The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1964/03/16.~...,..,..M,..~.. n.,...,~~ ~,. _ " ,s~- - ---...__..__. ~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California March 16, 1964 A REGULAR MEHTING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the.Anaheim City Planning Commission was cal3ed to oxder by Chairman.Mungall at 2:00 o'clock p.m., a quor.um..hp~-_pr~esent. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN:..Mungall - CG~AMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Peble.y,,.Rowland, Pexry_. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERSi Sidese PRESENT - Associate Planner: Robert Mickelson Deputy City Attorneya Furman.Aoberts .... ~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary.: Ann Kret~s I-~VOC'R7ION - Reverend 'Nalter Vernon, Pastor of. the First Congxegational Church, gave the invocationo PLEDGE OF ' ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Alleg3ance.,.to the.El.ag. . ELECTION OF - Chairman Mungall asked for nominations for Chairman Pr.otempore, sinca ~ CF7~IIHMAN at the last meet_~g held on March 2, 1964, a tie vote for Commissioners ! 'PROTEMPORE Gauer and Camp w<<. ~abled.to this maetingo. ' Commissioner Camp requested te be..heard and stated that in his opinion ~ Commissioner Gauer had been a Commissioner for a number of years, and had ; previously served commendably as both Chairman and Chairman Protempore, 1 and he, therefore, wished to withdraw as a candidate for the office of ; Chairman Protempore~ ~ Chairman Mungall..then asked if there were any more nominations. There being none,,he asked for a voice voteo Commissioner Gauer was unanimously elected Chairman Protemporeo Commissioner Gauer thanked the Commissioners and then stated that the office should be shared by the other Commissioners, and that he would ~ attempt to fulfill his duties to the best of his abilityo ~ y APPROVAL OF ' TI-~ MINUTES - The Minutes of the meetings of February 17 and March 2, 1964, were approved as submitteda . w. , , ,~~.. . ' - , ...ar- ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 63-64-97 and Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing reclassification from ~ R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to P-1, AUTOMOBILE PARKING, ZONEo ; l~CLASSIFICATION - CONTIIVUED'PUBLIC 'i-iEARTNGo M,CoPo WAREHOUSS CORPORATION, 424•South .. .. N0. 63-64-89 Atchison Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; CLARENCE Ca TAYLOR, 424 South F.tchison Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting reclassi- ; f±cation from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILI' RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the M-1, ( LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE on property described as: A rectangular parcel ~ of land with a f rontage of 120 feet on the east side of Kroeger Street, and a depth of 125 feet, the southe rly boundary of said property being 167 feet north of the centerline of j t Santa Ana Street , and further described as 406 and 412 Sonth Kroeger Street. Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-89 was continued from the meeting of February 17, ' 1964, in order to a'.low sufficient time for the Planning Department to make a field inspection ~ to verify housekeeping conditions, and to advei::ise subject property for P-1, Automobile Park- ! ing, Zone. Associate Planner, Robert Mickelson, advised the Commission that an inspection had been made of the propcrty as requested by the Commission, and submitted photographs substantiating the complaints made by the adjacent property owners, and advised the Commission no recheck of the area had been made. ~ - 2015 - , _.__.___._ . .--;. .. __. __.---._ .~_..... __ ...._.. .-----.__ _._.._ _ .. ..__._._.. ___..._--- . . . ~ _ . .._. _.. ---.__ 1 MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 196A 2016 RECLASSIFICATION -.Mro.Arthur..Surbuxs representing tF.e graup in opposition to the M-1 ; N0:• 63-64-97 and Zoning, appea,~ed.before the Commission and stated he had voiced their ~ opposition..to.the M-1 Zoning requested by the petitidner, but they were , REGLASSIFICATION no opposed to the parce.l.being-reclassified to the P-1 Zoning;.that the , NO.. 3- 4-89.' southerly 100 feet of Kroeger Street south of the Southern Pacific tracks ~Continued was not.affected by this., and asked-the_.Commission whether or.not this triangular parcel should not also have been included..in.#~e P-1 Zoning since its unsightliness was detrimental to the industrial development.in close proximity to it;•as well as the residential structures across the streeto Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission the housekeeping pxoblem was a task of~continuously checking throughout the City; that he had discussed with th,e agent for the petitioner the problem of housekeeping after the hearing, and he had indicated it would be necessary for ~the petitioner to keep his property in a neat and order.ly•manneT., and that an.3nspec~ion would be mede and the property would be p'eriodically checked for mai anance of this orderlinesso The Commission advised the opposition that the property south of the railroad tracks had been zoned M-1 already, and it had not been the intention of the Commission to include that property in the proposed p°1, Automobile Parking, Zone~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the housekeeping conditions of the petitioner as well_as other rtianufacturing plants within the CiLy; that it was a matter of policing by the City in order to maintain some semblance of cleanliness; that the.property owners adiacent to sub3ect property could contact the City Attorney's office whenever the appearance of subject property,became untenable; that possibly a ietter to the officials of any of these organiza- tinns might be more effective to encourage them to upgrade the image of the City as well as their property; that the best .thing that could be done for subject property would be the canstruction of a 42-inch wall with landscaping edjacent to~said wall to minimize the blowing o~ tlebris into the residential area and to contain the parking area; and that the condition on Kroeger~Street was typical of other areas which also indicated a manufacturing use was not compat3ble to any residential usea THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo ~ . ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the requir.ng of a six-foot masonry wall ~ ~ on the east and north property linesi that if any illumination were to be made of the parking ~ area, this should be limited to.a 2ow, mushroom-type illumination; that the recommended condi- ; ~~, tion of trash storage areas was net applicable to subject propertyy since it was bei.ng pro- ~ t posed only for parking purp~ses; and that in order to protect the property owners from the ~ unsightliness of the storage in tk~e M-1 Zone and from an esthetic viewpoint, the six-foot masunry w~~r'N~uld be a requiran~ent, not only to separate the parking area, but also to imprwe th'e appearano~~. the resider~tial Kroe9er Street frontageo ~6:. Commissioner Rowland ~~ffered Resolution Noe 1088, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, secor,ued by Commissioner Chavos, to recommand to the City C'ouncil that Petition for Reclassific~iion Noo 63-64-97 be approved, sub~ect to the constructi~~n of a six-foot ,,,,, masonxy wali along the east and north property lines, and a 42-inch decorative masonry wall " along the west property line except for street and alley openings, anrl the planting of land- scaping along the.front of the 42-inch wall, and that if any lighting of the parking area was ~ proposed, the lighting should be of the ~ow, mushroom-type of illumination dir~cted awey from ~ the residential properties ironting on Kroeger Streeta (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe9 by the following.yote:, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlanda NOE~s COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sidese Commissioner Rowland offered Reso'lution No. 108~ ~ries 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Che.~•~~s, ec..;mmend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-89 be diser~;;•oved, ..ased on the facts that the proposed M-1 use on the Kroeger Street frontage was incompatible to the area, and that the proposed M-1 was replaced by Commission resolution approving P-i, Automobile Parking, Zone. (See Resoli~tion Booka) On roll call the fore9oing resolution ~^.es passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSF.NT: CQMMISSIONERSs Sidesa __.. ___ ___... ____ __ .-.-- - -_._._._._. __._~ _ --- _.._~.~__..__._~._... . ____.._ _. s... _ _~ , ~' ~ ' ~ ~, ~ l , . •~ .. . \ r 5 . _ . . - ~. . ~ / `~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 19b4• ~ f ~ 1 ~J 2~1~ RECI:ASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PIJBLIC HEABING. ALBERT TIKKER, 2914 West Lincoln Avenue, N0~~63-64-36 and Anaheim, Cal.ifnrnia, Ownex.; .(SILLY J. KIKER, 725 Kenmore Street, Anaheim, „ California,_Agent) C.OVINGTON BROTI~RS CONSTRUCTION CGMPANX~ fl41.North Cvl~A3iTI0NAL USE Harb~r. Houlevard, Anaheim, Cali£ornia, New Agent; pr.~perty_ descrihed.as: PEANflT~NO. 479 An.irregular parcel.of land approximately 185 feet by.6~O...f.eet,_the •-~~~ westerly boundary of said property being 110.feet.eas.t o£_Rirlqe~etay Street, and.the northerly boundary being 396 feet south.of...the...cEaterline..ef_ Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2914 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently. classified as R-A, RESIDHMfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.• ' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R~3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL~ ZONE.. : ' ~"REQUESTED L~ONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL • DEVELOFMEN'I - WAIVE ONE-STORY HEIGHT.LIMITATION WITHIN , ~ 150.FEET OF SINGLE-EAMILY ZONED PROEERTY. Subject petitions were continued from the mee.tings of. Septemlier 16, Octobe.r. 2$, November 13, and~pecember 9, 1963, January 20 and February 17, 1964, in order that the petitioner might have'st,fficient time to submit revised plans and file~ a tract.map.• •• •• •• Associate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a letter..had.been xeaeived . ~~ from the petitior.er indicating he had changed his agent and requested_.a.cor_tinuancet.and , that a letter from the agent-developer had been received, requesting an indefinite continu- anc~e for submission of revised planso ' , i Corrmissioner Perry offered a motion to continue the hear9ng of Petitionsfor Reclassiiica.tion i No~. 63-64-36 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 479, to the meeting of September 14, 1464, in ~ order to allow the new agent.developer sufficient time to submit revised planse Commissioner ? Chavos seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDe J ;i ,,("ti~RAL PLAN - PUBLTC HEARING. GIACOMO & AGOSTINA LUCARO, 532 North Magnolia Avenue, 1 A'M~NDMENf N0. 12 Anaheim, California, Owners; ROBERT Wo MC MAHON, 1695 West Crescent, ~ and Suite 560, Anaheim, California, Agent; petitioner requesting WAIVER OF ~ ~ VARIANCE N0. 16~ T~ MINIMUM LOT AREA of property described as:"`'An irregulary shaped ~ parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue and a depth of approximately 218 feet, the northerly ~ line of said property being approximately 928 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenueo ~ Property classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe ?~ i Subject General Plan Amendment may be necessary in order to reflect the land use policies ~ of the Planning Commission and City Council in con~unction with action taken on Reclass3fi- cation No. 63-64-230 ~ The Commission Secretary advised the Commission o.f atelephone request from the agent, asking ~ that subject petition be continued to the evening session because he was unable to appear , to represent t'ie petitioner due to a previous commitment in courto ; The Commission ~ndicated that it was not necessary that the agent for the petitioners appear j to represent them, because a condition of approval of Petition for Reclassification No, 63-64-23 required that the "Not-A-Part" be either reciassified, or a Petition for Variance i . filed ta approve the less thar~ an .acr~ .parc.el. _ . _, ~ The Commission further discussed the Amendment to the General Plan, noting the proposed reclassification of the Euclid frontage of the property to the north had been approved by the Commission for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso THE IiEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1090, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 12 be approved, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.) Or roll call tht~ioregoing resol~.'_ion was passed by the following vo+^* AYESs ^.OMMI~SIC~~JERS: Allred, Camp, Ci~avos, Gauer, Mungall~ Pet' ,~ perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COM~+AISSIONERS: Sides. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1091, Series 1963-64, and mo~ ~:or its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 162b, sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book.} , _ __._,--..__. ..__ ._.._.._. ~ ~! .__.....~..~.-~_. _____.._ _._.. . _ _. _.._._ _ ___ __,.. _.. ~i- ..._. _ -~-'~"F i ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ iI ~ ~ ~ ', ~ MINUTES, CIiY.PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 1964 2018 ' i ': i GENERAL PLAN - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: : ~ AM~NDMENT NOo 12 and AYES: COMMISSIONERS.: A11red, Camp, Ghavos, Gauer., Mungall, Pebley, VA 3AI~E N0. ~ perry, Rowland< CQntinued NOES: COMMISSIONERS: .None- I ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Sidesa ~ ' TEI~II'ATIVE MAP OF -,DEVELOPER: LOMAR DEVELOPERS INCORPORATION, 700 Fifth Street, Huntington TRACt N0. 5529 Beach, Californiao ENGINEER: C. C. Bonebrake, R.C.E. 167~ 115 East -0range Grove Avenue, Orange, California. Sub;iect tract, loca.ted...on the .so.uth side of Savanna Avenue approximately 660 feet wes.t of.Knatt Avenue, and contain- ! ing approximately 2.8 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 10.R 2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, , e ZONED lots. ~ Assnciate Planner Robert Mickelson roviewed the Commission an~ Council action on subject pxo{~erty, noting that subject tract was a requirement in the Council's.approval...fAn_R-2 zoning.~'~ Ms:. ~. C. Bonebrake~ engineer for the developer, appeared before the Commission and.xeviewed the prooosed 'traci map and 1IlalCd~eci iiZ Wa5 hav~ng probiE~TiS rii~il i.ii2 CuT.~'> ~Rw 5..••..^.87°~ ti".1± thet he would resolve these with the City Engineer. Tfie Commission reviewed the tract map noting that drainage would be toward the Pacific 'E2ectric right-of-way. Cbimnissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noe 5529, sub,ject to 'tHe following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form fox.approuale 2. That the "Not a Part", north of Lot Noo 1, shall be included .as a l~t..within the ; • tract, or that the dedicated strip of land 32-feet.-fx•om.the centerline of.Savanna ` Street shall be fully improved in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineere ~ t 3o That the east half of the north-south street shall be 2205 feet wide and shall include Lot "A", one foot wideo This is adjacent to the "Not a Part" north of R Lot Noo 10. ; 4. That a predetermined price for Lot "A" shall be calculated and an agreement for dedication entered into between the Developer and the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map. The cost of Lot "A" shall include land and a proportionate share of the under9round utilities and street improvementso Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. Cormn~ssioner Chavos left the Councii Chamber at 2:40 pome TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPERs ARDMORE DEVELOPN1ENf COMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, Los TRACT N0. 5438 Angeles 24~ Californi~o EhG?':dEERs_ Engineering Servic~ Corporation, 1127 West Washington Boule~~~~~d, Los Angeles 15, California. Subject tract, located on the west s~id-e of Chippewa Avenue north of Crescent Avenue, contains 3.5 acres, and is proposed for s;.~ndivision into four condominium lots comprised of 142 parcels of air space and 72 dwe]lic~g unitse M,~, r~llan Ross, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and reviewed pest aciion on sub3ect property, noting that approval for the original multiple-family subdivision had been granted in Tract Noe 4107. The Commission asked whether Conditions, Covenants a.nd Restrictions had been presented to the City Attorney's officee• PAr. Ross sta•ted that their draft of the CCBR's would be ready for submission very shortly. Depuiy City Attor.ney Furman Roberts advised Mr. Ross that the CCf~R's would have to be submitted ta and approvai received from the City Attorney's office prior to fil+,ng of a Final Tract Map> Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5A38~ subject to tt~e following conditionss I ..._ _ _._ i - _.~_ _-- ---~.._ --- -- - -- .._.._..__ ..~-_.____~ r-- ~ _____ ------------------- ~ (`) - ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 1964 2~19 ' TENCATINH MAP OF - 1. That...slwuid this subdiuision be deueloped as more than one subdivision, : 'TR''CT N0. 438 each subd~vision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for '(Continued appTOValo ;?. That the C~venants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be ~;:u.~itted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council I approval of the Final T~act h7ap, and further, that the.appxo~ed j Covenants, Conditions, and•Restrictions shall.be recorded concurrently ~ with the final.tract.mape Cottmissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTI~N CARRIED. ' TENTAT~VE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: ARDMORE DEVELOPMENt COMPANY, 1129.Westwood.Boulev~d,..Los TRACT'N0. 5449 Angele# 24, Californiae ENGINEEAs Engineering Service.Cor}~onation,. 1127 W~st Washington Boulevard,.Los Angeles 15, California.. Sub,j.ect tract located at the stub end of Gramercy Avenue, east.af.Chippewa.A~enue, contains 302 acres, and is proposed for subdivision into one condominium lot comprising of io jid2'i.e15 Oi ciT ~j7cGi: diitl .°i~ ui~ioliiily iii~i~Se • ~ Subject tract was considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract Noa 5438. Cbmmissioner Pebley offerAd a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noe 5449, subject io the-iollowin9 conditions: 1. That should this subdivision bs developed as more than one subdivision, each ~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for_approval. ~ 2. That the Covenants, Conditions, and Rest•rictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City l~ttorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the Final Tract Map, and further, that the approved Covenants, Conditions~ and Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract mapa 3. That if Gramercy Avenue is not completely improved, a bond in an amount determined by the City Engineer shall be posted priox to the approval of the final tract mape Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDD TENfATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPERe ARDMORE DEVELCi~MEPTf COMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, Los TRACT N0. 5495 Angeles 24, Californiao ENGINEER: Engineering Service Corporation, 1127 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 15, California. Sub~ect tract, located west of Chippewa Avenue between Glenoaks and Greenleaf Avenues, contains approximately 10.3 acres~ is proposed for subdivision into two condominium lots comprised ~f 179 parcels of air space and 102 dwalling units. Subject tract was considesed in conjunction with Tentative ~dap of Tract Nos. 5438 and 5449. Commissioner Allred offered a mntior. to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5495, subject to the following conditions: .1. That should this subdivision be developed es moie than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be subm3tted in tentative form for approval. 2e That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the Final Tract Map, and further, that the approved Covenants~ Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 3e That Lot No. 2 shall ba noted on the Final Tract Map for recreational use with no residential use to be permit+.ed. Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 2:45 p.m. i ~ ~ ~ a ~ ( ~ ____~..-._~-_ _.__._._.__---.-------_.____. __..-----•----._.. r--- ----._.-..._.. ..---------~ - ~ i _ _ _. __..__. MiNUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Maxch 16, L964. 2020 _..~_r ~ ~ i ~ VARIANCE NOo 1625 - PUBLIC HEARING~ LUSK CORPORATION, P, Oo Box 1217, Whittier, California, and Onner; WILLIAM Do L(1SK, P, Oo Bax 1217, Whittier, Califoxnia, Agant; RE~SION NOo 1, reyuesting permission to WAIVE THE MINTMUM LOT WIDTH TO ESTABLISH ONE TENfA'I'IVE MAP OF LOT IN TENTATIIIE.TRACT NOo 5499 WITH A 15-FOOT FRONfAGE AT THE SUILDING TRACT NOo 5499 SETBACK LINE on pxoperty.described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue.and.Nohl_Canyon ., Road and encompassed by the boundar.3es of Tentative Map o.f.Txact No.~5494 which contains a total area of approximately 12 acreso Property presently classified as R-1, ONE=FAMILY RESIDENI'IAL, ZONEo . - DE9ELOPER: LUSK CORPORATION, 10522 Santa Gertrudes Avenue, Whittier, California. ENGTNEER: Boyle Engineering, 412 South Lyon Street, Santa Ana,;Californiao Subject tract i"s proposed for subdivision into 36 R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned Lotso ._ Subject tract was continued from the meetings of February 17 and March 2, 1964, to allow time for the developez to file a varianceo Mr,.,Al Saluvar, representing the Lusk Corporation, appeared before the Commission and reviewed sa~~c~t blOV}l. a~d ....:ar.ce~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso Tt~ HEARING WAS CLr,;ED, Ca~nissioner CamN offered Resolution Noo 1092; Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, eeconded by CommissionEr Allred, to grant Petition for Variance Idoe 1625, subject to conditionso (See kesolution Booko) On.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES": CONUAISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ NOES: COMMISSIONEP,Sz Nonee ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos9 Pebley, Sideso Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve Revision Noa i of Tentative Map of Tract Noe;5499, sub3ect to the following conditions: le That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo 2o That the average lot size shall be 10,000 square feet, with no lot less than 8,000 square feet, and that the pad size shall be not less than 7,000 square feeto 3o That the area within the City of Anaheim contributing to the drainage district in the City of Orange, shall be responsible for the drainage charge, which shall be paid prior to approval of the final tract mapo 4o That the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer pr3or to the approval of the final tract mape ' 5e That the approval_of Tentative Map of Tract Noe 5499 is granted sub~ect to the approval of Variance Noo 16250 ~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo TFIE TOWN CHIJRCH ASSEMBLY OF GCD OF ANAI~IM, Pe 0. Box 148, PERMIT NOa 542 Anaheim, California, Owner; DORMAN No BUTTRAM, Pastor, P. Oe Box 148, , Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL EDUCATION FACILITIES IN THE SUNDAY SCHOOL DEPARTN~Nf, AND FOR FUTURE USE AS A DAY SCH(~L; property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land wiih a frontage of 276 feet on the north side of Broadway and a maximum depth of 302 feet, the easterly bound- ary of said property being approximately 643 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Avenue~ and further described as 1759 West Broadwayo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe Reverend Dorman Buttram, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed ~:ie proposed development~ noting that a two-story educational building would adjoin and be constructed at a later date, and that he was available to answer questions. The Commission noted that if the Girl Scout property to the west of sub3er,t property were used for parking facilities, no access was being nroposed fer subject pro}^erty; that there seemed to be a park3ng problem, in that the the striping proposed was not .in accordance with Code, and inquired of the petitioner what was their present membership. _..~.___~._...~..._--...._..---_...._ --- ----...._...__ _--- -. _... ,._---. -----.-_ __..._. _. ___. _ _ . _ _..i; . ~ ~J ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March.16,.1964 2~ CONDITIDNAL USE - Mr. Buttram stated _that although, in his estimation, the present parking ?ERNtIT N0~ 542 facilities.werE adequate, it was.yood to know that additional parking (Continued) facilities would be available; that the substandard parking was proposed for future parking and covered 42 spaces; that the immediate parking was . presently adequate; that.their actual. membership.was.axound 60 persons, al•though between 125 and 140 persons were..in.attendance;.that he was unaware a conditional use permit was needed until.he had presented plans to the Building Departmen~t,. and having. rea•d the recommended_conditions,-took.issne with several of them; namely.,.that the church has-•been in existence since 1957, that they..had never been rpquired..to.~ay street lights,_.. . tha~t in 1960.they had agreed with Buccol2 Construction Company to dedicate a specific number of feet foi street widening purposes, that the sewers, sidewalks, and paving had been paid for before the property which had been sold to Buccola had been released_.fsnm escrow,..and tnat a letter had been written to the congregation in which a.paragraph stated the City had verbally agreed the church would not be required to pay the street.li.ghtsa Disaussion was held between the Commission and the petitioner relative to the requirement of paying street lights, to which the agent for the petitioner stated street improvements had been put in prior to the Girl Scouts° occupation of the property, and that the Girl Scouts were not reauired to submit $2:00 per front foat for street lighting purposes at the ti~e their conditional use parmit was approveda Ass'xiate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that upon investigation of the conditional use permit granting the Girl Scouts approval to use their property, no require- ;no::t Was recar.+.mendnd regardir.g a charge of $2D00 oer front foot for street lighting purposes, The Commission advised the agent for the petitioner.it was not within the po~ver of the Commi- sion to waive the requirement of street lights, since this might set a precedent for athers requesting the same; that it would be up to the City Council :o grant said request, and they advised the petitioner to submit a written request to the City Council, requ~sting waiver of tfie street light chargeo Mr. Buttram then asked why the petitioner had not been assessed foz• the street lights at the ti~e the~street improvements were put ino Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised that norma.lly street light conditions we.re attached to`any development of property in which the land use changed; that since'the proposed use would be for other than residential-agricultural use, this street light charge was then recommended, and street lights would be installed when the major portion cf the properties had been assessed the charges for street lights and said charges having been paido Mre Roberts further advised Mro Buttram if he could find any evidence whera the ~ity Council had waived the charge of $2000 per front foot for street lighting in the records, this evi- dence could be submitted to the City Ccuncila Mr. Buttram then stated he had tried the major portion of the morning to check with various City departments, and he had been unable to find any such evidence, and he had contacted the Buccola peopie in hope they would have som~ evidence, but so far he was unable to determine the facts> Mr, Buttram further stated the stipulation of a six~foot masonry wall along the north property ; line was acceptable to them, provided said wall couid be installed at the time of the completion' of the mast~r plan, and the Rxisting sedwood €2nce, in his estimation, was sufficient protectian • to the property owners adja„ent to the church propertyo Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 2:55 pomo Further discussion was held between the Commission and the petitioner regarding the adequac~ of the parking areas and the accessways to said parking areas; whereupon the agent for the ' petitioner presented another drawing of the future parking, for the Commission's consideration. ~ No•one appeared in opposition to subject petition. I TE~ f'.EARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion among the Commissioners indicated the proposed parking should be striped in accori- ance with Code; that adequate circulation should be provided, and the petitioner should consult with the Traffic Engineer to resolve any problems regarding circulation, and any problems tha~: may exist might be resolved by contacting the Planning Department so tnat the Commission would not be required to reconsider any further d~velopment in reference to the master plan beir.g proposed, and that the si;c-foot fence should be a requ~rtiment because of i:he *.endency of children to ciimb woaden fences, and adequate protection should be afforded the single-'ramily rosidential properties again~t encroachment of automobila paricinq. 1 ___._._.___.._ __ .. ___._... --------- ,_....___~~_ _ - -__ _ _ ---~ ~--- .__~1l ---_ , ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOIV, Maxch 16., 195a 2022 CONDITIONAL USE - The Commissian adv.ised .the agent for ttu: petitioner the Ca~:?mis.sion was not ' PEEMIT N0. 4 attempting to take advan+.age of the church, but beca+~s? of th~, timing of Continued the peti.tion, and as it was b~3!lg m-sde t~ upgrade the communi.ty as a whu~le, . therefore these var3ous requ~asts w_re being made of the church :~t thi~ +.ime, and other petitioners were assessed the same requirements if :~eedeu ~n their pr.opertyo Cormnissioner Allred offered Resolution 1093, Series 1963-64, an~ moved far.its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, t~ grant Petition fox Uonditional.Use P~rmi.k Noo 542,:~ sUbject to parking requirements conformir.g to Code, .tha~.adaquate .cir~ulatior~ ~h;s? 1 be pr.o•v3ded which shall meet with the Trarfic Er.yi:~eer's specifications,..and that >;Ix-footi masonry wall shall be consiructed on the north property linea (See..Resolution Baok,~l .. On.roll call the foregoing resolucion was passed by the follor~ir,g..vo.te: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Cnavos, ~3a~ier, Mun~a21, Perry,..Rn+~land. NOES: COMMISSIONHRS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Side~. • CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIi; ~. VESPF.R Bo WHITE, 12912 Ni ~i.a Street, Garden ~~ro~~e, PERMI.T N0. 543 California, Owner; requesting permission to '.~~:e~!'E THREE R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONED LC`TS WITH AREAS LESS THAf~t ONE ACRE EACH~ AND TO , ESTARLISH A CHURCH FACILITY OP] THE REAR 223~FGOT LOT.on prope~ty described ass A rectangular parcel of ~and with a frontage of 96 feet on the north side of Orange Auenue and a depth of 424 feet, the eastcrly boundary of said property being app:nx.;.r~~ately • 758 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Avenue, and further described as 1759 Nest Ora~~gEa Avenuee Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mr. Harry Kniseley, attorne~• for the petitioner, appea•rad before the Commission and revie.~ed ' the past zoning action on subject and abutting properties9 noting that although the Planning Departme~t had attempted ~~o get the property owners together for the two abutting properties of'subject property for development into an acceptable subdivision, the property owner tc the'east had never attended the meetings, and the property owner ~a the west was unwiliing to develop his property, since ha planned to utilize it for its present use for a number of yearse Mr.'Forrest Wol~reaton= ?767 +:est Or~~ge Avenue, appeared in opposition to subj~ct pe;ition 'and stated he owned the adjacent pr~~FOT4Y ~: the west; that the proposed development wo~.:ld be a detriment to the area because :.t would create a~ditional traffic p:oblPns; that he had a petition signed by 39 propert; owners surroundi.ng subject property, opposing the croposed development; that although they Lad indicated they might attend the mc,tino, most of them '~ work during the day, and it was impossible for them to appear at tiie hear9.-~g, an~, therefore, voiced their opinions in the pv.titionc that vacant propE.rty existed tc the~ east; that although ~ the property owner had submitted a request for sub~~ nda::d R~1 lots and was asked to m~et with i sub3ect patitioner and himself relative t, developing ~n2 three parcel~ of land, he had never j appeared at these meetingsj that he was not inter~3sted 3:~ ioining w.'ith other prop~sty owners ~ at this time since ha planned to utilize his prop~rty for its present use of a home, and this might be for at least another eight years; that from an economic standpoint ha would be unabl,a ; to replace this home; that he had had a number of oifers for his home, but clid not wish to : make any changes for some time; and that the proposed ut.'t~:zation of subiect property would + create a parking problem on Orange Avenue and proposed subdivision ~f the property into suo- s 'staniiard'lots witli a cliurch-at '~'r.e rearo • - • - < ~ ' - ; In response to Commission questioning, Associate Planner Robert Mickslson advised the Commis- sion that at one time a church could not be placed on propexty in the R-A ''~ne, consisting of less than one acre, but this was no longer soo The Commission then expressed the doubt that placing the church at Cha rear of subject. property ` would prevent a poor circulation element, and further encroachment to thr: residen+,ia.l integrity of the area; tF.~t by proposing subdivision of the property into four ic+•cs ~~ith a l:alf street ' might be a better solution to the use of the property than that being pro~used, and :nquir=d , of the attorney for the petitioner whether or not plans could be revised to incorpurate the Commission's suggestion. Mr. Kniseley stated the petitioner had no desire to submit any further revised plans; that the plans presented weze a vast change from those originally denied by the Commission and the Council, and the Council had recommended the petitioner submit the new plans in a form of a ~etition for iche Commission's considera~ion. THE FLARING WAS CLOSED~ ------ -------------._ ...__.------.__ _. .___---~___.__.__._,; __ _ __ __ . --. _ ._~ ~, ' ' ~. ~~ ~ ~ !~?':NI;Te~~.'~:1'lY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MaxCh 16~ 1964 2023 Ci:c:~i~.(:~AL USE - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1094, Series 1963-64, and moved °ijF~N}T~ N0. 543 _£or its passage and adoption, secorded by Commis;rioner Perry, tu deny i~'ontinued Petition for.Conditional Use Permit Nco 543, based an t~:a fact that the . plans p*esented were.not a svi~s.tantial change from •chose originally submitted; that the lot size was inadequate for a c;wrch; tha'c the use wes incompatible with. ~he surrounding R-1 i~ses; that the proposed parl:ing site to the north.was inade.~ ate for chtrrch use; and that the ;;.roposed circulation w,js inadequate, imposing an added burc to traffic on Orange Avenuao ~See Resoluti;,,~ 8.0l:,.) On roll oall the foregoing resolutie;~ :aas ~a.ssed by ~`;e Fcliawia~~ vote:. AYES: CO!d1~1ISSI0NERS: Allr~d, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pe~~y, RoKland. NOES: C~JMMISSIONERS: Na~iea ABSENTs COMMJSSIONERS: Pebley, Sidec. CONDITIONAL ii~F _ r,imt 7(; {~'pRING. ELBERT L~ 8 LIDA SMITH, 1~ '21 Wheeler Pl~:ce, Santa Ana, °EP!4IT NO________,5~!•~ Califa:ni:, L;vr,c:s; 1'.A:tVEY NIERS, ET P,L, p~ 0~ Rox 1169, 5an~ta Ana, Califorr,ia, Agent; requesting permi~sion to ESTABLISH .1iV 82-UtdIT, TWO- STORY -.iOTEL IN CON•.TUNCTION WITH A FAMILY RES'iAURANT on property described as: A rectanqularly shaped parcel of land at the southeast cornEr of Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, with frontages of app:oximately 260.feet on Hax'~or Boulev~4 and approxi- ma#ply 590 fee:t on Manchester .4venuEo Property presently classified as R-A, RESiDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONEo Mr. Harvey }:ier.s, r~prese:iting the petitior~~r, ~eppecred before the Comm:ssi.on and noted subject proFe~ty hau been approved for ~ i~rger motel; th~ s~bsequeni pla.ns indicated a family-style ~°stiaurant wouid be a desirab:: use for a portion of subje^i property, and, therefore, the ~>lsns submitted ind'cated ~32 ur.its, iagether with a family-style restaurant~ and that the service statian was leased by .,n oil company and the buses parked there were under the oil ~.o~i1D~~;~'S jurisdictiano No one appe~ired in opE~osition 'to subject petitiono THE I~ARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission inquired of Asscciate F'lanr.er Robert Mickelson whether there was adec;uate parking space, and wh=tner the •removal of some of the pa:rking spaces provided in the 50-foot landscaped setbaci: could be remo•ved~ lulra Mickel:nn.staied tha•t e~3n with tne reduction of the nine parhiny spaces•in the.land- ~ scaped se~back, more ct~an half as many parking spaces were being provided, ..~d the petitioner bad stated thP additional parking would be necessaryo In respons~ to Commissio:, n'.:b:ition.ing„ Deputv City Attorney Furman Robarts stated that under the prorused ordinance for service stations. the parlcing of tY~e huses was considered outside activ:ty or storage on service statior. property, and, therefore, would have to be eliminateda Mr. Y.iers stated ~ne oil company was ~lesiious of remov-:1 of thW buses, but this would not be done ~antil t}ie proposed xestaurant and ~r~otel were complete~?, since he derive;l some revenue from the Fenting of tl~e soa~~e to buses, arn-I ir. response to C;om~~~issio:i :~ut~stio~:ing~ stated no „ wall was being proposed between the servicE~ station ~nd ~i~e proposed restaurant due to an agreemen± ~ith the service station that a•Nall would not be constructedo Mr. Hiers then agreed to a revision to the plot plan which would indicate a 50-foot land- scaped setback with the removal of the proposed nine parking spaces in zhis setback. Camm+.ssioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 109~, Seriee 1963-64, and ~nove.~ for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 544, subject to the stipulation that the required 50-foot setback for landscaping would ~e complied with. (See Resulution Book.) Gl~ roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vo~e: AYES: CONUIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perr~~, Rowland. NOHS: COMMISSIONFRS: None~ ABSENTs CCIMMISSIONHRSc Pebley, Sidese i _ .-- . . ,.__ .. -~ ---.....---~ - - --,__._ ._..._ _ __ ___ . _....._ _..___ _ --- -~i _ . -_ , _.. ~~~ ~~ ~ MiNIlTES, CITY PLANNING CCMMISSION, March 16, 1964 2o2a C((~d+1DITI0NAL USE - PUBLIC E~ARINGa W, H. JEWETT, 1141 East Ash AvenLe, Fullerton, Cali#ornla, PERNITI"'N0. 546 Owner; Ro L. CURRY, 12413 Sungrove, Garden Grove, California, Agent; '~"' • requesting permission_ to .FSTABLiSH A BUILDING MATEEZAL .ST.~BAGE ~YARI1 WITH , ,, INCIDHNfAL SALHS AND DISPLAY YARD on property- descxiberl..as _An .L-sttaped par~e3 of land with a frontage of approximately 81 feet on.the east.side_.af.State..~nllege Bou~l'evard and a maximum depth of approximately 382 feet, the•noxthe~ly_houndany..of_said.. paoperty being approximately 375 feet south of the centerline of.Kate1].a..Auenue,-and further descrilied as 1832 South State Co:.lege Boulevardo Property pse.sently classified.as.M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONES. ~ No one appeared to represent the petitionero TI~e:Commission expressed the desire to ask the peti'_oner for addi.tional i.nformation regard3ng the:..proposed development, and, therefore, said petition should be continued and the pttitioner advised to appear before the Commissiona ~~~ Coamissioner Perry offered a motion tc continue Petition for Conditiunal Use Permit Noo 546 to:tfie meeting of April 13, 1964, and directed 'che petitioner be advised to appear before the•Commissiun.to answer questions the Commisslon hade • Coamissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEL~o Mr, Ray Curry, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission some time after subject petition was continued, and stated he was unavoidably detained and was unable ta ; make the hearing, and asked that the Commission reconsider the petition by openin~ the hearing ~ againo Cot~issioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and consider Petition for Conditional ` Us'e.Permit Noo 546 at this timea Cc-missioner Gauer seconded tre motiono MO;ION CARRIEDo Mro Curry tnen stated he had pe~titioned approximately four weeks ago for a similar use, and he ` had to submit subject petition because of a change of property iineso The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner how much he proposed to use subject property for retail purposes; whether he was planning to deve'lop anything in the 50-foot set- back area of the landscaping; what type of materials he proposed to sell for retail; and whether he would consider redesigning subject property to conform with the Anthony Pools display locatod in Anaheim~ Mr. Curry then stated he sold hard goods, such as sto~e, cement and gravel; that it was sort of a"do it yourself" project; that he was a swimming pool contractor; that he needed more ~ storage space for the materials and he would have the pool in a finished product form for ~ display purposes; that it would be lor,ated in a landscaped area and would be similar to a ~ reflecting type pool, rather than the regular type swimming pool; and he was adverse to constructing similar to the Anthony Poois because it was almost completely enclosedo i Some of the Commissioners expressed concern the proposed retail use would be contrary to the ~ intent of the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone; that the proposed use was basically a primary ~ retail sales, even though hard materials were to be stored and sold; that the area was much ~ too large for the storage oi the proposed materialso ; ~ "'~Mr; Gi:rry then stated he purchased Falos -Verdes st~ne ir. la•rge •lots and, stnred it in otber .. # areas; that he had outgrown the several areas in which he stored property, and it M~as his ~ desire to combine all his storage places into one spot; that the proposed retail use was ~ C-3, Heavy Commercial, but ihe City had almost no area projected for heavy commercial use; that the proposed use was not similar to a nursery, in that people viewed the swimming pools ~ and then decided which type they preferred, and any sales would occur upon inspection of ~ the customer°s propei•tyo ~ The Commission expressed tlie opinion a similar operation occurred on South Manchester Avenue; that the petitioner would have to have the swimming pool display in order to support the proposed storage yard of hard materials, and the commercial sales would be a part of the proposed use. Mr. Curry then stated it was impossible to find an area in wUich to locate the two uses he proposed, and he was unable to support his operation in the several locations he presently had. The Commission again expressed the thought that the proposed location of the storage materials yard was located in the prime M-1, Light Industrial location; that when th2 Orange Freeway off-r~mp w3s completed, this would be an added incentive to develop for M-1 uses; that the proposed commercial use would then be incompatible to the area and might set a pattern of development for retail purposes in close proximity to the freeway off-ramp; that the traffic volumo fram a commercial venture would be considerably more than that from an industrial development; and that although the petitioner proposed to landscape the area, the landscapinc ', ~ __.._.._....... ...._ _._ _.__..__.._.__ ~ --------- _-~ - -- - - -_._...__.. __ _ _ - --- ,_ _~.,.__.~ ___-------~ _. ~ • , ~. 1 ~ • MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 1464 2025 CONDITIONAL USE - wouid not last long because of the dust and debris from the rocks aGid PEFthIIT NOD 54 materials being stoTed on subject property. Cbntinued Msa Curry stated it would be n~ecessary to have the landscaping;.othe.rwise his proposed swimming pool sales would be worthless to him,.since the lartdscaping added a sales gimmick, and the proposed area was.the best place he..taad found in the entire County of Orangeo Fur.#.her discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proNOSed use and its competi- bility with the M-1, Light industrial, Zone and inquired of.the.petitioner wliy he was reloca ~ ing southerly from the original areao Mr. Curry then stated he was ariginally planniaa to develop adjacent to.the.sexvice station, ~ but that the o+~mer of subject property had advised him he was planning further commercial use for that property and asked that he relocate his proposed developmen: southerly. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the various.factors presented in the Report to the Commission relative to the dedication on State College Boulevard being shown incorrectly; that the 25-foot easement was not clear as to its use as a street; thai, the curb return from State College Boulevard and the 25-foot easement was not adequate, and inquired of Mr. Curry~ to clarify the easemente Mr. ~urry stated the dedicaLion was 53 feet from centerline rather than from the curb as indicated on the plan; that the easeme~t would not be required or used until the balance of the property was developedo Commissioner Pebley stated that since the agent for the petitioner had advised them at the last meeting the owner uf subject property was proposing to submi', plans of development for the remaining portion of the property, if the Commission approvGl subject petition, this would predetermine approval of any other commercial development adjacent to sub~ect property. The Commission then indicated it was their desire the owner of sub3ect property appear before ,.he Commission to answer problems relative to commercial development for adjacent properLies owned by the sub3ect property owner, and this clarification was necessary before any decision might be made on sub~ect petitione Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission that approximately a year ago the property owners organized and met with the Planning Department to discuss the industrial development proposal of a small industrial park on subject property; that the proporty owners discussed the circulation system at that time and determined an industrial collector street 54 feet wide shouid be required; that due to other plans this agreement was never signed; that Planning Study 46-116-6 indicated the agreement of the owners, and if the collector street was considered appropriate by the Commission, a General Plan Amendment to the circu- lation plan be advertised for the proposed collector streete Discussion held by the Commission indicated if a collector street was approved by the Commi- ssion, the present M-1 Zone requirea 25-foot landscaping setback on collector streets. Commissi.oner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petiticn for Conditional Use Permit No. 54F to the meeting of March 30, 1964, in order that the owner of sub~ect property might appea• before the Commission to answer questions,and for the Planning Department to advertise foi the circulati.on element of the General~Plane Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. ' " MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY, 227 North Magnolia PERMIT N0. 548 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to PERMIT THE USE Oi PRESENTLY EXISTING SANITARIUM BIIILDING FOR PRIVATH EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAPTIST CHURCH on property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 482 feet, the southernmost boundary of said property being approximately 288 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further a.scribed as 201 North Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RESI- DHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ' Mr. Robert Wells, Pastor of the Baptist c:urch, appeared before the Commission to represent the agent for •the petitioner and reviewea the proposed development and the recommended candi- tions of approval, stal;ing that they were in accord with all the recommended conditions except there was a question relative to obtaining approval of the Orange County Flood Control District;~ that final approval for expansion across the Flood Control Channel could not be obtain prior to final buiiding inspection because said b~ilding tvas alir<,dy constructed; that steps hsd been taken to obtain said approval; that requ3rements of the ptans had been obtained from the Flood Control District for the bridge, and it was a matter af time before said approval could be ' I obtained. l. _--..__._.___ _.. E . ~ _.. _..~ ~ i • . 1 .. ~ , _.. _ ~ ---_.._.____._.._._.. __ ----------- ~----. ._...._.,_...__.--------_._ _ .._ ~_ ) ~ ~ ~ MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, March 16, 1964 2026 CONBITIONAL USE - The Commis~:ion inquired of the agent for the petitioner the length of time ~ PERNIIT N0. 48 the quonset huts would be utilizede Reverend Wells stated a ma~i:r::m of two ~ Gontinued years would be the.-.length o.f time.the quonset huts would be used, with the possibili.ty..they.miqht be removed wi.thin one yeax; that the proposed use of ; the structure would be for a combination high.school.ahd.ele.mentary school I pzogram; that the"proposed bridge would have the same specif.ications ~:~ t4osv,.that.span the i F1aod Control Cha'nnel at.the Municipal Golf Course; that the structurz..on.subjec.t.property ~ cons3sted of.twelve large classr.ooms; that the proposed school would .~ot have.as.many students ; as~a public high school; and that a maximum of 300 students fox the high..sc.hooL..was.an.ticipated; Na:one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona ' ; Canmissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 4:05 pem. ' Tt~ E~ARING WAS CLOSEDo Di~ussion was held by the Cortmission relative to the quonset huts.and.their..unsightliness. when•not mainteined with a coat of paint; that on a previous petition for property north.nf. the Flood Control Channel, it had been a~reed that the two remaining.huts that.had been pro- pased for that property were to be erected on subject property; that plans to utilize these huts were for shop cla:-^s until more space was constructed for utilization within a structure itself. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1096, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and:~adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use PErmit No. 548;'subject to time limitation of two years for the use.of the quonset.huts for schflol purposes, and~obtaining from the Orange County Flood Control District approval to construct a_bridgo over the Flood Control Channel, and conditionso (See ResoLution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resol~ation was passed'by the followi~;g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauery Mungall, Peiry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Sidesa ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Pebleye VARIAt~E 1G0. I 7- PUBLIC FIEARINGa INITIATHD BY TFIE CITY COUNCIL9 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPJ ' 'of property described as: A 50-foot strip of"land on the east side ,,f (Los Angeles Street) Anatieim Boulevard between Ball Road and Cerritos Avenu~, and on the south side of Ball Road from (Los Angeles S':eet) Anahe;m Boulevard eastward a distance of approximately 418 feet from the centerline of (Los Angeles Street) Anaheim Boulevardo Property presently classified P-L, °ARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONE. Associate Planner Robert Mickeleon reviewed subject petition for ihe Commission, noting two automobile sales agencies located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard have posted bonds in lieu of la~~dscapin , awaiting the Commission-Council action on subject petition. 'yrle L~2~~r/i/ Mr. Anson h~h~ representing Buzza-Cardozo Greeting Card Company, appeared before the Commission and stated their interest in the maintenance of Anaheim Boulevard was the same as the Commission in their intentiori of lieautification for the main nortHbound entranoe into the City from the freeway; •I:hat the company he represented had expendt9 a considerable amount of money to beautify their property, and it was hoped the Commission would maintain the 50-foot landscaped setback for continuity of landscaping from Ball Road to the freeway. In response to Commission questioning relative to whether or not Buzza-Cardozo would have develoned their property as it pres y ts if they had not been required to maintain the 50-foot landscaped setback, MroP~a~g~s`~`a~ed he was not in a position to state whether or not the company would compl ,'~ut the company consisted of 50,000 square feet and they have r••:chased an additional 6~ acres to expand their facilities at its present locatione The Commission then complimented the Buzza-Cardozo Company for thoir efforts in maintaining the beautification of South Anaheim Boulevard. Mrs. Ruth Hohenhaus, 113 West Winston Road, appeared before the Commission and stated it was very important to the entire City that the 50-foot landscaped setback be maintained on South Anaheim Baulevard; that in addition to Buzza~-Cardozo, the John Kilroy Canpany and the Foiir Seasons ' Restaurant also maintained a large landscaped setback area; and further urged the Commission ta maintain its present P-L Zone foi• landscapiny purposes in their campaign to beautify the City. ~ __ ......_ __ . ._. _....... _.._-.__.. _ ...____ . _ _ ... ____._ _ __.... _.__..__, _~ ~ _ ~. . ~ _ ___.._, » • ..~- , _a ' _ .~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 1964 2~2~ VARTAIdCE N0. 1627 - The Coaunission then discussed the possibility of consideration of the Con~inued proposed reduction of.landscaping, Coromissioner Camp stating it was his op4nion.-i.t would be-mos.e.advantageous to.the Commission to have the Planning Department prepare an actual Area Development Plan to substan- tiate any recommendations the Commission might.make.to.the Ci.ty Council. Camnissioner Gauer was of the opinion a P~L Zone had been estahlished and was being developed by other property owners in the area, and this 50-foot P-L landscaping setback should be maintained, even though several requests had been received.to reGUCe .said.landscaping. Cammissioner t's:.ry then stated a definite plan of development should be pr.esented in a Commission recommendation to the City Council in order that some uniform development in the area might be estab~ished. Commissioner Chavos stated that the reason the inconsistency of landscaping.existed on South Anaheim Boulevard was because the City did not maintain the pattern of development as:established by Codeo Conanissioner Camp offered a motion to contin~e Petition for Variance Noe 1627 to the meeting of March 30, 1964, and directed the Planning Depaxtment to prepare an Area Develop- ment Plan indicating the possible means of establishing a uniform setback development for Anaheim Boulevard, so~th of Ball Roado Com!n_ssioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CAi~RIED. DIRECTIVE TO THE - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to.request that a General Plan PLANNING DEPARTMENT Amendment for a possible zevision to the circulation element be advertised for South State Coilege Boulevard,_south of Katella Avenue, G~id Public Hearing to be scheduled in conjunction with Condi~ional Use permit Noo 546, for the meeting of March 30, 1964e Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDa ' BILLBOARD ORDINANCE - Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts asked that the Commission consider setting for Public Hearing the new sign ordinance for the meeting of April 13, 1964~ The Commission discussed this possibility and advised Mr~ Roberts the Commission would prefer consideration of the sign ordinance at a Work Session prior to setting the sign ordinance for Public Hearing~ RECESS - Commissioner (:amp ~ffered a motion to recess the meeting for dinnero Commissioner Pebley seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at ~:55 pomo RECONVENE - Chaixman Mungail reconvened `c!:e meeting at 7suU pem., Co~r~nissioners Chavos, Pebley, ~:nd Sides being ~bsent~ ~. . . _, _.. _. _ . . -_... ._.._._ . _._.., _._._--- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i ~ _ ...____ , _ -~ ~ _.__ ..__ _ _ _.--._ ......___--.__._..__----„~_~...__~._.___.~..___ ~ ~_;~ ~. --_____._ ~ - . i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 1964 2p2g RECLASSIFICATION - CON'IINUED PUBLIC }fEARINGe GORDON HANEY 8 WILLIAM PERDI, 2630 Coronado I~Oo 63-64-81 , Driue, Fullenton, Califox~aia, Ownerst requesting that pnoperty described as: A rec±angular parcel of land at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue ' and Larch Street with frontages of 124 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 65 feet ~ on Larch Street, and further described as 102 North Larch Street, be reclas- sified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C.-:1, NE:•;F~ORHOOD - CONWIERCIAL, ZONE to utilize an existing residence..as an escrow officea : VARIANCE NOo 162~- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING~ INITIATED BY ThF ANAI-IEIM FLANNING COMMISSION~ ~ •' 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim9 California, on property described in ~ Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-81 proposing a variance from Code: ~ Section 18.38.020, ?.o p?~mit the use of a residential structure for an ;~ escrow office. ~ The above petitions were continued from the meetings of February 3 and 17, ~ 1964, to allow the Planning Department time to advertise subject and ad- jacent properties for a Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-96 and an area development plano AREA BEifEi;OPMEM' - PUBLIC HEARING. 3NITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East PLkN N0. 1 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposi~~7 ~:levelopment and reclassi- fication of property described as: Two rectangularly shaped parcels of RECLASSIFICATION land at the nortnwest and northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Larch N0. 63-64-96 Street: Parcel One, at the northwest corner, having frontages of 375 feet on Lincoin Avenue; Parcel Two, at the northeast corner of said streets witk~ Fzontages of 124 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 124 feet on the east side of Larch.Street, and itirther described as 1433-1511 East Lincoln Avenu~ and 102-106 North Larch Street from the R-1, ONH-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-0, COMN;cRCIAL OFFICE, ZONE in order to utilize said properties and structures for commercial facilitie=o CONDITIONAL USE - Proposed the property at 102 North Larch Street FOR USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT N0. 547 STRI~TURE FOR OFFICE PURPOSES in conjunction with Petition for Reclassi- fie3tion Noo 63-64-96a Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinsici presented and reviewed Area Development Plan Noo 1 for the Commission and interested propexty owners, noting that in proposing the plan, this was not an attempt to usurp the property rights of the property owners involved, but because of similar .. problems facing residential uses on arterial highways, an attempt was being made to resolve the ' utilizai:ion of these homess that a Resolutior. of Intent on the properties in question was subject to ths property owners complying with conditions stipulated on said Resolution of I Intent, and only at the times these conditions were met, would zoning be given to any indi- ' vidual parcel under consideration~ and that the vehicular access rights to Lincoln Avenue 4 w~uld be dedicated to the City at the time of rezoning of the parcel of property, and vehicular occess rights were waived for parcal "F" in order to provide access to a 20-foot easement to ~ the rear of both properties "G" and "F", when "G" was ultimately developede j Associate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission and the interested persons that in ; order to utilize the ho;nes for commerciai purposes, it would be necessary to file a condition- } al use permit for said uses, or replace the existing structures with commercial facilitiese , Mr. Gc~r.don Haney, .petitioner. for•~Reclassification Noo 63-64=$1, 'appeared 'before thg, Commission ~~ and re~•iewed what he proposed to do with parcel "F" of Area Development Plan No. l;~khat commercial facilities did exist to the east and south of sub ect ~~ j property, and several doors , to the west of the propert~es under consideration, a restaurant existedo ! Mr. Kenneth Mosholder, 105 North Larch Street, appeared before the Commission and asked for clarification of the intent of the Commission and the reasons why C-0, Commercial Office, Zone was proposed, rather than C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone which existed to the east of sub~ect propertya The Commission advised Mre Mosholder the proposed Area Development Plan was a method of orderly ' development for properties fronting on Lincoln Avenue, and offered an opportunity to the property owners to develop their properties for commercial pvrposes, and the conditional use permit was required if the residence was going to be used for commercial purposes; that the . Commission mlght have a form of development control of those properties Fronting on arterial highways so that there would be no repetition of the unsightliness which existed at Brookhurst and north of Lincoln Avenue; that the C-0 Zone was the least objectionable zone abutting residential uses, similar to the R-1 tract to the north, whereas the C-1, Neighborhood Commer- ' cial, Zone was a considerabiy heavier use, permitting delivery trucks to have access on the alley which was proposed for accoss to sub3ect properties fox• parking purposes; that the height limitation for any structure would be one-half the distance between the residential property line and the existing structure; and that a time limitation for the use of the home would be stipulated as proposed in the amendment to the C-0 Zoneo I _~_ ..~__ __...~._._ _ _____ ..... .. _._ _ .......__. .___..._ .._ ..__ __. _. ..__ . _ _. _.-----, ~ _. _ _ _ . .. - , i ~ ~ '~= ~~ '~ ~ MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 1964 2~29 R~LASSIFICATION - Mro William.Leqg 1433 East Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission NQo<-b3-64-51 and stated.he was the property owner of Parcel "A" of the Area Development Plan, and inquired of the Commisssion if the proposed C ommercial Office VARIANCE N0, 1622 Zone would permit construction of an office building across the front, and yet utilize-the existing residence for residenti,al purposes. AREA DEVELOPNIENf PLkN N0. 1 The Commission ~dvised Mro Legg the C-0 Zone did not permit a combined residential and office use on one parcel of lando RECLASSIFICATION ' ' N0. 63-64-96 Mrsa Howard Stanton, 1498 East Birch Straet, appeared before the Commission ! and stated she lived directly across the alley from Parcel "A" and inquired CONDITIONAL USE of the Commission if an office building was construc'ted, where wouid the PERMIT N0. 547 tenants of the office building and.their customers park, and would there ~ be a chain rEaction to rezoning of the entire residantial.property.an Larch (Continued) Street since this would be an encroachment of commercial purposes in the residential..tract;. that she.did.not wish-to have the.status of Cemetery Road changed, and she was not desirous of having cars utilizing the commer- cial structures fronting on Lincoln Avenue to have access to pa:king into a 20-foot alleyo The Commission informed the praperty owners that the frontage of Parcel "F" in.the Area Development Plan, fronting on Larch Street, would not change; that the residential character- istics would remain; that an entrance was being proposed by the petitioner for the Lincnln Avenue frontage; that additionai iandscape p:anting would be provided and parking would be pravided in the existing driveway for two cars; that no parking would be permitted in the ' alleyway, and Cemetery Road being :i public street, prohibition of parking on that street. could not be made. j In response to CoRSnission questioning, Mro Haney stated he presently anticipated having two persons employed in the escrow office, and if successful, one additional persono Commissioner Rowland left tiie Council Chamber at 7:35 pemo THE t~ARING ~~AS CLOSEDa Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1097, Series 1963••64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Conunissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Area Develop- ment Plan Noe 1 be appro~•ed~ (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, perryo NOES: COA~Q~AISSIONERS: None. ABSENf: COMMISSIONfRS: Chavos, Pebley, Sides, Rowiand~ Commissioner Cr~uer offered Resolution No~ 10989 Series 1963-•64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Fetition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-81 be disapproved, based on the fact that the Area Development Plan for the property projected Commercial Office Zone, and that the C-0 Zone was the recommended designation on the General Plano (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by the following vote: AYHS: C~!.iMISSIONERS: Alired, Camp, Gauer, Mungall~ Perrye NOES: COMMISSIONERS:''NonBo "' - . . _ . - ABSENT: COMMISS:ONERS: Chavos, Pebley, Rowland, Sides> Commissioner Allred offered Resoluti~n No> 1099, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Variance Noe 1622, based on findingso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perrye NOESe COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~NufISSIONERS: Chavos, Pebley, Rowland, Sides. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 7:45 pemo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1100, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-96 be approved, subject to establishment of a 20-foot access ease- ment from Lincoln Avenue which shall be provided on the easteriy boundary of Parcel "F" to serve both Parcels "F" and "G" when Parcel "G" proposes development of that parcel, and conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perryo NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Nonea ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Pebley, Sideso ABSTAINs COMMISSIONHRSs kowland. _____.A_..____ _._ _-------- __---._ _ _ _. ,_....._ .. . _ <;v r_.. _ _.__._---- ---_..__~, ~r ,.. _ _-~g ~ _ . , ,~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ularch 16, 1964 2030 RECLASSIFICATION - Commiasioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1101, Series 1963-64, and moved N0.:.83-64-81 for its.passage and.adoption,,seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant VARIADICE N0. ]~~2 Petition for Condit3.ona1 Use Permit No. 547, subject to a time.limi.tation AREA DEVELOPMEM' of f.ive years for the use of the exist?ng structure, and conditionso PLAN N0. 1 (See Resolution Booko; RECI:ASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-Q6_,_, ~Jn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vo.te: CONDITIONAL USE • PERMIT N0. 47 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perryo. Continued NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSEN'f: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Pebley, Sideso ABSTAINs COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC F~AFiING. EDWARD V~ KALMAR, 908 South Sunkist Street, Anaheim,. NO..b3-64-93 California~ and ALICE C~ 8 THOMAS J. WHIELDON, 1007 East North Stre.et, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that propexty descrihed as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 217 feet on.the east side of..Sunkist Street and a depth of 213 feet, the southerly boundary of.said._pxoperty being 660.feet north of the centerline of Nagner Avenue, and further described as 908 South S~anlcist Street be r~•'assified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RHSIDENTIAL, ZONE, to develop subject property into two single-family residential lats. Mr..~Edward i:almar, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had attended a.previous meeting, at which time the church was granted a conditional use permit; tha.t.his property was immediately adjacent to the church; that he• had sold a portion.of.his.pr.oper.ty and had.been unaware he was creating a less-than~an~-acre parcel by the.sale.of this property, and,.therefore,~was requesting the progosed subdivision..of subject propertya Mro Kalmar fur.ther asked whether or noi he would be required to pay for the paving of Sunkist Street, since at the hearing of the conditional use permit approving the church9 a statement was made that if the petitioner paid for the curbs and gutters, the City would pay for the street. The Commission informed the petitioner this was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission and asked that Office Engineer Arthur Daw expla;n the reason for that statement. i~lr. Daw advxsed the petitioner this would have nur~~~aily bEen approved if the church had developed at the time the petition was approved, but since sub;;ECt petition was being developed'• prior to the church, the petitioner would be required to pay for the paving fronting his proper-. ty on Sunkist Streeto Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the petitioner that at the time subject petition ~ was considered by the City Council, he might ask for clarification from the City Council relative to the payment of the paving of Sunkist 5treet9 since the Minutes of the Commission ' Meeting reflected that if the church improvements were put in, the City might decide to put in the street except for the curbs and gutterso THE FIEARING WAS CLOSEDo i i Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1102, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ~ -- and' adoption, secosaded by Commissioner Camp,- }o recommend •to the City Council. that .Petition ; for Reclassification Noo 63-64-93 be approved, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer~ Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESz COMMISSIONHRSs None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSi Chavos, Pebley, Sidese REGTASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, SHUfCHI KUSAKA 8 To SATO, 3047 West Ball Road, Anaheim, ~ N0. 63-i,4-94 _ California, and MILLARD JOUL, 3065 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; JACK ROGOWAY & FRANK HORPEL, 2200 South Loara, Anaheim, California, VARIANCE N0. 1628 Agents; property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 818 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of 1,290 feet,' REVISION N0. 1, the easterly boundary of said proper.ty being approximately 338 feet west of TENTATIVE MRP OF the centerline of Beach Boulevard, the total area of said property being TRACT N0. 3823 approximately 28 acies, and furthez• described as Portions"A;"B; and'C: PORTION'~C; i;o be zoned C-1, NEIGFBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE, having a frontage TENTATIVE MAP OF of 818 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a depth of 198 feet, the TRACT N0. 5519 easterly boundaxy of said Portion~C"lying approximately 338 feet west of the centerline of Beach Soulevardo PORTION"A'; to be zoned R-3, MULTIPI.E-FAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, ZONE, lying directly, north of and adjacent to Portion°C~ having a southerJ,y boundary of approxi- mately 714 feet, and coinciding with the northerly boundary of Portion`C," the depth of said Portion"A'~being approximately 1,092 feet from the n~rth- o,.i~~ -,~~~.,,~a,.,, ,.c Pnr+;~..qf•a ,.,.~ +ti., ,..,..~,...,.. ti.,.,..a~..,. .,r ,...~,, o,._~.,.... ny __.__~__..__.._. _._....__._.._..___......_...__...----.,____._._ _. ...__._...._.__.__. _.., _~ .._.. ... .__ . • _._ _.___- - ------+ ~ ~ .. _ l_~ ~ ~' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mar~h 16, 1964 2031 RECLASSIFICA'IION - being approximately 338 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. 1, N0..63-64-94 PORTION"B;..to.be_zoned R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, lying directly ~ VARIANCE N0. 1628 adjacent.to.and .to.the east of the stub.ends of Rome Avenue and Glen Holly 3 REVISION NOa 1,. Drive, wit;~ a width.of.approxima.tely 270 feet, the easterly.boundary of said ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF Portion`~B~meeting~and coinciding with the westerly boundar.y..of. the,~afore- j TRACT N0. 3823 mentioned Portion A;'.the northerly boundary line of said.Pnxtion".B being a TENTATIVE MAP OF continuation of the northerly boundary line of Portion`~A~..P.ar.tion.."B~~extendingi TRACE NOo 5519 therefrom in a southerly direction to a distance of .approximately.1,092.feet.; ~Continued Property~presently~ classif=ed •as ~R-A, RBSIDENTIAL ~AGRICTJLTORIt'L,-ZO14E: i REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION~A - R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEAfTIAL~ ZOI~. ~ PORTION"B~- R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,.ZONE<. t PORTION'C°~ C-1, NHIGHBORHOOD COMI~RCIAL, ZONEo . REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF SINGLE-STORY (-~IGHT LIMITATION FOR R-3 DEIIELQPMENT WITHIN 150 FEET OF ANY R-A ZONE BOUNDARY ON PORTION."A" ONLYe DEVELOPER: BEAR STATE BUILDERS INCORPORATED:, 440 "B" East 17th Street., Costa~Mesa,.Californiao ~ ENGINEER: Golden Engine?ririg, 110 West F~rst St*??t~ Sant~ A~a, California, Tr.act.No~_3823, located on the north side of Ball Road approximately 900 feet.west of Beach.Sauleuard, and , containing approximately 6.6 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 26.R-L,.ONE-FAMILY ~ RESIDENTIAL, 20NED lotso Tract Noe 5519, located on +.he.no~th side.nf Ball_Road.approximately 338 feet west of Beach Boulevard, immediately adjacent to the.~east o£.,Tract Noo 3823 and.con- taining approximately 2201 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 49 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND 2 C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONED lots~ . . Mre Jack Rogoway, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that when the Interdepartmental Committee had reviewed the•Tentative Tract Map, the developer and engineer were advised certain changes would be required be£ore the tract could be submitted to the Commission for approval, and that subject property would have to be advertised for a General Plan Amendment; therefore, he was submitting a letter requestiny a continuance of two weeks. Mrse Shaw, residing at the corner of Teranimar Drive, appeared before the Comm:ssion in opposi- tion to subject petitions and stated that apartments were being developed in an area prior to any cor.unitment for school districts; that the Commission should consider the adequacy of the existing school facilities in order to determine whether the proposed apartments were compatible to the area; that the school adjacent to subject property was presently in the process of adding four additional schoolrooms, and there would be no ~~vailable space to construct any additional school rooms at the pxesent location~• The Commission advised the opposition the school was unable to request additional funds until ; they were able to count the foundations indicating the number of units to be construct=d on the ~ propertyo , Mr. Gordon Walker, 3100 West Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated the propert owners have a fairly good idea what the developer pr~posed for subject property; that the resi- dents of the area were interested in knowing whethex the developer would meet with them for discussion on the proposed development; that the residents wex•e aware that land values predi- cated developi.ng apartments on a portion of subject propert~; that they would like to see the best use made of the land, and inquired of the agent for the petitioner what the exact. changes were on the revision~ Mr> Rogoway then aduised Mro Walker very ~inor changes were being proposed, which would not affect the R-1; that a stub street was .recommended to the north of subject property, and that a pedestrian accessway was recommended from the R-3 to the R-1 properties to the school and park to the northo Mr. James Smith, 3156 Teranimar Place, requested the ac,ent for the petitioner advise him where this meeting would be held as he was desirous of atterding said meetingo Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-94 and Variance No. 1628, Revision Noe 1 of Tentative Map of Tract Noa 3823, and Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5°~19~ to the meeting of March 30~ 1964, to allow the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans reflecting the changes recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee and for tne Planning Department to advertise the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe ____..-- - __ • - -- -.......-- --- --. . _._..... __:__ _ r- ----------__.__.. ~__'~ ~ . I ' .l _ ~~ '~ ~ ~.) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 16, 1964 2032 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-I~ARINGa STANLEY L. ROSEN, 318 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 63-64-95 and California, Owner; LE ROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel_of land with a.frontage of approximately lll.feet on the PERMIT N0. 545 east side of Western.Avenue•and a depth of. 275 feet, the.southerly . boundary of said property being approxima•te•ly•550. £eet aorth..of the centerline of Ball Roado Property psesently claesified.as R-A, RESIDEAfI'IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONHo RE4~STED CLASSIF~ICATION: R-39 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENIIAL, ZONE~ CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SINGLE-STORY, MULTIPLE-FAMILY PI.ANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPb1ENf WITH CARPORTS - WnIVER OF MINIIdUM.f3EAR YARD.. Rose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed.:the evelopment, stating he had received a copy o£ the Repor.t to the 1'lanning Commissian ed with the Planning Department`s statements regarding coverage and.density nn the evelopment, and that he had proposed a 25-foot rear yard, bu.t.at the meeting.with mbers of ±he Planning Department, recommendation was made that more open space be etween the units; therefore, this request for the waiver of the minimum rear yard y Rosen, attorney for tt~e petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the bjert property was such that to develop it for single-family use would be impractical; ~e minimum width of an R-1 lot was 72 feet while the depxh was considerably longer verage depth of an R-1 lot, and th~ proposed usage of the land was the best possible ; development, with ele~en uni.ts being proposed; that subject property abutted a heavilyi, street; that the proposed development would have the rear yards abutting the rear ; .he single-family development to the north; and that the property to the south was . zoned R-Ao ~e to Commission questioning, .fourteen people indicated their opposition to subject residing at the co:ner of Teranimar and Western Avenue, appeared before the Commis- >position to subject petitionsy stating her pxoperty abutted to the north of subject that the trend of parking around multiple-family developments indicated apartment did not park their cazs in the areas p~ovided, but parked along the street side :hat many residents of apartments had more than one c~i and were always parked in >omeone`s home; that the proposed development had not provided adequate snace for :o play; that apartment development did not exist in close proximit~~ to subject and that she was unalterably opposed to r,~uitiple-family development on sub3ect ;Gaughy, 910 South Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he owned ;ty abui:ting immediately to the south of subject property on which he had a single- sidence with a large swimming pool; that the proposed reclassification woulo consti- zoning; that multiple-family development might be more applicable southerly of his but not located within two single-family areas; and that he had contacted all the ~wners in the a;ea, and all had ~roiced their opposition„ Donovan, 851 South W~stern Avenue, appeai•ed before the Commission in opposition to ~~ etit~on and stated +.he area in which ~ubject property was located was above average; pproving subject petition, the petit.ioner might derive a profit, but the single- mes in the area wuuld decrease in valuation appreciably~ Donovan, 905 South Westexn Avenue, appeared before tt~e Commission in opposition and lived across the street from subject property, stating there would be a parking ~ ecause Weste:n Av=nue did not have curbs or sidewalksy that immediately ~outh of opment, or across the street, this would create a traffic hazard for children, as utomobiles, and this condition ex.isted all the wa~+ down Western Avenue on both sides oad; that the petitioner was short four par~cing areas for guests; and that to approve family development would present ~n isolated portion of property fronting on Western r muitiple-family use and might predetermine many of the existing R-A parcels in close to subject propex•ty~ Renninger, 3160 Teranimar Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated he resided ly to the rear of subject property; that there would be no advantage to developing zuperty for multiple-family use since the entire area was single-family development, nly commercial development was a g2s station; and that although the shape of the did not permit qood developsnent for R~•1, the property owners adjacent to sub,ject should not be made to suffer because of this~ ~ Smith, 3156 Teranimar Drive, appeared in oppasition to subject petitions and stated :he proposed multipte-family dovelopment wero approved, this would tend to degrade . ~ .__......._.._._....---~ _ _ . _ __... _ . ._ _ - -- -.. . _ .. --.-..,,_ .. --...._.~ _..____._...__„ _ ? _ _ . ._ _. __...__. ~ ~~ ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March.l6, 1964 2033 RECLASSIFICATION - i,he existing single-family residential appearance of the area; that it N0. 63-64-95 and would increase the noise level because of the summer, backyard activity and the smallness of the proposed area for rear yard activity. CONDITIONAL USE ~ PEAMIT. N0. 4 Mro William Gaudineer, 3166 Teranimar Drive, appeared before the Commission Continued in opposition and stated he did nut like the thou.ght of having to look at the rear of all the carports being proposed, and, in his estimation, apart- ments were an incompatible use in that areao A.:petition signed by 24 persons opposing subject petition was submitted to the Commission for considerationa Mr. Rose, in rebuttal, stated itvuas rat the intent of the petitioner to. degrade the areaf that ttae proposed development was a properly designed elevation with the thought of maintaining tMe residential integrity of the area; that it was the right of the pe.titioner..to have.the abi3ity to use his property for the best possible use, and.asked the Comm3ssion.and the opposi- tton how subject property could be developed to its.highest and best use, since he had attempted. to,design the proposed development as attractively as possibleo The Commission advised the agent for the petitioner that subject property could be develcped for single-family use by providing a private street along one side of subject property for access to possibly three single-family homes. TfiH EIEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 1103, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No> 63-64-95 be disapproved, based on the facts that subject property was surrounded on the north, south, and east sides with single-famiiy development; that if subject petition were approved, this would develop strip zoning along Western Avenue and might pre- determine ultimate development of vacant land in close proximity to subject property; and that thA proposed use would be incompatible to the area, (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Munga119 Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ~ ' ABSEM': COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Pebley, Sides~ ~ Gommissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1104, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ! and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 545, based on findingsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoiny resolution was passed by the fo1:^wing votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: tdoneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Pebley, Sideso REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMINENDATIONS ' nrnenTimerr~ to the Circulation Element of the General Plane Associate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit Noo 544, approved at the af':ernoon session of the meeting, a change to the existing Circulation Element of the General Plan would be required for Manchester Avenue east of Harbor Boulevard, and that this would be set~for Public Hearing proposing a 90-foot right-of-way since the City Engineer recommended that said street be realigned with more dedication coming from the northerly properiyo ' Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the Planning Corrunission Secretary to set for Public Hearing an Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General ~lan for Manchester Avenue east of Harbor Boulevard for the April 13, 1964 meetir.go Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Reclassification Noo 63-64-58 and Conditional Use Permit No. 503, Revised Legal Descriptiono The Planning Commission Secretary advised the ~ommission that at the time subject petitions were considered by the Commission, subject property had not been completely covered in the legal description attached to the Commission resolution, although it had been correctly advertised in the newspaper; that the City Council had approved said petitions and upon the Resolution of Intent bsing written up by the City Httorney's Office, it was determined an incorrect legal description had k,een submitted by the property owner, and the subsequent one _..__.__ ._...~~~_...~.._._._......._; _ _._.. ---____......... ~..-.._..~_...-.~-_._ ~ . .. . . . , . .. ':'~ I ~ 1 _ . .•1 ~ (,_ ~ ~ ~ ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Maxch 16, 1964 2034 i REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe 2(Continued) ~ RECONMIENDATIONS i was submitted to the Attorney's Office, and that in order to clarify ~ records, the Commission should a~uend Resolution Nos. 967 and.966, ! Series 1963-64, to amend the legal description of said propertye. Cotmnissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1105, Series 1963-64, and moued..for•its passage and•adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to amend tlge legal desciiption_A.f.Aesolvtion Nos. 967 and 968, Series 1963-64, for Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-58.and Conditional Usp Permit Noo 503e (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll.owing.vo•te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Ro.wland.a NOES: COMMISSIO~ERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Pebley, Sidesa ADJOURNMEPTf - There being no further business to transact, Commissioner Perry offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to 5:00 o'clock p.m., Pdarch 23, 1964, for a Work Session on the proposed new zoneo Commissioner Allred seconded the moti~na MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 o`clock pom. Respectfully submitted, , ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission , ; i ~ ( , i I ~ _ Y_.__._..____.._.__.._~._..--._._.~.~__._-----_ __......... , ,.._...._...._ _.--..--- ~ ~ • ~.