Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/08/05City Hall Anaheim, California August 5, 1963 $`=GULAR MESTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Ylanning Commission was cailed • to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0'Cl~~ck P.M., a quorum being present. C(~~fISSIONBRS: Alired, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Gauer, Sides. - Zoning Division Representative: Robert Mickelson. Deputy City Attorney: Fuxman Roberts. Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs. Planning ~epartment Ste.~ogzapher: Jacqueline Sullivan. - Reveread Loren Fischer, Pastor of Magnolia Baptis# Church, gave the Invocation, Commissioner Gauex led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag. -~he Minutes of the meeting of July 22, 1963, held over to August 19~ 1963, for approval. kHCIAgSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLI~ HBARING. ~3THYL M. RBBiI, et aI, c% M, W. RBED, JR., N0. 62-63-131 2U45 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, Califoznia, Owr-ers; SANTA PB SPRINGS INLUSIRTAL PARK, c% JOHN B. KILROY COMPANY, CONDITIONAL USB 618 South Spring Street, Los Angeles 14, Califaruia, Agent; property pBRMIT N0. 440 described as: A rectaagular portion of land having a frontage of AND 441 1,293 feet on the south side of Oraagewood Avenue. and having a frontage of 640 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevazd, said property being divided into Parcel '°A°0 and Parcel "B", and f~ar~ther descxi'~ed as follows: PARCBL "A" being a rectangular parcel and hssving frontages of 640 feet on the ~a3t side of Harbor Boulevard and 255 feet on the south side of Orangewood A~^:sue; PARCBL "B" being easterly and adjacnet to Parcel "A" and covering the -remainder A£ the previously desc:ibed property. Property presenfly classafied as R A, RESIDBN3'IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZIiNB. RHQUB3TEll CIASSIFICATION: RHQUH$TED CQNDITIOK4T. USB: N0. 440 RHQUBST_RD CONDITIONAL U3H: N0. 441 PARCffi, ••A•• TO C-1, NEIGHBOdtH00D CQ~C7AL, ZONH, AND pAR,CBL "B" TO R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDHNT7AL, ZONH, BSTABLISH A ON$ AND TWO STORY MULTIPLB PAMILY PLANNED RBSIDRNT7AL DBVBLOPMBNT WI~i CARPORTS ON PARCEL "B" - W.qI~ OP THB POLL(7WING: 150 POOT HBIGHT LIMITATION; MINIMUM SPACB BBTWBHN SIRUCTURHS; RBQUIRBD PRONT YARD; RHQUIRBD DIS3'ANCB BB'iINHHN MAIN BUILDINGS AND ACCBSSCitY BUILBINGS; ~ ~~~ ~QUIRBhiBNT TQ PffitMIT TH3 CONSTRUCTION OP CARPORTS. (1) BSTR$'L'iSH A M01BL ddV PARCHI. "A" (2) BSTABLISH A FUUR-STORY QPFICE BUILDING ON PARCBL "A•'; WAIVBR OP THB 1W0 AND ON8-HAL~' (2~) STC)RY HBIGH'x LIMITATION. -- -+---- -- -- - ---- - _,__. ~ , . ~'"~------ . . ~ ~ `~ MINUTBS~ CITY YLANNING COMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued: 1700 RHCLAS3IPICATION - Mr. Richard Guthery, representing the agent for the petitioner, N0. 62-63-i31 appaared before the Commission and reviewed the changes requested by the Commission together with colored renderings of the proposed CONDITIONAL USB deve.iopment. P~tMIT N0. 440 AND 441 Mr. Charles Nichols, 2165 South Madrid Street, appeared before the (Continued) Commission in opposition to subjec, petition and stated that he would reiterate the opposition of a11 ttie single family property owners adjacent to the proposed development at the previous hearing, that 133 persons had signed a petition opposing the multiple family development being proposed in an area which could be developed for single family subdivision, that it had been the policy of the Commission in their consideration of previous petitions for multiple family developmen# being requested south of Orangewood Avenue to state ths: the line of R-3 development should be kept at the north side of Orangewood Avenue, that for the benefit and protection of the sangle family property ~•~mers the Commission should consider their past thinking, since there had been no change in the development on the south si3e of Orangewood Avenue for the Commission to alter their past thinkir.b, that the proposed development would add at least an additional 216 cars to the traffic situatian at the intersection of Orangewood and Harbor, and that it was his urgent desire to request that the Commission disapprove aeibject petition. In rebuttal, Mr, Guthery stated that tzaffic from the proposed multiple family development would not affect the residential s•treets since it would contain three cul-de-sac streets having their outlet to Orar.gewood Avenue and would in no way enter the subdivision surrounding subject property, that Qrangewood Avenue would be widened to provide better access for any traffic using the street, that the proposed density was considerably lower than the average multiple family development to the east and on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, that sufficient recreational facilities were being provided so that other park areas presentiy used by the single family dwellers would not be used, and that the crowded school situation was somethiag that could not be resolved even if it was contained within an industrial area, THH I~IDARING WAS CL0.SBD. The Commission determi.ned that the revised plans were so developed as only to require a waiver of the required f••ent yard setback, since the petitioner proposed a varied setback, that a six (6) f~o# r~asonry wall was being proposed between the commercial development and the multiiple family development, and it was the desire of the Commission to have the wall stepped down at the accessways to 42 inches, that the purpose of the wall was to protect the residential area from having lights flashiag at night, t.hat in the interest of traffic safety, the Interdepartmental Committee had recommended that the sixty ~6U) foot dedicated streets only have access to Orangwood Avenue, rather than also having access directly to Harbor Boulevard,andtiuta sidewalk would not be ' necessary on the easterly boundary of Parcel "A", and in lieu of this, the petitioner should develop this area with a solid area of landscaping. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 858, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to reco~end to the City Counci.l that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-131 be approved, subject to conditions, and based on the fact that multiple family development existed to the east, residential agricultural zoning existed to the north and south, the northerly portion would most likely be reclassified as multiple family residential zoning, an3 the proposed develop- ment proposed a low medium density coverage and provided ample recreation areas, and that the 60 foot streets proposed would have no access to the single family residential deveiopmenk to the east and southeast. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSI01~ffiRS. Alired, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOBS: COMMISSIONffit3: None. ABSSNT: COMMISSIONIDtS: Camp, Chavos. . "_^ ----~ ^~.~_ _~__ . .._ _ _ ~ ~ ~ MIHUTSS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued: i~o1 RHCIASSIPICATION - Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 859, Series 1963-64, and N0. 62-63-131 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No. 440, subject to CONDITIONAL USE conditions. (See Resolution Rook.) PSRMIT N0. 440 AND 441 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following (Continued) vote: AYBS: CONIMISSIONBR3: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOBS: COhAlI3SIONffitS: None. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 860, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconed by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Coaditional Use Permit No. 441, subject to the elimination of the sidewalk on the easterly property line of Parcel "A", the substitution of landscaping where said sidewalk was proposed, the stepping down of the proposed six (6) foot masonry wall at all accessways to 42 inches to provide adequate sight of the on coming traffic, andthe elimina~±un o£ the proposed northerly a~cessway from the commercia~ development to Orangewood Avenue, together with other conditions. (5ee Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COI~A~II3SIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOffi: COhAlISSIONffitS: None. ABSBNT: COhAfISSI0NER5: Camp, Chavos. VARIANCB N0. 1594 - CONTINUBD P[SI,IC HBARING. CIARHNCB W, and IDALBA R. BAQCUS, 537 Sherwood Drive, Anaheim, California, Owness; PRSD C. IANB, 710 South Raitt, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVB (1) THB RBQUIRHD SIDB YARD, ~2) RHQUIRBD BUILDING SHPARATION, AND (3) THH MINIMUM LIVP.BLB PLOOR ARBA, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OP AN ADDITIONAL DWBLLING UNIT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 40 feet on the west side of Melrose Street and a depth of 140 feet, the southerly boundary of said oroperty being 160 fee,t north of the centerline ofSanta Ana Street, and further described as 417 South Metrose Street. Property presently classified as R~3, MULTIPLS PMfILY RHSIDSNTIAL, ZONB. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 22, 1963, in ord~r that the petitioner might consult with th: Planning Department and to submit revised plans. Mrs. Idalea Backus, one qf the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the suggestions made by the Plaaning Department, and stated that, in hes opinion, all differences had been resolved, Assistant '?lanner Robert Mickelson stated that the Interdepartmental Committee agrees that everything but the request of the minimum livable floor area could be resolved, but that no revised plans had been submitted, and that the Commission shouid consider only the waiver of the minimum livable floor area of 1225 square feet. The Cocomission noted that the uraiver could be accomplished by connecting the existing structure with the proposed stzucture, that the exiating structure might be removed at a future date, and if this were done some hardship might later be claimed, and that ail othe= Code requirements should be met, together with any future development plans bcing approved by Development Review. No other opposition was present. TFffi HBARING WAS CLOSHD. I .I i . i I ~ a ~ ,-----~- ----------- .~ , --____ - __ _ ~ e~--- _-.-:,-. ~ .__. VARIANCB N0. 1594 - Cmaurtissioner Ailred offered Resolution No. 861, 3eries :963-64, (Continued) ahd moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Com,nissioner Perry, to approve the waiver of Code: Section 18.80.080, minimum ~ivable floor area of 1225 sauare feet; and to deny reauest for waiver of Code: Section 18.28.010 (3) minimum of 15 feet between one family dweilings on the same lot, and Section 18.32.080 (2) which requires a 7~ foot side yard, because by relocating the structure, the minimum of 15 feet required between dwellings would be unnecessary, and the side yard setback cou~d be resolved when revised plans were submitted for Develop~ent Review. (Se~e Resolution Book.) Commissioner Rowland qualified his vote of requested variance was unnecessary. RBCLAS3IFICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. BUGENIB CURRIH, 1727 West Catalpa M0. 63-64-13 Avenue, Aeaheim, California, Owner; JOHN D, VON DBR HRIDB, 924 North Huclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; ~roperty VARIANCE NU. 1595 described as: A rectangular parcel of iand with a frontage of 138 feet on the west side of Huclid Street and a depth of 327 feet, the northerly bonndary of ssid property being approximately 250 feet south of the centerline of Catherine Drive, and further described as 835 and 839 North Huclid Street. Property presently classified as R~A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and R43, MULTIPLB FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONHS, Sub.lect petitions were continued from the meeting of Juiy 22, 1963, to aJ.low the petitioner time to submit revised ~+lans increasing the setback, and providing additional parking area. Mr. John D. Von der Heide, agent for the petitioner, appeared before thE Commission and stated that he represented the petitioner in the capacity of a property owner, and that any development of subje~t property would be handled by the representative of the prospective purchasers. Mr. Robert Payne, one of the owners of the furniture store proposing to develop ancl purchase sub,~ect property, appreared before the Commission and stated that the architect had increased the setback to 30 feet from the :ront property line, and further would answer any guestions the Commission might have, The Commission inquiced whether the fusniture company had attempted to purchase property to the rear which was zoned for multiple family development~ but had only been partially developed, and that if this were accomplished, all det~iations from the Code would be eliminated. Mr. Payne replied that the parcel was owned by the petitioner's son who had no desire to sell, and that he had even attempted to purchase a portioi: of the property to the south in order to remove an unsightly structure for utilization as parking $pace, but had also been unsuccessful. The Commission reviewed the pians noting that the setback was sti11 20 feet short of required setback, that the petitioner proposed a waiver of 8096 of the parking space requirement, that if favorable consideration were given to the proposed setback, the Commission would be creating a situation detrimental to the commercial development presently existing to the north, and that a parking problem would be created similar that experienced by downtown merchants if the requested waiver of almost 80% were approved. .+ ! 1 : i ~ i ~ ~ .• ~ MINUTES, CITY P7ANNING COMMISSION, August 5, 1963~ Continued: 1703 RBCLASSIFICATTON - Mr. A. M. Shinn, representing the Buclid Management Properties N0. 63-64-13 adjacent t.o subject property, appeared in opposition to subject petition, requesting that *.he Commission require subject property VI#RIANCB N0. 1545 :a setbac& according to Code, that the property to the north is (Continued) set back 60 feet, and if the proposed 30 feet were granted, t~.is would be detrimental to the properties he represented, that the parking waiver should not be permitted, because they have four,d that more and more parking zs being required rather than less, that to determine that a furniture store requires less parking thaa other neighborhood commercial stores, does not guarantee providing ample parking in the event the furniture store vacates for another commerciai project, that granting these waivers would be granting something w:ich was not afforded the commercial developments along the Euclid Avenue frontage from Crescent to La Palma Avenues, and that although they welcomed another commercial development adjacent to their property, they weie unalterably opposed to waiver of aay of the Code requirements for subject property. ~ Mx. Richard Blair, engineer for the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and stated that a complete study had been made of other commercial developments in adjoining cities, that the required 160 parking spaces were completely unrealistic to the actual requirements, that the type of clientyS. of a furniture store would not be the same as any other commercial development, and that upon completion of their study, the proposed parking spaces represented more than the average as noted in their study, Further discussion between the Coeuaission and the representatives of the furniture store relative to the required aad the proposed setback of the structure and incseasing the parking spaces, with the Commission suggesting {hat additional parking could be provided in the front setback when the structure was setback aa additional 20 feet, that the structure might be redesigned to be reduced by approximately 1000 square feet. Mr. Von der Heide stated that the variance would only apply to the proposed development, and could be changed if the property was occupied by other than the furniture store, The Commission replied that after the property was developed this would be rather difficult to reqsire any future tenant to meet Code req~irements, and he then could claim a hardship because land would not be available. The Commission discussed the possibility of asking the Planning Department to make a study of the required parking standards for a furniture store, when not adjacent to a comtnercial development or when integrated as part of a commercial development, in order• that a more realistic picture may be made to determine the parking sequirements, THH HBARING lNA3 CL03BD, Discussion was held by the Commission relative to a change in parking raquirements, if the proposed study indicated that the present Code requirements were coxtsiderabiy higher than the average, and that the petitioner should incorporate suggestions reiative to development of the proposed structure with the required 50 foot setback, in order that adjoining commercial properties might not be detrimental.ly affected by the proposed ~ 30 foot setback. The architect for the proposed structure then agreed to submit revised plans in which he would try to incorporate the required setback stipulated by the Commission, and to determine whether additional parking facilities could be incorporated. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-13 and Variance No. 1595 to the meetiAg of September ~1, 1963, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans increasing the setback as required and provide additional parkin~ spaces, and for the Platuting Department to make ~ survey of the requirements for the proposed develepment. It was further suggested that the architect consult with the Planning Department relative to problems involved in subject petition, Gommissioner Szdes seconded the motion, MOTION Cr1RRIgD. MINUTE3, CITY PLAPL~ING COi~4~fISSION, August 5, 196?~, Continued: ~704 DIRECTIt'B TO ~ Commissioner Rowiand offered a motion to direct the Planning Department THB PLADINING to make a study of similar furniture store parking facilities in cities DBPARTMBNT of compasable size as Anaheim bo determine whether the Code requirements for park?ng facilities in the neighborhood commercial zone shonld be considered for amendment, said report to be submitted for the Commission's consideration in coanection with Petition for Reelassification No. 63-64-13 at the meeting of September 4, 1963. Commissioner Sides secoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RBCLASSIPICATIUN - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. FRANg BL9NDffit~ 2764 West Ball Road, N0. 63-64-16 WILL DHB PICRBRSL, 2752 West Ball Road; Anaheim, California, Owners; ROBBRT L. WURGAPT arid WILLIAM L. RBHVSS, 280 North Wilshire, CONDITIONAL USB Suite 108, Anaheim, California, Agents; property described as: P~tMET N0. 458 An L-shaped portion of land having a frontage of 198 feet on the south side of Ball Roan, aad an a~erage depth of 630 feet, the westerJ.y boundary of said property being approximately 350 feet east of the centerline of Dale Street, and further described as 2764 Weat B211 Road. property presently classified as R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. RSQUBSTED CIASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTI~PLH PAMILY RBSIDHNT7AL~ ZONB. RHQUBSTBD C~IDITIONAL USB: CONS~RUCT A ONR AND 1W0 STORy Mt~Tgpr_R AAMT~v prAt~n RBSIDdNT.T.AL DBVELOPMBNT ttiITH CARP~tTS - WAIVB TH8 ONB S1Y~RY :iSIGHT LIMITATION. Sub,ject petitions were ec,ntianed from the mee'~ing of July 22, 1963, in order that the petitioner might submit reviaed plans which elimiaated violations of Code xequirementa. Mr. Rober~ Wurgaft, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion aad atated that xevised plaas had been submitted, and thax the proposed development would no~ be sold as individual apartments, but would be retained by the owners. The Commisaion reviewed the revised pians comparing them with the originai plana submitteA, and coamented on ail the planniag Department markings on the reviaed plan which indicated additional Code deviations. No other upposition was preaented, THB HBARING WA3 ~LOSSD. 1he Commisaion determined that the "Not a Pazt" wae being retained by the ownera, that the petitioner was requeated to reviae plana becauae of inadequate cireulstion, traah pickap would be on the atreeta, that the reviaed plen waa no imprn/emeat oves the origiaal ~len aubmitted but was, in fact, eubataaderd. Mr. Wurgaft stated that the Blanning Dapartmen'c had advieed thst they agreed with all changes madL nn the rt•~iaed plea, to which Mr. Mickelaon atsted thet the Planning 8teff did not agree~ that the Staff avoided dictatiug the maaner of deeign~ aad that the oniy recommendatioas which wese made was intexpretationa of the Commiaeion'e deairee at the time the petitioa was referred back for reviaed plaae. Diac~saion was held by the Coauc.asioa ae to the requirements for a staadard R-3 develop- msnt noting that streeta ahouid be 60 feet wide, that the pxopoaed development indicated r, 480 foot long by 28 foot wide ailey with ao circuiatio~ for trashtruck pietup~ ihat all trash areas wer2 iaacceeaible to traeh truck pickup, and that the Commiaeion could not conaider aub,~ect petitions in~ light of the fact that K aumber of Code daviatioaa were propoaed and no waiver had been reqqeated. ~ Ia repiy to the agent's queation reiative to the,meaning of adequate eirculation~ the Commieaion stated thst circulatioa did not mesa s oae-way ~treet, but a meena of adequate accesa to the property with difficulty by fire equipment ead tzaeh trueke~ that the propoaed developmeat.was a aubatandard muitiple fsmily developmettt, that the 60 foot street waa not the Staff's cequirement bat represented the requiremente aet up by the Commisaioa, y . . . .~t.'-.___.~_____._ ...__.. . ~~_ . ...__.__ ~~r .. . ...... ~ ~ . . .. ' . . . . . ~-...~~.~..~ . ...~.... ... ..~. . . ~` ~ _~ MINUTS3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued; 1705 RBCIASSIPTCATION - The agent stated that if a 60 foot street were required for N0. 63-64-16 dedication, the proposed property w~uld be too narrow for adequate development in accordance with other Code Requirements, and that one CONDITIONAL USB loan was being obtained for the entire parcel, which would be P3Ahi-ii 'ri0. 458 required 4o have adequase buildable area for approval oi the loan. (Continued) The Commission advised the agent to consult with the Planning Department, and to incorporate ali the suggestions made by the Commission to the original plan, together with the Planning Department interpretation of Ccde requirement. Mr. Wiiliam Reeves, designer of the proposed project, appeared befoxe the Commission and stated that he had also designed the multiple family development in Buena Park similar to that being proposed, that a member of the Planning Staff had advised him that the original plan submitted with circulation would be used as a race track, and when he had redesigned the plans he had taken this into consideration, but the relocation of the cw.rports. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-16 and Conditional Use Permit No, 458 to the meeting of P.ugust 19, 1963, in order that the petitioner might revise plot plans incorporating adequate trash truck pickup, 60 foot wide streets and adequate circulation. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USH - FRITZ GOOS3HN3, THB RBVBRE HOUSS, Pirst Street and Tusi :+ Avenue, PffitMIT N0. 459 Tustin,California, Owner; CE~tYSLHR MOTORS CORPORATION, c/o McCUTCHBN, SIAIX, HARNAGHL and SHBA, 615 South Plower Street, Los Angeles 17, California, Agents; requesting permission to HSTABL3SH AN AUTOMOBILB AND 1RUCK OVffiZHAULING, PAINTING MHCHANICAL BODY AND FBNDHR RBPAIR on property described as: A landlocked parcel of land approximately 70 feet by 212 feet, the westerly boundary of said land being approximately 3~0 feet east of the centeriine of Los Angeles Street, and the northerly boundary being approximately 200 feet south of the eenterline of Clifton Avenue. Property presently classified as M-1, LIQiT INDUSTRIAL, 20N8. Mr. John Leary, agent fc:• the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed use was for an additiou to ~he existing dealership facilities located in the D1-1 2one on Los Angeles Street, just north of Ball Road. The Commission ascertained that the paint shop would remairi in the existing structure, that the body shop wouid be located in the new structure, and that a six (6) foot masonry xrall was proposed for the south and east boundaries of subject property, which would minimize any excessive noises emanating from the body shop, said shop to be enclosed on three sides. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THB HBARING WAS CL03ED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 862, 3eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Yermit No. 459, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) The Commission then held a lengthy discussion, initiated by Commissioner Sides, regarding the necessity of body shop work being confined within an entirely enclosed structure. Commissioner Sides expressed concern for the petitioner, who should be protected, in the event that property to the soufih was projected for multiple family residential development, that a doorway be provided which could convert the body shop with the addition of a door into an enclosed structure, in the event that surrounding business or residential tenants register their compiaints to excess noises emanating from the body shop, and that at the time the door was installed, uir-conditioning would be required for said structure. On roll call the foregoing ~esolutior, was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONBR3: Alired, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOH3: CaMhlISSIONffitS: None. AB3BNT: COAIMIS3IONBR3: Camp, Chuvos. ! J _ _. ____ -- _ _ _ _ __ ~ ~ . ~~ _ - --- ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, August S, 1963, Continued: 1706 RBCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. A, M. RODRIQUSZ, 334 Bast Juliar,na, Anaheim, N0. 63-64-18 California, Owner; MASON BNTERPRISBS, INC., 2500 West Osangethorpe Avenue, Fuilerton, California; Agent; ¢ronerty described as: VARIANGB NO. 1591 An L-shaped portion of land having a frontage of 60 feet on the east side of West Street and a depth of 343 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 541 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, and R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONHS. RBQU&STBD CIASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLH FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONH. RHQUHSTBD VARIANCB: WAIVB ONE-STORY HBIGHT LIMITATION AND WAIVB GARAGH RBQUIRBMffiVTS TO PBRMIT CONSTRUCTION OF CARPOit15. Mr. Lewi~ Sinor, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development noting that an easement was recorded permitting access rights to the property now being incorporated for development, and that an existing structure was being removed to permit the proposed development of subject property. In answer to Commission inquiry, the agent stated that the existing driveway would become a common dziveway to be used by the property owners to the north as weli as the residents of the proposed development, and that trash pickup along West Street was curbside for all existing R-3, as well as, singie family residences. Commissioner Pebley ieft the Council Chamber at 4:17 P.M. Rssis#~nti planner Robert Mickelson informed the Commission that the proposed coverage was less than the permitted coverage in the R-3 Code, which permitted 60°~ coverage. In response to Commission inquiry, Mr, Mickelson advised the Commission that the property to the east and south ww ld not be landlocked because the deep lots did have access to La Palma Avenue. The Commission discussed the possible development of existing deep lots adjacent to subject property~ that although property to the north was still zoned for residential agricultural use, there was a pending reclassification for multiple family development for the northerly parcel extending to the irrigation facilities, and that subject property was being developed in accordance with the Commission°s proposal on the General Plan. Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 4:25 P. M. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THS HBARING WAS CL0.SBD. Upon the agent for the petitioner~s statement that the existing easement would be utilized by the proposed development, and upon a brief check of the existing easement, Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts stated that he would have to make an investigation of this easement before he could determine the legality of it, since there might be some underlying factors in the deed restrictions to consider, and that if the easement was granted for property abutting to the east, the proposed masonry wall could not be constructed as indicated. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No, 63-64~-18 and Variance No. 1591 to the meeting of Auguet 19, 1963, to allow the City Attorney~s office time to investigate the existing easement on the northerly boundary of subject property, Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CA1t1tIHD. ,. ~ ~ ~ `~ MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING C(Y~4~iISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued: 1707 RBCSSS - Commissioner Allred moved for a ten minute recess at 4:33 P.M., Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. RHCONVHNB - Chairman Mungall reconvened trie meeting at 4:43 P,M., all Commissioners being present, except Commissioners Camp and Chavos. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HHARING. JBSSIE L. GOODMAN, 716 Webster Avenue, Anaheim, PBRMIT N0. 460 California, Owner; requesting permission for TBMPORqRy USE OF THH BXISTING BiTILDING AS A QiURCH on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 119 feet on the east side of Webster Avenue and a depth of 270 fQet, the northern boundary of said property being approximateiy 1070 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 716} Webster Avenue. Property presently classified as R A, RHSIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH. Mrs. Jessie Goodman, the owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that she proposed to lease the subject property to be used as temporary facilities for church purposes, that the cost of the proposed condition of blacktopping the parking area would be consideraby more than revenue obtained for leasing subject property for such a short time, and that upon the growth of the church membership the existing structure would not be used but a new structure would then be bui~t. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TFffi HHARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission indicated their desire to place a time limitation for the use of subject property and expressed concera that if the parking area was not blacktopped complaintc might be received because of the dust, and that it shpisld be required that in the event this did occur, that the petitioner be required to use chemicals or oil to reduce the dust factor, to which the petitioner agreed that this would be done. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 863, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use permit No. 460, for a period of one year, with the stipulation that if complaints were received relative to the dust factor that the petitioner agreed to use chemicals or oil to minimize the du~t factor, (See Resolution Book.) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowing vote: AYHS: COhA1ISSI0NHRS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pehiey, Perry, Rowland, Sides, NOBS: CQMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSI01~ffiRS: Camp, Chavos. PUBLIC HBA&ING. CONDITIONAL USE - MARJORIB L. HAMM, 645 South Magnolia Street, Anaheim, Calif.ornia, PBRMIT N0. 461 Owner; WILLIAM L. and ANNA M. WBL(~i, 12152 Haga Street, Garden Grove, California, Agents; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A BQARDING HOUSB FQR TH8 AGSD on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 238 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, and an average depth of 2i5 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 212 feet south of the centerline of Westhaven Drive, and further described as 645 South Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified as R A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH, Mrs. Anna Welch, one of the agents for the petitioner, appeared before the Comm.ission and stated that they proposed to purchase suc~ject property to convert a five bedroom 3100 square foot home into a boarding house f'oc elderly ladies. ., ~~ . ... S , :.' 1 , '~.~ . . _ . . . . .: . ~ . , . . . __. ....'"_' _.. .._...- ~.._._ ~ . ~ . . . . . ' ~ . . ~._ _` . . .'_. . ....._ ' MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued: 1708 CONDITIOIVAL USE - Mr. D. W. Roper, 716 South Kenmore Street, appeared in opposition to PBRMIT N0. 461 subject petition and stated his rear property line was adjacent to (Continued) the west of subject property, that he had purchased his property because of fhe residential ~tmosg~e*e of s~abje~* aad sbutting properties, that he was opposed to a business offering services being established in a residential area, and that this might set a pattern of development for Magnoliu Avenue south of Westhaven Drive. Mr. Morris Debrandre, 703 Soutn Magnolia Avenue, appeared in opposition to subject petition, stating that the proposed e~tablishment of a form of commercial development would be unfair to the adjoining residential properties, and that if commercial uses were approved, the use should apply to the entire frontage of Magnolia Avenue, not "spot zoning", for interspersed parcels of land. Mr. N. Schmauss, 2604 Westhaven Drive, appeared in opposition to subject petition, and stated that he owned property to the northwest of subject property, that the proposed use would be detrimental to the residential environment of the community, that although a six (6) ioot wall might separate the two properties, he would not be able to retain the privacy he presently enjoyed and anticipated complaints from the elderly persons residing in the adjacent home, and that if the Comnaission considered subject petition favorably, restrictions should be placed on subject property to prevent any buiiding expansion for additional space for elderly persons on subject propesty to protect the $50,000 homes in ihe area from further commercial encroachment. Mr. P. W. McKay, appeared in opposition to subject petition, and stated that he was the owner of four lots immediately adjacent to the west of the subject property, which he was presently in the process of constructing residences which would seil in the vicinity of $35,000 to $40,000, and fihat he had purchased his property because the area had a residential atmosphere and the injection of commercial uses would be detriAental to the residential uses for the four lots he owned. Mrs. R. H. Pardy, 2608 Westhaven Drive, appeared in oppasition, and stated that she owned property adjacent to Mr. Schmauss, that their rear yards would abut the rear of subject property, that many small children in the single family homes would create a noise factor which wouid develop into a conflict between the elderly people proposed to reside on subject property, and that it was her desire to see subject property remain for residential use only. Mr. L. Horacefield, 2611 Westhaven Drive, stated he wished to indicate his presence and his opposition to subject petition, and that previous testimony basically zepresented his sentiments relaiive to the subject petition, Mrs. Welch, in rebuttal, stated that she piesently operated a similar boarding house in Garden Grove with five elderly patients, and tha~ she had never had any complaints relative to noises by children or adults at any time. TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSBD. In the Commission's discussion of subject petition, it was determined thet the agent ~ had in her possession a license for the operation of the proposed boarding house, that ; some of the residents would lpe on State aid, that all would be ambulatory, and that any ~ future expansion wouid incorporate the redevelopment of the existing garages into two ~ bedrooms for possible expansion to ten patients. , Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 864, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Rowland, that Petition for Conditional Use Fermit No. 461 be denied, based on the fact that the proposed use would inject a commercial development in a residential area, and might predetermine development of the residential agricultural zoned property in close proximity to subject property, and was not based on the fact that the proposed use was for an old age home. .^_________ /~ ~. . _ .._.. -----~------ ---- ' --- ~--~-: , ~.~ . . __ _. ~ ~ • ~ a MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued: 1709 CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Welch stated that he and his wife were proposing to provide a PffitMIT N0. 461 needed ho~e for elderly ladies who would not create trouble for the (Continued) neighbors, and no parking problem would arise. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYSS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOS3: COtiAtISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: C~AtISSI0IVBRS: Camp, Chavos. CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. JOHN D. ARDIAZ, et ux, 1008 North Highland Avenue, PHRIAIT N0. 462 Fullerton, California, Owners; RICHFIffiD OII, CORPORATION, 645 South Mariposa Avenue, Los Angeles 5, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT STBBL CANOPIES OVHR THH EXISTING PUMP ISIANDS on property described as: A square parcel of land having a frontage of 135 feet on the east side of Huclid Street and a frontage of 135 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1780 South Huclid Street. Property presently classified as G1, NBIGHB~RHOOD COMMSRC7AL, ZONB. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THS HBARING WAS CLQSHD. The Commission discussed the possibility of considering subject petition without a representative for the petitioner, and then decided that there might be questions to ask the agent for the petitioner before any consideration should be made, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 462 to the meeting of September 4, 1963, ~nd directed the Commission Secretary to advise both the petitioner and his representative to appear at the conti.nued hearing. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. ALBHRT IANB PEQiTHR, 16411 Heim Avenue, Route No. 2, PBRMir N0, 463 Orange, California, Owner; RICHFIHLD OIL CORPMATION, 645 South Mariposa Avenue, Los Angeles 5, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT ST88L CANOPIBS OVER THB EXISTING PUMP ISIANDS on property described as; A square parcel of land having a frontage of 132 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and a frantage of 132 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2604 West La Paima Avenue. property presently classifie3 as C-1, NHIGHBQRHOOD CoMMffitCIAL, ZONB. - No one appeared to represent the petitionez. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THB HBARING WAS CLU3HD. The Commission expressed a desire to continue subject petition in order that a representative might be present to answer questions. Commicsioner Allred offered a mot on to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 463 to the meeting of September 4, 196?, and directed the Commission Secretary to advise both the petitioner and his representative to appear at the continued hearing. Commissioner Sides second~d the motion. MOTION CARRIEII, `~ ~ MINUTBB~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued; 1710 CONDITIONAI. USH - PUBLIC HBARING. TITLB INSURANCB AND TRUST COMPANY, 7711 Heach Boule- PHRMIT N0. 464 vard, Buena Park, California, Owner; HHRBffitT N. BAIR, 12550 Brook- hursi Streei, Garden Grove, t;:.liiornia, Agent; requesting permission to CONS7RUCT A 21 BY 24 FOOT DIRHCTIONAL SIGN FACING BBACH BOULHVARD on property described as: A rectangular shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 441 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard and an average depth of 302 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being appxoximately 750 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Aveaue. Property presently classified as C-1, NHIGHBORHOOD COhMffitCIAL, Z01~ffi. Mr. Richard Parr, representing the Movieland Wax Museum, who will be erecting and ' advertising their wuseum on the proposed sign, appeared before the Commission and stated that the directional sign was proposed to dir2ct prospective visitors to the museum, and that the sign would also be beneficial to the City of Anaheim with visitozs using the motel facilities of the City, i No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. 1NH HBARING WAS CLOSHD. ; The Commission discussed the fact that a recent petition for signs had been denied by ~ the ~OlAAS9310R ~~C~lSS~ :::.^ ^ySCE.Cu6u ou:2i~152uaciai. wGui4' iiai. `uc' i.li0 ~YOuUCL OI LR@ OWller~ that the Commission was still awaiti.ng the proposed sign ordinance being written by the City Attorney~s office, that the City Council had delayed coneideration of certain signs 1 for this same reason of wanting some form of regulation by which to make a decision, and ' inquired of Deputy City qttorney Furman Roberts the progress being made in formulating the sign ordinance. Mr. Roberts replied that some progress had been made, but that the ordinance was not yet ready to be presented to the City Council, a The Commission further m ted that three other signs had been posted in the City illegally, and inquired of ~the agent their reason for erecting these signs without propei authorization from the City. Mr. Farr replied that arrangements had been made to remove the illegally erected signs, and that he could not answer for the reason for their erection, because this had been handled by an employee no longer with the museum. The Commission asked that the City Attorney's offi;:e investigate the legality of the other three signs before any decision would be rendered on the proposed petition. Commissionez Perry offered a motion to approve subject petition based on the fact that ~e proposed sign differed from the previous sign request considered by the Commission, because the previous siQr request was proposed for an area already overcrowded with signs, and that a time. limitation for the proposed use of two years should be made. The motion lost `or w.int of a second. Commissioner Pebl~:y ofiered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Conditional Use Pe:mit -10. 464 to the meeting of September 4, 1963, in order that the • City Attorney's offs~e might investigate the legality of the existing three signs advertising the museum, and the possible disposition of said signs~ and that the petitioner should consult with the City Attorney's office reiative to the disposition of these existing signs. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. RBCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. NICHOIAS J. DOVALIS, 9281 Hazriet Lane, Anaheim, N0. 63-64-19 California, Owner; CHARLES J. HINCKLBY, 1921 Lodi Place, Anaheim, Califo~nia, Agent; property described as: A rectangular parcel of VARIANC8.N0. 1596 land havin~ a frontage of 185 feet on the west side of Western ' Avenue and a depth of 289 feet, the southern boundary of sa3d property being approximately 175 feet north of the centeriine of Lincoln Aeenne. Property presen#ly described as R A, RBSIDSNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, 20~1B. RfiQUBSTBD CIASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONH. REQUBST$b VARIANCB: WAIVffit OF THB ONB-STORY HHIGHT LIMITATION AND GARAGg RBQUIRBMHNT Ta PBRMIT 1HB CONSIRUCTION OP Ca4RpOltTS AND 1W0-STORY APAR7MHNT BUILDING. -~-----._..__ ~_-----.-.-__ ______~ _..____.__.--_..._~ _,. _ : ,. ~.. ,, ~ , . ~--- - -- -...-- . _ _- ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNENG COMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continned; t%:'. RHCIASSIFICATION - Mr. Charles Hinckley, age~it for the petitioner, appeared 'c~in,:c~ r.;,~; N0. 63-64-19 Commission and reviewed the proposed development, that he h:rt ir,cr,~, advisad by +_he P2aaaiag Deps-trser.: .'.:at .hc praposed de;;elc~re:.t VARIANCS N0. 1596 was located in an area primarily developel for single family (Continued) residential use, that the proposed two-story construction would be approximately 123 feet westerly from a single family residence, and to avoid any opposition relative to the invasion of privacy, windows were eliminated on the easterly frontage of the second story, that the proposed carports would be located on the westerly boundary of subject property, and further exhibited photographs of sin~ilar developments which the proposed developer had constructed. The Commission review~~d the plot plans noting that the trash areas would be inaccessible to trash trucks because of an inadequate turn around area, that the Lincoln Avenue frontage of a former part ~f the original property was not included which would create an R A parcel of less than an acre, which would be in violation of Code requirements, and inquired of the agent why the Lincoln Avenue parcel had not been included for reclassification with subject property. Mr. Hinckley stated that no precise plans for commercial development were available, and because this was a requirement of the Commission, the parcel was eliminated in the subject petition. Mr. David Maddox, engineer :or the developer, stated that additional parking spaces being provided can be eliminated, and then the turning radius at the southwest corner of the parcei could be located there, and further indicated to the Commission the area for sazd turning radius. Assistant Planner Robert Mickelsoa advised the Commission that subject development qualified as to density in the R-3 Code requirements that there was some qqestion as to whether this development was a planned unit development or a planned residential development, and that basically the proposed development was one large lot with one building on it, A letter of opposition was read from the Centralia School District. Mr. and Mrs. V. W. Wallace, 3180 West Polk Avenue appeared before the Commission, and asked if the plans could be reviewed by them, and were invited to the podium, after reviewing the plaas they stated they were in favor of the proposed deveJ.opment although two story construction was proposed within 150 feet of their property, and noted that the proposed development would be an improvement to the existing vacant property upon which all types of refuse was dumped. THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. `, ~ ~ t a The Commission discussed the requiremant that the petitioner =pply for neighborhood commercial zoning for the Lincoln Avenue frontage of the "Not A Pazt" i~; nzdet to eliminate any Code violation reiative to permitting a parcel of less than an acre remaining~as R-A. " Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that a condition could be attached to require the petitioner to initiate procfedings for C-1 zoning on the less than an acre parcel prior to the City Council public hearing of subject petitions, or prior to the reading of the ordinance reclassifying subject p:operty, but that plans, as required by the Commission, be part of the proceedings for the commercial rezoning. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 865, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-19 be approved based on the facts that no opposition was received from the single family residents to the east, and that the property owner primarily affected by the encroachment to within 123 feet of the single family residence appeared in favor of subject reclassification, and subject to the petitioner initiating reclassification proceedings for the "Not A Part" prior to the public hearing of subject petition before the City Council. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol2owing vate: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. ! NOES: COh9v1ISSI0NER3: None. i ABSHNT: COMMISSIONSRS: Camp, Chavos. ~ _ .. _. -r-----..____.--____ ---------- ._.. ----~----...__ _-- --- -~ ~ _ _ _ ... --- _--- ,• ~ ~ ~~ ~t ~ r ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued; 1712 C I RHCIASSIPICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 866, Series 1963-64, N0. 63-64-19 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner j Sides, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1596, based on the E VARIANC~ NO_ 1506 fact t!:at r.e oggcsitiaa R~as r~c~~;rz~ ta the reque34ed waiver oi ~ (Continued) the one story height limitation from the single family residents primarily affected by the two story construction and cond~tions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COMAtISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOH3: CONAlISSIONFRS: None. AHSBNT: COMMISSIONER3: Camp, Chavos. Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5:50 P.M. RHCIASSIPICATION - YUBLIC HSARING. RAB 04RHS, 748 Diamond, Newport Beach, California, N0. 63-64-20 Owner; ARTHUR KOVACK, 1442 South Huclid Street, Pullerton, ~virvlT:~iini uSn Cai?fornia, Agent; property described as: An irregular parcel of PERMIT N0. 465 land located at the northeast corner of the intersection of the Newport and kiverside Freeways, and having a frontage of approximately 988 feet adjacent to the Newport Freeway off-ramp, said property covers approximately 14 acres of land. Property presently classified as R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONS, RHQUBST$D CLASSIFICATION; R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDHNTLIL, ZONB. RHQUH3TBD CQNDITIONAL USB: HSTABLISH A SINGLB STORY MULTIPLS FAMILY PIANNED RBSIDHNTIAL DBVHLOPMBNT WITH CARPOHtTS. Mr. Arthur gov~.ck, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he would appreciate an additional two weeks in xhich to effect a better street layout. Commissioner Rewland offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification rlo. 63-64-20 and Conditional Use Permit No. 465 to the meeting of August 19, 1963, as requested by the sgent for the petitioner in order that revised street plans may be submitted along with the original petition. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD, Ah18NDMBNT T~ - AMHNDMHNT TO TITLB 18, deletion of Section 18.64.020 (3-t), TITLE 18 "Trailer Parks", and the addition of Section 18.64.020 (2-d), PUBLIC HHARING "Trailer Parks". Initiated by the Anaheim Planning Commission, 204 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Deputy City Attoraey Furman Roberts reviewed for the Commission fhe proposed deletion of "Trailer Parks" from one section of the Code and its addition to the second section, noting that the proposed change would facilitate the orderly administration of Title 18,Zoning Code by the City, in that trailer parks were permitted in the R-3 Code section. No one appeared in opposition to subject Code amendment. Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 867, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Title 18, Section 18.64.020 (3-t) "Trailer parks" be deleted, and that the addition of Section 18,64.020 (2-d) "Trailer Parks" be made to place the terminology in its proper catagory, ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tne following vote: A~tBS: COMMISSIOI~RS: Allred, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NQB3: COhAtI3SI01~RS: None, ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer. _..- __ -- -'~" ___ _..__ . _ _..._____.------ : MINUTH3, CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION, August 5,'19b3, Continued: 171 RSPCitTS AND - ITSM N0. 1 RBCO~M4HNDATIONS RHCIRSSIPICATION N0. 62-63-113 and CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0. 423, 3~Y±R~T?' H. ?nd ffiMA M, MILLER; 220 Atlantic Avenue, P. 0. Box 731, Long Beach, California, Owners; BROOKMORB INC., 1665 South Brookhurst 3treet, P. 0. Box 2067, Anaheim, California, Agent; property located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Ball Road; proposed classification Portion "A" to C-1, Neighborhood . Commercial, Zone, and Portion "8" to R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, to construct a multiple family planned residential development, waive R-3 and C-1 height restrictions, establish a car wash, construct three-story office building, waive garages, and construct carports in lieu thereof. ~l f i i 3 i Assistant Plar„ier Robert Mickelson presented the above petitiortS to the Commission, noting that the Commission had approved subject petitions, that upon their being approved by the City Council and the Ordinance being prepared by the City Attorney~s office, it was noted that "Sxhibit A" attached to the Commission's resolutions was in error, and that the property had been corscectly advertised, with the correct complete legal description, but that the supplementary submission of the legal separately describing each poztion, a clerical error had been made by the engineering company. It was further suggested that the Commission, in order to rectify this error, would be required LU ~iu53 ~ir3 i26'viil`eiGilS ~1ut~.ii22i'S~ .$L' OS2p^Sft=~ =°-SC`~'=t=OII ~O 1IIG~itdC the Corrected "Bxhibit A". Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 868, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comroissioner Allred, to amend Resolution No, 767, 5eries 1962-63, recommended for approval to the City Council May 13, 1963~ to include the revised legal described as Bxhibit "A" as an actual and true description of subject property, and recommend to the City Council its adoption. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSION~?S: Allred, Mungali, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOBS: COhaIISSI0IJBRS: None. ABSBNT: CO~MIISSIONffitS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer. Coma:issioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 869, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to amend Resolution No. 768, 3eries 1962-63, granted by the Commission, May 13, 1963, to include the revised legai described as Sxhibit "A" as an actual and true description of subject property, t~ee e~esolution Book.) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYH3: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. N083: COMMISSIONBRS: None. AH3ENT: COMMI3SIONHRSSTF: Campy~ Chav~o~s, Gauer, g RHU~~~ZHD C iURi;HTOFNJHSUS$(}1RISTTOP IA1TBlt DAY SAINTS~ 827 South Walnut Street, Anaheim, California - expand an existing Church and related facilities. Assistar.t Planner Robert Mickelson reviewed subject petition, noting that a misunderstandin~; had occurred in th~ interpretation of the Commission's action, and that the architect for the petitioner requested a clarification of Condition Nos. 2 and 3 xelative to landscap?ng and the block wall. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 870, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to amend Resol~tion No. 820, Seri~es 1963-64, Condition Nos. 2 and 3, to eliminate the requirement of landscaping on the westerly property line, and that the masonry wali shali be constructed to 5~ feet in height so as to be compatible and aligned with the existing masonry wall. (See Resolution Book.) On roil cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMI3SIONBR3: Allred, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowiand, Sides. NOB3: COMMISSIONffit3: None. ABSBNT: CODMlISSIONffit3: Camp, Chavos, Gauer. 1 _ _ ._. _,___ ------_---___~.^._~_._ _ __.. .._~ ---c------- ~ ~ ~ s ~_~ /~ ~ 4` 4~ l.% ~ ~ ~ MINUTS3, CITY PLANNING CaMMISSION, August 5, 1963, Continued; 1713 't RBPORTS AND - ITBM N0. 3 RHCOMPlBNDATIONS (Continued) ORANGE COUNTY CASH NO, 695 (Sectxona.L Di~trict Mag 18-4-Z4, Bxhibit'J'~ - Reclassification of property located on the south side of Orange Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street, and just west of the Aaaheim City Limits, from the R-1, Single Family Residence District to the R-4, Suburban District. Assistant Planner Robert Mickelson presented 5ectional District Map 18-4-10, Exhibit "J" to the Commission, noting on the General Plan map its location, and reviewing the existing development adjacent to and in close proximity to subject property. Mr. Mickelson further advised the Commission the R-4 zoning in the County meant one dwelling unit per 3000 square feet. The Commission noted that the proposed General Plan projected subject property for developmeat as low density single family residential, that a church existe~i to the north of subject property, and that single family development existed to the north, south, and suuthwest, Commissioner Allrcc? offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning Commission that Case No. 695 (Sectional District Map 18-4-10, Hxl~ibit"J") be denied, based on the following findings: 1. That subject property is adjacent to single family residential development on the west and southwest, and that the n*.,~sed multiple family residential development would be incompatible to t~i~: existing development. 2. That subject property could be subQivided for a single family residential subdivision. 3. That the approval of multiple family development for subject property might set a pattern for the future xe-development of preperty to the west of subject property now zoned for single famiiy residential use, 4. That the proposed General Plan of the City of Anaheim indicated subject and adjacent property for low density residential development. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITBM N0. 4 Special request to the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Sides expressed concern about a possible Code violation in the use of an abandoned house for trailer sales purposes at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Commissioner Sides offered a motion to request that the City Attorney~s office investigate a possible Code violation in the use of an abandoned house at the conner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ADJOURNb1BNT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowiand offered a motion to adjourn the regul~= ::eeting to the evening of August I5, 1963, at 7:00 P.M., to reconvene for a work session to hear the preliminary report on the reanalysis of the Northeast Industrial Area. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIBD. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 P.M, Respectfully submitted, -(.~~~~vtJ f ANN KABB3, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission -- - ,----------.--______.___-•---_____.____,~,.. --------_r_ -- - - _ ;_~ ~ • . • ~ '