Minutes-PC 1962/04/30A~SBNT
---------. . • ~~ ~ww~,~~+aar~a~.napgooa~.marcouX~ MVIIg&11~
Pebley,.Perry.
- COMMISSIONBRS: None.
L ~ (.ik,.+.. .a.s; t:` ~'-Y,~: ? r' 'v >
~
E
I -
;
_
.
' ~
' "
~ ~
~
~ .
;
'
~~
~
~ ~
.
..
.,
.
.
, ,. ...
.
.
. . .. . .~
: ~
. ., ~ ~:,: ~.,~,.. ,-, ;. i 1znu; {,
~ . .
.
.
.~~~~ .',~,, . . ... , .. .
'. .~.,.~. - ... . ...~. ~...,
. ,:. ~.. ,. ~.. .. :., r~,~~:, .~J
:~I~ ~ '; I . ~- .
. ,
, . . ,.
.. ~- . . .
.. ' . . .' .. , . . . . .,
~. . . . ~
.. . ~., .. . . .~
. . „ '':. ';.:, , ~. ..~ .
-
,x~
{' ~~ • . ~.. ~ ( . ~~
,~
' 'p
,
' ,
*' ~~- ~~
~ ~
'
.
. ~ !I f '~.•' •
~ ~.
•' - u, >.
. ~..:..:
•-: MINUTBS; CITY PIANN ING.COMMISSION,'Apri1 30; 1962,.ContinueO ~~ 895
TBI~TA
"` ~ TIV8 MAp~OP` - ,
'3:;' Provision'that G1en Holly Drive be a 64 foot right of waq;' '
' -.':RACT N0;:4'679 ' 'easterly of Harding Avenue. -
. `' s(Coatinued) ..:' ,.
4: That there-be provi~ions of an adequate drainage plan~ which
shall;be handied ia a'manner satisfactory to *.he City Bngineer,.
S. Provide that the northern-moat parcei abutting the west
i~oundasy of subject tract be included as a lot withinfthe
tract. . .
•
: i
: Commissioner Caap seconded the motion..~MOTIOi~i CARRIBD. .~
, ~ Comm' 'oner P ey left the Coancil,Chaatbers at 2:20 0!C1ock P.M.
RBCLASSIPICATION: CALVIN.L. PBBLBY, 824'South Rawblewood Road,
~
N0."61-62-98 ` ~,Owner;.:McDANIfiL BNGINBBRING, 222 Bast Lincoln Avenue~ Agent; re-
` '-questing`that property described,a's; An irregularly;shsped pazcel
of 3aad.coetaining 9:5 acres, approximateiy 900 feet deep,yvith a • •
frontage of 416~feet, on the soutri side of Ba11 Road, end=located
? :„~ '. ' ~ . • 133 feet`west of the centerline of .Oakhaven Drive,' and.further
..
~
~described as Tentative.Tract No,'4627, be reclassified`from th'e:~"
` ,~
.: ,R-A,,~~RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZOI~ to the R-3. MULTIPLB FAMTLY
` ' R85TD81VTIAL, ZOI~.
_ ~ Subjecb petition.was fiied.in conjunction with:Tentative Map of
~ Tract No. 4627.
,
~ ~ ' . ..
~ continued from the meeting of;April;l6; 1962~
Subject petition was
because of lack of a.sufficient vote:to darry the motion:.
~
s Mr..A.`R: McDaaiel~ engineer for the petitioner,.appeared.befOre
~
= ~
_. . questions which absent me~bers
the Commission to answer additional
~
~ _ presented for ciarification in order.to vote inteiiigeatly. .: -
~ Mr. L. Predrick Pack, developer, appeared before the.Coamission'~ . .
~ to aaswer questions regarding'Tract No. 4627, and stated that '
~ they planned to develop in accordance with the plasss submitted~
and that medium density single story apartments in accordance with
~ ail code provisions would be coastru:ted on subject property.
f The Commission found and deteti-mined the followiag facts regarding •
~ - ~'the subject petitione
,. _
~
,
._ ., . 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the:above ,
_
, . described property from the:R-A, RHSID BNfiIAL'A~ICULTURAL,
_
' ~ ~ ZONB to the R-3 .MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20N8, `to con-
~
e family unit depelopment, •
struct a multip
2. Thaf the,proposed;reclassification-af subject'property is
neeessary or desirable~for'the orderiy and proper,deve:iopment
of the community._-
~ ~_ 3. That
~the proposed:reciassification of..subject nroperty does -' ~
~: •. ~,, _
properiy relate.to the'.zones and their permitted uses.locally
~ ~., established in close,proximily,to subject,property and ta.the :: :
~ zones and"their permitted uses.,generaily establiahed through '-~
out •bhe community.-:
., 4. That the nroeosed reciassification of;~sub~ecti~,orooertd doea ~~I
t' 1 a'; J . 1. . : ,a 5 xr a~ y ~ 1l ) 1 ~. ' S 1 .' ~ A~ +. ~'
~ - ~ ~ ~ ~7T ~ ~ , ~. ya' 7 ~ e ~ r ~ i i, ~ c r!t ~ '
i ' ~. ~h ' ~~ ''~ , .' ~ ~~P .,. . .... ,.! ~~M1lr ~ 7 ~ ~y,r y,~,( t ~ .
~~ 4 ' ~ ' ~ j -~a--^---r---r---^'^-~'~~~Xfi' ~wr~.-.1 ,~ 4 1 `
. ~r . . ~r ' ~ t ..~ . i'~"T t.4 i ~ . ., . ~ . . ~ ~ .~ , ~ r . . ~ x . ,. K . t' +,(,~~ , s.. .?,. `~.:- ....._.~ ~ _
`n_s "l ~ .,1.... .,..~ .e, .1~ ,,..
. . .
4 . ~ 1 a ~~r~
~
~
,
.
~ ~
~
L
f'~
~`e~k~
~~
~~
~
~~~~
~~~
~~
~
~
Y
~\
~^
~
...
...
v, '.
~.
.
V
.
' ..
.
' MINUT83, CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION, Apr11 30, 1962, Continued: 876 •
RBCLkSSIPICATION - 5: There were four persotts appearing in opposition to.sub,ject
N0. 61-62-98 ~ petition,one submitting,petitions with 43 signatures of
(Continued) adjacent property owners: One pe;son appeared,representing 5
~ o~her in favor-of; sub3ect petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered,Resolution No. 296, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner -
Marconx, to;recommend to the:City Council that Petition for .
RecY9ssification No. 61-62-98 be approved, sub3ect to the foilow-
, , ing conditions:
1, Developm::nt substantialiy in accnrdance with revised map of
Tentative Tract No. 4627 dated Apri1 24, 1962,
~ 2. Development plans for eaeh parcel to be submitted to and sub-
ject to the approval of the Architectural.Control Committee
- to conform to all R-3 Code requirements,
3. Payment of a`Park and Recreation Fee of $25,00 per .welling
unit,to be co]]ected as part of the Building Permit.
4. Pnovision of trash storage;areas a~ determined by the Depait-
r,ent of Public Worke, Sanitation Division, which are adequate •
in size,.accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately ~
er_~losed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Fina1 Building
Inspection:
5. Recordation of a Fina1 Tract Map of subject property.
T~fie foregoing co~lditions were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary;prerequ3site to the use,.of the property
in order to.preserve.the safety.and welfare of the citizens of '
the City of_Aaaheim.' -~ .
On ro,il:call:the foregoing resoluta.oxi,was passed,by the,foilowing
vote;r
AYBS: CObA~tIS3I0NBRS: A11red Camp, Gauer, Ha~~good~ Marcoux,
~
Mungal
, Ferry. .
NQBS: CCIMMISSIONBRS: Chavos. ' ,
ABSENTe COhAlISSIONBRS: Pebiey. '
1BNTATIVB MAP OP - DBVBLOPBR: L. PRBDRICK PACK,`P. 0. Box 333, Corona De1 Mnr~ Cali-
TRACT N0. 4627 fornia; BNGINHffit: McDANIBL BNGINHBRING CO., 222 Bast Lincoln Ave-
nue, Anaheim, California.` Subject tract is loc~ted on the aouth '
aide of Bal1 Road, approximately 133,feet,trest of the centerline
of Oakhaven D'rive, and contains .twenty-si7c (26) proposed R-3, ;
MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDSNTIAL, 20NH; Lota.
~
8ub3ect tract map was filed in eonjunction with Reclaesification ~
No. 61-62-98. •
~ . Subject tract map was continued f.rom the meeting of April 16, 1962 .
at the request of the engineer of sqbject petitxon.
Mr. L, Predrick Pack, developer of subject tract, appeared before
~ ~
the:Commission and s~ated thdt he.wauid post"a baad or its equiv- -
. aient zn ca$n:wi~h fhe city:to guarantee:completson of-:"Stsee# A", ~
s
and that Mr. Piersall, Public Works..Lirector, asaured hi~c thiq
would b~ satisfactory..
~ ,
~. . . - i
.~ ~;
_
.
-
~ . _.
:.
_
: _ :
~. . . , .- ~ v ~4 , ~:,1~ .
.. .~
:t ,
.
,,~~. -
~P~~ . .
.. . '"'_ ~.. .~:1~ ~ J~'N',
~iP c
~
.
'T'
A
~
~
~
~
~
~
1 ~
~ '~tr'~ ~
c
„
ki ;
,C
.
8
. .
~
.
~ ~ .
.
`. .
~./
J MINUTBS,,CITY PIANNING.COD4+IISSIflN, April 30, 1962,.Continued: 877 .
'
TBNTATIVB MAF OP - The Commission.found and determined the following fact regarding
TRACT N0. 4627 the aubject 1Yact Map:
~ CCon't'inued) -
;. • That it would be the recommendation of the Interdepartmentai Coe~-
_ mittee that the storm drain..connection be completed prior to the
~. City's starting tY.e Ball oad Improvement Project in this area. •
:• i' Commissioner @amp-offered a motion to,accept Tentative Map of '
~ i Tract No, 4627, (Revision No. 1), dated April 24, 1962, subject
' to the foilowirag conditions:
~
i 1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more
~ than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shaT? he sub- ~
~ • mitted in tentative form for approvai. •
E
f
2. Subject to ±. approval of plot and building plans by the
?
~. Planning and Building Bepartments. ,
~ 3. 3ub3ect to the approval of Yetition for Reclassification No.
~ 61-62-98.
.
F
4. Provision.of a modified cul-de-sac at the terminus of Oaklawn
~ Drive~ subject to the approval of the City Sngiaeer, ! '
S.; Provision of an adequate cut-off for turning movements, within
; the a11ey, on Lot Nos, 19 and 24 in accordance with zecom-
mendations of the Traffic Bngineer.
~
~
6. Provide'that Lot "A" shall extend frow the south iine of Ball
~. Road to'the south line of 6treet "C".
r .
~ 7: A piedetermined price for Lot "A" shail be.calculated and an
agseement for dedication entered into between the deve
loper
,
and.ttie City of Anaheim prior,to,approvai of the:final map. ,
~ The eost:of Lot:"A" shail include one-haif the cost of laad,
underground ut"3.lities, and pay3ng of'Street "A".
8.- Posting of an improvement-bond to insure the installation of
curbs; gutters, and.remaining paving'alorig the westeriy side
of.Street "A",-when said improv•ments are required'by the
City 8ngineer.
o
`'
c
mmissi~iner ~hsFVas
se
C
onded the.motio^. MOTION CARRIBD.
Commissioner Pebley re4urned to Couaci.e~Chambers at 3:00 0'Ciock"P,M.
~ RBCIASBIPICATION: - PUSLIC'F~ARING. F. J. SCHUBBRT, et a1~ 616, 620, 624, 626, 630~ ,
N0. 61-62-101 700, 706 $outh Buclid Aveaue, Anaheim, California, Owaera;
. P: J..SCHtJBBRT, 630`Sa~!th Buclid Avenue, Aaahe3m, Califortia,
. Agent; requesting that;:proper'tq described as; Parcel'NO. 1: A •
parcei 322.feet'by l00 feet.witr, a,frontage of 322.feet on'the
.. = east side of•Buclid Avenue..and 100-feet`on the narth side.of •
~_ Alomar Adenue~`and Parcel No. 2: A parcel 300 feet by 122 feet
~ with.a frontage'of_122.,. eet :on.the east side of Huclid:Avenue aud
~~ 100 feet on the south"side of Alomar Avenue~ and further describ- ~ "
~
• ed`as 616, 620, 624, 626; 630, 700,.606 South 8uclid.Avenue be
•
~
;, .
reclassified from the R-1 SI
, ,. NGLB..,PAMiILY R85ID1HNTIAL, ZONB to. the
~
~
~ C-1, 1~IGHBO~tFI00D COhQSB1tCIAL,`
ZONB.
~
.
, Mr. Pred D. Schubert~ agerit foi the'petitionera,
appeared before i
k; ' ". the Coi~iissiom and stated that` subjecti petitios~ was made for ~
R after ~making a study of aimiiar `re,quests in''the,city'under similar '
;, situations. Ttiat the Citq Council had suggested.in the past that
`
•%
` `rezoning be done over a isige area rather than by.pieceme$1
~ x -~5
~t ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~
. . .
.
. .. . ~
~~~(, ..
~ 1.(.~ .
.
. . .
.. . .
~ ". . - ' . . ~ .
f .
r
L, ~S ~ l
~zb4~ . ' ~ .
j ' . .
~
~, .. ,{' .
~"
.'~ : , : •
~
'
~
'
~ ~ ~ `
:.~.,,+.a+.~.
r:i "~'."1:._..,,~ ~.. ,. , . .
--
~T
.~.w,:.. . .. ... . ,..~.
:r^_ .~~..a: .r~.::~.._~,. ,~.~... :,.~,~, .~~,;.~ .r- .=.T~~-,: , . , ~i' ~~`
"~ . . . . . ... _. _ _... ~ _... . .. ...-._
„ ,
__-.
,
. . . . ~ _ ~ .-
4.: -.~.Y, . .
j"
•
. ~ ~ .
.
.
~ ' ~ . .
~ ~ $i~
~i f,~y~.
.~?j ..
.'
.
.
,
~
'
~ ~
.
~
'
. ; . ,.
~..~ .
.
.- . .
. .
:,-. . _ .. ~ .
, . . , . . .
.: . ~.~
~ .' ~... ~ . ' . - . " .. ~. . . . ~ ,
. . ..,. . .~. ~~ .
.... . . . ',. . . ;..:.~ . !~ ;
~.:..~ ,.... ... . ~'-. . ~...:. . . . . ~"~ ~ . .
. v. . . . , . . . ~. . r
.. . .. . _.. . ..~~ .. ~..~ . .
. . ' . .: - . . . ,, . . . ~ ' ',' ., '
; ~ . . .~ . .. --....... ' . .
F . . ~ . . - ' . . ' ~ ~ . . .
~
_
. ~~~~~ .~~._.._~ .~~ ~~
~ C~~,- ~,,~j .
. . . ,,
--~~
0 .
..
MINUTBS~ CITY PIAIaTING COMMISSION, Aprii 30, 1962~ Continued:. ' ' 878
~ RECLASSIFICATION - applications, that because of the eyes=increasing changas occur-
N0. 61-62-101 •ring and increased traffic load on Suciid Avenue, it had become ~
CContinued) increasingly difficult to sell property as residential homes,
#hat sub3ect properties were located on the east side of ~uciid ~
~ Avenue and are the only properties that are located betwzen ~
• I.incola and Crone Avenues that are aot C-zoned property, except ,' ~
' ~ the PentHali property, and that~ with the widei~ing of Buclid Ave- . '
~
, nue and its tie in with the Garden Grove Preeway north and south '
;,,, from La Aabra to the ocean~ the iacreased traffic hazards would ~
;
increase. • .~ ~
~ Mr. Joseph A. Bradley, 707 Aivy Street, representing neighboring
property cwners, appeared before the Commissioa in opposition to
• subject petition, and st'ated that subject property was developed
• and purchased as an R-1'area, that there would be no parking '
' facilities for any cars on Huclid-Avenue if subject petition ia
approved, and that in all likelihood, the alley behind subject ,
properties wcuid be utilized for.•this purpose, that this added
traffic would seriousiy affect the safety of the arany children
~living in that area. ,
~ Mr. Ralph Liebman, 714 Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission I
and stated'thatJhe lived just south of one of the subject lots,
• that ::f the property was rezoned, the property to the south e•c~id ,
be useiess, since there is'riow a large saturation of professional
• ••offices in the area, that it would not•be advantageous to,put
• the entire area into a C=1 classification~ and that said property
would not be maintained and, ther~fore, would not be an asset to
the City. .
There were 24 letters in opposition to subject petition presented
to the Commission,
' `Mr. Bert Soynton, 626 South Buclid, one of the petitioners,
appeared before the Commissioa and stated that if the projected
street widening takes place on Buclid~ the bedrooms ia his home
~ , wouid be within ten feet of the street~ and favored granting of
' the petition.
~ . TF1B HBARING WAS CLOSBD. .
The Commission was informed that there were deed restrictions on
' the properties of this tract for R-1 use, that the onYy one
presently planning to:take advantage of said reclassification was .
the agent, Mr, Schubert, The Com6.3ssion found aad detercained the
~ • foi:owing facts,on subject petition: ~
_ l. That the petitioner proposes a zeclassification of the above
described property>from.the,R-1~ SINGLB PAMILY RESIDHNTIAL~
20NB to the C-1, NBIGHB0RFi00D COMMHRCIAL, 20NB,.limited to the
• use of professional offices, ;
~ ~_ 2. That the proposed reclassification of sub„•.•:: property is not
F
- uecessary or desirabie for the orderiy aad proper developmenL
-
E _ of the.community. ,
3. That the proposed reclassification wouid be detrimenta]. to
the surrounding residentiai area and the. welfare of the
peopie in'the:neighborhood. _
, ~
~, ,'
~ ,_ S. T` . two persons appeazed ia .opFosi.ion to subject petition,
- a,..t .~t 24' petsfions' were received ic opppsition to sub3ect '~
~ ~
~iid'~
v ~ pe ~.
x+~,S
~ .
, ,, , ,. . .
,. ~
.. . ,
ti
,
.,..
,: . :.
,: . :.
~ `,
.
..
, ,
~;
.u ,~ _+~.,~.~.~...._~.;n_' . ., . .. . . ,:. . .. ., /-~ . , w . . . ... "".';?_'°'~'._-~ - ~ -- ~--
~
~
}
~
... =~
~
. ;; i
'n
`.i
,
. .__- ...r.i
..'„ ~ ~ , f , °tr ~f 1 .~;:; ~ ;.N~
,~~ ~
a%c
. . ~ , . ; . . . ~ ~* . . . .
. .•~ ' / , .~'4~~~~ . ~ .
F.
F
~ .•
~...~~ ~ . ~. ~ ; c~~ . ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COM,~lISSION, April 30,'1962,>Continued: 879
RECLASSIPICATION -'Commissioner Chavos offered Resoluti~n No. 297, Series 1961-62,
N0. 61-62-101 `and moved.for its.passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
(Continued) Mungall, to recommend to the City Council to deny Petition for
Reclassification`.No. 61-b2-101;on the basea of the aforementioned
findings, '
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote: . . ~
AYSS: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood~ ~
Marcoux, Mungail, Pebiey, Perry.
NOHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None,
ABSBNT: CfY~9MISSIONBRS: None. .
~ RBCLABSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HEAttTNG. S. V. HUNSAKBR and SON3~ P, 0. Sox
N0. 63-62-90 1216, Fleetwood Annex, Covina~ California, Owners; requesting
property described as: .A parcel with a frontage,of 540 feet on
Haster Strept and a frontage of 630 feet on Oraagewood Avenue and ~
located on the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster
Stieet, to be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, . i
ZONH, to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONE, i
Subject reclassificatioa was filed in con3uaction with Petition
for Variance No. 1459.
Subject.petition was continued from the Aprii 2, 1962 meeting in
order to readverti§e the_petition to include the ~ntire property.
- Mr. C.~McGraw,,attorney representing the pet.itioner, appesred
before the.0ommisaion and~atated that he was addresaing his
items in reference.to both the aboVe subject petition and
Variaace No. 1459,.that'the property.had beea r.eadvertised to
include.the lot`at Yhe'nbrthwest'corner of the originaliy
described property for Rr3~.Mu1tiple Pamily Residential, 2oning,
that the proposed development was a medium density, that sub,jeet
property is aimost completely aurrounded'by R-3 developments,
that the owner plana to make this deveiopaient a firsL-class one
with landscaping,`carpeting, ,and drapesy, that rental wili be in
the $13S to $250.bracket, and that-the owners have developed a
similar tract in the City. '
THB FffiARING WAS CLOSBD.
~The Commission`found and determined the following facts regarding
sub3ect petition: .
• 1. That the petitioner proposes a reciassification of the above ~
described;property,';from`the R A,'RESIDSNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ~
20NH to the_R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RBBIDSNTIAL, ZONR,'to permit i
the astablishment of.e standard R-3, Multipie Pgmily Resi-
dential Development. .
~ 2: :That the.proposed reciassification bf subject property ~s ;
neceshar~ or desirabie for the orderiv and oroDer develocment
,. , . r
,:~.: t ~,ti _~ ~. .~ . ~ ~•, ~, _
~ ,
E ~ ~`
3 ~,
. ~ ~~~~
~y;.~ ~::~ .
~: ~ - - - _ _ S~,~r ~f ----- ~.
• ~..,.. ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
~ I~INUTBS, CITY PLANNING:CObAlISSION, Apri1 30, 1962, Continued: ~g0
R8CIA3SIPIi:ATION - established in close proximity to subject property and to the
N0:` 61-62-90 zones'and their permitted uses generally established throughout
(Conti _nued) the community.
4, That the proposed"reclassification of subject property does
• xequire dedication for aad standard improvement of abutting
streets because said property does':relate..to and abrit upon
streets and highways which are propo§ed to carry the type and
quantity of:traffic, which will be:generated by the permitted
. • uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the C-eneral
. ., Plan. ~
~ S. That Lot Nos.~ 23 and 24 have been designated as the recreation
area for subject development. ~
C 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
R
t. Commissioner Perry'offered Resolution No. 298, Series 1961-02, and
~ moved for, its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall I
~ to recommend to the City Council that Reclassification No. 61-62-90
~ be.approved subjeci to the foliowing conditions:
~ 1. Development suostantiaily r.. accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1 _ ~
E through 7 xrith tkie exception that a minimum of seven (7) differ
f- ent elevation plans.shall be submitted`for Architectural.Committee
~• consideration and subject to.Architectural Committee approval for
F development of subject property,.and with the further exception
6
that a variable'front yard setback of i5 to 20 feet be estab-
~ lished where'possible, said alterations subject to the :approval '
of the Architectural'Committee, f
~ _ 2:. Payment of Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit '
to be collected as part of`the Building Permit.
i :
t 3.. Recordation:of a Final Map of Tract No. 4SSl of subject property.
k ' 4. Provision of tras!: storage areas as determined by the Department
E ~ of Public Works,.Sanitation Division, which are, adequate in size,
accessible;to trash-truck pickup, and..adequately enciosed by a
solid fence'or wa1l;.prior to:Final Building Inspection.
S. Installation of recreation facilities on Lot Nos. 23,and 24
prior to Pina1 Building Inspection. `
The foregoing conditions were-recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary pre=equisite to the use of,the,prope;ty in
, order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the
City_of Anaheim.
~ •
c,h~~rall ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowxng vote:
!' '
pYSS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood.,
~ Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
~ NOBS: COhQtISSIONHRS: .None.
~ .
ABSHNT: CONW(ISSIONffitS: None.
~
E
VARIANCH N0. 1459 -'CONTINUBD PUBLIC t~ARiNG. S.' V. Hunsaker and Sons, P, O. Box.1216,
~' Pleetwood Annex, Covina, California, Owners;. requesting permission
~ to WAIVB'SINGL'B STORY,,HBIGHT LIMITATION oa,property.described as:
f A parcei with a frontage of 540 feet on :iaster Street and a
E frontage of 630 feet on Orangewood Avenue and located on the north-
.
.
~ ~
;'
~t ' ~.~
t~u y.. ~
~-. / ,
~ •
~
~
~
~, _~.-_ ,
~ E:
, , ;. , ,. .,,
~ .; : , ,, , ;: . ~
,, . ,., . .
I ~ . .
~ ~~?
:ti
, . .. . . y,. ~. .
.
.. _. ......... ....
. .. . .. . . .... ..., ... _,
,., . , , . , . : ; , , . ; <,i.'~~,3~ ~~' ~
` b . , . +;~-;c~ ~
~'~ ~ ~~.fi 7 I=~~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C ION, April 30, 1962, Continued~ ~ 881
~
VARIANCB N0. 1459 -- east corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street. Property
CContinued) presently classified in the R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NB.
Subject variance was filed in coajunction with Petition for
Aeclassification No. 61-62-90.
, Subject petition was continued from the meeting of Apri1 2, 1962 .
to permit the Planning Departmeat an opportunity to readvertise
• the petition to inClude the entire property. •
Mr. Clifford McGraw, attorney representing the petitioner,
appeared before the Commis§ion and stated he had no further ~
. ~ comments than those offered on Reclassification No. 61-62-90. ~
,
THS HBARING WAS CL0.SBD. `
,`
~ Mr. Kreidt, Zoning Coordinator, stated that the zoning code ~
~ required single story development if property was within 150 feet
F of an R-1 area, and if the Commission felt it was close enough to ~
~ the 150 feet to warrant waiving this requirement it was suggested
this be included'in the motion. ~
~ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding ~
~ the subject petition: !
~ . . l
~ 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
~ Municipal Code: Section 18,32,060 to waive structural ~
height lim:tation of one story to permit the establishment
of two story multiple family residential structures on
s~sbject property.
~;.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
~ conditions applicable to the property involved or to the
i intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
~• . the property or class of.u§e in the same :vicinity and :-.one,
~
~• 3, That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
F and enjoyment of ~ subst:antial pr.operty right possessed by
other property in the same vicinity an~? zone, and denied to ~
the property in question.
f 4. Thai the requested variance will not be materially detrimen-
~ tai tc the public welfare or injvrious to the property or ~
~ improvemen#s in such vicini#y and zone in which the property
is located.
~
5. That the requested variance wi11 not adversely affect the
Comprehensive General P1an.
` b. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
_ y
~ ' Commissionex Mungall offered Resolution No. 299, Series 1961-62,
and moved,for its passage.and;adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Pebley to:giant petition Y'or Variance No. 1459 subject to the
following conditions;
1. Develapment substautially.in accordance with IDchibit No=. 1
~ through`.7 with the exception that a minimum of seven diiier- t
ent elevation plaas shall be submitted for Architectural ~
~ Committee consideration and subject to Architecturai ~
,~. Commit#ee approval:.for:developmeat of subject property~ and
with'the:further ezception that a variable front ya~:. seL-
back of 15 to 20.feet be ests-blished wheze possible~ said
~ axterations sub,~ect to the approval of the Architectural
.Committee, ,
_
~ ~ _.' -. : ' I
y ,:' : ~ , i
T~ti: ~' t
~ ,....._.~., . , '~..~~,.~.."~' ~ .... . r:~.,., ~ . _
.'.'ri; .. .~ 1 .....
r
~' C
y . 7 . :%-"M~ M . .'~':~''~. ~ . '[f ~ , .i:+,i~..C ~ ~ . ~ !:. ..
~' r
e
~ .
I
~
~ -~
~ ..
~t ,,
d `'~' ~ ~
,. ~!~, _..~_~
:~i ;i rv ~~1.;~.i'-`§v.,.;r.<.Eu:<<t~.. ~. ~.-v;:,~fi"t~~t'~ ,~~,.+.~.`~~~y~T
7.;,~
, ~ ~~
~ '~y-~, ~ - r v~...P r -l,. `t'~'Cti:..i, aY1':~, ... . ~
• ~~ .~~ ,.~T~~
J ~ . ti~ ryM'~'~.
~ ~1 ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~f~~T . ~ .
: ;.-.. .:.._ ,.., ; . ~ ,..,. ., ., ~~. ... . .
~' ~'. MINUTBS; CF:: PIANNING :'OMM.iSSION, Apri1 30, ,1962; •Cpntinued: 884
' 1~CLAS31PlCA'~TON - Sun~,ject.pet3.tion was continued from the meeting af April 16~ 1962~
" Ni~;.'_51-62=97 . 1':ecause af ,the,lack of:.a:sufficient vote to carry the mot'son.
, (Con1`:ia~~ed) ia ~ ~~i c~'Ke{ _
• Co m ss one; e ieyR ;ttere ~solution No, 301, 3eries 1961-62, •
~ and moved'for its=p~ , sge and,:adoption, seconded '~y Commissioner
' Mar,c;aux to ;ecommen4..o the City Councxi that Petition foz
f Reclassificakion No..61-6~~97 be approved subject.to the following
g conditions:
~ 1. T'.:<<t the own~~rs of .su+~.iect.`property place of record, City,of ~
; Rnr.heiin, ~-3' :DeeG .°cstri:~ti,on on Lot Nos. ,124 and 125 of Tract
No. 195,1 :..Epr~~v~d,by the`~'3ty,Attorney~ which re9trictiens,
'shal] iiM_~ ;C: e, usesof said lots to service stat~ions only or
to tiu~i'~:e:~~, 'profession~l' and real estate offices; 'pharmaeies;
medical:s:.a dental centers; banks, coffee shops'or restaurants
not ta ~:xceed seating'capacitiy for.SO persons (no drive-in,
drive-•ihrough, or waik-up and nc liquor); telephone answering`
~ servi~ces; book and `stationery stosce~; confectionery, including
ice;c:~eam sales;,flower shops; bart+er o=::beauty shops; exhibit
halls;;no retsil s,ales:fxom floor); speciaity gift shaps; ~
tobacco, sho~;~;;phofo,shops,; laundry agencies or clothes ciean-
tng agencies; v;,o~ repair' siaops;'`tailor .shops; men~s,• women's
- _
' a::d children's ;cTo4h~ng.shops; diagnastid iaboratories;
I oaleries; studios related to permitte~"uses; interiox deco-
i r tor+s' studios; and .toy a~`d, hobby 'sho~;s.,
2. ,That she owners of su'b,ject• property place of recor,d~ Citq of
~ Anah~im, C-1 Deed Restrict3:ons ora Lot no. 126 of Tsact No. :
'.1951~ approyed bq~the.City:Attoraey~.Nh'ch restrictions sha1l
' 1imiC;the~u~e,v o:',tae property to busineas,.professional,and
,reai estate uf~`t~:es;,,pharmacies; me$ical.and:dentai centers;
banka;''coffee=sh~ps"or res~auraats;aot;to exceed'seating
~ capacity;for_SG yersons..(ao`,drive-ia, drive-through, or walk-
~ .up and`ao iiquos), teiephone answering services; book and
stationery sta~•s, confectionery; iacludine i~e•_i:ream sales;
p flower shops;. bnrber;:or beauty ehops ezhibit hails (ac ,~
~~. retnil sales. froet floor); speciaity e~~~x,shops, ;tofOSCCo
aho~s; `photo.shops; Saur3ry;ageaciei{ .re eiothes clesi-3Ag ~
~. agenciee; shoe repai'r shops; taiicr gh~ps men!P, woiaen's"and
chiid:en'r cloth'ing ,shops;;diagnostic lnborafic,riea,%baker3.ea; ~
~ studios .eiated So permitted uses; interior d~eca*.+;or,s' j
~ ',studios; and toy and hnbby,ehops.. ~
~ ~- 3. Tha~ no buiidings nc; structures sha11 be used'for both ~
~, comnercial and residentisl'purposea, i
I~ 4. The~t ei11 buiidit;~s. : a4*ucture~ ere~4ed on sub;,i~ct.p.^~y;c~rty ~
~ I~
~ ,•~ali l~e iimited to one story in heigat and no s~`,u~le b4i!~;:sp
d, ,' shaii`ex::eed 4,000"'aqt;sre~,feet-in'fioor ares; ,
_ ~S. T'r~at off-street parking aha11 be qrovided on,the basia of a ~
' minimum af 4 spaces, per .Y;000 syuare,fcet.of gr4as fioor area.
,
_ .
~'
6. -That the owness. of,sub3ect property`shail fle2d to the City of
- _ _ Axiaheim a strip.~of,.iand_.50 feet .in width, fro-n the centerline .
of..the atreet, along Magnoi;a Avenue For street wideaing _
purposea.
7. `That.thc owners of :9ub3ect.property sha:l dead,':t~ the C+.tp:of .
Anaheim a,strip of,:_`iand 20 feet.in.width o~ a~nd along:the ?~es4
- side ~f said,property for:ailey.purposes,
~
, ..
•' i
., i
t `' , ~
, . .
".c:,... .< ~~. . ~.~~. .. .. ~ .~~-~'~~~ I
, ~. ~. ~ ...`, .. .:}. . .. . '. ..~~~~ ~~ .. '~.,: ~~, ' ~ , ~ .~. „ .; ~.. . .~ .
, .~ . . ~ ~ r. .~
~. ~I
~.: . . , . , . , ~ ~. .
, .. _ . . . . ..
., .. ., . .,;. ..~. _ .
:' ~:, ...;:~i ~: .
. ., . ~ . . . ~ . . ~. , . ~. ..,. , ' ~ ' ' ::'
i I
~[, , t .s-Nf~~~lD#e~MN¢1~'ll\`6a~~ `n/1
F '. .~ ~ ~~ ~...a.~a..w`±--+t9W .' ~ 'Y .~^----'(- r ~ ~-,-- ... .l . , . , . . . ~i `~"vtas,~._~t y .. ~~. 7 „~, ~ ^ ~ ~~ ~•~` , . .
M1~wNr•rr.~+~f`~Li'r" . .-•m~~.ir.. ... _ .yll: . , 1...'; ,,, f ~~ ~ ,. :a F ~J~, fc:~r.C~.c..,.
~, i
, ....... y .
~~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISS?CN, April 30, 1962, Continued; ~84-A
RS~LASBIPICATION - The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
N0. 61-62-97 the subject petition:
(Continued)
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above
described property from the R-1, ONB FnMILY RESIDBNTIAL, 20NH
to the C-3, HHpVY COhAlERCIAL, ZONB for the purpose of erect-
ing a service station,
2, That the proposed reclassificati~;~n of subject property is
necessary or desirabie for the orderly and proper 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
zo~s and their permitted uses generally established through-
out the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification cf cubject property does
require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting
streets because ssid property does relate to and abut upon
streets and highways which are to carry the type aad quantity
of traffic, which wiil be generated by the permitted uses, in
accordance with the circulation element of the General Plan,
5. That there was a petition with 18 signatures and a letter
presented in opposition to the sabject petiticn.
~ '~
~
~
~ . _ _.
,
, ,...._~ .,~
k~ ,:w:~ra ----~ .. . ~.~_,~~ ~.. ....._.
1
1
~ ~
~
a
a
:~~
j
_ . . ~:~
~ ..
~ f, ~ i ~ ~~ a. .a ..~d
i ~,f
~ , ~ ~:~~ a, '
. ~ ~ ~ . .. ~I ~ .
~ n ~ ' . . ~:e';~~it,:^n~~''t'~f}.v.i'~ : _
~
. . ,::~ : . .~n`~{it~ :,
. . ~~ ... ~ ~ .. 7r~,~ ~x~,~ .
~ . ~S ~ 5 . ' .. . . - . . .. .
MINUTS3, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION; Ap'ri1 30, 19E2, Continued; 8f5
RHCIA99IPICATION - 8. That the owners of snbject property ~hall deed to the City
N0.-61-62-97 uf Anaheim a strip of lan4 53 £eet in'width, fram the center
(Continued) line of the street, along Ball Road for street w3denirg
} Purposes.
9, That the owners of sub,~ect property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim the sum of $2,00 per front foot on all street
frontage, for street lighting purposes, which amount shall be
paid,prior to the final reading of the ordinance reclassi-
fying said property.
10. That plans for the development of subject propertp shail
prov3de for future improvement of the alley in the rea, of
said property to City standards; when various contiguous
properties; having acceys to Rome Street or Bali Road, shall ~
have been developed:in accordance with the precise plan on
file with the Ci.ty. Interim paving and maintenance shall be
provided by the uwners for isolated groups,
11: That driveway access onto Magnolia Avenr.e sha11 be limited
to the minimum number necesQary, and as indicated on the
precise plan on file with the City, except for Lot Nos, 124~
and 125.
12, That sidewalks shall be instailed by the own.:rs of subject
property.~o the City standards, when various contiguous
properties=shoil have been developeQ~in accord~ance with the
precise plan.
13, That subject;property shall be developed to conform to the
site plari;of~development'on-file wiih the City of Attaheim,
marked !'Hzhibit,A," and by refe;ence:mads.a part hereof,
except;that'Lot Nos. 124 and 125;shail be developed in
' - accorda~.ce with'Bxhibit Nasc 1 and 2, and.the existing
residence`on Lof No 126 sha11 be removed prior to Pinai
Buildiag''Inspection of the proposed 'service station site-on
~ Lot Nos;.124 and 125.and,pians for:the ultimate.deveiopment
' ' of.Lot No,.126'shall be:subject to the Architectural Com-
, mittee, and in accordance with the:conditions contained ,
herein.
14, ~That a Faithful Performance Bond in.an amount and form
satist'actory to the City of An[,heim shall be posted with the
City, prior to.tlie readiag of the~ordinance reclassifying'
said;property guaranteeing the performance of the foiiowing
items:
_ ,.
._ (a) .The erection.of a six (6) foot masonry wail.and
the ~nstallation`of.#ree~ to buffer the homes to
the~west of sub"ect ro ert the t e d
~
,
J P P. q. YP .an spacing
". of the,trees`to be approved by the-Cit,y Parkway
Maintenance $uperintendent.
(b) The iinprovement of all structures as indicated_on .
- the..approved final'deveiopment plans. '.
15. That Condition Nos. 1,:2, 6.`:7.snd.8 above.mentioned be
complied-~.,vrith.within:a period::of'ninetq.(90) days from the
~ date,of,Council approvai or,:such`fvrther t3me as the City
Council;may grant.
. .
-, :.
.. ,
.
~7':. ; ~a _ _
f, - ~ ,
, - __
~-;:_5, ~~ ~..~.. '.~:~ .~ : ,. . . . ~-. .,
~.a.o-i . ., . . .. . ... . ~ . . , . , . . . . .. , . . . ~ .
~ , ~'' .~~~ ~, . ~..:' .'~ :'.:~ :.., ~.', ~ ..'~..'
Mrs Robert H'~Hudaoa` etitioner `a eare'd before the
, .
~. P, ~. , PP Commission . .
and stated tha# if sub3ect pet3tion we e-granted.no additioaai'`.
rear yard space would''be baken~ arid`thab;due.to.the odd:':shape,of
~ sub,ject-=p;operty,;plans as;submittcd seemed to be the oaly
' feassble:us,{ of.:enlarging sub~ecl property: '
;
~ Tfffi I~IDARING WA9 CL03BD . ` i
,
The Commissioa found and determined.the foilowing facts regard3ng ~ ~
~, the subject petitibn
~ 1: That`the petitioner requeats a variance from,the pAaheim • I
^ Munic3.pa1 Code ;Sectioa-;18 24_ 030 (3); to peimit an;,encroach l
~,, ; ment of 22} feet i.nto the required rear qa'rd to eonstruct:a
~ ?~ proposed fsmily room and;~a proposed garage.
~
~ x~~f
z ~ ~
~
~ ag~~'~r+~
~~ ~ . ~
~ ~ i
~~~ ~
~~` ~
~
'
Y~~
~
~' '`' ~ ~ T -
~ ,
i
~ ¢
~
,
~'~
p s^`~ S
}
S
7 _ It 1 ,~ ~ '~' .
~~~. ~ (r ' ~
~
rd
.~r-^ti- ~ara;~-~-~
f
i..
e . .= -:,.. _.. '-. . :` ..~:_ . ..:.-:- . .:,_ .... .-.. .... _. . ._ , . •
~
_ :.<
~~tl
..-~; :~
~
~
~ . `
_:-
_ -
• ,a~: ._~~..:~i,en. _ .. .. .... ?..., .,., ~+r.`±,; ..,,..,, t, :~,za „". ~_.,_~.~~ ,. :~rcta , ,.~_ .. .._ .. . I':_.
.~, '.S
~r ~-~ } ~... ;J , , r .. ~~ . M x*`~C°rt.r+r~' '•v~*S . ~r_}c~-'+~ ~. C r.Nrcn.~.rv N~ „~.
:nT:~;
_ " ~
~
- _~~ .
~ ~
~ . .
~ _ . __'; . .
~~~
~ ~
:~,, x.w r ~,,+'* ~ ,
.~,.~ .. _.. ._ .:.s . t .~
~ . -; ~ - -"'-
~ j l <;
.
~ - --.;- '
~ ~
~ ~
~
- + MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION. Apri1~30, 1962, Continued;
i -. 891 ,
I CONDITIONAL USR - Commissioaer A11red offered Resoiutioa No. 305, Series 1962; and
PBRMIT NO 222 :moved:for its assa
P 6g aad ado
ti
n
p
o
, seconded by.Commissioner `
(Continued)` Marcoux, to approve Petition for Conditional U
e`
s
Permit No, 222,
subject to the foilowing conditions;
:t. Development,substantially.in accordance with 8xhibit No
1
.
aaiended by: the Planniag. Coinmission, ~provided that a six (6)
~ foot masonry wall be constructed on,the west aad south property
: ~ lines~ and that a masonry wall
h
i
~
; or c
a
n link fence be erected
33 feet from the west property:line northeriq approximatel
2
:
t i
,
. ! y
Q
feet
o the sputhwesterly corner of subject structure.
~
' 2. Subject to the written approval of the California De
artme
t I
~ p
n
of Public Welfare pr3or to Issuance of a Business License ~
~ A
' .
3. Limitation of one'free-standing.sign of ao more than sixt
1
~ een
C
6) square feet. , ,_
4• Payment of $2,00'per.'front foot for street lightin
o
_ g purp
ses on
La Pa1ma Avenue.
5. Time Limitation of one hund=ecl and eighty (180) days for t'he
`
a
.. .
ccamplishment of Item po. 4,. :
- On roll.call the foregoing resolutio
as
n w
passed by the following
`yote:
A~: COMMIS9IONBR: Allred,:,CaxY,"Gauer; Ha
pgood; Marcoux
~ ,
Mungail,;Pebley.
a . NOHS CCY~AlISSIOIVSR Chavos. ; .
`
~ ABSBNT ' C~MAfISSIONBR None
s ~ ° . ABSTAINBD COhA~lISSIOIVBR ;'
Perry .
~
€
Commissioner Chavos,qualifted his vote of "NO" by statirig that he
(
_ feit graating sub~ect?- etition
ld
i
wou
;be aga
ast':the-besf'interests
and uses,,,for the neighborhood~and abutting residential a
e
~
~ r
as,_
-
r
~ ' CONDITIONAL US8 PUBLIC HBARING '' MARION C ! .
PERMIT N0, 224 ' ~~Y, 1z12,Westmont Drive;.Anaheim
Cal3for
ia
n
,
n
, Ow
er, Tom'-gruntage,.1540 Santa,Fe•Avenue, Long Beach, .
'California, Agerit,.reguestiag:;permission~to BSTAgLI
SH A,SBRVICS:
STATION on propeity descrabed;'as
p
r
1
~ ,:
,.Fa
ce
~173 feet by i75 feeb
with a°fiontage>of 173~'feet on Giibert Stre
t
"a ~
~
' e
.arid
~ frontage of
175 feet .oa Ba11-Road located::at the;~southwest c
rn
'
o
er of Ball'Road
'
and Gilbe=t 3treet Property:presgntly classified
'
-p
S
.
'
,
as R
,,Rg
i.
DBNTIAL
AQt ICULT[1RAL, ' ZONB. .. ': '
t
~
~ Mr; Toai Bruntage; agent' for~ ttie petitioner,',appea=ed ~before the "
, Comm3.ssi
on, and stated that
h
,
:t
e etitioner has already dedicated ,
propert on Gilbert and`ga1l.Road. the full,len th;of tYie property
for ~hey
u
'
r
g
~, p
rposes..
of st
eet wideaiag;. that...curbs
aiid:g~~~~r`s .to fie
built by -the City and paid for;
~
;
. bq; t2ie;. eti:tioner ,
;'_ .. City:,smproves-Beil Raad~ and: ~ P , ,. , at the`time.the
_
,
: that ine. piopextq to
;;#h
"
dr
l
-~. ,
,
,
e
re
- wi11 be
e.~ unpaved.until the~.petitioner develops,the:balance of.#h
'
: . ,
;
o
',
.
e
, ~ . t,
pr
pe~ty
~
> THB. HEARII~ i~A$ CLOSBD
.
~ ,
7~ jt : y,.~
i
Y, ~
~
.w
~~
r`
~: f
~
~
~. ~ ;
~j
~
~,~'t.,r~~t
~"'t°:~
fiv~ ,
. ~~. y
.;~
k ~..~
i .
~~ _ _ ~~1!
L
j ~
t f r
T '.~ _
~
. .-. .-. _~ ; L_;
~ 4 .tf
.
..
' .~
\ _ ~J ~ . f ~ _
~'~t~;-~ ....:.. . '
Y
1 ..': : .
.. .... ~~~ .. ,~;... ... .. . .. ;~,+, \., ... ,. . -, . . ...~. . ,....., 1 _., 4. .... . .... .._ .-. _ .,. ... . ,~~ . .. „r..,.
i .: ~5 )~ f~ 4 -~ 4 4 y~ 5 ~
s ,~~~ ~ i'' ~Y ~p'M+ 3~ }U t~ 4 ~ ~
~ .: ~.. ~1'; . . Af~ 7 . :. ~ --' ~'.w _c- ~ -.
:;, t ~v ' . ~ -S A ~U ?
~ tit.` ;G~ _.~,Ss~r"kf[~S~'~'?wr .';l~';.~rF ~.e'~„' u6fi~~x"-~.'~r..;`~J ~ ~..a.+*r?e'9.~Y~'~~.-t~p! „Ya~:'=i,'~h ;t ..W1.~k: ~R~~"~~< .~idbu _ : i .l,
@' ~~ . ~ ' ~ . - ~ .. '
,. _ . .
; . .. ,
,.
.. . , , y ~ ~.'
~V
M Y'
~ ....~;.i . ~ -
,.~.~.. . ... . ~,.. .- .. _ .,. ,
,.f
- ~'~,~ `!:~
1 •
. 1
i '~
;.r -
. . ~ . . . . ~ . . . . . . - ~ -F-
~'__ . _-._..-: - ,":.-. . . ~...... ... _.,_ ~ ~-..~~e~sr-
. ,... . . . . _ .._~. ~ - ._. ...._._
~ . . . ~ . . ' . .' . ~ ~ ..~~ , . .
. ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ . ~ . . . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ . . :" ^la1
. . . . ` ~ . .•~.:.~ "'. .
. . ~ O ~ ~ . ' . . .. ~ . . V .,. . : . .. . ~. . . .
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Apri1 30, 1962, Contiaued:
892
CONDITIONAL USE -.The Coa~mission found and determined the following facts regarding
PffitM3T N0. 224 the subject petition:
(Continued)
, 1. That the proposed use is propezl} one for which a Conditional
Use Permif is authorized by this Code, to wit: to estabiish a
service station.
2, That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoiniag ~
iand uses and the growth and development of the area in which (
it is proposed to be Socated. ~
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate #o 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. "
4. That the traffic gPnerated by the praposed use will not impose ~
an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and (
improved to carry the traffic in the area. ~
5. That.the granting of the Conditioaal Use Permit under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the ~
peace, heaTth, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim. ,~
6. 'That no.one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
7. That the petitioner has agreed to install curbs and gutters ~
along•the Gilbert 3treet and Ball Road froatage at the time
the City improyes Ball Road.
Coiomissioaei Pebley offered Resolution No. 306, 3eries 1961-62~
and<moved for its passage and adoption', seconded by Commissioner
Allred to`grarlt Petition for Conditional Use Permit No: 224, sub- ~
~ ject to the following ;conditions: _ ~
l.'- Development s4astantially in accordance w'ith Sxhibit Nos.
1; 2, 3, 4, 5, and:6.
2. Instailation of sidewalics and driveways on Ball Road and
Gilbert Street in.accordance with the adopted standard plans
on file in the office of the City Bngineer.
; 3. Payment of $2.00 per front f~ot for street lighting purposes i
t on Ball Road and Gilbert Street.
~ 4. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
~ ' ~ accomplishment of Item Nos. 2 and 3. - •- •
~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~
~ vote:
E` i
~. , A7~S: COMNiISSI0N8RS: Alired, Camp, Chavos,'Gauer, He.pgood, j
- Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley; Perry. !
~
NOHS: C~MISSIOdVBRS: None, ~
_ `' ' ABSSNT:. CO~ItQISSIOi~IPRSe ; None.
{
\~fni~ f ' . ~ . , ~ . -~ . ._ - ~ -. , .. .
_., ..~.. . . . .. .. .. . .... ~. . ~~ ~.
. ~',j ~ . . . . '
r
t ~ ~ ' . . . . ~ . . . ,
Z 1.;~ ~ .... ~ . ~.,- . ... ...~t-..~~~.. , . . ... . . ,. : . ~ ?._" .~ l~ , ..:.~ ~ .. ~~i l. ~. . II~~.~~ 8~--.__~~~r-~..~..rww.
~
~:
~ l~' -_ ___.. _
~~, ~ ~ ~ ; ~~
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION, April 30, 1962, Continued:
.~ ~.
893
COND'.TIONAL USH - PUBLIC FffiAktING. JOI~T D. (~tAY, 4055 Wilshire Boulevard, Los
pffitMir N0. 227 Angeles 5, California, ~Jwner; GBORGE L4RRABBS, 1568 West Lincoin
Avenue, .4naheim, Califoznia, Agent; requesting permissioa to
CONSIRUCT A MULTIPLP. PIANNBD-UNIT DBVBLOPN~NT on property
described as: A parcel of land consisting of Lot Nos 2 through 11
of Tract No. 2911 on P°licidad Circle, which is between La Palma
and Greenleaf and :rest of Magnolia Avenue. Propert~ preser~~c!y
classified as R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20NB,
t Mr. Miiton McCoy. agent for the developer~ sppeared before the
Commission, and stated that he had drawn the plot pians, that
~, they complied with all conditions of the ordinances with one
~_- exception, and that the garages, as proposed, are on the easement,
~,. '
(` Y. The Comm3ssion noted that during the morning field trip it had
~, uJ,`~'w=;', been observed that an abutting wail along the east property line
;, r~:`>'- ' separating subject property from the abuttiag property to the east
; had apparently been xemoved in part to provide for the instailation
~ of an access drive fro~ the commercial property to Pelicidad
Stre~t.
f
The Commission noted that garages were situated on subject
~f property so as to create a great walking distance from the units
- to subject garages, which the Commission felt was incompatible
~ with good multiple family development.
~ Mr. McCoy asked the Commission to grant a continuance of subject
; petitir~n to the meeting of May 14, 1962, in order that revised plot
~ '~ plans could be submitted which wouid incorporate a more suitabie
~ azea for subject garages.
!
Commissioner Pebiey offered a motion to continue public heariag of ~
•- Conditional Use Permit No. 22? to the meeting of May 14, 1962, in j
~ . order to provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit revised
piot pians, Commissioner Alired seconded the motion. MOTION ~
~ CARRIBD. I
{
CONDITIOPiAAL U3S ~ YUBLIC F~ARING. THB (~1EN COMPANY, 621 South Hope Street, Los ,
PffitMIT N0..229 Angeles 17, California, Owc;ers; Chrysler Corporation, c/o McCutchen,
B1ack, Harnagel and Shea,,615 South Plower Street, Los Angeies 17,,
California, ABent; requesting permission to BSTABLISA A RBTAIL
AUTO~MOBILB DBALBRSHIP on property described as: An irregularly
' shaped parcel at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Los Angeles
Street, Lot No. i of Tract No. 3351, except for the east 30 feet
tliereoF. Property presently ciassified as M-1, LIGHT MANUPAC-
TURING, ZONH..
Mr. John Leary, representing the Chrysler Corporation, Agent for
subject petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
the proposed retail automobile dealership is compatible to the
trend of development occurzing ia the,area, that the amount of
land being used is ample for the type of facility proposed, that
the abutting area is attractive for both commercial and light
manafacturing development.
F
~ The Co:nmis3ion asked thot the petitionar clarify a nnmber of
E questions on subject petition selative to provisionsfor parking
~ and landscaping. ,
Mr. Leary, agent for the petitioner, stated.that propased plans
~ were.aubmitted from the New York Chrysler Corporation headquarters,
,
` ~
x~~r~'~
t ,r~~kY~;~
~ ;` ~
` °1 :eS~;~~`,~ ,
~ ~~i~
F, • •r,~
y~~r
F?;:... , . . .
~-S° , :
~ '~
~x ,
~~
"~> -, ;~, ' 'c
~« ,
~i r ' ` ~
„ r ~ ` ~, _
x > t - .. -. , `~
}~ y ..-mW.W._--- ~,
r'ii'y~.1~~~Wl3.~ .~ .... ..._...~_. ...,._~ .._. _. _ . . ....~ ~ ~.\.. ..~ .u r. r ..,. .. ~
~ ~ i~' ~:x' , ~~~~~w,~..;~a'S,atf,J.'~c~ ~~i+~:2 ~'r~ ~L.. ^+Pt`.~~. ~._ .
i a
~., ~ i -n . . .
_i~ ~.
.. ~.,. ~ -:.
. . .
e~,.AL'
! . ~ ..... ~ _ ~ . ~~ ~ --~ .
~ ~.c~.~ ~ ~. . - . . __ .. . ..~. ~...
~ ~ ~-a
MINUTBS, CITY PTAIVNING COMMISSION, April 30, 1962, Continued: gg,}
CONDITIONAL U9H - that if there were any suggestions or questions that were re~evant
PBRMIT N0: 229 to granting the petition, that the petitioner would submit
(Continued) conditions to the agent's main office for the drawing of final
, plans. .
THH H8A1tING WAS CLQSHD,
; .
The Commission found and determined the foliowing facts regarding
~ sub'ect . .
J petition:
i
~
! 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional i
Use Permit is suthor3.ze8 by this Crde, to wit; to establish a '
j~ retai! automobile fa~ility for the sales,ser~ice and repair of new
;;~ . and used vehicles, together with alY uses customarily related
thereto. ~
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 sh~spe of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to a11ow the full development of the proposed use ia
a manner not detrimental to the particuiar area nor to the
peace, health, saPety, arn~ generai welfare of the c3tizens of
the City of Anaheim,
4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Aaaheim,
S• That the traffic generated by the proposed use will net impc~4
an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area,
6• That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 307, Series 1961-62 -
,
and moved for its adoption and passage, seconded by Commissioner
Perry to grant Conditional Use Permit No. 229, subject to the -
following conditions:
1. Development substantially in accordance with 8xhibit Nos •
.
1, 2, 3, and 4, except that a revised plot plan is to be
submitted indicating provision for a SO foot setback which
includes a 2G foot landscaping area and a 30 foot parking area
with a two foot masonry wall between the landscaping and the
~+arking area to prevent cars being driven into the landscaping
area, and that. no display signs are to be used within subject •
50 foot setback; plans for said landscaping ic be submitted to , ',
and su~ject ~o the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway
Main:enance and said landsca~?ng to be installed prior to
Pinal Building Inspection.
2_ Provided that used car sales snall be conducted only in
connection with new car sales and ser;rice on sub,ject property.. '' !
3. Provision of a chain link fence to be erected between the
new
car area and the reraaining area on subject property,
4. InsEal7ation of szd,ewalks and drfveways on Ball Road anC Los
Angeles 3treet in accoi3ance with the adopted standc;rd plans.on
file in the Office cf the City Bngineer.
,'.9
:,i
'
_
_ i
:: .
+ ~
::. ~
;
>: ':' ~ 5'
.. . . , . . . . . ' .~ .. ..
'
~
~ ti.
,
: . . ..~
'
.~ . , _' ~~q
~Y
._~`tr.. n..~. -~`~L'tt ~.LK'.ti^^'it.l-;tl~lY` ..:nAW3LiN~'.- 1 ..r:F~~IS `'~..'k:ti'v... ._.Jt.`:,e., ~. ...._e.xl_hYi5ti.~W .'eE..Y..v...r.,i_ . .. ..... .. .... .. ... y~
, v4 I:. ..~~Ta.'~~Sl
~ ',~~~;~
:;
895
CONDITIONAL.USB - 5, Provision of tras3i storage areas, as determined by the Depart-
PBRMIT N0. 229 men.t of Public Works, Sanitation Diviaion, which are adequate
(Continued) in size~ accessibie to trash-truck pickup, and adequa#ely .
enclosed by a soiid fence or wall, prior to Final Building
Inspection.
6. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accompiishment of Item No: 4. ,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred~ Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood~
Marcoux, Mungall, pebley, Perry,
NOBS: COhAlISSIONHRS: None.
AH8HNT; COMMISSIONBRS: None.
RECLA3SIPICATION - PUBLIC I~AAING, LHW SINOR, 414 North State College Boulevard,
N0. 61-62-99 Anaheim~ California, Owner; requesting that property described as:
A parcel 65 feet by 103 feet with a frontage of 103 feet on La
Palma Avenue and a frontage of 65.feet on Citron Btreet and
located on:the northeast corner of La Pa1ma Avenue and Citron
3treet, and further described,as 777 West La Yalma Avenue be re-
classified`from'the R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, zONB to the
G1, NBIGHBQRHOOD-COMMHRCIAL, 20NB.
Mr. 3inor, the pe:titioner~ appeared before the Commission and
stated that he had nothing further to add, but that he was avail-
able to answer any questions which the Commission might have,
Upon being questioned by the Cowmission segarding the type of
business e§tablishments to be established on sub,~ect property~ `he
' petitioner indicated that a reai estate office, barber shop and
beauty shop were. planned.for three units and that another fifteen
(15) foot unit was open and occupancy was yet ,to be determined.
Mr. Geisler, Assistant City Attorney,.stated that a C-l zone dicl
not classify barber and beauty shops as business or professional~
and that the Commission might wish to waive this in their reclassi-
fication of subject property.
One person in the Council chambers asked if liquor sales would be
permitted with this reclassification, and Mr. Geisler informed her
that bottled liquor sales were permitted under this classification.
A letter of protest from a property owner abutting subject
property was read to the Commission,
Tl~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
subject petition;
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclessification of the above
described property from the:R-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL,
ZONB to the`G1, NBxGHBORH00D COhAtHRICAL, ZONB to permit the
'estarlishment of a four unit`office building.
=: °:;
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COhA~IISSION, April 30, 1962, Continued; 896
E ,~
!
RBCLASSIPICATION - 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is
N0. 61-62-99 necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper deveiopment
(Continued) of the community.
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
properiy reiate to the zanes 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 proposed reclassification of subject property does
require dedication for and standard improvement of abuttingstreets
because said property does relate to and abut upon streets
and highways which are proposad 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 there was one letter received in opposition to subject
petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 308,.Series 1961-62~
and moved for its adoption and passage, seconded by Commissioner
Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 61-63-99 be approved reclassifying subject
property from the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONE to the
C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COI~AIBRCIAL, ZONH, subject 4o the following
conditions;
1. Development substantiaily in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1
and 2 ~v?th the exception that the private access drive shall
be relocated along the northerly and easterly boundaries of
the subject property and that perpendicular parking be
established to the rear of the proposed buiidings. 3aid
buildings shall have a minimum six (6) foot landscaping set-
back, plans for said landscaping to be subject to the appzoval
of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and said land-
scaping to be installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
2. Recordation of deed restrictions to business and professional
type businesses including barber shops and beauty shops, and
to prohibit sale of liquor on subject property.
3. Installation of tree wells at 40 foot intervais on the parkway
portion of the planned highway right-of-way line, plans for
said landscaping to be subm=.tted to the Superintendent of
Parkway Maintenance and said landscaping to be installed prior
to Final Building Irs pection. Installation of a ten foot
lar_c~scaped et*ip a2one the Citzon Street frontage of subject
property Qlans for said landscaping to be submitted to and
subject to the approval of the Superintendent of the Parkway
Maintenance and said landscaping to be installed prior to
Final Building Inspection,
4. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of
La Palma Avenue (50 feet existing).
5. Dedication of 30 feet from the monumented centerline of Citron
Street (25 feet existing), ~
, .~
i
~
- ";;;
;;':;;
~
~
~.
`. J
897
V
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 30, 1962, Continued:
RSCLASSIFICATION - 6. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Depart-
N0. 61-62-99 ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate
(Continued) in size, accessible to trash-truck pickup, and adequately
enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Pinal Building
Inspection.
7. Instaliation of'driveways on La Paima Avenue and Citron
Street in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file
in the Office of the City Bngineer,
8. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 4, 5, and 7.
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 resoiution was passed by the foilowing
vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS : CCk~9~tISSIONBRS : Noae .
ABSBNT: COM`T~~IONBRS: None.
RBCLAS8IPICATION• - PUBLIC HBARI)!G. ANN T. UNGER, 354 Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim,
N0. 61-62-100 Caiifornia, and OVA D, MII{HSBLL, 1830 Romneya Drive, Anaheim,
California, Owners; ROBBRT S. UNGBR, 354 Orangewood Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described
as: A parcel of land with•a frontage of 200 feet on the south
side of Romneya Drive, 307 feet west of State College Boulevard
and extending 330 feet in depth, and further described as 1826 and
1830 Bast Romneya Drive be reclassified from the R A, RHSIDBNTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, 20NB,
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 226.
Mr. Robert S. Unger, agent for the petitioners, appeared before
the Commission and stated that the property to the east of sub-
ject property is zoned R-A, but is being used as rental property~
that although plans do not indicate it, a six (6) foot masonry
wall will be erected on the south boundary line of subject
property, and that the recreation area being provided is 3,600
square feet, -. _ __
The Commission determined that the proposed twelve (12) foot one-
way drives were inadequate, and indicate that they should be a
minimum of twenty-one (21) feet in width, with adequate corner
cutoffs.
A letter containing sixteen signatures opposing subject petition
was read to the Commission.
TEIE HF:,P,ING WAS CLOSBD.
-.. s
,
~
~
(_.~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CObAlISSION, April 30, 1962, Continued; gqg
RHCLASSIFICATION - The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
N0. 61-62~100 subject petition:
(Continued)
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above
described property from the R-A, RBSIDENTIAL AC~ttICULTURAL,
iQsh a~multiple'familyPunit development~.TIAL, ZONB~ to estab-
2. That the proposed reciassification of subject property is
necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper deveiop-
ment of the community.
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses
locaily established in close proximity to subject property
and to the zones and their permitted uses generaliy estab-
lished throughout the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does
require dedicatior. 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 quentity of traffic, which will be generated by the
permitted uses, in accordance tvith the circulation element of
of the General Plan.
5. That a letter containirg sixteen (lb) signatures from property
owners adjacent to subject property was received in opposition
to subject petition,
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 309, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its adoption ar-d passage, seconded by Commissioner
Alired, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 61-62-100 be approved, subject to the follow-
ing condtions;
1. Development substantially in accordance with Hxhibit No, 2,
2. Limitation of structural heights to one story, provision of a
minimum twenty-one (21) foot wide ingress and egress drive,
with a minimum fifteen (15) foot radius corner cutoff and a
fourteen (14) foot vertical clearance.
3. Provision of a masonry wall across back of carports and
stucco on sides of each group of carports, with bumpers
installed at the rear of each carport, and the provision of
a fifteen (15) foot space between Carport No. 18 and dwell-
irg unit No. 14 and Carport No. 1 and dwelling unit No. 8;
construction of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the south and
west boundaries of subject property. Plans for carport
construction and shake roof construction to be subject to
Architecturai Control Committee approval,
4. Dedication of 32 feet from the monumented centerline of Romneya
Drive (20 feet existing),
5. Preparation of street improvement Qlans and installation of
all improvements for Romneya Drive, subject to the approval of
the City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted standard
plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer,
_ , _ti'. c
. . . • . ~ # ' .:L~ -
' . . . ~ . . .. ~I
U
~ -
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 30, 1962, Continued: $99
RBCLA33IPICATTON - 6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
N0, 61-62-100 on Romneya Drive.
CContinued)
7. Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25.00 per dwelling
unit to be collected as part Of the Building Permit,
8, Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Depart-
ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate
in size, accessible to trash truck pickup, and adequately
enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building
Inspection.
9. Installation of fire hydrants as required by the City of
~ Anaheim Fire Marshall, prior to Final Building Inspection,
10. Provision of a 3 foot public utility easement and 2 foot
overhand along the westerly and easterly boundary of subject
property to adequately serve the subject property and other
properties, at the time of the installation of service facilities.
11. Subject to the approval of Petition of Conditional Use Permit
No. 22b.
12. Time li~,ata.tion of one hundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 10.
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 forego:
vote:
qyBS; COMMISSIONffitS:
NOHS: COMMISSIONHRS:
ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS:
ing resolution was passed by the following
Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
None,
None.
CANDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. ANN T. UNGBR, 354 Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim,
PHRMIT N0. 226 California and OVA D. MIKBSBLL, 1830 Romneya Drive, Ananeim,
California, Owners; Robert S. Unger, 354 Orangewood A~•enue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CON3TRUCT A
MULTIPLH FAMILY PIANNBD-UNIT DHVHLOPMBNT on property ~lescribed as:
A parcei of land with a frontage of 200 fect on the south side
of Romneya Drive, 307 feet west•oE State Coliege Boulevard and
extend9.ng 330 feet in depth, and further desczibecl as 1826 and
1830 Bast Romneya Drive. Property presentiy classified in the R-A,
RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for
Reclassification No. 61-62-100,
Mr. Robert S. Unger, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add,
TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
~ - _ ~;~~ .. .
~J ~ ~
• MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAlIS~ION, April 30, 1962, Continued: 900
CONDITIONAL USB - The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
PffitMIT N0. 226 the subject petition:
(Continued)
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Cunditional
Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit; a planned unit
multiple family residential development.
2, That the proposed use wiil not adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in which i
it is proposed to be located.
i
?. That the size and shape of the site pr~posed for the use is
adequate to ailow 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,
i
4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the ~
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the ~
peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of ~
the City of Anaheim, i
i
5. That the traffic genera~ted by the proposed use will not impose ~
an undue burden upon the streets and highways desig.~ed and ~,
improved to carry the traffic in the area. '
6. That a letter containing sixteen (16) signatures from property
owners adjacent to snbject property.was received in opposition
to subject petition.
Coaunissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 310, 3eries 1961-62,
and mcved for its adoption and passage, seconded by Commissioner
Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 226,
subject to the foilowing conditions:
1. D~valopment substantially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 2.
2, Limitation of constructional heights to one story, provision
of a minimum twenty-one (21) foot wide ingress and egress
drive, or a thirty (30) foot two-way drive, with a twenty-one
(21) foot radius at the intersection of the ingress and egress
of the southerly drive if a one-way drive is provide3,
3. Provision of a masonry wail across back of carports and stucco
on sides of each carport, bqmpers installed at the rear uf .~ach
carport, and pr~+vision of a fifteen (15) foot space between
Carport No, 18 a;id dweliing No. 14 and Carport No, 1 and
dwelling No, 8; construction of a six (6) foot masonry wail on
the soutn and west boundasies of subject property. Plans for
carport construction and shake roof construction to be subject
to Architecturai Contral Committee approval.
4. Dedication of 32 feet from the monumented centerline of Romneya
Drive (20 feet existing),
5. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all
improvements for Romneya Drive, subject to the approval of the
City Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted standard pians
on file in the Office of the City 8ngineer.
6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street Sighting purposes on
Romneya Drive.
i
~~ o s
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CCY~4dISSION, April 30, 1962, Continued; 901
CONDITIONAL USB - 7. Payment of a Park and Aecreation Fee of $25.00 psr dweiling
pERMIT N0. 226 unit to be coliected as part of the Building Permit.
(Continued)
8. Provision of trash storag~ areas as determined by the Depart-
ment of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate
in size, accessibie to trash truck pickup, and adequately
enclosed by a solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building
Inspection.
9. Subj~ct to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No.
61~62-100.
10. Installation of fire hydrants shal7, be insi`alled as required
by the City of Anaheim Pire Marshall, prior to Pinal Building
Inspection.
11. Provision of a 3 foot public utility easement and 2 foot
overhang along the westerly and easterly boundary of subjec'~
property to adeqaately serve the subject property and othe*
properties, at the time of the installatian of service
facilit'ies,
12. Time limitation of one nundred and eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 4, 5, 6 and il.
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 roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYHS: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood,
Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Non~.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONBRS: None,
CONTINUBD PUBLIC To consider the proposed amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.08 of
HBARING the Anaheim Municipal Code relating t~ "Definitions".
Said amendment was continued from the meetings of February 19,
1962, March 5, 1962, March 19, 1962, and April 2, 1962 at the
request of the Commission.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to hold a work session on sub-
ject Code Definitions to be held on Mav 16, 1962, The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Mungall. MOTi3N CA,RAISA,
' ;`,
gBpORTS AND ITBM N0. 1
RBCOMI~NDATIONS Proposed amendments to Orange County Sectional Map District Map
7-4-9, Hxhibits J and K.
The Commission reviewed the correspondence aad recommendations by
the Planning Department Staff regarding subject amendments..
;. :
: ~ ~~ ~ ~
HSINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, April 30, 1962, Continued: 902
: 3
;;~'_~C~TS AND The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
' <?i;J~~NDATI0N3 the subject amendmentsa
, 'Continued)
M 1. That petition proposes the introduction of industrial uses
~; south of the Riverside Freeway in the vicinity of the proposed
~ Dowiing overcrossing. The use of subject property is presently
~ agricultural with the exceptio:t of the easternmost portion
~. which is now used for the manufacture of asphait,
a:
~; 2. The t,naheim City Planning Commission has set the Riverside
;. Preeway as the southerly boundary of the Nor#heast Industrial
`~ Area, This decision came as a result of the detailed study of
'r
~ industrial land potential in Anaheim as presented in the
Industrial Areas Analyses.
~ 3. In reference to the area presently zoned 150-M1(0)-30,000 on
' the east side of Rio Vista Street south of the riverside Free-
~ ~ way, the Anaheim City Planning Commission recoimnended to the
~ County 4hat the use of the land shouid be single family. It is
~ significant to note that no industrial use has been established
~ on the land within the past year.
~ 4. The Preliminary General Pian shows this area planned for
i: residential use west of the proposed Dowling interchange. Bast
of the interchange the Plan proposes a sp~cial recreational
facility which might include such activities as riding and
' hiking facilities, nature study, picnicking, etc. The proposal
? is based upon the extraction of the sand and gravel from the
; properties concerned. The Plan further proposes that this
~„ special facility incorporate the sand pit areas along the Santa
~ Ana River between Ball Road and Lincoin, the Eidison Company
easement, and the Canal Street dump site.
e
[ ~ 5, a. Bxtensive study and analysis has lead to the conclusion
that the Riverside Preeway is the logical southerlq
boundary of the Northeast Industrial Areas, and is so
indicated on the P:e liminary General Plan,
b. The Anaheim Preliminary Plan sh~ws non-industrial uses south
of the ~iverside Freeway, The Anaheim City Planning
Commission reaffirms that the highest and best use oF this
land is for non4industrial purposes.
Commis~ioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the Orange
County Planning Commission that sectional district map 749 not be
amended in accordance with exhibits J and R for the aforementioned
„ findings. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion, MOTION
CARRIBD.
CORRBSPOND8NC8 - ITBM N0. 1
~
~
~, _
~ ,;
t ,
qND Lettier from the State of California Departmeat of Public Health
MISCBLLANEOUS regarding hospitai pianning in the Southern California area.
A letter from the above named department was read to the Commissioa.
Commissi.oner Pebiey offered a motion to appo:nt Commissioner Marcouxas
theduly elected representative of the Commission to attend regular
meetings as seheduled for the Southern California Regional Hospital
Pla~ni„g Committee on the fourth Thursday of each month. Commissioner
Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
r
~n ~ i ~r. -:.J
~
. ~
. . . _ . . . ~ . . ... ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 30, 1962, Continued:
-
903
CORRHSPONDBNCB - ITBM N0. 2.
AND Clarification of Conditional Use Permit No. 218 passed by the Com-
MISCELLANBOUS mission at the April 2, 1962, hearing.
A letter was read from the,Pree MethodiSt Church, Reverend Stanley
J. Herber, acting as agent for the petitioner, asking that the Com-
mission clarify Condition No, a^ of Resolution No. 282, 3eries 1961-
62, requiring that buildings on subject property be removed prior
to Final Building Inspection of the first phase.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to correct the minutes to
indicate the following correction;
"2. That the existing garage be removed from the premises before
Final Building Inspection of the first phase of proposed
development,"
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD,
ITEM N0. 3,
~ ~
: ~.
Y:
~: ,:~. ''
~ ~.. . .. }',;:!Sv5 ~.,-~~~~i
Clarification of Special Us~ Permit No. 62, Prince of Peace Lutheran
Church regarding a snall addition to the existing Sunday 5chool
facilities approved under subject Special Use Permit.
A ietter was read from the Priace of Peace Lutheran Church, signed
by Cedric A. White, Jr. Chairman, asking an interpretation by the
Commission on the conformance of a proposed addition to existing
Sunday School facilities with the plot plan approved under Special
Use Permit No. 62.
Commissioner Perry offer~d a motion to approve the contemplated plan
for ~he construction of a~mall addition to the existing Sunday
School facility approved under Special Use Permit No. 62 as ~ing
substantially in conformance with the plot plan as submitted and approved
under said Special Use Permit,. C;ommissioner Ailred seconded the ~
motion, MOTION CARRIBD,
ITBM N0. 4,
City Councii Resolution No. 62R-329 establishing administra4ive
procedures for handling inhabited annexations.
Subject Council Resolution was explained by Mr. Kreidt, stating
that any resolutions presented bo the City Council regarding •
Inhabited Annexations would be referred directly to the P]anning
Commission for action.
Commissioner ASlred offered a motion to acknowledge receipt of
Resouition No. 62R-329 and place it on file, Commissioner Pebiey
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
ITBM N0. S.
Review of Yariance No. 1429 - Towing Service ope~rated by Messrs.
Sangster & Dunn at 336 Souih Walnut Street, Mr. Leonard Smith,
agent for owners of subject property was comtaced relative to non-
compliance with Conditions Na, 1, 3, and 4 of Resolution 167 of
the Planning Commission, and that the matter woqid be bxought
before the Commission at the next scheduled meeting.
,I
'.;
~'
d
. .. .:,~~~' ~~
,.~.;~:~+~'!"i
':!
~ ~'
,
C~
~.I
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COWA~tISSION, ppril 30, 1962, Continued: 904
CORRHSPONDHNCS - Mr. Sanger, one of the owners, appeared before the Commissian and
pND stated that all conditions had been compiied with, which was also
MISCBLLANBOUS confirmed by an inspection of said property by the Commission.
(Continued) .
Mr. Sanger, in answer to the Commission's question of non-removal
of wrecked automobiles, stated that owners were unatrle to comply
within the specified period because cars impounded by~the Police
Department had to remain on the lot until legai release was receivpd
to remove the automobiles.
Commissioner Alired offered a motion to approve temporary storage of
impc~nded and wrecked cars. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion.
MOTION CAARIED.
ITBM N0. 6.
Letter fsom Mr, and Mrs. Pablo V. Dominguez, regarding Conditional
Use Permit No. ~14, Resolution No. 270 asking that the Commisaion
waive one of the conditions of said resolation.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion that the petitioner be per-
mitted to substitute a two-year bond in lieu of the required
~ masonry wall as required in condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 270
dated March 19, 1962. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion.
MUTION CARRIBD.
ITHM N0. 7. '
-------
Policy on Reports and Recommendations.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion that it be the pol3cy of the
City Planning Commission that all petitions shall be filed with the
Planning Department, and that no petition shall be received by the
Planning Departmeat unless it complies with all requirements stated
in the "Supplement to Petition", no less than twenty-four (24) days
prior to the scheduled Commission hearing. Pailure to comply with
this policy shall constitute sufficient grounds for denial by the
Commission.
. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITBM N0. R. .
The Commission discussed the condition of Reciassified properties
at the southwest corner of the intersection of La Palma and
Magnolia Avenues as viewed by them during the arorning field trip.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to request that the County of
Orange Health De~artment inspeci the pse~ci5es ai the commercia!
properties at the corner of La Palma and Magnolia Avenues, and that
said health department require subject property owners to correct
any infractions of the sanitation code, (a reply from the Health
Department to this motion is requested).
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
pDJpURNMgNT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~ZC%~G/
ANN KREBS .
Planning Commission Secretary
?E , ; „ ~-. ; -~- : .: _ .. pt-.----
• .:;-: , ;i:.~ ;,. .j,,.. ., r::i~.. t:.~i,..:-„ --z---