MacDonald, 428-B West Hampshire Street, appeared in opposition to subject petition stating that the noises from tourists coming at all hours and leaving in the early hours in the morning were detrimental to her health,since she was a light sleeper; that the area was established for.apartment dweliers who had resided.in the area.for- severai years, many of whom had reared their children and waated to reside in a quiet residential area; that the proposed use of an apartment building in the center of this residential environment would be a direct violation of the Code, and wonld be an entering wedge for conversioa of other apartments for a similar use; and that the petitioner ha3 continually operated the apartment building as a motel operation despite complaints being made to the City, and the Citq insisting that the petitioner refrain from this type of opesation. Upon being asked by the Commission when a building can be termed a motel, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, stated that a motel was designed for the liviag or sleepiag of automobile tourists or transients, or where some one advertises the building for motel use. . - --- -~ . '~ _._.. ..______. __ ..-- _-- "'i~ ...__ ~ ..__. ~ t ~:~ , : i • ' I `:~ ; , ~ . . : r-. ~,~ ~ ~ .,~. MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COh11~lISSION, May 13, 1963, Continued; 1568 CONDITIONAL USH - Mr. Charles Cars, 207 South Magnolia, Pulterton, appeared before PffitMIT N0. 418 the Commission and stated he was a new uc•:ner i.n the multiple family (Continued) development; thst the area although not pretentious, had a quiet, homey, and well-kept environment for older people who desired seclusion without the noise of children; that if the petitioner were permitted to operate the epartment as a motel, this seclusion would be encroached upon, and that if he had thought at the time he purchased the property,that it would be an z*ea w2:ere motels were permitted,he would not have paid the price he did for ;he property ur:3er th~se r.i~:.um~tances, Mr, Dale MacDonald, 428-B West Hampshire Street, stated that he had been asked by the neighbors to carry through the preliminaries for them in opposiag subject petition; that he had resided in the area 10 years; that the subject property had been constructed only 4 years ago, and that many of the original owners of the apartment buildings still resided in the area, because it had afforded them the quiet seclusion that most other apartments did not. Mr. Rene C. Menschaert, 543 West Hampshire, stated that he had owned his triplex for 21 years, and that if subject petition were granted he had been informed his tenants would be moving, because the neighborhood would no loager be desirable as a quiet residential area. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the compiaints the Planuing Department had received in the past year relative to the petitioner operating a motel in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The petitioner, in rebuttal, stated that to her knowledge there was no City ordinance which prohibited hei from renting the apartments by the day, week, or month. Mr. Roberts stated that subject property was a multiple family unit, and therefore, would be rented on a monthiy basis rather than a temporary basis, such as a motel for tourists and transients. THS HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 759, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to deny Petition for Conditional Use permit No. 418, based on the facts that the proposed use of subject property would be in violation of the City of Anaheim's R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone standards and ordinance, and that to grant subject petition tivould be granting a use which the other apartment buiidiag owners did not enjoy. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYB3: COhA~IISSIOxVBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOH3: COh1MISSI01VHRta: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONffitS: None. CONDITIONAL U3H - PUFI.IC HBARING. JBSS R. and LUPB P. L80S, 508 North Philadelphia, PffitMIT N0. 419 Anaheim, California, Owners; GEORGH C. SCHOLL, 1019 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting permission to BXTEND BXISTING PXYCHOLOGICAL GUIDANCB CffiVTSR TO BNCOhiPAS3 CHRTAIN RBMSDIAL HDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS on property described as; An irregular portion of land, consisting of two (2) parcels, having a frontage of 25 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, a frontage of 63 feet on the east side of West Street, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately 365 feet east of the center- line of West Street, the northernmost boundary beiag approximately 285 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1112 and 1112~ North West Street, property.presently classified as R-A, Residential Agricul~ural, and R-3, Multiple Pamily Residentiai, Zone. ; .~,•. _.~_- ~-- ._. ...._ ----_.r._.._.,__+.._.~_ ,. .... . _ . .. ~.: . ~.~ ~ .1~ ~~ - . . . '.. . .~-'~ :~ ~ ~ ~ . ~.~~~~ ~.._..... _.. - --. . . ~~ MIA'UTB3, CITY PIANNING COhMIS3I0N, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1569 CONDITIONAL USH - Mr. George C. Scholl, agent for the petitioner, appeared before pffitMIT N0. 419 the Commission and stated that the proposed enlargement of the (Continued) present facilities was consistant with the existing uses in the area, In response to Commission questions, the agent stated that the plot plans indicated a 20 foot driveway, whereas, the plan should indicate a 24.97 foot wide dedicated street; that classrooms would be iocated temporarily in an existing structure; and that approximately 30 students would use the facilities. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the 25-foot driveway being a dedicated half street or an easement, and inquired of the City Bngineer's representative Art Daw, whether engineering records showed this to be a dedicated street. Mr. Daw repiied that the map and the assessor's book did not iadicate the 25-foot driveway as a dedicated street, and that perhaps this might be an easement. Mrs. Davici Corderman, 1130 North West Street, appeared before the Commission and asked whether the schocl would coastruct a six (6) foot masonry wall on the north property line adjacent to her property; that the cars using the facility wouid create a lot of dust and noise, to which she objected, and whether ingress and egress should be confiaed to the La Palma Avenue side of the facility. Mr, Scholl then agreed to the requirement of a six (6) foot mas~nry wall along the weste=1y portion of the north property line extending from West Street. Zoning Coordinatoz Martin Kreidt read from the Title Report of subject property which indicated that a 25~foot easement for vehicular access was granted. TEffi HSARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No, 760, Series 1962~63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 419, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roii call the foregoing resolution was passed.by the following vote: AYH3: CQbA~fI3SI01VBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOES: COMMI38YOI~ffiRS: None. AHSBNT: COMMI33IONffitS: None. CONDITIONAL USB - PUHLIC I~ARING. SFffiLDON and NORMA CHASIN, 15111 Beach Boulevard, pHRMIT N0. 420 Westminster, Califoraia, Owners; ARTHUR C. URRBA, 10402 Haledon Street, Downey, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A MIH7CICAN RBSTAURANT, HBHEt AND WINB TO BH S~ItVBD WI:H MBAL3 ONLY on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a froatage of 212 feet on the south side of Ball Road, and a denth of 200 feet. The easterly boundary of said property being approximately 195 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, arrl further described as 2806 West Ball Road. Property preszntly described as C-1, NSIGHBOR- HOOD COhMBRCIAZ~ ZONB. Mr. Arthur Urrea, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and reviewed the proposed use of subject property. In response to the Commissicri's questioning, the agent indicated that the air-conditioning ducts wouid be so constructed as to be hidden from view from the street. No one appeared ia opposition to subject petition. THB FIBARING WA3 CLOSHD. ,.` ~ ~ , 9 d __. ~ ..~__.._~_~_~~ _.._ _ . ..---~ . -------- , . . , .. . - ~ _ ,... _ . ,. .___ . -~ ~ ~ S ~ MINUTBS, CITY FLANNING CONIMISSION, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1570 CONDITIONAL USH - Commissioner pebley offered Resolution No. 761, Series 1962~63, and PffitMIT N0, 420 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner A.lired, (Continued) to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 420~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolutiwn was passed by the following vote: AYH3: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley~ Perry, Sides. NOB3: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONSRS: None. CONDITIONAL USH - PUffi.IC HBA1tING. BROADWAY VILIAGE, 801 North Loara Street, Anaheim, pffitMIT N0. 421 California, Owner; NHWMAN ASSOCIATBS~ 5378 Village Aoad, Long Heach, California, Agent; requestiag permission to .BSTABLISH A BBAUTICIAN'S SCHOOL AND RBIATED COURSSS WITfi LIMITED RSTAIL SALHS ON PRBMISBS described as: A rectangular portion of iand, having a frontage of 740 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue, and a frontage of 620 feet on the west side of Buclid Street, and further described as 641 North Buclid S.treet. Property presently classified C-1, NSIQiBOttH00D COM[~EtCIAL, and C-2, GBNHRAL COMt~RCIAL, ZONBS. Mr.•Harry Newman, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use of snbject pioperty, and further stated that the operator-owner of the school, M=s. Morgan, was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. The Commission reviewed the plot plan. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THB F~ARING WAS CIASHD. Commissioner Pe:ry offered Resolution No. 762,~3eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to grant Yetition for Conditional Use Permit No. 421, subject to conditions. CSee Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMI3SIONHR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOB3: COMMI33IONBR3: None. ABSBNT: COhA~lI3SI0NERS: None. RBCIASSIPICATION - YUBLIC FIDARING. WALTffit C. and RUTH S. RALSTON, 1701 Huciid Street, N0. 62-63-110 Aaaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM C~SHO~ 12721 Groveview, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requestiag that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 24? feet on the north side of Sallie Lar.e and a frontage of 143 feet on the weat side of Buclid Street, and further described as 1701 Bu~lid Street be reclassified from the C-1~ Neighborhood Commercial, 2one (Restricted) to the C-1, Neighborhood Commerc3al, Zone (Unrestxicted) to construct an addition to the existing structure to house pr~~fessional suites and a pharmacy, Mr. William Gasho, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission, and reviewed the previaus reclasaification of subject property, and noted that the proposed pian was to construct an 850 square foot bailding in which a pharmacy was being proposed, aAd that in the reclassification of subject property, restrictions were placed limiting the use of subject property to professional offices only. ., ,. ___ _ __._.._. _ _ _ _.. _~,,,_._.._.~_-~.-__I -,,,., _' .. _.. . ,. "'. ~~. ~~ ~ • ~. ( ~ ~ • ' . . . - . ~' . "~ . ~• / ~ -'~ ~ ` i , .r ;i ~ ~ . ~ .. t,~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ MINUTS3, CITY PLANNING CONUfISSION, May 13, 1963~ Continued; 1571 RBCIA33IPICATIdN - Zoning Coordinator Martin F.reidt reviewed the Resolution of Intent N0. 62-63-110 No. 7009 in Reclassification No. 60-61-100 wb.ich reclassified tContinued) subject property, noting that specific restrictions were insisted upon by the City Council, and that it was recommended that if the Commission determined that a pharmacy was a compatible use with the professional offices; that it be recommettded to the City Council that the Ordinance No. 1605 covering the reclassification of subject property, Condition No, 2 be amended to include the estab2ishment of a pharmacy as a compatible use with the existing professional offices restrictions. Deput~y City Attorney Purman Roberts, confirmed the recommendation of Mr. Kreidt, and further stated that this wouid not require the readiag of a new ordinance~ but merely set for public hearing the changes to the deed restrictions. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TFID HBARING WA8 CLOSED. Mr. Roberts, in anawer to a Commisaion queation, atated that a pharmacy did not qualify as s profesaional office in the preaent restrictiona, aiace retaii sale of gooda was involved. Commisaioner Camp offered Reaolution No. 763, 9eriea 1962W63, and moved for ita paeaage and sdoption~ aecoaded by Comn-ieeioner Pebl:y, to recommEad to the City Couacil that Petition for Reclaeeif3cation No. 62-63-110 be denied~ but that it was recommeaded that Condition No. 2 of Reaolution of Intent No. 7009, covered by Ordiaance No, i60S be amended to include the establiahment of a pharmacy as a compatibie aee with the exiating profesaioaal officea restrictiana. C3ee Reaolution Book.) On roil call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the foliowing vote: AY83: . COhMIS3I0N8R8: Allred, Cecnp, Chavos, G~~er, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, 3ides. NOH3: COMMISSIOI~Tffit3: None. • ABSBNT: COMMISSIONffit3; None. RHCLASSIPICATION ~ PUHLIC I~ffiARING. HDWARD N. and MARY ROSB, 1545 Y~eaL Katell$ Avenue~ N0. 62-63-iii Anaheim, California, Owners; requeating that property deacribed as: ~ A rectangular percel of land having a frontage of 134 feet on the north side of Batella Avenue and a frontage of 6S feet oa the east s3de of Carnelian Street~ aad furthez described as 1792 Carneliaa 8treet be reclasaified from the R-1~ One Pamily Reaidential, Zone to the C-l, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one to utilize an existing structure as a resi eatate office and profesaioaai officea. Mr. Harry Kniaely, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission, and stated that the propoaed uae would be a haphazard solution to a real problem; that the petitioners had been try,ing for three yeara to have subject property clasaified for commercial uaes; that very few parcela on Rateiia Avenue betweea Ninth and Huciid Streets were zoned for commercial purposes; that because of the width of the lot any reduction for street dedication purposea would leave only a thsee foot parkway, and that the narrowness of the lot was the basic reason for previous deniais of proposed reclassification of sub,ject property. Mrs. 0. Peck, 1776 Carnelian Street, Mrs. Howard Bryan~ 1772 Caraelian 3treet, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub3ect petition~ and stated that if the dedication for street widening were required in the approval of subject petition, any proposed commercial use would be so small tha# this would be an eatering wedge for commercial zoaing for other home~ in the single family developmeat, that the proposed development would not provide sufficient off-street parking, aad would then place commercial parking on residential streets~ and that the increase in traffic on a residential street wonld be a hazard to the children living in the area. .. , . • . ~ ;.~ :, U ~ MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 13, 1963, Continued; 1572 RHCLASSIPICATION - Mr. Oaky Peck, 1776 Carneliaa Street, appeared in opposition, NO• 62-63-111 stating that the proposed commercial zoning would be an encroach- (Continued) ment on the privacy of the single family environment of the street, and that he thought that deed restrictions would prohibit the use of subject property for other than residential purposes. In rebuttal, Mr. Snisely stated that if the oppositinn lived immediately adjaceat to subject properiy, their privacy might be invaded. THH F~ARING WAS CL0.SED. Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, informed the Commission that upoa examination of the title zeport on subject property, deed restrictions were iadicated which limited the use of subject property for residential purposes only. Commigsioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 764, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage area adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for R~classification No, 62-63-111, be denied based on the fact that no physical changes had taken place since the previous request fur commerciai zoning was requested to warrant grantiag subject petition, and that subject property had deed restrictior.s filed on it prohibiting the use of subject property for other than residential purposes. CSee Resolution Book.) On roll cali ±he foregoing zesolution was passed by the followiag vote: AYSS: COhAlISSIONffitSe ASlred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOH3: COhAlI3SI0NBR3: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONffitS: None. RBCHSS: Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner aad to reconvene at 7:30 P,M, Commissioner Sides sec~nded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. The meeting recessed at 5:50 P,M. APTBR RHCB3S: Chairaan Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:33 P.M., Commissioners Camp and and Gauer being absent. CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. DINKLHR MANAGBMBNT CCRP~tNTION and AMB1tICAN PHOBNIR PBRMIT N0. 417 CORYOitATICN,320 Park Avenue, New York 22, New York, Owners; BILLHB GWYNN, 1640 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Califoraia, Agent; req~esting permission to CONSIRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN BXISTING COCKTAIL LOUNGH AND RBSTAUP,ANT on propesty ~escribed as: A rectangular parcel of land, having a frontage of 85 f•eet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, and a depth of 600 feet, fhe southerly boundary of said property being approxieaately 450 feet north of 'che centerline of Preedman Way~ and further described as 1640 3outh Harbor Boulevard. Property presently ciassified as R-A, RBSIDffidTIAL ACR.ICULTUR::L, ZONB. Mrs. Billee Gwynn, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed for the Commission the proposed addition to the existing restaurant. The.Commission reviewed the plot plans, noting that an additionai exit was being pi•avided at the northeasterly section of the proposed structure. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ' THB FIBARING WqS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp entered~the Council Chamber at 7;36 P.M. l~~ ~ s ; ~ ; l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~_~_.w_.__.__~~---._.____.-__~...__.~,_.._----..».._.~___. __ ~.,_ - ~ ~ .-- ~ ~_, , µ _ _-- • -- ~ . w . . ~~ ~ ~ ..~5 ; -~_ I • i ~ ,• ~~.'~,j~ .. • ~ ~ a MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CObAtISSION, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1573 CONDITIONAL IISB - Commissioner pebley offered Resolution N~. 758, Series 1962-63, and PffitMIT N0. 417 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, ,~Continued) to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~o. 417, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Boo&.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYB3: COhAlISSIONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOBS: COI~GlISSICPiBRS: None. ABSBNT: CQDAfISSIONBRS: Gauer. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIQAIBRS: Camp. RHCLASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. GRIPPITH BROT1~ffiRS, A partnership, N0. 62-63-98 887 South Los Angeles Street, and i+fAHHL T. DOUGLAS, 1677 South Ninth and Street, Anaheim, Califom ia, Owaers; THOMAS A. KBY, c/o Tom Key CONDITIONAL USH Realty Sales, Inc., 811 South Buclid Btreet, Anaheim, California, PBRMIT N0. 403 Agent; property being considered described as: An irregulas portion of land having a frontage of 1190 feet on the west side of Ninth Street, the westerly boundary of said property being adjacent to the Orange County Ploo3 Control Channei and the soatheriy boundary being approximately 130 feet north of }he centerline of Kimberly Avenue. Said property consisting of two (2) parcels, and further described as 1677 South Ninth Street. Property presentiy classified R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL A(3tIC[JLTURAL, 20NB. RBQUBSTBD CLASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. RHQUSSTHD CONDYTIONAL USH~ CONSTRUCT A MULTIPLB FAMILY PIANNBD RB5IDBNTIAL DBVBI.OPhffiNT, WAIVH ONB (1) STQRY HBIGHT LIMITATION. 3ubject petitions were continued from the meeting of April 15 and 29, 1963, in order that the Gity Council might be able to advise the Commissioa the steps taken to acquire a portion of subject property for a park site. Mr. Thomas Rey, agent for the peiitioner, appeared before the Commission and zerriewed the revised plans which incorporated the reduction of units,due to the fact that the City'expressed their intention of developing a neighborhood park on the nortnerly portion of subject property, further not3ng that two~story constiuction being proposed consisted of the sleeping qaarters for the second floor, and all other living quarters being confined to the first floor, and that each un:it would be eqial to,or exceed the value of homes existing adjacent to subject property. The Commission determined through questioning the agent for the petitioner,that the northerly portion of subject property also included a 175 foot power line easement; that the southerly portion af subject property was being proposed for development; that single family residential development existed to the east, south,and west of the southerly portion of subject property, and furthex inquired why the odd shaped parcel to the north could not be used for multiple family development, since the proposed park would do very little good for the w~41d ao VP.T'y iittYe good for the res?@ent3 no~v livi:ng :.n tne area, if the xemafr.ing pSCpe2'Cy were deveioped into two and thzee bedreom apartments~ said anits woild encourage ttte inf2ux of more children. Mr. Aey replied, that it would be rat:~er difficult to develop the o3d shaped northerly parcel because of the power line easement. The Commission further inquired why the northerly portion was offered for a park site, aince the southerly portion could be feasibly developed for low density residential use. __.~..__._..~~_- --._._.._____~_._ .~, _,~____.__..~.__ . ~... .. _.._._ . , . _. _ __ _._.. a ~ , ~ ' . . ~ ~ ~ _~ MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CONA4ISSION, May 13, 1963, Continued; 1574 :tHCLASSIPICATION - Mr. Rey replied that the price of the lantl was too high to develop N0. 62-63-98 for low density residential use, and that he had been working and rather closely with the Faik~ and Recreation Director and the City CONDITIONAL USB Manager°s office relative to the park site. PffitMIT N0. 403 (Continued) Mr. Ployd Paxano, 1881 Hileen Drive, appeared in opposition to subject pe~ition, stating that he represeated the 986 persons who had signed the petition of opposition, » well as, the nearly 100 pexsons preseat ia the Counc3! i~:ambar, aad that he and two other persons would preseat the oppcsition's p=~sition to subject petition. Mrs. Margaret Wa.te, 1413 Trenton Drive, stated that concern had been expressed by the re•sidents of the area. because the proposed development would mean a consadc=abie increase in school age child•ren; tha4 the School District had based their projections for futnre schools in the propo~ed General Ylan for subject property which indicated a park; that the tra£fic weuld increase with additionai living units; that no sidewalks ox bus ser~vice had been provided for the children, so that they would be subject to walking in the street,wh~ch would furthe= increase the traffic hazards; and that a Sarge r.ark fac±lity would be necessary because the schools had been closing the playgrounds on school property on weekends, thus depriving the children of a play area. Mr, John Herman, 1314 Laster Avenue, appeared in opposition to subject petition, and stated that the proposed development would be incompatible with the proposed land uses as projected on the proposed General Plan; that a park was absolutely essential for the area, and sh~uld be larger than 4~ acres, of which the northerly portion consisted; that parks were a part of the community wide gosls of development of the inherent beauty, safety, and play area provideQ for the citizens, that to grant subject petition would be the entering wedge for commercial development in the area, and that to propose two story apartme:;:;a whe~e ~ne sto.r~ l:w deaaity 6evelopment .izs predominantly ~uzrouriding the subject property, woulo be an undesirable living environment in the area, and that the single family homeowners shoul~d be afforded some protection from this undesirable Siving environment. ~ Mr. Fioyd Parano stated that he would sum up the opposition's viewpoint by asking that the Commi~sion coasider the low density development of almost the entire surrcu~lding azea; that the petitioners did ha~e a right to develop, but the present homeowners in the area should be psotected from multiple family residential development; tha4 if the proposed park were dev~loped a~d #he subject petition approved, the goal of the City to provide recreational f'acilities for all the residents of the area would be defeated and would present an isls~zd of apar4ments surrounded by a sea of single family sesidential development, and it wouid be unthinkable to consider two story constrnc- tion for apartments; and that the Commission had three choices, (1) denial of the subject petition a_z~ ~cesEr~ve tl:e single family residential living environment, (2) disapprove two story construction; and, (3~ approve the multiple family residential de~elopment. In rebuttal, Mr. Rey stated that they would be willing to install sidewalks if this would be a major concern; that recreational facilities were being provided within the proposed development and thus, would relieve anq hardship'of the use of the park by residents in the apartments; that vm:iwer of the singie story height limitation was fo= three of the structures on Ninth Street onlq; and that as long as the City was experiencing an expansion in population, there would be an influx of more children whether or not multiple family development occurred oz nat. The Commission expressed concern over the fact that the City would be purchasing property under the power line easement; that the southerly parcel would be more ideally developed for R-1; that ~he Cbmmission had considered R-3 for odd shaped parcels where complete subdivisions for R-1 was impractical; that the flood control channel was 'better suited for separ.ation of R-1 from R-3 development; that the power line easement on the east side of Ninth 3treet separated the R-3 to the north from the single family development south of it. an~ that they would like to hear Parks and Recreation Director John Coilier's comments relative to the selection of the northerly parcei of subject property for the,pxoposed park site. i ; _ ~ ~ , .~ . MINUTBS, CITY PLAN~ING COMMISSION, May 13f 1963, Conti~nued: 1575 RHCIASSIPICATION - Mr. John Collier advised the Commission that during his talks with N0. 62-63~98 and the City Manager and the pesitioners, the City's major concern was a park; that he had been asked to comment on the northerly portion COND?TIOI~I#L USB north of the power line easement; that it had been the expressed Pffi2MIT N0. 403 desire not to construct a wall adjacent to the southerly park line • ~ (Continued) and a plan of landscapiag had been developed to b~ substituted for the wall; and that this was the extent of his part in the park site location, Mr. Key then stated that the power line easement was owned by the Hdison Company; that recreation facilities could be placed under the easement, and that the Edison Company was glad to see these areas developed for recreational purposes. It was noted by the Commission that recentiy a pet±tion had been presented to them for multiple family development; and that through discussion with the Commission and the Planning Department, this property adjacent to neighborhood commercial„facilities had been subdivided for single family development. In response to a zequest by the Commission to define the difference between an R-3 ' development and a townhouse development, Mr. Key replied that the only difference was that a townhouse had no side setbacks. Mr. Parano, in summing up his final comments,stated that although the agent for the petitioners stated that they would construct sidewalks on subject property, this did not resolve the absence of sidewalks for the Yalance of the area, and did not relieve any traffic hazards; that although oniy 13 units per acre wese being proposed, this was three times as much as the low Censity residential environment existing in the area; that the single faiuily residences across the street [rom the proposed two-story development would have a wa?1 of stucco and glass facing them, as svell as tr•at:hing the flow of many cars into the proposed development; and that the townhouse concept would be viola.ting the one story height concept of the surrour~ding homes; and that the only type of =ecreation area that could be~rovided under the power line easement wbuld be basebs.ll fields and tennis courts. TFffi HBARING WAS CLOSBD. a letter of opposition was rea3 to the Commission. The Commission discussed the proposed reclassification aad development plans relative to its compatibility to the single family residential environment now existing adjacent and in close proximi:y to subject property, the location of the proposed park site, and the possible usea to wt,~ich subject property could be adapted. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. ?65, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-98 be denied based on the fact that the proposed use woald be a detriment to the single family residential living environment and wouid also constitute "spot zoning" of multiple family development surrounding on thsee sides by s.ingle faznily homes and a neighborhood'park on the fourth side. ~ CSee Resolution Book,) On roli cail the fcregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYE3: COhRlIS3IONffit3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOH3: COhAlISSIOI~RS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONffit3: Gauer. Commissione= Sides offered Resoiution No. 7b6, Series 1962-63, and moved for its pgssage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Alired, to deny Petition for Conditiona! Use Permit No. 403, based on findings. (See Resolution Book,) On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: i1YB3: CCY~A~IISSIONBR3; Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungaii, Pebley, Perry, Side;. NOB3: COMhII38I0NHR3: Ncne. AH9BNT: COhAiI3SI0NHF.S: Gauer.. ~. .. _ ___ ' _. _....,._,.___._, ~ _. _ i------ ,----_.._~~.. . _ __ . ' . : ~., ~ 4 - { ; . ._ . . ._ ._~ . . ..._.lw.~~.., ~ .. .•. , l. ... . . . ~~ ~~ ~ . . . . .fN'~ ... 'MINUTffi, CITY PIANNING CODMlISSION~ May 13, 19b3, Continued: 1576 RSCLA3SIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. ROHBRT R. DOWZING~ et al~ 15622 Placentia Yorba N0. 62-63-i12 Boulevard, Placentia, California, Owners; HBRITAGS CONSTRUCt'ION and C~tP~tATION~ 4100 West Commonweaith, Fuilerton, California, Ag~nt; CONDITIONAL USB property descrit~ea ase An irregulaz portion of land consisting of PHRMIT N0. 422 three (3) parcels and having frontages of 1370 feet on the south side of Placentia Yorba Houlevard, 1195 feet on Lhe east side of Dowling, and 1355 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue. Froperty presently ciassified R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH. RBQUHSTSD CIRSSIPICATION: R~-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. RBQUBSTBD CONDITIONAL USB: CONSIRUCT A TWO-STaRY MULTIPLH PAMILY PIANNHD RBSIDBNTIAL DBVBIAPMBNT WI1ii CARPORTS - WAIVB OPffi-ST()RY HSIGHT LIMITATION. Mr. B. A, Ralston, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission aad reviewed the proposed development noting that it was Socated in the northeast industrial area i~ounded on the north by the Santa Pe Railroad,and on thr south by the Orangethorpe Aveaue; that commercial zoniAg existed to the west of subject property, to the east a flood control chaanel, and the property to the south,a drainage basin; that the proposed coadominium consisted of four apartments for each of the eighty-eight struetures; that a deed would be given for each parcel of the covered patio area; that the area was selected because there were very few apartment developments 3n close proximity to the industrial area; that through experience dwellings were beiag constructed for the junior executive, but little was being provided for the iower saiaried employee working in Anaheim; that tl~e proposed developmeat, together with costs, levied for management of taxes, upkeep, etc., for the common area would be approximately $13,500 per unit; M:. Ralston further stated that auto court areas were being psovided with' regional parking, crossing of streets would be eliminated, because the development was being laid out in a major mall wit~ 15 minor malls, and no more than 7 units on a mall; and that 6096 of the subject property would be converted i:~to walkways, garden areas, and guest parking facilities. Mr. Ralston presented a colored rendering of the proposed multiple family developmant stating that plans had been submitted with elevations which indicated two carports for each apartment. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission if a condominium was proposed with a common area and area space, and units were being proposed to be sold, a tract map would have to be filed, and that any deviation from the R-3 Code standards would have to be specifically waived in the conditional use permit. Mr. Ralston stated that it was the pian of the deWeioper to th2 land as divided into units; that a trust company would manage the common area and its funds which would be on a perpetual maintenance schedule and all a~sessments would be deposited for further use in this maintenance; and that a fee of $20 per month would be assessed for inside and outside maintenance and landscaping, lights, water, and recreation facilities of the common area. In respo-~se to questioning by the Commission as to a legal opinion relative to the trust fund and maintena-ce of the common area, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that subject petition had a similar problem as the petition proposed a condo- minium on west Lincoln AvPnue; and that the basic probiem was the deposit of sufficient funds for the perpetuai maintenance of the common area in which a fraction of the land would be owned by each apartment owner. Mr. Ralston then stated he would agr~e to supply the City Attorney~s office w:th the necessary agreements and legal documents for the proposed maintenance oi tlir common area. ` \ •) I I ~~.~_..._._._.-~-- _,~._.____.___ __. ,~.~____.~ ~ . . • - ' : _.. _ . ; • _ -- . . _ _. _. ... :. _ _ .... . . . _... ...... ~~ ~ . . .. . . l ~- -- , RBCLASSIPICATION - The Commission expressed conce=n in the proposed breakdown of the N0. 62-63~112 Northeast Industrial Area, as adopted by resolution of the and Commissioa and the City Council, by the injection of residential CONDITIONAL USB ases in such close proximity to industrial uses; that past PffitMIT N0. 422 experience had proven the incompatibility of the residential and (Continued) industrial uses adjacent to each other; that the area was ~ designated as industr±al by the County of Orange and the City of Placentia, as well as Anaheim; that the commercial development to the west,recently approved,was so done with the Commission and City Council reaffirming their stand for industrial development,and the recreation center was considered a compatible use to take care of the needs of the industrial area employees, and inquired of the petitioner on what he based his findings for the inclusion of residential development in the iJortheast Industrial Area. Mr. Ralston stated that in order to purchasP a home in Anaheim at a cost of $19,000, ~his would necessitate the puxchaser having a salary in excess of $600 per month; that in the Anaheim-Puilerton area 168 acres had been set aside for industrial development; that neither city had provided sufficient area in close proximity to the ir~ustrial area for residential use; that many people working in the Anaheim-Fullerton area were liviag in Corona because they were unable to reside near their work, due to their insbility to find suitable living quarters for a reasonabie price; that recentiy a corporation did not locate in the Anaheim-Pullerton area because of the lach of reasonably priced living quarters; that he was sure of this statement because his brother-in-law was the president of the corporation and he had told him that most of the employees would be receiving less than $600 pez month, and since living quarters were unavailable at a price they could affo=d, the corporation located elsewhere; that the Irvine Company had advised him that their area was losing all of the indvstrial plants, because of the excessive cost of hore~s located nearby; that in order to compe~e with the northern eities for ind~strial plants, mo3erstel~ pziced adequatc housing was r.~~dcd :cr ~he ~verage employee who wasn't in the junior executive class, that P.n~hein and Fullerton would have to take this iato consideration; that he was builr~ing a subdivision in Corona,and all zhe homes built were already sold to people working in the Anaheim~Pullerton industxial plants and living in Corona, because of ttteir inability to purchase homes in Anaheim cn their current incomes; that the subject property was an iaolated parcel because of i+s location; and that the City of Placentia had already violated thei: agxeement with Anaheim in keaping the Northeast Iadustrial Area for that purpose by approving a trailer coart. THB HBARING WA3 CLOSHD. Commissioner Pebley commented that he concurred with the petitioner in that many people were moving to Corona; and that it might be to the Commission°s advantage to make a cc+mplete -~'analysis of the Northeast Industriai Asea by meeting with the County of Orange and the City of Placentia. The Commission continued the discussion of proposing a complete reanalysis of the industrial area, in conjunction with the proposed multiple family development, noting that indust=ies which had located here,~had been assured that the area would remain industrial. Commissioner Pebiey offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassification No. 62~63-112 and Conditional Us~ Permit No. 422 to the meeting of August 19, 1963, in o=der that the Planning Department might make a complete reanalysis of the Northeast Industrial Area, and to consult with the Planning Departmenfs of the County of Orange and the City of Placentia to determine what might be done or whether it should remain as is. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion, noting tlaat the Commission had recently denied similar petitions because the area was projr,cted for M-1, Zoning. MOTION CARR78D. 1 ~ _,~._ -. - - -._ .__ i ~ MINUTBS, CITX PIANNING.COb9dISSI01~, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1578 RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC I~ffiARING. BVHRHTT H, and BLMA M. MILLBR, 220 Atlantic i NO. 62-63--113 Avenue, P. 0. Box 731, Long Beach, Caiifornia, Owners; BROpSMQRE and INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, P. O. Box 2067, Anaheim, i CONDITIONAL USH California, Agent; property described as: Ttvo (2) irregular PffitMIT N0. 423 portion of land consisting of;Portion "A",having a frontage of ~ 1040 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Stree~ and an average ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF depth of 220 feet, the northern boundary of Portion "A" being TRACT N0. 5162 approximately 1322 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road; Portion "B'~adjacent to 4h~ easterly boundary of ~ortion '°A", and having a frontage of 471 feet on the north side of Ball Road, aad a depth of 1272 feet; the easterly boundary of Portion "8" being approximately 672 feet east of the centerliae of Brookhurst Street, and further described as the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Ball Road. Property presently classificc? R A, Residential Agricuitural, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zones, RBQUBSTHD CLA3SIPICATION: PQRTION "A" TO C-1, NBZGHBORHOOD CObAlBRCIAL, ZONB. PatTION "B" TO R°3, MULTIPL$ FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH. RHQUBSTED CONDITIONAL ~tSB: 1) C0.'ISTRUCT MULTIPLB PAMILY PIANNHD RBSIDBNTIAL DBVffiOPMHNT WITH CARPQRTS, 2) WAIVH R-3 AND C-1 ', HHIGHT LIMITATIONS, 3) HST.ABLISH A CAR WASH, 4) OpNSTRUCT TI~tEB S1Y)RY OFFICB BUILDING. ~ Mr. Bd Wormington, agent for fihe petitioner, appesred before the Commission and stated that he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have, , The Commission reviewed the plot plan. Mr. Charles Crosley, 2152 Crone Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that interested persons in the Council Chamber would like to view the pians presented before nny opposition could be presented. The plans were then viewed by 10 persons present in the Council Ghamber. Mr. T, J. Torgerson, 835 Vaiiey Street, asked that the Commission consider terminating Minerva Avenue,by cul~de~sacing the street at the stub end now ex>sting on the east boundary of subject property, Mr. David Gordon, President of the Sherwood Forest Civic Association, congratulated the developers on the proposed development9stating that it met with the approval of all the persons who had viewed the plans, but that Minerva Avenue should not be extended westerly, but should term±nate at the easterly boundary of subject property. Mr. L. D. Stenerson, 2165 West Crone Avenue, owner of commercial property just east of subject property on Ball Roadyinquired of the Cormaission what drainage provisions were made to take caxe of floodlike conditions Pach time it rained, since it seemed all the drainage inundated his property. The Cammission iniormed him that the drainage ._ would be,westerly from_his_property, and that the City was making provisions as soon as funds were available for storm drains in the vicinity of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street. City Hngineer represeniative Art Daw~advised the Commission that storm drains would be prqvide3 along the alley at Juno and Minerva Avenues. INr. Stenerson then stated that the 5-foot setback from the alley was proposed, that this would be inadequate since he had already experienced damage to his fences where automohile3 had been backed across the curb, and now that the fences were down, the automobiles were da:naging his building, and that the City required a 15-foot setback to the aliey. 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that in the recently adopted parking ordinance, a 25-foot radius was required, which would make the proposed 5-foot setback sufficent. The Commission continued the discus3ion relative to the turning radius of the ailey. THH HBARING WA3 CLOSBD. ' , i . ... .._____~..___.~._.~._._.-- -- ------~__.~___~..__~--- 1 ! ' T . ~ . ~.~ ~. . ~.1 . ~ - ~. . : . ~ . ' . . . . . .. . ..~. ..-'--~ --,._~.!':~.. _ . ..._ ~ ~ ~J . ~ ~ . ;[ i ,` j ~ ~ ~ . ..~.-~.. . MINUTH3, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ May 13, 1963, Continued: 1579 RBCLASSIFICATION - Mr. Rreidt advised the Commission that the petitioner did not Np, 62~63-113 request waiver of the single story within 150 feet of the R-1 and propertyp that the easternmost two-story multiple family COtiDITIONAL USE dwel].ing was 140 feet from the single family development to the PHRMIT N0. 423 east, and that if the Commission approved subject petition, this :ENTATIVE MAP OF -~ust be indicated as a finding. Mr. Kreidt further stated that TRACT N0. 5162 ~ost of the single family residences to the east were of two- storv construction; and that the proposed development did indicate ,iContinued) _ a single story structure between the proposed two-story structure and the single family residences. Discussion was held by the Commission on the reduced street width being proposed on the tract map, and asked Mr. Daw which the City would prefer,the standard street width, or wider parkway widths. Mr. Daw stated that at such time as the parkway widths were established, the re~mmended widths were needed for the planting of trees in sufficiently large enough areas.,so that the curbs and s.idewalks would not be damaged; that both were recommended at the widths stated in the Interdepartmental Commit4ee recommendations, but if a choice`had to be made, a 64-foot wide street would be approved if a variable setback were required by the Commission. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 767, Series 1962-63, aad moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, ta recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-113 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resalutioa Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COMMIS3IONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungali, Pebiey, Perry, Sides, NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: COMMI3SIOI~RS: Gauer. ~ommission Pebley offered Resolution No. 768, Series 1962-63, and moved for iis passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 423, s4bject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregcingresolution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sidr_.s. NOHS: COHMISSIONHR3: None. ABSHIIT: COMMISSIONHRS: Gauer. ~ DBVBLOPffit: W. H. C2tANT COMPANY, 1665 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California; HNGINEHR: MCDANIBL HNGINHBRING COMPANY, 222 8ast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Subject tract,located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, on the north side of Ball Road, is proposed for subdivision into 11 R-3, Multiple Family Residen- tiai, Zone, lots. Subject tract map was considered in conjunction with the public hearing of Reclass- ification ;Vo. 62-63-113 and Conditional Use Permit No. 423. The Commission reviewed the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations for subject tract. Commissioner Alired offered a motion to approve Ten±ative Map of Tract No. 5162, subject to the following conditions: 1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- ~ divisioa, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted ia tentative form for approval. .'1~ i ti ~ i I t i ~ ~ _ --._ -____~...~.~_ _ ... -- _ _. . _ _ . ~° . _ . . ,~ ~_~. ~ . ~, ~ : ~ ~ . : ..~ . . _. . ..._ ~ . : . ~ :,`I` . ~ !,. ~ ~ ~ MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, May 13, 1963, Continnzd: 1580 RECLASSIFICATTON - 2. Subject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use N0. 62-63-113 Permit No. 423. and OONDITIQNAL USE 3. Subject to the reclassification of subject property to the PERMIT N0. 423 R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone, as approved and and completed under Reclassification No. 62-63-113, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 5162 4. Access to Minerva Avenue shall not be permitted. (Continued) 5. Streets "B" and "C'' shall be sixty-four (64) feet wide. 6. Dedication and improvement of "Not A Part". ?. Angle cut-offs shail be provided on all alieys as required by the City Bn~ineer. 8. Dedication of access rights to Ball Road, except at street and alley openings. 9. Provisions of a modified knuckle at the northw~:+ terminus of Minerva Street, subject to the approval of the Gity Hngineer. 10. The alley south of Street "A" shall be provided with a turn- around of the "alley to be dedicated by document",ahd to be included within the tract, 11. Lots 6 and 9 shall be noted on the title sheet of the map for recreational uses only, since said lots are• not buildable sites, and an exception must be granted, as no alley serves these lots~a requirement for R-3 lots. Gommissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTIOdd CARRIBD. RHCIASSIPICATION - PUSLIC HBARING. INITIAT$D BY T}ID ANAHHIM PLANNING COMMISSION, P10. 62-63-114 204 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: An "L"-shaped tract of land consisting of eleven (il) lots, and having frontages on the north and south sides of Sumac Lane; the.northerly boundary of said tract being approximately 129 feet south of the ~enter~ line ef Sallie Lane, and the easterly boundary being approximately 151 feet west of the centerline of Varna Street, and further described as Tract No. 3258, Lot I3os.1 through 11, also known as 1746, 1747, 1751, 1752, 1757, 1758, 1761, 1767, 1773, 1777, and 1783 Sumac Lane be reclassified from the R-A, Residentiai Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Muitiple Pamily Residential, Zone to reclassify an apartment area into tlie proper zone. Zoning Coordinator Martin ~reidt?reviewed for the Cortmiissionsthe location and the purpose of the proposetlreclassification, notinP that subject propertq had• beea approved fox multiple family development in Tsact No. 3258, when still a part of the County, and that all inspection in the construction of the structures had been made by the City of Anaheim Building Department. THB HHARING WAS CL09BD. Commissioner Alired'offered Resolution No. 769, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cormnissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-114 be approved. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the ~oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: pYB3: COMAlI3SIONIDR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Sides. NOSS: COh4dI5SI0NBRS: None. ABSHNT: CQMMI3SIONBRS: Gzuer. ' °"~,~ ,~._..~~._ __..._~. _._ _ . _ _ . _ , _ --- __._ ~ , ' ~ ~ : ~ . ~ (. ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COhAlIS3ION, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1581 pMgNpMBNT TQ - PUBLIC HBARING. INITIAT9D BY Tf~ CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION, CHApTffit 18.64 204 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Amendment to Title CONDITIONAL USBS 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,by the ameadment to Chapter 18.64.020 (3-p),to perrait the establishment of planned residential developments in the R-0, One Pamily Suburban, R~1, One Pamily Residential, R-2,.4Mro Pamily Residential, ar,d R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zones~ but to prohibit the eatablishment of Planaed Residential Develop- ment in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone. The public hearing of subject amendment was contiaued from the meeting of April 29, 1963, in arder that the Planning Departmeat might obtain additional information 4o present to the Commission reiative to the amendment to the Conditional Uses. 2oning Coord3nator Martin Rreidt reviewed for the Commission their past action~relative to the propoaed amendment, aoting that a number of petitions had been filed recently to eonstruet residpatial developments having a 6,000 square foot lot; that ihe R-A, Reaidential Agric~altural, ~oae was not intended as a zone of development, but only as a transitional zone~in which property annexed to the City wouid be held~until the proper request for rezoning was pzesented by the property owner. The Comm3ssion discussed the various interpretations made by the City Attorney's office,relative to permiasible construction in the R-A, 2one, and that in order to legally prevent any further misinterpretation by developers, the Conditional Uses permitted in the various residential zones,a clesr statement of the permissible uses in the Residential Zones must be provided. Mr, John Simpson, 3d09 West Deerwood Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that he appreciatedthe Commission's recognizing~that requests for substandard dwellings in the R-A, Zone, were by-passing the residential zoning standards which the City had, and asked that the amendment be so written as to eliminate any possible misinterpreta- tion by devel opera,in the permitted type of construction of dwelling units~in the R-0, It-1, and R-2, zonea~ and that multiple family deveiopments should be permitted in the R-3 zone, or the Clonditional Uaes sc stipulated~ that it be required~that if m4ltiple family deveiopmeats were requested in the low deasity zones~ it specifically state the miniwu~d lot size for each zone. Commissioner Camp then stated that if any Conditionai Uses were stated, that it be atipulated that in ma R-1, one a 7,200 square foot lot exluaive of the street must be required, and that all R-1 Code requirements must be met, and that this should hold for the minimum requirements in 1:he R~0 and R-2 2ones as well. Mrs. Mary Aadrews, 927 Nutwood Street, representing several of the Weat Aaaheim liomeowners groupa,reviewed the aumber of conditional use permit requests for the meeting, together with the number of aimilar requeats during the past year, and asked that the Coamission give serious coneideration to requests by developers bypassing the zoning standards set up by Code for multiple family developments without a petition for reclasaification of the property. Commissioner Chavoa offered a motion to continue the hearing on the Amendmeat of Chapter 18.64, Conditional Uses, to the meeting of June 24, 1963, in order that the Commission mi~ht discuss any changes at a wo=k sessioa, Commissioaer 5ides seconded •the motion. MOTION CARRISD. _ _,. r~- - r __ ~ . 1 • ., ..::,.~. . . . ._ _ . -- . . . ~; F , . i ~ • j ;,' ;~:1 . h2 ' . .. . _. . ' '_ £ , W ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1582 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Site No. 15 - File 19~64224 Proposed Junior:High School to be located at the southeast corner of Vermont Avenue and East Street> Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the proposed new school site location, noting that~thB~area is projected on the proposed General Plan for light industrial development~ and that the site was in close proximity to a large section of low density reeidential developmentse Commissioner Sides offered a motion to recommend to the Anaheim Union High.School.District the Commission's approval of~-the proposed junior high school site located-at the southeast corner of Vermont Avenue and East Street known as Site No. 15 - File~19164224. Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. • ITEM N0. 2 Variance No. T564 -'MARGARET BLACKWELL, OWNER: LYNN Ea THOMSEN, Agent; property located at 1102 West North Street, Anaheim. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented a letter and read it to the Commission, said letter being from the agent for the petitioner, in which it was requested.that the Commfssion express their views to the City:Council relative to a lot split on subject property> The•Commission reviewed their action of denial of subject petition, noting that they had suggested to the agent that a lot split be approved, but subject to development of the property with plans being approved by th2 Development REView function of the City, and that the agent had stated that he did not want any architectural control on the develop- ~en~c of the property, whereupon the Commission denied subject petition. The Commission then agreed that no action would be taken, and that no recar~~ndations would be made to the ~ity Council. ITEM N0. 3 ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE 5156 - Bessie Romero - Construct a single- family dwelling ai~d tletached garage in the M1 Light Industrial District on the west side of Taylor Street, approximately 150 feet south of Orangethorpe Avenue, east of the city of Atwooda Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the sub~ect petition together wicn~its location for the Commission. The Commission-discussed the va).idity'of their commenting on proposals which were a con- siderable distanc:: from current and proposed jurisdiction of the City of Anatieim. ' Cortunissioner Camp offered a motion directing the Commission Secretary to advlse the Orange Caunty Planning Commission that inasmuch as the proposed Use Variance No< 5156 was outside of any possible jurisdiction of t}ie City of Anaheim, that NO COMMENT was in order. Commissioner Allred seconded the motione Ni0TI0N CARRIED. `~ ITEM N0. 4 s Termination of VARIANCE N0. 1T38 - Direction S3gn, Park Viilage Homes, , Tract No. 3045. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the subject Sign Variance noting that the Trac~ No. 30a5 had alr.~ady been developed and that the sign no lo,nger was in.existance. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 770, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and doption, seconded by Commissioner Ctiavos, to terminate Var3ance No. 1138.(See Resolution Book~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mun~all, Pebley, Perry, Sides. NOESs. CONOdISSIONERSs None. ABSENTc COMMeSSI01VERSt Gauer. , i i . ~ ~--r~ -- - r, - ____.. . . ._ ,, _. _. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 13, 1963, Continued: 1583 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS USE VARIANCE 5I57 - Garden Park General Hospital, 94'2 Gilbert Street, ,~Continued) Anaheim, California - estahlish a.128-space hospital parking lot in the R-3 Apartment Dietrict. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented subject Use Variance to the Commission and reviewed the proposed use for the Commission. The Commission discussed the Irrterdepartmental Committee and Planning Department recom- mendations as it related to development plans on Ball Road. C~mmissioner Camp offered a mation to recommend to the Orange County Planning Commission favorable consideration of Use Variance 5157, subject to the following.conditions: 1. Dedication of fifty-three (53) feet from the monumented center line of Ball Road (50 feet existing). 2< Instailation of tree wells in the parkwey portion of the Ball Road frontage of subject property. 3. Setback of the pxoposed four (4) foot masonry wall along the Ball Road frontage of subject property and the installatfon of a minimum six (6) foot strip of landscaping in the front of the aforementioned masonry wall. Cammissioner Chavos seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 6 NE".N JUNIOR.HIGH SCHOOL SITES - Vermont Avenue an~ East Streetf Broadway east of Loara Street. Commissioner Sides offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to considcr the indication of the two new junior high school sites on the proposed General Plan, one on the southeast corner of Vermont Avenue and East Street, and the other south of . Bxoadway east of Loara Street. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNME1dT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to ad~ourn the meetinge Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ANN KRBBS~ SECRETARY Anaheim Planning Commission . . ; ., _.._,__... _ . _ .. ~ , - - ~._-_~.., ~ y -- ._.. ". ~ , ~ _ _... . . ... . ._. ~ ~ ~ ~