The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1962/01/22. ~.1 ~ . `~ - City Hall Anaheim, C~lifornia January 22, 1962 ~, ~; : .: . C. . . F, pY..r~.•~•.f ,.- REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI-: COMMISSION REGG~~~~ MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City-P':unning Commission was 9alled to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum bein oresent. PRESENT ABSENT PRESENT INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEG_IANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES _ ~Hp~qMqN: Ga~er; COMMISSIONERS - COMMISSIONERS: Summers. pll.red, Hap9ood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pabley, and Pcrry. - Senior Planner - Martin Kreidt Assistant City Attorney- Joe Geisler Secretary Pro Tem - Shirley Taylor - Rev erend James C. Dixon, Pastor, Central Church of Christ, gave the Invocation. - Commissioner Marcoux lad the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. - The minutes of Decamber 27, 1961, were approved as submitted. 'fhe minutes of January 8, 1962, were approved as submitted with the TOI~BWiiiy correction on page 641: Reclassification No. 61-62-53: Condition No. 7-"Dedication of access rights co the s~u~ and ef Oak Street and Chestnut Street and the alley connecting said streets in order to prohibit access to Oak and Chestnut Streets and the alley connecting said streets." RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition sCaliforniay OwnersM VandruffEONA Ne_ 61-62-59 GREG~R, 605 Pandora Street, Anaheim, ent; Developments, Inc., 2973 West Rome Avenue, a~cel'S33Cfeet~by'640Afeet requesting that property described as: A p with a frontage of 533 feet located on the west side oF Sunkist Street between Lincoln Avenue and South Street; its northeast corner being approximatety 255 feet more or less south of the southwes~ corner of RESIDENTIALnAGRICULTURALStZONEeto~the Re3,aMUlTIPLEfFAMILYeRESADENTIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was filed in conJunction with Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 189 and has been continued fran the Meeting of January $, 1962, at the request of the petitioner's agent in order that revised plans for a more suitable developmenY of the subject property could be subm'stted. Mr. Norman Smettegard, Attorney for Va~druff Homes, appeared before the Commission and steted that the abutting property to the north of subject property hac+ ca~$ntZY sold for over S35,000 per acre, and,therefore, that said property can only be developed economicaiiy for apartments or commercial establishments. If subject property is not developed under the proposed plan at this time, with single story high quality muttiple units, the land wi11 continue to increase in value andin the future a request for development would economicaily hare to be ma~fortwo-story apr,rui~ents or a commercial deeet Pmsnthe Mr. Smettegard noteusedefor~atgrainumillfandbthetstora9e of heavy Reynolds property, equipment. Traffic would not be increased to a great extentr~tht would for two-story or commercial development. Due to the g of the City, he felt that tha proposed apartments would fulffll a need and be an asset to tha Community. Mr. Vandruff, thesuch asPMontereyePinestalongrSunkisti5treet,beauti- ful landscaping, 663 , ~ ~ ~ . _ .. . ". ~ . '. .. :. .. ~ : '. '::.~ ... , .. :.~.. .~... ~ ..., .'. ' . .: . . . ..., . ~. .'.,. 1 ' .. , , . ' .~ ..:!:.. ..._... ~ •. ~ ..~ ~ ~! .. .- . ~ .. - . . . . . ~ ~ .. ... , .. . .. . ~ ~. ....`.~ .. _. , .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . 664 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION..Januarv 22, 1962, Continued RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Pebley inquired whether tha people who were in N0. 61-62-59 opposition to the proposed reclassification had seen the plans. ,~Continued) Mr. Vandruff stated that although the plans had been on file in the Planning Department, he did not believe those opposed to the development had reviawed them. ~ Plans were displayed and explained by the petitioner. Richard Scarnechia, 2509 Westport Drive, appeared before the Canmission and read a petition of protest containing approximately 271 signatures. He also read a letter from Vandruff Homes sent to property owners in the area. Mr. Scarnechia pointed out that er;en though the proposed apartments would rent for $140.00 or more ~~er month, still this would be a transient neiahborhood, and not eonsistent with the existing R-1 development. li•° also felt that present shopping centers in the area were not suffi;:?ent for this type of development. I- . ~ Edward Gavin, 2502 Virginia Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that Sunkist School was already on a half-day schedule for most grades, and more children coming into the area would place ~ ~ still a larger burden on the school. He felt that the home owners would be paying the taxes for the schoats. Commissioner Marcoux felt that there would be more children ir the subject property were developed R-1 than if it was R-3• James Witzel, 2822 Virginia Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he had moved to the east side of the City to get away from objectionable apartment neighborhoods, and was in opposition to any type of multiple family development in the area. Ronald Housman, 2816 Puritan Place, appeared before the Commission '~ ~ and stated that people living in the area intended to rorm a home- ~ owners' association. He stated that homes south of sub,ject property , were in the $25,000 to $30,000 bracket, ard felt that more traffic would be brought into the already extremely busy intersection of Lincoln and Sunkist. ' Jack Paulis, 2527 Westport Drive, stated tha~t the property north of subject property had not sold for over $35,000 per acre and ~that drainage in the district is to the south and not to the west. Fred Sorsabal, 2503 East Westport Drive, appeared before the Commis- sion and stated that a wall surrounding subject property would make it difficult to drain subject property to the west, that the dis- ~ . position of the present stub end of Westport Drive to the west should apparently be considered, and that at some time in the future, the heavy equipmeat and gratn storage factiEties 1MOald be R~oved froin the site. In rebuttal, Mr. Smettegard stated that the development would not devaluate the area and that the drainage problem would be worked out ~ b;~ the City Engineers. ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Discussion was held by the Commission, and it was pointed out that there is an elementary and junior high school and park site,south of the subject property on Sunkist south of South Street, which probably will be daveloped within two years. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall and carried, that the pub)tc !?earing on Reclassif~cation No. 61-62-59 be re-opened and continued to February 5; and that subject reclassification be referred back to the Ptanning Staff (~) ~ ~ 665 MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januarv 22, 1962. Continued RECLASSIFICATION - for a Precise Plan Study on the area south of Lincoln Avenue and N0. 61-62-59 west of Sunkist Street, to be presented to the Planning Commission (Continued} so that it might better be determined what type of development should be allowed that would be best for the residents and for the City. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted.by ~lILLIAM T. and PERMIT N0. 189 LEONA GREGER, bU5 Pandora Street, Anaheim, California, Owners, Vandrutt Oevelopments, Inc., 2973 West Rome Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT on property described as: A parcel 533 feet by 640feet with a frontage of 533 feet located on the west side of Sunkist Street between Lincoln Avenue and South Street; its north- east corner being approximately 255 feet more or less south of the southwest corner of Lincol~ Avenue a~d Sunkist Street. Pro- perty presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition was filed in conjunction•with Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-59 and has been continued from the Meeting of January tt, 1962, at the request of the petitioner's age~t in order that revised plans for a more suitable development of the subject praperty could be submitted. Cammissiorer ~llred offered a motien, seconded by Cemmissioner Marcoux and carried, that public hearing on Conditional Use. Permit No. 189 be continued until February 5, 1962, in conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 61=62-59. PUBLIC HEARING - PRECISE PLAN STUDY 33-28-3 relative to 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. Subject Precise Plan Study was considered in conjunction with • Petitions for Reclassification No. 61-62-52 and Conditional Use Permit No. 184. John Rothman, 617 South Harbor Boulevard, Agent, appeared before th~; Commission and stated they would do whatever was possible to cooperate with the City and to conform to the Precise Plan. Martin Kreidt presented the Planning Staff's Precise Plan Study of both sides of Webster Street from Orange Avenue to Ball Road. In light of the existing development of the subject and abutting properties, the desires of the owners of subject properties, and the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the most equitable solution was dependant upon the maintenance of the R-A zoning with individual lot developments processed under Petitions for Conditional Use Permits for planned unit developments wherein a maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per 6,000 square feet be permitted. Those properties fronting Ball Road could apparently be developed, at best, for business and professional offices. Mr. Rothman requested that the hearing be continued for two weeks to give the petitioners time to study the Precise Plan Study and prepare plans accordingly to conform more closely with suggestions contained therein. Glen Benton, 2443 West Orange Avenue, appeared befqre the Commission and statad that he was not opposed to the proposed reclassification, and that he had made a physical layout of the area, using an aerial map and County Assessor's maps. He falt that R-I would be more compatible in the area than R-3, and displayed his layout showing how the praperty along Webster Street could be developed,with cul-de-sac streets off Webster, into single family homes. F@:'. 5g~ r'.-~ . . . 6 ~ , ~ ,, ; ~ ~, I I . I -~----r- ~ . , ,.. . ,.;: ~.~ • : : ... ~. _~ ~; ~ 666 MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 22 1962, Continued: PUBLIC HEARING - Commissioner Pebley asked Mr. Benton what he thought of the Planning ,~Continued) Staff's Precise Plan Study. Mr. Benton replied that he wasn't certain just how many homes could be placed on the lots under this plan. Mr. Kreidt clarified the maximum suggested density of one (1) dwell- ing unit per 6000 square feet and stated that these homes could be single family or possibly duplexes, under a planned unit develop- ment. Commissioner Pebley pointed out that on the particular lots in question the Precise Plan recommendations would allow approximately four houses per acre. Mr. Homer Kirk, 918 South Webster Street, appeared before the Commis- sion and stated that he had been offered more than $21,000 for his lot, number 4, the second lot back of those lots which face Ball Road. He felt that the properties facing Ball Road should be C-l, and stated that the City Council favors multiple dwellings between commercial and residential developments. Therefore, he asked whether he could petition for a higher density apartment development between the Ball Road properties and the Single Family Residential along Webster Street. Mr. Kreidt explained that this would have to be submitted as a plan of development under a Conditional Use Permit, and it would be recommended t~at it be limited to single story. The dwelling units on the subject property would have to represent no less than 6000 square feet of lot area if the Commission and Council appro~ied the recommended Precise Plan. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Perry and carried, that public hearings on Precise Plan Study No. 33-28-3, Reclassification No. 61-62-52~ and Conditional Use I'ermit No. 184 be continued until the meeting of February 5, 1962, in accordance with the request by the petitioner's agent. . RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HE/#RING. Petition submitted by CNUk~H OF JcSUS N0. 61-62-52 CHRIST, c/o Rev. James Heaps, 24~E8 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, and MICHAEL B. PAMSON, 12311 Morrie Lane, Anaheim, California, Owners; Rothman-Steen and Associates, 22~ South Claudina Street, Anaheim, Ca'lifornia, Agent; 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 east side of Webster Avenue, and further described as Lots 20 and 22 of Tract 796, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAi. AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Condi- tional Use Permit No. 184 and was continued from the meeting of ~ecembe~ 11, 1961, in order that it could be considered in con- junction with a Precise P1an Study for the development of subject property. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner pErry and carried, that public hearings o~ Precise Plan Study . No. 33-28-3, Reclassification No. 61-62-52 and Conditional Use Permit No. 184 be continued until the meeting of February 5, 1962~ in accordance with the request by the petitioner's agent. ~ONOITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEA~ING. Petition submitted by CHURCH OF JESUS PERMIT N0. 184 CHRIST, c/o Rev. James Heaps, 2448 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, and MICHAEL B. PAMSON, 12311 MorXie Lane, Anaheim, California, Owners; Rothman-Steen and Associates, 223 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to (1) CONSTRUCT A PIANNED UN17 OEVELOPMENT, WITH CARPORTS and (2) WAIVE YARD REQUIREMENTS on proparty described as: An "L" U ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 22, 1962, Continued: CONDITiONAL USE - shaped parcel with a frontage of 135 feet located on the south PERMIT N0. 184 side of Orange Avenue, and a frontage of 118 feet located on (Continued) the east side of Webster pvanue, and further described as Lots 20 and 22 of Tract 796• Proparty presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL'i!lRAL, 20NE. 667 Subject petitionwms filed i~ con}unction with Petition for Reclass(fication No. 61-62-52 and was continuad from the meeting of December 11, 1961, in order that tt could be considered in conjunction with a Precise Plan Study for the development of subject property. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Perry and carried, that public heari'ngs on Precise Plan Study No. 33-28-3, Reclassification No. 61-62-52 and Conditional Use Permit No. 184 be continued until the meeting of February 5, 1962, in accordance with the request by the petitioner's agent. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MASAMI S. and YUKIKO M. SECHI, N0. 61-62-72 147 South Magnolia Anaheim, California, Owners; Thomas J. McCarthy, 10391 Jennrich Avenue, Garden Grove, California, Agent,; requesting that property described as: A parcel 100 feet by 418 feet with a frontage of 100 feet located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and Broadway; its.northeast corner being approximately 495 feet south of the southwest cornar of Lincoln and Magnolia Avenues, and further described as 1~+7 South Magnolia Avenue be reclassifisd from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mrs. Elizabeth 'Carter, 2569 West Ba11.Road, Anaheim,Agent, appeared before the Commission and stated that altho~gh a few years ago population growth was concentrated in the western part of Anaheim, the trend has moved to the eastern part of the City in recent years. Many merchants in West Anaheim are barely making expenses; one market has changed hands threa times in one year, while a large chain market has been operating ~'in the red" for abouY three years, and is now beginning to pay. A new shopping canter is being developed on Magnolia Avenue, and it would appear that instead of more businesses and commercial uses, thera is.a need for more people to patronize those already in existenca. The proposed davelopmant is high quality and singie story. Robert Glad, 2651 Serrano Place, appeared before the Commis.sion, and,- after reviewing the plans, stated that he felt the plans were not objectionable. Mrs. Joan Bailey, 131 South Magnolia Avanue appeared before the Commission stating tbat there were approximately 60 apartment units going in across the streeE from her residence, and she felt people in the area did not want more, but that they would prafer commercial zoning. • Mrs. Laura Glad, 2651 Serrano Place, appearad before the Commission stating that she would like to see a plan made for this area, due to the amount of undeveloped land therein. She inquired as to whether or not the proposed street would extend to Stinson Street. Mr. Kreidt stated that a number of lay-outs ware worked out for the subject area, and all of them indicated R-3 development for the subject property and three parcels to tha north. He s'tated that the Preliminary General Plan also proposed R-3 development for the area in question. Mrs. Fiorence Franklin, 113 South Magnolia Avenue, appeared before the Commission and statad that sha was opposed to any davelopment ~ ' v . ~ v . . , ..~.~. .... . ... .. . . . i:j .~. .. . .. -'-. .!~ . . .:~ " t W . . . . . . :f . ~ ::ry %.~£~ ~ / ~ . ~ 668 MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 22 1962 Continued: . RECLASSIFICATION - which would bring more traffic into the area; traffic was already NQ. 61•6~-72 extremely heavy during thr ~•ush hours along Magnolia Avenue. (Continued} Mrs. Dorman, ?26 Agate Street, owner of property a: 111 South Magnolia Avenue, appeared before the Commission and expressed concern as to whether the granting of the subject request would interfere with possible rezoning of the two parcels south of the service station for commercial or business and professiona] use. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: l. Petitioner requests a reclassification of subject property •- fran the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Z~ne to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to permi: the establish- ment of an 18-unit single story multiple family residential development on subject property. 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is ne~essary and/or desirable for the'orilerly aad propar development of the community. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the' zones and their permitted usas generally established through- out the community. 4. That the proposed rec~assification of cubject property does require dedication for and standard improvementof abutting streets because said property does relate to and abut upon streetsand highways which are designed 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 two residents in the immediate area ef subject property appeared~ in opposition to subject•petition. ~ Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 204, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommand to the City Council that Petition for keclass- ification No. 61-62-72 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1. 2. Installation of a six ,(6) foot masonry wall along the north, west, and south boundaries of subject property prior'to Final Building Inspection. 3. Dedicatien of fifty-three (53) feet from the monumented center- line of Magnolia Avenue (30 feet existing). 4. preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improvements far Magnolia Avenue, subJect to the approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in ihe Office of the City Enginaer. 5• Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes ~ I on Magnolia Avenue. ~ 6. Payment of a Park and Recreatien Fee of $25T00 per dwelling ~ unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit. ;' ~ ~I. ' I i ~ ~- ---- - - - -; --.-~~ , ~_-_- .- . --,----~--~-. . __ ~. 669 hiNUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 22, 1962, Continued: RECLASSIFICATION - 7. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Depart- N0. 61-62-72 ment of Public Works, Sanitation Oivision, which are adequately _ (Continued) enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection. 8. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos. 3,.4 and 5. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley and Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. CONDIU ONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HFJlRING. Petition s~bmitted by W. C. HIGDON, PERMIT N0. 187 20640 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, California, Ownar, William A. Veach, 9554 Cedar Avenue, Bellflower, California, Lessee; re- questing permission to ESTABLISFI A HELIPORT on property described as: A parcel 125 feet by 410 feee with a frontage of 125 feet located on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Lincoin Avenue and the nr,rth city limits; its southeast corner being approximately 620 feet north of the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach ~ Boulevard, and further described as 315 North Beach Boulevard. Property presentiy classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. • Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 27, 1961, in order that the property owners of the southern tier of lots located in Tract No. 2443 be notified of the proposed use of subject property. No one appeared for or against the proposed Conditional Use Permit. p petition of opposition containing 57 sig~atures was submitted to the Commission. Letters from Mr. Lynch and from City of Buena Park were read opposing the petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and daterminad the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the proposed usa is properly one for which a Conditional Use PermSt is authorized by this Code, to wit: A heliport. 2. That the proposed use will adversely affer.,t the adJoining land us.es and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not c'etrimental to tha particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of tha citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4. That the granting of tha Conditional Use Pernit would ba detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of tha City of Anaheim. 5• That a Setter from the City of Buena.Park~ a letter from a property owner in the area, and a petition containing 57 signatures ~ we~ submEtted in opposition to subJect petition. Commissioner Peblay offered Resolutlon No. 205, Serias 1961-62, ~'"'.•~`~{:'F, and moved for its passaga a~~~ adaptian, seconded by Commissioner ,.. P. ~ ~ .~..~. (~ ~ ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 22, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USE - Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 187 on PERMIT N0. 187 the basis of the aforementioned findings. (Continued) • On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following Alired, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, and Perry. None Summers. •RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by NITZ AND MUELLER, N0. 61-62-64 a partnership, 918 West Center Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that pr~perty described as: A parcel 56 feet by 110 feet with a frontage of 56 feet located on the westerly side of Harbor Boulevard between Water and South Streets; its northeasterly corner being approximately 273 feet south of the southwesterly corner of Harbor Boulevard and Water Street, and further described as 625 South Harbor Boulevard be reclassified from the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIUENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, (Business and Professional use only), ZONE. Subject reclassification was continued from the meeting of January $, 1962, pending disposition by City Council of a request for reclassification of other properties in the subject area, and in order to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to submit front elevation plaris indicating the proposed appearance of the existing residence on subject property. Melvin Nitz, 625 South Harbor, applicant, appeared before the Commission and stated that if there were any questions he would be glad to answer them. p petition was submitted containing 25 names, requesting that this application be considered in conjunction with Precise Plan Study No. 30-73-2. Council Mintues regarding Resoluiions 62-R-32 and 62R-33, pages 5394 and 5395 were read at this time. Mrs. Howard Sauer, 618-622 South Pine Street, appeared before the Commission and stated she was not opposed to the reclassification. However, she understood that the developers would install cement filled posts along her fence~ for protection of their wooden fence~ which is sei ~n on the property sufficiently to allow roan for the cement fiiled posts. E. J. Cook, 724 South Pine Street, appeared berore the Commission and stated he felt that widening of the alley might be difficult if established businesses refused to dedicate property. Attorney Joe Geisler stated that most of the property owners were in attendance at the City Council meeting of January 16, 1962, and indicated that thay would be in favor of dadicating to facilitate service to their establishments.. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred rafarred to Reclassification No. 60-61-37 to the north of subJect property and asked if conditions now under consideration could be applied to that Reclassification. Attorney Geisler replied that it would be difficult to apply thesp , ~; _ , , ~; ~ Q MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 22, 1962, Continued: 671 RECLASSIFICATION - conditions to an older reclassification at this time. However, N0. 61-62-64 commercial standards of construction would be enforced if the SContinued) Building Permit has not been issued. 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-1, One Family Residential, Zone to the C-l, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone limited to business and professional office use only. 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary or desira':~le and/ or desirable for the orderiy and proper of the community. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses tocally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established through- out the community. 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets beca~se 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. ;~ 9~'.`;>;:: = Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 206, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall to recommend to the City Counci! that Petition for Reclass- ification No. 61-62-64 be approved subject to the following conditions: l. Removal of existing residential structures or development to commercial standards of the existing buiidings, and in either case, final building plans, including elevation plans, to be submitted to the City Council for approval. 2. Installation of a minimum six (6) foot wide landscaped strip abutting the front property lines of subject property, plans for said landscaping to be submittad to and subject to the approval of tha Superintandent of Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping to be installed prior to Final Building Inspection. 3• Posting of a two-year bond to insure the installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall,along,the southerly boundar,y..17~e of subject pro- ,perty where~subject property abuts property'classified~in the R-l, One Family Residential, Zone. 4. Maintenance of a fifty (50) foot building setback from the w~sterly ~oundary of the alley for any two-story construction on subject property and, further~~that'ao'windows. .. shall be installed at the rear of the second story of said two-story structures. 5. Limitation that any signs, other than unlighted signs having a maximum area of eight (8) square feet, shall be submitted to the City Council for approval. 6. Recordation of deed restrictions by the owners of subject ~ ~~ ~ f~ ~~ i~11NUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 22, 1962, Continued: 672 RECLASSIFICATION - property limiting the use of said property to business N0. 61-62-64 and professional offices only. (Continued) 7. Provision of off-street parking facilities in accordance with Code requiremants prior to Final Building Inspection. 8. Dedication of forty-five (45) feet from the monumented centerline of Harbor Boulevard. (34,75 feet existing). 9. Prohibition of the use of any residential structure for commercial or combined residential and canmercial use unless remodeled to commerciai standards. 10. Dedication of seven (7) feet at the rear of subject property for alley widening and fbr the establishment of one-way traffic temporarily,,, until such time as all dedication along the alley has been rec~ivAd. 11. Dedication ~tc the City of Anaheim of a11 vehi~ular access rights from subject property to Harbor Boulevard. 12. Improvement of the alley to commercial standards as required by the City or the posting of cash orsecurity deposit on a;.ash face value in the amount requirsd for said improvements, prior to Final Building Inspection. 13. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment of ltem Nos. 3, 8, 10, and 11. 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 Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrad, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley and Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. • RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by SILAS W. LEHMER, N0. 61-62-67 1554 Cris Avenue, Anaheim, C..lifornia, Owner; Rothman-Steen and pssociates, 223 South Claudina, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: A parcel 48~ feet by 1,285 feet with a frontage of 480 feet located on.the north side of Katella Avenue between Dallas Drive and Nutwood Street; its southwest corner being approximately 186 feet east of the north- east corner of Dallas Drive and Katella Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULT~RAL, ZONE to the R-I, ONE FAMILY RESSDENTIAL, ZONE. . Subjuct petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 193, and has been continued from the Meeting of January 8, 1962, at the request of. the petitioner's agent. A letter from the petitioner was presented, requesting thatthe subject petition and Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 193 be postponed until the Meeting of February 19, 19b2, in order that their presentatton might be preparad. No one appeared before the Commission in respect to subject petition. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and carried, that public hearing on Reclassification No. 61-62-67 and Conditional,.Use Permit No. 193 be continued until the meeting of February 19, 19b2, that notices be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of subJect property, and that .__- --, • • ~ _----------.__ __ ._...._~__..._~~._ ~ --- ---- . ..._._ • , -------••~ ,..,. ,,,.; ,, t ... ; , ~'. ,..,, ,; .... ______..,.. ~ ~ ~ ! ~_~ b73 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januarv 22, 1962, Continued: RECLASSIFICATION - a lette~ be sent to the petitioner requesting th~t he confer with N0. 61-62-67 Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler relative to the requirements (Continued) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by SILAS W. L'EHMER, PERMIT N0. 193 1554 Cris Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner;.Rothman-Stee~ and Associates, 223 South Claudina, Anaheim, California, Agents; re- questing permission to CONSTRUCT ONE-FAM9LY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL . DEVELOPMENT on property described as: A parcel 480 feet by 1,285 feet v~ith a frontage of 480 feet located on the north side of Katella Auenue between Dalias Orive and Nutwood Street; its south- west corner being approximately 186 feet east of the northeast corner of Dallas Drive and Katella Avenue. Property presently classified in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-67, and has been continued from the Meeting of January 8, 1962, at the request of the petitioner's agent. R, letter from the petitioner was presented, requesti~g that sub- ject petition and Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-67 be postponed until the Meeting of February 19, 1962, in order that their presentation might be prepared. No one appeared before the Commission in respect to subject petition. Commissioner pllred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley and carried, that public hearing on Reclassification No. 61-62-67 and Conditional Use Permit No. 193 be continued until the meeting of February 19, 1962, and that notices be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of subject property, and that a letter be sent to the petitioner requesting that he confer with Assistant City Attorney Joe.Geisler relative to the requiremenYs of the Anaheim Municipal Code. E = RECESS - Chairman Gauer declared a recess at 4:30 0'Clock P.M. ~ ~ AFTER RECESS - Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting at 4:40 0!Clock P.M. ~ ~ i ~ VARIANCE N0. 1440- PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by ROBERT H. MILES, P. 0. Box ~ ~ 587, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to PERMIT EXISTING SIX FOOT WALL IN FRONT YAP,D AREA on property described . ~ as: A parcel 50 feet by 110 feet with a frontage of 50 feet located ~ on the west side of Citron Street between Broadway and Santa Ana ~ Streets; its northeast corner being approximately 165 feet south of the southwest corner of Broadway and Citron Streets, and further ~ described as 315 South Citron Street. Property presently classified ~ in the R-2, Two Family Residential, 2one. ~. A letter from Robert Miles, patitioner, was read requesting post- ~ ponement of subJect petition until the Meeting of February 5, 1962, f due to iiiness. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall and carried, that Variance No. 1440 be postponed until the meeting of February 5, 1962, in accordance with the petitioner's request. VARIANCE N0. 1441- PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by GILBERT J. NOGUERA, 1039 ' Ifermosa Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; Littlejohn Enterprises, ; 51E West Chapman, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission ~ , to WAIVE MINIMUM REAR YAP.O SETBACK REQUIREMENT on property described , as: A parcel 64 feet ~y 104 feet with a frontage of 64 feet located on the west side of Hermosa Drlve between La Palma Avenue and Claredge Orive; its northeast corner betng approximately 375 feet ° south of the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Hermosa Drive, - and further described as 1039 Harmosa Drive. Property presently j classified in the R-l, One Family Residential, Zone. f. - ~ ... ~. ,' ~ _,> ,.. . _._ _~~.~_ _____ , , .. . , ... ° ~ . , -: . ,. .----- , ., , , , , ,: . ~ . .. _ . . . _ . .. . . .._ _.. . . ..^ Q ~ ~ , ~ _ MINUTES CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION JanuarY 22. 1962, Continued: VARIANCE N0. 1441- The applicant was present. (Continued) No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 674 The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner requests a Variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.24.030 (3) Which requires for subject property a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard, to permit the encroachment of thirteen (13) feet in order to construct an addition to an existing single family residenca. 2. That there are exceptional or extraord3nary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not aFply 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 ay other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question. 4, That the damaged si3ewaik an aubject property is caused by an existing tree which should be checked by the.Parkway Maintenance Superintendent and removed if necessary. If the tree is re- moved, the damaged sidewalk will be replaced jointly by the City and the property owner. 5, T~at no one appeared in'o~sposition to subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 207, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by ~ommissioner pllred, t~ grant Petition for Variance No. 1441, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. ~ 2. Removal of *_!:~ existing shed and debris located in the existing rear yard of subject property. The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were . found to be a necessary prerequisita to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. I On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed~by the following vote: ' RYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, and Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. VARIANCE N0. 1442- PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MILDREO M. HAMMERMAN, 4755 Robertson Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; David S. Collins, 1077 West Ball Road,'Anaheim, California, ~ Agent; requesting permissision to PERMIT ASSEMBLING S LIGHT MANUFACTURING IN AN EXISTING BUILDING on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel with a frontage of 90 feet located .on_the east sida of Los.Angeles Street between Adele and Cypress Streets and extending easterly to Claudina Street; its northwest _ corner being approximately 132 feet south of the southeast corrier ~~ ~ ' ' > ; : i ~;a. ;_.--,.!_- - _. .. . . . . .. . ...'. d " _ " ~ 4 ~ . , w . . . , . _ .: . . ~ . ; . - :;. ~.,. ~.: , ~ ._:~. . ...~:. ,. . ~_. .. . ... .,r' ,. ~, ... - . . . . . . . - ~~ ~ . - . ~ . . . ,~ ?` . . . . , . ' . . . ..I •~,4~ , . . . . , . . . . ~.e± . . . ~,~~ . ., . . ... . .: :. . :.. . . ;~.., ~.. . . -: .... ... ..,.'. :..,j~ ~~ ~ ~! MINUTES„CITY PLANN(NG COMMISSION January 22 1962 Continued: 675 1lAR0ANCE N0. 1442- ~Continued) of Adele and Los Angeles Streets, and further described as 312 North L os Angeles Street. Property presently classified in the C-2, General Commercial, Zone. David S. Coliins, lOJ7 West Ball Road, Agent, appeared before the ' , ; Gommission. ' Commissioner Pebley asked what type of manufacturing would be done on subject property. Mr. Colltns replied the manufacturing would be electronic sub-assembly work, and the front part of the property ~ will not be utilized. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 7he Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition; 1. That the petitioner requests a Variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code: Section 18.44.010 which stipulates permitted uses in the C-2, General Commercial, Zone, to permit the use of an existing building on the subject property for light manufacturing and sub-contracting activities including e,ectronic assembly, metal working, and packaging anc~ allied fields, using the elderly and physically handicapped as employees. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditians applicable to the property involved or to the ~ intended use of the property that do not apply generally to property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 3• That the requested variance ~s necessary for the preservation ' and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by ~, other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the F' ~ ~ propertyin question. itwu;:, ~-~t. u 4. That the requested variance wi11 not be mate~ially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve- ments in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 5• That no one appeared in opposition to subJect petition. Commissionar Marcoux offA~ed Resolution No. 208, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1442, subject to the following conditions: 1. Uevelopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. l. 2. Prohibition of any use resulting in the omission of odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise or any obnoxious or offensive physical characteristics. 3• Repair of sidewalks and curbs on Claudina Street in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file tn the Office of the City Engineer. 4. Removal of trees on Claudina Street if it is determined to be necessary by the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. 5• Remova~ and re-construction of the sub-standard and haaardous driveways on Claudina Street in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street ltghting purp.osas on Claudina Street. ~ ' ; . .,, ~ : . . . . ' ~ ' . . ~ ~ i ~:~ o Y„ ~~ . :jy ~~,' ' ~i~ ~ r ~. ~ 676 MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 22 1962, Continued: VARIANCE N0. 1442- 7. Time limita•tion of ona hundred eighty (180) days for the ,~Continued) accomplishment of Item Nos. 3~ 4, 5 and 6. 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 Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, ~auer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, and Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. pBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC F{EARING. Petition submitted by the ANAHEIM CHRISTIAN REFORMED PERMIT N0. !94 CHURCH, 530 North Dale Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; William Camping, 6382 San Lorenzo Drive, Buena Park, California, Agent; ~ requesting permission to CONSTRUCT CHURCH AUDITORIUM AND SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASSES on property described as: A parcel 270 feet by 39~ feet with•a frontage of 270 feet on Crescent Avenue and iocated on the southeast corner of Crescent and Dale Arenues, and further described as 530 North Oale Avenue. Property presently classified in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone. p letter from the City of Buena Park in opposition to the granting of the subject petition was read. Mr. William Camping, 6382 San Lorenzo Jrive, Buena Park, Agent, was present. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commis;;ian found and determined the foiiowing facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Code; to wit: Expansion of existing church and sunday school facilities. 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development•of the area in which it is proposed to be located. 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to aliow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the oeace; health, safety and the general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4. That the traffic generated by the propased use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and im- proved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. That the granting of~ the conditional use permit under the condi- tions imposed, if any, wili not be detrimentai to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. That no one appeared in opposition,to sub'ect petition, aithough a letter of.opposition wa~ t_iled agasnst su~,ject petition.• Co~missi~n€r Mu~~ali ff red Re~oP~~i~n ~1qto~i9~l1 6yr~omml~sionet an move or i pass~ag~ and a o o, Marcoux, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 19~, subject to the following conditions: ~ r ^r F . '`.;': r ',: ; , ;Y ' ~:a~ ~ ' ~ 677 ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 22 1962, Continued_: , ~ CONOITIONAL US~E - 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, ~~ PERMIT N0. 19~+ 2, 3~ 4~ 5, 6, and 7. (Continued) ~ 2. Installation of a minimum six (6) foot wi~de landscaped strip abutting the present street property line of subject property~ F, and adjacent to the proposed parking area, plans for said i ~ ~ landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, and said land- ~~ scaping to be installed prior to Final euilding Inspection. ~. ~ ! 3. Posting oT a t:~o-year bond to insure the instailation of a ~' six (6)foot masonry wall along the east boundary line of ~ ~ ,:.,. subject property. k~ 4. Improvement of parking area in uccordance with Code require- r ments and open air parking space dimension standards on fil~ f in the Planning Department. ~ 5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes ~ on Dale Avenue and Crescent Avenue. ~' ~ 6. Time limitation ~~ one hundred eighty (180) days for the ~ . accomplishment of Item No. 5• ; ~, The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were ,, found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property r. in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. L € On roll call tha ~c,regoing resolution was passed by :he following ~ vote: k F AYES: CQMMISSiONERS: Allred, (iauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, ~ • Pebley and Perry. ~- NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. ~ P CONDITIONAL USE - PUB U C HEARING. Petition submitted by SAM NAKAMURA, 2793 West ~ PERMIT N0. 195 Bail Roac}~Anaheim, Califo~rnia, Owner; W. D. Newman, 2316 Fairhill Drive, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permission to ~ ESTABLISH A DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT on property described as: A ;. parcel ~15 feet by 160 feet with a frontage of 115 feet on Ball Road .fod located on the northeast corner of Ball Road and ~ale s Street, and further described as 2793 West Ball Road. Property . presently classified in the R-A, Residential A9ricultural, Zone. ~ Dave Delano, 529 23rd Street, Manhattan Beach, Califorr.ia, ~ ~ representative for the lessee, appeared before the Commission and notad'that the proposed use would be a"Drive-Through", not a 1 "Drive-ln'Srestaurant, and that Jack-in-the-Box concessions do ~ ~ not operate on a franchise basis, but keep control of each establishment and are able to ma(ntain high standards. He added that there would be thirteen parking stalls provided, although ~ most of their business is done on a drive-through basis. Rex Nerison, 2775 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject patition, stating that the subJect ` property wa~ separated from his own by ona vacant lot, and he was not in favor of commercial uses encroaching upon a residential area. '` Wi11 Newman, 2316 .Fairhill Drive, Costa Mesa, Agent, appeared '~r's;'ta~~ before the Commission in favor of the granting of subject petition .r~,,t'.z~ c~, r~;~,; 7_ pointing out that Ehere was C-1 across the street and a nursery "~' in the s~me block near Mr. Nerison's property. ~ `~.~''~` i~;; I ~~.ti? ` ~ ,> y'~4" . ~ . . . , ~ .. - ~ - ~ ~. . . , . ~ . . . . . I f . . . ..,.. . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . , . ~ . ~~ ~ ,'k.'.. ...: . , .,.. .. ,. . . ~ .... . . ... _ . ~~""'~_ t~we`~ ~~::.. ~ .SCa1 ~ ~~;~' '}~.i~ : ..~.. S; ~ ~; d.r; {_ L ~ ~ i4±:}:ld`Srir."~z149~i „~- .. .-.--r-~+r ; .,. . _ ~ , . . ~' Q . 678 Q=" `- MlNUTES..CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION. Januarv 22, 1~62,.Continued: CON6ITIONAL USE - Mr. Nerison stated that the nursery was for wholesale only, PERMIT N0. 195 raising nursery stock on the premises, as permitted by the R-A (Continued) 2one. ' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. A discussion was held by the Commission, and a list was read of ~' parking facilities provided by similar establishments in com- , parison with Code requirements. I The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding : the subjact petition: c. ~ E:, ~~ .. ~ l. 7hat the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional • use permit is authorized by this Code; to wit: a drive- through restaurant. 2. That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining ' land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. 3• That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of.Anaheim. 4. That the propc,sed use would establish a precedent for development of other commercial facilities on properties abutting.to the east of subject property which would not compliment an established community facility, namaly,'the Dale Junior High Schoo~. ~ 5• That the subject and abutting properties to the north and the east, adjacent ~a the Dala Junior High School, would appear best sufted for multiple family residential development. 6. That o~ie owner of property in the vicinity of subject,property appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 210, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and.adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Parmit No. 195 on the basis of the aforementioned findings. On roll call tha foregoing resolution was passed by.the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Aiired, Gauer, Hapgood,Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley and Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by C. G. VAUGHAN, 4521 PERMIT k0. 196 Orrington Road, Corona del Mar, California, Owner; C. P. Walker, 2824 Carlaris Road, San Marino 9, Callifornia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SELF-SERVICE, COIN-OPER~1Tc0, DRY CLEANING AND PRESSING SERVICE on property described as: A parcel 100 feat by 220'•taet with a frontage of 100 feet located on the south side • of Katella Avenue between Casa Vista Street and Ninth Street; its northeast corner being approximately 2g0 feet west aF the southwest corner of Casa Vista Street~and Katella Avenue, and further described as 1196 West Kataila Avenuo. Property presently classified in the . C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one. ~%:,. +( -.,Sel'~~~~~~k~~{Ai~:,~~~,wu?~~„~~wn~ X~ .~tr'1"..~~~'/~;Y:V:i~~W.:kL.ut~i+i;: t " . . .':~ ~~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~. ~~ j{ / ~~ 1 V Tr~ _ r~-~,~ ~ ~ ; , . . . ., .-.,, .; -a. :,.~ .~_~.~- .. w. ~.~...a..__.::_... . ' '. , . - _,_ - ~ . .. ~ :. ~~.~ ~..W.~_ ~ , i: , _ ~~ ' ~ i ' • :~ . 679 ~ ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv aa, 1962, Continuad: ~ a CONDITIONAL USE - Albart Corey, of•A1 Corey s Sons, 1~+47 South Crascant Heights ~ • PERMIT N0. 196 Boulevard, Los ~r.3eles, Agent, ap~eared bafore the Commission ,~Continuad) explaining that two adJacant storas have been rented for coin- operatad laundries, although one aF them is proposed r.7 be used ~. ~ for coin-operated dry cleaninq. The dry cleaning r.~achine is ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ '. I ; [ ^. r. . ~ ~' ~ ~.. ~ ~~ ~~~' ~~ ~ stmilar to the domastic type washer and dryer, and has been converted to be used with synthetia solvent. This type machine has baen approved for usa in the County.and other parts of California, and has baen ~pproved by the State Fire Marshall's Office. Flammable solvents are not used, and California law _ ~:ipulatas that a licensed operator must be in attendance at all times with this type of machine. THE HEAR I NG 'r11.5 CLOSED. The Cc+mmission found and determined the following facts regarding the subJect petitian: • I. That the proposed USE,IS,PRO~ERLY ONE FOR-NHICH A.CONDITIONAL USE permit is authorized by this Code; to wit: a salf-service, coin-operated dry claaning and presstng servlce. 2. That the proposed use will not adversaly affact tha ad~oining lan~ uses and the growth and development of the area in which ~ it is proposed to be locatec~' 3." That the size and shape of :.`•.c site proposed for the use is adequate to allow tha full d~velopment of tFia prAposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welf?re of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4. That the trafflc generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden ~~~-on the streets anc highweys designed and im- proved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. That the granting of the conditional use pe~•miY unddr the condi- tions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to tha peace, - health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of ~lnaheim. ' 6. That•under Reclassification No. 60-61-94 a bond has been posted for the installation of streat improvements and tha fmprovemants are presently under construction. ]. T.HrT NO 0(JE APPEAREU,IN OP.POSITION TO SUB~IECT PETITION. Commissioner Allred offered Resolutl~n No. 2i1, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded 'oy Commissioner Marcoux, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No•. 196, - sub,ject to :he following canditions: 1. Devalopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit, Nos. l, 2 and 3• • 2. SubJect to the writtan approval of the Fire Chiaf of the Anaheim Fire 0epartmant. The foragoing conditions wera recited at tha meeting and were found to be a nacessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pr~sarva the safety and welfare of tha citizans of th~ City of Anaheim. , ' On roll call the foregoing resatution was passedby the fo11ow7ng vota: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A1,Irad, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, ` Pebley and Perry, • NaES: COMMISSI~NERr: Nona. ABSENT: COMMIS510N~RS: Summers. _, T-----~--~---•T~^--•-*~--~- ~a.::'i'Fi ~ a.i,:p• .::,.=.~ , ...,~'. ~. ~r~~~'. ~ . ,:~~', . ~ ° .,. li.R.f'I~I? 2~.'~~a.k~?; :.~....«-.. .. . il'i_~~ ~ .. ~ ~' (________~.. r,_. - ~~2\`S~. ,.fi'.iT~'. : . ~ ~ . . ~ 1 • . ~~. ~. . ~ ~i -i ~' 680 1~{INUT.ES. CITY PLANNiNG COMMiSSION. .lanuarv 22. 1962. Continued: CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by FRED C. IAW, 408 South . PERMIT N0. 197 Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, Cal~fornia, Owner; B 8 L Outdoor ` . Advertising, ~ William 0. Forbes, Jr. or Varnon F. Lynch, 327~ West'Mapi: Avenue, Monrovia, California, Agent; requesting per- mission to INSTALL AND MAINTAIN AN OUTDOOR AOVERTISING STRUCTURE on property described.as: An irregularly shaped parcel with a • frontage of 320 faet located on the east side of Beach Boulevard between Lincoln.and Orange Avenuas; its soutfiwast corner being approxlmately 535 feet north of thenortheast cornar of Beach . Boulevard and Qrange nvenue, and furthar dc+scribed as 408 South Beach Boulevard. Property presantly classified in the R-A, , Residential Agricultural, 2one. William D. Forbes, Jr., 327~ West Maple Avenue, Monrovia, California, Agent, appeared before•the Commission and stated the subject property was R-A, and the sign would be usad to advertiso subdivisions on Ora~ge and Valley View. The City of Cypress has no commercial facility for pgople moving into these homas and, therefore, the City of Anaheii~i would benefit from their proximity. • Assistant Gtty Attorney Joe Getsler stated the pottcy of the Clty of Anaheim, that ot granting no sign applications for advertising subdivisions outside the City Limits. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and daterminad the following facts regarding the sub,ject petition: l. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this•Code; to wit: a bi'llboard. 2. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions impo~ed, if any, will be detrimental to the p~aace, health, safety and general welfare of tha citizens of tt~e City of Ana~:gim. 3. That the proposad use for the advertisement of a subdivision located outside of the city limits of tha City of Anaheim is in violation of an:An~heim City Council policy as astablished on May 10, 1955• Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 212, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, saconded ty Commissioner Mungali,to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 197 on the basis of the aforementioned findings. On roll call the foregoing reso.lution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, 6auar, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungalt, Pebley, and Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ncne, ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. ~;,`; > CQNDII'IONAL USE - PUBLIC {1EARING. Petition submitted by W. C. HI&DON, 20640 Santa Ana PERMIT N0. 198 Canyon Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; B S.L Outdoor Advertisirtg, ~ Wm. D. Forbes, Jr. or Vernon F. Lynch, 327~ West Maple Avenue, Monrovia, California, Agant; requesting permissjon to 1N5TALL ANO MAINTAIN AN Ol-TDOOR ~i~'.-FRTISINC STRUCTURE on property described as: A parcel with a fr~~•f-• ~f 673 ¢eet on Beach Boulevard and an . average depth of „° : and locate2 on thg west side of Beach Boulevard bat:~ean •. •.~:ia~.Avenue and the Buena Park.City Limits; its southeast corne~ Ing apprc+ximately 625..feet north of tha northwest corner of 6..~ch 9oulevard and U ncoln Avenue, and further ~ ! . 1 ~ ~},:Y;t'^- 1y ~,,tt, „ .. ~ .~ x ~~~. l.,l.~..t..!~i......,..x...L~ . .... .. . .. . ..........__.._ _'..._.. ____''.~....._~i T ~ i ~ ~ ~ 681 ~ MINUTES..CITY PLANNING COMMISSIdN January 22 1962 Continued: ~ CONDITIOtJAI USE - described as 315-327 North Beach Boulevard. Property presently • PERMIT N0. 198 classified ~n the R-A, Residential Ag;i~ultural, Zone. •(Continued) Willlam D. Forbes, Jr., Agent, stated the proposed sign would also advertise subdivtsion on Orange and Valley View.. k, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: , 1. That the proposed use xs properl•y one for which a conditional ~ use permit is authorized by this Code; to wit: a billboard. . ~. 2. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will be detrinCntal to the peace, ~ health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. • 3. That the proposed use for the adve~tisement of a subdivision ~- located outside the city iimits of the Clty of Anaheim is in violation of an pnaheim City Council policy as establishad on ~ May 10, t955. . Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 213, Series 1961-62 , and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 198 on the basisof the aforementioned findings. On roll call the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote: ~. ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mu~gall, Pebley and Perr;. K NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Surtuners. . ~- RECLASSIFICATION . . - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by M. 0. and ESTHER C. WANGENSTEEN, ~ N0. 61-62-70 103 East Center Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; James F. Walker, ~ ~ 1311 South Los pngeles Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting K that property described as: An "L" shapad,parcel with a frontage of ~/ 58 feet loceted on the southerly side of Vermont Avenue between Lemon Street and Harbor Boulevard; its northeasterly corner being ~ approximately 490 feet west of the southwesterly_corner of Lemon ; Street and Vermont Avenue, and further described as 310 West Vermont • ~ Avenua ba reclassified from the R-A, RESIOENTIAL AGRICULTUML, ZONE ~ ~ ~ to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. . SubJect petition is filed in con'unction with Pet6tion f r ~ o Variance ~' No. 1439• ' : Harry Snisely;, 730 West Katella, Agent, appeared before the Com- mission and stated tha plans had been shown to all but two of the property owners in the subject area, and there was presently a considerable amount of R-2 zoning in the area. Tha property was near heavy cortunercial and light manufacturing areas, and was an odd-shaped lot, not suit~ble for R-I developmant. Myrtle Clemmer, 3'4 West Vermont Avenue, appeared before the Com- mission stating she had no objection to anything the applicant proposes.in this application, except the wall along the west side of tha property. ~ '~~ s - _ THE HEARIHS WAS' CLOSED. ~. . ~ ~ ...~,~ ! ' . . ~.,.::~ . .. . .~-'.'~~ ~ ,~ , j , ~- ~ ~ : `_ _ ~" ~~ ~. ~ 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established through- out the community. 4. That the oroposed reclassificaEion of subject property does require dedication for and standard imp~ovemert of abutting streets because said property does relate to~and abut upon streets and highways which are designed 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 Rlan. MINUTES. C17Y PI./~NNING COMMISSION. Januarv 22, 1962, Continued_: RECLASSIFICATION - A discussion was held by the Commission, and it was noted that there N0. 61-62-70 was R-t zoning next door and across the street fran subject property. ` ' (Continued) • ~. . The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding ~. tha subject petition: 1. That the petitior.er proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. 2, That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and~or desirable for.the orderly and proper deveiopment of the communitye . ~. ;: 4 'r: .: ~ i ~ 1: E'~ :..:; i , ?.:4 ~~~_ .: V 5. That one (1) letter of support and three (3) letters of opposition were filed W1th'the Cominissi.on'relative'to' subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 214, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner pllred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclass;fication No. f1-62-70 be approved, subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. Payment of $2.00 per rront foot for street lighting purposes on Vermant Avenue. 2. Installation of sidew-.lks on Vermont Avenue in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 3. Repair of curbs ~nd gutters on Vermont Avenue in accordance with the adopted standard ~lans on file in the Offic3 of the ~City Engineer. 4. Payment of a Park and Recreatlon Fee cf.• $25.00 per dwelling unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit. ~ 5. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Dopart- ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, whicn are adaquate in size and accessible to trash-truck p' k-up and adequately enclosed by a, solid fence or wall prior Final Building Inspection. 6. Time limitation of one hUndred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos. l, 2, and 3. 7. Installation of a six foot masonry wall along all boundary lines of subject property~except the Vermont Avenua f;cntage and the eastern most boundary line of subJect property~,where said property abuts property classified in the R-3, Multiple Family.Rasidential, Zone prior to Final Building Inspection. . `''_ _'_"~_.• _ _~""~r. :._ _ . '._ . _ . __. . . _. . ~ ., .x. , .~ ~ _ _..~_..._. ~ i , , .. , ,, ~ _. ~: ~ ~ ~ ~. MINU7ES CITY PIANNING COMMISSION January 22, 1962, Continued: € '< • . ~ RECLASSiFICATION - 8• Provision of ten (10) by twenty (20) foot garages in accordance N0. 61-62-70 with Municipal Code requirements. (Continued] ~` ." 9. Development of subJect property in accordance with standard R-3 Code requirements. € ', j The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found ~' to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the propertyin order ~ ~ to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of - Anaheim. ~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following >~.~.. . - VOte: _ 'C'-=C" ~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marr„oux, Mungall, Pebley, and Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. ~ ~,~:. ~ ,, VARIANCE N0. 1439- PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by M.O. and ESTMER C. WANGENSTEEN, 103 East Center Street, Anaheim, California,Owners; James F. Walker, 1311 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to: 1) WAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, 2) WAlVE W~LL REQUIREMENT, 3) WAIVE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENT on property . described as: An "L" shaped parcel with a frontage of 5$ feet located on the southerly side of Vermont Avenue between Lemon Street and Harbor Boulevard; its nor.theasterly corner being approximately 490 feet west o` the southwesterly corner of Lemon Street and Vermont pvenue, and further described as 310 West Vermont Avenue. Property • . presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Pstition for Reclass- ification No. 61-62-70. Mr. Knisely, 730 West Katella, Agent, appeared before the Commission stating that all property owners within a 150-foot radius of subject property have agreed to two-story construction and the petitioner has agreed to stipulate to walls, except between the existing R-3 and the proposed development end along the southern bou~dary of subj~ect property. Mrs. Parryman, 210 West ~ermont, appeared before the Commission stating that in her opinion the front part of subject lot shouid be kept single-story to insure privacy for nearby homes. Mr. Knisely stated that only the property awner to the East might possibly lose some priiacy. THE HEARIPIG WA5 CLOSED. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.32.060 which~prohibits the cun- struction of two-story buildings on subject property, to permit sald constructicn; Section 18.32.C~'C which requires that the minimum liveable floor area of a one-bedroom apart- ment shall be not less than 700 square feet, to permit the construction of three (3) one-bedroom apartment units having a liveable floor area of 62$ square feet; and Section 18.3z•090 which requiresthat subJect property shall be separated from ' proparti~:, classified i-: ,he single family residential zune '~ a masonr; wbll, to permlt proposed devalopment without said wali construction. ~ .e: ` ` ~¢~w .P,V~'t(~'l y'Y~i`~ q.'~, c1..~~f. .~~~r~r.`A ~ ~~ ~~-.-.,'~ . .. $h~ ' , ' ~ ~,fV, . ' ~ ~ . ' . - ~ . . ~ . . P~ ...,'~'' . ~ . : . ' ~.:• r ' '. ....., ..-~.;. * . ~ . . . .. . ~'iY . (. _ . ~r~ . . ' . . . . ~~ . .. . . .. .,.. a~~.. . 684 ~-. MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON. Januarv 22. 1962, Continued: VARIANCE N0. 1439- 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances (Continued) or conditions aaplicable to the property involved or to the ~~ intended use of the property that do not apply generally to ~ . r: 9: _ the property or class of use in *_he same vicinity and zone. 3. That the requested y.riance is not necessary for the preserva- . tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property cwners in the same vicinity and zone~~and d~nied to the property in question. 4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the pubiic welfare or injurious to the property or improJements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 5. That the vacant property to the south classified in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone may develop for single family residential homes which would be made more difficult by the requested two-story construction. 6. That no hardship whatsoever has been indicated by the applicant to warrant .:~y approval of a substandard R-3 development. 7. That the rights of property owners in the vicinity of subject property would best be protected by the establishment of multiple family development in full conformance with all R-3 Code requirements. 8. That verbal and written opposition was recorded against sub3ect petition. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 215. Series 1961-62, and moved for its pessage and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Marcoux, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1439 on the basis of the afore- mentioned findings. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgaod, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley and Perry. NOES: COMM15510NERS: Nona. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Summers. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by JERRY A. and MINNIE L. •N0..61-62-71 CHAMBERLIN, 6110 Marita Street, Long Beach, California, Owners; Robert k~. MacfAahon, 403 California Bank Building, Anaheim, California, Agent; requasting that property described as: A parca1.180 .feet by 325 feet with a frontage of 180 feet on Orange Avenue and located on the southeast cornc+r of Orange Avenue and Knott Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, RE~'.~ENTlAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Robert W. McMahon, 403 California Bank Bui:dir:3, Agent, appeared before the Commission stating thaE there was commercial usage across the street from subject property and on the same side of tha street also, and he felt the proposed use would be in keeping with the development presently in existence. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. A discussion was held by the Commission. ~~ The Commission found and~determined the following facts regarding the subJect petition: Sa ~ ;7t~ . ..a. ~t ry dt r+/r. .:,~ ~' 3i.'_r~ : ~. ~ ~9 ;fy;" ~:-i , ~r~-.C ~r . ~ ~ ~ . . V ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ . _ , 685 MINUTES.:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. January 22, 1962,'Continued: RECLASSIFICATION -•1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above N0. 61-62-71 described property from the R-A, RESIOENT!fi~ AGRICULTURAL, ~Continued) 20NE to the C-l, NEtGHBORH00D COMMERCIAi., ZONE. 2. That the proposed reclassification of subJ~ct property is necessary and%or desirable~for the orderly and proper.development of the Communitye '- r •3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally } established in.clos~ proximity to su6Ject proper~ty and to the zones and their permittad uses generally established through- uut the community. ~ 4. That the proposed reclassification of su6ject property does require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting s.treets because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways whieh are designed 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 oppos.ition to sub3ect petition. ~ .. , ~ Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 216, Series 1561-62, and moved for its pessage and adoptien, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclass- ification No. 61-62-71 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1. 2. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall along tha east and south boundary lines of subject property prior to Final . Building fnspection. ~ 3. Installation of a minimum six (6) foot wida landscaped strip ~ abutting the planned highway right-of-way line of Knott Avenue ° on that portion of the property to be developed at the present ~ time, plans for said landscaping to ba submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, ~ and said landscaping to be installed prior to Final Building s' . Inspection. Further provided that at the time of the develop- ~: ment of the northerly half of subject property for any C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone use~the six (6) foot strip of 4 landscaping shall be installed along the highway rtght-of-way 6 lines of Orange Avern~a and Knott Avenue in accordance with ~~ the above procedure. And further provided that plans for the development of said northerly portion of subJect property ~hall ~e subJect to the approval of the Planning Commission. ~ ' ~ 4. Dedication of fifty-thrce (53) fePt from the monumented centerline of Knott Avenua (30 feet existing). 5. Dedication of forty-five (k5) feet from the monumented r.enter line of~Orange Avenue (15 faet existing). 6. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of al) improvements for Orange and Knott,Avenues; subJect to the approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on ftle in the Offica of the City Engineer. t:: 7. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes '% on Knott and Orange Avenues. .,c.k ~c, ~C~~ t~.-;, t r .~~4'' ~. . . ~ : : 6• F:~ .. .. ~ . . ~.~,.~ t4 YYF . . . ~ . . y . . . . . . : 3k~ . . ` ' .. •. .... _ ' . ~ ~. ~ _. , .... ._,,,... ' . . . . . . . . . rr,i 'S: - . ~~ ~ ~ . ~ 686 ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 22, 1962,.Continued: ~• ~ :',. RECLASSIFICATION - 8. Provision of trash storage areas_.as-.determin~d bp•the•Depart- ~ ~~' h0. 61-62-71 ment of Public Works, Sanitation Divlsion, which are adequately s. • (Continue~) enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection. ~. . _ . f'`. . 9. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the G. • ~~ accomplishment of Item Nos. 4, 5•, 6, and 7. ~. ~ ~ Theforegoing conditions ware recited at the meeting and were found ~: , to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order ~ M~ to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of ~ ~ Anaheim. 0~ roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the folla+ving vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley and Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMlSSIONERS: Summers. TENTATIVE MAP•OF - DEVELOPER: .ALVIN STITCH, 8622.Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills TRACT N0. 4538 California: ENGINEER: McDANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Tentative tract is located between Brea Canyon Freeway and Rio Vista Str~et and southerly of Lincoln Avenue, and contains 28 R-l, Residential Agricultural, lots. ~. ~' ~ i ~ ~.. Recommendations of the Interdepa~tmental Committee were read to the ~flmmission in addition to a recommendation for the estaElishment of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the west boundary line of subject tract. The Commission discussed with the devaloper the advantage of a six (6) foot masonry wall separating the freeway right-of-way from the proposed single family residences. It was noted that the main advantages to said wall co~structian wara to prov'sde a physicel buffer betwean the frePway traffic and the single family residences to more adequataly protect the residential integrity of thase lots upon completion of tha freeway by eliminating visibility and noise from thase homes in additi~n to providing a uniform appearance from tbe right-of-way of.the subdivision, Block wall construction would best insure this appearance by its great~r rasistance to weather and deterioration tha~ redwoodfences and the like. Mr, Jacobson. representative of Mc Daniel Bngineering Company appeared ~before the Commission and inquired about wali instailation recommen- dations. Commissioner Marcoux offerad a motion, seconded by Commissioner pllred and carried, that ientative Map of Tract No. 4538 be approved subject to the foilowing conditions: l. A~'Lot C",ane taot in width, shall be established along the east tract boundary within the limits of the proposed cul- de-sac. 2. A predetermined sale price shall be established for "Lots A, B and C" subject to appFoval of Finai Map. 3. "Lot C" shall be offered for dedication to the City of Anaheim. 4. Requirement that should the subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision ~hereof shali be aubinifted in tentative form for approval. 5. SubJect to the appraval of plot and building plans by the Planning and Building Departments. i ~ 6. Subject to the installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall ~ ~ ;".`4J : ~ ~ 687 MINUTES. CtTY PLANNiNG CBHMISS1pN. JanuarY 22, 1962, Continuad: ~ TENT~CTIVE MAP•OF - abutting along the wast boundary line of subJect tract where 7RAC7 N0. 4538 said tract abuts the proposed freeway righC-of-way. ~ (Continued) p Precise Plan was presentad to the Commission incorporating tha area covered by Tentative Map of Tract 4538 and abutting properties . to tha north, northeast ~nd east. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux and carried, recommanded that Precise Plan No. 37-123-1 indiceting a projected development from the sout;~west corner of the intersection of Rio Vista and Lincoln Avenue be submitted to the City Council for adoption. REPORTS .4ND - Item No. l: ORANGE COUNTY TRACT N0. 4523: RECOMMENDATIONS Subject tract,covaring 3•96 acres proposed for a subdivision of 16 R-1 Lots. Said tract is located south of Clearbrook Lane be-. tween Rosebay Street and Brookhur~~ Avenue. The Commission was informed that the County Planning Commission had not continued their consideration of said tract as per the request of the Pianning Department.. The ~ounty had approved said tract> therefore, no recommendations would be requirod from the pnaheim Planning Commission. Item No. 2: ORANGE COUNTY TRACT N0. 4553: • Subject tract, covering approximately 5•9 acres, is proposed for a subdivision into 24 R-1, Ane Family Residential, Lots, aRrl is located on tha east side of Gilbert between.Cerritos 1#venue and Chanticieer Road. The Commission discussed tha County secondary highway standards of eightv (SO) feet as opposed to the City standards of ninety (90) feet, in addition to the fact that Lot Nos. 22, 23 and 24 were proposed to front on thi~ particular secondary highway. Commissioner Alired offered a motion, seconded by Commissicner Hapgood and carried, that Oranga County Tract No. 4553 be racommended for approval subject to the following conditions: l. Dedication of forty-five (45) feet from the centerline of Gilbart Street for Lot Nos. l, 22, 23 and 24 in conformance with the Anaheim secondary highway standards. 2. That the tract be redesigned so as not to front homes on Gilbert Street. ~ The Anaheim Planning Commission wishes to emphasize to the Orange County Planning Commission that considarable difficulty in the use of single family homas fronting secondary, major, and primary highways has bean encountered by the Anaheim Planning Commission and, therofore, would very strongly urge the Orange County Planning Commission to require the redesign of subject tract so as to eliminate future problems of utilization of propoeod Lots 22, 23 and 24 for single family residantial piirposes . CORRESPONDENCE - Item No. 1: APPROUAL OF REVISED PLANS VARIANCE N0. 1148 % Revisad plans wera submitted to the Commission. It was noted Fhat a home had recently bean.constructad ebutting sub,ject proparty to tha east utilizing a'rock~roof, which was not in con- formance ~•~ith the existing development of Prudential Homes in the immbdiate area which we~e:constructed with aEdar shingle and shake roofs. , ' . ~ ..~~~i~h.? 4.~ Y-':.~..~ ~!.,_., n~..r~.!~~~Sr,.~,.l.,..{~i~~~.r ~.....:.~.~'{n~r~ MINUTE5, CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 22, 1962, Continued: CORRESPONDENCE - Item No. 1: APPROVAL OF REVIS~D PLANS VARIANC~i NU. 1148, Conti~~ued: (Continued) Commissioner Mungall offered a motior.,seconued by Commission~r Perry and carried, that revtsed plans for Var-iarce No. 114~ be ' approved with tt,•= stipulation that the roc`r must be of ~edar shingle or redwood shake construction. Item No. 2: L"eTTER FROM ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - PREC I SE PIAN H I GHW.1Y AL! GNri;;NT 61 ~37 BALL ROAD EXHIBIT "A" FROM EDE1~ W:.Y TO'TAFT AVENUE. The Commission discussed tne proposed alignmFint and a le*.ter of correspondence dated Decembar 12, 1961, i~am the City ~•igineer of the City of qnaheim to the Cou~~y Survay~~r and Raad ~cmmissionEr. Commissioner Perry offered a mot;on, seconded b~ f.~,mmissioner Pebley and carried, that a lett~:r of transmittal be sent to Orange County Planning Commission appro~ving the proposed street alignment with the following comm~nts: . l. The alignment as shown confarms to the circulation sleme~t of the General Plan adopted by the Anaheim City Gouncil. However, the aforemen:~oned plan specifies a width 106 feet. 2. Consideration should be given in the near future to the ultimate intersectio~ of Rio Vista Street(northerly) and Ball Road in order to provide a st.:~~dard intersection. ltem No. 3: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4913: it was noted that subject Use Variance would be neard before the Orange County Planning Commission on FPbruary '7, 1962, two days after the next Anaheim Planning Commission Meating at which time the northeast ind~:~trial area wou~d be under consideration. Commissioner Pebley offered a mo~ic,c:, saconded by Commissioner Marcoux and carrisd, that Os.ange County Use 1~a~'iance No. 4913 be continued until the ;•;eeting of February 5, 1962• Item No. 4: LETTER OF f:fiRRESPONDENCE FROM THE WHIRLPOOL Cf3n°ORATIG.J: A letter of correspondence from the Whirlpu:ti~ Cor~oration was read and discussed by the Plannin~ Commissioi~. Commissioner Hapgood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner pllred and carried, that the request of the~ corresponder~t be referred to the Planning Department Staff '~or study and repflrt. Item No. 5: OM,NGE COUMTY PIANNING COMM1SSi0N HEARiNG•ON PnOPOSE[= YORBA LINDA GENERAL PLAN: Notice of Public Hearing on this Plan was ~-ead to and discusssd by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissianer Pebley and carried, that the letter be ordared received and filed. Item No. 6: LBTTBR FROM SAVANNA SCHOOL DISTRICT: p letter from the Savanna School District relative to the planning of davelopments within tha'Savanna School District was read to and discussed by the Commission. ln connection with 5aid letter, the Commission raquastad preparation ~by the P]:anning DepArtim~nt' of a Pieci'se P1an Study; indicating tha ultimate development of the area abutting the aortli and south side,s of Baii Read from.Heach Sou2el~ard weate~rly to Snotb Avenue. 589 MINUTES, Ci?'! P' ~~,.~rir~~ ..OMMISSION Januarv ~t 1962, Continued: ~ ~ 1 G~it''.ESP6Nr•F~!t~= •~tem No. 7: STUDY OF BROOKHURST STREET. ~ Conxin:~,e!~_~. leport was made to the Commission relative to the request rf the City Council for 'the areparatio- of a precise plan stady on the west side covering the west side of Grookhurst b,2ween Broadway and OranSe. It was noted that the Counc~l requeste+l that ttie Planning ~ommission initiate p•roceedirgs for appropriate zoning of this entire study area. Item No. 8:, REPORT FROM CITY ~Ri!:INEFF,.Kr.~.v;RDIKu (.vi'~PLt?E ~ S I GNial i ZAT I ON OF ~~!~.~N GOULEV~+RD i-ivi~ Li Nt0! Pi ,~VENUE : ~ E ~ k ~ i r I ~. 'f',. ~. .,, ` : k E' ~ I ~ ~ t, The following report was read to the Coiam~ssion: ContacL was made initially with `he State r~lative to the provisior. of l~:ft turr~ cont,-ols at th?s ~ocition early in 1?60. At that t:ne the >tate ~'id not feel the conditions warrante.i sepa~'.ite control for S^ft turns. ~ontact was aga3n made in 1961• Aft~r further investigation the Oivision of Highways agr~ed tt~at n problem exists and t!~at modificr,tion would be made. It apoears that foilowing the u:sual proce~lure it will be completed sometime withir. the next four nr five month:~.~~ Commi.ssioner Allred of°ered a motion, seconded by Commissior.es Pebl~~y and carried, that ti~~ report be ;•eceived and fiied. Ite~~ro. 9: SlGNALIZATION OF EUGLaD A~'ENUE ANO R"'.NEYA DRIVE, Commissio~er Marcoux uf`ered a mor.ton, seconded by Commissioner Peblev and carried, ti~at 3 stuc!y cf the intersection of Euclid pvenue ~nd Romneya Drive ir. relaticn to possible need for a left hand turn signal be made by the Traffic Ergineer and that a reGuest fer such a st~~dy be directed to the Traffic Engineer for reFrort and`recommendati~n. ~tei,i No. 10: /lMENJMENT OF ORDINANCE N0. i518 - RECLA~S;FICA7fON N0. 59-~~-102 An excer~~i. of the ~~ity t:ouncil Minutes of December 26, 19b1, was read to t~~e Commissicn wherein the Council requested that the Pl~nnir,g Commission set for hearings possible amendmunt t~ G~dis~anca i~o.. 1518 wjth recent developments in the ar.e~ to which the petiLion pertains. The Commission ciir-:.ked t`~e ?.lanning Oepartment to readvertise said Reclass3ficatton for ~.~~ssible ~mendment tosa?d Ordinance for pu~lic hearing on hk^rch S, ~962. Item Na. 11: KEQUEST F~R !NTER~icETRTICN OF l'ARIANCE N0. 1397F~ p lette~ from Thom3s Co~ghlin was r'ead to the Commission, re~uest- i ing an interpretatfon that proposed dry cieaninc aperat?on on subject property oT said varisnce be interp+-etated as a pe~•mitted use under the approved variance. i:ommissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Canmissioner Mungall and carried, that it was the intent of thE: Commission relative to Variance No. 139~ that a cleaning est:~blishmsnt w~uld be a permitted use on subject property wi:h the stipulation that only those clothes received over the counter fran clientele would bo cleaned on the premises, that the cleaning solvent be non flammable, and •that truck coller.cions'ox di'stributions be pro=• hibited. i I . ~ .~.~ ' ^~~ _ :-~---,~_,,,,,,,_ ....~'~~.i.:~.;,.. ~'t, . 'l: ~.;T .~," . .,,~~ , ... .~'rf.::~; _,';_?~,,~'',?`~3.::_:;.., ~ww ~ _~ '.. ., . ..'~;:_ ~^ v ~ ~ ' b90 ~,` ~~ MiNUTES, CiTY PIANNiNG COMMISSION, Januarv 22, 1962, Continued: g. . ADJOURNMENT - There i~eing no further business, the Meeting was adjourned at k, ' 7:20 0 Clock P.M. , ~ Respectfully submitted, ~' F' . ~ JEAN PAGE, Commission Secretary ; BY SAcre y Pro m ~ ~. ~ , J ~: :.'• ~ _ ;;~~.., :;:~ , .. . ,.. .-_.:rr , . . . ,,-. r V t.: r's;~ ,..~.t_~":_. i,.;.~x;