The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1962/04/02~. ~'~ '::i .. , d . ~ . .. .... ~~ ~.~ . . ~ ~;~ ~ City Hall Anaheim~ California Aprii 2, 1962 R~GUTAR MBBTYNG OR TH~ A,NAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 1~UxAR M88TING - A Regular Meet3ng of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M „ a quorum beiag present. PRBSffiVT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer CTMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. - COMMISSIONBRS: Alired - SBNIOR PLANNBR: Martin Rreidt. ASSISTkNT CITY ATTCRNBY: Joe Geisler. COMMISSION SHCRBTARY: Jean Page. PIANNING DEPT. ST9NOGRAPtIDR: Ann D. Rrebs. ~ d ~ ;, 1 ~~ I 3NVai'ri~i30~i - R~v~re~Q ~Ytarle3 ;3. E1am, Fa~~ar C'ssurch of t5z t3azarene, Wes~ Anaheim, gave the Invocation. - Commias3oner Chavos led the Pledge of Aiiegiance to the .iag. - 7.'he Minutes of the meeting of March 19, 1962 were approved as submitted, . ~ RHCLASSIPICATION' - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by AGA,JAN7AA1 IN- .~ ~ N0. 61-62-93 VBSTM8N7 CORPCRATION, 405-A West Ratella Avenue, Anal:eim, Caii- ~ fornia, Owner; requesting that property described as; A parcel , r, 630 feet by 660 feet with a£rontage of 660 feet located on the ~: west side of Haster Street batween Katella and Orangewood Ave- nues; ita southeast corner being approximately 615 feet north of the northwe8t corner of Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue, '~ ~ and further described as 2001 Haster Street, be reclassified ~ from the R,A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT[JRAL, 201~ to the R-3, MULTI- (; p:;.. PLB FAMILY.'RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONB. l ~ Sub,ject~pctition was filed in conJuaction with Petition for Coriditionai Use Permit No. 217. SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of March 19, ~ 1962 to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present reviaed ~ plans and elevations for the Commisslon's consideration. ~ ~ Mr. Tom Coughiin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the ~ Commisaion and indicated that the petitioner would comply with ? the Pi~r, Aepartment~s stipulation that a thirty (30) foot wide perioheral access drive~ along.the rear of sub,ject property br ~ ~ provided in order to 6s6ure adequate fire protection, that the ; ~ ~ two-atory buildings,along the rea= bounctaries of the aub,~ect pro- ; ~ per#y liad Seen ~,pv.@d to the ceater of the project, and that the ~ ~~ development was " garden-tqpe apartmeniB, and indicated that ~~ ~L t ~f 3 ;~~~~~~ ~ n,~x~'~h'sh ' ~ - ' ~ ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . . ~^.`et~f:7S{:i ~ ~ . . . ~. . ~ .. . . .. . ~ . . . ' . . . -3 RBCLASSIPICATIOi~i - cedar shingle or heavy shake roofs would be provided in addition . r0. 61~62-93 to private patios. The prcposed carports would be enclosed on the rear and sides. ~ ~ •: ~ ~ ':: ~; .~;-y•., K+~ v ii ;a; The Commission reviewed the plans submitted by the petitioner. . The Commission discussed with the petitioner the necessity of comgZying with all plans tkiroughout construction as presented to the Commission, if subject petition were approved, Ttie Commission noted that *.he five foot space between buildings would ha~e to be covered so as to comprise an interior waikway, that all carports, if approved, would have to be stuccoed on the interior walls, and that the proposed carports within twenty feet of the front property line would have to be eliminated. The Commission found and determined the following facts regard- ing the subject petition: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R A, RBSIDBNTlAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDffiVTIAL, ZONH. ~. Tnai the proposed reciassificatian of subject ~roperty is necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper develop- ment of the community. 3. That tl-e proposed reclassification of subject property does properly rela4e to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally es- tablished throughout the community. 4, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedicatfon 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 ases, in accordance with the circulation element of the Generai Plan. ' 5. That no one appeazed in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 274, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Re- ciassification No. 61-62-93 be approved~ subject to the follow- in_v, :onditions: l. ~r.•velopment substantiaily in accordance with Hxhibit Nos, 1 tarough 15, provided that the inter.ior waii of all carports ts:~•ill be stuccoed or of masonry,construction, that a bumper be placed at the head of every carport space to protect the interiar walls, these carports shall have enclosed storage cabinets, and that no carports encroach into a twenty (20) foot setback area, that roof construction be of cedar shingle or medium shake mat~rials,and that a six foot masonry wall be erected on the west side of said property. - 824 - ..,. . . .'~.., . __. . 3 ~ ;1 f ~ i ~: . ~ . !~-, ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ s . 3, Preparation of street improvement plan3 and installation af all improvement5, i~ncluding curb breaks and driveway aprons, for Haster Street, subject to the approval of the City i Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the office of the c;ity Bngineer, ~ 4. Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Haster Street. S. Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit, 6. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the De- partment of Pubiic Works, Sanitation Divisior., which are adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pick-up and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection. 7, Subject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permi4 ~to. 237. 8. Provisions for adequate drainage for subject aad abutting properties, subject to the approval of the City Bngineer, prior to the Pinal Building Inspection. 9. Provisions for the adequate fire hydrants and water suppiy, subjec,t to the approval of the City of Anaheim Pire Marshall, prior to FinaY Suilding Inspection, 30. 3ubject to the approval of the Architectural Control Com- mittee, ~ :1. Ti.me limitatian of one hundred and eighty C180) days for the accomplishment of the dedication of the preparation of the street improvement plans and payment of street lights, Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The foreg~ing 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 Anah~im. ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow- ing vote: ' AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavo3, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMIS5IONBRS: None. ABSHNT: CObA~tISSIONBRS: Allred. CONDITI~.HAL USH - CONTINUEII PUBLIC F~IDARING. Petition submitted by AGAJANIAN IN- ~ Pn'ZimIT N0. 217 VE~TBifiiVT CORF~tAaION, 405-A West ~etella Avennc, Anaheim, Csli- ~'~'- fornia, Owner; requesting per mission to Construct Garden Type = Apartments on property described as: A parcel 630 feet by 660 ~ feet with a frontage of 660 feet located on the west side of Haster Street be~tween Katella and Orangewood Avenues; its south- ; R ~ ~ M1 ': - 825 -~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhA4ISSI0N,~Apri1 2, 1962, Continued: ~ RBCIASSI~ICATION - 2. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of N0. 61-62-93 Haster Street, (30 feet existing). MINUTBS~ CITY PIANNING COD9dIS3I0N, April 2, 1942, Continued; COi~1DITI0NAL USB - east corner being approxxmately 615 feet north of the northwest PffitMIT N0, 217 corner of Haster Street and Orangewood Avenuey ani further (Continued) described as 2001 Haster Stree ~ Property presently classified in the R A, RBSIDffiVTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Re- classification No, 61-62-93. Mr. Tom Coughlin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothing further to a8d than that presented in Reclassification No. 61-62-93. The Commission found and determined the following facts regard- ing the subject petition: That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit; Planned Unit Multiple Pamily Residentiai Development, That the proposed use will not adverseiy affect the adjoin- ing land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. That the size cnd shape of the site proposed for the use is 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 general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. That the traffic geaerated by the proposc~d use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways de- signed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, healthy, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ?hat ur.der•the authorized'Sectiqn 18.64.070 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the required 7~ foot side yard is hereby waived to permit the construction of carports. That no one appeared in oppositian to "sub3ect petiti0ni Coromi~sioner Pebley offered ~esolution No. 275, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant petition for Conditional Use Peimit No. 2i7, subject to the following conditions; Development substantiaily in accordance with Exhibit Nos, 1 through 15, provided that the interior wali of carports shall be stuccoed or of masonry construction, that a bumper be , plac~d at the head of every carport space to protect the inter3or walls, these carports shali have @nclosed storage cabiaets, snd th~: no csrports ~ncrosch into a ~cver.ty (2C) foot setback area, that raof construction be of cedar shingle or medium shaTae materials, and thPt a six foot masonry waii be erected on the west ~ide of said property. ~ ~, t I MINUIBS, CITY PIANNING CUMMISSION, April 2, 1962, Continued; CONDITIONAL USB -~, Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of PffitMIT N0, 217 Haster Street, (30 feet existing), (Continued) 3, Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improvements including curb breaks and driveway aprons, for Haster Street, subject to the approval of the City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on fi7e in the office of the City Bngineer, 4. Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting pur- poses on Haster Street. 5. Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25.00 per dweli- ing unit to be collected as part of the Building Permit. 6. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the De- partment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pick-.up and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final B~ilding Inspection, 7. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 6I-62>93, 8. Provisions for adequate drainage for subject abutting properties, subject to the approval of the City Bngineer, prior to the Pinal Building Inspection. 9. Provisions for the adequate fire hydrants and water supply, sub3ect to the appzovai of the City of Anaheim Fire Marsha2l, psior ~o Pinal Building Inspection. 10. Subject to the approval of the Architectura! Control Committee. 11. Time limitation of oae hundr~d and eighty (180) days for the accomplishmer.t of the dedication oF the pFeparation of street improvement plans and payment of street lights, Item Nos, 2, 3, and 4. The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a ttecessary prerequisite to the use of the property in oider to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of . the City of Anaheim, . On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliow- ing vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Flapgo~d, Marcoux~ Mungall, Pe'~ley, Perry, NOHS: C(Y~MISSIONBRS: None, RBSHNT: CQhAlISSIONBRS: Allred, VARIqNCE NO, 1454 -~p~'_r'rtq[Jgy nUBLI~ FiIi~;I'I?:G. Petitioii ~uomiiied by M. DOUGLAS, 626 West Commonwealth, Pulierton, California, Owner; requesting pe=- mission to WAIVB GpRqGB DOQR RBQUIR8M8NT on 46 of the' S1 GARAGHS on property described as: A parcei 200 feet by 250 feet with a - 827 - ~ :r~.:e:. ~ :','.' F. .., 4pF . l~~~.~~~'~~~.~.. { .'' F ": ~iw+^a~~~;• ~ . l.~~. . . .. . . .. . . v ~~ , O ~~ i rty, th at in c- rt ~ ~. n 7'.: ~'.' :dinb s ily Y ~ ,e ~ ~ 1 . ! ~ . lks ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ .. . . . ,r . . . . _ .. , ?:,~- i.~~, f ~J.a!.,,.C..r • ~ _ ~ ~ .. . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i'- . . , : .. . .~ .:I; .. . ~. ~ . . . . ~ . . . ..;, ~ ~ ~~- ----~~. ---':.~° . . . ~ I . :~ I a ~ ~ ~,_ .~ ~ ~ MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING CObuNI9SI0N, April 2, 1962 Cor::inued: VARIANCB N0. 1454 - Commissio~~er Camp offered Reso.iution No. 276, Series 1961-62, (Contintied) and mcved for its E~assage and adop>'~n, seconded by Com- missioner Perry, to grant Variance ~. 1454, subject to the following conditiofis: ~ .l, Tliat oaragt 3oors be waired on the rear and side, but that the iro.;t five ~5) be rerained. ~. Provision of stuc::o inteci.rs ca ti~e sia~~ and rear walls of all garages on sUbjeci pr~~~~erLy with the installation of cabinet areas thrrei.:i. »ricr to Final Building Znspect~on. 3, Develnpment substantia±ly in accordance with Exhibit No. 1, said exhibit indicating provision of doors cn the five garages extendi~ng sontherly from che fifteen ioot setback abutting Pampas Lane. 4. Provision of tirash storage e,•eas as determined by the Depaztment of P~~~lic Works, Sani:?tion Divisian, which are adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and ad!quatelp enc:losed by a salid fence or wall, pri~_•r to F •al Buzlding .tn:;pection. On roll call the fosegoing motion taas passed ~y ;he fo?low- ing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, (;~~avos, Gauer, H3pgoody Marcoux9 Mungall, F':>bl.ay, Perrq. NOHS: CC~?~fISSlONERS: None. ABSENT; COMMISSIONEAS: Allred. ~~:!RIANCB N0. 1455 - CONTINUBD PUBLI~J HBARING. Petition submitted bv RBAL GF:it.TB ~~ DISP0.SA?, CCIRPORr~TIC?l, 935 South La Brea, Inglewood, Cali- fornia, Owner; AATHUR N. :~1T"OLDS, 7921 Delphii~ium Circle, Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting permission to OPSRATE BOAT SALES WYTH RECONDITFONING on proparty described as: A tr.iangular shaped pazcel with a frontage of 94 feet located on the north side of Lincoln A~v~nue and located on the ncrthwest corner of Lincelr Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway, and ~urther desci•ibed as 1455 West Linco!r. Avenue. Psoperty pres~ntly classi°ied in the C-L, vI:NBRAL (:OMMb'RC:? ;i, ZONH. Subjeet p~titio:i was continueG fzam ihe meeting cf Marr.h 19, 1962., ~~win~ to the failure of the petitioner to appe~.~~. Mr. Reyci~ids appeared before the Commission and stated that ai the tii~e the property was purchased he was informed that . permissio~i would be granted to operate the bo3t sales. He stated that he later discovered that the property was zoned C-2, The petitioner stated furiiter tnai che basinea•s t~e proposes to operate will proviSe a b~tter use of subject pruperty than the present u^?, thlt he plans to build on the subject property within the ne:zt ye~z or two after he is establishc:d, that he is pre5ently purchasing,merchandise, that there are - 829 - ~ _ _ - -~-T.--------r r~ ` _.,_.-. ~.~ ,., ~ - , .. _ ,.~ ..1;• . ,._. ~ ~ i , !. _ ., 1 , i I''~ ,,:._...a~...:w`~ ~ ~ E_ • ~ ~ MINUTSS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 2, 1962, Continued; ~." . i' } t ~~' ~ j~r E.'. S ~ VARIANCB N0. 1455 - no buildings to be used a.n the axea_, that all that lie is (Continued) presently planning to do is remodelingp painting, and re- conditioning of boats that are shipped from the Bast for re- saie purposes, Upon questioning by the Co:n.;~ission in regard to work out of doors, the petitioner stated t'~at the painting and han3ling of large boais would necessitate v~orking in the open. He indicated also that the only plans for the im~rovement of subject property to b~ done was to clean the area and repaint the existing building. Mr. Geisler, Assistant City Attorney stated the rebuilding of boats would appear to be primarily a_~ M-1 zone use, but that saies with the inCidental repair and reconditioning of boats might possibly be considered a C-2 or C-3 use. He cited simi- lar uses in the area. THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission found and determined the following facts re- garding the subject petition: 1, That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code; 3ection 18.44.010 to pa mit thc establish- ment of boat sales and re-conditioning operation on sub- ject property. 2, That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circum- .stances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the prc~erty that do not apply generally to the property or class of use ir. the same vicinity and zone. 3, That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property_in the ~ame.vicinity a~td zone, and denied to the property in question. 4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimentai to the public tvelfare or injurious to the property or im- provements in such vicinity and zone in which the proper- ty is located, ~ 5, That the requested variance will adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan. 6. That the petitioner desires a year in which to utilize the existing building and no plans were submitted indi- cating future development. 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 277, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comma.ssion- er Chavos to deny petition for Variance No. 1455 on the bases of the aforementioned findings. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll+.~w- ing vote: , ~ t.:: .,__- .,:.d. r~.J..~~rt~; i.'i , . . , ~i~?: . ___....,~. -. t..~~. . '_"~:~: ~:'S ~ _ . ~ ~ .,. ~---~-_~ N _ ~- f, .~ ~' -~. < :l , lY.~ ~ - ~ . ~ . . R+`S ---"-- . --"' ~ .. . . ~ _ .. . . . . . ~ . MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CON4IISSION, Aprii 2, 1962, Continued: VARIANCB N0. 1455 - AYBS: COWA~II~SIONBRS: Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, (Continued) Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMMISSIUi~H:to: None. ABSBN7.': COMMISSIONBRS: Ailred. ~ . i F. 1BNTATIr/H MAP OP - CONTINUBD PUBLIC i~ffiARING. SUBDIVIDBR: S, V. HUNSAKBR and SONS, TRACT N0. 4060 4405 Irwindale Avenue, Irwindale, California. ffi1GINEffit: MILLBT, KING and ASSOCIATFS, 1518 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Subject tract is Socated on the north side of Cres- cent Avenue between Giltiert and Brookhurst Streets and contains twenty-three (23) R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, Lots. Subject tract map was continued from the meeting of March 5, 1962 3n accardance yvith the developer's request. S, V. Hunsaker, Jr. submitted a revised tract map for review by the Co~nission.' It was suggested that the developer endeavor to coopezate with other uwners of property in subject area because of the parking situation. It was also noted that no pians were submitted. Mr. Hunsaker stated R-3 zoning was approved for sub- ject property by the City Council. Mr, Geisler, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission could approve the subject petition subject to the approvai of buildin,q plans by the City Councii. Commissioncr ~ebley suggested that the Commission :equxred ttiat the development of subject property be substantially in accordance with the development of Tract No. 2567. Mr. Hnnsaker agreed to snch a condition of approval. Mr.. Hunsaker stated further that he had a tentativc~ approval of the Sots on the extreme east side, and that the petitioner was considering division of the large lot, which could only be accomplished by cooperating with the City in sespect to a suit- able street alignment. THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioner Camp offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley ta approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4060, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the development be in accorCance with the development of Tract No•. 2567, subject to the approval of plot and building plans by the Building and Planning Departments. 2, That should this subdivision be developed into more than ~ one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submit'.Ed in tentative fo~.m for approval. On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the foliowing vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONBFS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Hapgood, Marcoux, - Mungall, Pebiey, perry. NQHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: CONAtISSIONBRS: Alired. _ 83T - - , .~ .~ ~ ~'. ~.J . ~ ' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 2, 1962, Cor~fnueds CONTINUED REVIEW - ONVNER - DEVEIAPER: LUSK CORPORATION, 20522 Santa Gertrudeg TENTATIVE TRACT Avenue, Whittier, CaYiforniae ENGINEER: BOYLE ENGINEERING, N0. 4567 331 Spurgeon Buildii~g, Santa Ana, Gallforniae Sub,ject tract is located on~the east side of Anaheim Reservoir Access Road, south of Newport Freeway Frontage Road,^and contains forty- eight (48) pioposed R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.. Lotse ~ubject tract map was continued from the meet'_ng of March 5, 1962, at the request of the petitionera Mx. Ray Lusk, representative of the subject petitioner submitted a tract map for review by the Commission; #~Iro Lusk stated they were planning to develop subject property with homes selling from $27,500 to $35,000 and that the pr.operty is situated on the approach to the Reservoir Access Roada ' • THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission found and determined the fol2owing facts regarding the subject petitiona lo That meetings will be held and estimates obtained to deter- mine the economic feasi~ility of all utilities being placed underground, by both the developer and Citye The meetings will be attended by representatives of the Edison Coe, Boyle Engineering~Iusk Cor;ooration, City of Anaheim Utilities Department and the City of Orange to consider the cost of ' placing the City's utilities underground, the cos~• of placing the developer's u#ilities underground, with pxoviaions for reimbursement and the type and location of stieet lighting, including method of energizingo A recommPndation will be submitted to the City Counci2 for a determination prior to submission of a final mape 2. That a ten (10) foot easement for hiking and r~.ding along the easterly lone of Lot Nos.l thru 15, both inclusive be ~ providede Meetings will be held with representatives•of the City of Anaheim Park and Recreation Division, Coar+ty of Orange, and the City of Orange and a recommendation will be submitted to the City Council for a determination prior to submission of a final mapo • Commissioner Chavos offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Camp~ to aporove the Tentative Map of Tract Noo 4567, with the following conditionss ' le Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof sha31 be submitted in tentative form for approvale 2. Subfect to the approval of plot and building plans by the ' Planning and Building Departu~ents. 3. Olive Hills Access Road to be dedicated and improvpd-to~the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and to the standards for a hill-side Secondary Highwaye 4. Grading, geological reports and landscaping subject to the approval of the City Engineer. -832- ~~-~'.~. , ~-.._, ~ . .. r ... . .. .. . ~.... , ~ ... , ~ ..._,_.. . ~.hi. ., _ .... . . ... .....\......,.` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COh41ISSI0N, April 2, 1962•, Continued: CONTINUBD RB9I~{N - 5. Landscaping and a tree planting plan for the Secondary High- TBNTATIVE 1RACT way subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Park- N0. 4567 way Maintenance, prior to the approval of the final map. (Continued) ~ 6. That provision be made for underground utilities with above ground vaults. 7. That a ten (10) foot easement for hiking and riding along the easterly line of Lots 1 thru 15, both inclusive, be provided. On soll call the forego: vote; AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: NOES; CONAlISSIONBRS: ABSBNT: COMMISSIONERS; ~ng motion was passed by the following Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley, Perry. None. Alired. TBNTATIVB MAP OP - DBVBLOPBR: NBLSON B. RHAME1tS, 10441 Beach Boulevard, Stanton, TRACT N0. 4647 California. BNGINEBR: NAT NBFP BNGINBHRING COMPANY, 13016 South Buclid Avenue, Garden Grove, California. The tract is located at the stub end of Canoga Street near the intersection of Rnatt Avenue and Ball Road, and contains six (6) proposed R-1 lots. ~ Mr. Ray Mercado, Hngin~er for Lhe developer, appeared before the ' Commission an<i stated that he had no comments to make upon the interdepartmental recommendations. Senior Planner Martin Kreidt explained that the original tentative map submitted to the Plan- ning Department projected a stub street to the south of the subject property, but upon the recommendation of the Intes- departmental Committee said map was revised to indicate a cul- - de-sac within the subject proper ty. This would provide a com- pieted deveiopment of Canoga Street, make unnecessary thC creation of the 10,000 square foot corner lot at the inter- section of Canoga Street with McDuff if both were extended, and make possible the futur° extension of McDuff Street to the west, through the property abutiing to the south of subject property. ~The Commission found a.^.d determined the following facts regard- in3the subject petition: ~ 1, Requirement that sho_?d this subdivision be developed as ~. more than one subdi•v:~,ion, each subdivision thereof shall ~ be submitted zn teni. :ive form for :~~prQ::~l~, 2. Subject to the appro~!~:. of pl~t and building plans by the ~ P'anning and Buildim~; Departments. Commissioner Mungall ofiered. a motion, second?s by Commissioner Hapgood to app=ove tY.e SMentutive Map of Tract No. 4647 subject . to the following cc~nditian.,; 1. That it be subject to engineering requirements. 2. 3ubject.to the approval of plot and building plans by the Planning and the Building Departments. 3. Approval o£ March 28, 1962 revision of subject Tentative Map. - 833 - ~ .,~_'~ :~.,`.".-.-,---~__ .' .- . ~ ._ K ,.. . ?,..,; .c:., . . St _ ~:,; V ~ •. `F _ <! ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAHIVING COHAIISSION, Aprii 2, 1968, Continued: ~ TBNTATIVB MAP OF - On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the following TRA.CT N0. 4647 vote: ~ (Continued) AYBS: CQNAlISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: CQMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONSRS: Aiired. RECLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING, MR. RHNI~TH B, WALIACE, 401 Coventry Road, NQ. 61-62-92 Berkeley, California, Owner; MR, JOHN G. GRBI~ffiR, 1855 West Katelia, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting that property desc=ibed as: PARCHL N0. 1: A parcel 130 feet by 147 feet with a frontage of 147 feet on Lincoln Avenue and'located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street; PARCBL N0. 2: A parcel 268 feet by 310 feet with a frontage of 310~t on Lincoln Avenue and located on the northeast corner of Linco].n Avenue and Gilbert Street except a parcel 130 feet by 147 feet with a frontage of 130 feet on Lincoln Avenue and located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street; PARCBL N0, 3; A parcel 310 feet by 372 feet with a frontage of 372 feet located on the east side of Giibert Street between Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Avenue; its southwest corner being approximately 268 feet north of the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Stzeet, and further described as 2361 West Lincoln Avenue~ be reclassified from the R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AQtICULTURAL, 20NH to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, 20N8, C-3~ HBAVY COMMHRCIAL (Parcel No, 1), and C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCiAL, (Parcel No. 2), ZONBS, Subject petition was fi.led in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tra~~. No. 4645. ` Mz. John Grenek, agent for the developer appeared 5efore the Commission and stated that they had proposed the highest and best use for the subject property, that the proposed apartment units would be high reni~al, that shake roofs wouid be provided, that "one-sale" private deed restrictions would be placed on subject property to prohibit the establishment of objectionable facilities. The Commissioners discussed the proposed development and their discussion wiCh one of the brothezs of the petitioner in the field earlier the same day, Sherriii Puilman, owner of the property abutting to the east, reviewed the development plans. RHCH3S i aVG\7ai~aN - At 3;20 P,M. Chairman Gauer noted that other interested persons wished to view the plahs, and Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recess the meeting for five minutes and.to reconveae at 3:25 P.M. MOTION CARRIBD. - a~IS3Fu'i@ia TiF;iI2Y C3212Q 2iic ii122i.~17$ i.0 order flr J:G~ (}°l',lOCK Y,1K, ~ all members of the Commission t~~t Commissioner Alired beiag present. -834- sc ,', . :=`~::; . ,.. . . . - . . >_ ._ _~ _I ~~ _ : ~ , ~ ~ E ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CONAlI3SION, Aprii 2, 1962, Continued: RHCIASSIPICATION - Mr. Pullman stated that he had no objection to the proposed N0. 61-62-92 development. CContinued) A petition containing ten signatures protesting the subject petition was presented to the Commission, Said petition was pre- sented by Mr. Ziemer, 209 North Gilbert. Mr. Bernard Weisner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he'had no objections provided that all code requirement: were met including single story construction with 150 feet of property classified in any single family residential zone. The Commission discussed t;,e importance of upgrading multiple family deveiopments in the City of Anaheim, Mr. Grenek stipulated that he would abide by all code requirements including single story~development. T1~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Chavos moved, seconded by Commissioner Camp, that the Planning Coaunission initiate a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a service station, thereby making it possible to establish a service station without the establishment of a C-3, HBA!'Y COMMBRCIAL ZONB, and waiving the filing fee for the petitioner. On roll cali the motion by Commission Chavos was passed by the following vote: ~ AYBS: . COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMAMISSIONBRS: Mungall. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Commissioner Mungall moved that the previous motion be recinded, ' seconded by Commissioner Pebley. On roll call the motion by Commissioner Ctlavos was recinded by the following vote: AYHS: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, NOES: COWAlISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding , the subject petition: - 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassi£ication of the above described property from the R-A, RHSIDffiVTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NB ta the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDffidTIAL, ZONB, (Parcei No, 3) and to the C-l, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB, CParcel No, 2) and to the C-3, HBAVY COMMHRCIAL, ZONB, (Parcel No. 1). 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is nece33ary or desirable £oz ine orderiy anci proper developarent of the community. 3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does propesly relate to the zones and th~ir permitted uses locally estabiished in close proximity to subject property and to the zor.es and their ~ermitted uses generaliy • established throughout the community. - 835 -' ~ .- .' ~ u::: , ~; . . "c~~+ .*'pC; ,~::. .~, , :a:: . ::.'.` . ~7:~G 1 ~-,. .;J~:. ...., .;~' ,_.~__ ~ . . .. ~~ ~ ~ . , E l ~' ,. ~ .' . ~: ~...: F; ,:~: . 'r`.': '.,;,: : ,. , . ~ V ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COD4dISSION, April 2, 1962, Continued; ,. ~ _ RHCIASSIPICATION - 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does N0. 61-62-92 requise dedication f~r and standard improvement of abutting CContinued) 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 wili be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circuiation e'ement of the General Plan. 5. A petition of protest centaining ten signatures in addition to the appearance of one property owner concerning the sub- ject property were filed with the Commission against sub- ject petition. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 278, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commission- er Pebley, to grant Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-92, subject to the following conditions: 1. Recordatior. of standard C-3 deed restrictions limiting Parcel No. 1 to service station only. 2. Recordation of standard C-1 deed restrictions limiting Parcei No. 2 to Business and Professional Offices only, with stated prohibition of liquor sales. 3, Existing building to be removed within one huadred ei.ghty (180) days. 4. Construction on Parcel No, 3 be 1'~uted to one story in height in acco;dance with the R-3 provisions of the code, and furthei provided that revised.plans be presented to the Council prior to the hearing of subject petition. 5, Payment of Park und Recreation Pee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to be collectp~ 2s p:.rt of the Building Permit. 6. Recordation of a Fi:.al Tract Map of subject property. 7. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the De- partment of Public Works~ Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size, accessibie to trash-truck piclwp, and adeguately enclosed by a soiid fenc~ or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection, ~ 8. Development substaatially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1 through S as amended, The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary prerequisite to the ~se of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roil call the foregoing resoluiion was passed by the foliow- ing vate: AYBS: COMMISSIOI~HRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall; Pebley, Perry. NOES: CONA~IISSIONBRS: None, ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired, _ - $36 ~ ~c~.....~{R. 1^~.;,~1.~5~_^.~~.._ i~ ...i. ~ ~..,.~r-. ~.:~,.i-t w!~i........ri, Mi~.....riVt~...::Z-,:cn.4~~ . .. ..., . ... ... .. .1:~1~. ~ . . . . . . . _ . .. . , ' ~. y. . . ~::,. ~ , , 1 ~.. .t7~.: ,hl~:~u . . . . . .'..r - .. . ~ ~_.....~ _._....~.•-...-- _.`l.~~-_. ~ ~. .. - . . ~ ~ f ~. ~ ~ I E~ . ~ ' ! i ~ i. 7 ;~, ~; ' ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING C~AfISSION, Apri1 2, 1962, Continued; ~ TENTATIVB MAP OP - DRVBLOPBR: RBNNBTH B, WALIACS, 2361 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, TRACT N0. 4645 California; BNGIN88R: HAL RAAB, 1731 South Buclid Avenue, Anaa heim, Califorrd a. Subject tract is located on the east side of Gilbert Street, and contains eight C8) proposed R-3, MULTTPLB FAMILY RHSID~ITIAL, Lots, one (1) proposed C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COM- MBRCIAL, Lot and one (1) proposed C-3, .I~AVY` COhA~IffitCIAL, Lot. Subject tract was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 61-62-92, Coaunissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to approve TenYative Map of Tract No. 4645, subject to the foliowing conditians; . 1. Rer•uirement that should this subdivision be developed as moie than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvale 2. Subject to the approWal of plot and building plans by the Planniag and the Building Departments. 3, Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-°2. Or ro11 crili the foregoing motion was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COMMIS6I~iffitS; Camp, CTzgvos~ Gauary Hapgoody Marcotuc'9, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry. NOBS: CQ~4dISSIONHRS: None, ABSHNT: COI~4IISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCB N0. 1460 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by IRVING MARCUS~ 2505 West ; 6th Street~ Los Angeles 57, California, Ownes; JAMBg DBCKIDt, 6592 Trinette Avenue, Garden Grove, California, pgent, request- ing permission to WAIVH SINGLS STORY HBIGHT LIMITATION on 'Y property described as: A~arcel 67 feet by 142 feet with a ~ frontage of 67 feet locat~d on the north side of Wilken Way be- tween Haster and Vern Streets;.its southwest cornez being approxi- mately 545 feet east of the northeast corner of Haster Street and Wilken Waq, and further described as 147 8ast Wilken Way. Property presently classified in the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSi- DBNTIAL, ZONH. . ~. Mrs. James Decker, 121 Bast Wilken Way, agent for the'petition- eri presented development p~.ans to the Comm9.ssion. THS HBARING WAS~CLOSBD. " Commissioner Marcoux expressad the concern cf fhe ultimate de- ' velopment of the vacaat pro~erty abutting to the east of the sub- ject property for single fumily homes. Mr. Metcalfe, Donneiley Land Compaay, said in his opinion the property would develop in- . to multiple family use. ' , ; The Commission found and determined the foliowing facts regard- ing the subject petition; , > ~ - 837 - ~ i ~, ~ f ; ". . ;; J .:.:.. . . . . . . ... . . ..,:... i ~ VARIANCS N0. 1460 - 1: That.the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Munici- (Contiaued) pal Code: Section 18.32.060 to permit the construction of Multiple Family Residentiai Apartments. 2, That there are no exceptionai or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 3, That the requested variance wiil be materially detrimental to ' the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinit,y and zone in which the property is located, 4. That it is possible that the abutting properties to the east could develop for single family residentiai use, Approval of „ subject petitioi~ would thereby be a deteriment for such ~'~.~ ~~ deveiopment of subject property, Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 279, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoption,. seconded by Commissioner Chavos to deny Petition for Variance No. 1460. On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: ~ AYE3: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, MarCoux, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry. ~ NOBS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ABSBNT: COhAlISSIOIVBRS: Alired. VARIANCB N0, 1461 - PUBLIC FffiARING. _:Petition_submitted by MR, and MRS, WILLIAM B, ALLSN, 1713 Bast Sacamore Avenue, Anaheim,'California and NIIt, and MRS. LARRY B. MOQRB, 678 North Shaffer, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVH MINIMUM PLOOR ARBA OF PROPOSBD SINGLB FAMILY L'NiBLLING UNIT AND.PBRMIT CONTINUED USB OF BXISTING SINGLB FAMILY.DWHLLING.on property described as: A parcel_T4 feet by 250 G with a frontage of 74 feet located~ca the northeriy side of Sycamore A~enue between Century Drive and State College Boulevard; its scuthwesterly corner being approximabely 120 feet easteriy of the nor.theasterly corner of Sycamore Avenue and.Century Drive, and G further described as 1609 Bast Sycamore Avenue. Property presentiy E eiassified in the R:A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT'URAL, 20NH. ~:`.. ~ ~ ~ z ~' A Setier received from the petitioner was read to the Commission 7 , . . ,-~.~~.~ ~. . ~~' ~ ~raxinrrcB No, 1462 - PUBLIC.IiBAItING. Petition submitted by ROTATING INVBSTM~[T INC.~ c/o JACR °JAY" JACOBS, 205 83st Broadway - Tnsurance Bxchangr• Building~ L:~ig Beach 2, California, Ow:.~_•; requesting'per- mission to WAIVB RBAR YARD SBTBACK RBQUIRBMBNT ON CSRTAIN LIYTS OF TRACT N0. 37?7 described as; An irregulariy shaped parcel with a frontage of 160 feet located on the west side of $+,,'ai~e College Boulevard and located on the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and the Riverside Freeway Right-of- Way. _Prope=ty presently classified in ~he R-1, SINGLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. Mr. Carl Rosa, representative of the owner9.appeared~be= fore the Commission to explain the building concepts reiative to'proposed,deveiopment. ~: ,;~:_;;: The Commission indicated that no hardship was showr:,' and that to approve the variance on the four southeriy lots would pxe- judice the ultimate develoFment of the abutting property to the south. Mr. George Ea;ly, agent for the abutting propaty owner to the • south, appeared before the Commission and sia ted his objection to the proposed encroachment on the southeriy four lots, and requested information on the possibilities of the requirem.ent • ::~ ' of the six foot masonry wall along the southeriy boundaries of snbject property to prohibit pedestrian access, The Commission felt that'it would be unwarranted to require a block wail on the southe;ly boundary of sut+ject property, but if subject ,`~ petition were"approved along the northerly boundary of the sqb- . - ' •'~ ject tract that a block wa1S should be installed where said ' lots abut!the Preeway and Arteriai Highway Right~af-Way. ° ` THF3 HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ; - The Commission found and determined the foliowing facts re- ~ garding the subject petition: 1, That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code; Section 18:24.030 (3) which wouid permit:.'. a maximum encroachment. of ten feet in the _ requixed rear;yards of subject lots. . 2. That there are excepti~~nal or extraor~inary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of ihe property that do not appiy gener- ; , aliy to the property or class of.use in the same vicinity ` .: , . ; and zane. {' ' 3.• That the requested variance is ;iecessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of a.substantial property righb pos- slessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and - denied to the property in question. ' ~ 4. That the requested:variance wi11 not be materially detri- ` ' ~ mental to.the pablic welfare or injurious to the property ~ , or :_iaprov~men*_s _a. such ticini*y ancL zoae ~n r:hich tbe : ~.' , ~ ., , Property is` located: '~f ~ ~ ` S. T'nat 4he requested variance wiii not adversely affect the ' ~`-}T 4 y Compsehensive General Plan, ' ~ rf ~ r~,~ ~s* ~ . . . . . ' . . ~ '. . ; w ~ t & ~~ a s . . _ - . . o: -i `, r ~ ~ . . . - 839 , ~ : ~~,' ~ ~: ,~, ~ ~ ~ c ~„ ~~; ; . . ...,., ,~ ~ , . ~.RJ~a, ~~ ~ :: •_ - . r^ ~ ,.t . ~ ti i;~ a ~y~~ _ }: ~~. ~ _ ~~ ~, ~~4b~~t~'.o- v ~ ' ~`1~~C~,~c,r 1 y,3irr~ . . YSG',~_~v.d r s .. . , . .1._.... .e., . ... ...... "... _.... ._-.,. .. .... ~,.,..~... ,.. , ,.., ,_... ... . :....... . . __._.... .. . ..._ r. ... . . . . . _. .k ~ l. . _ - i A t..a ~''F"'~" ~.~ '~~+v'S~t.i`5ie.s . ~~ "'ija'+.1!,'r~+. ..sz~,.li w ~~?M'. : _ - ~'_~ '. a ~.. ~, - 4 ~~ (~ f r r; 4~ ~~ • ~ ~ '~SI 'S~ ~ . ~ ~.~._ ..~ _ ~. ~_ ~LL ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' . .. .. ~~•.'.. . . ~ . . . . .. . ~ . . . ~ .. . . . . . . . ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhMIS3I0N, ApriJ. 2, 1962, Continued: CQNDITIONAL.USB - for Coaiitional Use Permit No. 216 oa the bases of the afore- PffitMIT PA. 216 mentioued~findings: ~ (Continued) ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was defeated by the foilow- ~ ing vote: i AYBS: COMdISSIONHRS: Chavos. ~ I NOHS: COMMISSIOI~RS: Camp, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungaii, i Pebley, Perry. ~ ABSfiNT: COhIlNISSIONBRS: "Alired. I ~ ,. `~~ . The Commission continued discussion of the Petition, deter~aining from Senior Ylanner Martin Rreidt, that the school districts had ~ `~~' been notified. Mr.Spradley, agent for the petitioner info rmed the Commission that at the time Mr. Henry deeded a number of acres to the , school he informed them that he planned a possible commercial development on the:adjacent property, and #he school board in- formed h'im they wouid go along with any development of the pro- perty with the`exception of liquor sales. The petitioner also informed them that sidewalks;and an opening.to the school grounds ivere beiag.psovided. Mr.-.Rreidt suggested to'the Commission that 3andscapiag shouid be.one of the prerequisites if the petition was'granted, and the ~ petitioner agreed to this, @ E The Commission found apd determined the following facts regard- ing the subject petitioae ~, ~ 1, That the proposed.use ig properly one for which a Coaditional ~ ~ Use Permit is authorized'by this Code, to.wit: establiahment [ of a .walkwp restaurant. r.. ,., 2', . Ttiat the: proposed use.'wi1T not adversely a:fect the..au'~oining ~land use ~ r ~~ and the growth and development of the area in which it is - ,. proposed to be.located. ,. : _ _ ~ ,' : t >. , , . ~ 3, That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use ia , ade~uate to al].ow the full development,of fh e proposed use in ° ~ a manner not'detrimental to the'particqlar•area nor to the peace, health,' safe:y, and general welfare of.the citizens of • :i E. the City of Anaheim..- _ E~ 4. That the #=affic gene=ated by the peoposed use will not impose an undue fmrden upon:the 9treets and highways designed;and'proposed : '-, ° to carry the traffic ia the area. . ,!,:'. .,- 5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Perm3t under :.' ' ; , conditions imposed, if any; will aot be detrimental to the ~ - ~ ! peace, health, safety~ and general welfare of the.citizens of ~; `. , 1 ' the Ci;ty of Anaheim. . z . - r : _ . f ~ 6. ~That no~one appea~ld in opposition to subject'petitioa. r. ~ ' ~ t-, ; :; i . _ - . . . ~ ~.~ ~ t . /. _ . . ; . .. ~ F ~ i ~ ~ sY 'd ~ ~ry,~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ - ~ <: ~ ~ ...3 : ~"~~~ ~''~~~iJ 4' 1i1 ; ~ .. : . . ~ . ~ 841 - . ~ . . .~;. Y ~„ + y C ~ W . . . . , . ., x ~ . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ , .. . : . : ~ ~ . . .. .. . . . . , . - ~1 . k7 ~"t ! ~ . . . . .. ' . ~ - . . , . . ( ~, V.::i -i L~•`~ Nt . . _ ~ 4 ~~ } 't ~~ R F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~!r ? , F~ ,~Y ~ ~S.v~ : i ~Mr'~ ~ S 3fl y . . ' ~ : . ~ Hb~k~~~ ~ t r~ ~P pc,, x,, ..~;y K~~P sd.,•;;.. . . ~ .. . . ~aG:'^ _ ,..~_,~. .. ...l,~_,..~.. ~...e,,, ..~~,~.._,,.~.....~..~ .... .......... .,...~..-r.-^..-'-^.._--~--.~~ . . . . 52 . ,...._i,t,..~~,rh~` r ' ~ ~. . ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . .. . . . .~~rc . , . _ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . /.~ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CQhAlISSION, April 2, 1962, Continned: CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Peble y offered Resolution No. 281, Series 1961-b2, PffitMIT N0, 216 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner (Continued) Perry, to grant petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 216 sub- ject to the foliowing conditions: 1. That a minimum setback of twenty-five (25) feet be provided, 2. That treewells at 40 foot intervals and landscaping be installed in the parkway portion of subject property; plans on said landscaping to be submitted to the Street and Parkway Division prior to Pinal Building Inspection. 3. That sidewalks and driveways on Ball Road and Gilbert Street be installed in accordance with adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Hngineer. 4, Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Ball Road and Gilbert Street. • 5. Provision of trash storage areas as deteroined by the Department of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size, accessible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Pinal Building Inspection. 6. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty C180) days for the accomplishment of Item Nos~3 and 4. On roil cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the followixig vote; wYSSa COhA~IISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, NQBS: COMMISSIONffitS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred. ~. '' CONDITIONAL USE - MR, and MRS. R. W. REYES, 952 McCloud, Anaheim, California, and 9 ~ PHRMIT N0. 218 MR, and I~IltS, A. HILTSCFffit, 908 8ast South Street, Anaheim, Cali- ~ fornia, Owners; PRBB METHODIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, 215 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, pgent; requesting permission to ~ erect a church on property described as: An irregularly shaped ~ parcel with a frontage of 133 feet more or iess located on the west side of West Street between La Palma Avenue and Romneya Drive; its soptheast corner being approximately 740 feet north of - %' the northwest corner of La Pa1ma Avenue;and West Street, and £ further desc=ibed as 1171 - 1171+~ North West Street. Property ~ presently classified in the R A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. Mr. Stanley Heber, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commiss3.on and stated that they do not plan to do anything with the pink house at the.present time; that the property would - be cleaned upp; and that the.pumphouse on'the.abutting prope;ty ` j; I - a ~ -MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, April 2, 1962, Continued; CONDITI~IAL USB - Mr. Heber informed the Commission that the project was planned ' ~ PBRMIT N0, 218 for completion in three (3) years, and upon being questioned about (Continued) parking facilities, he stated that provision was made for 24 spaces. • The.Commission discussed the ccde requirements relative to the ~ , parking area and established that the code required one parking ~ space for each five seats. ~ Mr. Rreidt, senior planner, asked the petitioner if they would '. t object to a 24 foot driveway as required by the Pire Department, rather than the proposed 20 foot wide drive. ,~;, .,, : ;~;:: ~lr __ Joseph Colombo, architect for the petitioner, stated that the plans did have space for 24 feet, but it wou13 put the drive ~ agai~lst the future building, and they would like space for land- scaping. He indicated his acceptance of the Fire Department requirements. It was suggested to the Commission that any approval be con- ditioned upon having existing buildings removed before construc= . ~ tion, The architect for the petitioners stated that only in the final phase of construction,.would they remove them. It was also suggested that the,Commission stiulate carefully when the ~ existing buiidings would be removed. ~~~ The architect for the petitioner, stated that the church buiid- ing committee discussed and desired to use the pink house as a ~ parsonage until the second'portion of development would be ~ completed, and then it wouid be removed. ~ Commissioner Perry suggested sending a resoiution to the City • Council that the City's pumphouse be removed or relocated, for the petitioners,stated that the building on Mr. Herber, Agent _ the front of the subject property was to be remodeled and used ~ ~ tempbrarily as a Sunday School nntil the Sanctaary was built; that ~ they were not interested in having a high w~il on the property; , ~• and that he had been iaformed that the city pump supplies water E for one ten acre parcel, and when that property was developed~ ~. ~ the City planned to abandon the welx and remove the pumphouse. ~ THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. E The Commission found anl determined the following facts regard- ~ i~g the subject petition: ~ "- 2.. That the progosed use is properly one for which a Conditional ~ Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit; ~construct ° a Church and related buildings. 2. That the proposed use wiil 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 _ _..'_._ .. . . . ~. . . _ _ . . ~ .. .a.t~nufl~s '.>.ti a:a.~,..,~5_ ~~u:r Rn-_,~„-_-;~ -L +h~ ~-n-..-~A ~ .. . . ~ ~ ,.. 'x.'}'Jf~1~w~ 4 ri'~- t .. ;~:t.y,"1 . -I~;~?al C~7..y }.,~ .: ~. +, ~ T 1..~ ~ "a1t r ~ 3 ~'a ~ 5 ~An ,~r~ ' wr..S .a'Rd,.`.h.:rLi.~h..i~,.n~v'~k~3.1.~;M1e ~"%~~xl~£..~~'~5`in , ` u ~ ' ` ` ~ ~ . ,~ , ' :. ~~ ~~ ': ' ~ ~ ~ .~ , : . ., . . y .f i , ~ ~ ~ ~, r~ _ (~ ~ f ~ J ~. ~ ' • . . . ' ~ ~ ~. . MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COI~AlIS~ION, April 2,~1962, Continued: ~ USE - 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not CONDITIONAL ~ ~ . PHRMIT N0. 218 impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed (Continded) and improved to carry the traffic in the area. ~ 5. That the granting of the Ooriditional Use Permit under the . conditions imposed~ if any, wiiY not be detrimentai to the ~ peace, health~ safety, and general weifare of the citizens of I the City of A.naheim. ~ ,~ 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No, 282, Series 1961-62, ~~ ~~~,, ~_':- and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~ Camp to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 218 subject ' ~ to the following conditions; ~ ~ 1. Development substantialiy in accordance with the plans ~ ~'~ presented, with.the revision of plans to provide a 24 foot ~ wide driveway access. ? 2. That the existing buildings on the front portion of subject . •~ removed prior to the Pinal Building Inspection property be 7 „ of the first phase of deveiopment. ~ 3, Dedication of 32 feet from the monumented cei~terline of West ~ Street (20 feet existing). , 4. Preparation of street'improvement plans and installation of ' " a11 improvements for West Street, subject to the approv 1 of ~ tlie Citq 8ngineer and in acco_~3a:nce with the adopted stanaara j •plans on file in the o f fice o f the C i ty B ngineer. ~ S. Payment of $2.00 per front foot fos street lig~ting purposes ~ on West Street. , 6. Time limitatioa of one huadred and eighty (180) days for the :~ and 5. 3, 4 ent of Item Nos a ii h o , , m cc mp s ' ~ ~ On soii,call the foregoiag resoY~~#ian was passed by the foilowing `~ vote: ~ , ~~ AYBS: COI~IISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos,. Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux~ ~' Mungaii~ Per•ry. ~ ~ NOBS: ' COhMISSIONffitS: None. ~ ABSTAINBD: COMMISSIONHRS: Pebley. _ ~ ~ AHSENT: COI~AfISSIONBRS: Allred. ,~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ., ~ CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUHD :PUBLIC HEARING, b~i..and MRS, P, M,,DBL GIORGIO, 5371 ~ PBRMIT N0: 220 Grand View, Yorba;Linda, Ce.lifornia, Owaers; requesting per- , r mission to;canstruct a.'planned unit MULTIPLB,FAbiILY RBSIDffiVTIAL, ~ x ZONB development. Sub3ect property located approximatelq 300 i of the;southeast corner of Buclid Avenue and Bsoadway. feet east ~ ~s ~ , r ; _ Property presently cJ.as§iiied iu the ~-.,, R3$IDE*:TIA~ ~~?3rrnTt~pr,,; _ ' ZONH a . f ~ , ~: r _ . Senior Planner Martin Kreidt informed the Cummission that a ~ $ r r ., r~; .~ petition for =eclassification of subject property.to the R-3, -~ j ~#.L: • ' MULTIPLB:PAMILY..RBSIDffiVTIAL,ZONB was recentiy approwed.. . ~ 4 ~ `~ ~fi''~ ~ w ~~ ~ ::~+~ ~ ,.: T sr~, ;ta"Gt - 844 - ~' ~y tiF~ 1 : ~ . . . . ..~ . ~ • . '~ s ~! ~1~_• >,k_ . y+• x t- t M .. Wf1 . ' ^ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ jf ~ ~ ~f~~ ' . ,~~Y' 7 ] 1 4 i Y ` ~ ~f ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ J ~~` V.: W ~ ~Hs~.w f . ~' .: ~' . ' - ~,~ l ~ d r' t . ? y~,~ N~ ~~ ^ ? -Y IL 'n. Y : i`« \ ~ rY~~r'~~; ~.~ tRw r 4 }yq. _ ~ ~'i?~z{,~`.j k _. ,' .s"..-5~.~_"'7i` ! . , ^ ~ ..,.. . ~ _~.. - --. .. ..- ~ - -_ _.._ . ._.. . ~ . . ,.,. ~„ . , ~ .,. _ _'~` s:y.tt'^.~._.~~ Mr!r .r z~.~ ti ~ i~', ~' . '+n .'~ .i„~'v'~l+ e a '~Yled d ; ' r ` y yi ~,yi Xr. + . ~, ~ {. ; n, ~ ~t~t~r ""~K ~tia`~. ~ ~5~ ; '-, - .,, ~ .;'y .r. . `~" ~ a , ~ , .h ". . . ., . ~ i ~,Sg `. yr . ~ ~;,. :~; _ _ .:._..: ~ ~.' .'i , ._ ~y j ~ .. , "~ *. ' . .. ~ ~(, .:~ -~, f < .. ....( "'- , i~• ^. ". ~ ~ y .,; .' ~'~G'"1 P.i..S . ~ti~l~ ~. cn~rJ1 .~~`t Ya ^~4ri ~:. ~ ' ' ", ' . . _ ... ^ - , . . , , ,. ~:. _.._ , -. ~ ' ~ .. -~ ... .. ~ .. : ... : ,::~ ~i~~ S ' -.' ' . , :,: ,,,,.;. , . : .:.- ~ - . . . .. ,: -, : ~ . y . . . ,,. '- . ,. ' , .' ... . .. ._~.': ...;, .... . . . .. ... _ ~ ~ t . ~ ~.. . . ., . .,., . " MINUTES, CITY PLANNIlVG COMMI$SION, Apri1:2, 1962~ Continueds; • t ,; _ , , ~ . ... .. -.: , CO~ ITIONAL USE _ . - No one eppeared before the.ComwisIIion to represent the sub~ect ' iti PERMIT N0. 220 on . pet .(Gontinued)' ~ ~ THE f~ARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ °It was suggested that petition could be approved sub~ect to the . to provide the petitioner an Reclassification~ or continued ~ ' opportunity to present complete development planso ~ i Camp offered a,motion, seconded.by Commissioner Commissioner ~ C . Pebley, to continue the sub3ect petition until the meeting of ' ~~ ~ sent April I6, ' 1962, at which. time . the pfrtitioner should be pre ~,~ ~, ~ . : to discuss bomplete development planso ~ ' ,,s, , n~--~- - . ~~h . ;~~,.,; . _ On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the following ~ ~,~, 5 - votes ' ,. E ~ ~ i ,: _ AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, , s r, ~ Mungall, Pebley,. Perrye . . r ~ ::: NOES: CONQNISSIONERS= Nonee ' ~ ABSENT: CONO~IISSIONERSs Allrede ' ~ RECIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIEARINGe TI~ODORE Fe WORTFf, 702 North Gilbert Street, _ , ~10 61-62-89 Aneheim,.California;'~Owner; THOMAS Je MCCARTHY, 11391 Jennrich, ~ ; - Garden GroVe, California, Agent; requesting that property e fronta ith t 0 f ' ' ':' g w a ee A,parcel`131 feet by 64 -described.aes `- ~ of 131 feet`more or less located on the east side of Gilbert ~ Street,between Crescent and Valdina;Avenues; its southwest ~ ing 446 feet noxth of the northeast corner,of Gilbert corner be , Street and:Crescent Avenue, and,further described.as 702 , „' North Gilbert Street b,e reclassifi~ed from.the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL,'20NE.to the R-3, MULTIPLE.FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, !:: ZONE e _ - Da.McCarden, real estate agent,,representing the Elizabeth . -- , petitioner,-.gubmitted a mep to_the Couimission,~-and;stated,that ;. p een the two-story s the develo ment would serve as a:buffei betw '~ apartiaents ad3acent to.t:i~'.°.-! Single Femily Homes to the east; ° be that some of the apaitments would be furnished; some would two-bedz~om units;`that;the apartments.woul.d be mealiwn priced; that"a"swimming pooL viould be provided; that there would be a `to the south, but that no.wall is planned to the north; wall - , and that aTl construction would'be~single-story. : : _ _ :_ _ . ` A petition was presented'by Jack Fiskin conteining•;300 signa- _: - , i' - tures in:oppositipn to.subject'petitibn. r ?EIE + EIEARING :WAS CLOSED a . : • " f ~ , ~' ~ , ; , Commission discussed the necessity,of a 24-foot driveway as ' The y. ~ ~ _ ' required by.`the Fire'Department.;.I'he pErtitioner stated this was - - " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ • that if drive.~ It was suggested e circulaT or one,way horseshoe j ~~ ,, ` the 18 foot wide driyes as proposed, were approved,:that they ,. , ~ - _ ' ,_ -- -- s.hou.ld be`;inaiked for•;onE -way:traffic.--: ~ . .:_ - _ , ~~ ~,~ ~ ~ _ , ~i Yu 4 , ~. , ~ . : „ . The Commission found and determined~the fol3owing facts.regarding , i ,'" d~ ,~ X~ _ ~i , ~ `°'~~ the suB'~ect: petition: ~ ( , ~ ~t ~, ' a ~ ~ ~ -8Q5 ~ ,~ ` ~{~fY ' F-I~G~ ~ 1 y~.: F..S.t ~' t s~ p. ~6'.. K xfr- .rx ~-vi~ '. i N x ay~s.~ - ~ . ~ ;i. ~ ~~ ~.~ 7~, a $n~c ~tii'/'. u,~4~ ~J~.:l~+ ~~ n ~ ~n'~ ' 'i ~~ _ ZT_ ~ '""i` ' ~ 7-' ~ ~ F '~ ~ , y ~ ` •r~~'fk Y L ~ r + ~ , :'t M ~:3 ~',-'~ u ~ n ~ r ry ~ ~ f~~a ~$`ti + .~`'1 , ! ; ! ; ~ t) _ i:f ~t ,,, y~ 'o~l.~ ~ ~ ~ ; !: , ti!!5~'=~i~ ^1r : , ._ .:; .', . ,. , ~ .- ~ :; ~-~ ~iL~'j ~ .. a.::~~EF ~~' '-'~ ~ . .... . . . . . . ._ . ._ ., ,, .. , : . . _ ~ - _ . _ .. . _. .rTn~ ._ . _ . ... _ . . ~ ....•'C ,,. ~+~di;i.~,.!:.~ . _... ,; ~. ..:, ... .,_ , ,~.4 L .;c,T -~,r;rr - ~;;~ ~r- i:~* - .. .. ~..~ ..;.~ ~,,. . ~ ~. 'i}?~ '+-~ ....~~~:'=.~-n, ~.+.a~„ ,.r~~ .: ...a,:s±iE ~~ a - ~~,,~ ~i .. ~" . . .. . . . ~.i ~ . . '.-_ _ , - ~.-:, ~ _ ~~i - ~ -: ~~:: 4~., ~ .. . ~ . . .,, t r ~ ~ ~ t >1F'~ a~S'...r: ~~,..i ... .~..,.i,~,:.i5_.._...4•"`_...~.~:1~::r .. ""a.. ~,9rS~'~.?`:taA:~xa:`~`~"'efr, ~ir.v: ~. ..__. ...i... _.. L . : ~~.~'~~~~.5. .~ _ . ~ ~ ~,:?t;~ ,:: i ~ ~ ~ . . .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 2, 1962, Continued: ~ ~~ . . . ~ . ~ . -'i '1 . RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission further discussed conditions to be met if the seller's N0. 61-62-90 property was cut back in order to install street improvements, (Continued) and noted that the property would require a retaining wall. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo ~ The Commission was informed that, since the seller's property was not included in the petition, a variance would be required because subject property was less than an acre, thereby creating ~an irregular R-A loto The developer informed the Commission of an escrow deadline under which they were workingo Mr> Geisler, informed the Commission that a variance cnuld apply to all the ad3acent property, including the selltir'so Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux that the public hearing on Petition for Reclassification Noo 61-62-90 be re-opened and continued until the meeting of April 30, 1962 for ~uTther consideration of the proposed develop- ment in order to readvertise the petition to include the entire pTOpertyo 'MOTION CARRIHD: VARIANCEid0. 1459 - PUBLIC HEARINGa 5e Va HUNSAKER and SONS, Po 0e Box 1216 - Fleetwood Annex, Covina, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIHITATION on property described as: A percel with a frontage of 540 feet on Haster Street and a fron#age of 630 feet on Orangewood Avenue and located on the north- ` east corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster StrQeto Property presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTIJRAL; ZONE. Sub3e~:~ vxriance was filed in con3unction with Petition for Reclassffication No. 61-62-90e Mre McGra~, attorney :anresenting the petitioner, appeared before the Co~mnission and stated he had no further commentse T[~ HEAE~ING ~YAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, that the public hearing on Petition for Varianc~ No. 1459 be re-opened and continued until the meeting of April 30, I~T62 for further consideration of the proposed development in order to ~ readvertise the petition to include the entire propertyo MOTION CARRIBD . RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGe IEWIS SINOR, 414 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, ~ N0. 61-62-91 California, Owner; requesting property described as: A parcel 50 feet by 140 feet with a fronte9e of 50 fee~t located on the sout~ side of Mills Drive between Los Angeles and Cl~udina Streets; its _ northeasterly corner being approximately 100 feet westerly of the southwesterly corner of Claudina.Street and Mills Drive, and further described as 114 Mills Drive, to be reclassified from the R-2, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo A letter was submitted to the Commission by Mre Lewis Sinor requesting that sub3ect petition be withdrawn. Commissioner Camp offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos ' and_carried, that Petition for Reclassification Noe 61-62-91 be with- -~ drawn in accordance with the petitioner's requesta -848- " j ,. . t " ; Y: 'AY .~..,.~ .. ' . .. /;~,.~. y!-J.~~f !,• "'1~ V. ~ . . . .. . , . . , .... . . ._ __ ..~.-_ .~....,_. ...,.r.i . ~~..J..,~ .< yx.1,., ..:~_ ~ ..f...'"v a. ..._ i ~~~,rn:~.~.....~~:flii_ i _ t_ ~l.~:Y. . Ft_: ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri1 2, 1962, Continued: RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo MRo and N6tSo ROBERT Go WILLIAMS, 405 West N0. 61-62-94 Sycamore, Anaheim, California, (lwners; requesting property described as: A parcel 100 feet by 133 feet with a frontage of 100 feet located on the north side of La Palma Avenue ~, between Euclid Avenue and Onondaga Street; its southeast corner " being approximately 500 feet west of the northwest corner of ~ Euclid and La Palma Avenues, and further described as 1743- ~~ ; ! ~. ~ ; i. E ~ ~ G l r. 1747 West La Palma Avenue, to be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGI~ORHOOD ' CONQu¢RCIAL~ ZONEe Mre Willfams, the petitioner, appeared before the Comqaission and stated i:hat the subJect property was given a Conditional Use Permit several months ago by the Commission, that the transaction failed to ma~erialize, that the application for C-1 zoning was ' necessary to develop sub~ect property morQ advantageouslye THE HEARING N1AS CLOSEDo The Commission discussed alignment of the proposed buildings with the existing buildings abutting to the weste The petitioner stated that hs plans to align the proposed building with the existing buildings to the west, and that employee parking will ' be provided along the alleya The Commission found and determined the fallawing facts regarding the sub~ect petition: , le That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRQCULTURAL, Zone to the C-1, NEIGFffiORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONE. 2e That the proposed reclassification of sub~ect property is necessary or desirable For the orderly and proper development of the communityo 3e That the•proposed reclassification of sub~ect property does property relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to sub~ect property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the communityo . 4e That the proposed reclassification of sub~ect 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 improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the permitted uses, in~•accordance with the circulatio~ element of the General Plane 5e That no one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitiono ' Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 284, Series 1961-62, and moved far its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ ~l-5?-?4 be aFProved reclassifying ~ub~act prop~rt~ fro~ the R-A, RESIDENTIAL'AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD • COMIU~RCIAL, ZONE (restricted to business and professional off:ces only), sub~ect to the following conditions: -849- ,~:e... ~'~ . _._ . .: .::s~ T , ~ ..., . ..n~.. ::a~ .. .h~.... r ;*'.~~.:..~...:.{:. .~~~-~ .... . .. .. . RECLASSIFICATION - 1. Dedication of 53.feet from the monumented centerline of N0. 61=62-94 La Palma Avenue_(50 feet existing)e ~Continued) 2. Payment of $2000 per front foot for street lighting purposes on La Palma Avenuee 3o Sns~.a:lation of sidewalks and driveways on La Palma Avenue fn accordance with the auopted standard plans on file in t,e Office of the City Engineexo ~ 4o Provision of trash storage,areas as determined by the Depart- ~ ment of Pubiic Woiks, Sanitation Division, which are adequate ~:": in stze accassible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequa~ely _ ~nclosad by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final L'~~ilding Inspectione 5e ?ime limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the accomplishment,of Item Nosa 1, 2, and 3e 6o Installat~on of treewells at forty (40) foot intervals in the parkway portion of sub3ect property, p2ans for eaid landscaping to be submitted to and sub3ect to the approval ~ of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping to be installed prior to Fi.nal Building Inspectione ~ ~ On roll call the fore oin resolution w;., g g passed by the following ~ votes ~ ~ AYFSs COMMISSIONHRSs Camp, Chavoe, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, l~erryo NOESe COMMISSTONERSs None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Hapgoodo CORRESPONDEN~E - ITEM NOe 1- BOARD OF.SUPERVISIORS MINUTES REGARDING MR ZONING- NORTHEAST ANAHEIM AREAo An excerpt was read from the minutes of the Oran9e County Board of Supervisors, which described the Yorba Linda General Plan for comparison with the pro~ection within the City of Anaheime ITEM NOe 2- IPTTER OF RESIGNAI'ION - JEAN PAGE~ COMMISSION SECRETARY. A letter oF resignation, gubmitted by Jean Page, Planning Commission Secretary, was presented to the Commisston said letter indicating resignation in order to accept enother po~itiono Commissioner Chavos stated that in his brief tenure on the Conunission, ' he had ncted that Mrso Page had displayed initiative and capability in performing her duties, and thet hQr services had been vezysatis- factoryo The Commission concurreda Chairman Gauei directed that the letter of resignation be acknowledged and accepted with regret, and he extended the Commission's best wishes for Mrso Page's success in her new positione ITEM N0. 3- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRESS.' ~ Six Planning Commissioners plan to-attend meeting and dinner in Ontarioe: -850- 1 ~x:~P~.r,..,,...1l...~.,.. f, .~;!;:.,..°.........i.r~,.. ~s..,~__...M~~ia'u:?ISC,vk;s,,..:~rut,=^~.4,a~.~,.1iy :.. ........ . ..... ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONU~ISSION, April 2~ 1962,,Continue~s ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1: PLANNING STUDY N0. 45-11h-4e ~ :. RECOMA~NDATIONS t Located on State College Houlevarde Continued until meeting of April 30, 1962e j:.,:~ . . . . ~ . ITEM NOo 2s CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo ~ To consider the proposed amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18s08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to "Definitions". Said amendment was continued from the meetings of February 19, 1962, ~ March 5, 1962, and March 19, Y962 at the request of the Commission. ~ ~., ~ ~.'~' Commissioner Chavos offered a motion, ssconded by Commfssioner Camp, to continue the public-hearing on said amendment uRtil the meeting of April 30, 1962e MOTION CARRIEDo ~ ITEM NOe 3e MRe GEISLER SUGGESTED TO THE COMMISSION THAT IF TI~Y WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ACTION ON oERVICE STATIONS~ THAT ~ IT BE REFERRED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE STATIONS ! BE ACTED UPON UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITe Cortunissioner Chavos offered a motion, seconded by Cortupissioner ~ Camp to recommend to the City Council that dll petitions for service stations be processed under Petitions foT Conditional Use Permit, rather than under Petitions for Reclassificatione ~dOTTOId CARRIEDe ' Chairman Gauer left the'Council Chambers at 6:25 Pe Me , ITEM NOo ~t CONGAISSIONER MARCO,l1X ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT RESIDENTS IN T1~ VICINITY OF EAST STREET ARE TNTERESTED IN LAND- , SCAPING AT THEIR QNN EXPENSE, TI~ AREA BETWEEN LA PALMA pVENUH AND ROMNEYA DRIVEe Commisstoner M~rcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Camp, that the Public Works Director be requested to investi- gate the feasibility of landscaping the west side of the park- way portion of East Street adJacent to the Raymond Retarding Basin of the Oxange County Flood Control District north of La Palma Avenue. MOTION CARRIEDo i: ITEM NOe 5: Commissioner Periy offered'a motion, aeconded by '. Commissioner'Marcoux, that„the DiFector of Public ,. Utilities be requested to investigate the'feasi- bilitY of removal of the pumphouse, and/or~- relocatibh of the existing well-site located on the west side of West.Street,between Romneya Drive ! and La "Palma' Avenue.' MOTTON• CARRIEDo` ~ ~ ADJOURN(u~NT - There being no further busine'ss, the meeting was ad~ourned at I 6:35 p.m. ,, ~ Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ANN :KREB~~_..,...-.. ' Planning Department Stenographer