The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1962/07/23ggGUTAR MBBTING OF THB ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING COAMISSION R~GUdJ1R MBETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. pRggg~ - Q~AIRMAN: Gauer, COP4IISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry. pg3BNT - COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. ~~~Zu~ 0~ `".~Ct.lr~~~ (y~i!.22~.~sC~~~ pRggg~ - ZO ING CO DINATOR: Martin Kreidt. DHPUT1t CITY ATTORNBY: Furman B. Roberts. COMMISSION SBGRBTARY: Ann Rrebs. INVOCATION - Reverend Arthur Stevenson, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church gave the invocation. pyg~g pg - Commissioner Marcoux led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ALLBGIANCS APPROVAL OP - The Minutes of the meeting of July 9, 1962, were appsoved with MINUTES the following corre~tions: Page 1076, secenl line should read; "August 6, 1962:' Page 1093 should read: "Meeting adjourned at 12;15 0'Clock A.M:' RBCIASSIFICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. ffiNJAMIN A9BULIS, 2504 Orange Avenue, N0. 61-62-i1i Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A rect^ngular parcel of land 120 feet by 348 feet with a frontage of 120 feet on the south side of Orange ":venue, the northeast corner of said property being 180 feet west of the southwest corner of Webster and Ozange Avenues, and further described as 2504 Orange Avenue, from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY R&SIDENTIAL, ZONB. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 249. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 11, 1962 and July 9, 1962, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time in which to present compiete and revised plot plans incorporating all suggested changes by the Commission. No one appeared in the Council Chambers to Yepzesent the pe*,itiones. Clyde Spencer, 2479 West Orange Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that he was opposed to the proposed change from the present R-1, Single Fami].y Developmeat to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Development since it would deteriorate the entire neighborhood. Danial Rutz, 2461 West Ivy, appeared before the Commission in opposition io subject petition and stated that small units of less than 310 square feet would ruin the entire neighborhood, and that additional units on Orange Avenue srould increase traffic hazards since many children live in the area. - 1094 - :~~: - ------- ~----- ~ ` ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhWiISSION, July 23, 1962, Coatinued~ 1095 ~ 1 RBCLASSIPICATION - John Nesbit, 523 South Brookhurst Street, appeared before the ~ N0. 61-62-111 Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that ~ (Continued) traffic and parking created by the proposed development in the I street and the abutting streets would create an undue amount of , noise and traffic hazards. i 1YlL$. Biackman, L'f0% vrange ~ir@2i~ njlyZdieu `tlci3i2 ia`ac ",'vwiui~SiGu iia Oy~Guii.~O,i ~:. ` subject pe~ition, and stated that she heard the petitioner had to purchase a portion ! of subject property and that the property had been purchased from the Wa~er Company. ~ Mr. Clifford Swallow, 644 West Webster, appeared before the Commission in answer to ~ Mrs. Blackman's statement and stated that a 30 foot easement was purchased and that ~ said easement was written in the deed in order to provide a roadway, , The Commission found and determined certain facts regarding subject petition. (Se~ Resolution SookJ Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 410 ~ Ser~es No. 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Cnavos ~~ tecor~enu ta the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 61~62-111 be denied on the bases of c~rtain findings. (See Resolution BookJ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. BHNJAMIN DABULIS, et al, 2504 Orange PHRMIT N0. 249 Avenue, pnaheim, California, Owner, THSODORS E. PEARSON, 1855 West Blm Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent, requesting permis- sion to CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY PIANNBD UNIT DEVBLOPMBNT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 120 feet by 348 feet with a front- age o f 1 2 0 feet on the south side of Ora nge Avenue, the northeast corner of said property being 180 feet west of the southwest corner of Webster and Crange Avenues, and further described as 2504 Orange Avenue. Property Presently classified in the R A, RHSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassificaticr tlo. 61-62-111. ~ Suuject petition was continued from the meeting of June 11, 1962 and July 9, 1962, in order that it be heard in conjunction with Reclassification No. 61-62-111. No one appeared to represent the petitioner at the Council Chambers. The Commission found and determined certain facts regarding subject Petition. (3ee Resolution BookJ Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 411, Series 1962-63 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 249, based on certain findings. (See Resolution Boo1cJ • O ~ :~ ~ ~-~ ~` MINUTgg, CITY pIANNING CODAlISSION, J~lY 23, 1962, Coatinued: 1096 RBCIA~SIP7CATION -- CONTINUHD PUHLIC FIDARING. J~ D. CIAUSSBN, 9912 South State N0..61-62~__1~J College Boulevard, Anaheim, Calii`orriia, Owner; PRHDBRICYS DHVHIAPt~ffiNT CaMPANY~ 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Pullerton, California, Agent; reqnesting that~property described as: pARCBI V0. 1: An L-shaped parcel of lanG, with a frontage of 374 feet on,the east side of 8#ate Coilege 3ouievard ana 343 iee~ ~~ ~u~ u~~~~ ~=~~ ~: ~~== •°•==~ ~~~='-;=~ Parcel N~. 2 on the north and east; and PARGBL N0. 2: A rectangular parcel of land 872 feet plus or minus by 250 fee! pius or nfinus at the aortheast corner of State College Boulevard aad Bali Road, w£th a frontage of 872 feet on Ba11 Road, aad further described as 9912 3outh State College Boulevar.d c.° reclassifieG from the R~A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS to R-3, MULTIPLE PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAi., ZONB for parcel No. 1 and C-3, HHAVY COM~!ffitCIAL, ZONB for Parcel No. 2 to permit the establi~- ment of oae and two atory multiple familq residential development aad commercial facilities. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 25, 1962, ia order to permit the Petitioner sufficieat time to sabmit revised piaas as suggested by the Ylanniag Department in their Planning Study. Mr. Henry.A. predricks, agent for the petitioner, appea.•ed before **p ^ommiasion and state~ that revised plaas had been sabmitted in accordance with the request of the Comm3.as:~n; that the revised plans were ia accardance wiYh the Planning Study, and that he hoped the plans net with the Commissions approval. Chairman Gauer asked the audieace whether there was anqone opposed~ and 15 persoas in th~ Council Chambe:s stood up in opposition to subject petition. Mr. Harry Hqman, 1114 Gro~elaae Place, representing a number of pe~sons wb.a were in f.~`Councii Chambers appeared before the Commission, and atated that he had a petitioa aigned bp 471 residenta in the area; that the residents in the area wanted a good planaiag and that a succesaful aad progessive city muat have propa balaace with aingle familq reaideaces, §choois, parks aad recreat3onal facilities; that the proposed type o~ development would create more crowded conditzons in tk~e school; at the present time no relief for hazardous traffic had been received oa State College Boulevard and that with the proposed development more traffic wouid increase hazardous conditions; that the pzoposed a11ey waq abutt3ng the privnte residences Cliff Partwaq would be an infringement on the privacy of the residents in that area, that ia a receat survey c~~~tucted by a consultant firm in Anaheim apartments or multiple unit permits were ru~ing ahead of 1961 bq 11396; that in 1962 more than 6,100 permits through May had been granted for multipie family unit dwellings; that at this rate appraximatelq 12,000 multipie family unit reatals r~ould be available by the ead of 1962, this repreaented approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of single fnmily dwelliaga~of 17,000 in Anaheim; that the durvey iadicated that approxima#e number of 50 new apartment units per month were sequired for growth requirements in Anaheim or a total of 300 unita were required to meet the needs for one year; for the six months of 1962 399 units for January, 152 for Pebruarq. 257 fox March, 24 for April, 264 for May acd 94 for June, matiag a total of 1,186 units for the aix months or 886 over Yhe maximum required aumber to meet Ana:zeim~s growth needs; that there were adequate coeemercial facilitie~ available in the 8ast Anaheim Area at the Hast Anaheim 3hopping Centar to provi~le the needs of the resideats in their area; and that the Comm3saion ahouid consi.der ieaving ih e area ia the proposed petition as eingle family reaidentiti onlq. Mr. Predricka in rebuttal, etated that the only alternative the d~veloper would have would be to buiid houaea oa the corner of a ma3or iateraection ia the City of Anaheim where 106 feet intersectione were pro3ected which in his estimation was poor planning for the feasibie use of the land in that area. THB HBARING WA&. CIASHD. f . --_^_______ .._ - ~... .. _~... ._.. --T--~-- -------a _ .- r--- , __.__ . ~ , . ,~. __ . _ ..._.._._....,..., C : .. . • ~ . . . . .. . ' i ~. ~ . L ~ ~ ~ . , f '4.3?-~ ~~~ _ O ~ ~ ~ :,~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COMM~ ION, July 23, 1962, Continued: 1097 ~ i , RBCLASSIPICATION - Plaaning Directox Richard Reese,'stated that du=ing a work ses- N0. 61-62-123 sion the thinking of the Planning Comiaission ia the General Plan (Continued) Analqs3s was noted that there'wa's a need for outline shopping ' centers in addition to tHe Bast Anaheim and Rio Vista proposed ceater; that oa the General`Plan the Rio Vi§ta Shopping Center was not taken into consideration, and that any shopping'cen%er or C-1 axea shoul3 :a:~ a buffer zone to separate the commercial development fiom the single family sesidential development ~rith a multiple family unit deveiqpaeat. The Commiasion noted that on recen$ planning studies the feasibility of having apartment units separating any commercial area haVe been proposed to serve the needs of a propoaed R-1 and R-3 development; that the plans of the proposed petition indicated onlq apartments and no psecise plans had been submitted covering the proposed commercial development. Commissioaer Marcoux offered a motioa to reopen the heariag seconded by Commissioner Camp. MOTION CARRIBD. The Commisaion informed the petitioner that they could not consider subject petition I withou4 precise plans for the proposed commerciai development and inquired whether sixtq (60) days would be sufficient fo~ the petitioner to present more precise.plans. Mr. Predricks stated that no precise plaas had beea presented because they had no tenants or proposed tenants for the commercial development, but that if the Commissioa desired he wouid attempt to have precise plans covering the proposed commercial development in sixty (60) days. ' 8everal persons in the audience voiced the fact that they had not received any public notice of the proposed reclassification after which the Secsetary to the Commission read off the addresses of those that had beea notified. The Commission noted that for the tract involved there should have been more people notified snd tfie 3ec=etary was informed to check the list and notify the persons regarding continuation and hearing of the aubject petition. • Commisaioner Camp offered a motioa to~contiaue Petition for Reclassificatioa No. 61-62-123 to the meeting of October 1, 1962, in order to permit 4he petitioner sufficient time to present precise pians covering the propoaed commercial developmen~ • and that the applicant file with the Planning Department a petition and plans to zone to C-1 as the petition before #he Commission was for R-3 and C-3. Commissioaer Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. 1BNTATIVB MAP OP - DSVBLOPBR: PRBDRICKS DHV9LOPMSNT COMPANY+ 524 West Commonwealth TRACT N0. 475? AvenuP, Pullerton, California. HNGINHHR: DAN W. HEIL, 120 Sou~ Orange Avenue, Pullerton, California. Subject tract is located on the east aide of State College Boulevard, north of Bali Road and contains 40 proposed R-3 lots and 1 proposed C-3 lot. Subject tsact was filed in coajuaction with Reclassification No. 61-52-123, Subject tract was contiaued from the meeting of June 25., 19b2, in order to permit the petitioner an opportunity to submit revised plans. Mr. Henry Predricks, agent for the petitioner requested the Commission to continue hearing of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4757 until the meeting of October 1, 1962, in order that subject tract might be heard in con3unction with the reclassification of subjecL property. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue hearing of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4757 until the ~eeeting of October 1, 1962, in order that subject Tract might be heard with Reclasaification No. 61-62-123. Commissioner ASlsed secoaded..the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. RBCIASSIPICATION - N0. 62-63-2 CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. BVERBTT J• MARTINBZ, 1135 North Wes# 5treet, Anaheim~ Califosnia, Owner; JOHN D.VON Dffit HBIDB, 924 ~ North Buclid Street, Aia heim, California, Agent; requestiag that \ ., . ~ '~; .. : ~• ----r--- -- -- MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued: RBCIASSIPICATION - property described as: An irregul.ar parcel of land with a N0. 62-63-2 frontage of 259 feet plus or miaus, on the west side of Ylest Street (Continued) and a maximum depth of 497 feet plus or minus, the southeast corner of said property being 451 feet plus or minus, north of the northwest corner of La Palma and West Street~ and further described as 1135-1145 North West Street be reclassified from the R-A, RHSIDENTIAL AGRI~ITL ~p~ ZO~g to R-3 LTI pLS FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, 20NB, in order to construct a multiple fam3ly pldnned unit~evelopment. Sub3ect petition was continued from the meeting of July 9, 1962, in order to permit the Planning Department an opportunity bo readvertise subject petition to include the entire parcei. Chairman Gauer asked if there was aayone in the audience representing the pettt9oner. No one appeared before the Commission to represent the petitioner. Reverend Stanley Heber, 215 West Broadway, appeared b~:fore the Commission in opposi- tion to subject petition and stated `hat he only ubjected to two (2) story apartment uaits being constructed on subject p~operty; that he believed that the high density of ponulation and close living quarters of multiple apar.tments resulted in a serious social~ moral and spiritual problem; that few tenants in such apartments tend to get their roots dowa in a community, gain very little interest in the schools, service organizations, civic betterment groups and their own civic responsibility as weil as their spiritual welfare of the communitq~ and that he hoped that the Commission would give these problems careful consideration. A letter of opposition from the Anaheim Memorial Hospital was read to the Commission. The Commiasion requested a Plunning Study be made of the area surrouading subject property with the boundaries on the east, east of West Street covering all vacant R-A property and west abuttiag R-1, single familq houses on the north by Romneya Street and on the scuth by La Palma Avenue. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-2 to the meetiag of August 6, 1962, in order to allow the Blaaning Department sufficient time to present a planning Study covered by areas sta4ed above, and that tt~e Secretary shouid advise the pr,titioner the date of the continuance so that he would appear before the Commission and present revised plans covering the full development for single story construction. TBNTATIVB MAP OF - OWNBR: GABTAI~ AHANDONATO, 1700 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, TRACT N0. 4230 California. SUBDIVIDBR: JQS ABANDONkTO, 1700 Irvine Avenue, Newpnrt Beach, California. The tract is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue approxi~ately 665 feet, plus or ninus. west of Beach Soulevard} and contains 25 proposed R-3, Multiple Pamilq Reaidential., 2one lots and 2 proposed C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one Yots. Mr. Roy Stuhley, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration, but that he would be glad to aaswer any questions which the Commission might have. The Commission noted that the Tentstive Tract was approved in cunjunction with Reclasaification No. 55-56-40 under Resolution No. 7396 by the Anaheim City Council. Mr. Lloyd Mount, one of the developers appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed conatruction would be similar to the Mauna Loa Garden Apartments at 1531 Bast La Palma Avenue. R ~_.; ,,,~ ~ ~~ • MINUTBS, CITY P~ANNING COhA[ISSION, Juiy 23, 1462~ Continued: 1099 TffiVTATIVB MAP OP - The Commiasion asked Planaing Director Richard Reese, whether TRACT N0. 4230 subject tract had complied with all conditions uader the reclass- (Continued) ification. Planning Director Richard Reeae~ asked that the Commission defer fiaaY ruling oa Tentat3ve Tract Map No. 4230 uatii he and the deveioper could coafer IV~~f~Y ^CIIC i,isy.i-siorney. ~ The Commisaioa granted the request. Upon !!r. Reese~s retura from the Citq pttorney's office~ Mr. Reeae informed the Commissioa that the Tentative Tract was properly before the Commiasion for action, that one of the coaditioas of the property being reclass:Lfied to the C-1, Ncighborhood Conmercial Zone was the recordatioa of a traci map, aa!~ that actioa by the City Couacil oa Novs .~er 28~ 1961 limited sub3ect tract to oae storq conatruction. Commissioner Camp offered a motioa to approve Teatative Tract No. 4230, Commisaioner Mungall aeconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIBD, YARIANCR N0. 1504 - PUBLIC F~ARING, JBSSH P. PRLIBTT and (:ALLIB A. PRUBTT, 311 8auth State College Bouievard, Aaak~eim, California, Owners; INITIATED BY PIANNING COFMISSION for CHARLgS J, DUCOPP and CLARA DUCOPF, 1430 Veadale Street, Anaheim, California; requesting permiasioa to BSTABLISH A RBAL BSTATE OPBICB oa property described as; A rectangular parcei of land 70 feet by 110 feet, with a£xontage of 70 feet on the west side of State Coilege Boulevard~ the northeas t corner of said property being approximatelq 90 feet aouth of the•southwest coraer of ~roadway aad $tate Coilege Boulevard, and farther deacribed as 311 3outh 3tate Coliege Boulevard. Property preaentlq clasaified R-1~ One Pamilq Reaideatial~ 2one. Sub3ect petition was foruerlq before the Commisaion under a Reclasaification No. b1-62-120, at which time it was withdrawn at the auggeation of the Commisaion ia or8er that eub,~ect petitioa be filed uader a Variance. Mra. Ciara Ducoff, the origiaal aB~eAt for the petitioner appeared before the Commiaeio~ aad sbated ahe had nothing farther to add for the Coc~isaioas coasideration. TF~ FIDARING WAS CLOSBD. ~ The Comaiaaioa aeked the petitioaes whether aigne wonld coaform with City regulatiaas to whic;h the petitioner replied that alse would conform to ali City reguletiuna, end that shis did not like sigas that rrcr~~ biatantiy diapiayed, The Coamisaion f,ound aad determined certain facta regardiag sub,~ect petitioa. (8ee Reaoiution Book). Commisaioner Pebley oifered Reaoiution No. 412, 3eriea 1962-63, aad moved for ite paeasge aad adoption, aecoaded by Commieaioner Camp~ to graat petitioa for Variance No. 3504, aab,~ect to certaia c~.aditioas. (See Reaolution Book). On roil call the forego~ag reeolutioA wee paeaed ~by the foliowing vote: AYB3: CO~hAdISSI01V8R3: Allred~ Camp, Chsvos, Marcoux~ Mungaii, Pebiey, perry. NQHS: COMMI3dI0Nffit3: (~aaer. ABSHNT: COI~9dI3SI0IV8R3: HapgooG. i: Ai~ -~i MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COA4lISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued: 1100 VARZANCH N0. 1505 - PUBLIC HBA1tING. JAMBS. G. IiULL, 1604 Hast Hlm Street, Anaheim, ~ Cali,°.ornia, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVS 1tBAR yARD SBTBACK RBQUIRBMBNT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 63 feet on the south side of Sim Street and a depth of 100feet,the northeast corner of said property being approximatelp 252 feet west of the southwest corner of Hlm Street and Bider Street, and further described aa J,bn4 aon+ Bim Street. Property presently classified R-1, One Family Residential, Zone. , i ( ~ Mr. James Hull, the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing fnrther to add far the Commission~s consideration. ' The Commissioa fc,und and determiaed certain facts regardiag subject petition. (See Resolution Book). Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution N~i. 413, Series 1962-63, and moved for its i passage and adoption, seconded bq Commissioner Alired,to grant Petition for Variance % No. 1505 subject to certain conditions. (See Resoiution Book). ; AYBS: COMAlISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perrq. NOB3: COA9dISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: C06AfISSIONBRS: Hapgood. VARIANCB N0. 1506 ~ PUBLIC HBARING. ADBIAIDB A. MQRSB, 709 Neptune Street, Anaheiar, Califoraia, Owner; GHORGE M. HOLSTSIN and SONS, 166 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVH RBAR YARD SBTBACK RBQUIRHMSNT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 60 feet by 101 feet,with'a 60 foot frontage on the west side of Neptune Street, the southeast corner of said property being 240 feet plus or minus, north of the northwest corner of Neptune Stree! and Crone Avenae, and further described as 709 Neptune Street. Prq~erty presently classified R-1, One Family Residential, Zone. blr. Lewis Sewinsky~ 1307 Fawn, represeatiag the petitioner appeared before ~the Commission aad stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission~s consideration. 7HB HBARING WAS CLOS~BD. The Commission found and determined certaia facts regarding subject petition. (See Resolution Book). Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 414, Series 1962-63, aud moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1506, subject to certain conditions. (See Resolution Hook). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: CONMISSIONBRS: ASlred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley, perry. P'~HS: COI~AfISSI0N8RS: None. _ ABSHNT: CODAiIS3I0NBRS: Hapgood. VARIANCE N0. 150'7 - PUBLIC HBARING. RAYMON^ R. NBLSON~ 2633 Carnivai Avenue, Anaheim, California, Ov,. :; requesting permission to WAIVB SIDB YARL SB'CBACB RBQUIRHMHNT on corner lot on property described as; A rectaagular parcel of land 77 feet plua or minus by 103 feet plus or minus at the northeast corner of Chantiliy Street and Carnival Avenue, and further described as 2633 Carnival Aveaue. Property presently classified as R-1, One Ps.mily Residential, Zone. ~~_... <~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `-~ ( 1 v ~:.~..-- y.:_ ..~~. ~ ' ~~' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~l v J MIN[JfBS, CITY PIANNTNG CQ~9~lISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued: VARIANCB N0. 1507 - Mr. Raymond R. Nelson, the petitioner appeared before the (Continued) Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission~s coasideration. ---- ~~ ~ iiol I ~$ ~n~tixc wns c,uis$n, The Coccnission found and determined certaia facts regarding snbject petition. (See Resolution Book). Commissioner Pebley offered Reaolution No. 415, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Variar.ce No. 1507, subject to certain conditions. (See Resolutioa Book). On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COMMISSION~tS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley, Perrq. •NOSS: COhV~iISSIONBRS: None. ~ AB9BNT: COAAlISSIONB1tS: Hapgood. VARIANCH N0. 1508 - PUBLIC HBARING. PBTBR A. GIOVANNONI, 1784 1Nest Alomar Avenue, Anaheim~ California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVH RBAIt YARD SBTBACK P.BQUIREh~NT on property described as: p rectangular parcel of land 105 feet by 70 feet, with a frontage of 70 feet on the south side of Alomar Avenue, the northwest corner of said property being 143 feet plus or minus east of the southeast corner of Alomar Avenue and Trideat Street, and further described as 1784 West F.lomar Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtIC[JLTURAL, ZONB. No one appeared to represent the petitioner before the Cocomission. Upon Chairman Gauer*s asking for any opposition, there was none. Tfffi HBARING WA3 CLOSHC. The Commission found and determined certain facts regarding subjec# petition. (3ee Resolution Book). Commisaioner Perry offered Resolution No. 416, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1508, subject to certain conditioas. (See Resolution Book), On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foi_owing vote: AYES: COA9dI3SI0NBRS: Allred, Camp, (S~avos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBSe COhMISSIOI~tS: None. ABSBNT: COhAlISSIONBRS: Hapgood. VARIANCB N0. 1509 - PUBLIC HBARING. DAVID Nf. MACMATH, 1414 Bast Sim Street, ~ Anaheim, California, Owner; req~esting permission to WAIVB RBAR YARD 3BTBACR RBQUIRBMBNT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 62 feet by 100 feet, with a frontage of 62 feet on the so~;ch side of Bim 3treet, the northeast corner•of said prop~ ty being 328 feex west c: ±he southwest corner of Hlm and Bond Streets~ aad further described as 1414 Hast Bim Street. propesty preseatly classif~ed R-1, One Pamily Residential, Zone. Mr. David W. MacMath, the petit~.oner appAared before the Commission and atated that he had aothing further to add for the Commiasion's conaideration. ~ ~ ~` _____ --r- ~~ . :~. .. _ =~... ~_~ ~ ~ MINUfB3, CITY P7.ANNING C~SISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued; VpRIANCE N0. 1509 - THB HBARING WAS CLA3B11. (Continued) The Commiasion found and determined certain facts regarding subject petition. (See Resolution Book). Commiasioner biarcoux affered Resolution No. 417, Series 1962-63, attd moved for its gassage and adoption, secoaded bq Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition ior Variaace No. 1509~ subject to certain conditions. (See Resoiution Book). On roll caii the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vot2: pyBg; COhA~IISSYONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: COI~tISSIONffitS: None. pBSHNT: COhAdISSIONffit3: Hapgood. COAIDITIONAL USB - HANOVBR, INC., P. 0. BOX 2067, Anaheim, California, Owaers, PBRMIT N0. 270 WALTBR W. PAR&S, 260 Cabrillo, Apt. A; Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A HOPBRAU on property described as: An irregular parcel of land with a frontage of 131 feet plus or minus on the north side of South Street, and a maximum depth of 460 feet plus or.minus, also with a frontage of app~oximately 290 feet on the wesk side of Manchester Avenue, the southeast corner of said property being 60 feet pius or minus, west of the northwest corner of South Street and Maachester Avenue, and further described as 1115 South 3treet. Property presently ciaseified C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one. Mr. John Prins, 1665 South Brookhurst 3treet, representing the petitiones appeared before the Commission and stated that the property owner~• were engaged in land development in Orangc Couaty, that theq had eight (8) small type shopping centera which they developed and that the Qroposed petition was similar to types of business that they had installed in other shopping centers. Chairman Gauer agked the audience if there was anyone ~pposed to subject petition, r~d~ece upon five (5) people aroae in the audience to voice their opposition. Mr. John J. Cummings, 1116 West South Street, appeared before the Commission representing those in the audience opposing subject pe#ition and presented a petition with the signatures of twentq-five (25) persons living adjacent and in close proximity to subject property, aad stated all the p:operty owaers in close proxi.mity opposed the proposed Hofbrau,and that it was in a predominantly R-1, residential area with many childrea, schools and churches, that the neighborhood wonid deteriorate if subject petitioa were granted, that the nndue noise created by cars driving in and out of sub3ect propertq would create a hazard to children as sale of beer and liquor was not a compatible neighborhood commercial use in a one family residential area~ and that the proposed land use was not compatible with the R-1~ resideatial area; that maay people in the area could not appear to oppose subject petition and that with the split of subject property being iilegal, if g=aated, there would not be sufficient parking area to conduct a business of 41~i~ kiad. . Mrs. Marjorie Reimana, 1126 West South Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to aubject petition and stated that her property faces the street which bor ders the aide of the proposed establishment, that several homes were oa subject side street, and that traffic wouid pull in and out of the propoaed establishment since this was an access road which would create a hazard to her property. Mr, prins, in rebuttal, stated that there was sufficient parking facilities to take care of the proposed petition requiremeats. ~ ~ I ~ ~ `-' l. _l - tJ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING C~AfISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued: 1103 COPIDITIONAL USB - The Commission noted that oa the plot plan an area marked "Not A PIDtMIT N0. 270 Part" was located at the front of snbject property. (Continued) The petitioner stated that at the time they were approached to bup subject propertq there was another purchaser of a portion of sub- ject propertq, that the other purchaser handled a sign company. and that with two owners it was thought one could haadle the sign and the other handle the commercial development and that the petit?oner had an agreement with the other pu.:chaser to tear dowa the old home upoa legai permission from the City Council for said lot split. Mr. J. 0. Brown, 1106 West South Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and in rebuttal to the various statemeats by the petitioner, stated that his property was directly across from the proposed development and that all homes were located directiq across but not behind subject property. THH HBARING WA3 CLOSBD. The Commission found and determined certain facts regarding subject petition. (3ee Resolution Book). Commissioner Marcoux, offered Resolution No. 418, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to denq Petitioa for Coaditional Use Permit Na. 270, on the bases of the aforementioned findings. (See Resolution Bookj. On roll cail the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYB~4: Cq~AiISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, (~avos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall,.Perry. NOH3: CONAlISSIONBRS: None. AB3TAIN: CQMMISSI~iBRS: Pebiey. ABSHNT; COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USS - PUBLIC F~ARING. BMANC~.•L CANDBLL, 616 - 21st Place, Santa Monica, pffitMIT N0. 271 Calif ornia, Owuer; HBLSN C. IANGPOitD, 1009 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ADD 1RAILHR SPACHS IN BXISTING TRAILER PARK oa property described as; Aa irregular parcel of land with a frontage of 196 feet, plus or minus, on the west side of Harbor Bou2evard, with aa approximate depth of 700 feet, the southeast corner of said property being approximatelq 555 feet nort~ of the northwest corner of Bali Rosd and Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 1009 South Harbor Boulevard, property presently classified R A, RESIDffidTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB, planning Assistant.Marvin Rrieger, advised the Commission that subject petition's plans that were submitted~were insufficient to ailow the Plan Checker to determine whether subject petition met the code requirement,and that the petitioner was now in the process of redrawing said plans to be submitted at a later date. Chairman Gauer asked whethe= the petitioner rvas in the audience, and receiving an affirmative reply asked whether the petitioner was in agreement with the suggestion that the petition be con4inued in order to submit revised plans. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 271, to the meeting of August 6, 1962, in order to permit the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans. Commissioner AlY.red seconded the motion. MOTION CARItIBD. Commisa;loner Pebley left the Council Chambers at 3;45 !.M. ,~ ~ ~ ' ' ;~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ._..._.._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,J ~.1 I MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ July 23~ 1962~ Continued: 1104 ~ I ( CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I~IDARING. HIROJI and FUSAYI HATANASA, 4678 La Palma Avenue, ~ pffitMIT N0. 272 Dairqlaf-d, California, Owners; HUGH J. SORHN3HN, 825 South ~ ~ I WestchesLer Drive, A~heim, California, Agent; requesting ~ I per6aission td CONSTRUCT A CHURCH on property described as: A I ~ rectangular parcel of land 132 feet, pius or minus, by 654 feet, pius or minus, with a i I ;r:.a;a6e af 232 £eet, plus or Ininus, on the south side of Oraage Aveaue, the northwest . corner of said property being $58 feet, pius or minus, east of the southeast corner of i Oraage Aveaue and Holder Street, and further described as 3980 Orange Avenue. .Property presentiy ciassified R-A, RB9IDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. Mr. Hugh J. Sorensen, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and l 's'tated'he had nothing furttfe=~to,add for i~he Commiasion~s consideration, but would be ~ glaa to`'ansMYer 'ariy queS~ions. THB HHpRING WAS CLOSHD. ~ The.Comatission aoted that a sim3lar s~quest by an agettt for the petitioner under ~ Special Use Permit ?to. 90 was approved, that due to the circumstances, conditions for approval would tiot apply because a portion of the property under said Special Use Permit wag deeded'tid the Savaana School District; thaS the piot plans covered property on two separate requests; aad that it would be in order to readvertise sut~ject petition to cover ail the property covered by said piot plans which constit~xte two (2) acres of subject petition and'one (1) acre under Special Use Permit No. 90. j ; ~ After colasiderabie discussion by the Commission relative to approving subject I petition subject to various conditions, the Coonnissioa reopened the hearing. } Coa~iasioaer Marcoux offe:ed a motioa to contiaue the hearing of Conditionai Use ~ Perm i4 No. 2 7 2, to t he m eeti t l g of'Au gust 20. 1962, in order to permit the petitiones 1 to•file a petitioa on a11 prope'rty covered by the plot plaas. Co~nisaioner Ailred ~ secorided the motien. MOTION CARRIBD. pIANNING BTUDY N0. 49-81-2 Area covered by Planniag Study No. 49-81-2 .ta aouth of the Riveraide Preeway, weat of 8ast ~tr~et~ on both sidea of the Orange County Plood Contsol Chanaei preaeatiy zoaed uader the (kaeral Plan M-1~ Light Man~~acturiag Zone. Piannfhg Aaeietaat Roaald arudzinaki~ reviewed aub,~ect PSsaniag Study for the Co~omiasion aa foilows: HACL~tOUND On Juae 26, 1962, the Anaheim Citq Couacii, as e reeuit of ite he~riag of Conditional Vse permit No. 243, disected the Anaheim Plasufing Departmeat to prepare pianaing Study No. 49-81-2. The PUnaiag Study was to iaclude consideration~ of the highest and best uoe of propnrty bounded on the aasth by the Rivereide Preeway, oa the eaat by Rsymond Aveaue, oa the aouth by the Raymond Retarding 8aeia, and on the west by the Atc3~:imoa, Topeka~ and Saata Pe Raiiway. Whea the highest and br3t use of the property was determined, the Council had thea reque~ted, a~ ysert of the Study, aa anslysi~ of scceor over the Orange County Plood Coatroi Chsnnel to properties iaciuded within the Study Ares. The aasiysi• of access was to inc~~a.'•~ s 1. Determination of existing access eaeewen4s. 2. T1te posaibil~ty of scquiriag Rdditional ~ceess essements. 3. Ab ~sulysis of the dem~nd for e-dditionai acce~e created by the traffie which could be ex~eebed to reouit from the laad uaes piaced apoa the parcel~ of lend withia the dtudy Ares. __~. ~_ .,~---_ --- --. _._____._..._-~_,._ ' _ ,..._.. ~ , . r-._..,.. . . . ' ~~. _ . _ _ ,~ ~J ..~.. - ------~----- ~ - - , ~:.~ ~ ~ IAINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued; 11~i "/~IANNING STUDY N0. 4S-81_:' i;ontinued~ The directed ?lanning Study was to be su~m.~rted to the Anahei: PlanninF. Commiasion for their perusal. After the Commiss:.oa had reviewed tne Sf:udy :it ~ras to be submitted to the ~:15% Z`OUIICil I9L U9C t13 CilluEYlZe .°ill ~u2 i.3iiu~Cii~o uB~:iS:.Qy~ CCu° ceraing Conditional Use Permit No. ^b~5 at the Council`s meeting of August 7, ]:962. Said iianuing BBudy has be~n prepared a~ the results are a~• folicws~ PINDINGS• 1. Tha 1:::.d wic,`,in the Stud~ Area is flat and relatively v>cant at ',;he presta; time. 2. i2te land auath of Studq Area is be3.ng use~~ ior a flood «aSer st.orage basia. ~. The St~~dy Area is bounded on the east by an ext~!±a;.e are~ of low densitq single family homes. 4. Directly north of the Riverside Preeway is an extensive ar.ea of induatrial !.and use. This industriai usage consists of food processing plants and electroaic device research and production plants. S. Wes4 rf the railroad tracka the weatern boundarq of the Studq Aree, is aa exteasiv~: area of heavy indust*iai use such as f.ood processia,,, cold storage ps~:kers, fu=aitnre manuiacturer, chemicai process3~ig and other similar uaes. Thia heavy iadustria'1 us: st~etches the cnmplete le~gth ~~f the western aide cf the Study Area arid extends soutb,eriy tc .*.a Palcaa Avenue, 6. A major cc~nsideratioa relatia~• to the e.ffec4s of ind!.~Atsial us: ia a comwunity ia the dir~ctioa sm~'se• .~',ars, aad aniae wil.: tr~eve; whea carried by the prevailiag wi%:a~, xae w~atiherm~n at Fullexton City i-irport has atst~d that niaety-five (S~S) percenY of the wiads over fifteea (15) knote in s~peed travei f rom a iweat-soutta,vest to a^. east-northeast direction, i,e. from ~40o to 60~ on the camp.~as. 7. I a tl~e southeastera corner o:' the Study Aree there ia a congoJ.meretiou nf e.xiating laad usea. In an are~ approximately three (3) acrea ia aize~ trerie exiate, a eervice s`:ation a firewood ealea, a concrate contractors buaiaeee, and aevea (7) ainglo fami~y dwelling uaits. 8. 'a'here ia a neighborhooii ahopping ceat~~c d:zectly aczos-r Aaymond Avenne to the eset of the cotrglomeratioa of 1a:.d uaea deacr~'oe~t in Pinding No. 7. ~ 9. These ia an ar-a of multinie f.mily hou:eii disect?y south ;,: the shoppand ceAter noted Sa P~.ndiag No. 8. 70. 1'.he 6tudy A:ea ir~ weli aerved ry traaapos±s:•aoa fac±litiea. The Area i~ locaLed e± the aou+.hweat eorner of the iateraectioa ot' the F.ivereide Pree- wsq ~nd Raymo,~d Aveaue. Thia iattsaection is aarved bq s full Preeway Ynkerchaago. ii. Tw2 properxy in the St~dy Area cruid eaail~; ;+'st4ia s spar track ~rom ~:.e A.T. ~ 3. P. lty., if tk,< aae prr~pos~d rtquired rs3.l traneQortation aervice. i2. Th~ land within the St~dy Aree i~ di,vided in~~~ two uaesble aectiana bq the Orange ~ounty "Cerbun Creek" Plood Coatr,oi Cb.aaael whiah pasaea through ~the Sxudy Area ia a north-eoc,th ~~:~ct~~u, -- . . . <.. , - ~i .~'"~. ~ ~,~-' . . .__._.,. .. ,_w ........,.` MINUT83, CITY PLANNING CObIl~l133ION, July 23, 19F2, Contiauefi: PiANNING STUDY N0. 49-81-2 (Continued) 13. Presentiq~ there are two bridges over the flood controi channei. These bridges were cone,'-ucter? tu provide access to properties west of the channel from Raqmor.d ~ aue, ine exisiing siiuai+.on concerning access io iae properiies west of tue floou control channel is as follows: a. Bath existing bridges are forty (40) feet wide, carry two (2) travel lanes of fifteen (15) feet each. The northern most bridge and corresponding e~sement exzRts to provide access for the oqblic, includiag the owae;s of ?At :vas. 2, 3, and 4 of the Stockwell Subdiv3sion, i,e. the northern trree pJrr:ela wS.thin the Study Area. t. '!'he southern most bridge has been constructed on an easement graated by the Oraage Caunty P1ooS Controi Diatrict to Hrnest M. Carleon~ the owner of Lot No. 5 of the 3tockwell Subdiviaioa, the southern-moat parcel within the Study Area. c. Aclditionei easemants caz be arquired from the O.C.N.C.D. ~ver the fiood co.atroi channel if the traffic demands are auch that addit3c,uaJ. acceas ia aamded. d. Additiottai bridgea cnn Y~e coastructed at the required poiata of aeceas~ however, the eos! of theae :~ridqes muat be borne bq the property owner of ownere requir3nb the atructure. T9ie bridge caa be constructed at an approximate coat of elevea (11) dollsra per square foot, accordiag to the O.C.P.C.D. e. The two bridges discussed z~~resemt the existing recorded access easements wi~hira tae Study Area across the O.C.P.C, channei. 14. The Studt Area is presentiq zoned M-1, Light Industrial. 15. Land to *..he north and south of the 3tud;~ Area is zoned ld-1, Light Industri.al. 16. Land to the west of the Study nr~ is zoned M-2, Heavy Iu:iustrial. 17. Land east ot Lhe ~tudy Area i~ rsoned R-1, Sing.3e Pe~iily R•esicient3al. 18. Th~ Study Area is lo~ated in s RPCtion ~~f the City r,i Anaheim which _s tcntatively been projected for Light Ir~dc~i~:ial de•~ielopment. CO2ZCLUSIONS Or. Yhe basis of : 1. Land use~ surrouading the Study Area. 2, The transportatie a systems available to the :",•:u~; P.rea. 3. Locat?on of the 3tudy Area in the existing Land Uae framework of the City of Anaheim. It h~s been concluded thai the highest und best use of the property within the 5tudy Area is industrial. RBCOANMHNDATIONS l. Tha't the Study Area of Planniicg Study No. 49-81-2 by projected for Light Iaduatrial developmeni. __~--;~. ; . -~-,- ~ :~' . . . . , , _,,~._ C~ ~ " '~''~` '~ J ~ ~ ~~ ~`i i i MINUTES, CITY PIANNING C0~4dISSION, July 23, 1962, Contiaued: 1107 PIANNxNG STUDY N0. 49-81-2 (Continued) That a fifty (50) foot Parking-Landscaping zone be projected along the Study Area frontage on Raymond Avenue. 3. Lue so sue property split caused by the iiood control chaanel, the smaii parcels fronting on Raqmond Avenue G~uid be conaidered a~ industriai office sites or sites for office uses compatible with industry. 4. That the recomraendations be considered and incorporated as part of the industrial element of the Anaheim General Plan. The Commission discussed the various business and industrial firmsimmediately adjacent to subject property; that many of the problems which are usualYy caused by such industries and businesses~their practical uses for the property covered by said Plan- ning Study. ~e Commission found and determined certain facts regarding circumstances limiting to the request for planning ~tudy No. 49-81-2 as follows: 1. That the ares was incompatible to traiier park uses because odors and noises ema,;ating from M-1 property adjacent to the property covered in said Plannine Study would be objectionable to any medium density residential use. 2. That the best land use would be Light Industrial development. T'hat there should be no change to the General Plan as i± now projects said property for M-1 use. 4. That no ~roblem for ingress and egress to the property for lan*; use should be considered by the Planning Coaunission, that it should be between the County and the property ownets of subject property. Commissionex Chavos offered a motion to advise the City Couucii that the planning C~~mission recommends that property covered by Planning $tudy No. 49-81-2, rema~n as is, based on the aforementioned findings. Commissioner Marco~uc seconded the mot3on, MOTION CARRIBD. LAND US8 POLICY OF TfIH COMdISSION Pianning Director Richard Reese, read a Tentafiive Resoiution as covered in a work session heid by the Commission incorporating proposed land uses of area bounded bq the Santa Ana River on the east, Ball Road on the South, State College Boulevard on the west, and the Riverside Preeway on the north. • Commissioner Mungall offerr.d Resolution No. 428, S°ries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Coemissioner perry, that the land use policy as covered in Planning Study 47-122-5, be recommended as the policy to the City Council as the best and highest use of Sand in the Bast Anaheim Area. On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYBS: CObIIYlI3SI0NBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungaii, perrq. ~ COhMISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COhAfIS3I01VffitS: Hapgood, Pebley. , S • ~ ;,.~. ,:~ (_) ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ MINUTBS, CI'Plf PIANNING CQMMISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued: 1108 PLANNING STUDY N0. 4'~-122-5 Plaaning Director Richard Reese, reviewed Planning Study No. 47-122-5, for the Commission as covered in a work session as follows: BACRC~{tCITND On May 28, 1962, the Anaheim City Planning Commission directed the Planning Department to prepare Planning Study No. 47-122-5. The area concerned in Planning Study No. 4'-i22-5 is bounded by La Palma Avenue andthe Riverside Freeway on the no=th, the Santa Ana River on the east, ~,outh Street on the south, and the proposed Route 19 Preeway on the west. PRO~LBM• To determine the optimum development of the described :;tudy Area as the area relates to the rest of the City of Anaheim. FINDINGS: 1. The land within the Study Area is flat and drains in a southwest direction. Tne soils are sandy and can :::adily sc~port physical development. 2. The industrial element of the Anaheim economic base is expanding and, as a colsequence, creating a clemand for housing for the employees of expanding industries. 3. A major portion of the Study Area is, at the present time, under the jurisdiction of. the County of Orange, 4. The land within the Study Area is presently being used agriculturallg, primarily for orange groves. 5. The land directly north of the Study area has been projected for industrial use. 1he southern boundary of the indistr•ial area, as proposed by the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim is the Riverside Freeway. 7. Land to the south and west of the Study Area is projected for low density single family residential use. 8. Land to the east of the Study Area is used primarily for sand pits and is tentatively pr~jzcted for use as a special riversa.de pazk. 9. The Study Area is served by a road and highway network trhich is being improved to :neet expected future traffic demands and should prove adequate, and thereby eliminate the necessity of proposing additions #o the highway system as part of •this Pianning Stndy. 10. Oil we11s and oil storage tanks are scattered through a large section of Sand locaied west of Rio Vista Street just south of the Riverside Freeway. These wells will present a barrier to development until such time as the natural resource base of the welis is exhausted. Until that time the land immediately slrroundinR each well site must be kept vacant to insure adequate light, air, and safety within the area surrounding the well sites. 11. On the basis of submitted development proposais, it has been determined that the Study Area is rapidly acquiring a low density single fxmily residential character. ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ . ~. ` ~. ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued; PLAHIdING STUDY N0. 47-122-5 (Continued) •~'' , 1109 12. A neighborhood shopping center has been proposed by private developers, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista g,~~~;. T:•?s s!:egg=ro ~en#er +_s ~resently within the jurisdi;,t.3.on oi the County of Orange. CONCLUSIONS: l. The present single family residentiai growth trend will continue, necessi- tating the projection of a major portion of the Study Area for single family residential land use. , 2. The shopping center will be constructed as proposed at the northeast corner of Lincoln and Rio Vista, 3. A plan is needed for the area which includes deveJ.opment alternatives for the land under use by the oil wells. RBCOMMHNDATIONS: 1. That the area enclosed by Planning Study 47-122-5 be developed substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 3, recognizing primarily: a. The proposed land use pattern with a prominance of low density single family residential areas empioying adequate circulation for vehicles and pedestrians. b. The development proposals for land presently under use for oil well sites. These proposals incorporate approximately 150 in radius from the well point which shali be left vacant of physical development until the time that well is no longer in use. At this time the land can then be used for single family development as indicated on Bxhibit No. 3. c. The incorporation of the five (5) acre neighborhood commercial shopping center at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street as part of the land use plan. Commissioner Persy offered Resolution No. 429, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption seconded by Commissioner Chavos to recommend to the City Council that Planning Study No. 47-122-5 be adopted ^~> a precise pian for land use in an area covered by said Planning Study. On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: pYBS: CQ'•:tiIISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NUHS: CaMMISSIONIDRS: None. AHSHNT: COAR+[ISSIONBRS: Hapgood, pebley. - COMNIISSION POLICY RBGARDING SBR_VICH STATIQNg Planning Director Richard Reese, reviewed for the Commission the Commission' regarding 5ervice Stations. Commiasioner Camp offered Resolutioa No. 430, Series 1962-63, and moved for passa~e and adoption, seconded by Commissiomer Chavos, that the City Counci: a~`.vised "at the Service Station Location Policy of the Planning Commission fullows: ~ ,; .: _... .. -----~ •_- . :.; _, ~ ,. / .. ... ... -,. ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ _ ~ ~ ~ f~ .`~ ~. V MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued; 1110 t~ ~~ COMMISSION POLICY RBGARDING SBRVICS STATIONS CContinued) 1. That Service Stations should be established and deveioped or proposed in commercial and ind~estriai areas onlq. 2, TLig* ~»n tq *ha Ltiggimitar ,_ateas3tp Of ]_anr~ ~~~av~ hp~~ra ef operat±oa, g9_*f0r~~!G? characteristics,•and the tendency to coastitute an entering wedge of "strip" commercial development, such uses should be specifically excJ.uded from the existing or propnsed residential areas, 3. That the Pianning Commissioa adopts this policy as a laad use guide within which the merits of individual applications might better be considered. On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: C(Y~AlISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NaES: CaNMISSIONHRS: None. ABSHNT: COI~A~tISSIONIDRS: Hapgoocl, Pebley. RBCHSS: Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting and to reconvene at 7:00 0'Ciock P.M, Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOrfION CARRIBD. Meeting ad,journed at 5:05 0'Ciock P.M. RBCONVBNB: Chairman Gauer reconnened the meeting of the Anaheim Planning Co~ission at 7:00 O'Clock P.M. Coimnissioner Ha»good being absent., CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. ROHFiRT S. UNGBR, 2008 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 273 California, Owner; WILLIAM WOI.SBORN, 1741 Buclid Avenue, Anaheim, Cali..`ornia, Agent; requesting permission to construct an R-3, PIANNBD UNIT DBVBLOPMBNT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 230 feet plus or minus by 237 feet plus or minus, with a frontage of 230 feet plus or minus on•the north side of Winstoa Road, the southwest coraer of said propertp beiag approximately 635 feet east of the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenu~ aad Winston Road, and further described as 2533 West Winston Road, Property presentlq classified as R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB. Mr. William S. Wolsborn, agent for the petitioner, aj~peared before the Commission and stated that ali Code regnlations would be compl3ed with except that carports would be substituted for garages,and that the rear of the carports would have a masonry wall instead of stucco. TfIE HBAltING WAS CLOSBD. 'ihe Commission found and detesmined ce=4ain facts i•?s;sding subject petition. (See Resolution Book). Commissioner Pebley offered Resol:~tion No. 419, Ser3~!:s 19b2-63~ and moved for, its passage and adoption, secoaded bq Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for t;ondi- tional Use P~rmit No. 273, subject to conditions. Ci3ee Resolution Rook.;, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed b~ ifie followiag vote: AYB3: CQNAIIS3IONffitS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali~ Pebley, Perry. NQBS: CONaIISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: C069~lISSIOPIDRS: Hapgood. ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COt~9~1ISSI0N, July 23, 1962, Continued: ilil CONDITIONAL USB - YUBLIC HBARING. ARDMORB DHVBLOPMffiVT COMPANY, Y129 Westwood Boule- pBRMIT N0. 274 vard~ Los Angeies 24, California, Owners; ROBBRT J. COLES, .1129 Westwood Boulevard, Los Aageies 24, California, Agent; requesting ~.,~.o~:^~ :o :~^2:S"lP.J:.'T e prn~nus±n,~nnT n~VELOPMBNT on property ~---: ......... described as: A parcei of laad coataining 14 lots at the stub-ead of Gramercy Avenue, east of Chippewa Street, with frontages of 495 feet plus or minus on both sidea of the street. Proper4y preseatly classified R-3, MULTIPLS:.PAMILY RSSIDBNTIAL, 20I~. Mr. Robe=t Coles, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed development would consiat of 80 apartments of two and three bedrooms with large open areas which would be free from any automobiie traffic and devoted to the use of the residents of the development; that the proposed developm~ent would be of a medium high quality nature with apartments selling from $500.00 40 51,500.00 down and $i5C.00 per month; that the larger apartments wouid have iarge patios; that most of the apartments would be equivalent in size to the better homes in Aaaheim; and that parking requirements met Code regulations. T!~ HHARING WAS CL05~. The Comaission discussed the smail play area provided for the children; thaL said play area was located in the middle of the area called the "greeR". The agent for the petitioner stated that buildings A, B, C and D had very large patios of 14 feet by 40 feet wh3ch would be devoted to children only; and that the apartments abutting said "green" were three bedroom, two bath apartments. The Commission noted the aesthetic quality of the proposed developments presented a barracks appearance; and that the said aesthetic appearance should be improved by varyiag the fronts of the proposed structures, providing shake roofs, and different elevations. Commissioner Pebley offertd a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 274, until the meeting of August 6, 1962, in order to provide the petitioner time to ~uomi4 revised plans which would incorporate a varied appearance, shake roof, and different elevations. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. CONDITIONAL USE - PUSLIC HBAItING. VICTOR and PRANCBS.SCHNBIDBR, 4311 Dagan Boule- PBRMIT N0. 275 vard, Los Angeles 8, Caiifornia, Owners; B. B. QUIRR~ 1800 North prgyle Avenue, Suite 301, Los Angeles 28, California, Agent; requesting permission to construct a WAIS-UP RBSTA11MNf on property desc=ibed as: An irxegular parcel of land with a frontage of 14T feet plus or minus on the north side of Ball Road, an approximate depth of 230 feet, the south- east corner of said property beiag 154 feet plus or minus, west of the northwest corner of Los Angeles Street and Ball Road, and further described as 121 West Ball Road. Property presently ciassified as C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD CObAlHRCIAL, ZONB. Mr. B. B. Quirk, agei~t for the petitioner, appeared before the Comr.ission and atated that the proposed restaqrant would be similar to one proposed several weeks ago before the Commission ior the McDonald Drive-in. There was no opposition to the subject petition. THS HBARING WAS CLOSHD. '~ I I i The Commission fourid and determiaed certain facts regarding subject petitioa. (See Reaolution Book). ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ',, .• ' 1112 ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTH3, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, July 23, 1962, Contin~ed: CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Perry offered Resolutioa No. 420, Series 1962-63, arrl pBP.MIT N0. 275 moved for its passage and ailoption, seconded by Commissioner (Continued) Alired to grant the petition for the Conditionai Use Permit No. 275, subject to coaditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote: pyg$; COD9~AISSIOI~ffit5: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer; Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ppgS; COMMISSIONBP.S: None. ABSENT: CO[~4dISSION~tS: Hapgood. RHCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. MR. and MRS. JO~IN S. WRI(3iT, 1620 South Huciid N0. 61-62-121 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 471 feet plus or minus by 240 feet plus or minus with a 471 foot plus or minu~ frontaee on the east side of Huclid 5treet, the northwest corner of said property being 82 feet plus or minus,south of the southeast cosner of Cris Avenue and Huclid Street, and further described as 1620 South Huclid Street, be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDBN- TIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS to the C-1, PffiIGHBQRHOOD CObMBRCIAL, ZONH to establish a business and professionai-medical and dentai office. Mr. John Wright, the petitiones, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed professionai-medical center at subject location was proposed twice before, and that it had been turned down; that the petitioner was again before the Commission; that subject plot plans were designed by one of the finest architectural companies • and will use the best of construction materials; that the highest and best use of the land was as proposed; that on the southwest corner across from subject property had been C-1 for several years; that by not granting such petition would be discrimiaating to the petitioner; that traffic now indicates 18,000 vehicles traveling the road abutting subject propesty; that with such a large flow of traffic, subject property no ~ loager was desirable as prime residential property and not coaducive to residential living; and that the proposed development would act as a buffer against the south from highway fumes emanating from so many cars. Bngineer R. E. Tiebo, 2072 North Main Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission and stated that the building would be designed ia the finest taste; that present plans indicate exterior of stucco which would not be plain stucco but of a type which would enhance the beauty of the proposed structure; that there will be no outside air-conditioning ducts to detract from the outside appearance of the building. Mr, Tiebo then submitted a rendering for the Comm3ssion's viewing as weii as the audience's viewing. The Cormnisaion noted that the propoaed structure was to the north of the home on sub3ect property; that the petitioner proposes a three story structure; that by construction of a three story structure would 'aimost predetermine the uae of the rear of sub,ject property. ' The petitioner stated the. reason that only one project was being proposed at this time, was that preaentiy no definite plana were made pending the outcome of the proposed petition because previous proposed plans seemed to have met with conflic- ting :e actions by the reaidents in the nrea abutting sub3ect property; that a. meeting had been held with the neighbors who did aot agree oa a concrete set of plans and that nothing wae presentiy planned for the rear of the proposed medical center. ~ ai el'~ y ~ ,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COhl~f133I0N, July 23, 1962, Continued: 1113 RBCLASSIPICATION - The Commissioa asked the petitioner whether he planned to leave N0. 61-62-121 a sixtq (60) foot access road to the rear of the property, to (Continued) which the petitioner replied that theq had plaas to take care of . said access. Chairman Gauer asked whether there were any opposed.to subject petitioa in the audience, and i5 persons iu the Council Chambers stood up ia opposition to subject petitioa. Mr. Wiiliam gibbe, 1631 Cris Avenue, appeared before the Commission and presented a petition signed by 257 home owners which read as follows: "We, the undersigned, are homeowners residing in the general area around the property being proposed for development into medical offices, and we wish to object to this proposal and urge that it be denied on the followiag grounds: , 1. The proposal will cause and contribute to a breakdown in the existing pattern of high quality residential deveiopment in the area; 2, A commercial establishment of any kind at this location would be contrary to the proposed Master plan of Land Use for the area; 3, The proposai would represent spot zoning which would most likely resuit in adjacent future 'strip~ commercial zoning which would be extremely detri- mental to this area; 4. Additionally, the fuiure resuits of certain unknown factors such as traffic, noise, congestioa, and the potential reduction of land values are of great concern to us." Mr. Sibbe stated that the proposed developmeat was incompatibie with the R-1, Single Pamily Residential area; that a commercial establishment at this or any other portioa of Huclid Avenue south of Cerritos to the railrflad track was not in harmony with the land use of the proposed General Plan; that alth~sugh the Planning Commission had denied a simiiar request for rezoning of sutj~~t pra~,erty several months ago; that nothiag had been presented which would indic-.~~e a~y new evidence which warrants re-consideration of subject petition or property;ii~at the same objections are being used as were pnesentad in a previous petition; that aithough noise does exist ia the area this did not preclude the zoning proposed for subject prop~rty into a commercial area; that low density homes with adequate setbacks could be develaped into single family residential areas. People in the area were very much concerned w3th the development prog=am being proposed for subject property, which did not provide access to the rear of the proposed medical center; that the proposed development would encompass ali the fsontage of the petition2i Huclid Avenue property, that considezation for the development of the front portion of subject property should be considered along with the balance of the property to the rear in order to afford proper ingress and egress to the land abutting the rear of the p:oposed medical center and that if the fron: portion of property were rezoned for comroercial use, the rear portion would automatically become land-iocked thereby creating a future zoaiag probiem. A letter of pr~test was read to the Commission received from John P. Rothman, 1630 Cris Avenue, in opposition to subject petition. Mr. Wright in rebuttal, si:ated that he had no intention o f land-locking his property; that the propo~al for single family residenxial use did not seem compatible in this area, and that the best land use Nould be for commercial use as proposed under the petition. ~ ::, Q ~ ~ ~_) ' ( ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ `J j $`i i ~ :,.:.,; ~~~~~~.: ~ MINUTBS~ CITY PIANNING COMAlISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued: 1114 RHCIASSIPICi-TION - Mr. Odra L. Chandler, 1627 South Loara, appeared before the N0. 61-62-121 Commission aad stated that he was appearing only as a prope=ty ;Ccn:iaLed? a:.aer «a3 •acLld lioe .o'w~ve ~is ~:at?st aniy as $ pTB~cP~j~ owaer; that the particular area under coasideration must be developed in some way; that the entire parcel of propesty should be considered; that subject property was completely surrounded by R-1, One Familq homes; that it was aot particularly analogous to anq other area; that the subject property cunsisted of 20 acres, includiag the easements at the southerly end through which the railroad a~l power lines ran; that plans for the proposed development of subject property should be for the entire parcel of property, not just the frontage of subject property by proposing to get the high type of commercial use for said property aad then "dividing and conquering" with a lesser use for the area abutting said frontage; that plans as originally shown, indicated commercial development for the Euclid Avenue frontage; that the balance of the plans were proposed for a trailer park; that at the time com- plete plana were submitte3 to the Commission for their coasideration of subject propertq, it could then be determined by both the Commissioa and the psoperty owners what use would best be suited for the two developments, commerciai, and residentia?. of light and medium density; aad that the Commission should coasider continuing subject petition until such time as pians were submitted to covez the entire parcel. "'~:~~.:~:i: Mr. Wright in rebuttai, stated that noises from trucks, busses, trailers, and trains were of a high decibal count; that ~laas were not changed because it was costly to have pians drawn; that buildings as proposed were as originally planned; that the home on subje~t property wonld be vsed for the time being; that if the General Plan indicated gardea~type apartments ~~s desirable, the petitioner planned to raserve a small portion of the land to the sear for his personal use; and that, atherwise, the petitioner wou13 plan to move out, although'he liked the area for all it had to offer~ THB HBARING WAS CL0.SBD. The Commission asked the petitioner if he plaaned to stay in the home on subject property~ to wt;ich the petitioner replied, that until such time as the remaining portion of the property was developed, he planned to reside in the home on subject property. The Commisaion then stat~ed that if he planned to stay there he wouid be subjected to ali the noises that he claimed were objectionable; that the petitioner claimed the area covered by subject property was not suitabie for residential use, but that according to the Commission's observation, the proper~y was almost entirely surrounded by R-1, One Family homes; aad that the Com~ai.ssioa would be opposed to considering the commercial development without considering the eata.re parcel•s development. The Commission found and determiaed certain facts regarding subject petition. (See Resolution Book) Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 421, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No..61-62-121 be denied on the bases of the afore~ientioned findings. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the foliawing vote; AYBSe C(Y~MISSION9RS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Ganer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. Na&S: CObAlISSIONBRS: None. ABSENT: CQMMISSIONffitS: Hapgood. ~ ~ ~ ~. 1 ; .1 ~_~ ~r . ~ . t3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ MINU;BS, CITY PLANNING CODA~lIS3I0N, July 23, 1962, Continued: 1115 RBCLIS3IPICATION -PUBLIC HBARING. RUDOLPH WBS'a.~t, 1036 West Romneya Drive~ Anaheim, N0. 62-63-5 Califoraia, Owner; requesting.that property described as; A rectangular parcei of land 109 feet plus or minus by 80 feet, plus or miaus at the southeast corner of West Street and Remneya ns3~e, sa3 furt~er 8escr€;z~ a~ 103b H'esE ~omneya urive, be reciassified from R-A, RffiIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB to.the R-3, MULTIPLE_FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONH, to convert a single family resideace into a duplex. Subject petitioa was filed in conjunction with pariaace No. 1510. Chairman Gauer asked whether aaqone was in the Couacil Chambers to represent the petitioner, and upoa receiving no repiq asked v~hether.there was anyone in opposition to subject petition. 17iere was no opposition. THB HBARING WAS CL03BD. Co~issioner Pebley offered a motion to reopen subject petition and continue the heariag for two wEeks to the meeting of August 6, 1962, in order to permit the Plan- niz~g Department time to complete a planaing Studq projected for the area in which subject property is located, Commissioner Ailred seconded the motion. MOTION CA1tRIHD. VARIANCE N0. 1510 - PUBLIC HBARING, RUDOLPH WSSIVSR, 1036 West Romneya Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVB RBAR AND SIDH YARD SBTBACg on property described as: A~ rectangular parcel of land 109 feet plus or miaus by 80 feet plus or minus, at the southeast corner of West Street aad Romaeya Drive, aad further described as 1036 West Romneya Drive. The property presently classified R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, 20NH. 3ubject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 6~-63-5, Commisaioner Allred•offered a motion to coatinue Petition for Variance No, 15,10, until the meeting of August 6, i962,'in order to permit the planning Departmeat sufficient time to present a planning $tudq covering the area in which subject propertq is located. Commissioner Chavoa secoaded the mo~ion. MOTION CARRIBD. RBCI,A3SIPICATION - PUBLIC FffiARING. ~tANGB C~JNTY INVBST~tS ASSOQATIONI~ 478 West N0. 62-63-6 ~ Roberta, Pullerton, California, Owners; LLOYD MOiJNT~ 421 Bast Broadwaq, Aaaheim, California, Ageat; requesting that property descr~bed as; A rectaagular parcel of laad 231 feet plue or minua by'237 feet pias or miaqa, mith a 211 foot pius or minus frontage on the weat aide of Harbor Houiavard~ the aoutheast aorner of said property being 202 feet pius or minus north of the northsvest corner of Hampahire Avenue and Harbor Bouievard, be reclasaified from the R-A, R8SID8NTIAL AGRIQT~TIJRAL, ZONB to the C-2~ GEN9RpL COFAffiRCIAL ZONH, to permit the developmeat of "strip commercial storea." Mr. Joha 0'Neil, 2033 Graysoa Avenue, Aaaheim~ appeared before the Commiasion aad ststed that he had nothing further to add for the Commisaioa~s coasideration, but was present to answer the Commiasion's questions. Planning Assistant Marvin grieger, advised the Commission that in Finding no. 2, they indicated plot Plan had been corrected; and that subjec4 petition met the requirements to develop ia accordance with the plans as submitted. 1be Commissiott inquired of the petitioner his reason for requesting C-2, Zone, to which the petitioner replied that one of the praposed cowmercial stores would be seliing off-sale of liquor. ~~ ~ - I i i I ~ _ _ I ` 1 L) ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTE:~, CITY PIANNING CObAlISSION, July 23, 1962, Contin~ed: 1116 RB(:'IASSYHICATION - The Commission also iuquired of the petitioner whether he was N0. 5~:-63-5 aware of the proposed plans for Harbor Boulevard, befiween Broad- (Contiuued) way and Santa Aaa Street, being zoned for C-1, Neighborhood Comme-cial, 2one, restricted to business and professional offices only, n which the petitioaQr answered he was not aware ot° said zoninr. Chairman Gauer asked if there -:~:a any opposition to subject petition in the Council Chambers and received no aasr~er, 1HH HB,ARING WAS CL06BD. The Commission noted that property abutting the proposed development of subject property was originally rezoned to R-3, Multiple Family development, and that one of the conditions at that time was the extension of Believue Drive to Harbor Boulevard, upon development of property abutting it on Harbor Bouievard, to C-1, Neighborhood Coa~ercial use, and that unless something else in the file indicated said condition was rescirded,that the proposed development of subject property would be required to develop and dedicate Bellevue Drive from its stub-end abutting the westerly end of subject property through to Harbor Boulevard. The Commission found and determined certain facts regarding subject petition. (See Resolution Book), Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 422, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage attd adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the C3ty Council, that petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-6, be denied on the bases of the aforementioned findings. (3ee Resolution Book), On roli call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote; AYBS: COhAlISSIOI~RS: Allred, Gamp, Chavos, Ganer, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley, Perry, NOBS: C~ISSIONBRS: None. ABSENT: COFA~tISSIONHRS: Hapgood. RBCIASSIPICATION - pUBLIC HBARING. ALBBRT S. TOUSSAU, Post Office Box 157, Lake N0. 62-63-7 Arrowhead, California, Owner; RqLpt; G. SNBBGAS, 334 West Wilken Way, Anaheim, Califoraia, Agent; requesting that property described as; An irregular parcel of land with a frontage of 129 feet plus or minus on tha south side of Lizbetb.Avenue, with an approximate depth oc` 110 feet, the western boundary of said p~operty coinciding with an extension of the centerline of Marjan Street, aad further d,escribed as 2760-2766 Bast Lizbeth Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A. RBSIDBNTIAL.AGRICULTURqL, ZODiE to the R-1, ON8 PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL,:ZONS, to permit the spiit of subject property into two R-1 lots to construct a single family dweliing on each of the proposed lots, Sub,ject petition was filed in conjunction with Variance No. 1511. Mr. Ralph Sneegas, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the only proper use for the property in an entire area of R-1, residential development, was to split the subject property which was toc large for development as a single resence into two single famiiy residential lots; aad that the ceside:rts on subject property would be relocated and used on one of the two lots; and that upon split of aubject property one lot would be 66 feet wide and the other 62 feet wide. TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSHD. . i ; ~ ~ ~ ~ !~ V MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMk!ISSION, July 23, Y962, Continued: RBCIASSIPICATION - The Cammission fouad and determi~ed certain facts regarding N0. 62-63-? sub,ject petition. (See Resolution Book). (Coatinued) , Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 423, Series 1962-63, and movrd .'or its passage and ndoption, seconded by Commissianer Mungali, to recommend to the City Couacii 4hat'Petition for Reciassification No. 62-63-7, be approved subject to conditions, (See Resolution Book), ' The coaditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessary pserec~uisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~ ~ . c ~ t r ' ~: 'r.:'.:;, ~ ~:', ~ t y. . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote; AYBS: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, perry. NOBS: COihA~IISSIONBRS: None. ~ ABSBNP: COhAlISSIONBRS: Hapgood. VARIANCB N0. 1511 - pUBLIC HBARING. ALBffitT S. TOUSSAU, Post Office Box 157, Lake Arrowhead, Califoraia, Owner; RALPH G. SI~ffiBGAS, 334 West Wilken Way~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVB MINIMUM LOT WIDTH on property described as; An irregular par~el of laad with a frontage of 129 feet plus or minus on the south side of Lizbeth Avenue, and an approximate depth of 110 feet, the westera boundary of said property coinciding wi:h an extension of the centerline of Marjan Street aad further described as 2760-276b fiast Lizbeth Avenue. property presently classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICIJLT[TRAL, 20NB. Sub3ect petition was submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-7. Mr. Ra1ph Sneegas, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission~s consideration. 1HE HBARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noticed that the proposed development would complete the portion of a recently established tract,and facilitate removal of a substandard house located on subject property. The Commisaion found and detexmined certain facts regarding subject petition, (See Resolution Book). Cormnissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 425~, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner !Nungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1511, snbject to certain conditions. (See Resolution Book). Ou ro21 call the foregoiag resalution was passed by ihe following vot~; AYBS: CObAlISSIONHRS: A11red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley, Perry. NO$S: CQbRfISSI0IV8RS: :~foae. ABSffiVT: COi~AlISSIONffi+.S: Hapgood. ~• MINUTBS, CITY~PIANNING COA9dISSION, July 23~ 1962, Continued: 1118 RHCIASSIPlCATION - PUBLIC HARING. 1~Ilt. and MR3. R. B0~&BY, 1~4t. and I~t3. F. B9CR,B1T~ i N0. 62~63-8 and DCROr1HY ROHAN, 214T 3outh Ie~ris $treet~ Anaheim, Califoraia, i Owness; NQItA :~I, B~RE'!T, 2147 South Lewi.s Street, Anaheim, ~ Caiifornia, ageni; requestiug that propertq described as; A ~ rectanguiar parcel of land 309 feet plus br minus bq 1,319 feet plus or minus~ being f bounded on the north by Qrangewood Aveaue, on the east by Lewis Street, and the south I by Simmons Avenue, and further described as 2101-2229 South Lewis Street, be ~ ;eclassified from R-A, RESZDffi1i'IAL A(3tICULTITRAL, ZOIdB.to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RESIDffi4TIAL; ZOt~ to construet a siagle sto=y.pla~ted-unit multipie familq resideatial development. _ I i Sub3ect petitioa was filed in coajunction wit h Petitioa.for Conditioaal Use Permit No, 276. Mrs. Nora Beckett, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed for the Commission the plot plans and general locatioa of sub,ject property; ( aad in response to a question by the Commission stated that the structures facing ' Orangewood Avenue would be destroqed and the one facing Simmons Street would remain ; but woald be redesigaed as part of the pro,~ect ~ The Commission noted that R-1, Qae Pamily Residential development abntted subject property to the west anl R-1, Single Pamily developmeat to the south within 150 £eet of subject property v~hich was requeated to be rezoaed to multiple family development. Chairman Gauer asked if there were anq oppos~tioa in the Cauncil Chambers, aad fortq (40) people in the Couacil Chambers stood up in reaponse to Chairman Ga~er~s.queation. I Mr. Clifford Rothrock, 2161 Spinaaker Street, appeared before the Commiseion representing the epgosition ia the Couacil Chambers and stated that aiace apartments had been coastructed on OrangeNOOd Aveaue north of Spinnaker Street manq juvenile problems had arisen;that abuse of apartment houaes had been noted with bricks torn off the buildings; that no recreationai faciiities were found itt the area; that ali the property owners of the siagle famiiy home:: provided special recreationalfacilities in their own rear yards to keep the .children off the stseets; that the area would become a slum area with the additioa of more apartmeat uaits; that a park was scheduled for Orangewood aad Haster; but aothiag definite was proposed; that ail property would be subjected to loss of pzoperty values and deterioration in a prime neighborhood since apartm~nts wouid be incompalibie to the single family homea, ad3acen~ to subject property; that all aiagle familq residents abutting sub3ect property we=e active in civic affairs, church activities, P, T. A., ci~-ic service ~roupa~ of which ali were proud resideats of Anaheim; aad that the granting of subject petitioa wonld be in effect squeezing out R-1, One Pamily development ia Anaheim. Mr. H. Delegrem~ 3121 Sauth Spiaaaker Street~ appeared before the Commisaion ia opposition to sub,~ect petition aad stated the approval of subject petitioa would create spot zoning in a predomiaately R-1, One Pamily area; that hia property abutted to the rear of subject property; and that he would not like to Lave his privacy invaded by apartments being built fio look into h~is rear yard. Mr. Dwight Baier~, 'L205 South 3pianaker 3treet, appeared h'ore the Commiasion in . oppoaition to sub~ect petitioa and stated that thepropertj just north of Oraagewood Avenue had been.rezoaed to R-3, Mu1t3p1e Pamiiq developmen , that siagle Fami.ly homes were to the weat and the south of the proposed multiple family developmeata for 1,300 feet; that fhe proposed development wouid create"strip zonia~'through R-1, Single Pamily zoniag; and that if said petition were allowed, he conaidered it to be planning which wauid be incompatibie to the pr.esent zoniag of the area. Mr. Miiliam Niedbala, 2218 8outh Spianaker Street, appeared before the Commisaion in oppoaition.to.aubject petition and etated that he~opyoaed haviAg muitipie family unita back to bact with his propertq;; that ali the progertq owners on 3pinnater Str.eet had built nice homes, kept their children occupied with recreationalfacilitiea in their rear yards~ and that the Commission ahonid aeriousiy coasi~sr aoning propertq ad R-1 only. ~ r ...~ ~_~.-.. .-.g G ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ : - : '. r• - ~ ~ . . `i ~~, , ~; . ,~ _ , . .~.~- . . . . : :Y . . ~ .~ . ~ ~i ~ . . (~ ~ ~ ; :, MINUTBS, CITY P7ANNING COhA1ISSI0N, July 23, 1962, Continued 1119 ~ :I : i ~ RHCIASSIPICATION - Mr. Ralph Heizles, 920 Broadway, Santa Ana, appeared in rebut- I:O, 52-fs3-8 ta?, b?FOr~ ~~ie Comm~saion and s~ated that the recreational ; ~ (Coatiaued) problema might exist in other multipie familq deve3.opments; but II ~• it would not~be existiag ia the proposed garden-type apartmenta; , that off-atreet parkiag'was being provided to eliminate aay 9 opposition to parking problems; aad that the apartmen4s would act as a buffer zoae to the M-1 Zone to the northeast. TA~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD.. , i ~ The Commiysion discussed the low density development as proposed for the area in the ~' f preliminary General Piaa; that the proposed development abu'tted single family devel- ~ opmeat to the west and south; that subject propertq Could feasibly be developed for siagle family homes with.a street bisecting the property aad providing lots of 122 foot ~ ` depth; and that the southeriy limits for R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zoae was ~ ~ proposed to be the north side of Orangewood Avenue, `` The Commissioa fouad and dPtermiaed certain facts regarding sub3ect petitioa. (See F Resolution Book) , . Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolutioa No. 425, Series 1962-63, aad moved for ita ~ i ~ ~ passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommended to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 62-63-8 be denied on the bases of the afore- ~ ~ mentioned findings. (See Resolution Book), ~ On roll call the foregoiag resolutiori was passed by the following vote; E • ~ AYBS: COMMISSIONIDRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry. ~ ` NQBS: COh9~lISSIONBRS: None. L ,. ~: ' ABSENf: CONAlISSIONffitS: Hapgood. ~ CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. MR. AND MRS. R. BOQRHY, MR. AND MRS. F.BHCRETT~ , pBRMIT NO. 276 and DOROrfHY ROHAN, 2147 South Lewis Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; NORA M. HHCKBTT, 2147 South Lewis Street~ Attaheim, F California, Ageat; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A PLANNED- UNIT DBVBIAPN~NT on prope;ty described as: A rectangular parcel of laad 309 feet. E- plus or minus by 1,319 feet plus or minus, being bounded on the north by Orangewood Avenue, on the east by Lewis Street, aad on the south by Simmons Aveaue. The property is psesently classified as R-A, RBSIDffiVTIAL AGRICULTURAL, Z0138. ~ ~ ~ Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-8. E.- ~ ` Mrs. Nora Beckett appeared before the Commission and stated she had nothing further , to add for the Commiasioa's consideration; and that all information covered in ~: -. ~ Reciassification No. 62-63-8, applied to subject petition. . THB HBAItING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission found and determined certain facts rega=ding subject petition. (See Resolution Book). Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 426, Series 1962-63, and moved £or its passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 276, on the bases of the aforemeationed fiadings. (3ee Resolution Book), On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: pYBS; CO[~lISSIONBRS: Alised, Camp, Cdavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagali, Pebley, Perry. .`: ~` i: NOBS: COhA~tISSIONBRS: None. :;. . - ''t AHSBNP: CObPlISSIONBRS: Hapgood. ~!''(" .'i ' , -:. , . . . . ~ 'Y -••-.--~ ,~-~--"-^-- :,,,,.y~ , ~~. _.~. ,~....:.. + ~: -. .~., . ~ '~.~. ~ . . ~ ' ' `~.-. ~J~ .."'-."_: . ~~..._~r. - ~,~ ~-v~_ . a.'~: ~ _ . . .. . . . . . . . . , . .. _._.... ,. _ .-.: f_ . . . ,_~~._ ...,.y...~~ f " ~ ~ • . ...I ~ ~I A ~ _ . . .. . . . ' ^ ' . . . ~ ~~ *Y ' ~~' • . N~;. .'.;; o ~, ~ ~, ~ • MIYiU1BS, CITY PIAHIVING CM9NISSION, July 23~ 1962, Continued: 1120 RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC ~AitING. INITIATBD BY TFID ANAHBIM PIANNING CONAlI3SION~ N0. 62-63-9 204 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Aaaheim, Califoraia~ to reclasaify propertq deacribed as: PARCHL N0. 1: A rectanguiar parcel of px~iper~y ex~ending 45 :eet ta 95 fee: ao.-.h of the extended ceaterline of Orangewood Aveaue, between State~College~Boulevard to a point approximatelq 1,778 feet easteriy thereof; PARCBL~NO. 2: 'A rectangular parcel of property extending 45 feet to 95 feet south of'the extended centerline of Orangewoocl Aveaue. between State Coliege Bouievard, to a poiaf"app=oximafeiy 1,778 feet easterly thereof, fsom the M-1~ LIQiT MANUPACTf1RING, ZONID to the P-L, PARBING-IAAIDSCAPING, ZOIVS. Piaaniag Directox Richard Reese, reviewed for the Commiasion sub,ject petition being initiated by the Planning Commission for reclaesification of aubject property in ordex to provide proper landscaping aad aetback development staadards for Oraagewoad pvenue, easteriy of State College Houlevard, as preseatiy exiating along all Arteriai Highways of the indus~rial areas within the City of Anaheim; that the park- iag landscaping setback of 50 feet from the p7.aaned highway centeriiae with the front twenty (20) feet being devoted to landscapiag,arid the rear thirty (30) feet for parking purpoa~s was proposed. . . The Commiss3.on found and determiaed certain facts regarding subject petition. (See Resolution Book). Commiasioner Perry offered Resolution No, 427~ Series 1962-63, and moved for ita passage and adoption, secoaded by Commisaioner Chavos, to recommend to the Citq Council, that Reclasaification No. 62-68-9 be approved. (See Reaolutioa Book). Oa roli ca11. the foregoing resolution raas pasaed by the following vote: AYBS: COhAIISSIOd~ffitS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Munga'~:L~ Pzbiey, Yerry. NO83: COh8~tI3SI0N8R3: Noae. A&!ffi~f: COh9dIS9I01~ffiR3: Hapgood. ~ ~ ~ -_-~..~: vi, w .~ ~ ~ i ~ .~'ii... . .,,__ _ ... ,. .. ... . F-. .., , ,,_,::., r: .Y ~. _ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~ OOMMISSION, July 23, 1962, Continued: 1121 ~~, . REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 , RE(DMMENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance No. 5Q19 - Earl Dahlman, petitioner, estab- ~ lish a service station at Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street. ~, Planning Assistant Marvin Krieger presented a map and the petition covering subject peti- :' tion to the Commission, which the Coma!ission reviewed. ~ Mr. Earl Dahlman, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented his views ~' and reasons for requesting sub3ect variance. F. The Commission noted that subject variance was proposed for location in an R-1, One Family ~ Residential area, and that the proposed use was incompatible with the land use as pro3ected € in the General Plan. • k Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to urge the Orange County Planning Commission to - deny Use V,ariance No. 5019, on the bases that the Anaheim Planning Commission had recently ~ denied two similar petitions.in the area east of the subject property, that the findings 1 for denials were based on the fact that the proposed use was incompatible with uses presently ~ being encouraged and proposed for the future development of the area.in close proximity to ~ sub3ect property, and that c~pies of three resolutions presented by the Planning Commission K to the City Council aroposing the Commi.ssion's land use policy in the subject area, and , the proposed use for subject petition. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MDTION CARRIED. I?EM N0. 2 Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 4716 located north of Ball Road, east of the proposed Freeway, and bounded on the north by Wagner Avenue and on the east by Rio Vista Street; said tract consisting of 37.8 acres. Planning Assistant Marvin Krieger again reviewed the subject tract map for the Commission, and read the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations for their consideration. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to advise the Orange County Planning Commission that the Anaheim Planning Commission recommended that a stub street to the south be altered by the provision of an offset cul-de-sac at the southerly,end of Chantilly Street in a way that the extension of said street southerly to Ball Road might be accomplised at some futare date~ but until such time as the street is extended, the finished cul-de-sac will be provided for adequate street cleaning purposes. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. NqTION CARRIID. ITEM PlD. 3 Zone Change No. 62-108, Placentia Plaaning Commission Applicanti Dietrick-Lebeau Development Company, 1720 West La Palma, Anaheim, Cal- • . ifornia. Planning Assistant Marvln Krieger read a notice of sub3•~ct public hearing to be held by the Placentia Planning Commission on propert.y.described ase Portion of lot, Block 9~ Gold State Tract; PropPrty located on the easterly side of Placentia Avenue, and southerly of the Orange County F1ood Control Channel; existing zone is M-1 Industrial; requesting change to R-3, Multiple Family or R-G, Garden Apartments; hearing to be held on July 24, 1962. Commissioner Mungall off ered Resolution No. 431, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to advise the Planning Commission, that the Anaheim Planning Commission recommended denial of Zone Change No. 62-108, an the bases of Resolution No. 62R-335 in which the City Council of.the City of Anaheim endorsed the recommendations of the Planning Department of the_City.of Anaheim in said Resolution, and that the findings be quoted to the Planning Co~ission of the City of Placentia in subject resolution. ._\ i ~ ~ I ~ j I i i ~ i ~ _~,_~_____~'' . , ~'~,-- :-:=°~ , °': _ F .. , ~ ._ . ,...: .: :. _: .;.~. r' i `: F . ~ ~ _ ' ~ ~ ~` '~ ~ ~:., , :: _.r," V ~~ ~ ~ . ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLAI3NING QOMMISSIOt~, July 23, 1962, Continueds 1122 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: ODMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOESt ~MMISSIONF12St None. AffiENT: OOMMISSIONFRSe Hapgood. ADJOURNMENT - There boing no further business to transact, Co~mnissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. NI'JTION CARRIk~. . The meeting ad3ourned at 9s30 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, ANN i~?EBS~ S c etary Planning Commission