Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/11/27~~ ~ ~:~ ~.~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California November 25, 1963 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The regular meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission was scheduled, but for the lack of a quorum, the Commission Secretary recessed the meeting until 2:00 o'clock p.m., Wednesday, November 27, 1963. November 27, 1963 RECESSED REGULAR MEETING OF TE~ ANAI-1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ i ~ ~ ;: i I ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ RECESSED A Recessed Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was REGULAR MEETING - called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:05 o'clock p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Rowland, Sides. ABSENf - COMMISSIONERS: Perrye PRESEM - Zoning Coordinators Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Art Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Commissioner Gauer ga~~e the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Minutes of the meeting of November 13, 1963, were approved as submitted. CONTINUED RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. R. P. GILL,'NAN, G. T. ERICKSON, R. KAROS, AND D. W. HOOK~ N0. 63-64-57 and 1780 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, California, Ownerss property described ass A rectangular parcel of land approximately CONDITIONAL USE 232 feet by 551 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being PERMIT N0. 502 approximately 286 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street and the southerly buundary being approximately 575 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1144 North Euclid Street. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPte FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONH. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: (1) CHANGe THE USE OF AN EXISTING COMPLEX OF BUILDINGS FROM A MOTEL TO A MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; (2) WAIVH ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY; (3) WAIVE REQUIRED FRONI'AGE ON A DEDICATED STREET OR NLLEY; (4) WAIVE GARAGE REQUIREN~NT. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of Novemtier 13, 1963, to provide the Commission an additional opportunity to obtain a majority vote. Commissioner Pebley entered the Council Chamber at 2s07 p.m. Commissioner Chavos asked that the Commission re-open the hearing on subject petitions to have a brief resume' of evidence presented at the November 13, 1963, meeting, in order that Commissioners who were absent might factually determine the validity of the proposed reclassification. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that it would be in order to re-open the hearing for a summary of the information presentede - 1862 - __.._..._ .-----._ _r--- - - - - - -- -- -- ---- ----- ._ _ _.' _.. __ __ _ _ _-----_... . -- _ ---- - ~ ,~?. :.- ------._ _._..~_. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.; ~ ~ i MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1963, Continued 1863 ~ ~ ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to re-open tha hearing of Petitions 1 4 N0. 63-64-57 and for Reclassification Noa 63-64-57 and Conditional Use Permit No. 502. 1 Commissioner Rowland second4d the motione MOTION CARRIEP. ~ CC':DITI~N9~T. ~JSE ~ PEEMIT N0. 502 Commissioner.Sides entered..the.Council..Chamber at 2aG9 p.m. (Continued) ~ Mr. Warren Finley, 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana, attorney for the , petitioners, reviewed for the Commission the basic'reasons for request- 'j ing~reclassification of subject pro~erty from its present use as a motel to an apartment I development, thzt carports were being constructed, and that trash storage areas would be f. provided in compliance with all Code requirementso ~ Commfssioner Chavos then stated that it would be setting a precedent which would allow other motel operators to petition for similar uses for their facilities, that the R-3 Zone etandards were not met by subject petition because it did not front on a dedicated street, even though the minimum space requiiement of 700 square feet per dwelling was met, tha•t the Iiving environment would be undesirable if ch3,ldren were to reside in the existing structure, since the sale of liquor was pernitted in clase proximity of subject property. Further discussion by the Commission noted that very few of the existing motels could qualif; for multiple family zoning as required in the R-3 section of the Gode, that each request should be considered on its own merits, that the structure was alraady in existenc2, that there was a possibility that the petitioners were attempting t~ evade the room tax imposed by the City on motels by petitioning for a reclassification, that PRD standards could not be imposed on the proposed reclassification, because these standards had not been adopted. by the Commission, and that two-story constructior. existed within 150 feet of residential agricultural zoned propertyo Mr. Robert Gillman, one of the petitioners, stated that although there were no children residing in the development presently, he could not promise that children would not resibe there, that lessees of the apartments were carefully screened, and that since their lessees would be residents for a year or more, relief from the room tax was one of the factors, as well as their desire to obtain a business license, in requesting the proposed reclassification. Mr. David Hook, another of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the background of the original request for a motel, and further reviewed their basic reasons for the proposed reclassification~ No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitionso Ti~ I-IEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Pebley offered Rpsolution Noo 970, Series 1963-64, and maved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, tn recommend to the Cit~! Council the Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-57 be approved based on the facts that subject property could not be. governed by proposed PRD standards, that carports were being constructed in lieu of garages, that the existing development met minimum living requirements of 7G~ square feet per unit, and that it be required that the petit3oners submit to the City Ai;torney s office a aocument which was an irrevocable agreement to permit ingress and egress from the Euclid Street frontage to sub~ect property, said clocument to be submitted to the City Cour~cil for approval and recordation. (See Resolution Booka) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Sides. NOESs COMMISSIONERSt Chavos, Gauer, Rowland. ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: Perryo Commissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating that the existing development was a subs~:andard R-3 development, that to ap~rove subject petition wuuld be granting a privilege not en3oyed by other motels, and that this would set a precedent for other motei owners to submit similar petitions. Commissioner Gauer concurred with Commission,Chavoso 1~'~:7..1~'' ly. ~~ Commissioner 6ha~os qualified his "NO" vote by stating that the matter of offering relief from a room tax on the existing development wae not a matter for the Commission to com,sider, that the existing development was not a proper R-3 development or a planned~unit deve].opment. I .._-•-----~---._. _.. __--- .__. - -- - __.___ _ ._.._._ _._ ... - -- _ ~_ _ ----- _ ~ - .. __._ ---- . ~~ ~_.-._ . - -.~~ g . ~ . . ~ ~ ; ~ ~ -~- ~ ~ ~ .. .1 ~' I t~ t ~ ~ / ~ „'S _. l _~ ~' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANtdING COMMISSION, November 27, 1963, Continued 1864 4 ; , RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Pebley offered Resalution Noe 971, Series 1963-64, and ~ N0. 63-64-57 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, i to grant Petii:ion for Conditional Use Permit Noe 5U2, provided that ; CONDITIONAL USE trash storage areas are provided, that the walls cf the proposed ,.?Em.iIT ia. 5^v2 carports are iinished, that enolosed storage cabi~ete a;2 provided, iContinued) and that bumper guards are providedo (See Resolution Book.) ; ~n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Sides. NOES: COMMISSIONERSt Chavos, Gauer, Rowlando ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perrya ! t Cortanissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating that granting of subject petition would not safeguard and protect the.-.public health and safety and promote the general welfare ' requirement of the Conditional Use Permit section of the Anaheim Municipal Code. REVISED TENTATIVE MAP - DE~::LOPER: GC~RGE R. BELTZ, 951 South Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, OF TRACT NOe 5208 Californiao ENGINEERs Voorheis-Trindle-Nelson, Inc., 13794 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, Californiao Subject tract loca•ted on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Broadway and covering approximately four acres is proposE~d for subdivision into 14 R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lotso Mr. Cecil Ryals, representing the engineer, appeared before the Commission to answer any questions the Commission might havea Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that "Street A" should be recorded as Rowland Avenue. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 5208, subject to the following conditionsa 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the vehicul~- ~ccess rights, except at street and~or alley openings, to Magnolia Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheimo 3o That "Street A" shall be r~~corded as Rowland Avenuea Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIIDo TENTA7IVE MAP OF - DEVELOPERa Co ROSS DEAN„ 149 South Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California. TRACT N0. 5403 ENGINEERa McDaniel Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiaa Subject tract located on the west side of Knott Avenue, approximately 648 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and covering approximately 4.7 acrea, is proposed.for subdi,~~ision iato 10 R 3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENfIAL, ZONID lotso Mr. Ron 1'-lendricks9 representing the engineer, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the fact that because of the size and shape of the subject property, that the only solution for layout of the property was that proposed, and that it was proposed to develop said property with structures for later saleo Zoning Cnordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that if subject tract was approved, the Comm+~ssion should consider recommending to the City Council that Conditional Use Permit No. 313, pending on sub3ect property, be terminated, and conditions presently attached to City Council Resolution Noo 63R-97 be amended in accordance with the reco~rmendations in the Report to the Commissiono In response to Commission questioning, Mro Kreidt stated that the proposed subdivision met the City's planned development requirements, that the property would have to be reclassified before development of the subdivision could begin, and that conditions as stipulated under the aforementioned Council resolution could not be met if the subject tract were developed. __ __ ; -------_-_ _------ __- -------- ---------_._..------._..._._, . ,.. .._- .- .-_.- ~r ; . ~r: -- _ _ _ _ . _.. ° . ' . ~ . . . ..;~ j ' ' . 1 , .. , ~...~ ~ 1 ~ t ~ ~._J ~... MINtlfES, CITY PLANtQING Q)MMISSION, No~nember 27, 1963, Continued 1865 TENTATIVE ldAP OF - Cownissioner Camp offered a moti.on to approve Tentative Map of Tract TRACT NOo 5403 Noo 54039 and that findings as stipulated be recommended to the City (Continued) Council for consideration to amend City Council Resolution No. 63R-97, and conditions, as followss Findinast Conditional Use Permit Noo 313 be terminated, and that conditions in ' Resolution of Intent Noo 63R-97, approving Reclassification No. 62-63-35 be amended as followsa le That the owner(s) of sub~ect property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25000 per dwelling unit9 to be used for park and recreation purposes~ said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issuede 2o That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file in the office of the Director of Public Works9 prior to final building inspectiono 3. That plans for the development of subject property shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Council prior to the issuance of a buildin9 permito 4o That a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the westerly boundary of subject property prior to final building inspectiono Corditions: lo That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision~ each subdivision thereof shall be ~ubmitted in tentative form for approval. 2o That the vehicular access rights9 except at street and~or alley openings to Knott Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheime 3> That the approval oF Tentative Map of Tract Noe 5403 is granted sub~sct to the approval of Reclassification Noo 62-63~-35,--'-^--a'~'--~' '~°° °°a~. 4e That the entire tract be sewered by the City of Buena Park, if authorized by i.he Anaheim City Council9 since the City of Anaheim sewer is too shallow. 5e That the drainage facili~ties shall be installed along Knott Avenue, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, 6. That "Street A" shall be recorded as Del Monte Drivee 7e That a one-foot wide strip for Lot Nosa 5a and 6a along the westerly boundary ~ of sub~ect property shall be recorded, which lots are intended to be portions of , Lot Nose 5 and 6 respectively9 as indicated on sub~ect tract map dated October, 1963y and considered by the Planning Commission on November 27, 19630 - ~. 7hat a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along ttie westerly boundary ' of sub~ect propertya Comnissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe TENTATIVE ~1AP OF - DEVELQPERe WILLIAM Io ROUSEYy 9121 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove~ TRACI N0. 3823 Californiao ENGINEERi Hal Raab9 10568 Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, CaYiforniao Sub3ect tract located on the north side of Ball Road approximately 338 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard and covering approximately 2808 acres9 is proposed for subdivision into 118 R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lots. Mr. Cecil Nyal~, representing the engineery appeared before the Commission,to answer questions. 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the developer had been edvised that a varian^e petition would be necessary to waive the substandard width of the reverse corner lots9 that this should be c2arified with the developery and that some co~mnent should be.made relative to the 12~-foot setbscke Mr. Ryals then stated that the variance petition would be filed very shartly to request a waii~er from the required width of the reverse corner lots and the required setback. ~;. ,. --- . ,_._---~- --------_-_.----------___.._.._____.T.._-------- ------ . . ~ - i _ , • __._~....,~ --- :_ .~ - - _ .- - -_ __ ~-__--~------ --------- - ~ ~ ( ) ~ l~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ . " ; MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMM73SION, November 279 1963, Continued 1866 TENTATIVE MAP OF - The Co~unission suggested that on any tentat:.ve tract where lot lines were TRACT NOo 3823 ind3cate3 that it would be more practical to give locations of the lots (Continued) rather than specific lot numbersy because the final tract map might be considerably different in relation to lot numbers from that originally approved by the Commission9 and there may be no correlation between lot numbers and conditions attach2d in its approvalo Commissioner Sides offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No, 3823 subject to the following conditions~ 1< That should this subd3visian be deve':oped as more than one subdivision~ each subdivision thereof shall be submitte.9 in tentative form for approvale 2e That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings, to Ball Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheime 3o That the drainage facilities shall be installed along Ball Road, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office af the City Engineero 4e That a stub street, thrcugh Lot Noe 549 shall be psovided for adequate vehicvlar and pedestrian circulation and drainage from the parcels to the north. 5e That the south two cul-de-sac streets shall be shortened in length so that lots proposed to side upon Ba21 Road are backed up to Ball Roada 6o That "Street A" shall be recorded as Teranimar Drive; that "Street B" shall be recorded as Lynrose Drive; that "Street C" and "Street D" shall be recorded as Halliday Streetg that "Street E" shall be recorded as Oakcrest Placef and that "Street F" shall be recorded as Hayward Street. 7, That a six-foot masonry waiZ shall be constructed along the lots adjacent to the north side of Ball Road, except at street openings and alleys, and except that corner lots shall be stepped down to a height of twenty-four inches in the front one-half of the front yard setbacky and a height of forty-two inches in the cack one-half of said setbacko Reasonable landscaping9 including irrigation facilities, shall be instalied in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and suh~ect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance9 the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibilii:y for maintenance of said landscapingo 8e That the developer shall file a petition for Variance to permit th2 development of sub3ect pr~perty with the 70-foot wide reversed ccrrtAr lots, and to permit the 12~-foot setbacko • Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe CONDTTIONAL I~e - PUBLIG HEARING. BA.~ADWAY IiZLLAGE OF ANAHEIM, 801 North Euclid Street, PERMIT N~. 505 Anaheim, Californiay Ownerp Bud Plone, 801 North Euclid Street, Anatieim, ~ California, Agenty =~nuesting permission to ESTABLISH A THEATER AND A TEN-STORY OFFICE BUILDIIhG, AND WAIVER OF PARKING REQUIREN~NTS on property described ase A rectangular ~arcel of land ha~~ing a frontage of 332 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and a depth of 607 feet, the southerly boundary being approximately 982 feet north of the centerline of ~rescent Avenueo r'roperty presentiy classified as C-1, NEIGHBOR- HOOD COMN~RCIAL~ ZONE, Mr. Bud Plone, agent for the~ petitioner, appeared 'nefore the Commission and reviewed eub~ect petition,. and stated that th~9 architect would be avaiiable to answer any questions the Commission might haveo In response to Co~nission questioi~ingg the agent stated that if the 35-foot setback from Euclid Street was established for other properties,. he would accede to the Commission's desires for a uniform setbacks that in reviewing the conditions recommended in the report to the Commission the requirement of a masonry wall along the east boundary line of sub3ect property seemed a i bit unreasonable because the petitioners were also the owners of tne multiple family develop- ment to the easi:, anct was informed by the Commi'ssion ti:at the Anaheim Municipal Code required ! a masanry wall to separate commercial and residential propertiese The agent then asked l whe~hE~ the Commission would object to one opening for vehicular acce~~ from the east through ~ the commercial property9 and the Commission expressed agreemento , ~ , . ~ 1 ~ ._ .~ ...~_. 1 ~_._____.__._.__..._,_~._...__'~___."_'_.-.~_»_.._.____.~._._. _..___~__-..~r. i i~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ! . . .. . .... _... _...'_'_'__.~.'__' ~. i i `'~ <~ :` . ~ - ...--- - ~----- ----- „ ~_..~ t _~ ~`i ~._~ ~ ,'`~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, November 27y 1963, Continued 1867 CaNDITIONAL USE - 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt noted for the Commission that in research- PERMTf N0. 505 ing for some previous acti.on ad~acent to and on subject property, it was (Continued) noted that under Reclassification Noo 57-58-52, Condition No. 4, required that a 35-foot setback be maintained, that Variance Noo 1602, recently approved by the Commission, granted a 20-foot setback, and the a5-f9ot setback was not considered because it had not been determined that subject property was required by ordinance to set back from Euclid Street a disiance of 35 feetf that if the Commission was in agreement with the 20-foot setback from Euclid Street, it be recommended to the City Council that Ordinance Noo 1266 be amended to reduce the xequired setback from 35 feet to 20 feet~ that it be recommended that Reclassification No. 59-60-8~ a portion of sub3ect propextyy require the 20-foot building setback9 and that this would then be maintain- ing a uniformity for the entire block of a 20-foot setbacko The agent for the petitioner ther. stated to the Commission.~hat he would not like to be penalized by being requixed to set back his development 35 feet from the property line, if other properties did not have the same setbacko No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect pe±ition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, The Commission discussed the fact that the petitioner proposed to develop sub~ect property in two phases9 that parking should be provided in accordance with each phase, and that since many commercial structures were exceeding the 35-foot height limitation, that it should be considered to recommend to the City Council that the commercial structures of a height in excess of 35 feet be conformed to Fire Zone 1< Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 9729 Series 1963-64y and moved for its passage and adoptio:., seconded by Cortuuissioner Sides9 to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 505, reco~aending that the City Council consider amendment to Ordinance No. 1266~ Condii:ion No~ 4q to amend the required 35-foot setback to 20 f~et9 that Reclassification No. 59-60-8 be similarly amended, that the proposed parkfng was deemed to be adequate, that the petitioner couldQ if he desired9 provide for a vehicular access from the property line to the east through the masonry wall required9 and that parking for the theater shall be provided on the basis of one space per five seats of the proposed theater, and other condi- tionse (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYES: OONAAISSIONERSa Allredq Camp9 Chavosp Gauery Mungallg Pebley, Rowlar.d, Sides. NOESe COMMTSSIONERSe Noneo ABSENTt CONP~lISSIONERSs Perryo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIIdG. CLARENCE W. 8 ELIZABETH MAUERHAN~ 210 Narcissus, PERMIT NOe 506 Corona Del Mar9 California9 Ownersg WILLIAM L. MAUERHAN, 1559 Audre Drive~ Anaheim, California9 Agent~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT ON "PORTION A"; ESTABLTSH A 100 UNIT MOTEL ON !'PORTION B"~ on property described ase An irregular parcel of land having frontages of 190 feet on the south side of Katella9 395 feet on the west side of Casa Vista Street, and 29U feet on the narth side of Casa Grande Avenue9 said property being further divided into Portion "A" and Portion "B"e Portion "A" being rectangular in shape, located at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Casa Vista Streetq and having a frontage of 95 feet on Ketella Avenue and 220 feet on Casa Yista 6troete Portion "H" being the rema~nder of the previously described portion. Property presently classified as R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE and R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONEe Mr. Rudy Bauer,~ architect representing the petitionery appeared before the Coimnission and reviewed the proposed development9 and further noted that the proposed restaurant would be similar to the one presently established on north Harbor Boulevarde Commissioner Sides left the Council Chamber at 3p20 p,me The Commission discussed the two-story construction ad~acent to'R-1 with the petitionerr who noted that no windows were being proposed for the elevation fronting onto the R-1, and ' submitted photographs which indicated that garages were located in cloae proximity to the ! two-story constructiong that the suuth elevation of the proposed motel facing onto the R-3 would be enhanced with vertical type treesy together with metal panels to break up the ; "barracks-type" appearance, and that all landscaping would be in accordance with the 15-foot se•tback required by the City. , _~ T~', - - "~ ~ _..._____..-~_<'~--- ----- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ) ~ C_> ~ MINUtES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 Navember 27, 19639 Continued 1968 CONDITIONAL U5E - Commissioner Sides returned to the Counci~ Chamber at 3e25 pam. PERMIT N0. 5G6 (Continued) The agent then presented pictures of similar motels to that being proposed by the lessee of the motel, sa3d motels being located in Arizoaa, stating that these were submitt.d for informative use only, and that the colors as presented did not represent the proposed development. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Mro Kreidt then read the recommended conditions if sub3ect petition were appxoved. Discussian was held between the Cormnission and the agent for the petitioner, who took issue with a number of the conditions, noting that the 20-foot setback landscape area on Katella Avenue~was at v_riance with the proposed developmento The Commission informed the petitioner that the Disneyland policy established by the Plattning Commission and the City Council required a 20-foot setback for all properties in the Disneyland area, that said setback had been administered in all previous petitions for development in the Disneyland area since said policy was established9 but that the petitioner could appeal this condition to the Councile The requirement of a block wall along the westerly and southerly boundary ad3acent to the multiple family development and single family development was discussed, and an agreement was reached between the petitioner and the Coimnission9 requiring that the 6-foot masonry wall be along the westerly boundary9 thence easterly to the southwesterly corner of the motel structureo Commissioner Allred offered Reaolution Noa 9739 Series 1963-64y and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissicner Camp,to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No< 5069 subject to the relocation of air conditioning units for the second story, that landscaping was to be provided to shield the air conditioning units on the first floor, that a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed along the westerly property line, thence easterly to the southwesterly corner of the motel, and other conditionse (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYES: OOMMISSIONERSa Allredy Camp9 Chavos9 Gauery Mun9ally Pebley, Rowland, Sides. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSa Perryo RECESSs Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to recess the meeting~ and to reconvene in ten minuteso Cortunissioner Allred seconded the motion. The meeting recessed at 4s05 pomo RECONVENE: Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4s20 pemo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGa PERPETUAL SAVINGS 8 LOAN ASSOCIATION, 9720 Wilshire PERMIT NO., 508 Boulevard, Beverly Hil'lsy Califorrtia9 Ownerg Sa V. HUNSAKER 8 SONS, Po 0, Box 1216y Fleetwood Anzex9 Covina9 California, Agent~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE RECREATZONAL AREA on_property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 62 feet on the west side of Sunshine Way and an average depth of 107 feety the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 442 feet north of the centerline of Anaheim Road, and further described as Lot Noo 5 of Tract Noo 4081o Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEP]TIAL~ ZONE pending)o Mr. Wally Nichols, representing the developers of the tract, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the praposed.recreational area, noting that each lot would receive a 1~26th of an intereat in the ownership of the recreational area9 that CCBR's would be recorded with the tract, if the City Attorney's office desired this, and that the maintenance of said recreation area would be covered in said CCBR'so Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the agent to submit CCBR's for the recreation area for the attorney's reviewe The agent then su~.~itted the proposed CCBR's to the City Attorney's representativeo The Co~mnission inquired whether it would be advisable to continue sub~ect petition until the City Attorney's opinion was received on the validity of the proposed CCB~R's. ~ .. . . . ' r~ . . ~ . . ' . - r . ~' . . ; . . _ ~ . 4a . 'xY ... - . . . ' . , . . . . ' ' _ ' . } .. ~ c__~ ; ~, ~ c~:> • tAINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 279 1963y Continued 1869 CONDITIONAL L6E - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that other PERMIT NOe 508 recreation areas were never asked to submit CCBR's9 that the proposed (Continued) recreational area was a buildable lot9 and could be used to construct an apartment building, and that CCBR's were only required to be submitted and approved on new petitions being consldered by the Commission. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission discussed the possibility of recording the recreational area as a non- ' buildable Iot9 that the CCBR's be a matter of record in the filing of a final tract map~ and that the Commission was concerned with the possibility that the rec•reational area xould ~ not be maintained9 and inquired whether the City would be involved in any legal action regarding the non-maintenance of the recreational areao Mr, Roberts advised the Commission that +nl~en a cotmrion ownership of a given area was sold off with other parcelsy the responsibility for its maintenance was also incurred by this sale. s Coromissioner Sides offered Resolution Noo 9749 Series 1963•-649 and moved for its passage and adoN~~on~ seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 50E., ~::a~ec•c to conditionse (See Resolution Booko) On roll r;all the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo11ow1ng votet AYES: COMMISSIO:~ERSp Allred9 Camp9 Chavcs9 Gauer~ Pdunga119 Pebley~ Rowland~ Sides. NOES: OOMIuIISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENTe COMMISSIONERS4 Perryo Commissioners C}~avos and Gauer stated they voted "AYE" based on the fact that CCBR's would be submitted and approved by the City Attorney°s officeo CONDIiIONAL USE - PUBLTC HEARINGo J~ P~ 8 PHYLLIS CRAWFORD9 1336 South Walnut Streets PERMIT NUo 507 SEREPTA Ao M01-Wy 1343 South West Streetg and BEN TER BEEST, 1215 South West Street9 Anaheim9 California, Ownersg RICHARD L. TOM, A.I.A., 1665 West Katella Avenue9 Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A"THEM.E'a TYPE COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL DEVELOPN~NT TO BE EXECUfED IN THREE PHASES on property described ass An L•-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 630 feet on the south side of Ball Road9 a frontage ef 1200 feet on the west side of West Street and a frontage of 665 feet on the east side of Walnut Street~ the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 1353 feet south of the centerline of Ball Roady and further described as 1336 South Walnut Street and 1215 and 1343 South West Streete Property presently classified as R-A9 RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZO.N,~, Mre Richard L. Tom9 agent for the petitioner9 appeared be:orl the Commission and stated that ~ it was not the intent of the developer to develop subject property in such a manner to be ; detrimental to the Disneyland area9 that the unique "Orient" theme was proposed to be developed ; in three phases, ten acres at a time9 that a continuous landscaped herm would.suaround ±he ~_ sub~ect development9 that the drawings presented were a concept, and not detailed drawings, ! that precise plans would be presented if sub3ect petition were approved, and that the developer, j Mre Bartony was available to answer any questions the Commission might haveo ' Mr. Go Whitney Barton~ 900 Wilshire Bou:evard9 Los Angelesy California9 appeared before the Coimnission and stated that it was his feeling that the proposed "Orient" theme commercial recreation development being proposed wouid be an attraction to the Disneyland area, that the proposed development would offer entertainment to the residents of the areay that the Oriental population in Los Angeles had generally accepted the proposed development~ that a number of spaces had been contracted by interested parties~ that a study was in process to determine the exact needs for the proposed development~ that the entire 30-acre parcel was under his ow~nership or control~ that considerable money had been expended to combine sub~ect property under one ownership for the projectg and in answer to Commission questioning stated that if subject development were proposed9 the first phase would be begun in mid-1964, if the proposed plans were approved by the City9 and proper financing was obtainedg that it hacl not been determined whether an entrance fee would be charged until the economic study had been completed, bvt from preliminary study it was thouyht perhaps a parking validation charge would be madep that no plans had been made to take care of the policing and fire department problem, it being the assumption the City would take care of thisY and upon being informed by the Commission that in order to require the City to take care of police and fire facilities, dedicated streets would be required within the proposed developmentp to which the developer replied that the ' ~ ; S ._.._ __.........__ . ........... ....._...._.__ _. _ _...... ......___....---- ~ ~ .. ~ ~-~-- _--- - , ----------~-f~ . .. . __ . ~ ~ ~ Z i ~.,::.\. . ~ ~ ~, . ... .. .. . _._.. --~L-- - . . _..._..---- (._:% ~..~ ~-~ `.) ~ MINUfES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONp November 27, 2963q Continued 18~0 OONDITIONAL llSE - service acGess would be similar to an em~rgency street or exit; that it pBRMIT NOo 507 was the intent of the developers to reviep in detail all requirements of (Continued) the City of Anaheim prinr to submission of a precise p2anj and that the developery the architect9 and other repressntatives have met wity several members of the City Councii9 the ~ii:y t:~aayerq end the °18Tts:3st9 ~3seCt~?' prior to submission of the proposed "Orient" theme type developmento Mro Tom then stated that from his preliminary discussions on the proposed development, he had gained the impression that the City would be in favor of the "Orient" theme type develop- ment being proposedo The Co~mnission noted that at the time the developers of the Disneyland facility proposed to construct in the City of Anaheira9 plans provided for poiice and fire protection facilities, since it was a private enterprise within an enclosed area, that subject development was of a similar naturey and this should be a requirement if subject petition were approved. Cormnissioner ~navos expressed the opinion that he could not base his decision on granting or denying sub3ect petition unless more precise plans were submittede Nse Barton, in response to Commission questioningY stated that the proposed development would be a tourist attraction9 although more than 10~ of the property rrould be developed for corimercial purposes, even though Disneyland proposed 90~ recreational and only 10~ carmnercial, that a shopping center similar to Chinatown in San Francisco would be considered a tourist attraction9 and that a parking validation basis for entrance io the proposed develop- ment would give the developers an opportuniiy ia control parking in the areae Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt asked the developer to clarify several items in the report to the Commission~ namely, how many structures were proposed that were more than 35 feet in heightq and how did the developers propose to physically separate the proposed development fram the residential Fxoperty adjacent to ito Mr, Harton stated that a landscaped berm would create a physical separation of the parking area frora the developed residential area adjacent to subject property9 and that he was unable to determine the nwnber of structures being proposed over 35 feet in height until more precise plans wero approved by the Cityo Mr, Ed Ettinger9 representing Disneyland9 appeared before the Commission and stated that his only opposition ta the proposed development was that insufflcient information rras available to make a comprehensive statementy that it was thei.r purpose to encourage the proposed type of theme co~mnercial recreation~ since they felt it would enhance the area and contribute to the Disneyland growth, and suggested that the Commission continue subject petition until the proposed plans could be suhmitted to the in~terested geasons in the Disneyland areaa Cottrtnissioner Sides offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 507 to the meeting of December 9q 19634 in order to allow the petitioners time to submit plans to interested personsy such as the vaxious City departmentsp Disneyland representatives, and the Visitors and Convention Bureaup and that a more detailed, three-phase program should be availabYe to be submitted for the Commissions consideration at that timea Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTTON CARRIEDo ' CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo Ea LEWIS JOHNSONy 10280 Cole Road, Whittier, California, PERMIT NOo 510 Ownerg J01~1 Ho GORMLEYq 1371 South Walnut Street, La Habra, California, Agentq requesting permission to ESTABLISH A COCKTAIL LOUNGE IN CONJUNGTION WITH A RESTAURANT on property described ase An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Los Angeles Street and Winston Road, and having frontages of 15fa feet on Los Angeles Street and 125 feet on Winston Road9 and further described as 1343-1345 South Los Angeles Streete Property presently classified C-3, HFJIVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE (deed restricted to a service station and any C-1, NEIGI~ORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE uses)o Mr, John H, Gormley9 1371 South Walnut Streety La Habra9 agent for the peti'tioner, appeared before the Coimnission and stated that he would be the sole owner of the restaurant-cocktail loungeq but would not be the operatorg that the axea shown on the plot plan rvas much larger than ~ust a cocktail loungeg end that the cocktail lounge was only in ca~junction with the restauranto The Co~ission noted from review of the plot plen that the restaurant proposed a 48-seating capacity and the cocktail lounge proposed a 32-~eating capacityo _ _.-~-------- .- - - . - - - -----~- __ _- . . . _. ~ . ..i ~`~ \J t_~ ~~ ~.. ~ ~ ( MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy November 27y 1963q Continued 1$71 CONDITIONAL USE - Mrse Ruth Aa Hohenhaus9 113-C Winston Road9 appeared before the Coiunission PEI~IITT NOo 510 in opposition to sub~ect petition and stated that she owned five buildings ~Continu,gd) i~mnediately west of sub~ect propertyQ that she was purchasing sub~ect propertyy which vras in escrowg and was opposed to the proposed cocktail ! lOUA @ ii1 a Too~aiiPSia~ ~ilot ~.'72Rt '^nine otmers Of 3 8T~• EG~ °~°T!t ±4 ; ~ ~ v p= ~ 1 ~___. subject property appeared before the City in 1960 to request that the G3 zoning be restricted ; to the service station and any C-1 zane9 that all the owners ad~acent to her property rrere of ~ the same opinion that ~he proposed cocktail lounge within the restaurant would be incompatible ' and a violation of the deed restrictions 3mposed on subject property; that an elementary school was within 600 feet of the proposed cocktail lounge, which was a violation of the S~ate Liquor Law~ and that she represented the entire neighborhood who opposed the subject petition. In response to Co~mnission questioning, Mrso Hohenhaus stated she was purehasing sub3ect property as of the first of the year9 that she realized it was an unusual situation, but she had hoped that the Commission would deny the proposed cocktail lounge, that she was aware that the petitioner had requested the proposed usay but that it was in violation to deed restrictions filed for the entire neighbor.hoody and9 thereforey would it would not be a legal or valid requesto The petitioner's rebuttal stai:ed that he did not know that the structure he was leasing was proposed to be soldg that the new owner would be in opposition to the cocktail lounge, alth~ugh he had been informed that the property had been in escrow to a finapc:e company. A le~ter signed by tcvelve persons opposing subject petition was read to the Cormnission. Tt:E H£ARING WAS CIASELo Coimnissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 9759 Series 1963-649 and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by CoTmnissioner Pebleye to deny Petiiion for Conditional Use Permit Noo 510y based on the fact of evidence submitted that the property was to be sold to an ad3acent property owner who opposed the proposed cocktail lounge9 and that C-3 zoning was on sub~ect property, limiting use to a service station or any C-1 use, whereas the proposed cocktail lounge vras a C-2 useo (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet AYES: CONN~IISSIONERSs Allredy Camp, Chavos, Gauery Munga119 Pebley9 Rowland, Sides. NOES: GOA~9uiISSIONERSe Noneo ABSENTa COIWNISSIONERS~ Perrye Commissioner Rowlandy in offering his vote, stated that the proposed development had only ten per cent of the entixe area for kitchen facilities, whereas a normal restaurant type would require at least fifty per cent of the entire areaa RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo VIVIAN Fa SIMMONSy 8821 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, NOa 63-64-59 California, Ownery requesting that property described as~ A rectangular parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and -Hiawatha•Avenuey and a frontage of.70 feet on Hiawatha Ayenue and 100 feet on Brookhurst Street be reclassified from the R-19 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD OOMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish a real estate office or beauty shop in a proposed new structure on sub~ect propertyo Mrs. Vivian Simmons9 the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that she owned the home adjoining subject property9 that a small coimner- cial building was proposed, that the traffic on the street was so heavy that she would be unable to develop sub~ect property for other than commercial use9 that if Brookhurst Street were widened9 sub3ect property could not be developed for sin_1e family use, that she had purchased sub~ect property in 1959, and knew that deed restrictions were imposed on sub3ect property, that by developing sub~ect property as she proposed, this would eliminate an un- sightly appearance, and that she proposed to utilize a portion of the commerci,al development for a beauty shopo The Commission noted that subject property was a recorded lot in a tract with plot plans of development for the entire area~ that sub~ect property had been utilized as a sales office for the developEr of the subdivision, and inquired why the ~etitioner was proposing an encroachment of commercial zoning ir, a primarily single family tracto Mrso Sirtmons stated that she f~lt by this time a small business9 as she was proposing, would be more practical and compatible with the heavy traffic on Brookhurst Street, and she was proposing a structure that would be compatible with the architecture of the tract, and that the vacant property on the opposite side of Brookhurst Street was zoned for C-1 use. ,\ , ` - ~ ~. . . - --- ----- __ ---------__. _-----•---- __._- _ ....... _ . ~ . ~ -- ------- _ ..... _ _.. _~ . " ~[. . ~ I /~ ~ --___----------..,.. _ --- _ _l °-°-°---~.~._~-_ -.. .~ -----_...--- • L~ (_~ ~ (_ j ~i MINqTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1963, Continued 1872 RECLASSIFICATION - In response to a question by Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, Mr3. N0, 63-64-59 Simmons st~ted that the proposed structure would not be a home she would ~Continued) move to subject property, but would be a new structure, and thet she had drawn the plans of the proposed buildinge Mre Cornelius Mayer, 2173 Victoria Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated his property was to the rear of sub~ect property diagonally, that subject property was deed restricted, that it faced a dedicated street, that no hard- ship to the owner was indicated in not developing subject property for single family use, that subject property was bounded ~n the north, south and east by single family development, and by vacant land across the street, that he presented a petition signed by thirty-five persons living in the general area between Brookhurst and Garnet Street on Hiawatha and Victoria Avenue, who opposed "spot zoning", and that by approving such a petition would set a precedent for strip commercial zoning along Brookhurst Street. Mrse Jacquelyn Zustrok, 2108 Hiawatha Avenue9 appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that subject property should not be developed as commercial since it was surrounded on three sides by single family homes which were occupied by their owners, with the exception of one, which had never remained vacant, that the noise from street traffic had never been a problem to the homes9 and that granting subject petition ~ould set a precedent for ultimate development along arterial highways, Mre Ken fitromquist, 2030 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated tha± he was a real estate operator on the property across the street on Brookhurst, that the character of the property was such that residential use cou2d not be made of it~ that it would be a question of time before the entire block would be converted ~to commercial use, and that the petitioner should not be penalized by her actions because of deed restric- tions on subject property, which should not be a consideration of the Commission, since the zoning problem was their prime concerno Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 5:30 p,me The Commission continued discussion of the proposed development in conjunction with a study that was requested of the Planning Department regarding development of residential property along arterial streets and highways~ that although deed restrictions were a private matter between property owners, it was the City's responsibility to protect property owners from incompatible zoning adjacent to their residential properties, that sub3ect property was a vacant lot, and that the proposed development was not in keeping with the existing develop- ment in the area to the north, south and easto Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 5s40 p,mo THE HEARING WA5 CLOSEDe Commission~~r Chavos offered Resolution Noe 976, Series 1963-649 and moved for its passage and ador,iion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Re;:lassification No< 63-64-59 be disapproved9 based on the fact that the proposed use would be incompatible to the residential environment of the area; it was the Commission and . the Council's belief that properties fronting on arterial highways~ but also siding on a dedicated street, be encouraged to remain as single family developmente (See Resolution Booko~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Munga119 Rowland, Sides. NOESs COAMAISSIONERSs Nonea AHSENT: COhWIISSIONERS: Camp, Pebley, Perryo _. .. __~___..._, __~ ___ ._- . _... ~---- _.__ .~ ~ ~.. ._ _ _. . _ _,? a . ~ _ ~ ~ , ~ .,~ (-~ ~:> ~ t--~ ~ ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1963, Contfnued 1873 , I RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. EARLE 8 CECELIA K. BROOKS, 3620 Savar.~s Street, N0. 63-64-60 and Anaheim9 California, Owners; JOE E. LONG, Lomar Developers, Inc., 9776 Katella Avenue, Anaheim9 California, Agent; property described as: CONDITIONAL USE An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontaqe of 153 feet on PERMIT N0. 504 the south side of Savanna Street and a fronta9e of 470 feet adjacent to the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 1'020 feet west of the centerline of Knott Avenue, and further described as 3620 Savanna Streeta Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RL-SIDENTIAL~ ZONEo REQUESTED CONDTI'IONAL USE: ESTABLISH A PLANNED TOlYNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: WAIVER OF (1) GARAGES T'C1 CONSTRUCT CARPORTS: (2) ONE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE PROPERTY~ AND (3) ALLEY ACCESS TO PERMIT INGRESS TO AND EGRESS FROM THE PROPOSED.STREET. Mro Don Johnston, 9776 Katella Avenue, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, and further noted that the proposed townhouse dsvelopment would create an environmental living compatible with the areag that recreational facilities were being proposed; that two-story construction was necessary for economic reasons; that ail structures would be located away from existing structures on adjacent properties; that by the construc- tion of a masonry wall adjacent to the Pacific Electric right-of-way~ would isolate the development from said property, and would9 in turn, promote the health, safety and general welfare; that two recreation areas were being provided on either side of the proposed street; that subject property would provide adequate parking facili,.ies, and that if CCBR's were needed in connection of development of subject property, these would be submitted to the City Attorney's office for approvalo Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts inquired of the petitioner whether or not the proposed unitc would be offered for sale9 or would be under one ownership; the agent replied it was their intention to sell the individual unitsa Mra Andrew Logan~ 3603 Savanna Drive9 appeared before the Commission and stated that he had a petition signed by fifteen of the seventeen property owners who opposed sub~ect petition, and that twelve of the property owners were present in the Council Chamber to verbally voice their protest, if necessaryq and further stated that the area in which subject property was located was one of the few remaining areas in which a rural atmosphere was being maintained for the raising of horses and dogs9 that encroachment of apartments in a primarily rural area would be undesirable and incompatible~ and that the proposal of 32 living units in this area would tax the schoul facilities, as well as create a traffic problem on a dead-end streeto Mrse Glen Rogers, 3609 Savanna, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated that she and her husband had purchased the property9 intending to live in an area where they would have more privacy and be able to raise a few animals for pets and for food; that to propose the development of subject property for multiple family use would be depriving the property owners of their rights in the use of their propertyg that the street was too narrow for the increase of 32 or more additional carsg that more children would be brought into the area, overcrowding the elementary schoolg and that the privately owned water company supply- ing water to the residents of Savanna Street, would be inadequate to serve ali the multiple family dwellings brought into the proposed developmenta Mrsa Vivian Shields, 3640 Savanna, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated that she planned to request permission of the Commission to operate a dog and breeding kennel~ and to propose apartments with the number of children wou2d be depriving her of the use of her land for the intended purposeo Mro Richard Tedrow, 3621 Savanna Drive, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated his property was directly across the street from subject property, that he had purchased this property to keep horses, and to propose multiple family development in such close proximity~ to an area having animals would be incompatible and would deprive him of the use of his land for his intended purpose, and tnat he urged the Commission to keep the area rural in appear- ance for the benefit of people who were still desirous of having the rural appearance of Savanna Drive, and that everything he had earned was invested in his property. Mro Earle Brooks, one of the owners, stated that he had originally moved into the area for the same purpose of raising horses, but that the number of children in the area made this impractical because they were abusive to the anima'!so I ; ______..-----..y_ . ; -------r-- ----------~--..__.... _----._....._ _.._ _....___ 4 , ~ ~_ _ ---___. --- --~. I • i C~ ~ -.} ~ t ,~ c'!~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONp November 27, 1963, Continued 1874 RECLASSIFICATION - Mre Joe Long9 developer of the project, appeared before the Commission N0. 63-64-60 and and stated that after considerable discussion with the owners of sub~ect property and layout of development plans, the proposed development was CQNL~ITIQNA~. USE the most practical for the layout of the land; that he would be willing to PERMIT N0. 504 pay for the cost of extending sewerage and water facilities to the proposed (Continued) development without any additional charge to the residents of the area, if they wished to tie in with.these s~stems;that he had anticipated being served by the water facilities in the area, but if this were not possible, he would still be willing to have the water line extended from Knott Avenue to subject property{ and that the proposed development was designed to be attractive with the rural surroundings of the areao Mre Roberts explained for the petitioners that a planned i~nit development was not required to file CCBR's since it would be under one ownership, but that if the proposed multiple family units were to be sold to individuals, a tract map for the subdivision of air space would be required if no CCBR's were submi~i.ade 1"~e Commission was of the opinion that the existing water facilities would be inadequate to serve the subject property and tha adjacent properties in the event of a fire, and inquired of the City Attorney's representative whether it would be permissible fo* the City to bring in sewers and water fac3::ties for the proposed development< Mro Roberts stated that it would be the City°s prerogative to extend any linzs over a public right-of-way9 which Savanna Drive was., if a property owner was desirous of paying the consider- able amount for said extensiono TfiE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission inquired of Office Engineery Ar•thur Daw, whether or not the water and sewer facilities could be brought through from Knatt Avenue, and were informed by Mr. Daw that Savanna Street was a dedicated through street, and that the City would have a legal right to install the water mains and the sewer faci~itiesq that the question had come up at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting, but no.defis~ite information was available at that time for submission to the Commission in their repprte Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 979, Se*ies i963-64, and moved for its passage and adop•tion9 second'ed by Commissioner Sides9 to xecommend to the City Council that Petition for P+~classification,Noo 63-64-6Q be disapproyed, based on the fact that the area was rural in nature, and the p~oposed multiple family development was premature at this time~ that only by a physical ezamination of the site would anyone be able to determine the complexity of problems and the unique situation ad~acent to sub3ect property to formulate an opinion for the proper zoning of subject propertyo (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the for,egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Sides.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: CONWIISSIONERSs Camp, Pebley, Perrye Commissioner Sides offered Resolution Noo 978~ Series 1963~64, and moved for.its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner A,llred, to deny Petition for Condit:onal Use permit No. 504, based on the fact that two-story construction would infringe on the rights of the residents in close proximity of the proposed development which was rural in nature; that tNO- story constri:•;tion within 150 feet of Residential Agricultural Zoned property would be incompatibleo (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: CONWIISSIONERSt Allred, Chavosy Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Sidesa NOESe CONWIISSIONERS: None> ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Pebley, Perryo .. ...r._.~.-.__._ _.._.._____ _.._._.._---- --._.........~_--- ----- _----_. , ------_.. ~,i , ~ik. _.._._ _ . . ~ ~ • : ",~ r~) ,, ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ MINUfES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 2'~, ]~633 Continued '~ ; ~ 1875 ~ RECLASSlFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK C. !: NORA M. BECKETT9 2147 South Lewis Street, N0. 63-64-61 and Anaheim, Californiag RUSS 8 NATALIE BOOREY, 2501 Harbor View Drive, i Corona Del Mar, California; AN'u DOROTHY ROHAN, 430 South Sycamore, ; CONDITIONAL USE Santa Ana, California, Owner~K S. V. Hl1NSAKER $ SONS, P, 0. Box 1216, PERi~ii NOe 509 Fleetwood Annex, Covina, California, Agent; property described ase ~ A rectangular parcel of land having frontages of 1,279 feet on the west side of Lewis Streety 309 feet on the north side of Simmons Street, and 309 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue9 and further described as 2147 South Lewis Streeto Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONe R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEe REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs CONSTRUCT A 98-UNiT SINGLE-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTTxL DEVELOPfufENT WITH CARPORTS - WAIVER OF THE BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTSe Mro Dale Heinly, attorney for the owners of subject property, appeared be£ore the Commission and stated that he wished to have a continuance of four weeks on the subject petitions in order that the petitioners might have an opportunity to discuss the development pians for sub~ect proper~ ty_with the Planning Department representativeo. ~~~i Commissioner ~ offered a motion to continue Petitionsfor Reclassification No. 63-64-61 and Conditional Use Permit Noe 509 to the meeting of December 23, 1963, in order to allow the petitioners time to submit revised plans to the Planning Department, and for the Planning Department to advextise subject petition as an amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. - RECLASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-22 - Tille Fluegge, et al, RECONaAENDATIONS c o Talt, MacMahon and Nelson, requesting a change of zone from R-A to R-3p property located on the east side of Euclid Street approximately 660 feet south of Katella Avenue - approval of ~ plans submittedo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the Report to the Commission findings relative to the development plans o:F sub3ect petition9 and further advised the Commission that ali property owners within 300 feet of the proposed development had been notified that the Commission was planning to review the plans submittede The Commission in reviewing the plot plans noted the many questionable items of the proposed development for a compatible living environment, and were of the opinion that the proposed plans could not be considered unless all of the changes noted by the Report to the Cormnission had been remediede Mre Robert MacMahon, attorney representing the Tille Fluegge estate, appearec3 before the Commission and stated that he represented the estate, that •the developer was available to answer questions, and that the developer had submitted the proposed plans since the represent- atives of the estate were financially unable to submit said planss that the parties concerned had entered into an agreement to lease the property to the developer on a 55-year lease basis as the heirs of the estate intended to keep their 3nterest in the property, and that he had not reviewed the plans nr the findings of the Report to-the Commission as he felt this was the prerogative of the developere The Commission noted that the southerly boundary of subject property was developed for single family use, and inquired whether this would entail reduction of two-story, or whether single story was propasede The agent for the petitioner advised the Commission that the proposed multiple family development would be single storyo The Commission discussed the variations of the proposed development in comparison with the planned unit developments or condominiums. Mro Kurt Collins~ 8542 Garden Grove Boulevard~ Garden Grove, advised the Commisslon that it was his understanding that the problems presented on the plan had been corrected, and that a new plan had been submittede Mr. George Jeffers~ architect for the developer, advised the Commission that the plan before them was not the one he thought he had submitted to the Planning Department for consideration by the Cormnission, and presented the redrawn set of plans. Mre Claude Wiseman, 1833 Bayless Street, appearing in opposition to subject petition, advised the Commission that he would wait until the r~vised plans had been submitted for the Commis- sion's consideration before voicing any oppositiono I .~ .~ _..._..._____..._~~, _- -~------___._.-------------~----____._.._.._r.------- ~ , ~ .~_----- ~ ~ ~~~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~ MINITfES, CITY PLANNING CONN~fISSION, NovembeF 27, 19639 Continued 1876 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1~Continued) REC~JMMENDAT' IONS Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of the plans of Reclassi- fication Noo 63-64-22 to the meeting of December 9, 19639 and requested that the architect submit to the Planning Department revised plans which corrected all the problems indicated in the Report to the Commissiona by Friday, November 299 1963, in order that the Planning Department Interdepartmental Committee mighL further evaluate the proposed development. Commissioner Sides seconded the motiono MOTIuiV CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2- VARIANCE NOo 1278 - Jolly Roger Motel - Duffy Motors Hotel Corporation - A pprovel of revised planso Mro Richard Duffy, owner of the Jolly Roger Motel, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the revision of the original planso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that Development Revue comments relative to the revised plans noted that all Code requirements were being met in the proposed changee Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve revised plans for Variance Noe 1278. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NOo 3- RECLASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-101 - G2, request'~~~,, C-3' HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONINGa CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, '.;J - terminated April 159 19630 1221 Nor~h Harbor Boulevard~ Used Car Sa1es Loto Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the action of the Commission, noting that on the Reclassification the Commission had recommended approval, but that subsequent action by the City Council denied the reclassification9 that at the time the Commission recommended approval of the reclassification, it was further recommended that Conditional Use Permit No. 370 be terminated, and no action by the City Council after the above mentioned reclas- sification had been disapprovedy made the operation of the existing used car lot illegal, and inquired whether the Commission woul~ desire to reactivate the conditional use permit since the r,eclassification had been deniedo Discus~ion was held between the Commission and Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, and it was determined that the City Attorney°s office review the petitions and submit a recommenda- tion at the next meeting of the Planning Commissiona ITEM N0. 4- RECLASSIFICATION NOe 63-64-62 - R-A to R-3 on Webster Street, north of Ball Roado Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter from the agent for Reclassification Noe 63-64-62, in which it was requested that the Commission initiate reclassification proceedings on the remaining property on Webster Street not included in the aforementioned reclassification. Mro Kreidt further.reviewed for the Commission all of the development problems of adjacent and sub3ect property9 noting that several of the'property owners were not agreeable to the rezoning of their property located on Webster Street; that the proposed development of the property under the subject reclassification would be single story, and consisted of approxi- mately one half mile along both sides of Webster Street for multiple family development; that surrounding property to the east, north and ::a~t was developed for single family residential useT that a portion of the nortt~ Webster Street property had a small single family subdivision~ and that if the Commission favorably considered the requested reclassi- fication proceedings, the Department would be able to advextise this in con~unction with Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-62a Discussion by the Commission noted that they did not wish to initiate the reclassification proceedings since the property owners who had not included their property in the Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-62 should be considered,since it was evident they had no desire to have their property reclassified. Commissioner Sides offered a motion to deny'the request for initiation of Reclassification proceedings of the remaining parcels of property on Webster Street not included in the Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-62e Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe . _., . .. - .._~- . ~._,.._„ . . ,.._... ._,~ ~ . __.._ , _ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING CO~MiIISSTON, November 27, 19639 Continued \ ~ ~ ~ 1677 ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe.5 - RECLASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-16 - 2763 West Ball Road, RECOMMENDATIONS R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZOi3e to R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE - Revision to Condition Noo 4 of Resolution of Intent Noo 63R-815e • Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed action on subject petition, noting that the Commission had denied the reciassification, but revised plans had been submitted~ and said reclassification had been approved by the City Council under Resolution of Intent Noe 63R-815, on October 8, 1963; that Condition Noe 4 required that the proposed interior street should be improved in accordance with Standard Plans Specification on file in the office of the City Engineer, and if the street was to be dedicated9 that the dedication should be made to the City of Anaheim9 and should be in a manner and form approved and accepted by the City Attorneyj that it should be recommended for amendment to indicate that the interior streei should be improved in accordance with Standard Plans, whether it be dedicated or nota Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Counoil that Condition Noe 4 of Resolution of Intent Noo 63R-815, dated October 8, 1963, be amended to require that the proposed interior street shall be improved in accordance with Standarci Flans on file with the City Engineer9 regardless whether it be dedicated to the City of Anaheim or nota Commissioner Sides seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOo 6- Request for renaming of an unnamed street to Global Way9 from Global Van Lines9 Incorporatedo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter to the Commission relative to a cul-de-sac street located southerly of the Ball Road overpass, said street being adjacent to the new Global Van Lines structure, requesting that the cul-de-sac street be named Global Way. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 981, Ser~es 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland9 to recommend to the City Council that the unnamed street located southerly of the Ball Road overpass, wester].y of the Santa Ana Freeway, be named Global Way9 since the only other property owner affected by said change would be Disneylandy Incorporated, and they were in agreement with this requeste (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Allrrd9 Chavos, Gauer9 Munga119 Sides, Rowlande NOES: COAM~IISSLONERSe Noneo ABSENTs CONN7ISSIONERS: Camp, Pebl~~y9 Perryo ITEM NOo 7- RECLASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-40 - 2623 West Lincoln Avenue - R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to C-19 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE for Parcel Noso 1 and 2, approved in Resolution Noe 927, Series 1963-649 September 30y 19630 Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the action taken by the Commission regarding subject petition9 and noted,for the Commissiora that in the findings of the al~ove mentioned resolution it was.recommended that the R-A parcels be reclassified as C-1~ Neighborhood Commercial, Zone only, and that inadvertently the second page of the resolution failed to indicate thise It was further recommended that th~ ~ommission amend the original resolution to incorporate the C-1 zoning for said parcelso Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 9799 Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland9 to recommend to the City Council the amendment of Resolution Noo 927, Series 1963-64, recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on September 30~ 1963, for Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-40, Page 2 of said resolution to recommend the reclassification to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial~ Zone for Parcel Nose 1 and 20 (See Resolution Booke) On roli call the foregoing.resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Sidese NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Pebley, Perryo I ~ , ~ ~, ~ _____.~ _ ~ ~ i ~ ; ; ; i ( i I 1 ___.___ _ f, ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~_~ i .} ~ l ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CON4utISSION, November 27, 1963, Continued 1878 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 8- RECIASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-45 - Riverview Annexation RECOMMENDAT30NS Noo 2, recoimnended for approval by the Commission in Resolution Noo 943, Series 1963-64e Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the action taken by the Commission on the Riverview Annexatiion Noo 2, and noted that in the Commission's resolution to the City Council Exhibit "A" describing the real property covered by sub~ect annexation had•been in error, and a motion was in order to amend said resolutiono Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 9809 Series 1963-64g and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos~ to recammend to the City Council that Resolution IVoe 943, Series 1963-64P be amended to include a corrected copy of Exhibit "A", and to refer to the annexation as the "Riverview Annexation Noo 2"e (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet AYES: COMMISSIONEP,S: Ailred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Sidese NOES: CONPAISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: CONP7ISSIONERSs Camp, Pebley9 Perrya ITEM N0. 9- P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONE Changee South Los Angeles Street between Vermont Avenue and southerly of Ball Roado Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt inquired whether the Commission would consider continuance of the Parking Landscaping Zone requirements to a later meetingo Discussion was held relative to any petitions being affected by it9 and it was determined that a four-week continuance would be in ordero Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue the Parking Landscaping Zone changes on Sauth Los Angeles Street to the meeting of December 23, 1963o Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe a. 7TEM I~O. 10 - SERVTCE STATION STANDARDS. WORK SESSIONe Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt arivised the Commission that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission consideration of the revision to the Service Station Standards recom- mended for approval to the City Council was set for a work session by the Commission, and inquired whether the Corronission considered setting this work session for December 2. Discussion was held by the i:ommission, and it was determined that a quorum would not be present for the December 2 date, and it was decided to continue said wprk session to the meeting of December 16, as a portion of the adjourned meeting of December 90 ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting adjourned at~6:49 pome Respectfully submitted~ ~~~Z~~~~'!//'v ANN KREBS~ Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission I ~ ~ __ . _. ~- ---_~.---------.__-. ---~- ~ _. , .,, ~ ;