The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1964/09/14A RIDQULAA M9~[+ftIId~ OF Tf~. ANA~IIM CITY PLANNIl~3 CON~IISSION HI~ULAR ~LING - 9 regular meeting oY the Anaheim City Planning Co~i.ssi.on was oalled to order by Chairman pro tem 4auer at 2:00 o'alook P.M., e quorum being present. PRH~N'P - OEAIRMADI pro tem: Qauer. ~ - QOIOLISSI01JIIi3: 911red, Oamp, (lhavos~ Perry, Romland. ABSHI~I'P - CO~p[ISSIOl~t3: Mungall. PRIlSffi~iT - Zoning tloordinator: ~dartin greidt Deputy Oity Attorney: Jerry Brody ~ Offioe Engineer: Arthur DaW Planning Qo~iasion Seoretary: Ann Brebs Planning Department Stenographer: aorinne.(3slvan PL1CD(~ OF - Oommissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegianae to the Flag. AI,L'~1(iIAN~E OONDITIONAI, II3ID - CONTII~ItJED PQBI~IC F~ARING. C~LIOR4H PA(~~, IaT AL, 730 3arbonne Road, Loa E~IIT N0. 616 Angeles 24, Qalifornia, OWnere; JOFIN J. E[A(~RAMd, I~. D., 172 ~Jorth Tust3n Avenue, Orange. ffalifornia, 6gent; requesting permisaion to ~STABI~ISH A G~{AI~ PLAK PRNATE'1.`I OP~RAT'E~ A~[U,SH8I~TP PARK AND 00l~qIAL-F~tlR~ATIONAL FACII~I7.'Y ~ A1~iT ND. 34 1NCLTTI~INC~ Tffi7 FOLLO-CINI~: WORLD TftADID AND INDUSTRYAL ~ITB~ CiR1iRiRAT. SHOW~ AND ~ITS: RETAII, AND. VPfi0LE3ALB1 TF~ 1~Rf1HANDISING, INOLUDING Obi-SALiS OF AIDOHOLIQ B~1/HRAf3I~,S: HOTIDL: '~~!r'!'420N STUD20; 600-FY10'~ HIGH OHS~RVA3'ION TOY~i AbID ROTATIN~ R~STAURANT: AND Al~i Il~iSTITUT9 OF OR't~PAL AND O~QI~NTAL ,~TUDI~S WITH ~DITATION CP~ITIDR ANA DORMITORY ONI pr•operty desoribed ase An irregular paroel of land ad3aoent to the 3outhern Countios (~as (fr~mpany property at the southwest aorner of ge,tella Avenue. and State College Boulevard, wi•th frontages of approsimately 1,015 fest on $atella Avenue and 675 Yeet on State Oollege Boule- vard; said propQrty oontains approaimatelq 53 aores oY lend. Froperty preeently olassified 1[-l, LI(~Pl~ 71~IDIIB~IAL and P-L, PARgIIJ4-LAND30APaI~, ZOI~S. 3ub~eot petition.and (~eneral Plan Amendment Were aontinued from the meeting of August 31, 1964, in order that a quorum might be present to oonsider sub~ent petition. Mrs. Hllizabeth MaQarter, representing the Pounder and developer of the proposed Orient, Dr. John Magrann, appeared before the Oo~nisaion and ststed that suPPioient evidenoe had been presented at the previoua hearing to substantiate any feasibility study, sinae lettera and doouments Prom a number of Oriontal oount.-les indioated their interest in the proposed development; that the"Orient U.S.A." oonformsd With the usea permitted in the ~[-1 Zone on 45 sorea; that the remaining 10 sarea arers devoted to an amusement oenter ~uhioh would be an integral pert of the devQlopment= that adequate parking wsa being provided; and that iY an,q ~urther evidenco Was needed~ it Was requasted that sub~eat petition be oontinued Por tWo weoke, ainoe ad3oining induatrial developmeni had been oontaated and no opposition ~ae made. Mr. Paul King, representing the Southerr. Oounties Qas Compeay, 226 IDast Linaoln Avenue, atating that he had been unable to be present at the pravious hesring; that the proposed plans of development indiuated that the.pexking PaoilSties vPere being looated on his firm's property; the,t said property had not been sold or was there any intention oY selling tha property, but that they were not opposed to the davelopment as suoh. Ddr. Q. Sidney Barton~ developer of the original "Orient" looated at Ball Roed and -Pest S1;rQet, app~e,red bePore the aommiasion and ststed.that he had been repreaented by an attorney at vhe orenious hqaring; that he did not proteat the proposed developWent, but was oP the opinion that the area in whioh it Ras to be loasted Was questionable; that the development ahould ba looated in the ao~eroial-reoreation.area, and that if looated ia the proposed ersa.WOUld hsve a detrimental aPPeat on Yuture development of the oov~eroial-reoreation areati beoause it would be reduoing the potentie,7. for the area. I In rebwttal, Mrs. MoQe,rter atated the~t it w~s the ra.caeloper's intent to develop the 55 aores ~ although they were hopeful oP purohasing the proparty ad~aaent to aub,jeot property; that the development at Ball Hoed and Weat 3treet was oonaiderably ~sller than the propoaed develop~ment, ~ i ainoe it vras ' oompriaed of only 30 aures and represented the ,Tapanese and Ohinese villages, ~ ~ intere8t.sinoe the lapt meeting the oountries of Malaysia and Thsiland also eapressed.their f 1 • ~{ ~ ,. F. . ~ \w - -- - - ~9 . '"i'.'~_ _~.-.._._..-.~~ . • . .. ~ . ~ ~ .. , R~f / . ~ ~ I i ( _) ~ ~ ~ MINUl'ffi3, CIT3C PLANN.IDR~ GO~CS6ION, September 14, 1964 2303 CONDI'PIONATi USffi - THH E~19R7Nf~ WAS OLOSH'~D. P~R3L7.fi N0. 616 C1o~issioner Perry etated that sinoe he had not heard the evidenoe at GENARAI~ PI,AN the lasi; publio hearing, he had availed hitnselP of the tepe reoording 9~1T N0. 34 of the o•iidenae and was Yully informed of What had transpired. ao~i.ssioner_Perry oPfered Reaolutiott No. 1322, Series 1964-65, and mwed for ita passage and adoption, seoonded by Oott~issioner Ohsvos to deny Petition for Conditional Usa Pertqit No. 616, based on the faot that the Oity presently had a Oo~eroial Reoreation area oomprising over 1200 eores oY Whioh 400 still rema3ned to be developed; that the propoaed 10 aore portion for amusewent-reoreation uses would be an intrusion iato land Whioh previous end present Oity Oounail members have stated was to be held for induetrial development; that a number oP induatries have aonsidersble i.nvestments in industrial struoturea as Well as u~oney invested in future induatrial development of the land which should be.~afforded some proteation; and that the propoaed use oould not be aonsidered as being aompatible to the eaisting industriel development in the Southeast Induatrisl Area. Oo~issioner Chavos in seaondirg the motion stated that the Oo~ission is required by Code in their Yindings in a resolution whioh establish the reason for granting of e, Conditional Use Permit; that he hsd reviewed all the dooumentary evidenoe presented by the petition, and to the best of his 1rnoW- 1ed.ge oould not Yind anything to~substantiate the Commission's granting said Oonditional IIse Permit; that the agent Por the petitioner ststed at the previuus hearing that the -Pestinghouse people ezpressing their desire to establish in Anaheim., aeid statment might lead someone to , believe that the -Peatinghouae Oompany would establish their "m~e,gia oarpet" industry in the ~ City, but upon direot questioning, and upon referral to the letters written by Westinghouse to the developer the statement then was olari£ied that VPestinghouse Would be glad to sell the !~magio oarpet" to the petitioner, but no mention Was made as to the establishment of an industry; that the agent for the petitioner stated that lettera had been presented to the First -Pestern Besilc Trust Dapartmeat a t Aioherd Steve Barber ~ho had advisad that no money aould be lent on letters of ~s~~~and that sinae the petitioner had not presented evidence whioh would aubstantiate the Oa~nission's granting the petition, he had seoonded the motion.(See Reaolution Book) On roll oall~ tha foregoing reaolutaon was paeaed by the folloa~.ng vote: AYES: C0~[ISSI02~i.4: Allred, Cemp, Ohavos~ aauer, Perry~ Rowland. NOLiS: OO~ILIlIS3ION~EtS: None. AS~: OO~ISSIOb~ktS.: Mungall. Co~issioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1322~ 3eries 1964165, and moved for its pasasge and adoption, seaonded by Co~isaioner Perry to reoo~end to the City Counoil that General Plan Amendment No. 34 be disapproved besed on the faot thst sub~eot property is part of the Southeast Industrial 6rea, and if an exoeption was being made for sub~eot petition, this would se: a prenedent for further breakdown of the Citq's industrial aoreage.(See Resolution Book) On roll asll, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo~ving vote: AYE3: COI~[I9SIONPEi5: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COl~IS3IOI~t3: None. AB3IDT1'P: CO~~LTSSIObIHgiS: liungall. R~CLAS9IF'TCATION - CONTIN[T8D PUBLIC HH~ARRIlV(~. P6BIA V. AND LAURA $. DOI~TQUEZ, 1523 Eiast 3anta N0. 64-65-15 Ana Street, Anaheim, California, Oovners; JA~1S A. NOBLEI, JR., 1621 East 17th Street~ Santa Ana, California, Agent; property desoribed as: An "L" CONDI7.'IONAL USID shaped parael of land ad3eoent to the serviae station properts at the south- P~tl~.'T N0. 610 east aorner oP Ball Road and State College Boulevard, said property havittg frontsges of e,pprosimately 457 feet on Ball Road and approsimately 457 Peet (3ffi~AL PLAN on State College Boulevard. Property preaently nlassiYied R-A, Agrioultural, A1~7VT N0. 31 Zone. (No additional testimony to be taken, only a vote by the Comaission). R~QIIIDSTIDII CLA3STFICATION: 1[-1, LI(~AT INDUBTRIAL ~ ZONID. R~QUIISTED CONDITIONAL U3~: ESTABLIBH A MOTOR HO'1~,, ~EEODTIVE 3UI'P518, RIDSTAURAN'P, COC~PAIL LOUN(3~~ AND RIDLATED~SHOPB. ~ ~ ,, . ~ :;~:.~ -i_._._-_._.__._-_~.__..__...._~~__._-,-__._ ~ / ..~ ~ . . . . ~ . . . . . . ... ..... .. . . .. .. . . _'1'__' _.- _ "_'_" _. _. . . . . .. __. _ _. . .. . .. _ ... .._ ~~ ~ ~ MIISUTE3, C1fiY PLANNIN(3 CO10[ISSION, September 14, 1964 2304 RECLASSIFICATION - Sub~eot petitions were aontinued from the meeting of August 17~ 196a to N0. 64-65-15 allow the Planning Department an opportunity to re-advertiae sub~eat property for M-1 Zoning, for the petitioner to oonfer with the Traffia Engineer in CONDI'tIONAL USE order to reduoe the number of aooess points to abutting streets, and from PP~ILIT N0. 610 the meeting of August 31,.1964, due to a laok of a ma3ority vote of the Co~i.ssion. (~NERAL PLAAI A6~33NDMENT N0. 31 Chairman pro tem asuer revieWed the previous eation taken by the Co~i.ssion and inquired Whether the Commission vrould like additionai evidenoe, if so~ a motion would be in order to re-open the hearing. The Commission then disaussad whether or not to re-open the hearing, Commissioner Perry ststing that sinoe he had not been present at the previoua hearing, he had availed himselY of the tape . reoording, and felt there was no need for additional evidenoe for himself. ; i Co~iseioner Rovland offered a motion to reoo~end to the Oity Counail that Realassifioetion ; No. 64-65-15 be approved, sub~eot to limiting the size of the units to not more than 688 square i Yeet. The foregoing motion lost for want of a seoond. ~ i Conaiderable disouasion was held by the Co~nisaion as to the definition oY a motel, hotal~ and ~ multiple Yamily residential unit's, Whether liatiting the size woulc. or Would not afPeat the ~ development of the remainder of the property easterly to the propoaed Orenge Freeray arc: ~ southerly to Winston Road for multiple family residential development whioh would be an et~oroaahii ment into the Southeast Industrial Area; that the room tax aasessed together with speaial daily ~ me3d se~viae and other servioes afforded motels and hotels might deter suah residentiel enarosoh.f ment into the industrial araa; that by the M-1 Zone reoo~tendation would be limiting the market ~ of the propused development to transient use of the motel eseoutive suites, and that the agent for the petitioner stated that the proposed development would be operated as a motel only. Coimmissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1323, Series 1964-65 , and moved for its passage and adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Camp to reaou~end to the City Counoil that Petition for Reolessifioation No. 64-65-15 be approved sub~eot to the petitioner's stipulation as to maid servioe on a daily basis, and the faat that the development would be operated as a motel; Yur~her that the 4$ room teac pould be applioab7.e, that the Co~ission approved the use as being aom- patible vPlth the industriel development and would look unYavorable to uses other than motel use, and that the patitioner had been advised ti,at no hasdship aould be olaimed based on the eoonomia situation, sinoe he had oreated his own hardship by requenting the proposed use, and oonditions.(See Resol.ution Book) On roll aall the Yoregoing resolution avas passed by the following vote: AY'ES: CO~S4IONGRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, aauer, Perry. NOES: COt~lISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSbIld'P: CO~LN[I3S:I:ONERS: Mungall.. Co~issioner RoWland qualiPied his "no" vote by atating that the proposed uae of the property Would permit the enoroe,ahmant of residential use in the industrial area, sinae the phyaiaal appearanae would suggest studio epa.xtments, and would, therePore~ be an invitation to requests for similar uses ad3oining sub~eat property. Disoussion was held by tha Co~ission to the appropriateness of the 4eneral Plan Amendment, noting thet sinoe motels were permitted in the M-1 Zone, the eahibits presented indiaated multiple family residential development. Commiasioner Chavoa offered Resolution No. 13?~, Series 1964-65 and moved for its passage and adoption, seuonded by Coffiissioner Allred to grant Petition for Oonditional Use Permit No. 610 aub~eot to oonditioas.(See Resolution Book) On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYIDS: QOl~ISBIOI~RS: A11red, Camp, Ohavos, Gauer, Perry. NOES: CQI~LSSIOI~R3: RoWland. ABSIDNT: CO~dI8SI0I~tS: Mungall. __ .- _._ ~I J ; , . ~ . . ( _) ~ '~ MIlU~TES, CIfi3C PLAN.NIN(3 t~OM9dISSION, September 14, 1964 2305 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Camp ofPered Reaolution No.. 1325, 5eries 1964-65, and moved 1~T0. 64-65-15 for its passege and adoption, seuonded by Co~i.ssioner Perry to reao~end to the City Counail that (ieneral Plan Amendment No. 31 be disapproved. CONDITIONA~. USE based on the,faat that the intent for the use of the land is for industriel PERMIT N0. 610 purposes.(See Resolution Book) On roll aa11 the for~3going resolution was passed by the follo~ing vote: AYEB: COMSEISSIOIVERB: Allred, Cemp, C2Cavos, (iauer, Perry, RoWlend. NOEB: COMMISSIONERS: None. AB3EN'P: CO~LMI~SIOI~ffitS: Mu. gall. RECLASSIFIGATION -• COBiT2NUED PCBi~IC HEART~Tf#. TNITIAT~ BY TEIE CI77 COUNCIL, 204 East Linooln N0. 63-64-P2 Avenue, Anahoim, Oeli.fornia; proposes the reolassifiuation oP property w desaribed as: A reat~::igular paroel of land with a frontage of approxi- AREA D~g'~PMffiNr mately 710 feet on the north side of Ball F#oad and a depth of 251 Yeet, PLAN N0. 4 the esaterly boundary of said property being approsimately 819 feet ~eat of the aenterline of. Dale Avenue, and further desoribed as 2861-2911 West Ball Road Prom the H-A, Residential Agriaultural, Zone to the R-3,Multiple Femily Residentia]., Zone. 3ub~eot petition vas oontinued Prom the meeting of ldaroh 2~ 1964, to a11oW time for a study to be made of the area. Mr. Donald Ander.son, oWner of property looated at 2885 West Ball Road, Paroel "B" oY Area i Development Plan No. 4, appeared before the Coum~i.ssion stating that he operated a private ; elementary sohool on said property and opposed the proposed R-3 Zoning based on the faot that the land Was purahased and tha sohool establiahed beaause the esisting zoning was appropriate; that ther.e aas no intent on their part to dispose of the property, but they prese~tly intended t•o enlarge the sahsol and planned.to apply for a building permit shortly. Further, in reaponse to ~omm~i.ssion questioning stated thst he operated a co-eduoational grade aohool, that al~ other zones did not permit sohools and ohurohes by right, and he aonaidered it an asset to the City of Anaheim, and if this rvere denied them, private sahools would be sub~eat to Coa~ission and " Counoil deliberation ~whioh might indioate that the sahools were in some way detrimental if privately ovvned; and that he prePerred that the esisting zoning remsin, sinae it had not been petitioned for bq the owners of the property. !~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated that the revised R-A. Agrioultural, Zone whioh was reoently passed by the Co~ission and Counail required that this be a holding zone rather than a development aone~ and that sahools, other than publia would be required to petition through a oonditional use permit for any neW establishment. Mr. Williem Dittmar, 2901 47est Ball Road, another property opner Whose property was being aonsidered Por realassifioation under suh3eot petition, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had purahesed hi~ property with the intent of usage of the property being for farming purposes; that after 6-S months he wsa required to reduoe the number of birds he had to only 23 beoause of the oomplaints from the original 800; that tha proposed reolass- iPioation vould Further prohibit the use oY his property as he origine,lly intended. Mrs. Joy :Dittmar, appeared before the Co~ission and stated that under the esisting zoning they were permitted to have horsea, whereas the proposed zoning would prohibit this; that the proposed alley to the rear oP the properties ~rould intsrfere With their msintaining the birds, and that the p:aperty owner to the east had been present at the previous hearing to voiae his opposition, but was unable to attend the aontinued hearing beoeuse oP illness. 'I'he Commission advised the property oWners that the proposed R-3 zoning would only beooma ' effeotive when oonditions for rezoning to R-3 had been met and an ordinanae read,further I that the alley to the rear of the propertiea would only be required When said rezoning ~ had taken place. Th~pposition again stated they were deairous of ineintaining the esisting zoning. Tf3~ HEARING WAS OLOS&1D. Disaussion held by the Commission indiaated that although the propoaed zoning vas in oonformanoo With the (3eneral Plan, and it would be to the property o~vners advantage to have a resolution of intent read, that if they Were not reoeptive to the realasaiPioation and Were desirous of I keeping the ezisting uses for the property, perheps the Co~iasion ahould reaommend denial m ~ i 1 .--- - . . - --- -~ _4v=- .-- ---_ _ _ ~ • I , I . I t. `, ..~ . , . ._.. _ .. " - ,.~ __.'..... .. . .. ~_..~ ~ ~ MIN[iPES, CT'1`~' PLAI~N7N."x COl~ISSION, September 14, 1964 2306 RECLASSIFICACION - In response to Co~i.ssion questioning, Mr. Kreidt reviewed the zoning N0. 63-64-92 aation of the property to the enst o£ the properties prsaently tinder oonsideratiori, and that the City Counuil had approved two-story R-3 AREA DEIT~I,OPMEN'° oonstruntion Within .150 feet of the R-A paroel. Further that through PLAN N0. 4 planning studies, the City Counoil then felt that it would be logiaal that sub~ect properties would eventually develop for R-3, and initiated subject petition prior to granting Yinal building inspeotion of the R-3 two-story development. The Co~nission then stated that sinoe R-3 Zoning had besn initiated, and the property oaruer to the west of the eaisting two-story R-3 Was not desirous oP eny reolassifioation oP his property, that the City's position approving R-3 within 150 feet of the R-A parael was noW 3ustified. Mr. IIreidt then revie~ed Area Dsvelopment Plan No. 4 for the Co~ission noting that if the properties enoompessed in said plan Were eventually developed for R-3, this plan would be used for reoommendation to developers oP the property so that the alley to the rear of the properties oould be eatended Westerly from its present terminus. The Co~iasion advised the Planning Department to show two alternatiwe aoaessways to Ball Road from the a11ey between the paroels of pxoperty aovered by the Plan, in order the~t tY~e elley might eventually be egtended rather than cvait for all paroels to be developed. Commissioner Al.lred offered Resolution No. 1326, Series 196~-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, ssoon3ad by Commissioner Camp to reao~end to the City Counail that Petition Yor Reolassi.fiaatian..~'o. 63-64-92 be disa~pproved, based on the Pact that owners of the properties were unal.terabiy opposed to realassification of their property.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo'llo~ing vote: AYE3: COElN(ISSTONEtRS: All.rad, Camp, Ohavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMNiT3SI0NERS: hone. ~lB3~N'T: CO~LS~IOI~t~: Mungall. Commissioner Perry oYfe.red Resolution No. 1327, Series 1964-65, ead moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cu~.issioner Chavos to reoo~end to the City Counoil that Aree Developmant Plan No. 4 be sdopted as a future plan for the ultimate development of the properties.(See Resolu~Eion book) On ro11 aa11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AyES: CO1d~GZ~SIOIv"ERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, RoWland. NOES: CO1I~SLSSIONEAS: T~one. ABSENT: GO?dlLI9SIOI~ER9: Mungall.. RECLASSIFTCATION - CONiING~D FITBI,IC HEARING• LI:~NEL H• AND LLI~=~ BR09YN, 6749 Mitohell N0. 63-64-107 Avenue, Riverside, California, Oaners; (~I~1 BURCH~1`TP, 627 South Brook- ~ hurst Street, Anaheim, Galifornia, Agent; requesting that property desoribed 4 as an irregularly shaped paroel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Stata College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately ~ 325 feet, the southern boundary of said property boing approaimately 310 feet north of the aenterline of Center Street, and further desaribed as 125 North State College Boulevard, be # realassiYied from the R-A, RESIDE.NfiIAL AGRIOUL~'Z'RAL, ZONE to the C-1, NETGHBORHOOD CQ~]HCIAL, ~ ZONE. Sub3ect petition Was aontinued from the meeting of April 27, and July 20, 1964 at the requast i of the petitioner in order to allow time to aubmit revised plans. Zoning Coordinator Martin grei.dt advised the Co~ission that the petitioner had ahanged agents, and the proposed use of the property and had, thereYore, filed a aonditional uee permit to be oonsidered in aon~unation with sub3eat petition, said aonditional use permit was set for publio , heering for September 28, 1964, and reoommended that sub3eat petition be aontinued to the meeting o3 September 28 in order to be aonszdered at the seme time. Com~isaioner Perry ofYered a motion to oontinue Petition for ReolassiPioation No. 63-64-107 ~, to the meeting of September 28, 1964, to be sohed~rled in oon3unotion with a Petition for i Conditional Use Permit. Cot~issioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. j . s -- _ i~ i I / ; ' ---.- ~_._._-_~ ,- ___..~ ~- i I . ~ ~ ~~ ~ • ~iII'1TS, CITY ~LA1~1INC~ COD~I33ION, 3eptember 14, 1964 2307 R~~:LA3SIFTCATION - CONTINIIEB PtTBI~20 FII!IAR7NG. 3TIIii.Y pROPERTIES, EP AL, 1336 South Brookhurst N0. 63-64-122 3treet, Anaheim, California, Owners; A. J. LI7.°PI~AN, 1811 -Pest Katelle Avenue, Anaheim, CaliPornia, Agent; requesting that property desoribed as: (3E1`I~RAI~1'LAN An irregularly shaped parael of land With a frontage of approximstely A~IDME~1T N0. 23 1,281 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street eind a depth of approsime,tely 1,300 feet, the southern boundsry of said property being approsimately 427 feet north of the aenterline of Cerritoa Avenue, he reolassiPied from the R-A, Agrioultursl Zone to the R-3, ~ultiple Femily Residetttial, Zone. Sub3eot patition and Gene.ral Plan Amandment were oontinued from the meetings of Tune 8, July 8, and August 3, 1964 to a11oW time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Co~aission that revised plans had not been sub- mitted and not written requeat for oontinuenoe had been reoeived, bnt that the Enginsering Departmer.t had reaeived a request for a 4-meek aontinuanae. Mr. M. T. Stehley, one of the owners of subjeot property, ststed he ~as present to find out What ~as happening to the pro~aat, and aould offer no information for the Com~ission. Mr. A. R. MoDaniel of MoDaniel Engineering Company, advised the Co~ission that he was not the ; offioial representative but Would attempt to enlighten the Co~i.ssion and petitioner. He stated ; that sittoe the filing of the petition, the developers were having a difYioult time developing ~ plans, that some of the prinaipal.s had resigned from the aompany; that the developer Mr. 3te,nley; Studiooff was attempting to negotiate with the propsrty o~vners and it was his hope to oontinue With the projeot, but he had no Imowledge as to Whether theae negotiations had been oulwinated~ i and that he hsd suggssted that iY A~r. 8tudiaoff intended to oontinue with the pro~eat he request' an add3tional 4-.meek aontinuanoe, in or.der to eliminate the refiling of a p~tition. ; The Co~mi.ssion ~xpresaed aonaern for the property oFners who han been appearing at eanh hearing ; who Were opposed to the propoaed development, that perhe~ps the petitioner might wish to With- drav the petition until more oonorete p.lans oould be presented. , A~ter further disouasion betaveen the Coffiission, the prop~rty oean~r, the engineer, and inter- asted ad~aoent propertq oWners, the Con~i.ssion felt it was only Pair that the petition be oott- ' tinued until after the asorow prooeedings had expired, sinae the property opner did not file ` the petition, and tha developers of the property might still be interested in its development. Mr. VP. R. 3pies, 1411 Dallas Drive, Mr. L. H. Fisoher, 1417 Dallas IIrive, and Mr. Warran Stephan, 1A~01 pe,ll.as Drive asked.that they be adviaed if and.when plans were aubmitted~ or if the petition would be withdrat-n. Commisaioner Perry offered a motion to aontinue the publio hearing of Petition for ReolassiPi- oation IJo. 63-64-122 and tiener.al Plan Amendment N'o. 23 to the meeting of November 23, 1964 in the evening, and to advise the aPoremeationed opposition if plans Were reoeiveii or the petition was withdraWn. Co~i.ssioner A11red seoonded the motion. MOfiION CARRIDD. OONDl'PIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBT~IC HEARINt~. E. B. AND MAR'Y E. DAYI3, H. L. At~lD u-aar~~°v R. ?""'.~,nB~'P N0. 594 HIaK~4, AND C3EOR(~E L. HAFt'['MAN, o/o A. Castaneda, Frank R. -P~rren Enterpriaes, 9255 Suneet Boulevard~ Suite 713, Los Angeles 69~ CaliYornie(formerly Tooene Real Estatep 12262 Herbor Blvd.), Owners; LEROY R03E, 600 North Euolid Street, Anaheim, Californiap Agent; requesting permission to ESTABI.'L3H AN 80-UN1~ MOTEI, on property desoribed as; A reatangularly ahaped paroel of land with a frontage of 200 feet or. the east side of Brookhurst 5treet and a depth of 275 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approaimately 752 feet north of the oenterline of Orange Avenue. Property presently olassified 0-1, NEI.GC~IDIDORHO~JD CO~AERC1:Au, ZOTd1ID. Sub~eot petition was aontinued Prom the meetings of J'uly 20, and August 17, 1964, in order to allow the petitioner suYfiaient time to submit revised plana. Zoning Coordinator ~lartin greidt advised the Co~iasion that revised plans hed not been reoeivad and that no letter requesting aontinuanoe had been reoeived. Qo~isaioner Ropland offered a motion to aontinue the publio hearing of Petition Yor Conditional: Use Permit to the meeting of November 9,1964 and to advise the petitioners and their representa- tive that they make a personal appeeranae before the Comiuisaion at said hearing to signify their intent of sub3eot petition. Co~.isaioner Chavos senondad the motiott. M07fI0N QAHEtILnD. --~1 i I ( 1 MINIJTF7S, CIT3C PLANNING C01~6ISSION, September 14, 1964 2308 RECLASSIFICATION - PitBLIC IiFARIldG. -vIIJ,IAM AND ROB~RT DOVQLIDTG, 3115 Flintridge Drive , N0. 64-65-28 F'ullerton, California, Otivnera; KAL-SOUTH DHN'ELOPMEN'P CORPORATION, 1442 South Euolid Street, Fullerton, California, Agent; property COPiDIfiIONAL LTSE desaribed as: A reatangular parael of land at the northeast norner o~ PEfiMI.T PTO. 624 Orangethorpe Avenue and Dowling Street with frontages of approximately ~ENTATNE MAP OF 183 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue and approaimately 163 feet on Dowling Z'RACT N0. 5389 Street. Property presently alassified as R-A,6GF~IC~!'LTURAL ZONE. REIIISIOIJ N0. 2 REQUTwSTED CLASSIFTCATION: C-1, IJ~IGI~ORHOOD COn~EfICIAL, ZONE. REQUP7S'FFD QONDITIONAL USE: FERlLIT OPERAT'.LUN OF A SH~iYICE STATIOPI WITHIIQ 75 FEET OF R-3 ZONED PROPERTY ~AIfiATIYA TR$CT RE%~L~ST: 03 PROPOSED R-3, ZONED LOTS Mr. D. Qerstan,.representing the agent Yor the petitioner, appeared before the Qo~ission and revie~ed the pr~posed development noting that reolassifiaation of the property had not ' taken plaoe, but would go Yorward if sub3eot petition was approved; and that the trsot was ravised to deyate the prcpertp being proposed Por the servioe sta~ion, whiah would be loaated at the interssation of two thoroughfares. Disoussion was held relative to ~he faat that although a resolution of intent to develop sub3eat property had been approved approximatelq one year ago by the Counail for a oondominium., ! the proposed tract Was oontrary to that originally approved, and still might be aonsidered for ; industrial. purpos~s. Mr. Geretan stated tbat sub~eat tract Would have a street pattern whioh Would flow into the ad~aaent R-3 traat to the east, whiah was presentlq under aonatruotion, and, therefore, it aeemed likely that sub~eot property would also be developed in eaoordance With the resolution , of intent. ' No one appearad in opposition. ~ TH&f I~UlRINQ VPAS CLOS~D. ! Commiasioner Ro~land of.fered Resolution No. 1329~ Seriea 1964-65, and moved Por its passage and edoptiony seoonded by Oommissioner Camp to reoo~end to the City Oounoil that Petition ! Yor ReolassiYiaa•~ion No. 64-65-28 be approved aub~eat to oonditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the follovring vote: AYE3: CO~C3SLONERS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Roxland. NOES: COMdQ33:LONE~RS: Idone. ABSEN'i': COS~I3SIONERS: Nfungall. Co¢~issioner. Rowland offered Resolution No. 1330, Series 1964-65, and moved for ito passag> and adoption, seaonded by Co~issioner Perry to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ' i No. 624, sub~eot to aonditions.(See Resolution Book) ~ i On roll oall the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: j AYE1S: OOMMISSIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Ohavos, (3auer, Perry, Roxland. 1 I N0~3: CO~LMIS3IONERS: None. ; AB3ENT: 00lLMI3SIONIDRS: Mungall. ~ I aou~i.asioner Ohavos offered a motion to approve Revision No. 2 of Tentative Mep oP Treat No. 5389, sub~eut to the Yollowipg aonditions: i i l. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivisioa, eaoh aubdivision thereof shall be aubmitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tenta,~ive Map of Traot No. 5389~ Aevision No. 2. is granted sub~eat to the oompletion oP Reolessifiostion No. 62-63-112 and approval of F~eolassifioation No. 64-65-28 and Oonditionel Uae Permit No. 624. i i , _ ._. __ ___ . _._. --•---i---- - -~-----., ---~I ~. . . ._. ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN(i CWeM.I3SI0N, September 14, 1964 .~~ ~ ~ 2309 REOLA3SIE'ICATIQN - 3. That the alley out-offa ahall oonform to 3tandard Plan No. 130. N0. 64-65-28 4. That the vehiaular eoaess rights~ esoept at atreet and~or alley CONDI'PIONAL U3E openings, to Do*ling Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue ead Crowther PERE~T N0. 624 Avenue, vith the eaoeption of the servioa atation site shown as Lot No. 8 on Revision No. 2 of Teatetive Trsat No. 5389 shall be TPIIITATIVLI MAP ~F dedioated to the City of Anaheim. TftACT N0. 5389 RIDITI3ION N0. 2 5. That all lots aonform to Code requirements or a varianae be filed (Oontinued) and approved. 6. That an alley turn around be provided at Lot Nos. 47 and 58 if Traot No. 5623 is not reoorded prior to or aimultanaous with Traot No. 5389. • If a turn around is provided, the City oP 9naheim will quit-olaim or abandon the exaess property rvhen Traat No. 5623 is reoorded and the ad3saent alley is improved. Commisaioner Allred seaonded the motion. MOTION OARR~1. REOLASSI6'IaATIOPi - PUBISC E~fARINC . MOI~ffiN QON'irAINB~S ~ IDiCORPORATkJD, THF B~RADA CORPORATION' N0. 64-65-'6 THE PIDELO OORPOFtATION, AND MA a(AFtTIld.71~kP157~Q'~l',' 40MPANY,2411 Eiast I,a Palma Avenue, Anaheim, (3alifornia, Oranerai Wt~T•?~ J'. LYNtlH, 2411 East i La Palma Avenue, Anah~im, Ce,Iifornis, Agant; requesting that property j desoribed as: Taro paroels of land: Paroel No. 1 looated on the west side of Sunkiat Street between Banyan Oourt and Sandelwood 0ourt~ being 206 Peet by 85 feet= Paroel No. 2 elso loaated on the ~est side of 3unkiat 3treet betvreen 3andelWOOd Court nnd Belmont Qourt, also b9ing 206 feet by 85 feet be realassified fron: the R-9, AC~~RICULTURAL~ ZOHI] to the R-1, ONE FAbCL.L~Y RESIDEI~'PIAI,, ZOI~ to establish four single family residetttiel lots. Mr. YPilliam Lynah, sgent for the petitionerso appeared before the Co~ission and reviewed the proposed subdivision of the property noting tha~t the portion of property on whioh the pump was loaated was not inaluded in sub~eot petition; that soma form of an agreement Was indioatad on the title poliay relative to the pump; and that the pu~sp we,s still in use. The Commission advised the agent that oontaot oould be made ~ith the searetesy of the assooia- t tion oWning the pump for a quit alaim, after Whioh the pump aould be sunk beloW the surfaoe, sinoe the ranohes in the erea Were using the pump. No one sppeared in opposition. ' THF7 FI5IARIIJ4 WAS CLOSFID. Coa~i.ssioner Perry oPfered Resolution No. 1331, Seriea 1964-65, and atoved Yor ita passage and adoption, aeoonded by Cot~isaioner Camp to reao~end to the Oity Counoil that Petition for ReolassiPioation No. 64-65-26 be approved with a finding that the well site on Paroel No. 1 was not under the ownershlp of the petitionera.(See Resolution Book) ; i On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYN78: OOT~SI3SIOI~4tS: Allred, Camp~ Ohavos, I~auer~ Perry, Rowland. f NOEB: COI~d23SI0NERS: None. ~ ABSEIl~IT: aO~~dI$SSON~R3: Mungall. ~ RECLAS9Il~'ICATION - PUBLIa f~SARING. WARFtIDIJ YP. JAY00%, 1014 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 64-65-27 Oalifornia, Owner; MALSA 7,l1AID COMpAN'Q~ 18293 Tmperial Highasy, Yorba I,inda, Oslifornia, Developer; MO DAN~L HAiQII~tIl~ DOMPANY, 222 Bast TENTATIYID MAP OF Linooln nvenue, H,ngineer; requesting that property desaribed as: An TRAOT N0. 5703 irregular paxoel oY land approxime,tely 360 Yeet by 850 feet in size lying approximately 355 feet west oY the oenterline of IDast Street, and. bounded on the east by the Orange County Flood Oontrol ohannel, on the weat by the Atahison, Topeka and 3anta Fe Railroad right-of-way, the southern boundary oP said property being tiie ~rasterly prolongation oP the southern boundary oP Balsam Avenue be renlassi~ied £rom the M-l, Light Industriel, Zone to the R-3, Multip'e Family Residential, Zotte in order to subdivide sub~eot property into 21 R-3, Multiple Family Reaidential zoned lote. i I . ~ __._____ _..,.~.--., ~ .. ~ . .~ F ' ~ , I '.,'~~.. . U (~ ~ MINIITES, CITY PLADII~'INa CO~~SISSION~ 3eptember 14,. 1964 2310 ; RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. A. R. MoDaniel, engineer~oY the pro3eat appeared before the Oort~iasion ; N0. 64-65-27 and reviewed the looatio~ of sub3eat property end its proximity to the ~ mobile homes southerly of the Riverside Freeway, together With its being , TENTATIVE MAF OF isolated from other industrial development Ueaause of the Raymond Retarding I TRACT N0. 5703 Basin a.-~d the Plood aontrol ohannel. In respoaee to Co~i.ssion questioning Mr. MnDaniel stated~that there still eaisted a vaaant pasoel betmeen subjeat property and the mobi79 perk; that the existing bridge aoross tiie flood aontrol ohannel had tWO travel lanes e,nd no parking was permitted; that to his knorvledge the bridge had been dedioated to the City as well as the street easterly of the bridge. Mr. Robert Dediok, 1581 4Peat Broadway, appeared before the Co~tission and stated thet hia oompany had ooastruated the road to the street at Whioh time he had.understood tha~t the street and the bridge had been dediaated to the City of Anaheim, as well as the improvements being installed in aaaordanoe with the aity's standards. Conoern ~as eapressed by tha Commission, beoause there did not seem to be any evidenoe that the bridge aaross the flood oontrol ohannel had in faut been dedioated to the City, and that if this were not a faat then some provision would have to be made for the waintenanoe of the bridge. The Co~ission then direoted the Engineering Department make a thorough searoh to determine whether or not the bridge had been dedioated to the Oity of AnahE.im, and to submit reoo~endations to the City Counail at the time the traat was~to be.oonsidbred. In response to Commisaion questioning relative to ~he design,.and type of ine,teriale Por both the struatures astd the roof, Mr. Dwayne Brandon representing the developers of the trabt, stated that it would be Spanish stuaoo with shake roof, and then indicated the materiels on the plans. No one appeered in opposition. THI~I I~ARIN(3 WAS OL03~D. Disaussion was held by the Oo~iasion relative to initiating realassiPioetion prooeedinga to + plane the mobile park, the retarding basin and the reme3ning paraels north and east of the ~ ba,sin in its most appropriste zone. ; Co~i.saioner Allred ofPered Resolution No. 1332, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage ! and adoption, seaonded bg Co~iasioner Perry,.to reaoffiend to the City Counail that Petiticn Yor RealessiYioation No. 64-65-27 be epproved aub~eot to oonditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll oail the Poregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYE9: COD~ATSSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. NOES: CO~SSIOPIERS: Noae. . ABSEQdT: CO1~If.i3SI01V~RS: Mungall. • Coa~issioner Camp ofPered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Traot No. 5703, sub3eot to the following aondi~tions: 1. Thet should thia subdivision be developed as pnore than one aubdivision, eaoh subdivision thereoP shali be submitted in tentative 3orm for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentat3ve Map of Traot No. 5703.is granted sub~eot to the appr,oval of Renlasaifioation No. 64-65-27. 3. That the alley out-ofPs ahall oonform to Standard Plan No. 130. 4. That the drainage ahall be handled in a manner satisfaotory to the City Engineer and to the approval of the Orange Oounty Flood Control Distriot. Co~i.ssiotter 611red seoonded the motion. MOTION OARRIEiD. INITIATION Ob' - Oo~i.seioner Rowland oPfered e motion to direat the Planning Department to I RE1aLA8SIFICATION initiate reolassifioation.prooeedinga for the property looated tvest of IDast PROOE~DIN(iS 3treet, the Weatern boundary being the Atohison Topeka end Santa Fe Rail- road right-of-Wa,y, the northern boundary being the Riverside Freeway, aud : the southern boundary being I,a Palws Avenue, Prom the M-1, Light Indu~trial, . Zone to R-A~ for the property ~ithin the Raymond Retarding Basin and the ! Flood Control Channel, and R-3, Multiple Family Residentisl, Zone for the remainder. Comnissioner Ohavos aeoonded the motion. MOTION DARRIIDD. i j I ~ j , -,-- - ------ . , -----~' ~ ° li~.- _. __... . _ ~ _ _ ._. . ., T ~ i I ' . : ~:~ ~_) ~ e MINIJTES, CITY PLANNIr"~ QOMEQI93ION, 5eptember 14, 1964 2311 CONDITIONAL USII - PUBLIO FIDARINC. CARRIA4ID blBTATID6 SAI~S CORpORATION, 1621 East 17th Street. ~ PERMIT N0. 6~1 Santa Ana, CaliPornia, Oxner; raquesting permission to ID3T6B7~I3H A N~VY SERY?CLf STATION AT Tf~ IldTERSIDCTION OF A PR~ARY HI(~HVPAY AND A I:OCAL STRE&T ' VPITFIIl~i 75 F~PP OF A FtffiSIDffi~TIAL STRUCTURE, on property desoribed. as: A ~ reotangular paroel of land at the northw~st oorner of Lincoln Avenue and Helena Street and having Prontages of 110 feet on Linaoltt Avenue and 141 Yeet on Helena Streat, and further desoribed as 407:YYest Linooln Avenue. Property pre$ently alassified C-2, General Co~teroial, Zone. Mr. T• Iawyer~ 6162 Imperial Highwe,,T, 3snta F'e Springs, appeared before the Co~ission and ~ revieved the proposed replaaement of en eaisting servioe atation, and stated he Would be available to answer questions. ' No one appeared in opposition. TF~ HIDARI.I~G wA8 CLOSED. The Commisaion ravie~ed the proposed plana of develop~ent noting that thi; struoture Would be a oantilevere~ struoture. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1333, Series 1964-55, and moved for ita peasage and adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Allred to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 621, sub,jeot to oonditions.(S'ee Resolution Book) On roll oell the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: A3C~S: C0~l1[ISSIO!~''uRS: Allred, Cemp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. NO~S: CObflAISSI0IV~RS: None. ABSENT: COM![ISSIONERS: ~[ungall. CONDITJONAL L'SE - PUBLIa I~ARING, DUDI,~y g, FgANK, 1621 Bleat 17th 9treet, Santa Ana, ' PEEt~2T N0. 623 California, Owner; requesting permiasion to EfSTABLI3H A SERVIOH 3TATION ; AT TH51 INTIDRBECTION OF A COLL~CTOR STR~IDT AND A PRIl~ARY HI(~HVPAY WITHIN ; 75 F'~'f OF R-1 ZaNIDD PROPE~TY: AND REQUIDgTIN(3 QANOELLATION OF DH~D ' RESTRICTIONS PRESICNTLY LIMITIN(} THE USE OF SUBJECT PROPIDRTY TO BUSINIDSS AND PROFIDS9IONAL OFFIC&13 ONLY on property deaoribed as: A reotangular paroel of land at the southweat aorner of Orange Avenue and Euolid Street With fronteges of 150 feet on Orange Avenue and 150 feet on : Euolid Street, and Pur:aer deaoribed sa 601 South Euolin Street. Property presently olsseified'. as C-1, Neighborhood Commeroial, Zone. No one appeared to repreaent the petitioner. Mr. Viayne Reedstrum, 517 South Faloon Street, appeared before the Commisaion :n oppoeition to sub~eot pL:ta.tion, and revleWed past zoning requests and aotiona taken on aub3eat property, noting that ~vhen the Counoil approved 0-1 zoning they apeoiPioally etsted that the property ~ should only be developed for busineae and proPesaional offiaea only, that a oc~.~v~lleaoent or rest' home was loaated ed3aaent to sub~e~ot praperty, and that no ohattges had taken plaoe in the area to warrant approval of a aervioe atation on aub~eot property. ~ The Commisaion noted that a number of similer petitiona had been filed by the petitioner in previoua years to establiah a aervioe station on aub~eot property, thst opposition had.always been preaent at eaoh hearing, and that in previoua yeera the operatore of the reat home had also appeared in oppo~ition. ~ Mr. Reedstrum atsted that he had not been oontaoted thia year on sub~eot petition by the operators oP the reat home so was unable to etate he also repreaented them, but that he did represent all the aingle family home o~vners in the area as he had in the paet, and that the aervioa atation ad~aoent to a reat hame with elderly people .wae inooapatible beoause of the fire hazerds normally ssaoaiated With a aerviae.ststion. b'urther that if other thazi the ' businese and proYesaional offioes were eatabliehed at the southWeet oorner oY Orange Avenue ~ and IDualid Street, this would set a preoedent for eimilar oo~eroial ~~aea on the enet side of IDuolid Street, whioh would ultimately aPfeat all the aingle fe~mily homes in the aree. Tf~ F~ARIIVC~ WAS CL09IDD. i Disousaion was held by the Commi,salon relative to previoua requeete by the petitioner for a aerviae atation on aub~eot property, and thst no ohange hed taker, plaae in the ares to Warrant granting the oonditional use permit. / _ , <,~ ~ ~ t~ MINUTBf3, CITfC PLANN~ OOMb[ISSION, September 14, 1964 2312 CONDITIONAL USID - Co~i.ssioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1:~34, Series 1964-65, and moved PB~iMIT N0. 623 Por its passage and adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Chavos to deny (Oontinued) Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 623. based on the faot that the ~ use would be inoompatible to the eaisting single family reaidential develop- ment in the area, as well as the rest home immediately to the west of sub3eat property, together With the Paot that deed reatriations were imposed by the City Counail limiting the use of subject property to business and profesaional offioes only.(See Rosolution ' Sook) On roll ae11 the foregoing resolution ~as passed by the folloWing vote: AY~9: COk@~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chevos, Gauer, Perry, RowZand. N0~3: C06~SSTOI~II'uRS: None. ABSEDI'P: COMlLISSIONIERS: Mungall. CONDITIONAL US~ - PUBISC HEARIN(i. FIRST CHRISTIAN CHIIRCH, 125 East Fifth Street, Long Beaoh, ; PIDRE~CT N0. 622 Cali4ornia, Ovmer; DAVID BUTTERWORTfi, Knott Avenue Christian Churoh, 315 6outh; Knott Avenuo, Aneheim, Californie,, Agent; requestion permission to ERPlCT A 1 NEYQ SANCTtTAR° wITH WANEIR OF THb7 35-FOOT FIDfI(~HT LIMITATION on property i desaribed as: A reotangular paroel of land with a frontage of 257 feet on the West side of ~ Bnott Avenue and a depth oP 442 feet, the northern boundary of said property being opproaimatell 1,343 Peet south oP the oenterline of Linooln Avenue, and flirther desaribed as 315 South Knott j Avenue. Property presently olassiPied as R-A, AGRICIIIl~URAL ZON~. 1 f No one appeared to represent tho petitioner. i No one appeared in opposition. TFID I~AR'II~(3 WAS CLOSEfD. Zoning Coordinator Martin Breidt revieared.the aotion tsken by the Counoil on August 18, 1964, regarding oonstruation oP the proposed sanotuery. Co~issioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1335, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seoonded by Co~niasioner Chavos to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 622 subjeat to oonditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll oall the £oregaing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYIDS: CO~I99IOS1PR3: Allaed, Camp, Ohavos, Gauer~ Per.ry, Rowland- Idi1EB: OO~TSSIOI~HS: None. AB3ffiNT: COELI[I3SIONHfft9: Mungall. x~roxrs nrm - rr~ xo. i REOO~NTDATIONS Legal Hepresentation for the Qo~tiasion Deputy City Attorney ~erry Brody advised the Co~ission that the Counail and Commission were being sued by property owners of,Buena Park for permitting two story aonstruotion of apartments on Knott Aven~e southerly of ?~inooln Avenue, end requested that the Co~ission teke offiaial aotion for representation of the Oo~iseion by the Oity Attorney's OYfioe. Ca~nisaioner fiowland offered 8 motion direating that Deputy 0ity Attorney Jerry Brody aat as the Co~ission's legal representative in the Yorthooming suit . Co~iasioner Chavoa seoonded the motion. ~OTION CARt~~D. ITID~ N~. 2 PLANNII~(# STUD7f 72-97-3. 3etbaoke along Anaheim Soulevard Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt advised.the Ooa~iasion that Planning Study No. .72-97-3 would be presented et the evening aeasion in report form Yor the Ooa~i.saion perusal, and any aotion would be dePerred until 3eptember 28, 1964, in order the,t reoo~0adations might ba mede by tha Oomniaeion. ~ I ii J ._____ ~.._.~_.. .. . : ~ _ ___ _ _ _ ~.._- C~ ~ ,~ MINUTf~S, CIT7C PLANNING CO~I3SION, September 14, 1964 2313 , RDPORTB AND - Ifi80[ N0. 3 E~Q010~NDATIDNS CONDITIONAL USE PER~T N0. 559 - request by petition for da'!etion oY Condition No. 7 of Reaolution Ho. 1133, Series 1963-64 requires the oonstruation of a 6-foot Yenae or wall. .'~oning Coordinator Martin Kraidt reviewad the Planning Department's report oP the request of Mr. Jim Hodges requesting the,t Oondition No. 7 of Reaolution No. 1133, Series 1963-64 be deleted. It aras noted by the Commi.saion that an eaiating redWOOd fenae does esist on the vresterly boundaries of the single femilp homes to the east and southeeat, and that the ad3eoent prn,,-^ty to the south wsa pe,rt of a resolution of intent to rezone the property to C-1, Nei~:._• ~hood Com¢neroial, Zone in Reolaesifioation No. 61-62-30, therefore, a fenae or wall Would be unneaessa.^v. Office Enginser Arthur Daw advised the Co~i.asion that normally the 6-foot fenoe or wall would be required on the easterly boundary of the alley, but this would be impossible to do sinoe there was no one-foot holding strip for said ea11. Co~issioner RoWland offered a motion to delete Oondition No. 7 oY Resolution No. 1133, Series 1963-G4, based on the fsat that a redWOOd fenoe esisted ad3eaent to the single family homes to the east and southeast of the esisting alley, and that the property to the aouth Was oovered in a resolution of intent to reolesaiYy the property'to C-1 Zone under Realassi£ioation No. 61-62-30. Coumissioaer Perry aeaonded the motion. MOTION CARR'~D. Co~issioner Camp abstained from voting. ~'TE~S' N0. 4 Orange County Tentative Map of Traot No. 5748 9UBDI1lIDER: AZT I~NYON, 1634 Catalpa Drive, Anaheim, Cslifornia IIdQIfIF1ER: MoDaniel Engineering Oo., 222 ~ast Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, Oelifornia. Traot looated on the eouth side of Orange Avenue approsi- mately 1080 feet west of Brookhurst Streat, is proposed for subdivision into S R-1 Single Family DvPelling lots. Zoning Coordinator Mertin Kreidt presented Orange County Tentative Map of Traat No. 5748 and revieWed the findings and reoo~endations of the Planning Department and the Inter- departmental Oouunittee. Coumiissioner Ohavos offered c~ atotion to reoommend to the Qity Counail thst the Orange County Planning Comonission be urgad to approve Tentative Map of Traat No. 5748, sub3eot to the folloWing aonditions: l. That Street "A" be a minimum width oY 56 Peat to provide a 36-Yoot roadwey Wi.th 10-foot park~vays. 2. That the aul-de-sao be a minimum radius of 48 Yeet, in order to provide a aurb radius of 38 feet with a 10-foot parkavay. 3. That the "not-a-part" be inaluded within the aubdivision as a reaorded lot within the traat, or the dedioation and improvement of Orange Avenue be provided. 4. That sideWalks be oonatruoted along Orange Avenue and 6treet "A". 5. That utilities be provided by the City of AnahelW as stipulated on the tentative map. 6. That street improvemente be construoted to the requirements oP the bity of Anaheim as set Yorth in the City's utilities agreement pending annesation.. 7. Thet Lot Nos. 4 and 6 be re-designed to provide lot widths in aooordanoe with the City of Anahei~'s requirements. Co~isaioner Allred seoonded the motion. MOTION QARR~D. I ~ ~ ------r--__.,_ ~__.~--.`_...__~____.._ ~._~___ ~-._-..._ ,, . • ------- , . ----°----~1 ~ ' _ _...__ ..----------_.. _ _ ~ ...__._ ._,.____ _,..___. ~ ~ ~ , i ' MIN(1TES, CITY PLANNING QOM~dISSION, September 14, 1964 2314 RLfPOR'CS AND - ITEEi N0. 5 ~ RE00~"NDATIONS CONDITIONAL L*SE PF]EiM13' N0. 522 - Central Baptist Churoh, North Magnolia; ~ Oomplaint of ad3oining property ovPner relative to construotion of a masonry ~ wa11. ; ~I A latter from Mr. Hart 3. Oakden, 2645 VYest Brua~ Avenue, was read to the Commission requesting'. that aonsideration be given to requiring that the masonry wall be oonstruated prior to any U oonetruotioa of the sohool on the Central Baptist Churah sohool property, granted bq the Oo~i.saion on ~'snuary 6, 1964 in Resolution No. 1Q13, Series 1963-64. ~i Co~issioner Chavos oPfered a motion to reaommend to the City Oounoil that the City Attorney's ~ ~ office investigate allegations made in the letter from Mr. Hart S. Oakden, and talte the ~ neoessary stsps to resolve the diffioulties of invasion of privaay. Commissioner Perry aeoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i RECESS - Oommissioner Chavos offered a motion to reaesa the meAting until 7:00 p.m. for dinner. Co~issioner Allred sesonded the motion. MOTION CARRI~D. The meeting reaeizsed at 4:30 p.m. • RHCONVENID -Chairmen protem 8ureoonvened ttie meeting at .7:00 p.m. All Commissioners being present exaept Co~issioners Mungall and Rowland. CONDITIONAL - CONTINIIED PUBLIC I~ARING. HAZEL M. POV~EL, 16351 Fellows Drive, Orange, , USE PEAMIT California, Owner; DAVID S. COLI~INS and RONALD.A. KAROS, 1077 ~Peat Ball Road, N0. 606 Aaaheim, California, Agents; requesting permission to ESTABLI3H A TO-~R RESTAURANfi WITH Oa3ERV6TI0N DEOK AND COOBTAIL LOUNGE WITfi A MAXIMUM FISIIGHT OF 760 F'Eb'P on property desaribed as: A reotangular parael ~f land 660 feet by 330 feet, the 330-Yoot western boundary boing 660 feet east of the oenterline of YPest Street, and the 660-foot southern boundary being 1,000 feet north of Orangewood Avenue. Property presently alassified R-A~ Agrioultural Zone. Sub~eot petition was oontinued from the maeting of August 3, 1964 to allow ti.me for a field obaervation and height study to be made. Mr. Devid Oollins indioated h~.s presenoe to answer questions, but ststed Mr. Karos would present oolored slides veriPying that visual intrusion esisted between the "lands" within Disneyland. Mr. Ronald Raros, one of the agents, appeared bePore the Co~isoion and presented 20 oolored slides to illustrate wha,t he felt ~as a visuel intrusion between the various "lands" in Disneyland, stating thai; he had~telked with visitors to the park relative to outside intrusion and had reaeived negati~•e ansxers; that oonsiderable publiaitq had zppeared in newspapers throughout the aountry; that the home owners ad3aaent to the proposed "spire" d3d not uppose the devel~opment with few ~xoeptions; that the only opposition expressed by businesses Was thet by the ropresentatives of Disneyland, and their oonoern that there would be a loss of interest seemed to be belied by the gross inaome figures they heve stated in the past ten years even though visual intrusion did eaist within the park itaelf, and that Disneyland did not realize their own drav~ing power beaause of the uniqueness of the park. Oommiasioner Chavoe asked the agent ehether or not there would be an observation tower on # the seoond level, and if so oould San Olemante or Santa Catalina Islands be seen on a alear ! 3ay. Mr. Saros responded in the aYfirmative. ~ Mr. Collins then stated that they had reoeived goodWill messages from the assemblymen for ~ the distriot, Yrom the tWO oongresamen and other interested persons whioh indioated that ~ the proposed spire would be a landmark and point of interest in Orange Oounty, similar to that oP the apeae needle in Seattle. Mr. Ed EfttingQr, 1014 Caron Plaoe, represent Dianeyl~ad Enterprises, appeared before the Co~i.ssion and atated thQt most of the oppoaition was presented at the previous heering, ~ that the agents Were only referring to the viaual ~trusion, whereas it Was ae importaat to refer to the visual illusion eatablished svithin thtl boundaries of the perk they Were j most desirous of retaining; that beoause of the uniqueness of the park every effort was being expended to retain this uniqueneas; that although the park was alasaified as an emuaement perk it was different, and that Mr. Wallaae Wade would illustrate with alidea the ~ various forms oY emuaement parks in the aountry whioh aould not be plaaed in the same alasa as Disn:ayland. j Mr. Wade then preaented a number oP slide~ indioatittg the types oP emusements offered to ; people in other parke. ~ i _. . ~ / ;= ~ ------___ _-___._.~._.~.~..._,~.~~_~ ~ , . .- ~""-' -: ~ ~ , . ~ - _ _._ _ . _ . ---. .. '~ ~ ~ • ~iLNOTES, CITY PL~AIa1~iC} 00~ldI3SI0N, September 14, 1964 2315 CONDITIONAL USE - In rebuttal~ Mr. Baros stated that they had an option to purohase the PECtMIT N0. .606 property, and seleoted that site beoause of tha C3.ty's original intent to ~ (Continued) plaae the aonvention faoilities ad~aoent to it, that it would seem unrea- sonable to assume the struot;:~•e ~ould be built there iP aoaes was not ~ available; and that the piotures he presented aonfirmed that Disneyland ~~ s was suoh an eaoeptional plsoe that the visitors there were oblivious to ! any visuel intrusion from the outside. ? i Tf~ HEARIN(~ YPAS OLOSEID. The Commission disaussed Code requirements mhen multiple family devel.opment was proposed within 150 feet oY aiagle family residential zone; that the petitioner admitted that the seoond level of the spire provided binoaulars whiah would permit one to see as far as San Clemente and Santa Catlina Isle,nds; that iP this were a feat every home in the aity oY Anaheim oould have their privaoy violsted sinoe anyono looking from the spire aould intrude into any rear yard; that the ahowings required in the Conditional Use Permit seotion of the Anaheim Munioipal Code were being violated by the proposed development sinae it would adversely affeat the peaoe, health, safetg, and general welPare of the City; that it would have a detrimental efPeot on the single family homes; that the petitioner had Yailed to show ~ adequate trafPio oiraulation; thet at s 3oimmeeti.ng meeting with the City Counoil height ~ standards were established in the oo~eraial reoreation srea whiah would prohibit the proposed 'i height as indioated on the exhibit adopted, and that beoause oP the olose proximity of the ; residential area to the south the two for one ratio established would only allow a atruoture ~ 177 feet high and these single fe~ily homes should be given oonsideration and proteation. ' 'Commisaioner Chavoa offered Resolution No. 1396, Series 1964-65 and moved for its pessage ~ and adoption, seoonded by Co~iasioner Perry to deny Petition for donditional Use Permit ` No. 606, based on the faot that no evidenoe was presented to support that the petition ~' met all the required showings whioh would enable the Cor~ission to grant sub3eat petition, ~ further that adequate ingress to and egress Prom the landlooked parael as not provided; ' that the height oP the struature would be detrimental to the residentiel and oommeroial land ~ developments in the viainity; thst the City's oommeroiel reoreational height limitation polioy ! When appli~ed to sub~eut property suggest thet the height o.Y any struature should not exoeed ' 177 Peet.(3ee Resolution Book) i ~ On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYflS: COL~NCC3SIONDRS: Allred, Cemp, Ghavos, Qauer, Perry. ! N~fS: C0~3SIONGRS: Idone. AB&ENT: COMAiCL3SI01~t1R5: Mungall, Rowland. (~~EtAL PLAN - PU'BIaT(I HEARIl~. Initisted by the PLAIdNI1VG COMML35ION OF THE CIfiY OF ANAFIDI6~, A~iD~N'P 204 East Linooln Avenue, Anaheim~ California proposes the extension and N0. 36 alignment of Le Palma Avenue easterly from its present terminus of Tefferson Street to Yorba Road. Planning Ooordinator Allan 3hoPf reviewed the Report to the Commission noting speoifinally that £our alternates were presented on the eahibit with ell the effeots if one or the other i alterne,te route was established; that a speaial engiaeering report would be presented at the hearing to substantiete the Staff's reoommending that Alternate "A" be adopted. ! Mr. Shoff further etated that in line with any renommendation to the City Counoil relative j to the proposed eatension the County of Orange Planning'Co~ission be advised rele,tive to ~ taki.ng steps to amend the County Master Plsn oP Arterial Streets and Highways to provide Yor ~ the general slignment of Le, Palma between Tefferson Street and Imperial Highway, and that the i propused alignraent should be oonsidered a general alignment not a preaiae alignment. j Mr. ShofY also advised the Co~nisaion that the 3taff was in the prooess of preparing a ~ report on the most appropriate zoning of property inoorporated in the Northesat Annexation No.3~ Offiae Engineer Arthur Daw presented an engineering study ~hiah indioated that AlternatA "A" ! Would oost $1,693,100; Alterna,te "S" $1,757.100; Alternate "C" $1~846.,400j and Alternate "D" ~1,910,500. Further that Alternate "A" was reoomnended for adoption based on 1) Moat eoonomiaal (roadWay plus right-of-Way aoats); 2) it utilizes more eaisting right-oP-~ey than Alternetes "C" and "D"; 3) It is a more direat traffio route than Alternates "B" or "D"; and • 4) 3anitary sewers will be less eapensive than .~lternates "B" or "D". I ~ ~ ~ , L--- -- --___ __ ; _ ---. ~ _ - _-_ _._._.-~.~.,.~ . - - _ . - , . . _. . { ~._~ MIND7~~S, CITY PLAIQNT~ CO~~S23SION, September 14, 1964 2316 f~T;Nr:RAT, p~ _=n res~onse to Co~ission questioning, Mr. Davu stated that the differenae A~illMENT in aost was based~on the terrain rather than the distanoe sewer lines might N0. 38 have to be laid. Mr. Virgil Raotts, 207 Eileen Drive. appeared before the Commission and stated that he owned proparty West of Fee Ana And Walnut Streets, and reaoumiended that the Commission move with ell hQSte to eatend La Palma Avenue, sinoe many developers have expressed interest in the ~ development of the area for some time,and beoause of the litigation the aities of Anaheim and Plaoentia,any development has been held in abeyenoe. Further that he planned to develop his property for industrial purposes and either o£ the Pour alternates were soaeptable to him, as long as the estension took plaae. Mr. Don Miohaels, representing 3ully-Miller'Contraoting Company, operators of sand and gravel operations in the viainit~ of the proposed emendment, oommended the Pl,snning and Engineering Departments in their oomprehensive report of all the althernates and the advantages and dis- advantages of eaah, stating the,t he Was in favor of Alternate. "A" sinae it would offer a natural buffer of an arterial highway sepsrating the eand and gravel operation whiah his aompany had, and that it would permit the ezpansion of their existing operation. Mr. J'. DeDapper, 1779 Chelet Street, representing ;Jey Elnterprises property, appeared before the Co~ission and stated that Mr. gnotts expressed their Peelings also in adop~ing some form of alignment for La Palma Street sinoe they, too, were anxious to develop the area, that he was in favor of either Alternate "A1° or "C". Mr. -Pilliem J.Walker,1835 3outh Manohester, appeared before the Commisaion and ste~ted that he oonaurred With Mr. DeDapper, that ha was anaious to have a route adopted as soon as possible, that the Report to the Co~ission indioeted thet the ERA report indioeted the erea a prime industrial area, but this Would only be so iY adequate aoaeas was provided, and the City and County should prooeed with sll haste to establish this alignment, in order that this prime industrial area might be developed, and that if this ~ere not done to release it for some other type of development. Mr. Via~el~r, 7002 South RiohYield Roed, appeared before ths Comonission stating that he owned property at the aorner of RiohPield Road and Walnut Street and ~uged that the general alignment be adopted. Further although he was in favor of Alternate "A" he did not feel that the sand and gravel operation of 3u1].y-Miller Contraoting Oompany was c~nduoive to prime M-1 property. O.Aother~ant,dl5 Chapman,Plea.,appeared i.n behalY oY the I{raemer Brothers, the Yalla Family, and the Dunbar Family stated that all three aere in fe,vor of Alternates "A" or "C". Further he would lika to have esplainsd why the plan out eoross two paraels of land.ad~aoent to the pump houro at the interseotion of Yorba Road, sinoe this was on the oounty map; he was not sure why this ~as done, and if this were relooated Mrs. Yorbs would also favor Alternates "A" or "C': Mr. Shoff explained that the original alignments were based upon Yorba Linda Freeway ooming in at one point,but the State ohanged the looation of the interahange 100 feet to the northa whiah neoessitated ahanging the proposed general alignment, although he was aware that Mrs. Yorba Yavored reloastion of the road southerly. Mr. Leonard Boisrank, Yorbs Linda~ststed that he was in favor oY Alternate "A", but stated Yurther the part of his property might be landlooked, iP the propoaed aligmaent were adopted, to Whioh Mr. Shoff replied that tha alignment was general and only the County avould present the preaise alignment of the street. Mr. W. E. Soott, 1020 Cerritos Drive stated he owned property at Fee Ana and IRalnut Streets, and was in Yavor of Alternate "A" or 'B" beoause "0" and."D" aut aoroas their property, leaving tmo poorly shaped pesoels whioh oould not be developed for M-1 uses. Mr. a. L. YPe,rner, 915 South Iiarbor Blvd., Fullerton, prinoipel partner in the Foster Sand and Gravel Company, stated he Was in favor oP Alternate "A" and wanted to point out that Alternates "C" snd "D" would pass diagonal~lg aoross property preaently being eaoavated Por sand end gravel,aould then neoessitate aonstruoting a road over a hole 40 feet deep. Mr. Pelzer asked that the engineer explain Whether or not Miraloma Avenue would be eatended easterly, to whioh N[r. Daw stated he had no ]uioWledge that it would be extended. Mr. ShofY stated thet the C3eneral Plan indioated that Miraloma Avenne veould eatend easterly to Taylor Street~ but that no preaise slignment vras establiahed,ainoe it represent~d only a general polioy of the City, and the problema enaountered in the eatension oP thst street would be similar to thet oP I,a Pelma Avenue. I \ ~ _____ __.__._.... , ~'-•----- - -- , __r __~~ , • , ~ ~I. ~ ~ _ . _ ; t I . ~ `, ;^,,, ~ ; ~ A ~~'; _ ~ ~ ~ ; MIN6'TES, CIT7C PLANNING CO~E6LISSIO:~, September 14, 1964 2317 ~ i ! aE~gAL pLAN _ Mr. J. S. Belland, 921 Goldenrod, Corona del Mar, appeared before the ~ p~~ Commission stating he owned property east of .Jefferson Street and Wae in ~ N0. 38 favor oP Alternate "C" sinae it Would not affeot his property, and the,t he also urged the City to hasten the preoise alignment, sinoe it had been ; five years sinoe the County last disoussed this alignment. i i Mrs. Mabel Yorba, 19402 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission and stated ~ the,t she had viewed the original alignment When the County proposed it, and this would suit her better than the proposed Alternate "A" sinoe the latter would leave a small tri- angular parosl of land whioh would be undevelopable. The Commission advised Mrs. Yort..^. that the proposed general elignment ass indioated as suoh beaeuse the 3tate Highway Department had revised their plans Yor the proposed interohange on the Yorba Linda Freeway, and that if she Were desirous of expressing rer thoughts as to the ahange she might aontact the County Planning Cou:nission. ~ Mr. Shoff stated that at the time studies Were started .for the proposed eatension and align- ; ment of Za Palma Avenue, informetion had been requested from the County; that the studies j were made independently, also that techniaal data submitted by the County was thoroughly ~ analyzed, and that the County Road Department did not wish to disauss the matter beoause it was~ being oonsidered by the County Planning Coi:mmissicn. Flxrther that atiditional aopies of the msp i and.perhaps of the engineering raport would be available in the Planning Department on Tuesday i e,fternoon. i ! THG HEARING WAS C~9ED. ~ I Co~i.ssioner Perry offered Resol.ution No. 1337, Series 1964-65, and movad for its passage and adoption, to reaommend to the City Counail that General Plan Amendment No. 38, Exhibit No.l Alternate "A" be adopted, for the general slignment and eatension of La Palme Avenue easterly Prom J'ePferson ~treet to Imperial HighWay, and that the County oP Orange be enoouraged to take ~ steps to amend the County Master Plan oP Arterial Streets snd Highways to provide for the ; general alignment of La Palma Avenue between Jefferson Street and Imperiel Highway, seaonded ~ by Co~issioner Chavos.(See Resolution Book) ~ On roll osll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i• • AYES: COMN[ISSxON~R3: Allred, Gamp, Chavos, (~auer, Perry. I N0~3: COk~ISSTONER3: None. ~ ABSIIdT: COEtlM'.I3SIOT~ERSs Mungall, Rowland. ~ I RECLASSI&'ICATION - PUBI.~IC HEARINa. SULLY-MII,LER C~NTRACTIN4 CO~A'NSC' 3000 ~ast South Street, ~ N0. 64-65-25 Long Beaoh, California, and a0NS0ISDATED ROCS PRODUCTS, A Delawar•e ~ Corporation, 2730 South Alameda Street, Los 9ngelea 54, California, Owners; j D. 0. MICHAELS, P. 0. Box 432, Orange, Cslifornie, and J. LILLY9Of~T~, Orange, Californie,, Agents; requesting that property desoribed as: An irregules~ peroel of land with frontages of 75 feet on "ae west side of Fee Ana Street,620 feet , on tha east side of Riohfield Road, and 187 feet on the west side of Riohfield Road, said property having a maximum ee,st-west dimension of 2,250.feet, the southern boundary of said property being the Sante Ana River and the northernmost point of said property being 1,300 Yeet~ south oY the oenterl:ne of YPalnut Street, said property aoataining approaime,tely 40 aares of i ls._+±rt. be realassified Prom the ~L-1, Light Induatrisl, Zone to the NRC, Netural Resouraea end Conservation, 2one. ~ i Mr. Doneld Miohasls~ agent Yor the petitioners, appeared before the Commiesion and stated that I ainoe there aeveral items in the NRO,.Zone,presently pending bePore the City 0ounail,whiah ! he ob~eoted to, he would suggest the Commission oonsider a oontinuanoe on sub~eot petition ii for 30 daqs. ~ Co~isaioner Chavos offered a motion to aontinue Petition for Realassifiostion No. 64-65-25 ; to the meeting of November 9, 1964, as requeated by the petitioner. Oo~i.saioner Camp seoonded the motion. MOTION OARRILID. I _ _._..~._.------- -_~..._.-._.~-__._- n.: : _- ~i~ , _ . ~ ~: . ,.....~ U ~ ~ . f mn~s, c=xr P~xxn~rG ao~ss=oN zsis The i'ollowing petitions were oonsidared together and all evidenoe appliea to sll. RECLABSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. IlQITIATED BY TFli9 CIT3C PLANNING CCd~SSION, 204 East N0. 64-65-29 Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property owned by Douglas Oil Co., 816 YVest FiYth Street, Los Angeles, CeliYornia. Property desnribed as: CONDTIONAL L°SE A reotangular paroel of land at the northWest oorner of Ball Road and FERMIT N0. 625 ~Eagnolia Street with fronteges of 117 feet on Magnolia Street and 80 feet on Ball Road. Property preseatly classified as C-3, Heavy Co~neroial, Zone. PROPOSED CLASS:CFTCA~ION: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD CO~RCIAL, ZONE PAOPOSED QOIQDITTONAL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF A SERVICE STATION YPITHIN 75 FEE'P OF R-1 ZONEb PROPERTY. RECLASSIFICA'~ION - PiiBI~T.C HPARING. IlVIL•IATED BT TF~ CITY PLANNING CO~~SISSIO~T, 204 East N0. 64-65-30 Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property owned by Wiltower Prcperties, 7noorporated, 1010 -Pilshire Boulevard, L'os Angeles, California. Property CONDITIONAT, USE desaribed as: A reatangular paroel of land at the southwest oorner of Ball PERMIT N0. 62b Road and Magnolia Street with frontages of 78 feet on Ball Road and 129 feet on Magnolia Street. Property presently alassified C-3, Heavy Co~neroial, Zone. PROPOSID CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD CO~LD6ECfCIAL, ZONE PROPOSED CONAITIONAL liSE: PERMIT OPERATION OF A SF~RVICE STATION WII'filN 75 FEET OF AN R-A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE RECLASSIFICATION - PLTBLIC HEARING. INITIATED B?C THE CITiC PLANNING CO~L~EIS3ION, 204 East N0. 64-65-31 Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proparty owned by Mobilynn Ina., (a/o Mr. Bert Lynn) 1208 Uroenwood, Torranoe, California. Property dasaribsd as: A reotangular parcel of le,nd at the northeest aorner of ra11 Road and ~Aagnolia Street with frontages of 144 feet on Hall Road and 109 feet on Magnolia Street. Property presently olassified R-A, Agrioultural Zone. PROPOSED CLA55IFICAT.T.ON: C-1, NEIGIiBOftH00D COINE~EtCIAL9 ZONE RECLASSIFICATION - FJBLIC HEARING. :INITIAT.~'D BY THE CITY PLANNIl~IG COM~ETS3ION, 204 Eaet N0. 64-65-32 Linooln Avenue, Aneheim, California; property omned by Lauranoe P. Shields, 831 South Manchester Boulevard, Anaheim, aalifornia. Property desaribed as: A reotangular paroal of land at the southeast aorner of Ball Road and Magnolia Street with frontages of 150 feet on Ba11 Road and 150 feet on Magnolia Street. Property presently olassified R•~A, Agrioultural, Zone. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGH50RHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZOI~ Sub3eat petitions were presented to the Commission by Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stating '. that this was part of the aontinuing proaess of realassifying all serviae stetions or other ~ psroels in the aity not having proper zoning in acoordsnae with the Anaheim ~unicipal Code. ~ No one appee,red in opposition to the above petitions. ~ Tii~ HEARIl~G wAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Nos. 1338r 1340, 1342, and 1343, Series 1964-65, and 1 moved for their passsge and adoption, seoonded by Co~issioner Chavos, to reoommend to the ! City Counoil that Petition for Realassifiaation Nos. 64-65-29, 64-65-30, 64-65-31, and i 64-65-32 be approved unoonditionally.(See Resolution Book) Co~i.ssioner Camp offered Resolution Nos. 1339 and 1341, Series 1964-65, and moved for ' their passage and adoption, seoonded by Co~tissioner Chsvos, to ~rant Petition for Conditional ; Use Permit Nos. 625 and 626, unaonditionally. (See Resolution Book) On roll oell the furegoing rosolutions were passed bq the following vote: AYES: COM~LSSIONIDRS: Allred, Camp,•Chevos, pauer, Perry. I NOES: COM~3SIONER3: None. I ~ ABSEN'C: COE~IIISSION&fftS: ~Aungall, Rowland. ~ ~ ~ ~~----._. _._.__,~„~ ~.~ ~, ,. . - _.:a~l ..~~..-....~, . ~. . .. . ._ .. U ~ ~'1 ~IIVUTES, CITY PLAN.NIN(3 CO~TSSION, September 1.4, 1964 2319 REOLASSIFTCATION -PURLIC HIDARING. INITI6TED B° THE CIT7C PLAIQNIl~ COMMI33ION~.204 East ~ q~ N0. 64-65-33 Linooln Avenue, Anaheim~ California; property owned by Mrs. Anne T. ~, 340 Poppy Lane, Oorona del Mar, California. Property desoribed as: an irregular paroel of land at the southwest oorner of I~e Palma Avenue and Moraga Street with frontages of approaimately 49 feet on La Palma Avenue and spproximately; 169 feet on Moraga Street, and further desaribed sa 1021-1025 North Moraga Street be reolaesifiad from the R-1, One Family Residential, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Comoneraiel, ! Zone. Mr. Ford S. Riley, 1011 West Linooln Avenue, appeared in behalf oP the property owner and stated that upon oheoking the legal desoription of the propoaed reolassification it Wss noted that the lot to the south had not been inoluded, that the lot Was vaoant and was being used for perking fsoilities. and requested that the Coumtisaion aontinue sub~ent petition in order that all the property nould be advertised Por reolassifioation, so that the use would be in aonformanoe with oode requirements for parking. • Gommissioner Per.ry offered a notion to oontinue Petition for Reolassifioation No. 64-65-33 ~ to the meeting of Ootober 19, 1964, and direoted the Planning Staff to re-advertise sub3eot petition to inalude the lot to the south Por the proposed reolassiYioation. Oo~issioner Allred seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REOLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC f~fAF(ING.. IlQITIATED BY TFIE CITY PLAIJNII~ QOD~lIS3I0N, 204 East ! N0. 64-65-34 Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, Californis;•property is an exiating perk owned ' by the City of Anaheim. Property desoribed.as: An irreguler pe.rcel of ~ land situated iu~ediately west of and ad~eaent to the Brookhurst Tunior High Sohool, said property having a frontage of approximately 510 feet on the north side of ; Cresoant Avenue ani. slso bounded on the west and south by Ventura 5treet and Greenaore Avenue,i the total area of said property being approximetely 22.2 aores. Property presently olassified; as R-3, E~ultipla Family Residentiel, Zone. Proposed alassifioation R-A,.Agrioultural; Zone. ' Zoning Coordinator ~Lartin Kreidt noted for the Co~aisaion that the existing zoning for ~ sub~eot property was eatablished under Realaesifioation Nos. 56-57-9, 59-60-15 and 60-61-16; ' that the property was presently uaed for a City parksite, and the appropriate zoning for parks~ wsa R-A Zone. No one appeared in opposition. T!~ F~ifARI.N(~ YPAS OL03IDD. Coa~iasioner Chavoe~ oPYered Resolution No. 1344, Series 1964-65 and moved for ita pesauge and adoption~ seaonded by Co~aieaioner Camp, to reooumiend to the City Gounoil that Petition for Re~la:,siPicsti.on No. 64-65-34 be a~nroved unoonditionally.(See Reaolution Book) On roll oall tl~e foregoing resolution was passed by the folloWing vote: • ; AYE3: QO~iS9I0I~R3: Allred, Csmp, Chavos, (3auer, Perry. NOE13: Cf0~IS3I01~AS: None. AB3ffi~'P: CO~dISSIONIDRSo Mungall, Rowland. Co~issioner RoWle,nd entered the Oounoil Ohember at 8:55 p.m. A~ND~N'P TO - PUBI~IC F1F~ARING. INITIA'1'IDD BY T~ OITY PLANNINC~ COL~ISSION ~ 204 IDe,at TI~ ANAHIDI~ Linooln Avenue, Ansheim Oalifornia; proposing an emendment to Title MUNICIPAL. C0~7 E7ighteen, Chapter 18.08 ~• Definitions -"B~uelling - l~ultiple"; "Aotel!'; snd "Tourist Court". ; Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt adviaed the Oommiesion that at previous hearings of ahe,nges to the Anaheim Munioipal Oode and Petitions for ReolaesiYioation 1t Was noted that thare eaemed to be some ambiguity in the definition of multiple Yamily. dwell:inga,.hotels, and tourist oourts; thst the Oity Attorney's oYfioe end the Planning Department hed formulated ohanges to these definitions for the 0oamiisaion's oons3deration and to hear evidenoe for and agsinst the proposed emendments. Mr. Jim Hodges inquired oY the Oo~iasion why wae e limitation pleoed on the use of a touriat I~. aourt, that in ong of hie developmenta he ~as offering all hotel servioes, but felt that it wea the people Who rented the property's right to rent on a monthly baeis. The Oommisaion then revieved pest aotions on~motels~ and the ree,sona for advertiaing the I~ ohanges to the Oode as being the moet logioal method oP resolving the renta7. of aubstandsrd motels ea permesient living quartere. , -~ --- . -, - - - -~t =~ i ' A~~ND~i'P TO - Disaussion then Was held as to the possibility oP the elimination of T~ ANAF~IM mentioning garages in the "Tourist Court" portion~ sinoe this might give ~ MUNICIPAL CODE some enaouragement to motel oWners aonverting their Paoilities to apartments,I whioh would oreate a substandard living environment. i Cou~issioner Camp ofYered Resolution No. 1345, 3eri.es 1964-65. and moved for its passage ~ and edoption, saaonded by Coo~issioner Rowland to reoo~end to the City Counoil that Title ~ Eighteen, Chapter 18.08 - Definitions of the Anaheim Munioipal Code be amended ea follows: Chapter 18.08.300 -"Dwelling, Multiple." A building or portion thareof, designed for ooaupanay by three or more families living.independently of eaoh other, eaoh of whioh femilies hires said premises for a period of at least one (1) month or thirty (30) days. Chapter 18.08.400 -"Hotel." A building in whiah there are sia or more guest rooms Where lodging with or without meals is provided for aompensation, and where no prcvision is m~de Por aooking in any individual room or suite. Jeils, hoapitals, asylums, sanit,ariums or orphanagea, prisona~ deten- tion homes or similar buildings Where human beings are houaed and detained under legal restraint are speoifioal7.,p not inoluded. Eeoh of suoh rooms shall Ue rented for periods oP not to ezoeed one (1) Week or seven (7) days. ~ Ohapter 18.08.730 -"Tourist Oourt." A group of attaohed or detaohed buildinge aontaining individual sleeping or living units v~ith parking spaoe oonveniently looated to e~ah unit, all for the temporasy use by automobile tourista or transiente; inoludes auto aourts; motels or motor lodges. Touriats or tr~nsients shall be defined as persone renting aaoomodetions Por per- • iods not eaoeeding one (1) week or seven (73 days. Fur her that a~inding ba made to olarify the reason Yor eliminat3ng referenoe to gargges, bas~d on the Pe,ot that gare,ges are not a neoeasary faoility for the provision of the tras-s- ient motoriat utilizing the motel or tourist aourt faoilities. (3ee Resolution Book) On roll oall the foregoing resolution Was pssaed by the 4olloaing vote: AYID3: CO~ISSIOI3IDtt3: Allred, Cemp, Ohavos~ Qauer, Perry, Rowland. 1~pES: CO~ISBIOIJERS: None. AB3ENT: CO1,~'1.38IONER3: Mungall TBRMITtATION - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt auvised the Oo~isaion that termination of OF P~TITTONS Verieaoe Nos. 350, 1036, and 1051 Were in order sinag the Com~.ission had reao~ended reolasaiP3aetion of the properties for the use preaently existing on the property. Ooumnissioner Chavos offer9d Resolution No. 1346, 5eries 1964-65, and moved for its ~ssage attd adoption~ seoonded by Comniasioner Allred to terminate Varianaa Nos. 350, 1036, and 1051, ~oased on the faat that the use originally approved on the properties no longer exists. (See Resolut3on Book) On roll oall the foregoing resolution vras passed by the following vote: AYES: tlb~dI3SI0I~RS: Allred~ Cemp, 6havos, Gauer, Perry. NOEI3: CO~LNLISSIOIJEAS: Pione. ABSffi~1TT: COM~"i59I0N9AS: Mungall. AB3'1*AIl~1:C0~9ISSION~RS: Rowland. TE~ORARY - There being no further buainesa to dieouss Oo~issioner Oemp offered a motion AD70URN~ to ad3ourn the meeting to 7:00 p.m., September 21, 1964 at Whioh time the Sign Ordinsnae Would be oonaidered again at publia hearing. Commisaioner Allred seoonded the motion. 'MOTION QARRI~. The meeting ed~ourned et 9:15 p.m. ReapeoC.~~~~ submitted, 3IDOF~TARY, ANAI~~[ , OOM6[I3.°,ION _ •r._._... --~----------------._...f_.~___.____._.~..T.. _..__-___-___ ._._.._.... M..=-.-~ r " -~'~~...---- .. _.