Loading...
Minutes-PC 1962/08/06E` I ~~ .:. ,::..;. .. . ... _ .. ~: ._.. : .. . ,_._ :.: w...: ... ~ . . :.... .. ..... . ~.:.~ :.:~ . _ -;~ .C:~ ~ ~i~ ~i ..1:. ~ . .. . ~ . ~ . .. City Hall !~,naheim, California At~g~t)t 6, 1962 RHGUTAR MHBTING OF TI~ ANAHBIM CITY PIAAIlVING CObA4ISSIODI °R~QJl~TING - A Regula= Meeting of the Anaheim City Pianning Commission was • called to-order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRBSBNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer. COdAfISSICu'~RS: Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~ ~ ~'~. ABSBNT• - CC1A9~lISSIONBRS: Alired, Hapgood. pR~SENT - ZONING`COatDINATOR: Martin ftreidt. ASSISTANT.PLANNBR: Marvin Rrieger. ASSISTANT CITY AT1'ORNBY: Joe Geisler. COMMISSION 3HCRBTARY: Ann Rrebs. • INVOCATION - ReVereud:RoberL"8': Vaa, oP the Pirst Presbyterian Church, gave ~~- the invocation. pL'BDGB AP:, :...: . , -, Co~ission - j,,.,,.~...,,;_..,~ ,. .~Qs~e =oE 3xleg3atice to the Piag.. _ ~i , AI.LBGIANC~'. '~_, . _ _ . .,, : _ _: . . , . _ & . .r,~.:_... b . APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of July 23,.1962, were approved with MINUTBS the following correcfioa; Page 1094,.pasagraph 4,•line 1 should be Aasistaat Planner, Marvin &rieger.' Page 1095, paragraph 6 should have Resolution No. 410-A. . . ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBAP.IIV~. t~Ilt.~ & MRS. ~JA[~ffi5:A.~ ALLHN~ 9562 Harvest N0. 61-62-124 Lane. Anaheim, Califoraia, Owners; PRANg TURLBY or BILL &ISGBN, 9662 Barvest Lane, Anaheim, Califoraia;.requesting that property described as: `A r.ectaagular parcel of 1and;100,'feet.plus or minus by 300 feet pius or miuus~ with a froatage of. l0U feet plus-or miaus on the south side of Ball Road, the northwest corner oF which•.is 477 feet plus•.or..minys east of the southeast corner of Hall Road and~Beach Boulevard, aad fu=tfier described as 2944 Weat Ball Road, be reclassified f=om the R A, RBSIDSNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZQNB to the R-3, MIJLTIPLS FAMILY RHSIDSNTIAL,',20NH to.permit the construction of two,etory multiple family res'idential apartments. ~ _ Subject petitioa was coatinued from the~ meetings of Juae 25,; 1962 and July„9, 1962., . in order to:permit the petitioner';time_to submit revised pla~s. ,. Mr. James A. Allen the petifioner, appeared before the Commission aad stated that his authorized agenL was suppoae to be preseat,to; aaswer aa~,questions the Commiasiou might have,:but tbat he~was aot.in the Council Chambers;at.the present time and would lite to have a temporary`~continuance untii his agent a3rrives.. , ,. After..coasider~h.T.° time had`elapsed granting tlie petitioner time for his,;.~gent to. appear, 'the pet3.Eioner then stated ,that l~e would; a~swer; any.,questions the Co-~+seion might have. ~ - 1123' - ~. ~ ~ . : ' - ~ _- ~ . ~ ,. . V ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ MINUTffi, CITY PIANNING Cp~AlISSION August 6, 1962, Continued: RBCLA3SIPICATION - The Commission aoted that subjec! prnperty was bounded on the N0. 61-62-124 east and on the west by R A, Resid~utial Agricultural property, (CoaLinued) on the south by C-1, Neighborhood Commerciai; and that if subsect pelitioa were approved a variance.xoqld have #o be fiied ia order to permit two story construction withia 150 feet of R-A, Reaidential Agricultural property. The Commission further viewed the~reviaed plans as requested and noted a number of discrepancies within the proposed plot plans; and that the piot plans barely met the miaimum Code'standards-o~ R~3;'multiple'~amily develbpment. TH8 HBARING WAS CLQSBD. Mr. Ailen~ the petitioner~ requested a coatiauance of subject petition in order to allow the petitioaer aufficient time to file a variance to waive singie story coastruction. ~ CommisaioAer Caarp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue the hearin~ of Reciaeaificatioa No. 61-62-124, nntil the meeting of September 17~ 1962, in order to ailox the petitioner aufficient time to advertise for a variance to waive aiagie atory construction, and to advise the developer to modify the proposed developatent aad to . bring in more complete plans showiag five elevationa, nore open space and a higher type of liviag area~ showing iess crowded spaces i~ the proposed deveiopment. Commissioner Perrq seconde3 the motion. MOrfION CARRIED. ABCIA33IPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HB4.2ING. BYBRBTT J', IdARTI1~2~ 1135 North kest N0. 62-63-2 Street, Aaaheim, Califoraia, Ormer; JOHIV D. V~1 DBR HHIDB, 924 North Buclid Street, Anaheim, Califoraia, Agent; requeating that.property described as: Aa irregular parcel of land rith a frontage of 259 feet pius or miaus~ oa Lhe west side of West Street aad a ~aximum depth of 497 feet pius or iqiaus, tTae southeast corner of said pzopertp beiag 451 :eet plus or'minue, north of the"northwest coraer of La palaa aad Meat Street, and further described as 1133-1145 North weat St=eet; be reclasaified fron the R A~ RffiIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB, Lo R-3, MULTIBLH PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL~ 20N8~ ia order to coastrnct a muitiple faiqiiy plaiined uait development. • Sub3ect petition ~ras coatinued from the meetings of Juiy 9~ 1962 aad Julq 23~ 1962, in urder to permit the Plaaniag Department an opporLunitq to readverLise aubject peti9:ion~ and to preaeat a precise piaa covering property ia the viciaiLy of sub,~ect ProPertY, Mr. John Voa Der Heide, agent fox the petitioners 1Nr. Martiaez, Nrs. Malters~ . and Mr..& Mra. Hacker~ appeared before the Commisaioa aad atated that the propoaed developaeaL xas !he beat posaible use for sub3ect property= that the ehLire character of Lhe neighborhood rraa not single famiiy,'bat Naa auitiple ~aailq development; aad that Mra. Malters aad Mr. aad Llra. Packer agreed to bave their property reclassified but rrere aot cnrreatiq plaaning !o deveiop their psopertq adjacent to Mr. Martiaez. ' It xas aoted tha•t in the previous hearing oppoaitYen ~raa read fros qtseheim llpmorial Hospitai aad Aeverend Heber representing the d~urch being buiit to tbe aorth of subject Propertp• Mr. Roaald G'rudziaski, Aaaiatant Hlanner,.pseaented Piaar~iag Btudy ~8'-5~-4 to the Com~.ission. Sai'd P1aaalag SLudy noted a siiture of siatle faeiiy a$d~•Aultiple , familp land u8es ia the area covered by aub,~ect Piantsing Studq. prOpe=liea;f0 th'e'. aorth and east of the Study Area were zoned A-3;'witiple famiiq rebid~nt~ai;.ttiat propertiea to the rrcst of the $tud~ /l,sea rere zoned R-l, aiugle faeilq seaidential; that ,propertiea Lo t}~e aouth of aludy Ares Mese pridariiy A-1~ aisrgie famiiq•reaideatiai. r. .. : :: . .;..: _ >. ; _ . : . _,. ~ , . ~ - ~__ ..,; , :.~.; . .....~.._.-. ... . . . _. . ~ ~ C~ '` ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTBS, ~CITY PLANNIN~ C~ISSIOBI~ August 6, 1962, Coatinued: r . ~ ..'~;.?..,,r•; . . , ?. ' 1125 ~` Reclassif3cation - However,there was a parcel of iand app;oximately 3:3 acres south ' No. 62-63-2 in~size on the southwest corae= of the iatersection of La Palma ~~'• (Cor.sinued) Avenue and West Street which was zoned C-1, Neighborhood i withia the Studq Area had ~. ~: ~: I ., '°"-'---- Conrmercial~ and that,the propert es tentatively bcea projecYe~ for nlultipie family reaideatiai and busiaeas aad professioaai office use.according to the Anaheim Geaeral Piaa. The xecomm.eadatioaa of the Plaaning Study iadiGated multiple faaily uae for pa=ceia of property within the Studq Area, with the exception of ttle Lot'Study oa La Paloa Avenue, should be developed for muitipie fasiiq use; it••was f~irt$er recoomeaded that iota ruaaiag oa La Pa1ma Street be developed for busineae and'professionai officea, • and that a circulation syatem ahown on B~chibit No. 3, which iadicated the tqpes of safe access which would be needed to aerve the parcels of land erilhia the Study Area. 'i1~1B HBAltING YIk3 CI.OSHD. The Commisaioa noted thst no piaa had been submitted for Parcei Nos. 2 aad 3 ia sub3ect petitioa; that the i.ummiasioa was reluctaat to graat anq =eciassificatia~n on property fawliich m piot piana were being submitted. Hir, Lyiia Thbmpaon~. 1650 Melis Lane, appeared before the Comnissioa ahd stated that he rras negotiating for the purchase of the property Parcel No. 3, tha4 complete plot plans had ~not been completed as of ttiis date. 11~e Commiasion diacuased the passibility of =ezoning Parcel No. 1, aad asked for legal opinion of the representative of the Citq Attorney's Office. ~ Mr, Geisler, Aasistaqt City Attorney~ advised the Commission that if zoning of propertp wae ta be graated oa sub3ect petition ail parcela would have !o be taken iato consideratioa, that if multipie family development with two story was'beiag proposed adjacent to R A~ =esidentia~ agriculturai property a variance Mouid have to be filed ta ezaive singie sLory coastrvctioa; that although the hospitai'property to the south of sub3ect p:operty ~-as classified R-A, said propertq was beiag utiiized for other thaa R A purpoaes,and, therefore, the R:A use wouid no longer apply. The Commisaion noted that Pakcei No. 2 had two (2) singie family residenees on iL; ; that the plans preaented were for one pnrcei only~ but that ttre proposed use of aubject pray,arty ~s prePerly o~qe ret-ich the Planniag Studq iadicated it should;be; and that complete pians should be presented for Parcei Nos. 2 aaa 3 in order that.theq might be coasidered by the CammisaioA before beiag recoanmended for app=oval or deaiai to the City Councii. . Commissioner Ca~mp offered a motion to reopen the hearing aad cantinue the,heariag of Rec~.asgificatioa No. 62=63-2, untii.the,meeti,;rg of' Auguet 20,,1962, in osder to allow the agent for the petitioaer sufficieat time to present plot pisas covering Parcei Nos.•2 and 3, and that plot plaas be ia the Pianning Department'Office ao later than 9:00 0'Clock A.M. the Moadey, a week prior to the meeting of Auguat 20, 1962; that revised piot plans indicate a twenty-Oae (21) foot =oadwaq, and tbat Parcel No. 2 iadicate existiag structures on said parcei. Commisaioner Perrq aeconded the motion. ` MOrfION CARRIHD. r, ~. CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARi1'~. ~' ~~'t"' 616 - 21st Piace. ~ pBRMIT N0. 271 `• Ssnta Monica, Califoraia~ Ormer; HBI.HN C• IANGpC~tD+ 1009 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; reqaesting permiasioa to ADD 7RAIL8R SYACBS IN S7(ISTING 1RAIL8R YARR.on property descsibed as: An irregular pa=cel of land with a=oximate d.e th ofe700 f~et~ or~minus, on the_xest side of Har.bor Houlevard, with aa app P .._t14e southeast coraer of.eaid property being approximately 565 feet north of the north- ~' west corner of Ball'Road.and Hasbor 8oulevard, aad further desc=ibed as 1009 3outh -:, _' /• Harbor Bouievard. Property preseatly classified R-A~ RHSIDffi~T7AL AGRICULT~RAL, ZONB. ~5 . ! ~~' ~ 1 . ' ~ . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . l• ;i; a ~ . . .. ~ .~ .' . ... ... :... . . . . . y ~'~~ ~'.;: . Cp~ .. .....:. . : . . .:::.: .. . . : . .' :..::. .. ; : ~ ; ..~ x,:~ ~i.. ~r~ a.a... :.r:,.c;y.~.._ ~:~:.~ ~J ' ~~' S~ ~ ~ ~' ' " '. ~ ~ . I ~ f ~. . ~ `~~I s~ ~~ . ~ ~ , i ~ ~~ . . ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . ., . :~} s. ~ . ~ ~ , ~ - (~ - ~' ~ ' : S" ; ~ ; ~' MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING C(Y~lMISSION, August 6, 1962, Continued: 1126 ~~ ~~ • ;. CONDITIONAL U3E - Subjeet pet,ition was continued from the meeting of July 23, 1962, ~ PBRMIT N0. 271 in order to permit #he petitioner sufficient time to submit ~ ~...' (Continued), revised pluns. ~ ~;, . ~ Mrs. Helen Yangford, agent.for the petitioner, appeared before the ~ ~ Commissioa and stated that she wanted to give a face-lifting to the front of subject ~ propertyti that curbs and gutters would be put in; and that the place would be cleaaed ~:. up in general. ~, ' ~ THS HBARING WAS CL05FD. ~ ~`F~ The~Commisaion noted that space allotted for the trailers vaas between 900 feet and ••~ ~ ' 1,064 square fEet; that requirements for each space in accordance with Code require- ~ 'i ments for trailers was 2,400 square feet, and that the proposeci 400 feet represented ` Code regulations for cver-night. vacation Lrailer parking only. I , The agent for the petitioner iaformed the Commission that new spaces would be used for j over-night vacation trailer parking oniq. ~ 4 ~~ ~ Commisaioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 432, Series 1962-63, and moved for ita I passage and adoptiori, seconded by Commissioner Pebley~ to graat Petition for i: Conditional Uae Pertnit No. 271, subjecti to certain coaditioas. (See Resolutioa Book). ~: pa ioil call the foregoing reaolutioa was pa§sed by the fol].owing vote: AYBS: C01~lI331ONffit9: Caap, Gauer, Marcouz,•M~agall, Peblep, Perry. f . NOBS: COM~AISSIONBAS: Chavos. . ~ ABSSNT: COMdISSI0NBR3: Alired~ ~p,~1~C~,yoqo~t~• ~ r a ZJ i:, ~' CONDITIONAL U9B - CONTINUBD PUBLIC FIBARING. ARDMatB DBVBLOPI~NT C~P,1NY~ 1129 ~ pHRMIT N0. 274 Nleatwood Bouley~rd~ Los Angelea 24, California, Owness; ROHBRT J. ~• COL83, 1129 Neatwood Boulevard~ Los Ange,lea 24~ Califoraia, Ageal: , requestiag permisaioa to CONSZ1tUCT A PWiNBD UI'lIT DBVBLdPMffiiT cn property~ described ase A parcel of land coatainiag 14 lo4s at tbe stub-eM of Gramercy-Avenue, east of ~ippeMra Street, with frontages of 495 feet plus or miaas on ~! both sides of the atreet. Property preseatlq classified R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RffiI- DENTIAL, 20~iB. . 8ub~ect petition rras contiaued from the meetiag of July 23, 1962, ia order to permit . tbe petitioner sufficieat time to aubmit revised plans Mhich would ineorporate the propoaed recommendatioas bq the Commiasion. . Mr. Robert J. Colea, ageat for the petitioner, ap~;~ared before the'Commiasion aad , stated that revised piana had beea submitted with the proposed changes; the petitioner then presented exhibita to the Commiasioa. - ~' .. . ~' The Coauaissioa noted that roct roof was being propoaed~and iaquired of the ageat for the petitioner why shake soof had aot been proposed. ~ Mr. Coles advised•the Commission that under PHA granting of ioans~ the proposed - development would requ3.xe the roak soof and that sbake roof was aot acceptaDie. I , Upoa further questio n'i n g' by the CommiBaion regardiag the proposed development of sub3ect propertq~ the ageat foz the petitioner adviaed the Commission that aeventy-five ~ (TS) per ceat or more.of the developmeat muat be soid before.buiidiag couid be etarfed; I and that`a loaa for esid buildiag.would not be avaiiable uatil then. ,. izi,`; ~ >..:. ~ . .. .. . . . ~, . . ; i . ~ . ~ . ~~ , ~ .,.~... ~: ~ E ~ ; r"~i ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, August 6~ 1962~ Continued: 1127 CONDITIONAL USH - TFID HBARING WAS CLOSHD. PHRMIT N0. 274 (Con*inued) Commissioner Muagaii offered Resolut€oa No. 433~ Series 1962-62, and moved for its passage and adoption, seeonden oy Commissioner perry Lo grant Petitiop for Conditional Use Permit No. 274~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution). On roll cali the foregoiag resolution was passed by tse foilowing vote: AYBS: COIYAtIS3I0NBR3: Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungall~.Pebley, Perrg. NQSS: COhalIS3IONBRS: Noae. ABSffiVT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Hapgood. ABCLAS3IPICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC F~tING. 'AUDOLPH WSSNBR, 1036 West Romueya N0. 62-63-5 Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; xequeatiag that propertq described as: A rectangular parcel of land 109 feet plus or minus by 80 feet. pius or miaus at the southeast coraer of West Street and Romneya Drive, and further described aa 1036 West Romneya Drive~ be reclassified from R-A, RB.SIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONE, to convert a single family residence into a duplex. Sub,ject petition was filed in connunctioa with Variaace No. iSlD ~ Subject petition was contiaued from ttr meeting of July 23, 196~, aiaCe there wAS no one present to represent the petitioner ia the Couacii Chambe-~s. Mr. Wesner the petitioner~ appeared before the Commissioa and stated that he planned to construct two (2) roams aad a patio to the existing s3agle family resi- dence; that in order to comply with Lhe proper aetting of the neighborhood~ the garage on sub3ect propertq wouid have to be moved fifteen (15) feet to the aouth; that the subject property was located in the older section of the city; and that he was asking for a garage attachment to the home and a setback of thirLeen (13) feet from the side yard of the c^rner lot to build said addition. TH8 HBARING WAS C'I.0.SHD. The Commissioa aoted that the General P2aa projecta sub3ect property as medium-densitq residential development;and thatfhep]nt plans indicated approximately eight hundred and ten (810) square feeL per each apartment being propoaed. The Commission asked the petitioner whether any chaages were proposed for the garage as it exieted. Mx. L. L. ~ayer„2138 Victory, Coatractor fos the petitioaer iaformed the Commissioa that oaly two,(2) Eeet oa the rear side of the garage exists; and tLat the same two (2) feet setback from ~Test Street would remain. Comnissionei Perrq offered Resolution No. 434~ 8eries 1962-63, aad moved for its passage and'adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp. to recommead to the City Couacil that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-5 be approved subject to conditions. ''(See Resolution Book). The onditioas as stated in the Resolution Boot wese recited at tbe meeting apd 'were found to be a necessary prerequisit to the uae of the property ia order to preserve the safety and weifare of the citizena of the City of Aaaheim. AYBS: ~COA4NI3SIONBRS:- Cawp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungaii~ Yebley, Perrg. ~ ( ~ NOBS: COhAlISSION~tS: None. ABSENT: C01~lI33IONBRS;i Ailred, Hapgood. . . ~ ,. ~~, ..~ ,.... _.. , ., __,.. ._ .......... . .. . ,. ... .. , ,. ,,...... ......... .. ..,,u.., ..,...,,, ~... , , , . .. - -~-=' - -- -- ._...~ ~--.r~., - - -~---<= - >: .f v ,~ ~ ~ MINUTHS~ CITY PLANNING CONMISSION, August 6, 1962, Continued: i ~,~. ~ ~ :: i,i VARIANCB N0. 1510 - CONTINUED PUHLIC I~ARING. RUDOLPH WBSi~ffiR, 1036 West Romaeya Drive, qnaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVS RBAR AND SIDB YARD SBTBACK on property described as: q rectaagular parcel of land 109 feet plus or miaus by 80 feet plus or minus~ at the southeast corner of West Street aad Romneya Drive, and further described as 1036 We9't Romneya Drive. The property presently classified R A, RBSIDffiVTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZOI~ffi. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-5. . 5ubject petition rvas continued from the meetiag of July 23, 1962, in order to permit the planning Department time to complete a Plaaning Study projected for the area in which subject property was located. Mr. Rudolph Wesner, the petitioner appeared before the Commissioa and stated he had M nothing further to add for the Commission's consideratioa. TFIB H~ARING WAS CLOS'dD. Commissioaer Marcoux offered Resolution No. 435, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variaace No. 1510, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolation was passed bq the following vote: AY83: COI~AIISSIOIJBRS: Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley~ Perrq. N08S: COMMISSIOI~BEtS: None, AH3ENT: CODAfISSIONBRS Allred, Hapgood. TENTATIVS MAP OF - SUBDIVIDBR: B, B. AKINS CO., 237 South Tlistin Street, Oraage, ~ ~ 1RACT N0. 4801 Califoraia. BNGIN88R: M~DANIffi. ENGII~ffiBRING COt~ANY, 222 8ast Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim, California, Sub,ject traet is located on the south side of Broadway~ 40 feet west of 8o-pire Street and coatains 8 R-1, ~ one family resideatial lots, Mr. Jacobsoa, repreaenting McDaniel Engineering Con~panq, appeared before the Commission and stated He had nothing further to commeat for the Commission's consid- ' eration. The Commission viewed the plot plans and aoted that said lotsin Tentative Tract No. 4801 were of shaliow depth~ and that a fifty-four (54) foot dedicaxion of street marked "A", with a forty-sevea (47) cul-de-sac in radius were acceptable to the Interdepartmental Committee. Commissioaer Chavos offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4801, ~ aubject to the following coaditioa:: 1. xequirement thst shouid this subdivision be developed as more thaa one sub- division, each subdiviaion thereof shaii be submitted in, Lentative form for - aPProval. Comatissioner Camp secoaded the motion.. MOTION CARRIBD, VARIANCB N0. 1513 - pUHLIC FffiARING. TED 8VER8TT HARICBR, 1832 South Moua4aia View I Avenue, Anaheim, Califoraia, Owner; STANLBY L. ROSHN, 318 West - Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Gsiiforaia, pgent; requesting per- mission to (1) CONSTRUCT COF9~FtCIAL AND YNLUSTRIAL BUIIDING; (2) WAIVB'MINIMUM LOT ~ ARBA REQUIRBMSNT; C3) WAIVH:PRONT, RBAR AND SIDH:YARL SS~BACB RBQiiIRBMSNT3; on property described as: A rectattgular parcel of laad 62 feet, plus os miaus, by 337 , ~ ,',.:....' '~.n . : "~ ;J,.._.... . .._.. ..,.. ...+\. ;.tiq:: ~!.1:._ _,... ~; 5,e:.~ a ,.i~_~ . .;:ft-,. . ~ . . , .~ . . . . ~, . „ ~ ~ ,4 3',~. , MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C0~4~IISSION, August 6, 1962, Contiaued: 1129 ~ VARIANCE N0. 1513 - feet plus or minus, with a frontage of 62 feet plus or miaus of (Continued) ~the east side of Mountain View Avenue, the northwest corner of ._ :.: . said propertq being 322 feet plus or minus, south of the south- east corner of Mountain View Avenue and ~atella Avenne, and . further described as•1832 South Moun~sin View Avenue. Property presently classified ; R A, RBSIDENTIAL AQtICUL1IJRAL, ZONB. i,l ~ Subject petition should be revised to eiiminate any aeed for storage or commercial ~ construction; that the use of the property should be solely for warenouse use only; that the need for set back as required was requested to be eliminated because of the ~ continued use of residences on subject propertp; that the construction of a warehouse ----- would be for the use of school su lies which would be the ` . pp prime use for subject property; that the eatire balance oF the ?ote would be black topped to provide parking facilities. • xhe Commissiou noted that from the morning field observation split of subject property would create a landlocked parcel having ao frontage on Manchester Avenue and no frontage on Mountain View Avenue, and that access would only be through the parcel to the north; and tha± the layout has shown oa Exhibit No. 1 did not provide ingress or egress to the proposed warehouse for the loading and unloading of trucks. The petitioner stated that access would be through Manchester Avenue; that tbe use of the warehouse would be confined, and that usage of large trucks would not be nece8sary; and that property would be conveyed to Mr. Pinto for leaseing to the warehause. Upon being further questioned bq the Commission, the petitioner stated that Mr. Pinto owned the shopping center ttirough which access would be made to the north; .that lack parking facilities ia the shopping center•wili still ailow access; and that the proposed development would benefiL• the area. The Commission noted that subject development would overload subject property. Mr. Mo;ris Pinto, 1813 South Manchester Avenue~ owner of the existiag building, appeared.before the Commission, and stated that the necessary parking.spaces on Manchester Avenue wauld be redesigned to give the petitioner access to subject prop- erty of seventy-five (75) feet. ~ '"he Commisaioa expreased dissatisfaction with plot laas as ia8icated that arkia . aad lraffic resented a p ~ p g p problem; that property was presently landlacked~ that if the Manchester A~enue property were to be deveiope3 it would have to have aacesa through the Pinto property; and that revised plaas should be submitted to the Planning Department~ which would confor~n with Engineering requiremettts. ~ The petitioner then asked the Commission for continuance of subject petition. The Commission noted that the petitioaer had submitted an ineomplete petition and was informed by the Planning Department representative that sub,ject petition was incomplete, but that the petitioner insisted on having his petition accepted and fiied. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to coatinue Petition for Variaace No, 1513 to the mee4ing of 3eptember 5, 1962, in order to permit the petitioner sufficient time to present revised plot plans. ' • Comnission Chavos seconded the motion. MOTI~1 CARRIBD. ~ ~~~C, J~~ ` VARIANCB N0. 1514 - A J. NIELS and DO D.-~FiE~1434 W~stmont Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WpYVB LOT WIDTH AND SIDH YARD RBQUIRBI~NTS on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 85 feet plus or minus by 160 f~et plus or minus, with an 85 foot plus or minua froatage on the south side of Westmoat Drive, the northeast _._~ ~ ~ ~ . :., , ;,: , ,, . ,. ,. .: . ; . , , .• _..,.._~~.. .....,. . ~s ,.. `. .. _ /!' ` ... .. ' _. ,~~~ __ .__ . .. . .~....: ~ ~ w ~;• ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~~, MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING CONAlISSIdN, August 6, 1962, Continued: VARIANCB N0. 1514 - corner of said property being 88 feet plus or minus, west of (Coatinued) the southwest cornes of Bsenthaven Avenue and Westmont Drive, . and further described as 1428 Westmont Drive. Property presentlq classified as R-0, ONB PAMILY SUBURBAN, 20NB. Mr, J. Niels Boege, the petitioner, appeared i~efore the Commission and stated that there was only 85 feet left for subject iot on the east side of propertq, and that there was no requiremeat of a 90 foot lot width aL the time subject house was built on the ivest portion of the pro~erty. TiiB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 436, Series 1962-63~ and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissionei Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No, 1514, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing.resolution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: COI~A~tIS3I0I~RS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perrq. NQBS: COhA~1ISSI0NBRS: None, AB3BNT: CON9~lISSIOATBRS: Allred, Hapgood. ~' . ~ ~ ~.. ~ CONDITIONAL US8 -~~L an!~NG COMPANY, c/o William Reeves, 1015 Bast Pirst PffitMIT NO. 277 Street•, Santa Ana, California, Owner; WILLIAM RHSVHS~ 1015 Bast '" First Street, Santa Ana., California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTA3LISH A HOPBRAU on proper~y described as: A rectanguiar parcei oi Iand i~5 feet plus or minus by 400 feet pius or minus, with 105 feet plus or minus frontage on the east side of Huclid Street, the southwest corner of said property being 100 feet plus or minus, north of the northeast corner of Catherine Drive aad Buclid Street,.and , further described as 932 North Buclid Street. Property presently classified C-1~ NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONH, Mr. William Reeves, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he had no further comments for the Commission's cppsideration. The Coamission noted a substandard parking provision, but upon checking the piot plans fifty-three (53) parking spaces were noted, and that said proposed use by its use on subject property ofan 18 by 36 foot building, the need for additional parking would not be necessary. Mrs. William B2oomquist, 1526 West Prances Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that there were many busiaesses ia the shopping center; that parking facilities were always czowded especially with the Chicken Pie Shop in the shoppiag center; that a barricade had been erected at the end . of Prances Drive which had been torn down to allow sutomobiles ingress aad egress into the shopping center; that said basricaded street was not a dedicated street; and that for five (5) ,.ass property owners on Frances Drive abutting barricaded stub-end opposed the•removal of the.barranade; and that she opposed the small Hofbrau adjaceat to a family barber shop and bakery as not being compatible with so maay children using the shopping center. THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission diecussed the reasons for removal of ~the barricade and.the poasibility of the erection of a six (6) foot masonrq wall across 4he stub-end of Prances Drive to the west. ,<' .. _----- ----------~-.._-- ---- ,, . f . ; ~~ ~_) ~ ~ ~ t~ i MINUTBS~ CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, August 6, 1962, Contiaued: 1131 CONDITIONAL USH - Mr. Leonard SmiLh, 125 South Claudiaa, appeared before the P~tMIIT N0. 277 C~mmission aad stated that there was in existence a mutual traffic (Continued) ea~ement through the entire shopping ceater; that property on the w~sL end of the street was owned by two different people; and that three different easements were recorded over it. In respoase to a legal clarification of the removal of a barricade as well as the constructioa of a six (6) foot masoary wall being coastructed at the stub-ead of Frances Dsiv~:: to eliminate ingress and egress to the shopping center, Mr, Geir•ler stated that~.Whether or not a wall were built,.it would require at least two p:soparty owners'request to build said masonry wail; that a wall was not ordinarily built ia a street maintained by the city; that it was ordiaarily built on private property and maintained bq said property ownera; that whether or not the city could barricade Prances Drive was a question, since said parcel was on propertq abutting a dedicated street snd a property which abuts upon a dedicated street would ordinarily be given normal access to the street; that to take said access awaq from Prancec Drive would invite court actioa if the rights of access to the street were eliminated or denied; tha~ sii streets were avaiiable to aimost ail forms of traffic. Mr. 3mith then informed the Commission that a portion of the shopping center was owned by the developer of the subdfvision, aad that the barricade was theze oaly as a safety measure until the ahopping center had been developed. The Commissioa noteil that the proposed use wauid be enciosed in a 436 square foot urea; that with the kitchen facilities, womea and men's rooms added there would not be much apace left for the serving of food; that a parkiag problem would exiat in a shopping center~ which in its original inceptioa did aot have to take into consider- ation a parking problem as present day aituations required; and t~: partiag facili- ties would be taxed to its maximum with the possibil±±~ ui oae car for each customer in the propoaed establishment. Zoning Coordinator Aiartin greidt, advised the Commissioa that the Ylaaniag Department was concerned with the problems of accesa to the various shopping centers and areas in the community; that many com~luints and aggravatioas had beea received by the Department; and that a two week continuaace would be appreciated in order to favestigate the street barricade remo~al problem. Commisaioner Marcoux offered a motioa to continue Petition for Conditioaal Uae ~esnit No, 277, to the meeting of Auguat 20, 1962, ia order to permit the Plannit~g Department sufficient time to check the tract map invoived ia the building of the shoppit~g eenter; and fo~ the legal department to verifq legaiitq of removing said barricade at the weat s4ub-end of Prances Drive. Commissioaer Chavos aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. CONDITIONAL USE -~D~~ ad SIiiHLD3 ~ LTY COMPANY~ 831 South Manchester Avenue, PffitMIT N0. 278 Anaheim~ Califoraia~ Owners; pAiM MUSIC ST[FDI03~ 924 South Suclid Avenue, Anaheim, Califoraia; requesting permission to 83TASLISH A CHILDRHN~S DANCB INBTRUCTION IN CONJUNCTION lilTtl A MUSIC 3TQitB oa propertq deacribed as: A.rectanguiar parcel of laad 264 feet plus or minus bq 344 feet plus or miaus~ with a 344 foot pius or miaus froatage on the east aide of 8uclid Street, the s,outhwest corner of sai.d property beiug 150 feet north of the northeast coraer of Ba11 Road aad Buclid Street~ aad further des~cribed as 924 South Suclid 6treet. Pruperty preaently claesified C-1, NEI(~iB~tH00D CONMBRCIAL~ 20NID. Mr. Norman N. Winare aad Mr. Theodore R. Shu.ltz, ageata for the petitioaera appeared before the Commission and stated that they felt that :they were weil qualified to operate said dance instructioa studio; that they empioq only the beat of teachera, that they give recitala; that the bulk of their students came fron "word of mouth"~ aad recommeadations from atudeats themseivea. (The ageats thea aubcaitted pictures of other inatruclion studios and recitals and.their maaq activitiea in con3unction with the dance atudios). . ~' ._ .. ~~ :._.. ~ . ~ ~. ~ . s:;'.,:;ic'. MINUTB3, CITY PIANN. CONDITIONAL USB - PffitMIT NO. 278 (Coatinued) THH HBARING WAS CLQ Commissioner Perry passage and adoptio Conditional Use Per On roll cali the fo AYBS: COhAiISSION NOB3: COMhlISSION pBSBNT: CObA~IISSIOT CONDITIONAL USS - pBRMIT N0. 282 RBSTAURANT on prope 201 feet plus or mi 140 feet, the soutk the northeast corne presently ciassifie Mr. Carl Heinz, Jr, stated that he had the Council Chambe~ proposed establishi the serving of inea: heiu!; and that the ~ Mr. Rudy Bauer, ap~ separate area for i which were submitt~ made of a similar : through July 3rd a were facilities fo. petitioa of 26 par restaurant busi~es experience of park Mr. LeRoy Rose, ar Commission and sta dining facilities THH HBARING WAS CL The Commission not that from observat facilities adjoini in order. Commissioner Marcc passage and adopt9 Conditional Use Pe , ,,, . .,., . , . ,_. ~ ~`". .. _ __ , . . .. _ ~ _ __._ . . ~ MINUTBS, CITSf PLANNING COhAlISSION, August 6, 1962, Continued: 1133 CONDITIONAL USH - On ro11 cail the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following pBRMIT N0. 282 vote: (Coatinued) pYBS: CObV~tISSIOAffitS: Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NbBS: CONII~(ISSIONERS: Chavos. ~ ABSBNT: CONAlISSIONffitS: Allred, Hapgood. ! Commissioner C a m p qualified his vote by statiag that the proposed parking facilities ~ were substantially less than Code requirements; that the Commission should not deviate ~ from the parkittg reqairements, but that requirements shouid be set up for the proposed ~ type of establishment for future reference; and that if the ageat for the petitioaer would submit findiags relative to surveys taken at similar facilities, it would i greatly aid the Planning Commission and Planning Department in checking plans as well i as renising Code requirements. CONDITIONAL USE -^GOC~~ ~NG an Qi~JN CH(KN JUNG; 9261 Greenwich Street, pffitMIT N0. 284 Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to COI~i3ZRUCT A RBSTAURANT and COCgTAIL LOUNGE on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 80 feet plus or minus by 285 feet plus or minus, with an 80 foot plus or minus frontage on the east side , of Brookhurst Street, the southeast corner of said property being 595 feet north of the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Brookhurst Street, and further described a. 420 South Brookhurst Street. Propertq presently classified C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COA9dHRCIAL, ZONH. Mr. Chun Jung, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothin~ further to add for the Commission's consideration. Ti~ffi HBARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission noted that the proposed development was a very presentable building. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 284~ subject to conditions, seconded hy Commissioner Camp. The Commission then noted that the plot plans did aot indicate the bar area or the seating capacity for the dining area. The petitioner stated that the architect had not finished all the plot plans, and that it would be a week before said plans could be submitted to the Planniag Depart- ment. The Commission informed the petitioner that revised or completed plot plans must be in the Planning Department no later than 9:00 0'Clock A.M„ Moadaq, August 13, 1962, in order to consider subject petition at the August 20, 1962 hearing. Commissioners Perry and Camp withdrew their motion.an d second. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Condittonal Use Yermit No. 284 to the meeting of August 20, 1962, in order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to submit compieted plot plaas. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ``l ~ ~ ~.:., l MINUTBS, CITY Pf.ANNING CC1ASlISSION, August 6, 1962, Continued• AHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING, hIIt. and MRS. CFIARLSS S. ffiARDI, 4925 Firestone N0. 62-63-10 Soulevard, Southgate, California, Oxmers; requesting th¢~t property described as; An irreguiarly shaped parcel of land witL a 55 foot plus or minus frontage on the north side of Sycamore Street, and a depth of 320 feet, the southwest corner of said propertp being apprcximatelq 445 feet east of the northeast corner of Century Drive and Sycamnre Street, and further described as 1637 Bast Sycamore Street, be reclassified from the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZON&, to the R-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, 20NH in order to permit construction of four (4) additional apartments on subject property. 3ubject petition was filed in conjuaction with Vaciance No. 1512, Mr. Charles S. Blardi, the petitioner, appeared beiare the Commission and stated that there is vacant land abutting the R-3, development aL~i that parking requirements of garages with existing apartments was not part of the Aaaheim Ordinance when the existing apartments were built; and that the~ u n i t s to be built would have garages. The Commission iaquired of the petitioner whether he proposed to build garages for the older section of the apartme,.t building, to which the petitionc~r replied, it would be diffir;,lt to build the required sixteen (16) garages, and that it would be difficult to construct this number under Code requirements in the area provided for by parking spaces now. The petitioner Was a3ked by the Commission whether Fie would put in carports in lieu of garages to whicLi he replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Pebley left the Councii Chambers at 4:45 P.M. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 439, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Nr, 62-63-10 be approved subject to conditions. (See Resoiutioa Book). The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meetiag and were found to be a necessary preren,uisite 4o the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, perry. VARIANCB N0. 1512 -~~~ .J~S. BIARDI, 4925 Firestone Boulevard, Southgate, California, Owners; requesting permission to WAIVB SIDB YARD SHT- BACK RHQUIRBMHNT AND PARKING RBQUIRHMBNT on property described as; An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a 55 foot plus or minus frontage on the north side of Sycamore Street and a depth of 320 feet~ the southwest corner of said property being approximately 445 feet east of the northeast corner of Ceatury Drive and Sycamore Street, and further described as 1635 Hast Sycamore Street. Present classification of subject property R-A, RBSIDBNTIA*.,AGRICULTURAL, 20NH. Mr. Charles S. Blardi, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration. , _ ~ ~_ . ~ ; ,; , _ ' .~._.._.It...__.. . , .. ~ . , . ~.. - . .. .. ,r..._._.-- - - ---------:~_.. _._< - :. _ _ - -- ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhU~IISSION~ August 6, 1962, Cotttinued; 1135 \ VARIAN'' N0. 1512 - Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 440, Series 1962-63, • tCoat.~ued) and moved for its passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner - Ch~vos, 4o grant Petition for VBxiance No, 1512, subjeet to ~: . [ conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bq the foilowing vote: pYB3; COMMISSIOI~RS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NUBS: ~W~A4I3SIONBRS: None. ABSENT: C01~4(ISSIONSRS: Allred, Hapgood, Pebley. RBCIABSIFICATION -~5~~ T~ ~ G.~ 239 West Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California, N0. 62-b3-il Owner; T~IAITS-WITTHNBSRG COMPANY, 50750 Bixel Street, Los Angelea 17, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A 660 foot square parcel of land with a frontage on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, the southeast corner of said property being 630 feet west of the northwest corner of Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue, and further deacribed as 239 West Orangewood Avenue~ be reclassified from the R;A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20d~, to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NH to construct a garden-type apartment project. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 279. Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chambers at 4:50 P.M. Mr., Wiiliam Vicker, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothing to say in support of the application, Mut that he would like to introduce Mr. Rudin who would answer any questions the Commission might have. 1HB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Mr. Aldy Gage, 2000 Bast Wilshir.e Street, Fullerton, appeared before the Commission - aad stated that he was an interested partq in the proposed multiple family development but had no objections to it. The Commission noted that the plot pians as submitted was the finest concept of a • planned unit deve.lopmeat complex. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 441, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebleq, to recommend to the City Council, that Yetition for Reclassification No. 62--63-11, be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting a~ were found to be a necessary prerequisite to th~ use of the property in order to preserve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roil cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYS3: COt~NI3SI0I~RS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NQBS: CON9dISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COI~AMI3SIONBRS: Allred, Hapgood. • o ° CONDITIONAL USH - STS~. ANDBRSON 239 West Orangewood Avenue~ Anaheim, Cali- PERMIT N0. 279 ~fornia, Owner; TWAITS-WITTBNBBRG, 50750 Bixel 3treet, Los Angeles 17, California, Agents; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A PLANNSD UNIT DBVBLOPMSNT on property described as: A 660 foot square parcel of laad with a frontage on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, the ''; southeast corner of said property being 630 feet_wes~ of the northwest corner of Haster 3treet and Orangewood Avenue~ and further described as 239 West Orangewood Avenue, Property presently classified R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH. ,r.'~; r ,' i<, , ~ ` ` \~ .. ....r~... \ ~ ~°~s::•s.~'..r: :., ,. , .:~~i; :.;,~,s ,~.,~ s ....':.""""" ,.,~j:~T'.' .:~:' + . . ;•,i . ,,. P...,y.::.'"~~--•-' ..' ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ +i' .~r . . . . . .. ;~~ _ .,4~. \~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CODAtISSION,.August 6, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USH - Subject petition was filed ia conjunc4ion with Reclassification ~~ItMIT N0. 279 No. b2-63-x1, (Continued) . Mr. William Vicker, agent for the petitianer, appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commisaioa~s consideration. T4~ HSARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Camp offered Resolutioa No. 442, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to graat Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 279, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: CQhA4ISSI0NBRS: Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: COMI~lISSIONBR3: None. AB3BNT: COhAfIS3I0I~ffiEtS: Allred, Hapgood. RHCBSS - Coaimissioner Marcoux offered a motion to recess the meeting at 5:00 P.M., and to reconvene at 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. RBCONVBNB Chairman Gauer reconvened the meetiag at 7:05 P.M,; those absent xere Allred and Hapgood. RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HEAitING. 1NAYNE R. DAVIDSON, 1769 West Broadway, Anaheim, N0. 62-63-12 California, Owner; requesting that property described as; An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a 55 foot plus or minus frontage oa the north side of Broadway~ and a depth of 303 feet plus or minus, the southwest corner of said property being 133 £eet plus or minus, east of the northeast corner of Brentwood Place and Broadway, and further described as 1769 West Broadway be reclassified from the R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB, to the R-3, MU*.TIPLE FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH~ to construct a plaaned unit development. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 280. Mr. Wayne Davidson, the petitioner appeared before the Coamission snd stated that subject application wa. in the interest of good planning; that subject property was in a transition zone; that with a church in the area of single family development to the west a traffic problem wa~ being created which would grow with the coamunity center pians by the church; anrl that the frontage elevat'ion would be the only thing viewed from Broadway with adaq,uate off-street parking being pr;~vided. l+k. John Zahaxsen, 246 Brentwood Place, appeared before the Commissicn and stated he opposed subject petition; that his property was directly west of subject propertq; that he was appearing in behalf of the residents on Brentwood Place; that 22 property owners appeared with him in oppositioa in the Counc:il Chambers; that he had a petition signed by 38 property owners; that the preposed development would be incompatible with the residential development area; that the homes on Brentwood piace consisted of lots of more thaa 10,000 square feet; that a totai of ~70,000 was represented in the R-1 development; that there were no apartments located in the viciaity of Broadwaq and Bali Road; and that the proposed development was contrary with the planned and best use of the land. Mr.,Phillip Holts, 252 Brentwood Piace, appeared before the Commisaion ia opposition to subject petition and stated that.he had recentiq purchased a home and had been assured be the real estate agent that the property wauid remaia R-A and R-1, single fauily development. ~ 1~..:'~ 1 .,.,...'' R. ~.... _ ______ .___ _ ~ ~ ___.. ~ ~ ~ , . : ~ ~ ,~ '; ~ ~ :. '~' v ~ - U MIPNTBS, CITY PLANNING C01~9`SISSION, August 6, 1962, Continued: 1137 RBCIASSIFICATION - Mr. Richard M. Grove, 1767 Brentwood Place, appeared before the N0. 62-63-12 Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated that iContinued) the single development was a well planned residentiai area; that at the time he purchased his property he had made a careful inspection of the zoaing problems of Anaheim; that the Anaheim Zoaing Ordinance was high in comparison with other cities of comparable size; that a church was not considered ar. incompatible iand use in a residentiai area to warrant construction of a high density development a s a buffer zone to said church; that tlie church could expand and use all the property in the area; that according to the General P1an there should not be more than seven (7) dwellings per acre of iand; and that subject property was too small a parcel of land for high density development and should be left for single family development only. Mr. Robert 'Trivison, 231 Brentwood Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sabject petition, and .tated that he would sum up for the opposition with: 1. That the present zoning of the area was a well~conceived plan which provided a xesidential area which attracted the p!opie to Anaheim and into a coauaunity of high-value homes. 2. That the area as it was presently zoned did not present a coagestion in traffic hazards. 3, That the homes were purchased by the present owners on the assumption that the area was a compatibie living area land use. 4. That a change in zones would change the living habits and values of property as well as being an incompatible land use. . ~ Mr. Davidson, in rebuttal, stated that he appreciated the fine attitude of all the people in the neighboshood; that development that was proposed for subject property wou]d not be that large to detract from the adjoining property; tha4 he felt that the proposed use was the best land use; and that there would be single family homes at the rear of three-quarters of an acre. THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission noted that the petitioner l,ad purchased subject property from the church; that his own home was on it; that at the time it was purchased it was R• 1; and that there was no particular hardship in the area involved to warrant a change in zoning. Reverend Puttram, pastor of the church in the area abutting subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated that the church property was completely separated from the petitioner*s iand; and that the church had one and one-half acres for expansion. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 443, 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. 62-63-12 be denied on the bases of the findiags. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYBS: COMhIISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Peb]ey~ Perry. NOBS: COAA~tISSIONHRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSION~tS: Allred~ Hapgood. CONDIZIGNAL USB - PUBLIC FffiARING. WAYNB R. DAVIDSON, 1769 West Broadway, Anaheim, p~tMIT N0. 280 California, Owner; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A PLANNBD- U!VIT GROUP HOUSING on propexty described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a 65 foot plus or miaus frontage on the ` P!'I ~.~'~~ ~.~~:'!rr`d ~. ~ . ~~.. . ~ . .. ~ . . . -a .. . . . . . . . . . ~ .... _..,'Q ., .. ._. . ~"'~... _- . . ,._ ~ ' __-` F:'.- . . . . ~ ~ . .. . .. . . . . :~i,f 7 - 'l~~ . ~ . ~ ~ . ' ~ . . . . . . .a . ~ ' . ~ .. ~ ~ . ~ .. ~~ ~ . ~ ~ . '.MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSI~I, Augast 6, 1962, Continued: 1138 CONIDITIONAL USB - north side of Broadway and a depth of 303 feet plus or minus, the PBRMIT N0. 280 southwest corner of said property being 133 feet pius or minus, (Continuea) east of the northeast corner of Brentwood Place and Broadway, and further lescribed as 1769 West Broadway. Property presently ~~~ classified R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS. ; Sub3ect petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification Na. 62-63-12, Mr. Wayne R. Davidsoa, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated ' that he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration. • Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 444, Series 1962-63, and moved for its ~ passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 280, on the bases of findings. (&ee Resolution Book). On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYHS: CObA1ISSI0NBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mangall, Pebley, Perry. ; NOBS: COhMISSIOPiBRS: None, j ~ ABSHNf: COh-~tISSI0N8RS: Alired~ Hapgood. { ~ RBCIASSIFICATION - nBI~~YZ~tMA~4~North Crescent Heights, Hollywood 46, California, ~ N0. 62~63-13 Otn,ne*; LeRoy Rose, 2127-D West Bali Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that proper,ty described as: A rectangular parcel of land at the .southeast corner of Buclid and Pampas Lane, with a 100foot plus or minus frontage on Buclid Avenue, and 276 feet on Pampas Lane . be re~lassified,from the C-1, NBIGHBaRH00D C~+lMHRCIAL, ZONB, (with plantiag area) to C-1, NHIQiB0RH00D CObMffitCIAL, ZONH (without planting area). Mr. LeRoy Rose, agent for the,petitioner. appeared before~the Commission and stated that waiver of planting was no4 for the entire building but onlq that a portion on Pampas Lane was requested ; that said request for. removai of the six (6) foot pianting strip w~s needed because the owner of subject.property propoaed to build to the property line,thus eliminating said pianting,strip on pampas I:ane; and that the builders planned to,put a planting stzip as a buffer.zone abutting the parking areas as requested. ' The Commission noted that.the planting strip waiver was being requested along Pampas Lane, to which the agent for the petitioner ,seplied,that oaly a portion of said etrip was being reguested for waiver, that as he.understood it the six (6) foot planting strip was required as a buffes zoae for parking areas; and the Commission then 3nformed.the petitioner that the plaating strip was, usually required for besutification of the property in general. Mr. L: B. Meyer, 1309 Moraga Street, a real estate broker, member of the Board of Realtors of Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and stated that he represented the Board of Realto;s who opposed waiver of the planting strip; attd tliat the original plan of landscaping was passed by:the Commission in 7:959 aind shopid re~main as is, , Mr. William Bayzerman; the peLitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the architect was to build a 180 foot by 80 foot builuing abutting the pzopertq line, but that they were not in favor of:eatire;removal of the'planting strip; that ~ there would be aa ,18 foot setback oa Buclid P..2nue, but. that they did not feei tbat sn 18 foot setback on.a minor street such as Pampas`Laae was desirable; and that the proposed'landscaping of six (6) feet would`not particularly enhance the beauty ~f the area:: . THH I3$.4RING WA3 CLQSSD..... . _ I , ~ , , . _. .., . _ ~.: ...... •. ~:~ ~ifi:?~_ ~. :~.: , ~ ; ~ . ;,:. 'ri : ~~. • . , _,;,~ ~ ., ~~ ` ~ . .. _.. ~ .-. v ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C01~41ISSION, August 6, 19d2, Continued: ..fa ~•~L! ! ~ ~ 1139 RHCIASSIPICATION - T1ie Commission noted that the trash area was directly behind N0. 62-63-13 the building with access from Pampas Lane; that usually the (Continued) icrash area was behind the parking areas; that only 420 square feet would be lost if said six (6) foot landscaping requirement would be enforced; that people or residents in the area had to abide by the precise plan to which the petitioner should be forced to abide also; and that said landscaping was for beautification of the prope=ty abutting or across said proposed commercial development and abutting the multiple family development to the east. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 445, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commi.ssioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-13, be disapproved on the bases of findings. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: pyBS: COMMISSIONIIRS: Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOSS: COMNIISSIONBRS: None. ABSTAINBD: COD9dISSIONffitS: Camp. pgSgNT; CONIl~IIS~SIONB1tS: Allred, Hapgood. RHCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. RAYCO INVHSTMSNT COMPANT, INC., 10502 West N0. 62-63-14 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 197 feet plus or minus on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, and a depth of 1,060 feet pius or minus, the north w est corner of said pzoperty being 610 feet east of the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street be reclassified from the R~A~,dRBS DBNTIAasden type multiple$family the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB, P 6 housing project. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No, 281. Mr. Harr.y Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that many elevations were provided in the plot plans,with a recreation area being provided on each end of subject development; that a high density development should be near a public play area; that the proposed development would be Sike ranch- style homes;that single story was being proposed; that the proposed development would be under on~ ownership; and that the roofs would be of slate or rock. Mr. George Jeffries, representing the architect, appeared before the Commission and stated that the developer was trying to present a new approach to placing people in the area while maintaining a garden-type project; that in order to soive the parking problem, . a driv e down the center of the proposed development was eliminated and a peripheral dsive around the proposed development was substituted; that they met the twenty-one (21) foot requisement for roadways; and that by . presenting the proposed plot plans, twenty (20) parking spaces could be eliminated. Chairman Gauer asked if there was any opposition in the Council Chambers, uad seven (7) persons stood up in opposition. Mr. John C. Hamilton,2203 Vern Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition stated that as a homeowaer he felt he had a right to protect his home;at the time he buiit his home he check both the zoning and the schools in the area and felt that the area would be low density with privately owned homes; that the City Planners had spent a great deal of time in formulating a Master Plan, which designated subject area or subject property as low density; that in a ma3azine cntit?.ed ".°.p~rt~?r_* H?wc~', an articie was written stating that Anaheim would be'~Sastered'with apartments, and that the many requests for muitiple family =ezoning just seem to be evident. -~~ ,~.,. . ; ; ,. ~ , ....~, . . .. , . .._. ... . _, ~.__. : . ~.. . . ' .... . . . ~ ~ 1140 MINUTffi, CITY PIANNING COI`A~IISSION, AuBast 6, 1962, Continued; RgCLpSSiPICATION - Mrs. Nancq Small, 108 Cliffw~~d Stre•:t, appeared before the ~ N0. 62-63-14 Commission in oppositioa to subjecc petitioa and stated that CContinued) she represeated a number of r~sidents on Cliffwood 3treet, ~ which abutted the property, although she did not live within the - 300 foot area; that she had met with the Park aad Recreation , Commission numerous times; aad that f=om discussions and talks it would be some time before the prnposed park area would be developed; that schoois in the area were i extremely congested at the present time; thaL with a high density development being ~ proposed for the area, the school problem would be greatly magnified; that the ~olice and Pire protection facilities would be taxed with a high densitq develc,pment; aad ti that as a homeowner she petitioned the Commissioa to seriously consider theae j factars in cansidering subject Petition. i h!=. Clifford Rothrock, 2160 Spinnaka Street, appeared before the Commission in i opposition to subject petition and stated that he agaia was appealing to the Commis- ion to consider limiting multiple developments to the north of Orangex~od Avenue; that i recreatioaai facilities we=e ueing taxed now because facilities were limited to the childsen in the area; and that the proposed development was incompatible to the ~ laad use as it existed south of Oraagewood Aveaue, wlsich was primarilq single family { residential. i^_ rebuttal, the attorney for the petitioner stated that the subject property was originally proposed on the General Plan as R-3; and that sub3ect property abuts R-3 p=operty. THg HBA1tING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission again reiterated their atand on "holding the line" of multipie iamilr developmeat as having the southerly boundary of the north side of Orangewood Avenue; that with current condemnatioa proceedinga inatituted by the Citq ia reference to the p=oposed city park plan for the area immediately adjacent to subject property, subject property should remain in the low density single fawily zoae, Commissioner Marcoux offe=ed Resolution No. 446, 3eries 1962-63, aad moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos~ to recommead .to the City Couacil that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-14 be disapproved on the bases of findinga. (See ResoSution Book). On r~ll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the foiiowing vote: pygg; CONMI3SIONBRS: Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungail~ Pebiey, Perry. ppg3; C069dIS3I0NSRS: None. pggBNT; COD4+lISSIONBRS: Allred~ Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. RAYCO•INVHSTMSNT CaMPAN7(, INC., 30502 West pBRMIT N0. 281 Hatella Avenue~ Anaheim, Califoraia, Owners; requeating permission to CONSZRUCT A PIANNBD UNIT DBVBLOPN~INT on p=ope=ty de.scribed as: pn L-shaped parcei of laad,with a frontage of 19? feet plus or minus on the south side of Orangewood Aveaue, and a depth of 1,060 feet pius or miaus, the northwest corner of said property being 610 feet east of the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue aad liaster Street. Propertq presently classified R A, RffiIDBNPIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZON21. Sub3ect petition was filed in con3unction with Reclasaif3.cat,iae-lio. u2-63-14. µr, garry gnisely, attorneq for the petitioaer, appeared before the Commisaion and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideratioa. TEIH HBARING WAS CL06HD. ~ • -- _. _ .~ ~ ,,.._. -- --- _.... _.. .., _ _ _ ~-~-.~,------ , . _ ... ~ ~1 • , -i- ,, . . - . = ~ : ::: : ~ _ _ _ ._._._ ~ .) °" ~ ~ MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, August 6, 1962, Continued: 1141 CONDITIONAL USH - Commissioner Marcoux, offered Resolutioa No. 447, a°ries 1962-63, PffitMIT N0. 281 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner (Continued) Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Fermit No. 281, based on findings. CSee Resolution Book). On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AXBB: COhA~tISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, t~arcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: COh9dISSIONBRS: None. ABSENT: COMAfISSIONBRS: Allred, Hapgood, RECIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING, MR, and MRS. VINCENT L. Kl1LJIS, 2130 West Ball N0. 62-63-15 Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM N. JOdiNSTON, 10801 Da2e Street, Stanton, California, Agent; requesting that ~ property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 220 feet plus or minus on the south side of Ball Road, and a depth of 440 fPet plus or minus, the northeast corner of said property being 408 feet pius oz minus, west of the southwest corner of Bmpire Stzeet and Ba21 Road, and further described as 2130 West Ball Road be reciassified from the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD CObA!ffiZCIAL, ZONH to the C-2, GSNHRAL.COhAlHRCIAL, ZONB, to construct a proposed Class "A" hotel. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated this was a procedural question, that plans had been approved by the Council on all but one portion of the petition. Mrs. Mary Andrews, Pzesident of the Nutwood-Ball Civic Association, appeared before the Commission in opposition subject petition; and stated that they were not opposed to C-1 or C-2 uses but only to the inciusion of a cocktaii iow~ge on said property; that subject property was 394 feet from an existing parochial grammer school with a church adjoining said school, and also a public school; that the subject property was directly across the stseet to the north of a Methodist Church; that the proposed sale of liquor was prohibited by the Aicoholic Beverage Control Board within 600 fee: from schools; and that upon contacting Mr. Moran of the Alcoholic Beverage Controia Board, rie stated that the approximate distance for granting an on-sale liquor license was 600 feet rrom schools. Mr. Kniseiy, in rebuttal~ stated that the rule of 600 feet was not the law, but would only be followed when a protest was filed on any petition for a liquor Sicense; and that a cocktail lounge facility was something that was usually a part of any }iotel in the county. THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission inquired of the Assistant City Attoraey, Joe Geisler, why the Council denied the Conditional Use Permit as approved by the Commission. Mr. Geisier stated that he did not recali thb exact circu~58tances, but that with the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, it would indicate approval by the City Council of all cocktaii lounges throughout the city; that perhaps the Council 2hought that the zone which allowed said cocktail lounge would aot be a specific action oa the cocktail lounge itself; but that the action of the Council would not be a stamp of approval or disapproval on the cocktail lounge; and that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board could grant or deny the application for a license with its close proximiiy to a school or church. • Commissioner Chavos stated that although he had approved the original Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit for a cocktaii lounge~ at the time he did not realize it was so c.lose to a church and school; that the petitioner did not present a valid argument for changing of zone from C-1 to C-2; and that he felt it should be left as C-1. ~ ~~~ 8 !~ ~ ~, . . ^ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PUUVNING COhAtISSION, August 6, 1962•, Continued: iiaa RHCIASSIPICATION - The Commission inquired of the Assistaat City Attorneq~ whether N0. 62-b3-15 a stipulatioa could be made in granting of subject petition to (Continued) limit the use to a cocktail lounge, to which Mr. Geisler replied, that said restriction could be made, but he did not feel ' that any forms of restrictions should be attached to a petitiun of this type. The Commissioa nobed thatat the time the originai petition was granted by the Commission, it was a feeling that the use would be primarily for restaurant purposes only~ and the cocktaii louage would be incidentai to the serving of food; aad that if liquor were served it would have to obtain the A.B.C. Board approval cf a•license. Commissission Perry affered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-15 be approved, subject to conditions; that the use as proposed would be compatible to a hotel; that a hotel or motel offeriag restaurant services would be of a higher caliber of business; and that the proposed use would be compatible and more desirable than manq that were in Anaheim. Commissioner Pebiey seconded the motion. . The Commission inquired of Mr. Geisler whether the approval of subject petftion would prohibit the use of the property for a beer parlor by the petitioaer. Whereupon, Mr, Geisier advised the Commission that approving of subject petition for a C-2 zoning wauid be a broad approval of almost any type of sale of liquor by the petitioner. Co~issioner Perry then requested that a deed restriction be placed on subject property limiting its use to a cocktail lounge in connection with the restaurant. Mr. Geisler then informed the Commission that it would be advisable to restrict the use to the things which the Commission did not want as a use rathar than limiting its nse ta a cockt:.i2 lounge, which eronld then give the Couacil the righi to restrict or disapprove of a cocktaii lounge. On roll cail the vote was as follows: AYHS: COhAfISSIONBRS: Camp, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~ NQHS: COhAlISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux. ABSBNT: COhAlISSIONBRS: Allred, Hapgood. Por want of a majority of vote of five, the voting of Petitioa for Reclassification No. 62-63-15 was held over to the meetiag of August 20, 1962 in order to consider approval or denial of subject petition. ;-~>~ ~ j~' RHCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MAH THOMPgINS, 11355 Haster Stre~t, Anaheim, N0. 62-63-16 California, Owner; M& M DHVELOPMBNT COMPANY; 250 5onth La Cienega Boulevard~ Beverly H±lls, Californ:.a, Agent; requesting that property descriDed as: A rectangular parcel of laad with a 330 foot frontage on the west side of Haster Street, and a depth of 630 feet~ the~southeast corner of said property being 310 feet north of the no:thwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street, and further described as 11355 Haster Street be reciassified from the R A, RBSIDBNTIAI. AQtICULTIJRAL, ZONB, to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RESIDffiITIAL~ Z01~ to develop a garden-type apartment project. • Subject petition was filed in coajunction with Conditionai Use Permit Na. 283. Mr. R. R. Rodin~ representing the M& M Developmeat Company, appeared before the Commissioa and stated that his company was presently developing a five (S) acre parcel of property on the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street which was almost completed; that he was workiag with Mr. Vicker for the rezoaing of sub3ect property; that he would be happy to answer any questioas the Commission might have. THB HHARING WA3 CLOSHD. <-_) `~ i..J ~: ~ <~) MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, August 6, 1962, Continued: 1143 RBCLASSIPICATION - The Commissioa noted that the proposed plaaned uait development N0. 62-63-16 oa viewing plot plans~ graphically illustrated the tContinued) generai objectives of a planned unit develdpment as desired by the Commission and the Plasming Department. Commissioner Pebley offered :?solution No. 448, S~~ies 1962-63, aad moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recoaimend to the City Couneil that Petition f or Reclassification No. 62-63~16 be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). The conditions as stated in the Reaolution Book 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 weifare of the citize~is of the City of Anaheim. On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the foZl,~wing vote: AYHS: COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcous, MungaYl, Pebley, Perry. NOH3; COMMIS3IONBRB: None. ABSHNT: COHAlISSIONHRS: Allred, Hapgood. '"'~ ~ ~ ~ CONDITIONAL iTSS - PUBLIC HBARING. MAB THQMPKINS, 11355 Haster Street, Anahexn, ~ PBRMIT N0. 283 California, Owner; M& M DHVBLOPMHNT COI~ANY, 250 Sonth La Ciencga Boulevard, Beverly Hilis, California, Agent; requesting permission ; to CONSIRUCT A PIANNHD UNIT DBVSLOPMBNf on property described as: A rectaagular parcel of lAnd with a 330 foot froatage on the west side of Haster j Street, a depth of 630 feet, the southeast coraer of said property besng 310 feet j north of the northwest corner of Oraagewood Avenue aad H~aster Street, and further ' described as 11355 Haster Street. Property presently e].assified R A, RBSIDHNTIAL 1 AGRICULTqRAL, ZONB. i Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassificstion No. 62-63-16. M~. R. R. Rodin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa stating he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration. THB HBARING WAS CLdSHD. I Commissioner Pebley offered Resoiutioa No. 449~ Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to granf Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 283, subject to conditioas. (See R°solution Book). On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYSS: COMhIISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOSS: COh4tISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: CahAlISSIOAIHRS: Alired, Ha~good. RBCLASSiFICATION - PUBLIC NBARING. HHNRY and CARMBN HOGG, JAI~S and CQ~[ST.~TCB NO. 62-63-17 SL04N, 1015 North Acacia Street, Anaheim. California, Ownera; ROiVALD and RAYMOND WOOD~ 2280 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: A 125 foot square parcel of land at the northwest corner of La Palma and Acacia Street be reciassified from the R A, RBSIDSNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLE PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ ZONfi to construct a multiple family development. Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Variance No. 1515. Chairman ^vauer asked the~audience whether any one was in the Council Chambers to represent the petitioner, and received no answer. ~ ~ ~) `~: F r 6 ~. _ • l ~' s i ~, . ~.:~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhAMISSION, August 6, 1962, Continued: a':7 ~.: . .. . . . . :.:..~i~~ - " ~ .. _ ~ . . ~.,.~ . 1144 RHCIASSIPICATION - Assistant Planner, Marvia Krieger, advised the Commission that N0. 62-63-17 upon checking the plot plans he noted that the proposed use (Continued) would not fit the subject propertq after dedication of the required number of feet for La Palita Avenue was made; that he had telephoned the petitioner and advised him of this discre~- ancy~ and that the petitioner requested a two week continuance in order to submit revised piot plans. The Commission discussed the possibility of continuing subject petition for two weeks in order that the petitioner might represent himself, or whether the Commission should consider iand use in coajunction with subject petition. Chairman Gauer asked for aay opposition to subject petition, and five people in the Couacil Chambers stood up in opposition to subject petitioa. Mr. Tom Perry, 1020 Wanda Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, aad stated that he wishedtoexpress the appreciation of the residents of the community to the City Officials for the many improvements ia schoo7. facilities constructed in the area; that the proposed petitioa was incompatible to the single family resideatial use of the area; that there were no multiple dwellings in the square block area surrounding subject property; and that the petition he presented cantaiaed 9096 of the residents of the area adjoining subject property opposing a two story development in a square block abutting single family zoned residences. 1HB HBARING WAS CIASBU, The Commission reviewed the plot plans and discussed multiple family development in an R-1 area; that two story multiple family units were objectionable; and that according to the General Plan subject property was proposed for R-1 development. Commisaion Pebley offered Resolution No. 450, Series 1962~-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reciassificati on No. 62-63-17 be disapproved based oa -- findings. (See Resolution Book). On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COhAfISSIONHRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagali, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: COI~AfI3SI0NffitS: Nune. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Hapgood. VARIANCS N0, 1515 - PUBLIC FiHARING. 1~IDNRY and CARMSN AOGG, JAMBS and CONSTANCB SLQAN, 1015 North Acacia Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; RONALD G. WOOD aad RAYMOND G, WOOD, 2280 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permissioa to CONSIRUCT A PLANNBD UNIT DEVHLOFMHNT AND WAIVB 1W0 STOitY HHIGHT LIMITATION on property described as: A 125 foot square parcel of land at the northwest co=ner of La Palma pveaue and Acacia Street. Property presently classified R-A, RHSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20N8. Subject petitior~ was filed in coajunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-17. The Commission noted that no one represented the petitioners in the Council Chambers; and that the Planning Department had advised the petitioners 4hat plot plans as submitted would not fit subject properfy after dedication of La Palma Avenue. Mr. Tom perry, 1020 Wanda Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated hsa opposition to subject petition the same as Reclassification No. 62-63-17. `~. ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~~ ; ~ ~ ~ MINUT9S, VARIANCE : (Continu~ Marcoux, Book~) . On roll AYBS: NOB3: ABSBNT: pUBLIC E AP!lENDMBD TURING, FiBAVY MP PlanninF Plannin~ Zones i~ Commiss: Title 1~ to the to comp MOTION . . , . . . , , .. , :. ~ J ~ R ~ ~ ~ / .. ....._.. / ... ....... __......._. "__" __ ....... ~ ~ ~~ MINUfES, CITY Pi.ANNING COMMISSION, August 6, 1962, Continueds 1146 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOb4~NDATIONS Daange County Use Variance No. 50225 Joseph Tirrell, Petftionerf property located on: South Side of Coronado Street approximately 80Q feet west of Dowlin9 Street, north~ast of Anaheim. Present use of propertys Sin91e family dwelling. Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger presented a special report to the Commission which had been prepared by the Planning Department relative to subject variance. The Commission reviewed the location of subject property as it related to the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone in Anaheim as well as the findings and reco~endations made by the Planning Department. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to advise the Orange County Planning Commission the followings 1. That the section of the County in which subject llse Variance was lxated was pro3ected as a Light Industrial area as part of the Anah.im General °lan, and was recommended to the City Council and adopted by the Council for M-1, Light Industrial, Zone in Resolution No. 62-R-335. 2. That the proposed automobile repair garage was acceptable in the M-1, Light Industrial~ Zone under a Conditional Use Permit procedure. 3o That the plot plan depicted the location of an existing dwelling which was to remain on the property after construction of the automobile repair garage was completed; and that said dwelling use was not permitted under the M-1 section of the Anaheim Zoning Ordinance, and was considered to be a non-conforming use. 4. ''hat the parking arrangement shown on the plot plan would necessitate vehicles backing out of the northern most parking stalls to pass into the public Right- Of-Way. and based on the aforementioned findings that the Anaheim Planning Commission recommends the following: 1. That the garage structure be of a permanent nature and not to be constructed of corrugated metal. 2. That the use of the dwelling unit for re~idential purposes be discourageds that the possibility of a time limit upon dwelling usage seemed in order, or a stipulation made that the house be converted into an office for the repair garagef and that, in any case, the residential use of the dwelling structure should be prohibited. 3. That a stipulation or requirement nf an enclosed storage for both new and used auto parts be stated at this time in the event that such storage was contemplated at a later date. ' • - 4. That a stipulation for the construction of a six {6) fo~t masonry wall around sub3ect property be made to insure compatibility with future uses in the area. 5. That consideration of a parking arrangement be made which would not entail the backing-up of vehicles into a public Right-Of-Way. 6. That~ although setbacks and landscaping were required only on arterial high- ways, the City attempted to encourage a highway beautification on all streets; and that since Coronado Street would be an important connector in the northeast industrial area, some provision should be made for landscaping. Comraissioner Perry seconded the mo~ion. MOTION CARRIED. ~~~.. -_ :~; ~, (~ " lJ ! ~ ~:~ ~ z~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CODMi1ISSI0N, AUGUST 6, 1962, Continued: REPORTS At~D - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 1147 Orange County Use Variance No. 5005 Assistant Planner Marvin Krieger read a letter from Mr. Robert Dedic, Roquet Realty Company, setting forth his reasons why he felt sub~ect Use Variance should be favorably considered by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The Commission reviewed the location of sub3ect property a_~ it related to the Industrial proposals on the General Plan and reviewed the praposed new M-l, Zone. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to advise the Orange County Boaxd of Supervisors of the following: 1. That the section of the County ir, which si~bject Use Variance was located was projected as a Light Industrial area as part of the Anaheim General Plan, and was recommended to the City Council and adopted by the Council for Light Industrial use in Resolution No. 62-R-335. 2. Under the proposed M-1 zoning now pending before the Planning Commission, that Light Equipment Storage or Rental is a permitted use under the Outdoor Uses section. Heavy Equipment Rental is a permitted use in the M-2 Zone, but would be permitted in the M-1 Zone by Conditional lise Permft, and would therefore, be considered a proper use for this location if corobined with the site devel- opment standards as set forth in Section 18.52.060. If this use were to be granted, the Commission recommends the following conditions: 1. That dedication of a forty-five (45) foat half width of Anaheim Road be provided. 2a Provision of an open structural setback area extending the full width of sub- ~ect property, said setback area to be fifty (50) feet in depth, measured from the new highway Right-Of-Way line. (a) Front twenty (20) feet of said setback area to be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs or plant materials and permanently maintained in a neat and orderly manner. (b) Rear Thirty (30) feet to be used for automobile parking, but if not so utilized, the entire fifty (50) feet to be ?andscaped and maintained. (c) If sidewalks are not required, landscaping to be extended to the rear of the curb. (d) Sub3ect property to be enclosed, except for access drives with a solid masonry wall not less than six (6) feet in height. (e) Off-street parking spaces to be provided on the rental yard portion on the basis of one space for every two maximum contemplated number of ~ amployees that will be employed upon the site at any one time, or one space per 2,500 square feet of lot area, whichever is the greater. (f) All outdoor storage to be maintained in a neat and sightly manner, and to be adequately screened from tha abutting arterial highway. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE - Southern California Planning Congress AND August 9~ 1962 MISCELLANEOUS Zoning.Coordinator Martin Kreidt reminded the Commission of the monthly meeting of the Southern California Planning Congress and inquired who of the Commissioners would attend. Commissioners Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux.~ Mungall, Pebley and Perry 3ndiceted they would attend the meeting. .,,~ I ~ ` n _-.__.._..- -- ------__-- __._... ( ~l ~ ~ ~-' ~.1 - ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COA~uIiSSION, August 6, 1962, Continuedi 1148 i~. CORRESPONDENCE ,- Commissioner Marcoux requested a discussion and review by the AND Commission on the progress being made on the pro3ects which the MISCELLANEOUS Commission would have to recommend to the City Council. A discussion was held relative to the progress of work on the. General Plan~ Title Eighteen amendments, Center City Study, and the llrban Renewal Committee, and other. Zoning projects and the approximate dates at which time the Commission might expect to receive recommendations from the Ylanning Department. ADJOURNN~Nf - There being no further business to transact, Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CAItRIED. The meeting ad~ourned at 9s25 0'Clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, ANN KREBS, Sec~etary Anaheim Planning Commission