Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/03/02~ :...~ ~ , , ~ • 4 `, / ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, CaliPornis March 2, 1964 A REGIILAR M~ETIN(3 OF TFIEI ANAFIEIM CITY YLANNING COl~6ISSION RLOQ[TLAR 1~ET'T.N(~ - A regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Coumiiasion was aalled to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:U0 0'olook p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIHMAN: Idungell - CO1LlST_SSIOI~RS: Allred, Chavos, Pebley, Rowland, Sidua. ABSENT - CO~dIS5I0N~RS: Camp, Qauer, Perry. PRIDSID.NT - Assooiate Planner: Robert ~liakelson Deputy City Attorney: Fwrman Roberts ; Offine En~ineer Representative: YPalle,oe Crenshaw Planning Commission Seoretary: Anr~. Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Ray S. 7ones, pastor of the Rnott Christian Churoh gave the ,~ invooetion. PLl9D(3P~ OF - Coffiissioner Sides led the Pledge of Allegianoe to th~ Flag. ALI+~f~IADiCE ~ ~l~OTION OF - Commissioner Pebley nominated Co~issioner Mungall as aheirman for CHAIAMAN forthooming year. i There being no further nominations, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion ! to alose the nominations for ohairman. There being only one oandidate the Co~ission 3eoratery asked for a voioa vote. Co~isaioner Mungall was eleoted by unanimous vote. ELIDCTION OF - Cheirman Mungall eaked for nominations for Chairman Pro Tempore. CHAIRMAN PROT~S Co~issioner Allred nominated Commissioner Cemp. ; Co~iasioner Chevoa nominated Oo~issioner (~auer. ' Commi'ssioner Rowland offered~ a mot~on to olose the nominations for Chairman pro tempore. Upon,tallying the ballota, the Co~i.saion Seoretary deolared a tie vote. Co~issioner RoWland ofYered a motion to table the voting of Cheirman pro tempore ta the meeting of Mesoh 16, 1964, at whioh time a vote would again be telcen. Cou~i.asioner Chavos seoonded the motion. MOTION CARAIIDD. IDLECTION OF - Commissioner Pebley nominated Ann Kreba for the poat of Oo~i.asion '~ COl~d233I0N Searetary. Commiesioner Chavos seoonded the nomination. A voioe ~ SLICRHf~ARY vote was'taken. Mias Rrebs was appointed unanimously. , ., t _ APPROVAL OF - Approval of the D~inutes of the meeting of February 17, 1964 Was oontinued MINUT~S to the meeting c: Maroh 16, 1964. RECLA3SIFIOATIQN- CONTINUED PUBLIC HAfARING. MAR(~UHktITID F'IDEiAUD, ET AL (deoeased), Owner; ; N0. 63-64-69 A. d 9. INYIDST~N'P8. o/a R. C. I{elder, 13571 Harbor Boulevard, (3arden (irove, California, Agent; requeating that property desaribed as: A L-sheped paroel of land aoveri~g approximataly 7.7 aores, loaated at tlie southeast oerner of Palm Les-e and Euolid Street~ and desaribed as: POATION "A" being reotangular in ehape and having frontages of 390 feet on the east aide oY Euolid 3treet and 283 feet on the aouth side of Pelm Lene be reolaasified to the C-1, NIDIf$ffiOREi00D tlO~fACIAL, ZONE and PORTION "B" - being ed~aoant to Portion "A'~ on the east, reotangulBr in shape and having a frontage of 345 feet on tihe south aide of Pslm Lane and a dapth of 640 Yeet, and further desaribed as 1672 Palm Lane, be realaeaified to the R-3, MULTIPI~ FAMILY RHI3IDIDNTIAL, ZONID. Property preoently olsasiYied in the R-A, RIDSIDBINTIAL AQRIQULT[TRAL, Z01~. Cott~isaioner Oamp entered the Counoil Chamber at 2:06 p.m. Ooamisaioner Ro~land left the Counoil Ohamber e~t 2:07 p.m. 2002 '~ _ _ ' I ~. ~. ~ ~~..._..__-._-..- --~,- - .____.. _ __ _ ..._. ___ _ __ ._.._. ___ .~ - -- _ - -•- -------- '~"1~ ___ _ _ A~aLAS3IFICATION - 3ub~eut petition ~ss aontinued Yrom the meetings of January 6, February N0. 63-6~4-69 3 and 17~ 1964, to alloa auffiaient time for the petitioner to aubmit Co,~tinued revised plans end for the Co~ission to oast e ma3ority vote on said petition. Mr. Art Aga3anian, repreaenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and stated that no reviaed plans Were submitted beoause he desired to have tne Co~i.ssion's deaision based on the plans before them; that one-atory aaes proposed vaithin 150 feet oY the single family development to the south, that land valuea prediaated development of sub~eot property as proposed; and that a 10-foot easement did exiat betvreen the aingle family develop- ment to the south and sub3eot property over whioh nothing oould be built. It Was noted by the Comraission that a library Would esist ad~aaent to the proposed ao~eraial Prontage on Euolid Street; that traffic from the aoamieroial developmont ~ould be a.hazard to the ohildren using the library fsailities; that the C-1 Zone would permit "on-sa7.e" of liquor through the filing of a Conditionel Use Permit adjaoent to or in alose proximity to the library; that this then would oenstitute "spot zoning" that multiple family development might be aonsidered for the Eualid 3treet frontege or at the most 0-O, Co~eroiol Offioe, Zone; that Palm I,aue should be aonsidered as a line of limiting the R-3 development; end that the multiple feu-ily development approved to the north of Palm Le,ne vaas roquired to nonstruot single story apertments beoause it was antioipated that single family development would oaaur on the property to the south, namely sub~eot property. Nr. Robert Jsokson, 1684 Palais Road, appeared before the Co~.tasion repreaenting 15 peraons present in the Counoil Chamber opposing sub3eot pet3tion~ and atated that as long as the Commission wss reviewing the petition he would again reiterate his ob~eations; that owners of homes in the AnaWOOd trsa-t loosted to the south of aub~eot property had an inveatment of 330,000 to ~35,000, that many professionel people lived in this treot vho maintained their oPfioes in Ai-aheim, thnt theae residents may be foraed to move to another oity to avoid the enoroach~nt of multiple family development whioh was beooming prevelent in Ar.aheim; thet the vaaanoy faotor in the apartments nearby ranged up to 50,~; th~t a petition signed by eome oY these apartment owners and managers Wea submitted to the Coum-i~sion, whioh indioatad these people also opposed additional apartments in the area based on the faat that their vaoanoy Paator was ao high, even though ohildren were not permitted; that if the proposed development vas approved~ no buffer proteotion vould be afforded the single family sub- diviaion to the aouth; that Palm Lane should be oonsidered a buffer betWeen the single story apartments north of Pa1m Lane and any single Yemily subdivieion whioh ahould be devel- oped on sub~eot property advertised as Portion "B"; t"t:at the balanoe oY the Anawood traat aoross the street on Eualid Street baoked up to ao~ueraial development Pronting IDuolid, and there was no indioatiott that tbe reaidenoe opposed this, beoause no homee Were being pleaed on the market, and that the Co~iseion should give some oonaideration to the aingle family deve2opment to the south who had gurohased in good faith that aub~eot property Would be a aontinuation of the single femily traot in whioh he lived. In rebuttsl, Mr. Aga~anian atated that he oRned apartments on Loara 6treet~ that of the 32 aparfiauersts he had only 2 were vaoant, and this vaoenay Was a normal mwe in and out of i residents either having besn transferred to enother oity or aho hed purohase homes, thet i~ apartments Were maintaiaed property a very loW vaoe~nay Paotor would be noted;. th~t tWO- „ atory deveZopment ezisted ~aoroas the atreet on Palm Lane, thst revised plans indioated that , aingle story oonatruation Would be maintained ~rithin 150 feet of the single family develop- ment~ and that he planned to aonstruot a development whioh would be ea assat to the nearby ao~unity and to tha Oity of Maheim as well. lir. Tankson then asked to be heard again, and atated the,t it was evident thet Pslm Lane r,ea the dividing line for multiple femily ~levalopment beoause the Oo~niesion had required the property tr the north on Palm Lane to maintain aingle story a~ithin 150 Yeet of aub~eot property in ant~oipation of single Pamily development, and thet no multiple femily develop- ment existed to the south. TH~ HFlIARIl~(3 Vi69 OL03Em. Disaussion was held by the Oo~isaion Whioh indioated thet iY the petitioner ~ould ha~e b9en agreeable to aingle story oonstruotion for the entire development the Oou~isaion might have oonsidered aub3eot petition more fevorably, the,t pro~eotions an the C~eneral Pl.an indioated sub~eot property for loW density development, thet the oouaneraiel frontage should be Por C-0, Oo~eroiel OPfioe, Zone only sinoe no aommeroial development existad to the north and eouth on the east aide of Euolid Street. I _._..__.___.. _..~. __ . .__. _.._....____ _ . ...__... _.._.._.. ._,____.. _...__ . _.__..__.. _.. ; _~' , ~....._ _ _ . , . _._.__. . ~~. ~~ ~ ~JpT~g, CI+1'7[ pLAI~NII~ CO~~lISSION, Marah 2, 1964 R~QLA$$]]~'ICATIOl~i - Commiasioner Camp then stated he would be aonaerned if other than oa~araial N0. 63-64-69 offioe zoning vere permitted, beaause of the possibility of serving liquor (Oontinued) and the hazards whioh the ahildren would faoe if they used the library Paoilities. ' Oot~iseioner Chavos offered a motion to reoo~nend disapproval of Petition Yor Reolassifioation No. 63-64-69, vhiah lost for Want of a seoond. '1'he Oo~ission oontinued disoussion relative i~o the motion previously voted on at the last mseting, and again asked the pet3tioner Whether he would consider single story oonstruation, whioh the petitioner re3eoted. Comnissioner Allred oYfered Resolution No. 1078, Series 1963-64~ and moved Yor its pgssage and adoptioa, seqonded by Co~issioner Ohavos to reao~end to the City'Counoi'. .~qt t'ortion 'B" oY Petition for Reolassifioation No. 63-64-69 be d3sapproved, based on the faot that tWO-story oonstruation of sny pdrt vould be inaompatible baoeuse tha Commission had roquired single story oonstruotion within 150 Teet oP sub3eot property to the north: ar_d ~eo="ee tc was in olose prosimity to single Pamily development to the south. Co~ni.ssioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 1078, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passar;e and adoption~ seoonded by Co~issioner Cemp to reooaenend to the City Counoil that Portion "A" of Petition Yor Reolassifioation No. 63-64-69 be approved for C-0, Co~neraiel Offiae, Zone, based on the faot that the reno~ended Zone vould be more aompatlble to the library Yeoilitiea~ and would reduoe the trafYia hazard to ohildren using these faoilitiea, and oonditions.(3ee Resolution Book) On roll oall the 3oregoing resolution Was passsd by the following vote: AYID3: CD1~iI99I0NERS: Allred, Cemp, Chavos, Mungall, Peblev, Sides. NdIDS: OO~IdlII93I01~R3: None. AB~'iNT: 00106ISSIO~R3: f~euer, Rowland, Perry- 2~1iISI0N N0. 3 - DIDITIDLOY~R: S. V. H~IVSAI~t d, 30N3, 15855 IDast Edna Plaae, Irwindale, '1'~HTATIVH1l[Ap•OF Ca1lPornis. ENaI~'~u : Oonaolidated Dngineering Oompany,.1140 5outh TRACT N0. 5231 Robertson $oulevard, I,os 6ngeZes 35, California. 3ub~eat ~traot~ locatad on the north side oP Aneheim Road, easterly of the Riverside Freeway, and oovering approaimately lA aorea, is proposed for subdivision into 20 R-3. Multiple Family Reaidentiel, Zoned lots. Asaooiate Planner Robert Miakelson presented sub~eat revised tentative treat map to the CoAaaission and reviewed the zoning aation on sub~eot property. The revision on the new map Was indiaated to the Co~ission. The Co~ission noted that the Interdepe,rtmental Co~mnittee reooaQnendetions had indiaeted Anaheim Ro~zcl, wherea~ the offiaial aeme was Miraloma Avenue. Ooa~issioner Cemp ofYered a motion to approve Revision No. 3 oP Tentative Map of Treat ~Jo. 5231~ subJeot-to-~the folloving ooaditiona: _ _ ... . (1) Th~t should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiviaion, eaah subdivisioa thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (2) That Reviaion No. 3 of Tentative Map of Traat No. 5231 is apprwed sub~eot to the oompletion oP ReolassiYioation No. 63-64-5. (3) That the alig~ment of Miraloma Avenue be approved by the State Diviaion of FIigh~ays. (4) Thet all eaoess rights to Miraloma A-renue, oaaept at 3treet "A" ehall be dedioated to the Oity of Aneheim. fihe half street seation for Miraloma Avenuo shea.l be thirty-four Yeet to the ~Qroperty line, aurbs to be loaated twenty-Your (2A~) Yeet from oenter line, no psrking permitted with signs instelled at the devaloper's ezpenae.. (5) That a aia (6) foot masonry wall shall be instal.led on the north end aouth boundexiea oY sub~eat property as propoeed. ~ _ ~..~______~_._~ .___-- ~ _ __. ~ , ., ~-~. ~ ~~ ,~ ~ MINUTPI9 ~ QITY PLAM~TII~i~ COMEQI3SION, Maroh 2, 1964: 2005 R&11ISIOK N~.3 -(6) That firaot No. 5501 ahall be reaorded and developed prior to TEQJ~dTIYID MAP OF Traot No. 5231. TRAOT N0. 5231 (7) That landsoaping and planted treewello at approsimately fortq(40) foot intervals ehall be provided in the Miralama Avenue parkavay abutting sub3eot propert?; that plana Por treevrells and landsoaping therein ahall be submitted to and spproved by tha 3uperintendent of ParkWay Maintenanae, and that upon the insta].lation and aoaeptanoe of seme, the maintouauoe of the landsaaping will be handled by the Oity oP Anaheim. (8) That Anaheim Road shall be reoorded as Miralom~e, Avenue. Oomaissioner Allred seaonded the motion. MCTION OAREt~D. '1~2NTATN'~' MAP Q~' -~Pl~I~IA?Lm? ~ S= V, H[INSA.~t ~ S~JNS , 15855 Eeat Edue P7 soe , Irmindale ; TRACfT N0. 5501 Ce1lPornie. ~~~: Consolidated Lhigineering Qompany~ 1140 South Robertson Boulevard. Los Angeles 35, Oalfornia. 5ub3eot traot. looated on the north side oP Miraloma Avenue~ easterly of the Riveraide Freeway and aovering approaimately 10 aores, is propoaed for subdivisian iato 16 R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zoned lota. Aasooiste Planner Robert Miokelson presented sub3eat tentative trsat mep noting that said map ~vae a portion of the original '1`raot Map No. 5231. Qoamaiasioner Allred ofPered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tr~ot No. 5501, sub3eot to tha Po1loWing aonditions: (1) 'Thet should this subdivision be developed as more than oae aubdivision~ e~.oh subdiviaion thereof shall be submitted in tentative form Yor approval. (2) That tha approval of Tentati.ve Map oP Traat No. 5501 ia granted sub~eot to the oompletion of Reolesaifioation No. 63-64-5. (3) That the ali~nment an3 grade be approved by the 3tate Division of High~rays. (4) Tha.t the vehioular eadess rights~ ezoept at atreet eud/or e3.ley openinga~ to Miraloma Avenue shall be dedioated to the Oity of Anaheim. The hslf street seotion Yor Miraioma Avenue shsll be thirty-four(34) feet to property line, ourbs to be looated tWenty-four(24) Yeet from oenterline, no parking permitted with signs installed at the developer's eapenae. (5) That the drainage oi the traot be designed with aonsideratioa of the esisting elevations of the aulverte under the Riveraide FreeWeq. (6) That a six (6) foot masonrq wall shall be installod on the north, south, and west boundaries o£ aub~eot property, eaoept at atreet and alley openings. -. -(7) That a atrip of land one (7_) foot wide be provided along the West traat boundary end desigusted' as Lot Nos: 1-I~ througli 6-A. ~ ' ' ' ' (8) Thet Traot No. 5~01 shall be reoorded and developed prior to or oonourrently ~vith Treat No. 5231. (9) The,t Paroal A and B at the stub end o~ the atreet and a11ey be elimineted from the traat me,p. (10) Thst HlastvieW 6treet be reloaated approxime,tely 7A0 feet to the east. (11) That lattdsoe,ping and planted treevelle at approximately 40-Yoot intervale she11 be provided in the Maheim Road park~vay abutting aub~eot property; that pleas for treewelle and ].eudsoeping therein sha11 be aubmitted to and approved by the 8uperintendent of ParkRay Me,intensnae, end thet upon the installation and aaoeptanoe of aeme, the maintenanoe of the landsoaping aill"be handled by the Qity oP Ansheim. (12) That Anaheim Aoad ahall be reoorded as Miraloma Avenue. Ooa~ni.saioner Oamp aeoonded the moticn. MOTIOPi aARRIIDD. j I _---- -- ---- ~ _..-_ _._ .._.. . _. ~ .. . . .:. ~ --- r- ~ 1.,~ . ~ ~ MINUT~S, OITY pLAIQNIN(~ dO1~ST3SI0N~ Me,roh 2, 1964 2006 Revision No. 1 T~NZ`6TIVN1 MAF fJF' - p~VPIIAPAIIt LII9~ OORPORATION, 10522 Santa aertrudea Avenue, Whittier, TRAC'~ N0. 5499 Oelifornia. ~Il~lIIER: Boyle Engineering, 412 South Lyon 3treet. Santa Ana~ QaliPornia. Sub3eot trsat, looated on the northerly side of Linoaln Avenue and aesterly oP Nohl Canyon Aoeui, oovering approai- metely 12 aares, is proposed for subdivision into 36 R-1, ONffi F9MII,Y AESI~NNTIAL, ZO1Jffi lota. 9ssooiate Planaer Robert Miokelson advised the Commisaion that vhen the revised tentetive mep wRS reaeived in the Planning Depertmant, it wea noted that one oP the lots would require a ~18rianoe Yrom the required building setbaak line, and that the developer had filed a Petition £or Varianae whioh vas saheduled for the Marah 16, 1964 meeting, and a le~ter requesting that suh3eot traat be oontinued to be oonsidered in oon3unation ~vi.th Yarianoe No. 1625, 9va,s on file. tlommiasioner Cemp oPfered a motion to oontinue Revision No. 1 of Tentetive Mep of Traot No. 5499 to the meeting of Merah 16. 1964, in order that it might be aonaidered in oon- ~unotion avith Petition for Varianoe No. 1625. Co~i.ssioner 611red seoonded the motion. MoTTOx ~~~. ~N'~ATi~f~ MAp pF _ DpQEI,ppIDR; ~1~ID ~NhtiOi'~N'p INOORFOFtATPm, 864 Produotion Plaae ~ TRAaT N0. 5510 NeWport Beaah, California. EQiGII~t: Jennings-Helderman-Hood, 1833 • Dast 17th Ple,ae, 3uite 200, Santa Ana, CaliPornia. Sub3eat traot, loaated on the west side of Sunkiet 3treet approsime.tely 380 Peet north oP South 5treet, and aover3,xig ~pproaima~ely 1.7 aares, is pro- posed for subdivision into S R-1, 01~f FAMII,Y E~IDSIDLIl~ITZAL, ZOI+II~ lots. B~r. Robert Hood~ representing tha angineer, sppeared before tha Oo~tission and stated that ~the uiap indioeted a 54-foot street, thet tha Interdepartmantel Oo~i.ttee had requested a 60-foot street, that he was not adverae to in•~reasing the width of the atreet~ but Yelt that sinoe sub~eat traat ~as in olose prosimity to other property ~hioh has larger lota, that it would.be mora preotiaal to inolude the additional land in the lots rather thaia the street whioh Was only s~rving 8 lots. The Commissioa eapressed the opinion that it Would be in favor of permitting a 54-Poot street~sinoe the street was only aerving 8 lots. Oaamniseioner Ohavos offered a motion to agprove Tentative Map oY Traot No. 5510, sub~eat to the folloWing oonditions: (1) Thet should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, eaoh aubdivision thereoY shall be submittad in tentative fqrm for approval. (2) The,t the vehiaular aoaess rights~ ezaept at atreet and/or alley openinga, to 3unkist Street shall be dedioated to the City of Anaheim. (3) That in aooordanoe ~ith City Couaoil polioy~.a sia-foot masorny Wall shall be aonstruoted on the east property line separating Lot Nos. 1 and 8 and the arterial highway, esoept that corner Lot Nos. 1 and 8 eha11 be stepped doWn to a heignt of tv~enty-four inohes in the Yront, one-half oY the front yerd setbaok, ancr a heigh'~ c+•~ Yorty-tWO inohes in the baok~. one-half oP_ said setback,. and . eaaept that pedeatrian openings ahall be provided in said vra7ls Where aul-de-ssae abut the planned highvraye right-of-way line oP aa erteriel highwsy. Reasoasble landaoaping inoludiag irrigation Paoilities ehall be i,nstalled.in the unaemented po^tion oP the arteriel highway parkway the Pull diatanoe of said Wall, plana Yor said landsoaping to be submitted.to e~nd eub~eat to the approval oY the Buperintendent oP Parkway Meintenanae. Folloving inetellation and aooeptanae. the Oity of Anaheim shall assuma the reaponeibi].ity ~or ma~intenanae of said landsaaping. Owmoi.seioner Pebley aeoonded the motioa. 3IOTION OARRIIDD. Oo~issioner RoWland returned.to the Counoil Chamber at 2:45 p.m. i . i _ _.. _ . _ _ .-- ---~- ------- -._ ._ _,-_.._.__: _ _ _ .. . _~t , ~ ~i _ _.. ~ ~ ~ MINUTID3, CIT7i PLANNIlJa COlOidI3STON~ lLesah 2, 1964 2007 i'~NTATIVID MAP OF - DEV~LOP~R: L. a. S. QORPORATION, 2509 South Main Street, Sante Ana, TRACT N0. 5444 California, IDNGINffit: Hall, Haynes ~ Assooiates, 219 IDaet 17th Street, Sa,nta Ana, Californie. Sub~eot traot, looated at the northeast oorner of Wilshire Street and Linooln Avenue and oovering approaimately 4.7 anres, is proposed for aubdlvision into one C-1, TIEIGHBORIi00D CO~IlI~ftCIAL, and R-3, MULTIPI,E FAMILY RHISID~N'PIAL, Z01~1D lot. Assooie,'te Plenner Robert ~iokelson presen~d Tentb~tive ~Lap of Traot No. 5444 to the Commisaion, and reviewed the past zoning aotion by the Commission and the City Counoil. DLr. Ailliem Haynes representing the engineer of the development indioated his preaenoe to answer questions. Disousaion pas held relative to the Interdopartmental Committee reoo~endation thet the parkaay dediastion along YPilshire Street and ii.naoln Avenue be made, and it Was determined that aurbs presently eaisted, that ~hat aas proposed on the mep was to 81ign the aurbs northerly with those eaieting on wilshire Street beoause tihe t`1~I1~-iii-w6y li:.e as~ not parallel to the aurb, that the engineer ststed that they Would have no ob~eotion to the 10-Poot minimum parkway dedioation, bu~ it was to their advantage to loaste the sideWalk in the parkway. Deputy City Attorney P'urman Roberts advised the Co~ission that if the atreet width of Yiilshire 5treet was proposed to be ohanged from that eaisting on the General Plan, that att amendment ~ould have to be mede to the Ciraulation Eflement of the (3eneral Plan, and this then would be the only Way that any deviation aould be requested of a petitioner. lhirther disaussion by the Commission Was held as to the possible untenable traffio situa- ~ tion Whiah might be oreated when sub~ect property was fully developed with the restaurant, servioe atation, and the apartments. It ~as determined through questioning of City Enginaer Repreaentative Wallaoe Crenshaw, that sub3eot traot msp had been aubmitted to the TraYfio Engineer for his analysis as to traPfio problems, and no oo~ent had been reoeived. Co~issioner 8ides offered e motion to approve Tentative Msp of Traot No. 5444~ and reoom- mending to the City Counoil that further s~udy be made by the TrafPio Hingineer regarding the poasible traffia hazard being areeted at the northeast aorner of Wilshire 5treet and Linaoln Avenue, prior to the Counail's final deoision on sub3eat trsat, and further, sub~eot to the folloWing oondition: (1) That the parsvvay dedioation elong -Pilahire Street and Linaoln Avenue be a minimum of ten feet from the ultimete looation of the ourbs. Comnissioner Allred seaonded the motion. MOTION OARRIIDD. Co~issionera Chavos and Rofland voted "No". Co~issioner Pabley left the Counoil Chamber at 3:24 p.m. VARIANCID P10. 1623 - PiTbLIC H~A.RING. ~LARCUS A. QARTNIDR, 1233 North Harbor Boulevard, 9naheim, CaliYornia, Owner; requesting permission to YPANID TFIID E[TNIllID[ SIZID OF A DVIEIILI.INQ tRJIT 6 4LINIlIUM LOT AREA P~R D~•T•~ UNTT on property deaoribed as: A reotangular paroel of land With a frontage of 50 feet on the east side of ~ 3abina 8treet and a depth of 115 fe@t~ t3ie northerly boundary,of @,aid .progerty being approx3- wately Z~40 feet south of La Pe1ma Avenue, and further desoribed as 900 North 3abina Street. Property presently olassified as R-2, TWO FAlAILY REBIAHiN'PIALo ZOI~IDI. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in oppoaition. Tf~ F~ARINa YiAS CL09ED. The Cor~i.ssion revieWed the plot plsn noting that sub~eot property was preaently vaoant, and that the petitioner proposed to move a house onto the lot in addition to the aonstruotion of a living unit over a threa-osr garage. Co~isaioner Allred oPfered Resolution No. 1079, Seriea 1963-64, snd moved Yor its psseage and adoption, aeoonded by Commisaioner Cemp to grant Petition for Yarianoe No. 1623, aub- ~eot to oonditiona.(uee Resoluticn Book) I ~ i ( , ~ __ _... ! -- _.~_ _ ----------- ~ _ . _ -~ ~ ~ .._..._ , __.. '~ a ~ ~ J i i t i 's ~ VARIANCID N0. 1623 - On roll oa11 the for9going resolution vn.ss passe~ by the follo~ing vote: (dontiaued) AYE9: COE~SISSIONIILS: Allredo Camp, Ohavos, Mungall, Roaland, Sides. NOES: COt~LISSIONETiS: None. ABSENT: COM~dISSION~RS: (3auer, Pebley, Perry. f7ommiseioner Chavos left the Counoil Chamber at 3:30 p.m. YARIANOID N0. 1624 - PUBLIC FIDIARINQ. J. V. iTANDRUFFo 2911 West De Voy Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE TE~ REqUIRIDD ERONT YARD S~H,TBACR on property desoribed as: A reotangular paroel of land aith a frontege of 85 feet on the south side of Westmont Drive and an average depth of epproaimately 161 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 997 feet east of the oenter line of Loara Street, and further desoribed as 1430 Westmont Drive. Property presently olassified as R-0, ONE FA~[ILY SUSURBAN, ZONE. No one was present to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition. THE FffifAR'Qia WAS CLOSED. The Co~ission noted that properties in olose proximity to sub3eat property had similar front yard setbaoks ss requested by the petitioner. Coffin3.ssioner Chavos returned to the Counoil Chember e,t 3:35 p•m- Co~tisaioner Cemp offered Aesolution No. 1080, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seoottded by Commissioner 5ides to grant Petition For Yarianoe No. 1624, sub3eat to oonditions.(See Resolution Sook) On roll oaZl the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: C6~S9TONDR~: A11red, Camp, Mungall, Romland, Sides. NOES: CO~SSIOI~UORS: None. ABSIDDfF: COME[I3BIONERS: Gauer, Pebley, Perry. ABSTAIN: CO~OMIS3IOM-RS~ Chsvos. Qffi~tAL PLAN Al~1D3~IlJD N0. 8 RECLASSIFICATIO No. 63-64-79 an aONDITIONAL U6ID r~tarr xo. s~ - PUBI~IC Ei~ARINl3. AAWLINS INIIBIST~NT CORPORAfiION, Boa 2382, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles 54~ CaliYornie,, and ROBERT 6 MARY D. NEWTON, 411 Dast 20th Street, 5anta Ana, California. Oaners; property desaribed as: An N irregular peroel of land at the aoutheast oorner of Mountain View Avenue d and Katella Avenue, With £rontages of 198 feet on Mountesin View Avenue, ~ 27 feet on Batella Avenue, and 163 feet on the west side of Manohester Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, REIBIDHII+ITIAL A(~AIQIIIfi'URAL~ ZONB1. REqUF7SR~D CLASSIFICATION: M-1,• LIf~iT INDU3TftIAL, ZONID. - - ' ~ ~RAL PLAN IMPLT~ATIONS: PROJECTI0~1 OF M~DI[1bL DIDN3I'PY ~~YIDLOPI~NT TO HE A1~uNDIDD TO LT(iHT INDU3'PRIAL ~IDVEILOPA~iT Mr. Raymond Utin, representing the petitioners, appea,red before the Cottanission and revieWed the reviaions made on the plans, and atated he was available to ans~er queationa. In replq to Oo~ission questioning Mr. Utin stated that aars Would be brought to the front oP the building only after the preparatory work had been oompleted inside, that the oars would be parked tovard the rear, th~t the at~ea in the front would only be ueeded for aere requesting an estimate Por Work performed~ that the drive on Mountaia Yiew Aas aeeded Por workers entering the ahop, and that this ~as a neaeasary drive. Oo~nisaioner Pebley returned to the Counail Chember at 3:35 p.m. The Oo~isaion expreased the desire to hsve t&e number of aaoeas drivera~sliminated, sinoe the plans indioated there Were Pour, that oae of the drivea on ~[ountai::'iiew Avenue should be eliminated beoause of it alose prozimitq to 3Catelle Avenue, that one drive or~ Maxioheater oould be eliminated by oombining both drives into the oenter. sinoe the Oode would permit only a 30-Poot aooess drive. The agent for the petitioner then agreed to the elimination of the northerly aooess drive on Mountain YieA Avenus and the oombining of the Manahester drives. : ~. .__.._.._.__.___._--.-______.__. _---- _,. _ -;ti~ ~~ MINUTN73, CITY PLANNII~ CO~dISSION, ~Iaroh 2, 1964 2009 ~AL PLAN - A letter of opposition vaas read to the Co~ission. A~iND~1T N0. 8 Mr. Corrili, representing L7ar1 Soheib, in rebuttal stated that the REQLA83IFICATION installation wss approved by the APaII, that no fumes were emitted N0. 63-64-79 and. from the installation beoause of a speaial type of a paint booth, that sinoe the Rork pould be done aompletely indoora no noise Would QODIDITIONAL IISE be hesrd on the outside, that 3unk oe,rs and Wreoks Were not handled p~ll'~ N0. 534 by his olient, therefore the statement that trash ~ould be unaightly (aontiaued) vas ia error, and that there would be no work a4ter 4:30 p.m. or on Saturday or ~4undey. In reaponse to Co~i.esion questioning, Mr. Corrili stated that any Pumes Prom the spray pa3nt work vPas water filtered, that the fan duats were looated Yive feet Prom the parapet line and only tWelve inahes above this line,.and that the roof ~as oonstruoted of steel. The Oo~ission disnuased the possibility that the proposed use Was permitted in the . C-3~ HsEVy Coamcercisl, Zone, thet the use within an M-1, Light Industrial, Zone aes very limited and was only parmitted b3 the filing of a Conditional Use Permit,.and that poasibly the use might be an enoroaahatent of additional induatrirsl. requeats ~est of the Freewey, Whioh would be inoompatible to the reaidentia7. uaes existing to the west and south oY aub~eat property. T9ID Fi~AKII~ WA3 CLOS~D. Co~ission aontinued their disaussion as to the aompatibility of the proposed use, phether the struoture ves arahiteoturally aooeptable, that when the State oompleted the Satella Avenue overpeas~ trafPio would have a view of the industrial development, Whioh might not be an asset to the City When viexed by ~ourists, that Mounte3n View Avenue was the only entranoe the trailer park to the south had, and th~t the Oo~ission ahould be aonoerned with the possibility of aetting a pattern of development for the remainder of the vaaant land ad~aoent to sub3eot property if light industrial development was permitted, ainae the qeneral Plan pro~eoted the Co~i.ssion's thinking for that area Pronting on the rreeway for medium denaity residential development With the poasible eapansion of the existing trailer park. Co~niasianer Camp offered Hesolution No. 1081, 3eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, aeoonded.by Commissioner Chavos to reoomonend to the City Oounail thet (ieaeral Plan Amendment No. 8 be disapproved.(See Resolution Book) On roll oe11 t.he foregoing resolution was passed by the Yollowing vote: AYIDS: OOINQ38IONH~3: Allred, Oamp, Qhavos, Mungall, Pebley, Ro~vland, Sidss. NOHl3; QOIOLTS8I0IJ~R3: None. AB9LIlIT: OOM~T63IOI~EiS: (iauer, Perry. Qomnissioner Ro~slsnd offered Resolution No. 1082, Series 1963-64, and moved Por its paasage .. aud adaptioA, seoonded by Co~issioner GYu3vos •to rsao~nend to tha Ait~ Oounuil the,t Petition Por Realassi~iaatlon No. 63-64-79 be disapproved based on the fsats that approval oY sub3eot petition vaould predeterntine the use of a large area for industriel purpoaes, and that light induatrial development ad~eoent to multiple family devslopment would be inoompatible.(9ee Reaolutioa ~ook) ; On roll ae11 the foregoing resolution wa,s passed by the Pollowing vote: AYIDS: C0~liI8SI02~CRS: Allred, Camp~ Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland, 33des. NOIDS: OO1~LI3~IONERB: None. AESIINT: CO~L33IONHRi$: (iauer~ Perry. Qomnissioner Ohavos.oPfered Reaolution No. 1083~ Series 1963-64, ead moved for its passage and adoption, seaonded by Oo~niseioner Allred to deny Petition for Conditionel Use Permit No. 534 baeed on findings.(See Resolution Sook) On roll oe11 the Yoregoing reaolution xas pasaed by the following vote: AYHI&: OO~Li8320NP~3: Allred~ Oemp~ Ohavos, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland, Sides. DIOHiS: COlO[IHSIOI~iEA51: None. A83IDI~~: OOE~I33IO~R8: (3auer, Perry. _._._._....__....,.-- --_._.~_._.._.._....-------------.__..---- __ _ . ~v , ~ ~~ ~ M7NpTgg, CI'iq pI,ANNINQ OOMS~SSIOK, Maroh 2, 1964 ~ v __. __.... a ~ f ~ 2010 FtH47I,ABSIFICATION - PIIHLIQ I~fARIPR~. INITIAT~F3 BY ~'F~ OITY aOUNCIL~. 204 Eest Linooln Np, (3_(~q._g2 Avenue, Anaheim, Californis; proposed the realassiPioation of property desoribed as: A reotangular pa ~~1 of land ~i.th a frontage of approsi- mately 710 feet on the north side oP Be11 Road and a depth of 251 feet, the essterly boundary of said property being approsimately 819 feet West of the aenterline oY pale Avenue~ and f~rther desaribed as 2661-2911 West Ball Road from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL ALiRIQIIIAqJRAL~ ZONID to the R-3, MUIIl`IPIy1 FAMII+Y RIDSID~NTIAL+ ZOMi. Assooiate Planner Robert Miakslson revieWed for the Co~i.ssion the Counoil aotipn in pro- posing that sub~eat property be realassiYied, and Purther indiaated that the Oommiasion's thinlr__i__ona as pro~eoted on the f3eneral Pian indiaated that sub~eot pro?~erty be developed for medium density residential development. Mrs. Toy'Dittmar, 2901 Weat Ball Road, appeea•ed bePore the Commission and stated that she mgan~t sure ~hether she Was opposed to the realasaifioation, but he.d hed little time to L ~ 10i~A evaluate the possibilities, that her husband stored his oontraa~ing equipmeriL uri Y110 .., and was deairous of keeping it that way• In respanae to Ccmrmisaion questioning whether the storage msa a possible violation of the Coda, Aeputs Oity Attorney Funnan Roberts stated that aertain inaidental s•torage Was pdr- mitted in the R-A, Zone, that sub3eot property Would have to be field ahaaked to make a determination oY a possible violation, and 'that equipment storage problema ~vhioh esisted on Orange Avenua had been proseouted. Mrs. Dittmer then ststed tha,t she had telked with other neiglibors afYeoted by the proposed reolassi~ioation and thay hsd voiaqd thair opposition. Mr. Thomas Anderson, oae~-er of the middle parael under oonsideration, appeared beYore the Qo~ti.ssion in opposition and atated that he wss the operator of the private sohool looated on paroel "S", that the oWner of Parael "0'~ Mr. Cannon, Was present moat of the afternoon but had to leave, that Nr. Oannon was also in opposition stating that he hed liv9d on hia groperty for 50 years and intended to spend the remainder of his li£e there~ that multiple femily development mas ob~eotionable;.that a sahool Was a permitted u~ iu the R-A~ Zone, that ~Nithin 30 deys he hoped to appear before the Cot~.i.saion to obte3n approvel Yor an ad'dition ooating betWeen ~50~000 and ~70,000, that in aon~unation xith the new addition the sohool rlll have eapended up to 5150,0009 that h~ opposed dedioation oP the rear portion of the property for an alley, sinae this oould be used for a plsyground, and an alleq xas a means oP gaining e~aoesa to the sahool grrnands and enaouraging undesirable elements to frequent the sohool grounda~ that he had moved tihe private sohool Yrom aarden (~rove, beoause he felt the loaation in Whiah he presently operated the Sohool wae more desirabla, thst the private sohool oovered approzimately 1.75 aores,snd that the sohool had olasses through the lOtta grade. ' 31r. AndersAn further oontinued tk~at he was definitel opposed to multiple Pami].y develop- ment for :iub~eot ~rnperty, but that a aeighborhood oommeroial development might have more merit. Commissioner Ca~p eapressed'the bpiirio~i tha~t he Would naver votia ~ar realassi.fioe,tio4 oY _ property where the oQners Were opposed to any realeasi4loation of their property. Mr. Roberts stated thst the resolution of intent did not rezone the property~ but vould indioate the dity's position as to the proper olassiPioation o3 the property When the ownera deaided to develop their property~ and that zoning only applied phen all oonditiona of the resolution of intent were met. ~ ~ was cu.os~. Oon~aissioner Rowlea-d offered a motion to reopen the hearing and oontinue Petition Por ReolaeaiYi.aation No. 63-64-92 to the meeting oP september 14, 1964 to a11oW the ownera oP eub~ebt properties to determine whether the proposed zoning Was deairable, and to permit the owuer oP the private sohool to submit his petition for enlarging the sahool. Ooamnisaioner Oemp aeaonded the motion, etating that the ovmers oppoaed any realassifiastion of~their property. MOTI01$ QARRIIDD. ~.._._.__.._----~--------- ----._. ..... ~ ~ _ ___-__._ .._._~. -----~...: __.. _ _.__..._. i~ ~ -_ _ ___ ~ a ~ MINUTHIS~ CIfiY PLAIaiIl~. OO~SSION, Me~z'ah 2r 1964 2011 (#~tAT, pLAN - pIIRLIp I~ARIIQG, DONN6 A. SOV6&ad, 2648 YVest Ball Road, ~LASA3~ OGATA, AiL~IDI~Pr N0. 4 2656 Weat Ball Rosd, ~, aOHN (~. W~BBfft, 2664 YPest Ball Road, Anaheim, • Cali~ornia, Owners; JOHN (~. DUGAN, 1416 West Whittier Bouleverd, RDCLAS9IFZCATION 7Vhittier, CaliYornia; Agent; prope:rty desoribed as: A reotangular N0. 63-64-91 peroel of land ~i.th a frontage of 396 feet on the aouth side oY Ball Road as-d a depth of 607 feet, the essterly boundary of satd property OONI7ITIONAL U8~ beiag 666 feet weat of the centerline oY Magnolia Avenue, and further P'H~LIT NOe 541 desoribed as 2648.,2656, and 2664 Weat Ball Road. Property prasently olassified as R-A, RIDST~*~'~'TAT~ ~lGFfIC~IlPURAL, ZONID. T~iTATIYEf B[AP OF' TEtAtlT ND. 5521 REp1IE3TED CLA83IFICATIQN: R-3, MU7iPIPLEI F9MILY RF7SIDBINTIAL, ZONE F{EqUII3TED OON~ITIONAL TJ3Bf: E9TABLI3H A 01~ AND TVPO-STORY MULTIPLTii FAIQZY P'LANI~D RIDSIDENTIAL DID1IID~..API~PP -YITH OARPQRP9 ArID WANER OF (1) ONID=ST~R7C I~1IC~ L~lIIATION ~PITf~N 150 r~ 0~' R-~, fill1SL71IIN'1'lAL Altiuuu111~At1Lo ZD~ in~i~ (2) D@T~[iTM LOP W7~'PIi AND AREA: (3) REOIIIR~D FRONT9LiEi OF ALI, IAT9. ON A D~IOAT~D STR~ OR ALL~7C; (4 ) ~ 3IDID YARDS Mr. Charles MaB~ey, representiag the developer, appeared be3ore the Oommission to answer aay questions the Ooum~ission might have. L[r, poug].ttis I,e,yman, 8791 Lola Avenue, Stanton, appeared before the Co~i.ssion in oppositioa tc sub~eot patitions and stated thet the proposed devslopment would inoresae an already rn!arburdsned traffio situe,tion in the area,.that sub3eot property baoked up to a nioe single Pemily residential develop~nt to the south,.and that iP the Oommisaion oonsidered the pro- poaed reolassifioation favorably that single atory aonstruotion be required. Oo~issioner Chavoa lef.i: tt~ry Oounail Ohember at 5.:25 p.m. The C~ommi.ssian r.aview~ct the ~.s•tative traat and the plot plans, and advised Mr. Le,yman that single story oonstruotion ~uas proposed within 150 feet of the single Pemily development to the south and that if the oa~:r•aition wiahed they aould view the plans. OoIInnisaioner Oea-p then revieRad the plans with iniar~~~ted persona. ~ Oaoomiesioner C11C14J8 returned to the Counoil Chambsr ~+ 5s3~ p.m- ldr. Lee B~-en, repxeaenting one oP the petitioners stated they had the oenter two eores bsing proposed for realassifioation,. that Lola Avenue did not hava aaoeae to Bal], Roed but to Magnolia Avenue, thst Ba11 Road Was ~rlde eaough to handle any additional traffia, that c~ 6-Poot fenoe existed ~butting the single femily develapment to the aouth, and that beoause theae single Paa-iZy homes were so attraotive, eapenses and tssea had inoreased on his property ~vhioh prohibited him frmn utilizing the property for its present use, that in 1954 some of th9 property o~vners wanted to develop their properties Por oommeroisl usea, but ~-ere p~rsuaded to ~ait until a ms,jority oP the property oxnera vere reedy to dsveloT, thet tha progerty owner to the ~reat, 3Lr. Alien~.WSe agreeable to multiplQ Yemily development, that the ~roperty ownera on ~Lwo paroela to-the east~cslso seemed-to ba in Yaeor of, ~~rnely -• Mr. Sle~ce and Mr. Parsona~ that ldr. Blske aonatruoted e ama11 guest house over his garaga vvhioh he thought aas in violation oY the esiating zoning, and thst ainoa moat of the remsi.ning perqels eest of the IDdison eesement were in egreement to multiple family develop~msnt. he £il~d aub38at petition. The OoamQissioa advisad the patitionere thati they ~vere not in agreement aith the Plenain6 Department at eIl times,.that the 6te~f tried to intarpret the Qo~asion's ideete~ but tnat thq plana presented were not to their liking beoause tha parkitg wea proposed for the Pront oP the ares, 't,hat 'tY-e street dowa the oente~ of the pro3eut ahould b9 e~.tered, and thQt the trash atorage arees ahould be relooated. l[r. McHuraey steted t,het the original plan did not indiaate tha atreat db~uu tY-e oenier, but aPter oonsultationa ~.th the Plenning BtePP, th@ presant tre,ot app was aubmitted. Oonm~issioner Rowlead ofPered a mption to aoatiaue Qeueral Plan Amendment No. 4, Petitions for AeolassiYiaation No, 63-64-.91 and Oonditionsl Uee YY~rmit No. 541, and Tenta~ive Nap oP Treot 1(0. 5521 to the meeting o~ ]Iaroh 3Q~.1964,ia order that the petition9rs might havb euYficient $ime to submit revie~d plane. 'Commi3sioner Bides aeoonded.thb motion. bIUJTIDN ~O~tIIDD. The tlonais»ion requested that any Aree Development Plan Por sub~eot and sbutting propertiea ~o th~ east and past be revie~d at e~ work session bePore the Oo~iseion aonsidered it at e publio hee~iag. -- ~-r-____._------_.~_.__-------------_-_ ~_..,..._----- _ -------•--~ ~. ~ ~ ~ U MIIQDTBL4 , OIT4 PLADIIQII~ ( Ft~TS AbID I'.~ N0, kffi41~O~IDATION3 - Area Development Plan No. 3- Cresaent, Puolid and Fairhaven Btreets .&ssoqiate Planrier Roneld arudzinski preaented Area Development Plan No. 3 to the Coaanission ~ reviewing the previoua aation te~cen by the Oommission on five paroels indiaated on said ' Plea as "B~, 0, P, Q~ and R", and noted that the City Oounoil.heui oontinued the.publia hearing oa Reolassifioation No. 63-64-68 and Yar3anae No. 1616 until the 'Co~tission reported to them ' their report and reao~tendation on Area Development Plan No. 3. Mr. Qrudzinski further stated that any height linqitation oP struotures ad~aaent to single ~ fami'_9 development should not be measured from the west side of Fairhaven 3treet but froa~ the ~ast side oP said street for the 150 ~oot setbaak,..thet five feet of landsoaping wus , reaommeaded to enhanoe th9 eathetio appesranoe of the c~,eoorative masonry Wall,.that if i e~p paroel were to be developed arlth a struature for oo~eroial purposes,.no acaess Would be permitted to Fairhaven~8~reet, that advanoed planning dePined the ares as falling within the regional shopping oenttir designation of the Qeneral Plan~ and that the prcperties oould be developed fo: no~eroial purposes, therePore no reoo~andation was made to stipulate i that theae paroels in the Plan be required £or automobile perking on1.,p. _ Tha Oo~isaion then eapreased their appreoiation for the outstandi~g Work done by the draPta- ~ msn in the Planning pepextment in graphioall.,y portraying in a ahort per3od of time the many j eahib,':.ta presented to the Ooamission in Planning Studies, 73eneral Plan 9msnr."tment proposals, i and Area Development Plans,.and that this be made a metter of reoord in th~ Minutes. ? i Attornay William Dannemeyer, representing Mr. aanald Holmes, 544 Fairhav~rn 3treet, appeared ~ before tha 0oimaission and stated his alient oWned Paroel '~IJ" of tha Plau, that tho dounoil had oontinued Patition for Reolasai4iaatioa No. 63-64-68 in order that an over e11 atudy ~ oY the esea atight be meds and oonaidered by the Oowmisaion, and then Yurthe~ reviewed riis I arguments before the 0ounoil relative to the kteolasaifioation. ; i Attorn9y De~uzem,eypr theu stated that the Area ~ve].optqent Plan affeoted a number of paople ~ in the area, inoluding his olient,.that the Coumtiasion ahould have he~:: an advertised ~ publio hear:,ng regatding the Plan,.that there was a difYerenae in pro3eoting d~velopment ~ of property When it was ra~v lan~d oompared vrith aub3aat properties whioh.vere to be oon- ;.. sidered as redevelopm.ent of exiating residentisl usea Yor oo~eroial purpoaeay and that iY the Qo~isa3os~~avorably ooneidered the Plan, thst a oondition ef approval. be thst a ~;jority oP 80-90,~ oP the remaining property oqners agr9e in aooordanoe with the pro- i poaed.zoaing before any property oould ba rezoned ead developed. ~ The 0oaoniseion inPormed Mr. Dsnnemey@r.t~t the P].an Ropld not be a deolaration oP intent li to rezoae, that it was a means oP posaible,development o3 the properties baoking onto the ~luolid Street oo~eroiel frontage, that in theory development in one paoket Wae ideal, bu~ iP ea.7. property in~.OaliPornie Were required to do this, there would have been little + development in the past, that the Plan r~fleats a aituation vhioh eziated in the 0ity ! withia 50-60 other arees, that if the Plan Was adopted~ this vould.help in solving mesiy ~ other si.mi.lar aituations in the Qity~ thst the property a.mers were already being enoroaohed ? upoa Wi,th the oou~eroial de~telopment ~or ao~qe of the,ad~soent property up to the a11ey, and .~ that if the 'Ooma~iesion. ezpressel their dsaires, ~the proparty ~oyonqrs on the West eide of ~ ~'airhaven 8treet wotil.d be avara of the 0o~isaion's fealings. ~ Mr. DaYU-emeyer then atated that if only a ma~ority of the property owners Were 4oneidered~ i or 51$, this vauld be un3air, beasuae one.property oWtter already ovvned 40,$ oY the lota oa ~ the esat sidA of the street, and oonaideration to inolude the propQrty oFnera on the we5t ~ eide of the etreat ahauld be givQn When osloulating the ma~ority peraeatage oY property owners. Disousaion held be~en the (to~aissioa members indioQted eome heaitanoy ae to r~oo~eading I ~"ahe plan to tha Qity douaoil.pithout aomQ indioation Prom the prop@rty orraers aPP~oted by ~ the Area Dev91opp1ent Plan, thst eve~ though thia might be a Peasible plen of developpmant, ~ eaoh paroel s~nuld atand oa its own merita when oouaidered by'the'po~isaioa before any re~oning of 8 given paroel,.and that the only ReolaesiPiaation to bQ oonsidered by the ; ~o~ai.saion for property 4wered in the Plan would be Q-0,'pom~ur~ial DfPioe, Zone. j Qom~isaioner (~amp ofPerdd a motion to reoo~qaend tq the'Oity Oounoil that 9rea D~velopment P].ext No. 3 is a feasible solutioa Por development o~ ~ho aras,.iP the area is to be developed in t~is ma~tner, but eaoh parael or petition ahall bQ oonaidered an ita o~ru merite and property on ~id Plan ahould nat be realesaiYied as one entire paroel and that the on].v Zone thst t-ould be aoagptab-le or aonaidered aould be 0-0~ Oomtneraial O~fioe, Zone. OotmA3seioner Pebley sevonded the motion. MOTION'OAR~tIIDD. . ~ i i ~ ~ , I _._ _~__ ___._.-- -......_--- -' .._~___........~.~.1m , .~.~.. ~_ ._ ~~ ._ ---_.__._ __ ' ..~ : ~ ~ MIl~II7'~S, C137 FI,ArII~ 'OO1~S.TBSIAN, March 2, 1964 2013 ~g ~ - IT~i H0. 1 (Dontinued) RB[QQAD~+IDrATTt1Di8 Area Development Pl~n No. 3- Cresoent, IDuolid and Fairhaven 3treete 'Co~i.ssioner Ohavoa voted ~'No", and stated +,hat in his opinion all the px..perty otvners aYfeoted by the Area II•:velopment Plan~ No. 3 should have been not3fied of the Qor~ission's oousideratiun oP sai~ Plan. ITt~S N0. 2 YPALiI~~-R20 YISTA k1+UlIDXATIONi Qomperablr Zoning Assooiate Planner Robert Miakslson actvised the Oommisaion that in oonPormanoe with a Counoi.l emandment to the (fode on anneastion that studias War~ initiated to d~termine $ne oomparab3e zonzng oi 'r,ne '"ui%y oi luiaiieim xitu tihat propertiy incoTporai;ad in the ennea8tion proaeedings~ and thac it has been determined that aei3 zoning ie A-1 in the Oounty whioh is R-A, ftesidential Agriaultural, Zone in the City oP Ansheim. .__ d j J J fio~i~aioner Ropland ofPqred a motion to reoonmend to the City Counail thst those properties inoluded in the Wagaer Rio Viata Annesation be oonsidered ae havin6 zonii~; comparable to (iity of Anaheim's R-6~ Etesidential Agriaultural. ~one, and th~,t said zoning be applied to a11 propertiea sontained rrithin the -Pagner Rio Yista Anneaation. Oormnissioner'Ohavos seaonded the motion. MOfiION OARRJB''?. ITHM N0. 3 Termimation of ReolessiYioation Nos. 56-5"1-63, 56-57-89. 57-58-61, 58-59-14., and 58-59-87,~ and "~ariar.oe I3o. 1259. Aasooiaie Planner Robert Miokelson revieWed.'~~he data regarding sub3eot petitions, noting that several Realsssifiaation Petitions had never been reviewed by the'O1i,y 0ounail, thet one patition hed been advioed to appear be.^.are the Counoil at a publia heariag to s8.ow aause why the Eteo].aeaiPiastton ahould not be terminstad. and e subseguent reolassiPioe,tion pro+oeeding had been approved and an ordinanoe reed on property proposed Yor reolassifios- tion by a previous ~'atition for Reolassi£ioation~ end that the Yarienod had never been eserais~d or the property developed as proposed. Comqi.saioner damp oPfered Assolution No. 1084~ Series 1963-64, and moved for ita passage and edoption, seoonded by Octm~.ssioner A].lrea to reao~-end to the Oity OounaiZ that Petitian for PsolBSSiPioation No. 56-57-63 be terminated bpsed on findin~s.(See Resolution Book) On roll osll the Poregoing resolution aas passed by the following vote: A7CID8: C~CC3SIOI~tS: Allred, (1emp~ Ohavos, Mungall, Peblqp~ RoWland, 31des. NOLI3: QOf~Y8T01~9: None. -- A88~1F: ~QbOQ3~YI~9: tie~uez; Perry. ~ ' ' - .. - _ .. _ Ooma:oaic~ner Ohavoa ~Pfered Resolution Mo. 1085, 9eriea 1963-64~ and moved Por ita passage es-d adoption, saooaded by Qo~i.ssioner Oemp, to reao~nend to the Oity Oaunoil.that Patitioas for ReolasaiYioation No.. 56=57-89~ 57-58-61 and 58-59-1~4 be terminated based on the P.aot that ssid petitions hsd never been oonaiderod by the~0lty Oounoil.(8'ee Aesolution Bo4k) Oa ro31 aea]. Lhe foregoiag resolution vPae pasaed by the folloRing vote: AY~Hs OO~QdT59IOI~SEi~a Al].x~d. (1amp, Qhavos, Dlut~gal].~ Pebley, Rotrland. Bides. DtO~: CQ10ft3$TON~tS: None. ABB~i,T: C~O~CBS'20N~t6: 'f3~suer, Perry. _ .._ ~ ...~..~ .~-._._.-----. __ _____ _... _._ . .. ._..__. _.. ._-- -_._.. . _. _ .- ~._. . ..., . _ ...___. _ .. _ _ , • ---- . ~ _i . -~- ~ . , I i ~ . ~ j J ~ ~ - --- ---- --- _~~__~....__._.___._. -•-- . . ,~~ , , --.._._. _ -___._ ~ ; l i j `..) 'Y~ ~ ! a M~VO"i`~3, OTTY •PLAI~II~T~T(~ ~010[ISSION~ Maroh 'L, 1964 2014 ~. RP1pOFtT3 A;"i - I~f, N0. 3(Qontinued) RIDQO~ID9TION6 Tormination of Reolasaifiastion Nos. 56-57-63, 56-57-89, 57-58-61, (Oantinuedi 58-59-14, and 58-59-87, and Varianoe No. 1259. Ooami.ssioner. aemp oPfered Heeolution No. 1086, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, aeoonded by Oo~uissioner Allred to reooa~atend to the City ~ounoil that petition for Realassifiaation No. 58-59-87 be terminated bssed on the faot i•,hat said reo'~.sssi~iaation t~as auperseded by RealassiYiaation No. 59-60-82.(See Hesolution Book) On roll oall the Yoregoing resolution vras paesed by the fol~owing vote: AYF~Ss 00~0[ISS"IS)I~i3: Allred~ Oemp, Ohavos, Mungall, Pebley, Rowland~ Sides. 2t0ESs C~3°.,IOI~',~t3: Notte. ABS6Q1'P: CO~IS3IOl~t3: Gauer ~ Perry. Oo~issioner Chavoa ofYered Resolution No. 1087, 9eries 1963-64,.and_ mwed for its paseage and adoption, aeoonded by Co~iasioner Oamp~ to reooamend tn the Oity Oounail that Peti~ion Por Yarianoe No. 1259 be terminated based on the Yants that sub3eat property Was not developed in Booordanoe WitY, the approved plan, ead that none of the oonditions hsd been oompleted.(3ee Aeaolution Book) ~ i On ro7.1 aall the foregoing resolvtion mas passed by the following vote: AYHSa . QOUO,~BSI~`i~Qt5: Allred, Cemp, Chavos, Mungall, Peb]ey, Ro9rland, Sidea. ; NOID3: C0~3SIOI~RS: None. ABSMVT: COM~IS9IONF'R3~ deuer, Perry. ~ ADJOUHI~ID~NT - There being no further busineas to disouss, Oo~tisaioner Sidea ofPered e ; motion -to ad~ourn to tr.s eYening of Marah 9,.1964 for a work session. Omarnissionei• RoWland seoonded the motion. MOTION 4ARRII&m. fihe meeting ad~ourned at 6:00 o'alook P.M. Respeatflilly submitted, (/"~~~~ ~y~% ~~~~e/ Atai ~S, 3eoretary Anaheim Oity Planning Oot~isaion ___.._~._..---r-..._.__._____._._____._._._.._.___.....--------------___....._._ .------._...---.,...__. '8K: , ~....--