Loading...
Minutes-PC 1961/12/11~ _ ...~'M 1 . ~' ~ ~..~:fi , in ~ ~...vG~-~ ~ -. , ~ `-" ' _ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ , j ,Jr.:.:! ~~^.n~'. r.lvw.•n{~"~ ~ - ., . ~ ~ Fr _ a,~, ~,~ `~+~ - * ,,;.,,,,, `.~ , i ~ ~ City Ha11 ~ Anaheim, C alifornia ' December 1 1, 1961 ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM PLANkING COMMISSION i ~. REGULAR MEETING - A RegUlar 1~eeting of the City Planning Commission was called to order ~ by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M.,, a quorum being present. ~, _ i . ~ - ~ PRESENT ~ ;, : ' - ~ :: ABSENT ~ s ~~ PRESENT ~ k, i ,~ INVOCATION PI.EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES A letter, dated December 5, 1y61 r.eceived from the petitioners, was sub- ~: mitted to the Commission: The petitioners requested that the subject` petition be continued un'tii the.first meeting in January, 19b2, because the,additional plans, requested by the Commission at the meeting of - CHAIRMAN: Gauer; COMMISSIONcRS: Allred, Hapgood, Marcoux, I~ebiey, Perry, Summers. - COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. - Senior Planner - Martin Kreidt Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler , Commission Secretary - Jean Page - Reverend Walter J. Vernon, Pastor of the Community Congregational ~hurch, gave the lnvocation. - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. - The Minutes of the Meeting of November 27, 1961 were approved as submitted. CONDITIONAL USE - CONFINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by RINSE-AWAY CORPORATION i PERMIT N0. 183 OF AMERICA, 5905 Pacific Boulevard, Huntington Park,.California, Owner; { requesting permission to ESTABLISH COCKTAIL LQUNGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH i RESTAURANT on propecty dascribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel with ', a frontage of 200 feet located on the west side of Herbor Boulevard be- tween Orangewood and Katella A~~enues; its southeast corner being approx- imately 420 feet north of tha northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2041-2059 South Harbor Boule- vard:. Property presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL-' - . TURAL, ZONE SubJect petition was centinued from the meeting of November 27, 1961, in order to provide the pe~~itioner an opportunity to submit detailed floor plans of the interior of the building proposed for the subJect propecty to the Comnission for considecation. .November 27, 1961, would not.be available until that time. - ~:' Commissioner Ailred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and carried to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. l83 until the meeting of January 8, 1962, in accordance with the petitioners re- quest: ` RECIASSIFICATIOh. - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Pe~ition submit•.ed by EDWARD.D. and`,VIOW1 b1-62-48 GRIGGS~ 9181 Knott AJenue, Anahaim, Califo~~nia, Owners;:5outheast ~ N0 : ~ . ~ Mortgage;Company, 2135 West Ball, Suife B, Anaheim, Ca.lifornia,,Agent; ~ ~, ;'~`~£. ~' requesting that prope~ty.describad as: kn."L" shaped parcel with a fron , ,~arrr ~ . , ege of 80';feet:located on the west si.de of Knott Rvenue between'Lincoln ~ . ~rvi~ f+ ` a 9 PRroximatel ; feet: :~ and Orange-qvenues; its northeast corner.bein a y 935~ .,'? ~.}u ~ i . . ~..~.., ... -573- ,. ' ~ . ,,.; , .: : , _ _. _ . , _ ~ . . s.: f . . _ . __ _. , ~ ~N :~. :' , ~~ ~~/ ~ . ~~~~.~ ~~ l ' - . ~ . ~ : w i ~i ~x. f, .~ ~ ~h~~~~", -'. f ~f . ..t.~'::i `--+-~ - ' . . . ~.'~ '. .. _ iMFC4.~-:.F.. :- C~_ '!', ,.Tf .~... ... .. ._ >::`~. . 3 . .:'k . l t .. .. . Miw. +Z.~i1 t ., .... ra.if:'+...... ,r,t.S., u . ~ , . .. _ . . , . . . ,r'f.+if~". M:.; t .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . O ~ .' .. . ~ . •'.. ~ . ~ . - ~ . ~ j~ ~~~ .... .._.:... ........ ' :' . .... .!m!~9: v . •.• ~ . . .:~.. C . ~ ' ~ ~~~~.W.W~ .. Y ~ ' ~ ~~~~ . _ 574 ~ 1 , ~ :~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Oecember 11, 1961, Continued: RECLASSIFICATION - south of the southwest corner of Lincoln and Knott Avenues, and further N0.:61-62-48 described as 9181' Knott Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL (C-ontinued) AGRICULTURAL,`ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL., ZONE. Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petitions for Conditional Use Permit-No. 179 and Variance No. 1420. Subject petition was continued from the meeti,ng of November~27, 1961, at the request of the petitioner's agent in order that revised plans, which would conform with the zoning requirements of the City of Anaheim, could be submitted for the Commission's consideration. ~ A letter received from the petitioner's agent, Mr. Harry Knisely, on December 11, 1961, was read and submitted to the Commission. The letter requested that the subject petitions be continued until a special meet- ing scheduled for December 18,.1961 and, in case said request .Was not granted, that the Commission consider the subject petitions at this time. In addition, the letter outlined arguments in favor of the subject petitions. The Commission discussed the proFosed consideration of. ths subject pet- ( itions, and indicatec! that it would not be advisable to act upori the petitions without the presence of the petitioners or their agent. The Commission indicated that the.requested hearing on December 18, 1961, was not logi,cal beceuse of the unusual circumstances necessitating said meeting, end that the subject petitions should be~considered at a reg- ular Commission meeting. No one appeared before the Commission in respect to the subject petition.~ Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner,Allred and carried, that the subject petition be continued until the next~regular meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission on December 27, 1961. COND.ITIONAL USE - CONTINUEU PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by EDWARD D. and VIOLA i PERMIT N0. 1;'i~ GRIGGS, 9~81 Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; Southeast Mortgage Company, 2135 West Ball, Suite 6, Anaheim, Celifornia,.Agent; reques.ting permission to ESTABLISH"GARDEN TYPE APARTFIENTS on.property desccibed as:..An "C" shaped,parcel with a frontage of.80.feet located on the west side of:Knott AVenue:between.:Lincoln.and Orange Ave~ues; its . northeast corne~ being approximately 935 feet south of the southwest corner of Lincoln and Knott Avenues, and further described as 9181 Knott Avenue. Property presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTI/~L AGRICUL- . TURAL, ZONE.. SubJect Qetition is filed in conJunction with Petitions for Reclassifica- tion No. 6t-62-48 and Variance No. 1420. I . ' SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of November 27, 1961, at ~ ° . the request of the petltioner's agent in order that revised'plans, which • would conform with the zoning requirements of the City of Anaheim, could ba submitted for the Commission's consideration. A letter received from the petitioner's agent, Mr. Harry,Knisely, on pecember.ll, 1961, wes read and submi.tted to the Commission. The letter that the subJect petifions 6e continued until a special meatin requested . scheduled'for December 18, 1961 and, in case said request was` noi grant ed, that tha Commi;ssion consider the subject petitions at this time. In addition, the, letter•outlined arguments in favor of the subjeci:petitions . The Commissian:discussed the`proposed co~sideration of the subject pet- .; ;;; ':itions; and indicated that.it would noC iie advisabla to act upon the •. ; ~ 'f ~ .-~ : . . . . ~~. ~ ; . ~ ~ T ~ ~y4.. ~ 4~~..~~.... 'i.G ~ 1'."r.. -c rw ~' a•~A-~ ~ . . . ~ . a~,'~1.. . ,'W . r_. i~ L. _. e. . . .... niL~i ~. _,'+.,'7(._ . Yt~'i :.:! .717:1Y.. :?iS 1 ~1 J.t . SF;Lti{Mi ~~.::~~5~.5' "~T"a~ ~ . _ _- __ . f ~ . r .V'!~ ~,. .i,a ! ~ ~ ~ ' Q ' MINUTES. CITY P[ ~ CONDITIONAR,.USE PERMIT 'N0. ' l79 (Continued~ ANNING.COMMISSION. December il, 1961, Continued_: - petitians without tfie Presencz of the petitioners or their agent. The Commission indicated that the requested hearing on December 18, 1961 was not logical because of the unusual circumstances nacessitating said meating, and that the subject petitions should be considered at a re- . gular Commission maeting. . No one appeared before the Commission in respect to the subject pet- ~ ition. ~ . ~ Commissioner Perry, offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and carried, that the subject petition be continued until the next regular . • meeting of the Anahaim Planning Commission on December 27, 1961: VARIANCE N0. 1420 - CONTINUEO PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submit'ted by EDWARD D. and VIOLA GRIGGS, 9181 Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; 5outheast Mort- gage Company, 2135 West Ball, Suite B, Anaheim, California, Agent; re- questing permission to WAIVE.SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; ALSO WAIVE ENCLOSED.GARAGE AND WALL REQUIREMENTS on property described as: ~ An "L'~ shaped parcei with a frontage of 80 feet located on the west side i of Knott A~enue between Lincoln and Orange Avenues; its•northeast corner I •• being approximately 935 feet south of the southwest corner of Lincoln and Knott Avenues, and further described as 9181 Knott Avenue. Property .presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. Subject petition is filed in conjunction wi.th Petitions for Reclassifica- tion No. 61-62-48 and~Conditional Use Permit No. 179• Subject petition was continued from the meeting of November 27, 1961, at the request of the petitioner's agent in order that revised plans, which would conform with the zoning requirements of Yhe City of Anaheim, could ` I. be submitted fur the Commission's consideration. ~ ' p letter received from tha petitioner's agent, Mr. Ha'rry Knisely, on ~- December 11, 1961, was read and submitted to the Commission. The latter . requested that the subject petitions be continued until a special meet- ~ ing schedulad for Dacember 18, 1961 and, in-case said request was not granted, that the Comnission consider the subject petitions at this time. • !n addition, the letter outlined arguments in favor of the subject pet- ~ itions. The Commission discussed the proposed consideration of the subJect pe- t3tion$~end indicated that it would not be advisable to act upon the patitions without the presence.of the petitioners or their agent. The Commission indicated that the requested hearing on December 18, 1961 was I _ . not logical because of the unusual circumstances necessitating said meet- ing, and that the subJect patitions shouid be considered at a regular ; Commisslon.meeting.. , ~ No ona appeared before the Commission in respect to the subject pe~ ~ ' titions. • 1 , ~ Commissioner• Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner.Allred and ~ ' carried, that the subject petition be continued until the next regular .~ meeting of the Anaheim Planning.Commission on December 27, 1961.i i, VARIANCE Nd. 1427 - PUBLIC,FiEARING. Petition submitted by DUARD W. and DOROTHY M. HULETT, 239 Beech Street, Anaheim, California, Owners;.requesting permission to • WAIVE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS on property described as: j A parcel 60 feat by 105,feet with a frontage of 60 feet located on the west side of Beech Streat'between.Broedway and Anaheim-Olive Road; its ~'`! , southeast corner being approximately 70 feet north of the northwest ~. - ;: , , `'I I ;. ` ~ ; .~ ~ ~ ~ .MINUTES. CITY PLANNING'COMMISSION, Decem6~>.r 11, 1961, Continued: 576 V~1t1ANCE N0. :1427 - cornar of Broadway and Beech.Street, and further describe~i as 239 South SContinued) ' Beech Street. Property presently classlfied in the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ ! Mrs.~Dorothy Hulett, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and , :; stated she had nothing to add to the information containec' ir, the sub- ? jPCt petition other than the information that the requested variance ivas ~ j in order to enlarge the existing living room of a single family resi- ~ ~ dence. ~; ..~' ~`'' ~' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . The Cortmission found and determined the following facts regariJing the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner requests a yariance from the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.24.030(3) to permit an encroachment of 5.5 feet in- to the required rear yard to permit construction of a one-room add- ition to an existing single family residence. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- ' tions applicabie to the property involved or to the intended use of ~ the property tha~t do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same.vicinity and zone. -~ 3• Thet the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other pro- perty in the same vicinity and zone,~and denied to the proparty in question. . 4. That the requested variance will not be materielly detrimental to - ~ the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in • su~h vicinity and zo~c in which the property is lecatad. - • 5. That the requested variance wil~ not adversely affect the Compre- henstve General Plan. 6. That the requested variance will constitute an improvement to and is compatible with tFe existing development in the subJect area. ~ 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. . • Comrr~issir~ner Allred offered Resolution No. 165, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to gi•ant Petition for Variance No. 1427, subject to the following condition: _ ~ I. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No: 1. ~ I ~ The focegoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use 'of the properfy in order to preserve - the safety and welfare of the citizene of the City of Anaheim. . - ,On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tha foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSc Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, ~Pebley, Perry, Summers. ` NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None: ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. VARIANCE N0. 1428_-,PUBI~~G'HEARING. Petition,submitted by GEORGE B. HAMILTON, 936 South Ceplan Street, Anaheim, California, Owner;-:requesting permission to ; WAIVE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK.REQUIREMENTS on''proparty'"~escribed as: , , _ _ , , , a ,. , , _ . . - ~ . ~..~~ ~ ~. . . ~ ~ ~~ . . . . . ~ . . .. . . .: , ~ : -. . . . . . ~ _ . ~~ .~ ~~ ;r;= ' F~ ~~ _ , . : , . . ~.. . .,- ~ ~. , .. . ~ . . ' .,. .... .. .'_ ~ .~ . ~. ..'~ , . . :... . . ... . . ... ~. . ~. '. ..,. . . .. . . .' . , ,. , , ~ . . ~ . , . . ,. ~- , ~ ' k j ^, ~ t '~. . . . ~.~i...tl~«t.iSi._ .. !.:I4:~t.'?S .._~u.T t..v..f.-i~~~~.i...!x_.:.~,r~.Y~k~... ..u~.6:-.Y.,:ti~i.^,1 ,_..~'1:i~'1>. i.n:"%l!^!.1,ftv.>.,.~..'___'-~ - ___ . . ~~~ . :~~', ~t - / \ ~ '.~~ ~.1~ , ~ . • . - ~ ~. - ~ . • ~ . . . . - _' . . . ... ~ , . . . - f,, _ ~ . . . V . ~ ~ ~ . . t ~~~ ~ . . 577 ~. MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1961, Continued: VARIANCE N0. 1428 - A parcel 67 ~ozt by 107 feet with a frontage of 67 feet located on the (Continued~ east side .~r Caplan Street between Vermont Avenue and Ball Road; its northwest corner lieing approximately 115 feet south of the southeasterly corner of Vermont Avenue and Caplan Street, and further•described as 936 South Caplan.Street. Property presently classified in the R-1, ONE . FAMILY RESJOENTIAL, ZONE. ~ir. George Hamilton, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stafed that he proposed to construct an additional bedroom to an existing • single family residence. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and determined ~the following facts regarding the F subject petttion: • 1. That the petitioner requests a variance fram the Anaheim Municipal .Code, Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroachment of fifteen (15) feet into the required rear yard in order to construct a bedroom ail=- chtion to an existing single family residence. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the proparty that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. ~ ~ VARIANCE N0. 1429 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submittad by J. R. SCHOLZ, c/o Leonard Smith Rea1 EstaEe, 125'~ South Claudina Street, Anahei.m, ~alifornie; Owner; Leonard Smith, 125'D South.Claudina,Street; Anahetm, California, Agent; ~requesting per.mission te CONSTRUCT AND ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOTIVE.GARAGE ANO,TOWIN~ SERVICE on property describad as:' A triangularly shaped par- ' cel bounded on its easterly side by tha S~nta Ana Freeway, on its south- , ' ~l~1;":.;:~..';~~~,3~w~.,~r;:ti.. .or?t.~_. _ ..J.:•~f, ,... _ ~ ~ .. :+tst:~ :.;~:hl.?l_~;rr.>.'"i.s~,Y,^i~~t?3~li~f... ... , . _ . . . , ' 3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substant.ial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. 4. That the requested variance will• not be materially detrimental Yo the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such ~ vicinity and zone i~ which tha property is located. 5. .That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre- hensive General Plan.' 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner. Pebley offered Resolution No. 166, Series 1961-62, and moved.for its passage and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition i`or.Variance No. 1428, subject to the following condition: 1.. Development~substantially in accordance wtth Exhibit No. 1. The foregoing condition.was recited at the meeting and was.found to be a necessary prerequisite to fhe use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. . On roll call.the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Al.ired, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley,, Perry, Summers. _NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: .COMh115510NERS,: Mungall. _ 578 ~, I MINUTES CITY PLANNING•COMMISSION .December 11, 1961,.Continued: f i' :. . o E' ~ F . ~, ~ ~: ~ ~. %' 2. Installation of the six (6) foot fence on the southerly property linel indicated on ExhibiY No. 1 prior to Final Building lnspect•ion. VARIANCE N0. 1429 - e~ly side by ti~e Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, and_on its ~ ~Continued) ~ westerly side by Walnut Street, and further described as 336 South Walnut Street. Proparty presently classified in the C-2, GENERAL •COMMERCIAL, ZONE. I ' • ~ Mr. Leonard Smith, the petitioner's egent, appeared before the Commission' and described the proposed development of subject proparty for an auto- i motive gerage and towing service. ~ I , ,. THE HEARING•WAS CLOSED. , , ' i The Co~renission discussed the necessity for screening thQ subject pro- i perty with landscaping in order~to limit visibility of the proposed ~ operation from the Santa Ana Freeway. It was indicated that a chaln ( link fence abuts the freeway and that heavy planting would serve as a I screen in order to present a suitable appearance from the freeway. The patitioner's agant stated that to require an additional fence or wall ~ abutting the freeway right-of-way would create a maintenance problem. He indicated that the petttioner would prefer high plant landscaping ~ abutting the existing chain link fence. It was noted that the cars being serviced ort the subject property would be located on the subject I property in such~a manner they would not be visible from the freeway. ; The Commission found and determined the followiny facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner requests a variance fran the Aneheim Municipal Code,.Section 18.44.010 (1) to permit the establishment of an auto- motive garage and towing service in the C-2, General Commercial, . Zone. i 2. That thsre are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- ' tions applicable to the F,roperty involved or to the intended use of the property that do nof appiy genaraliy to Che propert~+ ar class of use in the s:3me vicinity and zone. 3• That the requested variance is necessary for tha preservation and enjoyment of a substantial proparty right possessed by other pro- ~ perty in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. ; • 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which tha,property is located. • 5. That the requested variance aill not adversely affect the Compre- - hensive General Plan. 6. That the proposed use is a suitable use of the subject pruperty and will be competible with the existing development in the subjact area. 7. That no one appeared~in opposition to subJect petition. ~:_ ` Commissioner Marcoux offarad Resolution No. 167, Series J961-6~; and moved for its passage and adootion, seconded by Commissioner Pebday, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1429, subJect to the following condi- tions: 1. Developmenf substantially in accordance with:Exhibit No. l. 579 ~ ~' , ~. MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION qecember ii, 1961, Continued: . € VARIANCE N0. 1429 - 3. Provision of twenty-seven (27) fully improvad parking spaces prior to ~;: (Continued) Final Building Inspection. ~` 4. Provision of screen landscaping abutting the right-of-way line of the K Santa Ana Freeway, plans for said landscaping to ba submitted to and % sub,ject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, ' and said landscaping to be instailed prior to Final Building Inspection. ` 5. Installation of drivaways on Walnut Street in accordance wtth the ~ ~ adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer. s: r 6. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomp is - `.•.,- , ment of I'tem No. 5• ~ The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of ~lnaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Perry, Summers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. VARIANCE N0. 1430 - PUBLIC`HEARING. Petition.submitted by SIDNEY M. ABBOTT, 11150 South Main, Los Angeles; California, Owner; George Randell, Architect, 105z West Sixth Street, Los Angeles,.California,.A9ent; requesting permission to WAIVE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONE on property described as: A parcel 200 feet by 250 feet with a frontage of 200 feet on the easterly side of Los Angeles Street and located on the northeasterly corner of Los Angeles Street and Cerritos Avenue. Property ~ presently~classified in the M-1, LIGHT tMNUFACTURING, and P-L, PARKiNG- LANDSCAPING, ZONES. Mr.'George Randell, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioner was requesting the ;•evision of original plans for the development of a restaurant on subject property in order to provide parking.area at the north and east of the proposed building. He indicated that they considered the ~elocation of the parking area to be more suitable than the original location westerly and southerly of the ~ building, because the original plan required three curb cuts onto the subject property. Mr. Randell stated that the revised plan would ~resent a better appearance to the neighborhood and that the location of the build-~ ing closar to the corner would not block the view of the Buzza-Cardoza , plant located across Cerritos Avenue to the south of subject property. Commissio~ar Pebley indicated that he did not consider tha proposed re- vision of the original development pians to be in conformance with the landscaping and building setback of the Buzza-Cardoza plant'or with the standards set for the subject area, and that the revisions would be detri- mlantal . to the othar properties in the rarea. Mr. M. L. Gauter appeared before the Commission, stated that he represent- ed the Buzza-Cardoza Company, revi.ewed the revised development plans, and indicated that when the plant was established the company questioned the amount of landscaping required by the City~but that now they would consider it.a detriment to the plant if other developmant in the subject area did not conform to a 50 foot setback with adequate landscaping. He added that the plant would welcoine a desirable eating establishment in close proximity to,,,thei r property. . : ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ 580 ~~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. December 11, 1961, Continued: VARIANCE N0. 1430 - Mr. Randell, in rebuttal, stated that the owner of the subjecf~ property (Continued) was endeavoring to establish a high type restaurant but that they consid- ~~ ared the ratio of parking to the buil.:ing area to be unfair. He stated I that he considered the request to be a valid exception to the Zoning ~ Ordinance dye to the other exceptions establishec in the past on Los Angeles Street. I ! THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. • ~ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the ~ subject petition: ,~ l. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal + Code, Section 18.60.010 to permit an encroachment of thirty (30) feet into the P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zone along the Los Angeles Street frontage of subject property. 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generaliy to the property or class of use in the seme vicinity and zone. ~ 3. That the requested variance is not necessary for tF.a preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. 4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to tha pub- lic welfare ur injurious to the property or improvements in such vicin- ~ity:,• and zone in which the property is located. 5. That. the requested varianca will not conform with the setback and landscaping standards established for the subject and other properties ~' in the area and will be detrimental to the asthetic appearance of the properties in the sLbjpct area. 6. That the patitionar had submitted plans for the proposed devalopment of~ subJect property with Conditional Use Permit No. 171 and had agreed to the conditions of approval stipulated in Resolution No. 122, Series 1961-62, adopted by the Planning Commission ori October 30, 1961. ' 7. That verbal opposition fran one owner of property in the subject area . was recorded against subject petition. o_ Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 168, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to deny Petizion for Variance No. 1430 on the bases of the afbrementioned findings. Q~ coll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: Cl)MMISSIONERS: Atlred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Perry, ~ Summers. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONEi1S: None. ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Mungal1. VARIANCE N0. 1431 - PUBL•iC HEARING. Petition.submitted by MR.. and MRS. FORRES'i L. DRAKE, 928 Wesc Water Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to WAIVE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS"on property described as: A parcel 55 feet by 113 feef with.a fron,tage of 113 feet on Water Street and located on tha southwesterly corner of Water and Indiana Streets, and furthar described as.928 West Water Street. Property prasently classified in tHe R-1, ONE FpMILY Rf51DENTIAL, ZONE. , ~ `.1 :,~:., ~,.> , . ,. : ,. _. Y:~ . . , .~: ,.'.~,..4.. '' 4~ i. ~+•~ ~~.,. T: .., F J y ~tty~..~ ~.( .~dx ~rr : -;^,:^..~ ~~ il N'un`:I:~:'4'..ie...~.'R+~: -.;~°?Y , ~ . ~~ . " . . ' . ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~-_ ._. _ 1 - O . ~ ~ , ~ : 581 . •. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Oecember 11 1961 Continued: I I VARIANCE N0. 1431 - Mr. Forrest Drake, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and ~ : (continued) stated he had nothing to a8d to the information contained in the subject ` petition.. ; . :~ , j THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ • . _ . ~ ~ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition. ! i 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal I ~ ~ ~ Code, Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroachment of twenty-two ~ , ~ (22} feet into the required rear yard in order to construct a new i garage in conjunction with the remodeling of an existing residence on ~ subject property. ~ 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions ~ applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the pro- ? perty that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in ~ - the same vicinity and zone, .' , ; ~ 3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and ' ~ ~ enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property j in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. ~ 4. That the requ~ested variance will not be materially detrimentai to the j public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such ~ vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 5• That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Comprehen- i ! ~ sive General Pian. } o ~~ ~~ 6. That no one zppeered in appositie~ to subject petitio~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ . • Commissioner Perry ofFered Resotution No. i69, Series 1961-62, and moved ? for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to grant ' ,f, Petitlon for Variance No. i431, subject to the following condition: ~ l. Oevelopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, ~ ~ and 4. i . ~ ' The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be a ; ' ~ necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the ~ : . safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ,~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was pas'sed by the fotlowing vote: j ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Perry, ~ r i. ~ 5ummers. . ~ r~ . NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ` ; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall.. ~ . j VARIANCE N0. 1432 - PUBLIC HEARING. Pet•ition submltted by GIRSA P. and DURWARD L. BOLlIN, 750 ~ { . North Philadelphia.Street, Anaheim,'California, Owners; requesting permis- ~' ' % sion to WAIVE MINIMUM FLOOR SPACE REQUIREMEM"f on property described as: A I ; parcei 52 feet by 155.feet with a frontage of 52 f.eet located on the east- ~ erly side of.Philadalphia Street between North and Wilhelmina Streets; ~ • its northwesterly_corner being approximataly 104 feet south of the south- • ~ easterly corner of North and Philadelphia Streets; and furthar descri.bed ,~ as 750 North Philadelphia SEreet. Property presently: classified in the , ' ~ ,, R-2, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. . I' ~ . '`~~ r :~. A letter, dated November 29. 1961, received from the petitioner, request- ~ ~ I . i . Wfkl?. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .. . . ~ ~ . . ~ . . .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ~ . ' ..,:j • . ~ • ~ ~v:~* . . . . . .. ` . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ , ~ . . . .. - ' . . . . ~ ' ~ . .. J fe-...' ::~...~ , . -. . .... .: . . ...._. _ _ . ..... .,.-.. :~. ... . ..~~. . . . . . . . . . . . , , _ ~ ~ .. , . , . . . . . . ~ ~ . . ~ , - .. i i I.. ".~' ..~,~'. :~.. ".:~-~:; R~l?;;.r^.t~J.f~.~Vy:C~ `~ ~.fh 54 ~ ~':'. ..;~'.:~'~1 ~ .....~. f~r..._ (.~t)r:,' 1. K.._e{X ~.~.'1!~ ~ ...r. ..:_~. _.. . a..... . .. i . . . .. . ~ _•l.ifL`~I: ~ SV2 r MINUTES. CITY PLANNING:COMMISSION. Dacember 11, 1961, Continued: . I VARIANCE N0. 1432 - ing withdrawal of the s4bJect patition and the refund of the $50.00 filing ~Continuad) fee, was submitted to the Commission. It was noted that the legal notice , had not been prepared and the petition hed not been advertised in the uews- ~ Paper. ' . ~ i ~ Ca~unissionar Allred offered a motion, secondad by Commissiorter Marcoux and ' carried, that the requast for withdrawal of Petition for Variance No. 1432 I F , be accepted end that tha Planning Director recommend to the Finance ; ¢. ." ~ Director that the $50.00 filling fee be refunded. ; VARIANCE N0. 1433 - PUBLIC HEARING. Pet:tion submitted by GAiL VARY, P. 0. Box 67, Anaheim, California, Owner; raquesting permission to (1) CONSTRUCT A FOUR-PLE~ and (2) WAIVE MININUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS on property dascribad as: A parcel 52 feat by 155 feet with a frontage of 155 feet on North Street and located on the southwesterly corner of North and Claudina Streets, and further described as 761 North Cleudina Streat. Property presently class- ified in the R-2, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. No one appeared bafore the Commission to represent the subject petition. ~.: . a _ ~; , ~ ~. Mr. Verni McCallum, 758 NortN.Claudina Street, appeared before the Commis- sion and requestad information on whether he could utilize his property for multiple famfly residential development if the subject petition were gtantad. He~indicated tnat his property was the same size as the subject property, that it was presently classified in the R-2, Two Family Resi- dential, Ione, and that ha would be interasted in developing his property further if possible. He stated further that the petitioner had purchased tha subject property with the knowledge that it was zoned for R-2, Two Family Rasidential, development and that a similar request for the subject ' property h~.d been requested in the past. The Commission rev3ewed devalopme~t plans and Commissioner Perry noted that~ tha proposed size of the dwelling units did not conform with the raquire- mants of the R-2, Two Family Residential, Zone and that it wauld not be canpatible with the type of development in the subject area. Comnissioner Parry recommended that th: owner of ,:he subJect property be contacted and encouraged t~ revisa plans to comply with tha R-2, Two Family Residential, 1 Zone Coda requirements. ~, Commissionar Perry offered a motion, seconded by Co~nissioner Allrad and carried, to continue the subjact patition until tha meeting of Decamber 27, 1961 and that the petitionar ba contacted liy the Planning Departmant Staff in respect to the revision of developmant plans to comply with the R-2, Two Family Rasidential, Zone requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code. CONDITIONAL US£ - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by CLYDE and HELEN HUNTER, 40 Sierra PERMIT N0. 185 Madre Baulevard, Arcadia, Californta, aNners; Albart C. Johnson Jr., 2628 Skywood F1aca, Anaheim, California,.Agenti requesting permission to GONSTRUCT A MOTEL on property describod as: parcel~A - A parcal 67 faet by 300 feet with a frontage of`67 feet located on tha west side of Brook- hurst Street betweeri Crescent and Woodley Avenues; its southeast corner being approxima•tely 108 feat north of the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Woodley Avanus. Parcal B- A parcel 67 Feet by 81 faet ad- Joining parcel "A" on the,wastarly 81 feat, and further described as 409 Narth Brookhurst Street. Property presently classifiad in tha R-A, , . RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. No one appeared before the`Commisston to rapresant the subJect patition. The Commission.reviewed development ptans and it was noted that a proposed . . . ~ . ~.:;i1,r~y ~'-r~}~ ~;~,~ r .. . . r.o -!~,~._ . „ . i.' :.. , ~_~~~ .:!. ;f.', tnif: ;.'?'~t` i~t ~'..~:..~....._....._.._. ~~ ~ I ! • ~ . ~` . _ ti?j C F.i..: _. .._ .._ . _' . MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Oecember I1. 1961,•Continued: CONQITIONAL USE - motel development:had been approved by the Commission for the subject pro- PERMIT N0. 185 perty on Apri1 3, 1961 and that the conditions of said approval had not (Continued) been fulfilled. As a consequence and since the plans submitted with the subject petition consti.tute a substantial change of the proposed use of the subject property, it was necessary that a new petition be submitted to the•Comnission. It was noted further that no windows should be permitted on the sacond story of the proposed building on the south and west sides of the structure adjacent to the R-l, One Family Residential, development. It was also noted that the petitioner should be in attendance to discuss the proposed development before actton could be taken on the subject pet- i t i on. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and ' carried, that Petition for Sonditionai Use Permit No. 185 be continued • until the meeting of January 8, 1961 in order that the plans for the pro- posed development of a motel on subject property may br: discussed with the patitioner. i ,~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, c/o Rev. N0. 61-62-52 James Heaps, 2448 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California and MICHAE:. B..PAMSON, 12311 Morrie Lana, Anaheim, California, Owners; Rothman-Steen and Associ- ates,. 223 South.Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agant; requesting that property described as: An "L" shaped parcel with a frontage of 135 feet located on the south side of Orange Avenue; and a frontage of 118 feet located on the e~st side of Webster Avenue, and further described as Lots 20 and 22 of Tract 796, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL- TURAL, 20NE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. • Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Conditional ~ Use Permit No. i84. ~ Mr. Gordon Steen, the petitioner~s agent, appeared bafore the Cortanissicn ~ and described the proposed development of a planned unit multiple family ~ r:asidential development on the subject proparty. He indicated that the ~arrow width of the two parcels of land in comparison with the depth made it impossible to develop the subjact property for single family residential development. He stated, therefore, that because of the petitioner's in- ability to utilize the property for R-1, One Family Residential, develop- • ment, a low dansity residantial development, incorporating the essential attributes of.a s.ingle family residential deyelopment, would be a sound ' and reasonable solution for the devalopment of the property. He, stated further that the plan was for singla story structures and that open spaces , would be provided. Mr. Joseph Ooyle, 2438 Wast Griney Avenue, appeared before the Commission and reviewed past action upon the subJect property in regard to the estab- lishment of a church on the southeast corner of Webster and Orange - Avenues. He i•ndicated thet tha church had been required to purchase the subJect property in order to provide the amount of required parking for the church facility. He stated further that he was opposed to the devel- ~ opment of the subJect property for multiple family residentiel purposes in.an area surrounded by single family zoning and development and express- ed concarn about tha amount of multiple family residential davelopr,;^nt ' taking place within the Ciiy. Mr. Glenn Benton, 2443 West Orange Avenue, appeared before the Canmission and.presenYed a petition containing 67 names in opposit.ion'to the subject petition. and distributed'mimeographed copies of obJections by adJacent property owners.' He read a prepared statement in which he enumerated reasons for .the objections based upon the effect of spot zoning .creating s,', ,, ; ..t ,. ,v',. ,.::t ,..ii~...~... ... . ! ;'r~ . .~ .,';. , aIz!;r _7+'<::.-'-'I~Y ...~.i~~_i..v.«:>y~yy_.17~ . . . . ___~. , . ~. , ...a4,1; r +1 y.`~ ~ - _.~ ~ ' . ~ . . . • .' ' . . _ _ . ~~ ~ _ ~~_ . ~~ . ~ ~ ~~ 584 MINUTES. CITY PLA NNING COMMISSION December 11 1 61 Continued: ~ RECLpSSIFICATION - deteriation of property values in a predomtnantly single family estate N0. 61-62-52 type residential development, the amount of vacant multiple family resi- SContinued) dontial development in the area at the present time, overcrowding of schools by non-tax paying residents, costs of street widening and traffic conditions un Webster Avenue, necessity for more police protection, access to Orange Avenue, restrictions imposed upon the single family residential ' development whereas privileges would be extended for the muitiple family residential units, objections to carports versus garages, and danger of the pool area to the local residents. Mr. Benton stated that he had con- sider9d many times the possibility of subdividing the subject property for estate type homes ranging in price from $30,000 to $40,000 which he considered more compatible with the existing development in the subject area than the proposed developm•nt. Chairman Gauer read a letter of opposition signed by Mr. and Mrs. E. J. Ohm, 2420 Griney Avenue, and it was noted that the petitions of protest contained approximately 69 signatures, many of whom had signed several times. Mr. M. J. liebert, 2442 ~est Orange Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and stated that at the present time there are two schoots and churches in the subject area which affect the traffic conditions in the area and that the proposed development would add to the existing traffic congestion. He expressed concern about the resultant park?ng in front of the existing homes, about the possibility that the owners of the subject property will not be particular in the selection of tenants due to the amount of vacan- cies in the area at the present time, about the noise that would be creat- ed by the use of the pool area by the residents, and about the amount of parking area necessary for the use of the church facility. ~ Mr. Steen, in rebuttal, stated that the parking requirement for the church had been removed because it was not appropriate to the establishment of , the church, that the proposed carporCs for the development would be in- ' ~ corporated in a aarage area and would not be visible from the street, that ~I ~ each unit would have a large patio in addition to large open spaces and '~ recreationai area, and that the proposed development was a logicai solution; to the problem of the devalopment of the subject proFerty. , Information was submitted to the Commission relative to the establishment of the church and indicating that the petition submitted by the church was filed at the directive of the City Council and that the City Attorney's Office had ruled that in as much as the parcel of property is a lot in a recorded subdivision, a specific exception to Section 18.16.030 (4-b), under the authority granted by Section 18.64.070 of the pnaheim Municipal Code, would be proper. It was noted further that the dedication and street improvements of Webster Street were waived, but only until such time as .the remainder of Webster Street was improved, Reverend Heaps, the petitioner, eppeared before the Commission and stated that he had been trying to se!; the property on Webster Street for a long time and that he would be glad if someone wo.~ld develop the property for single family residential use. He indicated, however, that he had been having difficulty in selling the property because the cost would be pro- hibitive for single family residential use. He stated that he had object- ed to an original proposal to establish two-story apartments on the subject property and that he considered tha proposed multiple t~~mily residential use of the property to be a suitable use. Reverand Heaps indicated furthar that the subject property was a burden, that the church had been compelled ~ to purchase the subject property for parking purposes, that the area was ~ not needad for parking facilities, and that the church had an adequate ~ amount.of parking without tiie use of the subject property. i Commissioner Pebley discussed tha possibllity of a future request for re- ~ ~ ~ ~ I 0 M~unTrc c~TV ainuN~Nr.:rnMMissinN_ nP~emher 11. 1961. Continued: 585 RECLASSIFICA710N - classification of the subject property to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercia?, N0. 61-62-52 Zone should the precedent be established for reclassification of the resi- (Continued) dential properties for multiple family residential purposes. Mr. Glenn Benton stated that he considered the proposed development to be for the purpose of soeculation and that the subject properties could be subdivided into single family residential lots. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the advisability of the consideration of a Pre- ~ cise.Plan.Study of the subject area because of the possibility of estab- { lishing a precedent for R-3~ Multiple Family Residential, development of ( the properties extending southerly to Ball Road. It was noted that single ~ family development might be possible but that i* might require a ioint en- deavor by the owners of property in the subject area. The Commission dis- ~ cussed at some length various suggestions for the development of the sub- ject properties for R-1, One Family Residential, purposes and it was in- dicated that the various methods could be presented in Precise Plan Studies! of the area. ~ Commissioner Perry indicated that he would be opposed to the reclassifica- tion of the subject.property without a Precise Plan Study for the ultimate drvelopment of~ the area. The Comrr~ission then discussed the desirability of the preparation of a Precise Plan Study and the notification of the owners of property within a 300 foot radius or those properties located on both sides of Webster Avenue extending southerly from Orange Avenue to Ball Road. Commissioner Alired offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and carried, that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-52, filed in con- junction with Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 184, be continued until the meeting on January 22, 1962, and that the Planning Department Staff be directed to prepare a Precise Plan Stuoy of that area bounded by ~ those properties located on the east and west sides of Webster Avenue, by Orange Avenue on the north, and by Ball Road on the south, said Precise _' Plan Study to include a plan for the ultimate development of subject pro- perty for R-l, One Family Residential, purposes and a plan for a suitable _ R-3, Multiple F~mily Residential, development. The Staff was directed further that the hearing on said Precise Plan Study be advertised and that the owners ~f property within a 300 foot radius of those properties in- cluded in said Study be notified of said hearing. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, c/o Rev. PERMIT N0. 184 James Heaps, 2448 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California and MICHAEL B. PAMSON, 12311 Morrie Lane, Anaheim, California, Ow~ers; Rothman-Steen and Associ- at2s, 223.South.Ctaudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to (~j CONSTRUCT A PLANNED UNIT ~EV~LOPMENT, WITH CARPORTS and (2) WAIVE YARD REQUIREMENTS on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel with a frontage of 135 feet located.on the south•side of Orange Avenue, and a frontage of 113 feet located on the east side of Webster Avenue, and further described as Lots 20 and 22 of Tract 796. Property p.resently classified in the R-A, RESIDEh1TIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 61-02-52• The Commission notad that subject petition'would be continued until the meeting of January 22, 1962 in arder that it could be considered in con- ' junction with the Petition for Reclassification and a Precise Plan Study , for the development of subject property. ~~.~ ... . . . ; , ; , ~ •y 3 ' r .. .~_~ __ ~_-~ . . 586 I . ~ MiNUTES CITY PLANNING;COMMISSION December ll, 1961, Continued: CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Allred offerad a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and PERMIT N0: 184 carried, that subject petition be continued until the meeting of January ~Contlnuad) 22, 1962 for consideration in conjunction with Petition for Reclassifica- ~ tion No. 61-62-52. C _ RECIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by N. E. KRUEGER, P. 0. Box 202, ~ N0. 61-62-53 Anaheim, California, Owner; Betty Roberts-Oscar Schultz, 723 North Los , ~ Angeles Street, Anahaim, California, Agent; requesting that property ~; described as: A parcel 15~ feet by 440 feet= with a frontage of 150 feet ~ • located on the north side of Broadway between East Street and Fahrion ` ~~ ~ ,. , .. ~~s.~~ ^4'~ ~ ... . . ;~ Rlace, its sauthwest corner being approximately 530 feet east of the north- east corner of East Street and Broadway, and further described as 1249 • East,Broadway be reclassified from the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, and R-2, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NES to the R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. , Mr. H. E. Krueger, the petitioner, appeared befora the Commission and des- I cribed the zoning and land use of the surrounding area, and the proposed i development of a one-story multiple family re~idenCiai deveiopment on sub- jact property. Mr. Bob Miller, the builder for the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and stated that revised plans provided an access drive abut- ting Chestnut'and Oak Streets. Commissioner Allred noted that the proposed development plans did not con- form with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code in respect to the size of the dwelling units and the amount of court yard ar~a. He indicated that plans should be revised to basically conform with the Code require- ments. It was pointed out that the dwelling units on the revised plan appeared to be adequata. However, the revised plan merely provided the access drives and did not reduce the number of units, thareby reducing the , amount af the required 25 foot distance between buildings in the court yard. Mr. Miller indiceted that the plans could be revised to comply with Code - requiremants in raspect to the siza of the units; the access drives, the• amount of court yard area, and.any other applicable Code requiremants. Ha ~ indicated that he was not developing the property for speculation purposes, that he intendad to maintain control of the property, and that it would be a luxury type of development. Chairman ~auer read a patition of protest, containing the signatures of 75 owners of property in the subJect area, indicating objections to the sub- i Ject petition,becausa it would create a decline in value of their proper- ~ ties, that the appearance of the eurrounding singie femily neighborhood E should be considered, that the increased parki.ng and traffic would present an acute problam, that more children would be utillzing Lincoln School w;?ch is presently fillad to capacity, end that an,error was made in the - recla~ssifice:ion of adjacent property for substandard multiple family rasidenttal dwellings: - Mrs. Jana 5anderson; 124$ East Broadway, appeared before tho Commission and inguired abaut the location of any district within the City limits whera the property valuas have been increased whenever a muitiple family residentiel development was permifted in a single family residantial section. She stated that lending egoncies.reduced the amount of financing ~ in such instances, that tha single family residential properties were:dif- ficult to selt whenover they were adjacent"to multiple family residential development, that the proper.ty•owners in the area wished the zoniing to remain for single family residential purposes, that Ehe parking f~3cilities would become a problem, that some of:the apartment devel~pmant in the City , , ~ r . . ' . . ~ . .. . , .. .. . .. ' , ~ ,J~ . . \ ~ . . . , ~ r c -1 . . . ~ . . . . ~ . V ~ _-. ' ' . . ~ -: ' :: ~ ~;~'~ ' .,.~'~ ~„' ~ '~~ , . . . . - •I(p: ~ ~~ -. ~ .:....' ~ ~. ._..,~r.. 1. ,.~ ..;~ ~.~,.~,~~..~..._~ ,t ....,i .. ...~_. :~a.:1..1;:~.,h fn.F3.:~'ti`f~r .:,~.rMTl"~~-rr-..~---'-,--•-,•---"-- .,~1: r ~:,ci ~'aZ~i y;. ~ :~~rb47.~ik::~'T .'~fiiA ~c.:.Ji §?. Un:~".~,a'a 1.~ Swt,x 1`~.>-~wM1~1~w.:.•k~.e~"..w,";i~~c~ : ~ : ~ S . i.,. ~ -: ~ - ~~~ ~~~'- ~ ... . ~ .~ . . . ~ . . . . . 'i . ,..~,~:. ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ . '~~ ~ .. . ~ ~ . 587 ; ~ MINUTES. CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1961. Continued: RECLASSIFICATION - is rapidly deteriorating, that the existing m~~ltiple family residential N0. 61-62-53 development in.the subject area was substandard and a detriment to the (Continued) neighborhood, that tlie purpose of the proposed development af the subject property wes merely for monetary reasons, that there was n~ need for additional apartment development in the area, that she had owned and . livad in her home for seven years whereas the petitioners were not resi- ~_ ~, ~ dents in the subject area, and that she did not want a duplex development ~ on the subject property just for the financial gain of the petitioners. ; Mr. L. J. Downey, 1266 East Broadway, appeared before the Commission, ;.; stated he was a resident in the area for thirteen years, that ine present ' condition of the property is unsightly, that the neighbors were interested in the beautification of the area and that they did not consider an infer- ior development to be an improvement, that ther~ would be a school problem, r~;;~':;~~' that cars would be parking on the streets, and that there was a parking problem in the area at the present time. ~ ~ Mrs. Lyle Diggens appeared before the Commission and stated that she was in ~ favor of the subject petition and inquired about the installation of a block wall along t:he alley for the protection of the adjacent propertias. ~ She stated further that she would be in favor of the improvement of the . s!~bject property, thet it was a fire hazard at the present time, and that she did not sae anything objectionable in the proposed development. - Mrs. A• L. Brown, 1239 East Chestnut Street, appeared before the Commission, and stated that her property abuts the alley and faces Chestnut Street, that 50 percent of the ow~~~s~ of the property in tha subject area have im- proved their properties which constitutes a considerable investment and indicates that they are not transient residents,.that the neighborhood at the present time is a high type community, that it was quiet and there were no traffic problems, that they wished the neighborhood to remain in its present state, that the apartments would a*_t.ract transient residents who would not beautify or serve the community in any way, and that the ~ subject property cou;ld be properly utilized under its present classifica- tion for duplexes with the provislon of a cul-de-sac street. She complain- ~ ed about the present unsightly condition of the petitioner's property. ~ Mr. Peul Calloway, 1201 West Chestnut Street, appeared before the Commis- r sion, reviewed:development plans, and was informed that the proposed devel- ; opment wi11 noL'use Oek and Chestnut Streets for access. He indicated that ` additional traffic on said streets would create a hazard for the children ~ in the area. ~~ A discussion ensued relative to the number of residents notified of the ' subJect petition and pssistant City Attarney Joe Geisler advised the x. Commission that those owners of property within 300 foot radius of subject property were notified in addition to th~ publication of.legal notices in k the newspaper and the posting of the property. e i~r. Lloyd Rount, 426 Eas~ 3roa~wey, aPpeared before the Cemmtssien.and f steted that he represented the petitioner, that they would comply with any requirements for the development of the property including the sub- _ mission of revised plans, and tfiat the access to the property would be pro- vided from Broadway. He:described the land use of the surraunding area '~ and stated that the proposad R-3,•Multiple Femily Residential, development would increase the property values in the ar$a because the downtown area would eventually become a high density area, and that the subJect develop- mant will iie a deluxe type which Will attract desirable tenants. Mrs. Judith.Anderson,.1252 East Broadway, appeared before the Commission ' and complained about the present condition of the subject property, about ~ tha substandard devalopment on adJacent property, and about the lack of a ~, ;~: ; master plan for the p%jected development of property wtthln the City of ; ~ ^.,~ .~'~ Anaheim. ~ ~'. r. i ,e ,(~C?'t. .. . . . . ~ . . . . ' q~~.~~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ . . '.. ~EL:utL : ~', . . . . ' . , . . ' 1'~ ~~ i~ ~ . . . ,. ' . , . ~ ' . ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 ~ ' ~ . .. . . . . . .. ~1 5 . . . ~ .. . .. . 1 ~.. . ~ ~ , . . ~ ~ . s: ~ ~..~ ' . . _ . . ' . . . ... ~ .. .. ~ - .~ ' . . .. .. ~ . - ~ . . .. ~ . . ~ ~ ~~i~, ~ j i ) ~: ~ .: .~~ ~ ~ f . . .. ~~ , i ~k~+~ "~ I ~~ ~ ~-- >, ~~ r ~' . ~ . . . . ,. . . ...,. . .. ~ . . . . . ~ ~ . . . `_~ ! ~ ~ .~~ rT_ .lA'.w.~:~~+fi&~±r`'~~•, .~, f: .. ~k.l"kZ ~~1~?:"S d . ~~._•~: .~ . .. .~ ...~~. 'nF . ~n ..~;ti R-;i ~ ~ ;`l. .-.4"{1~~~ ~t.d~~ .•~l. i 4 ~ •. . ~ ~ . ,.. ~ ~ ~ . . ~., '~ ~~ ~~~ ' _ 588 F; . ~MINUTES C17Y PLRNNIN6 COMMISSION, December 11, 1961, Continued: RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. A. l. Brown, 1239 East Broadway, appeared before the Commission and N0. 61-62-53 described tha present value of the existing single family residential ~~ (Continued) development in the subject area and indicated that the proposed develop- 1 h t v 1 s ~ ~ ment of sub~ect property would be detrimenta to t eir proper y a ue . ~ ; ~ Mr. Oscar Schulz, 723 North Les Angeles Street, appeared before the Commis- sion and etated that the existing residential development is well maintain- ed and indicated thet was the reason for the selection of the subject pro- ' perty for the proposed luxury type development. He stated further that the apartment rentals would range from $200 to $250 per month, that they would not be furnished therefore the tenants would not be moving frequent- ly, that ar. adequate amount of parking would be provided, that he agreed that the present condition of the property presented an unsightiy appear- ance, that ihe prcposed development would constitute an improvement of the subject area, and that the petitioners would comply with all Code require- ments. THE HEARlNG WAS CLOSED. The Commission rer•iewed development plans and noted that in addition to the inadeguate court yards the proposed garages were also substandard. Commissioner Perry noted that the builder had indicated tnat he wo~ld comply with.all Code requirements by revising development plans, and that the depth of the parcel made it difficult to develop. Commissioner Atlred noted that, if the subject property were developed for single family resi- dentiel use, the problem would be similar to the existinr~ problem in that single family residences would abut mul*iple family resiclential develop- ment. Tfie Commission discussed at some length the problem of multiple family residential development adjacent to sir.gle family residential development, and it was indicated that with a wall separating che two types of develop- ment and with a suitable development built in accordance with Gode require- ments, the proposed type of development: ur.der one ownership, might be less objectionebie than singie famiiy residenl•iai deveiop~~~ent which wauld be utilizing Chestnut arid Oak Streets. The Commission indicated, however, that the plans presented with the subject petition would not be desirable for the subject properYy and would necessitate further revision in order to provide adequate access drives, adequate parking area, adequate court yard area, the number of dwelling units in cor.formance with the R-3, Multiple Family Residential,tone Code requirements, adequate landscaping, and installation of.block walls. Chairman Gauer indicated that the petitioner should revise the development plans for the subJect property and suggested that the petitioner cortact the adjacent.property owners and apprise them of the plans in order to achieve more cooperation and a better understanding of the various pro- ' blems involved. ' ' ~ l Canmissioner Pebley recommended that the subject petition be continued in ~• order to provide the Canmission an opportunity to make an additional field ~ : • inspection of the subject area and to provide an opportunity tor the peti- i . tioner•,to prepare revised development plans for the subject property. I Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that, if it was the Commission's intention to obtain edditional evidence and review new pians, that a motion for continuancc; should.include in the motion that the hearing be re-opened.and hoard at tfie established date. ~• The builder,..representi.ng ihe petitioner, indicated that revised plans i ; would be available at the Miiler Investment Company,for the review and ~ ~ inspection.of any interested persons. ~ , ; -. ., _ I The Commisstosi.dis w ssed the possibility that the devetoper couPd revise ( ~ . i , I , , - ~ ~; ~r: , ~ ~.:!c~7.~i . ~.,..M1....:n;~5:f l.,r.,..':it..?, .!..u:rl_~h.:~Y.~:.~.ia... .....+~~. ... fi;.~. .!! .. ,:.A.'~.. .~.~cw ~l~k~. ~ S?iFd?7... . .... ,~ ~.::`q .. ... .. , .~f:~. .~~i..J::, V ~ R.-'.~~ -~ . - , . . I~.'.i _~_"~Y . 589 MlNUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1961, Continued: f RECIASSIFICATION - plans to actually conform with the present R-1, Or.e Family Residential, ~ N0. 61-62-53 and the R-2, Two Family Residential, Zone classification of the subject {Continued) proparty, or the possibility that the developer could develop the entire ~ parcel under a Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Perry and carried, that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-53 be continued until~~ the meeting of January 8, 1962 at which time the petitioner shall submit revised plans for the proposed development of subject property that conform with all Code requirements and that the hearing be re-opened at said time i in order to obtain additional evidence in respect to the subject petition. , RECIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by ERNEST N. and RENEE J. KAYE, 13322 N0. 61-62-54 Sussex Place, Santa Ana, California and NlLES F, and EMILY R. GUICHET, 320 Olympia Place, Anaheim, California; Owners; Oavid E. Termohlen, 1638 _ East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A parcel 231 feet by 255 feet with a frontage of 255 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue between Brookhurst Street and Colum- bine Street; its southwest corrier being approximately 415 feet east of the northeast carner of La Paima Avenue and Brookhurst Street, and further described as 2141 West La Palma Avenue be reclassified from the R A, , RESIDENTIAL AGRICUI.TURAL, ZONE to the C-i, NEIGHBORNOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. David Termohlen, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission and stated that the requested reclassification was in order to establish a medi'cal center for twenty doctors. He reviewed histo!-y of the previous zoning of the subject property and ir.dEcated that his clients had paid approximately $90,000 in the belief that the property was properly classi- fied. He stated further that the proposed st!'ucture was to,be constrtacted essentially as shown in the sketch submitted with the subject petition and ~ that it would provide in excess of t.he required amour?t of parking. Mr. Victor B. Robinetts, 2127 West La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Com- i mission and reviewed the devetopment plans. He indicated that he had no I objections to the subject petition but expressed concern in respect to the existing traffic problem on La Qalma Avenue and the present condition of the alley behind the property. He noted tha*_ he had considered the use of the subject property to be more suitable for R-1., One Family Residential, purposes. He edded, however, that in view of the type of development pro- posed by the petitioners, he would not object to the proposed development. ~tr. Termohien informed the Commission thatthe petitionexs intended to in- stall walls on the east, south, a~d west property lines. Commissioner Pebley suggested that an ornamental wall be ir?stalled along the north boundary with the provision of landscaping in order to improve the appear- ance of the property for the benefit of the adjacent residential develop- ment. The petitioner's agent inoicated that beautiful ornamental fencing would be installed and that suitable 1a ndscaping would be provided. The ~ Commission discussed the amount and location of landscaping that would ba suitable for the proposed development and it was noted that tree welis wera proposed for the La Palma Avenue frontage of the subject property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subJect petition: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-A, RESIDENTlAL AGRICULTURHL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERGIAL., ZONE (Rastricted to business and professional offices only)• 2. That the propnsed reclassification of subject property is necessary or desirable for ;he orderly and proper development of the community. F' : ; _ ~ " ~ 4i Y ki.~,~~.:~.~..X T.,,~ 1 .t ~'~ . -.-.f...~ ~ ,,..,...r . ~1:.. S~!i<<.... .. 1,...f'~!JG . ...._. . ~-_ ' - --- r...,i„r _,. . . ._ .. . .,.. ,_. y;j' , . r ~. ~ ~ ~ • , r i MINUTES. CITY PLANNIfJG COMMISSION. December il, 1961, Continued: ~ ~ ,. . *4~\' ': . ~ ~ . . . . ~ .. ~ ~ . ~ _"_"._~~~~.-.._.......~..'__""""..~ ... ~, .... . ..r.._.V....~.~ ~. . ..~.:~.- .' j ^ " ~ . + • ._ ... _ -- C~ C.~ ~ ~ 590 ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly ~ N0. 61-62-54 relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in ~ (Continued) close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permit- ted uses generally established throughout the canmunity. 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the General Plan. 5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 170, Series 1961-62,and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-54 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the east boundary of subject property and the installati~n of a six (6) foot ornamental masonry wall along the north boundary of subject property. 3. Provision of tree wells in the parkway portion of the subject property abutting La Palma Avenue and the provision of a six (6) foot landscap- ing strip abutting the front property line of subject property, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway 6ksir~tenance and said landscaping to be i,nstalled.prior;•to:.Final Building Inspection. 4. Recordation of C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone dsed restrictions limiting use of subject property to business and profes:ional offices only. 5. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of La Palma Avenue (50 feet existing). 6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes oi~ La Palma Avenue. 7. Installation of sidewalks and drivev~ays on La Palma Avenue in accor- dance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer. •8. Provision of a five (5) foot utility easement along ti~e westerly boundary of subject property to adequately serve the subject pro- perty and o~ner properties. 9. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Department of Publie Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size, access- ible 1:o trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wa1~l. 10. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- ment of Item Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. ~ ~ The foregoing conditions were racited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The foregoing resolution was passed by the.foilowing vote: ~ 3 ' j , ~y~ ~ .I~UTES. CITY PLANNING.COMMISSION December 11 1 61 Continued: ~. . ~ , --------~ . 591 i RECLASSIFI~ATION .-,AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Perry, N0. 61-G2-54 Summers. (Continued) r NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Munaatl, 'RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MORITZ M. LOITZ, 911 North Citron, N0. 61-62-55 Anaheim, California, Owner; Joseph Stephenson, 710 North Citron, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A parcel 132 feet by 200 feet with a frantage of 132 feet on Citron Street and located on the northwesterly corner of Citron Street and La Verne Street, and further described as 911 North Citron Street be reclassified from the R-0, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, 20NE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. Joseph Stephenson, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commis- sion to represent the subject petition. M. H. E. Krueger, 857 North Citron Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired about the possibility of obtaining R-3, Multi~?~ Family Residential, Zone classification for the other properties in the subject area if the sub,ject petition were granted. He stated he would not be opposed to R-3, Multiple Family Residential, development or duplexes pro- vided they were limited to one story in height. The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that the petitioner proposed to construct nine units. Commissioner Perry noted that the sub- ject area presented a problem because the properties contained deep lots, ~ and that a Precise Plan Study of the area would be advisable before any action was taken affecting the subject area because the entire block ex- tending from La Verne Street northerly to La Palma Avenue would be affected. Mr. Malcolm Lockwood, 916 Cente~• Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that he purchased the property with the understanding that the area wouid remein for single family residentiat purposes, that the multiple family residential units would present a hazard to the chlldren going to Lincoln School, and that the proposed devetopment would not be of benefit to the surrounding properties. He pointed out tinat a church was establish- across the street from the subjec* property which increased the existing traffic probiem. Mrs. Howard 91sen, 912 North Citron Street, apFear~ad before the Commission, reviewed the history of the reclassification of p;operties located north- easterly of subject property and the establishment of another church at the corner of Northgate Lane and Citron Street, and nc.~ted that subsequent to the reclassification of these properxies apartment units were erected at the terminus of Northgate Lane, all of which added to the traffic conges- tion in the subject area. She Indicated that the streets could not handle additionat traffic, that the proposed apartment devel~pmant wo~ld not en- hance the subject area, that the area was zoned fnr and developed for R-0, . Residential Suburban, use, that the two churches in the area created park- ing and traffic problems, that the proposed development would be detriment- al to the children in the neighborhood, that she did not want transient residents in her nelghborhood, and that it would be difficult to sell her property and would depreciate property values. M~. A. Van Hourebeke, 821 Gretchen Way, appeared before the ~ammission, stated that the subject property faced his property, that the existing development in the area contains nice homes, that he was concerned about the effect that R-3, Multiple Family Residential, development would have on the other properties in the subject area, that the lots in the area were large and deep, and that he did not think the multiple famlly develop- ment would enhance his property's value. , ~ -' I• ,f ' ~ - .. is-i ( . I ~ i t ~ ~n- e al on s ts ld the er- he ie i ib- :t iose iat in ject Che ty t bed PLE sary Y• per-I ed I• ~ : ~ i - (~ ~ ~, MINUTES. CITY PLANNII RECLASSIFICATION - ~ ~ N0. 61-62-55 ~ (Continued~ RECLASSIFICATION - N0. 61-62-56 ~ . E: ~ ~ ~: ~ S . ~ ~' f E" ' ~ r ~-_._: _ _ .___ _.__ ~~ 594 P: ~ ~ ~ ~ '• €~ •. ~ P . ;;-i,, r>;,: ',:. , .. : .:: : ~ •~~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 11 1961 Continued: RECLASSIFICATION - comnercial buildings would be deed restricted to a maximum height of N0. 61-62-56 one story and that generally deed restrictions were written for a period (Contlnued) of twenty-five years. The Commission discussed at some length the grading of the subject preper~y and it was pointed out that the petitioner had agreed to install walls in accordance with Code height requirements. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: l. That the p~titioner proposes a reclassification of the above described ~ property from the R-A, RESIUENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-l, ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE, and the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE (limlted to service station use onty). 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property~is necessary or ! desirable for the orderly and proper development of the cortmunity. ~ 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and ~heir permitted uses .locally establ3shed in close proximity to sub3ect~ property and to the zones and their•permitted~ uses generally established ~hroughout the community. • • 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because , said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which wiil be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the General Plan. 5. That no one appeared in opposition to subJect petition. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 172, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-56 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit i.os. 1 and 2, with the installation of a minimum six (6) foot strip of landscaping along the Euclid Avenua and Broadway Street frontages of the proposed C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, portion of subject property, plans for said landscaping to ba submitted to and ~ubject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and to be installed prior *.o Final Building Inspection. 2. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the south and west boundaries of subject property from the grade level of the abutt~ng properties prior to Final Building Inspection. 3. Recordation of commercial deed restrictions limiting the proposad C-3, Heavy Commercial, Zone property to service station use only, or any L-l, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one use. 4. Recordation of standard deed restrictions Iimiting the maximum height of any buildings on subJect property to one (1) story. 5. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of Broadway (30 feet existing). 6. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumanted cantarline of Euclid Avenue (30 feat existing). ( ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ i , ' • i . a - ~- ~ ~ ~ ---- ------ ---___ . - -______ __ ~ . ~ • a ~~ ~ 595 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Dacember 11, 1961, Continued: ~ ' . ~ RECLASSIFICATION - 7. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improve- F'~• N0. 61-62-56 ments for Broadway and Euclid Avenue, subject to the approval of the ,~Continued~ City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file ; ; in the Office of the City Engineer. i; I ~ ~ 8. Paymant of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Broad- ~ way and Euclid Avenue. ~ 9• Time limitat~on of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6; ;, a~~d 8. _ ~~.r:=:':' i' a; '~; . The foregoing conditions were recited at the meating and were found to be a necessary preraquisite to the use of the property in order to preserve • the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On.ro U cail the.foregoing:resoluti.on.was.passed by_the_following vote: j r ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gaue. H3pgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Perry, ~ ~ Summers. ; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEM"~: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. , ELECTION OF _ Chairman Gauer opened nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman of the OFFICER Anaheim Planning Commission. ~ Commissioner Perry offered the nomination of Commissioner Robert W. Mungall to serve as Vice-Chairman of the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Pabley and carried. Commissiorer Allred offered a motion that the nomina- -' g tlons be closed, secondad by Commissioner Summers and carried. F ~' •. On roll call ttie foragoing motion electing Commissioner Robert W. Mungall to the position of Vice-Chairman of the Anaheim Planning Commission was approved by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Perry, Summers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. REPOP.TS AND - Item No. l: Review: RECLASSIFICATION N0. 61-62-8: RECOhiMENDATIONS ~ Assistant City Attorney Joe Geislar presented a prepared resolution and tnformed the Commission tliat the City Attorney's Office had prepared the - rosolution amending Resolution No. 27, Series 1951-62, which raco;nmended the approvat of Pet+tion for Reclasstfication No. 61-62-8. !{e In.ficated . r~ that the legal description on the original resolution was not considared ` sufficient by the City Attorney's Office and that the prepared resolution ~ would adequately cover said legafl description. Commissioner Summars offered Resolution No. 173, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to amand Resolution No. 27, Series 1961-62. ~ On roll call the foragoing resolution was adopted by the following vote:, k AYES: COMMISSIONERS:~ Allred, Gau~r, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Perry, s t; Summars. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ~'. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall. ~ ~y '_.' ..~'. ~ . ~ . . . .. ~ , ----... ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1961, Continued: CORRESPONDENCE - Item No. 1: Review: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 163: t ; ~ 596 Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler informed the Commission that a request ~ had been received from the John B. Kilroy Company that all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 163 be terminated, because another location had been selected for the intended use. Commissianer Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Summers and carried, that Petition for Conditional Use Permit Ne. 163 be terminated I in accordance with the request submitted by the present-ov~mer of the sub- ject property. Item No. 2: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4884: A notice received from the Orange Gounty Planning Commission relative to ; Use Variance Permit No. 4884 was submitted to the Commission. It was noted that the subject property is located on the east side of Berry Avenue , approximately 260 feet north of Katella Avenue, north of Garden Grove. SubJect property is presently being utilized by a single family dwelling and the petitioner requests permission to construct an additionai single family dwelling with attached gerage in the R-1 Single Family District. The Commission reviewed the notice and it was noted that the subject pro- perty was outside the sphere of influence of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by CommissionerSwnmers ancl carried, that the Planning Commission Secretary transmit notice to the Orange County Planning Commission acknowledging receipt of the subject notice and indicating that the subject property is outside the sphere of (nfiluence of the City of Anaheim. Item No. 3: ORANGE COUNTY CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0. 983: A notice received from the Orange County Planning Commission, relative to Conditic~nal Use Permit No. 983, was submitted to the ~ommission., It was notad ttrat the subject proparty is iucated approxlmately 900 feet north of Lincotn Avenue at a point of approximately 1600 feet west of the A. T. b S. F. Railroad west of Olive, and imma~'iately east of the Santa Ana River. Petitioner requests permission to enlarge an existing earth, sand and gravel axcavation sita. The Commission revieweclthe notice and it was noted that the subject pro- perty was outside the sphere of influence of the City of /~naheim. Commissioner Marcoux offered ~, motion, seconded by CommissEoner 5umners and carried, that the Planning Commission Secretary transmit notice to the Orange County Planning Commission acknowledging receipt of the subject notice and indicating that the subject property is outside the sphere af dnfluence of the City o` Anaheim. , Item No. 4: BUENA PARK ZONE CHANGE N0. Z-203: A notice received from the Buena Park Planning Commission, relative to Zone Chanye No. Z-203, Was submitted to the Commission. It was noted that the petition for reclassification of properties on the north side of Or~nga- thorpe Avenue east of Dala Avenue was for reclassification to the R-2 and C-2 zones. SubJect proper:y is.physically separatad from the present City Limits of tha City of Anahaim by the Riverside Freeway. 7he Commission reviewed the notice and it was noted that the subJect pro- perty was outside the sphere of influence of the City of Anaheim. ' - - -- - , -----~--T , . . ~"~"~ ~.~ ,---._ .., ~ <: ,"!~ , ..,... ,; .~.-. : ~. ~ ~ ~. " . J ~, ~~ F~ , ~ ~"..~.` . . ~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING "s`~ CORRESPONDENCE - Con T (Continued) anc ~` - Ore r' . ~101 E . j' i ni REPORTS AND - Ite RECOMMENDATIONS Ac act sec of It fut por pos As: Co~ ifi 3 nc wit Con i ts Pet the anc the Ri~ thc Str in< mer p rc sai Con hol prc USE On AYE NOf AB: I tE Ar cor or It spe no~ th~ tic f3f1 ` ;F;' ,. :. ~ ,,t x t yy`«F~r~ ~ yY . ' 3 ~:~~..~.:1.r. ,~ s,. . ~ . - k~ , . . ~ . . ~~ ,~'I ~ , . . _ ~ ~ i . . . . ~ ~'r.. . ~. ~ .. . • . .~. ~~ ' ~~. ; ~ . ~ . ~. . . ~ . ~.-.: ~ :_.,.., ...... ~ ~. ~ ...~ a. ,...;: .~..~' _~ ~~. _ ~ ~_- -~. ~ e ---_-_-_~ ; ~ : i . ; 598 ~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 11. 1961 Continued: REPORTS AND - The Commission indicated that definite,findings and the specific conditions RECOMMENDATIONS will be recited for the petitioner's benefit at the time each petition is ~,. (Continued) heard before the Commission. ' • ~' ; .. ADJOURNMENT - At 6:00 0'Clock P.M. Chairman Gauer directed that the meeting be adjourned i until Monday, December 18, 1961 at 2:00 0'Clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~ ~ PAGE, Secretary ~ . ---, ,---- r ~ ._ + . ~. . ,. . . .. . .« i. ._~.... {? .~+:'~.~_a 7l~° i;fF,~°,._ ~~~.. ,. __ .. . ., ~._..._._