Loading...
Minutes-PC 1962/08/20~' ~ \ City Hall qnaheim, California August 20, 1962 RBGUTAR M88TZNG OP THH ANAHBIM CITY PIAN~iI~iG COI~lISSION RHGUTAR A~IItBTING - A Regular Meeting of the Aaaheim City Pianning Commission was cailed to order by Chairman.Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. , pRH3BNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer. COhAlI5SIONBRS; Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. nn ___~ a o p ~L~j c` ~L~~. C,~CYJ~Q.P/~ f[v - % ~ ~ - ZONING COORDINATOR: Martin I{reidt. ASSISTANT CITY ATTatNHY: Joe Geisler. CONAlISSION SBCRBTARY: Ann ~rebs. INVOCATION - Reverend Truett Stovall, Crescent Avenue, Southern Baptist Church, gave the invocation. PLBDGB OF - Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag. ALL~('IANCH APPxOVAL OP - The Minutes of the meeting of August 6, 1962, were approved with MINUTBS the following correct3oa: Page 1126, paragraph 10~ should be ABSHNT: Commissioaers: Rilred, Hapgood. Page 1129, last paragraph should be PUB:.:C :~fiP.IA:G. J. NIffiS and DO~tOTY D., DODGH, etc. Page 1130~ CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0. 277: PUHLIC HBARING. COWAN OIL and RSPINING COb1PANY, etc. Paqe 1131~ CONDITIONAL U3E PERMIT N0. 278: PUBLIC I~ARING. DOYLB and SHIBLDS RSALTY COMPANY, etc. Page 1132, CONDITIONAL USB ~BRMIT N0. 282: PUBLIC FffiARfNG. JAY LHAR~ INC., etc. Page 1133, CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0, 284: PUBLIC HBARING.• G~~;K WOBY JUNG, etc. Page 1134, VARIANCB N0. 1512; PUHLIC HBARING, hIIt. & MRS. CHARLSS S. BIARDI, etc, Page 1135, RHCIASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-11: PUBLIC FffiARING, STANLEY G. ANDBRSON, etc. Paqe 1135, CONDITIONAL US8 PHRMIT N0. 279: PUBLIC HBARING, . . .STANLHY G. ANDSkSON, etc. . .. Page 1138, RBCLASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-13: PUBLIC F~ARIn~. BILL HAYZBRMAN, etc. Page 1142, RHCIASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-15, paragraph 3, last liae delete "MOTION CARRIHD". CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD YUBLIC FffiARING. DARRYL WALRSR, 2112 Nyon Place, Anaheim, PBRMIT N0. 244 California, Owner; JaSEPH SINAY, 1361 Ridgecrest Drive, Beverly Hilis, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISfi A MOTBL on property described ase A parcel of land 102 feet by 359 feet with a froatage of 102 feet on the south side of Lincola Avenue, the northeast ccrner of which is 1;275 feet west of the southwest corner of Liacoln and Suclid Avenues, and further described as 1800 Lincoln Avenue. Propertq presently classified as R-A, RHSIDBI~ITIAL AQtICULTITRAL, ZONB. - 1149 - ~ ~ -__~__,_„_ ~; »' .. „ . , : , ~'•-. , '' . . , ~:- . . ~..._ : _ _ ,. _ . , w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~. . . ~ :~T.C'^;~{.•,~~~i CQdVDITIONAL USE - Subject petition was continued from the meetings of May 28, 1962, P~tMIT N0. 244 June 11, 1962 and June 25, 1962~ ia order to permit the pet3.tioner (Oontinued) sufficieat time to submit revised plans. Mr. gen Heias~ representative of the petitioner appeared before the Commisaion and sLated that revised plans had been submitted; that what the petitioner proposed was a high-ciass motei developmeat; that the developmeat wouid be unique in the respect that the proposed development wouid accommodste saies represeatativea which were the' Predomiaate type of personnel tteeding the acco~amodatioas in the area; that aa easement had been received from property beiag developed immediatel'y to the east aad south of sub,ject property which would permit ingress and egreas for traffic and parkiag flow; and that the stetch as presented to the Commisaion indicated the front of the proposed building with an ideatifyiag sign on the buildiag. The Commiasion iaquired of the petitioner what was projected for the aoutherly portion of the aubject property; to which the petitioner replied tentatively it was set up for future professional offices on the adjacent land. The Commisaioa inquired whq revised plans did aot indicate single story as requested bq the Commission at the meeting of Maq 28, 1962~ to which the petitioaer repiied that the development of a~ one-atory buildiag was unfeasible because property values t+ere too steep to conatruct other thaa two-storq; and that hardship wouid be created because of the value of the land. The Gommission inquired whether the petitioner had givea any consideration to the R-1~ 8ingle Pamiiq Development adjacent 3o sub3ect property; Mr. Joseph Sinay~ ageat for the petitioner appeared ~before the Commission and stated that a rather exclusive hotel in Chicago offered simiiar facilities as were being pro,jected by the petitioaer; and that conaideration was given by a five CS) foot aetback from the propertq line to the R-1 property ad3aceat. TH~ F~tARING WA3 CT.03~D~ The Commiasioa iaquir~d of the Aeaiatant City Attoraeq, Jce Geisler~ whether sub,~ect petition slnould have had ;: Varisace aince a'C.U.P. had ao restrictions in the Code governing two-atory easements. Mr. Geisler iaformed the Commisaioa that a Var3aace was not appiicable to eub3ect petitioa; that if the Commiasion wiahed to hold aiagle-story to within one huadred fiftq (150) feet of R-1~ thia ahouid be a condi'tion. The Commisaion noted that the required thirtq-five (35) foot setback Lincoin pvenue frontage was not complied with on the proposed plaas; and discussed the possibility of continuing subject petitioa in order to have reviaed plaas indicate one-storq as welil as a thirty-five (35) foot setbact. Chairman Gauer asked the petitioner whether he would consider continuaace of subject petition in order to revise plans to conform to Code requiremeats of one-story within oae hundred fifty (150) feet of R-1 property and the required thirty-five (35) foot seLbact; to which the architect for the petitioner stated thz.t it would be economically unfeasible to revise plaas aad reduce said motei to siagle storq. Coeamissioner Marcoux offered Resolutioa No. 452~ 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, aeconded bq Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditioaai Use Permit No. 244~ on the bases of findiaga. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMAlIS3IONffitS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungali, Pebiey, Perxy. NQ83: Cd~4+lIS8I0NEltS: None. AB9BNT: C9~AfISSION~tS: Alired~ H~pgood. - ~,) ~J MINUTBS, CIT7t PIANNING COhAdIS3I0N, August 20, 1962, Coatiaued: 1150 RHCIASSIFICATIOAi - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. BVBRHTT J. MARTINB'L. 1135 North West N0. 52-63-2 gtreet, Anaheim, California, Owner; JOHIV D. VON Dffit I~ffiIDB, 924 North ~ciid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; rpquesting that property described as; An irregular pa=eel of laad with a frontage of 259 feet plus or minus, on the west side of West Street and a maximum depth of 497 feet plus or eiaus, th~ son!hesst co:ae~ of said prap~.-ty tsziag 451 :eet ~lus or miaus, north of the north-vest corner of La Palma and West Street, and fruther described as 1135-1145 A..rth West Street, be reciassified from the R-A, RBSIDffiVTIAI. AQtICULTITRAL, 20N8, to R-3~ MU7~IpLB FAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONE, ia erder to construct a multiple fami.ly plaAned uait development. 3ubject petition was continued from tke meetiags of July 9, 1962, Jnly 23, 1962, and August 6~ 1962, in order to permit the Planning Department time to readvertise subject property; for the Planning Departmeat to present a precise plan; and for the petitioner to preseat revised plans.covering all three parcels of property invnleed in subject petition. Mr. John D. Voa Der Heide, agent for the petitioners~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration; and that revised plans had been submitted in accordance with the request made by the Commission; that no plans w~re presently being projected for parcel No. 2, but that the owners of subsect property, Mr, and Mrs, Waltezs, wanted parcel Yo. 2 reclassiiied for futcre protec~ion as K-3 developmeat. The Commissioa discussed at length two-story construction on Parcei No. 3 which was adjacent to R A propertq. Mr. Von Der Heide then agreed that all coastruction would be one-story.^n Paicel No. 3. 77~ HBARTNG WAS CLOSHD. The Commissioa reviewed plot plans and elevations of the proposed developmeat. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. ~153, Series 1962-63, aad moved for its passage .~nd adoption, seconded bq Commiseioner Pebley, to sec~mmend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-2 be approved subject to conditions. (9ee Resolution Book). The eonditions as atated ia tha keaolutioa Book were recited at the meetiag and were found to be a aecessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizeas of the Citp of Anaheim. On roll call the forcgoin~ resolution was pasaed by the foilowing vote; AYB3: COhMISSI~t3: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marc~ux, Muagaii, Pebley, Perrq, NQB3: dOhQlISSIONBRS: None. AB3BNf: COhAtISSIONffit3: Alired, Hapgood. ~ ~ • -- ~ CQd~iDITIONAL USa - CONTINUBD pU9LIC I~ARING. COWAN OIL and RBPINING COMPANY, c% PBRMIT N0. 277 William Reeves, 1015 Bast First Street, Santa pria:, California, Owner; WILLIAM REBVBS, 1015 $ast Pirst Streefi, Santa pna, Cali- fornia~ Agent; rei}aesting permiasion to BSTABLISH A HOPSRAU on property described as; A rectanEular parcel of land 105 feet pius or minus by 400 feet ~ pYus or minus, with 105 feet plus or minus frontage on the east side of Buclid Street, ~ the southwet~t coraer of said property being 100 feet plus or minus, aorth of the north- I east corner of Catherine Drive aad Baclid Street, and further described as 932 North Buclid 3treet, property presentiq classified C-1, NBI(~iH0~RH00D CObAfIiRCIAL, 20N8. Subject petition was continued from the aeeting of Augast 6, 1962, in order that the Planning Department and the legal staff determiae the reasotts for barricade at the end of Psanees Drive being r~moved subjec4 atreet ieadiag into the Alpha Beta Shopping Center. ~ ~ .~ :s MII~UTHS, CITY PIANNING C~SSION, August 20, 1962, Continued: 1151 ~ ~. ` . . ' ~.l ~ ~ . +~ ~' MINUTBS, CITY PIANA]ING CObV~lIS3ION~ August 20, 1962, Contiaued: i,( c ~, .; COIdDITIONAL USB - CQNTINUBD PJBLIC HHARING. GOC[ WOHY JUNG aud CHUN CHUN <~ifAV JUNG, pffitMIT NO. 284 9261 Greenwich 8'treet, Anaheim, California. Ownera; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A RAST!-URANT and COCKTAIL LOUNGB on property described as: A rectaagular parcei of land 80 feet pYus or minus by 285 feet piua or minus, with an 80 foot plus or minus frontage on the east aide of Brookhurst 3tseet, the aoutheast corner of said pxoperty being 595 feet north of the northeast corner of Oraage A'venue and Bsookhurst.Btreet. aad further described as 420 South Srookhurat Street. Property preseatiy clsesified. Cr1~„ I~IGFIDOit~i00D C069~RICAL, ZONB. Sub,ject petition was continued from the meeting of Auguat 6, 1962, in order fio permit tbe petitioaer sufficient 'time to aubmit rGvised plo,t plans. Nx. Chun Jung, the petitioner~ appeared tiefore the Commissioa aad stated•he had aothin~ further to add for the Commiasioa'e consideration. ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~f ( . . _. .r:+.~~- "'~' ::~"_'.~~lgV}~'r , ;~;~u 1, 4Y~ , _ ., R +. : ~. ~... ~ ,i , CONDITIONAL USH - Mr. I.eoaard $mith, 125 South Claudina Street, representative for pHRMIT N0. 277 the petitioaer appeared before the Commissioa ~nd atated tHat he (Contiaued) would lite to hear the recommeadations and findings by the Plann3ng Department and the City Attorneq's Office. pssistant City Attoraey, Joe Geisler, advised the Commiasioa that he had not received informatioa to render a,legai oppiaion oa facts as compiied by the Planning Departmeat. 'r:~~ ~?,oning Coordinator, Martin Rreidt. presented the findiags of the Planning Department "'° ` to the Commisaion, Mr, James W. 3mith, 931 Dresden Street~ A:aaheim, appeared before the Commission and ~ ' stated that he had a petition signed by fel per.soas ia the single family development abu#ting Prances Drive, opposing the ~roposed I?cfbrau; that the proposed use wouid create a traffic hazard by the iacrease of traffic flow through Prancea Drive to sub- ject propertq; that a schooi was located within one-half block of the proposed busi- ness; and that the Commission should consider denial of subject petition. THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission discussed the practicality of a street running through a parking lot of a C-1 shopping area; that the children would lx jeopardized by the increase of traffic flow through this parking area; that the proposed use was indicated to serve food as well a~ liquor; that the plot pians indicated very little space for titchen facilities or an area to prepare food; and that at the hearing oa August 6, 1962~ only one person appeared ia opposition to subject petition. , Mr, James W. Smith, iaformed the Commission that the petitioa of protest was in circulation at the time that the original hearing was scheduled; and that Mrs. Bloomquist was the person appearing at the previous heariag, but she was unable to attend today because of previous commitmen4s. The Commisaion noted thatc accesa to the shopping area would be good for all the people in the single family area abutting the ahopping ceater; that ciosing the stub atreet would be a distinct disadvantage. ' . Commiasioner Perry offered Resolution No. 454, aeries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, secoaded by Commiasioner Mungall~ to grant prtition for Conditional Use Permit No, 277, sub,ject to conditions. (See Resolntiott Soot). On roil call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the follorv9bg vote: AYES: COhA~tI3SI0I~ERS: Camp, Mungali, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: CObMIS3I0NBRS: Chavos, Gn;~er, Marcoux. ~ pBSBNT: CaMMISSI0AIDR5: Alired~ Hapgood. ~.,~: ~ '~`' ~ 4;`.:r ..:~,-_,..~~~;..,. _ _~ ~~ . __ -. ~ ' ;:' ~ ' ~ _ t MINUTBS, CITY PIJINNING CQbAlISSION, August 20, 1962, Continued; 1152 ~ CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Leonazd Smith~ 125 South Clsudiaa Street, repreaentative for P*±RM3T IdQ. 27T the petitianer apgaarar2 be.`ore 4he Cammission and stated tfiat he ~ iContinued) would like to hear the recommeadations and findings by the Plaaning Department and the City Attorneq*s Office. ~~ Assistant City Attorney, Joe Geisler, advised the Commissioa that he had noL received ' informatioxl to render a legal oppinion on facts as compiled by the Planniag Department. ~r „ 2oning Coordiaator~ Martin I{reidt~ presented the findings of the Planning Department >, . _ ~.,~.~~--' - s ~ ~ Li~~t~(,2`D' ~//~ ~~ ~-Fiis~ d~~~~ ~~J~~~iy~tt~L~ZO• 617~7; l " ' ° ~ ~lu~ ° ° G~ ~~ ~a-~e~ c-~~ .~~a.~~x-~y „ , ., . . ~e~ ' c.' ~ ~~~inr~~~~.~~~c.z.`~~~~ c.~~ yZGL ~r~~ ~~2'G~ C~i~1J~ ~~CU ~.~~:E~~iK~ .~~ C.~J-P ~d-'~~Ct.J ~ ,,~~`~ ~ - -n - ~ . . , _ ~LC,~-~.~Le.~...~~ ~.,i.tx~,P~ c..Q~' ~ fi. ~ .I!i.'~v ' , h. ~ ~ "r,' ~' ~- v ~.- - - - ~; ~~~7 ~ . e o ~u.°~ `zr~~'e, 'i C.~L~I.Q.~v ° l~ ;7`•, ~ ~ o x ~~ ~ •w L F~+ ~ ~-~ ~-c-e~ ~c2lr~c.cr ' n/~--~ ~~ J ~"~ V'~ '~~Iti~ ~ e 1..~~~ ./~~ << ~ ~l ~~~~~rP. ~l~cJl.~(/j2) ~ C-.~~~~1..~C~~%~f' .J -;'r}y;~- ~ ~ / ~ ~-'w~C.+ t~-cit.CC.~~ j ~'<t~t `'~ ~ ~ vG~YLG!- ~-ciyc.`~C-c~o L 4m~~ x~ s~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~~~/~9~/~ C ~J ~~ ~ r V '',L}: ~a~'"Y~1/YYI.C.d1~(-~-/'G,~j L~ ,• _ , _ ,J -}~ ~~ .r'~~'x _ /.~~~/~~ :". C~0'Yt-AJ2.-C.. ~ !( _Q.. ~.(iLL,.~C.~C.Q~ ~.L(~ ~~ ~ ei<~r , ,.~. __---....-....~ ._._._..~___....._._..~..___._. . ,,. _ . . _ _ ..._......__,..,. ,'-'• ~ ,.. 'c~YiRiN(i. Cr1.,~w $k:'~."r .~'Ieti,~ ~ex: i:$"s:??i ~$1.~?. .....t~ , , r~'_ ~;t F~ ±;~~,`rd~k't. %txs731:Earn. s p~r:YT~;sC!°i«ri, t..e~.,...'S~ 7.:,~td.±~.~~v.,F7:g. • . .A~ti'!'k: ~. . •a. 6.~T~e.~ „~~kbst:~ ~ceaC i.°t7tX"Se1 ~~; ~..4i ;'kc;;~! 4~~2~ `<i - ,-:' a:;; ~ r~;^.6say~~y~,~.z ~arr.+:!, of' T.ar~d tf0 fr~:t r''~s ~;,.~:,,Sr~ ~it~-. .tr.: .~t, ,;~=~y ~,];cs ~x minus frnx±!:~y:r esr '?~ ..~,x..- 4 : :~ ~.;.fi. ~n ,i p~~r <~f aai;~. pr9pMt't), ~r,it~;+S '':'~~ . z.',-; . .. , ; s ~~:.., . ~.,C ,;c r ~, ~ ~ . - . "'~'1:~D ~ ~'" i, .1.. ~~r , `.:rr.J ..,i.•'~ . . ~+ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ~ h 5;•. ~ ~k.~ : , Q;:; . . . ... ~a. _L. ~~A...p+~~._~..~ft.:i..v~_...::.bA4~~F~'+af.~h,:._.. 7h.2..YIFt~eir~s-.VUZ'4>:...~....1!~...M~l~:.fv>Y~MMW~i.ww.~~.~a.~~..~w..c.....w..,u........~.._........a».~..w....,,.~.~.....~.._ ~.:+.~.~.~.!'nu.irn'YQW Mr. Ch~tn Jung, the petitionex~ appeared beEose the Commission and atated•he had nothing further to add for the Commisaion's coasideration. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, August 20, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USH - The Commission iriquired of the petitioner whether rest rooms were PBRMIT N0, 284 adjaceat to the babquet rooms on the second floor; to which the (Contiaued? petitioaer replied that all reat rooms were on the first floor near t~e ki~cuea. THH HBARING WAS CL05HD. The Commission discussed at length the difference between a cocktaii lounge and a hofbrau. Commiasioner Marcoux offered Resoiution No. 455, 3eries 1962-6s, and moved for its passage aad adoption, ;onded by Cemmissioner Muqgall, to gran.t Petitioa for Coadi- tional Use Permit No. ,4, subject to conditions. (See Resalutic;~ Book). On roll cail the foregoing resoiution wAS passed by the foilowlag vote: AYB3: CObMISSIONffit3: Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux. MuagalY, Pebley~ Perry, C(~AiISSIONBRS: None. AB9ENT: COMAlISSIOI~BRS: Alired~ Hapgood. RHCLA3SIPICATION - 1~IIt. and I~iS, VINCBNT L. BtJLJIS, 2130 West Ball Road, pnaheim, N0. 62-63-15 California, Owaers; WILLIAM N. JOHIdSTON~ 10801 Dale Street, 3tanton, California~ Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectaagular parcei of land with a froatage of 220 feet pius or minus on the south side of Hall Road, and a depth of 440 feet plus or miaus, the northeast coraer of said propertq bein~ 408 feet plus or miaus, weat of the soutb- weat corner of Empire Street aad Bali Road, and further described as 2130 Weat Bail Rcad L~ rec2assified €rom ~he C-1, NBIQiBCRH00D ~iHRiCAL, ZONE to the C-2, GBNHRAL COMMffitCIAL, 20NS, to constract a proposed Ciass "A" hotel. At the meetiag of Auguat 5, 1962 sub,~ect petitioa was voted oajbut for a want of a ma,jor of five of the niae Commissioners, ~voting was heid over to the meeting of Auguat 20, 1962. Zoning Coordinator, Martin Kreidt~ reviewen Minutes of the Meeting of August 6, 1962, on sub,~eat pet:[tioa. Assiatant City Attoraey, Joe Geisler~ recomP•e•aded to the Commissioa that the motion be reoffered and acted upon on sub3ect petition. Gonaiderable discuasioa was heid regarding the reas~as for the Citq Couacil's re£u6al to grant the cocktaii louage, Mr. Geisler advised the Coamisaion that gzantiag of a C-2~ zoae Nes neither aa approval or disapprovai of the propoaed uae; that the Aicoholic Heverage Coatroi Committee did not rule on a zoning petitioa of propertq~ but merely oa the application for the saie of aicoholic beverages; thet any proLe.et regardiag the cloae proximity of schoois aad churches to aub,~ect property wouid bv, coasidered by the.ABC. The Commission also noted that the churches in cloae proximity to sub3ect propertq did not appear before the Commiasioa in oppositioa to sub3ect petitioa. Cammissiomer Perrq offered Resolution No. 456, Series 1962-63~ and moved for its paseage and adoptioa, aecoaded by Commiasioner Pebely~ to recommead to the City Council that Petitioa for Reclassification No. 62-63-15 be approved sab3ect to coaditions. (8ee Resoiution Book). The conditioas as stated in the Fesolution Book were recited at the meetinG and were fouad to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and weifare of citizeas of the City of Anaheim. On roil call the foregoiag reaolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: CObIIdISSIOh'ffitS: Camp~ Gauer~ Mungail, Pebieq Perry. NO83: C(~9~lISSIOdJBR3: Chavos~ Marcoux. A&~!ffi7T: COI~lISSIO1V~tSa Ailred, Hapgood. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:,. MINUTBB, CITY PLANNING COD9dIS3I0N, August 20, 1962, Contiaued: ~ ~ ~;. ~, ~ . r~ : ! ~ ~.j. =. F.; , . . i i K ~ ' ~ ! i . . . ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~; r ~~ = ~ ~~~ . . s ~ - . 1154 ~ VARIANCB N0. 1516 - bUBLIC FffiARING. JOHIi B. HARTLING, 606 Buttoawoed Street, Anaheim, California~ Owner; requesting permission to WAIVH RBAR YARD SHTBACS RHQUIRBMENT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a 59 foot frontaae oa the east side of Buttonwood Street, and a depth of 110 feet pius or minus, on the sc+uthwest corner of said property being 421 feet plus or minus, north of the noriheasi corner of Sycanore ayd Eu~toawoad Streets, and `urther described as 606 Buttoagwood Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONS PAMILY RESIDffi~iTIAL, ZONB. Mr. John H. Bartling, the petitioner, appeared before the Commissi.on aad stated that he had aothing further to add for the Commission's consideratioa. THB HBARING WAS CLOSSD. The Commission inquired of the petitioner what the footage was between the slab and the wall; where upon~ the petitioner advised the Commission he was not sure of the definite or the actual Qeasurem~at from ~he garage to the r.ear praperty line. The Commission informed the petitioner that he would be limited to ten (10) feet from the property line. Commissioner Camp of£er2d Resolution No. A57, Series 1~62-63, aad moved for its passa.ge and adoption, s~conded by Coamissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1516 subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roil call the foregoing sesolutioa was passed by the following vote; AYH3: COhUSISSION~tS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOSS; C0t~4lI83IO1VBRS: None. AB38NT: CQh9~tISSIOi~RS: Allred, Hapgood. VARIANCB N0. 1517 - PUBLIC FIDARING. ~LMBR M. HOPP~ JR.~ 2231 Palmouth Avenue, Aaaheim~ California, Owner; requesting permisaion to WAIVB RBAR YARD SBTBACIC RBQUIRHMIiN~ on property described as: A rectangul,ar parcel of land with a frontage o£ 60 feet om the north side of Falmouth Avenue, and a depth of 100 feet, the southeast co=aer ef said property beiag 425 feet west of the aorthwest corner of Brookhusst 8treet and Palmouth Aveaue, and further described as 2231 Falmouth Aveaue. Property preaently classified R-1, ONH Ai~iILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. There was no one preaent in the Council Chambers to represent the petitioner. Chairman Gauer inquired if ttiere was any opposition to sub,ject petition and rece~ved ao repiy. THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commisaioner Mnngall offered Resolution No. 458, Series 1962-63, and moved for its pasaage :.nd adoption, aeconded by Commissiones Pebley~ to'gsant.Fetition foc . . Variance No. 1517, subject to conditions. (See Resolutioa Book). On roli call the foregoing resointion was passed by the following vote: pyBS; COM~AI3SIOI~RS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marconr Muneall, Pebley, Perry. NQH9: CUhAlI5SIOPIDRS: None. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONTH1tS: Ailred, Hapgood. ~~ ~~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CiI~MISSION~ August 20, 1962~ Continued: PUBLIC FIDARING. VARIANCS N0. 1518 - RONALD TATSUTA, 2807 Puritan P1ace, Anaheim, Califoraia, Ownes; requeating permissioa to WAIVS MINIMUM BIIILDING SBPARATIO~i R~QUIRBI~ffiNT on property descr3bed as: An irregular parcei of land approximately 80 feet by 100 feet, at the northeast coraer of Puritan Place and Rio Vista 3treet, and further deseribed as 2807 Puritaa Place. Pronerty oreseatly ciassified R-1~ 01~ffi PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. Mr. Roaald 3. Tatsuta, the petitioaer appeared before the Commissioa and stated he had nothiag further to add for the Commission•s coasideration. The Commission.inquired of the petitiorier what he planned to do with the propoaed building, to which the petitioner replied the proposed structure would be used for storage purp~ses and a dressing area adjLceat to the awimming pool. The Commission viewed photographa submitted by the petitioaer indicating the amount of masonry construction aiready erected, Commissioner Marcoux offered Reaolution No. 459, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, aeconded by Commissioaer Pebley, to grant Petition for Variance No. 13.18, suSject to co~ditions. (Bee Reaolution Book). Oa roii cail the foregoing resaitttioa was passed by the followiag vote: Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcaux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. VARIANCB N0. 1519 - PUBLIC 1~ARING. LSWIS B. COOPffit~ 735 North Vitte 9treet, Aaaheim, Califoraia, Owuer; requesting permission to WAIVS RBAR YARD SBTBAQC RHQUIRBMIDNT on property described as: A rectangular parcei of land with 60 foot plus or miaus, frontage on the west side of Vine Street, and a depth of 102 feet pius or miaus, the aortheast eorner of said propertq being 300 feet piue or minue, south of the southwest corner of North Street and Vine 3tree;•, an8 further deacribed ea 735 North Vine Street. Propertq preaentlq ciasaified R-1, ONE PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. Mr. Lewia B. Cooper, the petitioaer, appeared before the Commiseion and stated he had nothiag further to say for the Commieaion•s conaideration. Tf~ FIDARING WA3 CL06HD. Comm3saioaer Camp offered Reaoiution No. 460~ Series 1962-63, and :oved for its paseage and adoptioa, seconded bq Commiasioner Perry~ to graat Petition for Variance No. 1519, sub,~ect to conditiona. •(3ee Resolutioa Book). On roil cali the fosegoiag resoiutioa was paeaed by the foliowiag eote: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagaii~ Pebiey~ Pe=ry. CONDITYONAL USE - PUBLIC F~ARING. MAURICS PINTO, 1813 8outh Mancheater~ Anaheim~ PffitMIT N0. 28S Califoraia~ Owner; ROHSRT J. SMITH, 632 ~filde place,,Anaheim, Califorriia, Ageat; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A HOPHRAU on property de8cribed ae: An irregularly sha{ied parcei of iand approxiwstely 56 feet by 340 feet, with a frontage of 56 feet plus or minus, on the east side of Mountain View RoaQ~ and 6~ feet piqs or minu8, on tb~e weat side of Mancheater Avenue, the northweat coraer of sa?~!_property beiug 325 feet south of the soathweat corner of Rateila Aveaue and Moun~ain View Road, aad further deacribed as 1813 "C" 3outh Mattcherster Avenue. Property preSeatiy, cl~assifieii C-1, NHIGHHORHOOD COA9~tCIAL~ Z~B. - , , . , _. , . . ~ .. ~ -- --- f r ---- ~ ~ . ~ ~ hiINUTB3, CITY PI!-NNIFi~ Cai~iISSION, August 20, 19b2, Con~inued: 2156 CO?~ITIONAL U3B - Mr. Robert J. Smith, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before 4he PBRMIT N0. 285 Commission and stated Lhat the last time subject property was (Contiaued) pre~?nted before the Cowmi.asion z:ome misrepresentations were made by Mr. Frant, the owner of the trailer park; ihat Mr. Prank stated +he trait~~s eourt was 60 feet.from sub,ject nrooerty, but by measurement was 276 feet; that the chiidren in the neighborhood only amouated to nine and of the nine, five were temporarilyliviag with graadparents ia the area; that the noise from the proposed hofbrau would be no more than the noise emanatiag from the Preeway; and that the trailer court held dances on Satuzday, and noises from the dances did not interfere with anyone in the neighborhood. Mr. Charles Prank, spokesman for ~the Plantation Mobile Park Residents, appeared before the Commiasion and stated that he wished to olarify his statment made at the hearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 239 re~arding parkiag as being a mis-statement, and t-e wpuld clarify it by statiag that the petitioner might reqnire an area for parking, which would be 60 feet from the mobile park property; that the mobile park abutting subject propertq was the best type of mobi]e park living facilities offered in the City of Anaheim; that the caliber of people residing in the mobile park~ were the type desired for the City of Anaheim; that the main concern of the res:dents of the mobile park was the proposed hofbrau which represented a beer garden which would be located only 180 feet from the bedrooms of resideats of trailers in the area; that one trailer was valued at ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and that the proposed use was incompatible to the trailer park itseif. Miss Nell Brown, Manager of the Plantation Mobile Bstatea, 1835 South Manchester, appeared before the Commission and stated she wished to clarify the so-called dances that were held at the trailer court, by stating that said daaces were held once every two weeks ia the recreational facilities of the trailer area club house; that the ciub house remained opea uatil midaight on those evenings, but generally cloged by 50:00 0'Clock P,M, because residents of the trailer court left t7~e recreational facilities by that time; thati at the time the petitioaer proposed a shopping area adjacent to the trailer court, everyone feit that it wouid up-grade the area and would off.er facilities for them, but when said commerciai facili~ies were coastructed ingresa:~nd egress to the psoperty was virtually eiiminated from the traiier park ,~arEa,, ~.tlc~ the commercial facilitiea did not face oato the t~ailer park as was r eZT: ' ~P o]~,~., . :. Mr.f~M: L. Perry, Orange County Sheriff's Uffice~ appeared before the Commission in oppobition to subject petition and stated he was only objectiag to the operation of the hofbrau in cloae proximitq to sieeping quartera of maay eideriq people; aad that a great deai of noise wouid emsnate at the time customera of tbe hofbrau would be departing at ciosiag houra which was conaiderable after midnight; and that said noise would be ob3ectionable ae we11 as a detriment to the generai heaith of the peopie 13ving in the trailer park area. Mr. Maurice Piato, the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion aad reiterated the basea for refiling for a hofbrau.type tavern; that the propoaed uae wouid not be a haadicap to the neighberir~g mobiie park residence; that he had apent one hundred eighty- five thousand doilars (~185,000.) ott the buildiag area improviag the azea by:`.Lhe. conatruction of said buiiding; that he would aot allow anyone to be noiey or rotii~dy~in the propoaed hofbrau tavern; and that the Commisaion was a body available to protect,the:; iatereat of the City of Anaheim ia which hia investment of property itt refereace`to texea re~i~E'stnted a coasiderabie amouat of moaey in comparison to the traiie= park area.,,,, ..;;.. _ Tf~ H6ARING WAS CLOSSD. The Coamisaion inquired of the petitioner whether he had aa economic eurvey made of the area covered by hia propertq; to which the petitioner atated he had not, but if one was needed he could have made; and that Lhe rentai of the buiiding would be handled by Cal-State for offices ia the building, which were divereified aad deaigned for the coavenience of the area. ~, ,~ _ ~~ _. _ . ....__-- --- - --- „ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1157 MINUTBg, CITY pI~1NNING COf~lISSION, August 20, 1962, Coatinued: CONDITIONAL USB - The Commissiori also noted tHat the txailer park peopie would be pffitMIT N0. 285 the only R-i residents who wouid patroaize the petitioaexs (Coatinued) property; and that they seem to be the ones who were opposed to •~ - ~ the propoaed uae of the property. . Commiasioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 461, Series 1962-63, a~id moved for its passage and adoptioa, §econded by Commissioner Cmnp, to deay Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 285~ ba§ed on findinga. ~3ee Resolution•Book). On roll ca11 the foregoing resoiutio.. was passed by the foliawing vote: pyBS; CONMISSIONHRS: CamP+ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ppg~; COhRd15SI0NffitS: None. AgggNT; COhaIISSI01~ffiRS: Allred, Hapgood. ~ ~ ~ E I CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC FffiARING. CIARBNCB M. MeNSBS, 1752 South Haster Street, pffitMIT N0. 286 Aaaheim~ California~ ,Owuer; A1~1AI~ffiIM MOOSB LODGB 1853, 133} North Los Aiigeles, California, Agent; requesting pexmission to BSTABLISH A'PRAT~'RNAL.LODGB INCLUDING ON-3ALB~OP,~ALCOHOLIC ggVffitpGB$ on property deacribed as: An irregular psrcel of iand bounded on the north- east oa Manchester Avenue, and south bq Katella Aveaue and the freeway proper+.y, and on the wes4 by Haster 3treet, aad further described as 1731 South Manchester Street. 4rogertq presently ciassified R-A, RBSIDENT~L AQtICULTURAL, ZONH. Mr. James Hocos~ representing the Adaheii4 Moose Lodge, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa aad stated that the propoaed use of subject property would be an improvement to the iocation as aow existed. The Commission inquired of the agent for ttne petitiaaer t~hether the large facilities would be open to the pubiic; to which the petitioner replied that the large facilities would be apen to members and their guests only. The agent for the petitioner stated that he was handiing the proposed use with limited funds; tliat a11 he propoaed to do wa's to beauxifq the outaide and iaside in ordar to preseat a presentable place for large meetings ead fuactions; that he had a three- year lease; sad that all signs wouid be removed with onlq oae ideatifyiag said property as the L.O.O.M. ZHg~F~ARING WAS CL06HU. ^ a After coasiderabie discussion was heid bq the Commission regardiag the recommeadations ~ of the Iaterdepartmentsi Committee,•it was aoted that the proposed improvementa were coasiderabiy more than the Mooae Lodge could afford; to whicb the petitioner atated he wouid aot like to go oa record ae approviag anq o£ the propoaed improvemeats for the property ownera; tbat in aii litlihood,if the property owner were required to make aii said improvementa,the iease would be breken for the Mooae aince it represented a coasiderabie iavestm~nt by the property owaer. The Commisaion also noted that the propoaed developmeat of Preewaq property might eacroach oa sub3ect propert~. The Commissioa inqnired of the Planaing Departmeat whether they had definite piaas o£ the route of this proposed deveiopment= and upoa receipt of the information from the Pianniug Dspartment~ the Coam:saion asce=tsiaed that the propoaed Preeway development would not iaterfere with aay of the buildiaga oa aub3ect groperty. Commissioner Yebley offered Reaolutioa No. 462~ Series 1962-63~ aad moved for ita passage aad adoptioa, seconded by ~ommieaioner Perry, to grs,~-t petition for Conditionai Uae Yermit No. 286, aub,~ect to coadi43uns. (See Reaolutioa Boot). Oa roii cali the foregoiag resolutian was passed bq the followii~ vote: pygg; C0~@lISSIO[JBR3: Caap, CL~~os, Gauer~ Mareoux~ Mungail, Pebleq, Perrq. N~3: COR:~IISSIONHR3: Nonc. ~, `~ ,,; ~, pgggl~T; COIYMI98IONIDt9: Aiired. Hepgood. ~ ._. ,` ----------~---r-----------..__._._r_ . - . _ _ - - • . ~ .. .._. `T~=~*_t -..__.. -~J,; ,. ~.: ,.i . , ~ ~_.~~.~ PUBLIC FffiARING. CONIDITIONAL USE - CARL SARCFIDR, 1200 North Harbor, Anaheim, Califoraia, Owner; PffitMIT N0. 287 requesting permission to CON3TRUCP A DRIVB-IN RBSTAURANT AND WAIVB PARRING STALL SIZB on prope=ty described as: A rectangular parcel of land 250 feet by 220 feet at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Romneya Drive, and further described as 1200 North Harbor ~3oulevard, Property presently ciassified C-2, GBNBRpL COI~Al~tCIAL, ZONB, and M-1~ LIGHT MANUPACTURING, ZONH. Mr. Carl garcher, the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothiag further to add for the Commission's coasideration, but that the arch3tect for the proposed drivet-in was ia the Coe:,acil Chamber and would review the plo# plans for the Commission. Mr. Hugh B. Bauer, 109 North Resh Street, architect r"or the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioner had been operating a restaurant in the vicinity of the proposed location for the past seventeen years; that angular parking stalls for the present operation were less than the proposed 9 feet by 19 feet parking spaces;andthathe felt waiver of the 10 feet bq 20 feet Code requirements would not jeopardize automobile parking around the proposed restaurant. THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether air-conditioning would be located on the roof of the proposed building; to which the petitioner replied in the affirmative. CorimxssionPr Caap affered Resolution No. 463, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage aad adoption, secoaded by Commissioaer Marcoux, to grant Petition for Con3itianal Use Permit No. 287, subject to coaditions. (See Resolutioa Book). On xoll call the for.egoisrg resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COhUlISSIONHRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry. NOBS: COI~9~SISSIONHRS: None. ABSBNT: COMMISSION~tS: Alired, Hapgood. CONDITIOlYA3. USl~ - FURLIC HBARING. BCONOMIC SBRVICE INC., D.B.A. WAIKBR OIL ~ PIDtMIT N0. 288 COMpANY,. 1825 East Center Street, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owners; requesting perm~ssion to CON3TRUCT A SBRVIGB STATION on property described as: p rectangular parcel of land 195 feet by 193 feet, at the sauthwest corner ~f Ball Road and Dale Street. Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDENTIAL AQtICULTFJRAL, ZONB. Mr. Neweil Little, representing one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission ~ ~ and stated that the Walker Oil Company was new to Orange County; that ten (10) service statioas were located in Orange County of which three (3) are located in Anaheim; that ~ ' `' the neighboring propertq owners were aot in oppositioa to subject petition; and that ~ ~' he had letters from ad3acent property ownera to this affect. . ~ ~ . , ~ 1~ HBARING WAS CLOSHD. ~ { . The Co~eission noted there r.rae ll0 proteat to the proposed service station; and that the c orner ~ where the proposed service statian was to be ioca~ed was zoned C-1, Neighborhood ~ CommerGial. • ~ Commisaioner pebley o£~ared Rraolution No. 464, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded bp ~ommissioner Mungall, to grant PetiLion for Cond3tioaal Use Permit No. 288, suu,~ect to conditions. (See Resolu4ioa Book), i On roll cali the foregoing reaolutloa was passed by the following vote: AYBS: C01~9~fI3SI0I~lt3: Camp, Cha~•os, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOHS: COAQ:ISSIONBRS: 7.ane. ~ AB9BNT: CQF9~II3SION~4S: Aii:ed, HapC~od. , ; ..; \, ~;; : ...d,.. _ . .. ~--~- ---~::..~-....~_..-_-~-_-.-- ,. ._ _ , ,. '• .' _ . ,P.:.--- --: - . - __. ~ .. . _ ~ ~, ~ f, :; ~' LJ MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COhA~fISSION, August 20, 1962, Continued: 1158 CONDITIONi.L USH -'PUBLI~ F"..,e~V..ING. Fi~RMAN PRBBSB, 2:43 '~te~~ Broe~-way, Anaheim, PHRMIT Np, 289 California, Owner; DAVID W. HOOg, 16(i~ i~•~xi;h Bush 8treet. ~ Santa Ana, Califoraia, Agent; requestia~ permisaion to COZ4 'GRUf.T A pLANNHD 7?ROPHSSIONAL Cffi~Tffit on property deacribed as: /.~1n L-sha~;~d ~:P~cei oi iand with a 213 :aat plus cx r~ians fren*.age o^_ the so~#h side of Lincoln Avenue. and a debth af 627 feet plu~ or ai»us, the northesgt corner of said propertq beiag approxi~~>;c:ly 950 feet, west,, of the southwest coraer of Linco.in Avenue and Huclid 3treet. :ro~erty presea:•iy classified R A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AGRIC~7LTtRiAT,, Z(k`tiT"'. Mr. Da•rid Hook~ agent f~~: ti~n ~+<-~`3.tioner, apgeared befor.^ the Commissiori snd stiated he lu~d bothing f.urther to add i^r the Commission*s consideration, but would be glad #s; ::xawer aay questions. Mr. Thomas 0'lirien, 1789 Brea:wc~od. ?lace, appeared befoxe •~,~.e Commission in ~g,9osition to subject petition, represent:ing a group of residents an Bres;::vood Place, s.nd stated to the Commission that the group was opposed to subject petit:ion because pL:,: pYan3 iadicate3 only the front 2U0 feet of subject property whereas subjec: p~opert~y c~~ver~d 527 fee~t; th:.t the rear of proper:y wae adja.ent to Brentwood Place; th~3'c the Coadicionai Use Permit should cover the entire proper~y; and that 17 of the ~L pro~r.rty owners on F-entwood Place had signed a petition of oppositioa. The Comc~issioa..inquired of the petitioner whether the property immediate:;' ar at soe~e future date. Mr. Hook informed the Commis~3on that future plans ir.5icated a single s,#ory construction type of inedical-p~rafessional office bui.l3ing which would be part n.f a projected compiex of buildings covering professioi~si, fime arts, law, and a.aedicai building; that according to plot plans curren•: construction would co~ver 400 :e°t which would leave 216 feet for future expans.ion. Mr. Pxa:,~ Kimball, 1758 Brcntwood Ylace, appe~reu x•`.'~:~. t5e Co.amis,eion ir. oppc,si~`:~.n to subjec: petition and stafied that the Brentwoo•,. ?:.,~.ce resT.dents ~aould ).ike to see plans for the entire area; ~ea~F two story construction would. objec~tionablu; that th~ Commissi-on ~.:hould limit construction to sa.agle stary with `.andscap:tng to separate the professional offices frca th~a single family residenceson Brentwood Place as weli as Bmbassy StrAei, that t.*.~ proposed use was not objectionable to fihe group, but tha~ deed restr.~ctions sh~uld .Limit construction and uses to professional offices only with dedicaiicn :ights o~.° Bmbassy Street c..°d~ in ordes to prevent acc~ss to Bmbasay Str.eet; a~.~d that drawing+~ and pians shoald b~ snbmitted covering the e~.~tire portion of subject property with futuxe intention3 of constr~+c;ian on said propecty. Mr. Hook i.:, rebuttal, stated that the development of subj~ec~t property wouid be to areate fuus (4) buildings with individi~ality; that the praperty wou7.d be single story conetruction with no more than 14,OQ0 square feet per Luildiu,~; a::d that plot pians for the medical building wouid ~ much more comriP• and would have tn be individually planned te confor.~m to the occupank of each por.tion of the bi:ilding. Assi.stant City Atto=ney J'oe Geisler advised the Commission that the Commissi~~: ~^~wld approve the e.-.tire parcel of propertq a~ith conditions on th~~ rear portion of the property; and t:~~t if any additioa was coa+emplated for the rcar ~artion, thut an oChe= Cor;~titio=~ai r3se P~ermit wouid have ic be filed ~„nd adverts.s::d for puLiic heari~.6. Commissia:~er Gh~vos of£ered Resolution No. 465, Series 1952-63, an.r. moved for its passage ancl a:~~~ption, secondedt by Commissioner Pebley, `to g:.ant r~:tition for Conditiona2 Us~ PezWit n~. 289, aubject to conditinns. CBee Res~lution Book). _, ~ i 4 0 r ! 1 i i ~ ~ k I ' I ~ I I ~ i ~ ,~ i ~ ~ ~ I ~~~ F:: : ` . -. € °' -~' I! _ . ~ G ~; l s` I MINU7.'ES~, CITY PIANNING COI~lISSION, Angust 20, J.962, Coatir.sed: 1160 RBCBS3; Co~;,nissioner Mungall offered a motion to secess the meeting of the P:lanning Commission to reconvene at 7:U0 P.M., seconded by Commissioner Marcoux. MOTION CARRIBD. Meetino adjo: ~d at 5;05 P.M. ~3CON;~Bl~: Chairmaa Gauer reconv°ne the Flanaing Commi.ssion meeting at 7:02 p.M. C;.smissioners A11red and Hapgood were absent. . r J7iL3G iT:!ARIA'G. CONDITIONAL USH - y:GNAL OIL AND GAS COMPANY, 1010 Wilshire Boul.evard, Los Angeles, PffitMIT N0. 29f- :7, Califosnia, Owners; Ted Cruchley, 624 Has~ Svergreen Street, Nonrovia, California~ Agent; requesting permission TO CONSTRUCT AN AUTOMATIC CRR WASH o:t property described as: An irregularly ahaped parcel of laad at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boalevard, ha~ing a frontage of 195 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 180 feet on State Coliege Boulevt~rd. Property presently ciassified C-1, I+~IQiBGRH00D COMMffitCAL, 20Nii and C-3, HBAVY CQMhlHRCIAL, ZQYB. Mr. Ted Cruchley~ agen~: for the petitioner, appeared ~efore the Coouoission and stated that t:.e Qa~itioner intends :o build a moder» structure; that said structure would be 1a.rdscaped and that the property would be black-topped. fhe Commission noted that with the type of busiaess being propo~ed it might be to the peta.tioaers a~vaatctge to have an eight (8) foet wail abu:#ing the property line to the west which would help to elimiAS:~ unsightlisess and racks which might be stored and maintain privacy for tihe residential area abutting subject property to the west. 1HH HBARING WAS CIASHP, Th~~ CG11ID~8830A further d:~scusaed the thirty-five (35) foot setback and black-topping am rue11 as the eight (8) foot wall oa the alley liae of subject propert~~, together with iandscaping along State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue rights-of-way of subject property. Comaiseion.:r Perry offered Resolution No. 46E~. Ser_e3 1862-63, and m~ved for its passarse attd adopt3on, seconded by Com~^.ieaione.: i;amp, to grr.at P~~ition fr: ~onditional iJse Pte~ai~ No. 290, subject to conditions. (See i.aooiut3~n Book). Oa roli caii the foregoing reaolutioa was passed by the fol7~owring t~ote: pYB9: CONMISSIONHRS: Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungi~il, FebS.ey, Perry. NUBS: COMA4I3SI011ffit8: Non~. AS9IINT: COHAlIS,1•IONffitS: Alired, Fiapgood. ~ONDITIONAL U9B - PUBLIC I~ARING. M. H. HULBTT, 701 NorLh Weat idtreet~ Anaheim, P~tMIT N0. 'l91 California~ Owner; reques#inq.p~rsoission to BSTABLISH SALBS AI3D SHRVICS OP MOTQt SCOOTHR.S, EIKBS AND .IAWN MUNSRS on property described as: An irregular parcel, of iand ~vith 138 feet plus or minus, frontage oa the south side of Lincola Av;~sue~ aad aa approximate depth of 250 feet~ the northeast coraer of said being appra:simate..y 88 feet west of the south•- west c~rner of Me:.chester Ave~,~e and Liacoln Avanue, and £~irt:lex described as 1520 West Ltncoln A+:enue. Froperty pres~ntly ciass3fied M-1, LIQ3 MANUPACTURING, ZCmB. Mr. J. W. Cro~ve, 701 Nfneteeath 8treet,, repreaettti,ng the ~etit,aar,~:, a~peared before the Ccmmi.~sion and stated he hAd~ riot~i:[tf~t fusthts to say f~r tfle Comm?~ssion's cor,sider- ation. ~ " ~ -' ~..~ [. k. P ~'.. 4_,.. ;...: ~.:.:: ~'.~. . CONDITIONAL USB - The Commissxon reviewed plot p1aAS on subject petition. PffitMIT N0. 291 (Continued) THH ~ffiARING WAS CLOSBn. The Commission inquired ~: tne representative for the petitioner whether he planned to use the rear portion of subject property for parking purposes and ii the rear prcperty would be cleaned up; to which the representative for the petitioner replied that the building had been vacant and the owner did not know that the area was n'sed ~y other people for storage purposes; that the property would be cieaned up'and that the rear property would be black topped. Upon inquiry by the Commission whether the petitioner pianned to black to.p the entire rear of subject property, the represeatative for the petitioner replied, they planned to black top the area covering six (6) parking stalis; that the building had been empty for two months; and that in osder to continue business the petitioner would have to enhance the business propexty. The Commission noted that the City Council had granted a request for an interim business license to allow the requested use to operate for a period of sixty (60) days pending Commission'and Council actioas oni subject Conditionai Use Permit. Coarmi~sioner Marcoux o~'fered Resolution No. 467, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungali, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 291, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roil call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the foliowing vote: AYE3: COhAlISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebicy, Perry. NOBS : COhA~I I3S I ONHRS : None . AH3HNT: CObA~IISSIONHRS: Ailred, Hapgood. Commissiotter Marcoux left the Council Chambers at 7:20 k.M. stating that as :: ~-uling Bider of the Prestyterian Church of Anaheim he would refrain from discussion of the following petition. CONDITIOII4L USB - PUBLIC FIDARING. PIRST PRHSBYTB?2IAN CHURCH OP ANAF~IM~ 310 West PBRMIT N0. 292 Broadway, Anaheim, Californ~a, Owners; JOHN M. KENT, 560 California Pederal Buildiag, Huclid ~ Cresceat, Anaheim~ Califoraia, Agent; requesting permissioa to CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AIV HXISTING CHURCH, AND WAIVB PARRING RBQUIRBMHNTS on property described as; A T-shaped parcel of land~~vith a 148 foot frontage on the east side of Helena Street, 370 foot frontage ori the south 'side of Broadway, and a 148 foot frontage on the west side of Clementine 3treet. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. Mr. John M. ~eat, ageat for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed buiYding as submitted ia plot plaas to the Commission was needed to provide.adaquate facilities for the present members and for a charch school and feilow- ship facilities; that the present facilities were inadaquate; that the average attendan~cs each Sunday was eieven hundred (1,100) persons for three services; that Sunday ichool atxendaace was about seven hundred (7); that parking faciiities for church members attendance was a problem, because Code requirements as written in the Code today were difficult to abide by with a dow::town church; that present parking facilities for .~embers has proven to be adaquate because the church was located near the ciCy parking lots which were not in use on Sunday, and'that he would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might have. The Comaission inquired of the ageat for the petitioner, whether the church had attempted to acquire property adjacent to the church for parking purposes. ... .~.i... ~'..~~,~. S _r_... .. .r. ~ - ~ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CObAlISSION, AugLSt 20, 2962, Continued: 1161 / ~ ~ l_/ MINUT83, CIT7t PLANNING C~SSION, August ~0, 1962, Continued: 1162 ` C'~TDITIONAL USH - Mr. geat replied that the purchase of property in the dowatown P~RMIT iV~; 292 area specificaliy for parting facilities was too great an expense (Con~.ntied) for the church. The Coetmission informed the petitioner that the Commission and the Council:required suFficieat Qarting s2ace fos a new church and that none ~ra.s be±ng ptovided by the present pet3tioner. Mr. Beat advised the Commis~ioa tliat the proposed facilities were not intended for pro~ected future growth, but for use of the present members oniq. : The.Commis§ion noted that it was up to the Cownissiua to grant a specific v~aiver from psrking Code requirements; that fhe buiidings adjaceat to the caurch were being removed for the new facilities; that the petitioner stated the present use of the - buildings were being used to capacity by the church members; and that they would like ~ to have a ruling by the City Attorney representative regardiag parking requirements for the church. The Commission discc.ssed at length the parking probleos preseated to churches in the downtown area, and F~sked Mr. Geisler whether the Code requiremeat Code Section 18.04.030 could be i.nterpreted to exempt downtown cknrches from this Code parkiag requirements.. ~ ~ ~. ~ , , Mr. Geisler advised the Commission that the Code stated, so long as the existing structure remained the same as it was when the Ordinance was adopted, no parking ~equirements need be provided, but when an addition was added to an exi~ting church the structural change would be affected by Code parking regulatians, but this did not prohiEit the Commission the right to waive what it felt shonld be granted to ;he church in :he matter of parking requirements. Mrs. Anna Pietrok, 512 {;est Chestaut Street, appeared before the Commissioa in opposition to the waiviag of parking requirements of subject petition and stated that, with the many apartments beiag constrt~ction in close proxiaity to subject property that were required to provide off-stseet parking~ she felt that any proposed aew structures to the church should also be ;equired to provide sufficieat off-street parking; that parking in the streets had become increasingly heavy not only oa Sundays but also during :he week; And that she preseated a petition signed by tyrenty- eight (28) people living in close proximity to subject church opposing the waiving of parking requirements of the church. Mrs. B13zabeth Potrin, 307 Weat Hroadway, appeared before the Commission and. stated that she was not oppased to the buiiding of the proposed additioa to the church~ but haviag lived across the street from subject property for 12 years, the parking problem had become almost imposaible with parking even in the driveway of her property; and that gomethiag should be done for adaquate parking facil3ties for attending church members. Mr. ~ent in rebuttal stated that the church did aot eacourage members to violate iaws; fihat said violatioa should be a Police Department problem with tickets beiag issued to violators of any illegal parking. TH8 I~IDARING WA8 CL06SD. After considerable discussion by the Commisaion and Mr. Geisler regardibg waiver of parking requirements as provided under Code regulations, with Mr. Geisier stating that Conditional Uae Permit gave the Commission aad Council a~sthority to grant'any. variation from the Code interpretatioa; aad that these parking requirements were being discussed ia the Attorney's office st the present .::Me. ~ ~ ~ i ;; :1 '; .; e ; 1' f : ..~~:',-'S;:,, %.,~ t . :S. . ~ I ``' ~; ~ ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING C.OMdISSION, August 20, 1962, Continued: CONDITIONAL USH - Commissianer Mungall offered Resolution No. 468, Ser:i^g 1962-63, PBRMIT N0, 292 and moved for irs passage aad adoption, seconded bp C~mmissioner ;Continued) Pebley, to grant Petition for Coaditional Use Permit No. 292, snbject to co;~ditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing r~s4Yution was passed by the iollowiag vote: AYBS: CONAIISSIONHR3: Camp, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebiey~ Perry. NOB3; COMMISSIONBRS: Chavos. ASSBNT: COMMISSIONIItS: Allred~ Hapgood, Marcoux. Commissioner Marcoux returned to the Council Chambers at 8:00 P.M. CONDITI~iAL USB - PUBLIC F~A1tING. ROBHRT WASSHRMAN,:1123~ Kalle Vista, Beverly PBRMIT N0. 293 Hi11s, California, Owner; LLOYD H. MOUNT, 421 Bast Sroadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting petmission to CONSTRUCT A PLANNED-UNIT DSVBLOPMHNT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of la~d with a frontage of 571 feet plus or minus, on the east side of gnott Avenue, and a depth of 612 feet plus or minus~ the northwest corner of said property being 378 feet plus or minus, south of the sdutheast corner of Lincola and a;.nott Avenues. Property presentiq classified C-1, I~ffiIGHBORHOOD CO6MBRCIAL, ZO~VB. Mr. Lloyd B. Mount, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property ~,rds zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial, without deed restrictions which wouid allow the construction of apartmeats ia the area; that he was appearing before the Commission with the requests to construct a planned- garden type apartment unit and requesting a waiver of a rear yard setback requirement; the construction of carports ir. lieu of garages ia order to utilize parking facilities; that two renderings were before the Commissioa, one done by the architect and an other done by the artist to indicate the side waik facilities, recreation facilities and parkiag areas, which was indicated on the second drawinp,; and that the proposed development would be a single story garden-type apastment, which would be a very definit as~et for the.City of Anaheim. The Commission i~iquired whether the petitioner was aware of a stub street to the east of subject property which would have to be dedicated to pass through subject property to facilitate traffic flow from the R-3 development to the east. The petitioner replied 4hat he was u.naware of a stub street existing to the east and that 3evelopment of a stub street through the property would only apply if the tract were being applied to subject property, but that if a two story building were used on subject propeaty and only one buildit;g were erected said stub street would not have to cross over subject property as an access street to ICnott Avenue. ~ Assistant City Attorney, Joe Geisler, stated that the iaterpretation of C-l or Multipie Faa~ily development in a Gi zone wa.s permissible, but i~ two story were ~ _ beiag c~nstructed that the R-3 uses wouid be subject to the conditions of the zone, ; which would be single story construction within a one hundred aad.fiftq (150) feet of R-A, Residential Agricultural property, which was on both the easteriq and westeriy F°' boundaries of subject property. 'r, ~ Mr. Mount stated that subject property would be retained as one parcel of-property ' ? whether it developed as R-3 or C-1. ~ Mr. Myron Meyers, 7973 Beveriq Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, appeared before the Commissioa in opposition to subject petition and stated that he was ~ the attorney, the owners of the property abutting to the north of subject property that• his c2ients were not strictly opposed to the method o£ development~ but if ~ subject development were approved the constructioa of a masonry wall to separate the . ~ c~~ercial shopping.:center from the p;oposed resideatiai development shouid be one ~ - of ~he stipulations and conditions of grantiag a subject petition. ~ e ° .' r°S . TI~ HBARING WAS CL03HD. ~, 4'. ~~ rn . ~~~~/~ . '~~ k~.5 . . . . . . ~ . . . .. . , . . . . .' .. ,'". ~. . - . . . ~ .. . ' . '. . . . ~ - ' .. . . . . ~ . ~, ~ .... _ . . . . . . , . ~ - . . - . . . . .. . .. . . . ~ ~ , G".::1....~ti ~ ~~ E .. ,~ ~ .. " . . . '~~~~ .. m•d. l~l . . ~ -. '..3~~n.t 1}db~'i+i`.'i+ .1 . .. ..: a r a !. -.. 3 - . . •, . . .._ ~ ..r. _.. ~ S . h~} 5.~::' t.4.. I . ~'_' _ . . _ . .. ~f . ~_' . ~ ,: - - % C~VDTIONAI. USB - Zoning Coordinator ~~ b4artin Kreidt ~ gave a brief re'sumc+ of the PffitMIT N0. 293 original tract in question, aamely, Tract No. 3886 showiag the j (Continued) layout of the stub street; that deeds of easements across the R-A I property to the ailey abutting to the south of subject property connecting with Canoga Place was given by the property o~rner ~ separating subject property and the R-3 p=operty to the east. , The Commisaion reviewed the Plaaning Study and renderings in said Plaffiing Study regarding Tract No. 3886. . The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether h. would be willing to extead Del Monte Drive through subject property to Rnott Avenue,building apartcents on the south side of the extended Del Monte Drive, and a planned-unit development to the north of extended Lel Monte Drive which would improve the cizculation element from the existing R-3 to the east to Knott Avenue~ to which the petitioner replied that, this couid be done,but that he did not particularly like two story ssnd would prefer that itremain single story garden-type constraction; that at the time the whole block of subject property and the property to the north was rezoaed to C-1, it was possible that the Commission had considered the extension of Del Monte Drive, but that it was not made a condition of the xezoning of subject property to a zone whicn would allow either commercial or muliiple family dwelliag; that ail the petitioner was asking of the Co~nission was a permit to construct the garden-tqpe apartmeats aad that conditions had not chaaged from the time of the original zoning unti2 the present time. I The Commission inquired of the Zoning Coordinator, the date of the originai reclassification of subject propertyrand was informed. it was originally submitted in 1957; after which the Commission noted that conditions attd ideas had chaaged ~ regarAinz zoning of property; that Del Monte Drive should be considered or required as a dedacated street; that the petitioner should submit revised plans indicating said dedication of stub street through subject property, and plans for the northerly portion of the property for planned-unit development; that possibly the ~~ommission should initiate reclassification of aubject property to R-3; and that the petitioner should meet with the Planning Department for suggestions in revising said plana. Commissioner Yebley offered a motion to reopen the hearing aad continue Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No. 293, to the meetiag of September 5, 1962, in order to permit the petitioaer time to submit revised plans, Commission Chavos secoaded - the rtiotion. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. MORMON CHURCH, 825 South Westchester Drive, PBRMIT N.O. 295 Anaheim, California, and HIROJI and PU3AYI HATANAKA~ 4678 ~ La Pa1ma, Dairyland, Cal3fornia,~Ov,ners; BISHOP HUGH J. S~tHNSBN, 825 South Westchester Drive, Aaaheim, Califoraia, Agent; requeatsng ,,~.rmission to CON3TAUCT A CHURCH BUILDING on property described as: A rectangc].r,c parcel of land with a 201 foot plus or minua frontage on the south side of Orange i~ es~~ue, and a depth of 6S4 f~eet pias or minus, the northwest corner of said propei •,~ being 789 feet, east of the ceuterliae of Hoider Street~ and furthe.r described a,,:3890 Oraitae Avenue. Pruperty presently elassifiea R A, RESIDBNTIAL AQtICUI.NAAi;, ZONS. . Subject rt•~~ues~: was originally filed under Coaditionai Use Permit No. 272, which eovered a;portion of subject property, and Special Use Permit No. 90~ whicli ~overs the xresterl; portioa of subject property; Spesial Use .Permit No. 90 haviag expired becau:se conditions had not been complied with within the required 180 days. Bishop Hugh J. Sorensen, ageat for the petitioaer, appeared before the Cosaisaioa and stated that he had nothing further to say to the Commissioa for their consideration. The Commisaion inquired of Assistant City Attorney, Joe Geisler, whether they should act on Speciax Use Permit No, 90 and Conditionai Use Permit No. 272. . !:-~- + :::, ~ a,~, . ~ ±.~- : E;- - - -.- t ,:~:: "' ~,j - E ,.J MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CObAdISSION, August 20~ 1962, Coatiuued; 1164 ~ i r ~ . . - . . - . ~ ~ .~ - . . ~ - . . .: ~ .. ~ .. ~~. . . :: ~:.. ~ . . • ~ ~ ~ MINUTSS, CITY PIA2iNING C~SION~ August 20, 1962, Continued: r `` 1165 CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Geisler advised the Commission that it would be advantageous pBRMIT N0. 295 to them to disregard both petitions and act on subject petition (Contintxed) only; that upon completion of action on subject petition separate motions should be made for the termination of both petitions filed on separate parcels of subject pro~:erty. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 469, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 295, subject to cottditioas. (See Resolutioa Baok). On roll cali the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COD4(IS3IOIVHRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. NOSS: COI~AIISSIONHRS: None. pB3SNT; COMMISSI01~ffiRS: Allred, Hapgood. SPSCIAL USH - Commissioner Perry offered a motioa to terminate all proceedings pffitMIT Np, 90 on Speciai Use Permit 90, since the 180 day time limitation had expired. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to terminate all proceediags pBRMIT N0, 272 on Conditional Use Permit No. 272, since Conditional Use Yermit No. 295 superseded all action on subject petition. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motzon. MOTION CA1tRIBD. ~ CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. WALTBR B. HAUPTMAN, et al and WILLIAM G. ISAAC, : pffitMIT N0. 296 et a1, 174Z-D 3outh 8uclid Street, Anaheim~ Califosnia, Owners; ~` ROBBRT B. JOHNSON, 1741-D South 8uclid Street, Anaheim, California, ~ Ageat; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A COCRTAIL LOUNGB on ~. ~ property described as:'A rectangular parcel of land with a 350 foot frontage on the ~" south side of Ratella Avenue and a depth of 205 feet, the northeast corner of said ;. property being 135 feet west of the southwest corner of Rateila Avenue and Haster ; 3treet, and further described as 130 West Katella Aveaue. Property presently ciassified R A, RHSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTUAAL, 20NB. Mr. Robert B. Johnson, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing further to say. other than, the building was designed for thP. ~• cocktail lounge and a uew motel; that screens were beii-g manufactured to hide the ~ air-conditioning units oa the property. ~ 1HH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ; The Commission iaquired of.Assistant City Attorney, Joe Geisler, what the difference ~ was regarding subject petition of a cocktail lounge and c,.e previously heard. ~ _ D{r, Geisler stated t`:at whea the original Conditional Use Pe,rmit on a cocktail lounge was heasd by the Counci]ythe only objections were to the close proximity of churches aad schools which would be basically questioned by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; that the Alcoholic Severage Control Board might very possibly consider that specific approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City of Anaheim wouid indicate that the City of Anaheim felt that a cocktail lounge wculd be good in the proposed location under that Conditional Use Permit; and that subject Conditional Use Permit could not be considered in the same catagory as that previously rejected by the Council. ~. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 470, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passa$e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditioaal Use permit No. 296, subject to conditions. (3ee Resolution Book).. ,T : ~; _ -r:.w,~' , _ ~.- ~ Ei . COAIDITIONAL USB - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following PffitMIT N0. 296 vote: (Continued) AYBS: COhMISSI01~tS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley, Perry. NOBS: C~A3ISSIONfiRS: None. AB.cENT: COhU~fI3SI01~RS: A'.lred, Hapgood. CONDITIONAL USE - SLBANOR A. MANION, 1309 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, Cali- PffitMIT N0. 297 fornia, Owner; requestiag permission to CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A NURSBRY SCHOOL on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land with a lU5 foot frontage on the west side of Brookhurst Street, and a depth of 150 feet, the northeast corner of said property being approximate2y 950 feet, sauth of the southwest corner of Baii Road and Brookhurst Street, and further described as 1309 South Brookhurst Street. Property pzesently classified C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMQlIDtCIAL, 20NB. Miss 8leaaor A. Manion, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that off-street parking was not aeeded because employees in the nursery walked to work since they lived in the vicinity of the nursery school; that parking was not allowed in the nursery school area; aad that street widening was provided at the time the property was rezoned to C-1. TH8 I~ARING WAS CIASBD. A letter was read from Mrs. L. B. Crumly, 10172 Hearth Lane, requesting that a masorrry wail be oae of the cou~ditions in graating subject petition to minimize the noise of 50 children proposed for the nursery; and that only a woodea fence now separated subject property from her property. Miss Manion stated that Mrs. Crumly operated a smail aursery school adjoining subject property; that upon completion of the proposed addition, the play area would be separated by a building from the property abutting to the west which'should act as a barrier to any noise emanating from the number of'children in the nursery, Mr. Howard Bates, 10176 Hearth Lane~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he was not opposed to subject petition, and 4hat the noise would be no more objeetionable than usual from a busy street; and that the fence abutting his property was satisfactory. Coc~issioner Perry offered Resolution No. 472, 5eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos~ to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 297, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote: AYB9: COI~lIS3ION~tS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, NOES: COh9~lISSIOdJBRS: None. ' _ AHSHNT: COhAlISSIOIV~tS: Ailred~ Hapgood. Commissioaer Pebley left the Council Chamber at 9:15 p,M. RECIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC I~ARING. MR. and MRS. GSORGH DYSSTRA. Route l, Box 481~ N0. 61-62-114 San Jaciato, California, Owaers; HAUPTMAN-ISAAC, 1741 3outh Buciid Street, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting that property described as; A rectaagular parcel of laad 330 feet plus or minus~ by 610 feet plus or minus, with a frontage of 330 feet plus or minus. on the south side of Ball Road~ the aorthwest coraer of said propertq being 625 f.eet plus or minus, easb of the southeast corner of Holder Street and Ball Road, and further described as 3730 West Bali Road, be reclassified from the R A, RHSIDENTIAL A(3tICULNRAL ZONB, to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL; ZONS, ia order to construct a garden-type apaztment deveiopment on subject property. ~ -. . _ _ . Ir; . .- . -, _._._..~..w , . _ ~.l ,V MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COh4lI3SION, August 20, 1962, Coatinued; 1166 RHCLASSIPICATION - Subjeet petition was filed in conjunctioa with Conditianal Use N0. 61~62-124 • Permit No. 251. CContinued) Mr. R. S. Johnson, ageat for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiseion and s~ated that nearly a year had been spent on revisions and changes in plaas to subject property; that a set of plans had been circuiated a~vong the adjoining progerty or.Te*s ±n the area; tkat veluable ?nformatiea had been gained by the circulation of plaa:, and new plans were then drawn; that he met with owners in the area with the plot nlans as preseuted with subject petition, and received varied opinions regarding subject plans; that nearly 1,000 square feet was projected for a two bedroom apartment; aad that sixty-two (62) units were being proposed for the eatire parcel of Iand with extensive landscaping being projected. Mrs. Thomas Wocker, 1330 Orange Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that she was a resident of the Brentwood Park Tract No. 3501 adjoining subject property; and read a letter of opposition from the Westridge Home Owners Association which indicated granting of subject rezoning would be spot zoning, and in an undesirab'le location since it would encroach on single £amily residentiai development in the area. Mr. Robert Mann, 1215 South Premont Street, appeared before the Commission in oppositioa to subject petition~ and stated the rear of his property was adjacent to subject property and that he opposed the zoning of this particular piece of propertq because it abutted an R-1 zoned tract; that the C~neral Ptan indicates subject property for single family development of low-density homes; that 116 single family homes were erected north of subject property, which were loc~ted in Buena Park; that approximateiy a year ago subject property had been recommended for R-1, under Tract No. 4239; that a Variance had been filed in conjunction with said Tentative Tract Map, but was withdrawn before the City Council could act on the Tentative Tract aad the Variance. Mr. Brock, 1219 Premont Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petitioa and stated tha' Mr. R. B. Johnson, agent for the petitioner, had submitted plans to a group of resi~2nts at his home; that the original pians had been submitted to tkeae also; that in a four and one-half (4~) hour session subject plans were discussed which he felt were not in accordance with R-3 development; that subject property was completelq surrbunded by siagle family homes; that the ailey way directly behind his propertv would be used for a trash truck pickup for the proposed muitiple family deve?.o7mert*.; that traffic conditions on Premont Street were overloaded at present; a-~~c' tha4 the proposed construction of a multiple family uait development would further tax fr~ffic conditions in the area~ because peopie living on streets to the west of Premont Street, use Premoat Street to go to the shopping ceater east of Premont Street. Chairman Gauer asked if any persons in the Council Chambers were in opposition to subject petition, and fifteen (15) persoas stood up in opposition. Mr. James Reel, 1336 Oriole Street, :Ppresenting the fifteen (15) persons in the Couneil Ctiambers, and stated that snbject propertq was completeiy surrounded by tract ;~ome~; that pictures as presented by the petitioner did not represent the true archi:e~ctual feeling;~hat subject petition would discourage further construction of single fsmily homes prior to the construction of Cerritos School; that aubject development would agaia overload the schools; and that homes surrouttding subject . property covered a square foot area of 6,200 to 7,400 square feet as opposed to 1,000 square feet praposed for the two bedroom apartment developmeat. Mr. William Wesley, 1247 Berkley Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that his proper*.y was abuttiag the southwest corner of subject property; that he and h~s neighbor would suffer a great loss in property value, but that he was not opposed to subject development provided that a masonry wall would be constructed surrounding subject prope;ty. ~ Mr. Johnson, in rebuttal, stated that at the meeting held at Mr. Brock's home, at which time renderings were shown to neighboring property owners, he feit that the proposed development had received favorable consideration; that many individual factors on the exterior of the buildings, too numerous to mention, were indicated in great detail on the small renderings; that a twenty-five (25) foot driveway was proposed in the enciosed area; that since numerous children were in the tract development abutting ~ x t»,°; ,_ € ~ . ~___ ~ ,' P'~ ~ .. • ;, ~ ~ ~ ~~~ :.:y~ . . . . ~ . ~. ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ . `~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COIi9dISSION, August 20, 1962, Continued: 1167 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING ~OhAIISSION, August 20, 1962, Continued: 1168 1 RBCIASSIPICATION - subject property, rie would prefer having construction of a aasonry ~ N0. 61-62-114 wall prior to any construction being considered in the proposed (Continued) development which would psevent the children from going over to the building site. ~~ 1H$ HHARING WAS CIASBD. I ~ ' The Commission diseussed the proposed development and subject property in conjunction ~ ~ with the preliminary Generai Pian which projected subject property for low-densitq ~ single family development; and that all property surrounding subject property was dedeloped for single family residences~ . Commissioner Camp stated that he had seen a similar development in Santa Ana as presented by the renderings which would be a desirable R-3 development, but was undesirable for developmei~t in the area•proposed by subject petition, aad that it was ~ an incompatible land use projecting multiple f~mily development in a low-density family development: ~ Commissioner Camp bffered Resolution No. 473, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council t}eat Petition for Reciassification No. 61-62-114 be denied on the bases of findings, (See Resolution Book). On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYB3: COhAtI;iSIONB1tS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungall, Perry. NOE3: COMMI3SIOI~RS: None. AHSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired, Hapgood, Pebley. CONDITIaNAL USE - PUBLIC HBARING. MQt, and NIltS. GBOitGB DYRSTRA, Route 1~ Box 481, PBRMIT N0. 251 San Jacinto, Cal3fornia, Owners; HAUPTMAN-ISAAC, 1741 Sout1~ Huclid 3treet, Anaheim, California~ Agents;.requesting permissioa to CONSTRUCT A PLANN&D-UNIT DBVHLOPMHNT oa proparty described as; A rectangular parcei of land 330 feet. plus or minus, by 610 feet plus or minus with a frontage of 330 feet plus or minus, on the south side of Ball Road, the northwest corner of said property being 625 feet plus or minus, east of the southeast corner of Holder Street and Ball Road~ and further described as 3730 West Ball Road. Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH. Sabject petition was f3.led ia conjunction with Reclassification No. 61-62-114. Mr. R. S. J:,hnson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission*s consideration. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resoiution No. 474, ~~ries 1962-63~ and moved for its passage aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pe:cry~ to deny Petition for Coaditional Use Permit No. 251, based on findings. (3ee.Resolution Book).. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote; AYBS: COhAlISSIONffitS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NQBS: COMMI'6SION~t3: None. ~ ABSBNT: COhM ISSIONBRS: Alired, Hapgood, Pebleq. RBC.BSS: Commissioner Marcoux moved that the meeting recess for ten (1Q) miautes, seconded by Commissioner Camp. Meeting receased at 9:45 P.M. RHCONVENS: Commissioner Gauer reconvene the m~etiaq at 9:55 P.M. Commissioners Allred, Hapgood and Pebley being absent. r!H. .~ .- ~ ~ _ , . , . ~ ,... ~.-_ ~ .-_---- !' .. ~ ~ ~' .* t, ' ~ .'.;: ~,J MII~[JTSS, CITY PIANNING COA4aI83ZON, 9ngisst 20, 1962~ Continv.ed: 1169 RECIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIDARING. DOUBLB 7tIItBB ASSOCIATBS, 92~ Rodeo Road, N0. 62-63-18 Fullertoa, California,'Owners; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of laad with a fzontage of 664 feet plus or minus, oa thE north side of Lincoin Aveaue, and a depth 266 feet plus or minus, the southwest Corner of said property being 640 feet ~lus or minus~ east of the northeast corner of Giibert Street and Liacoln Ave;~ue, be reclassified from R-A, RHSI9BNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH, to the C-1~ PRiIGHB~ltH00D Cd~II~ffitCIAL~ Z^'~, to establish strip commercial stores. Mr. Bud Havenhurst, 905 Harbor Boalevard, Puilerton, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and stated tbat a twenty (20) foot alley would be dedicated to the City of Anaheim if subject petition were approved; and that piaas would be in conformance with the trend to C-1 development in the area. The Commission inquired o fihe pgti.tioner if he planned tc process the Terttative Tract' Map as submitted to which the petitioner replied in the affirmative. TF~ I~ffiARING WAS CIASBD. The Commission viewed the Tentative Tract Map as submitted, and noted that it was not in accordance with the C-1 requirements of 50~, parking space being alotted; that the preliminary General Plan proposed subject property aad abutting property for coimmercial purposes limiting it to business and professional offices only; and that the petitioners request was for retaii sales stores. The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether he pianned to conform with the preliminary General Plun; to which the petitioner replied that he prefered to have only retail sales stores for the proposed development of subject property. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 475, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommead to the City Council that Petitioa for Reclasaification No. 62-63-18 be denied on the bases of findiags. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote: AY85: CQbAlISSIONBR:.: Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Perry. I~OSS: (~4:lIS3IONERS: None. ABSffiVT: COMMISSIOI~ItS: Alired, Hapgood,~Pebley. RHCIASSIPICATION - PRHDRICK C. and JBANNE HqiVARD, 145 South Western Avenue~ N0. 62-63-19 Anaheim, Caiiforaia, and PSt~t M, and HB1TY JO ffi.LIOTT~ 1210 We$t Santa Clara~ Santa Ana, Califoraia~ Owners; requesting that proper3y described as: An L-shaped parcei of iand with a 100 foat plua or minus~fr~antage, on the weat eide of Nleatern Aveaue~ and a depth of 645 feet pius or miaus, the northeast cor~2r of said property being 605 feet plus or minus,'south of the southviest coraer of Lincoin aad Western Avenues, and fu=thes described as 145 3outh Western Aveaue be reclassified from the R-A, RaSIDHNfIAL AGRICULTIJRAL, ZOI~ffi, to the R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZOI~ffi to construct a twentp-three (23) uai4 multiple family developmeat. Mr. Peter M. Blliott, r.epresentiag the owne~a~ aplPeared before the Commisaion and stated that subje'ct propertp was surrounded by F<-3 multiple family zoniag; that aub~ect uae wouid be the oniy normal deveiopmeat of subject property; that two of xhe owners of sub3ect property wouid.reside on the existing resideace; and that he had renderings ~itich he proposed to submit to the Commissioa indica#itlg the propoaed development for aubject property~ and that the Architect was in the Chamber to answer any questions. ~ i ~ i '~_' I ~. ... T ~ . . M I , • . . ~ ~ ~ .. . . ' .. . . - _ - . . . .. ~` ~ . i ~ Q ] ~ W Y . ~ ~ . ~ ~~.,~. MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhA{ISSION, August 20, 1962, Contiaued: 1170 RBCLASSIPICATION - Mrs. Iris M. Gorin, 3134 West Olinda Lane, appeared before the N0. 62-63-19 Commission in opposition to t;ubject petition and read a ietter (Coatinu2d) of opposition to the Commiss+ion which was then submitted for the files, and added that she further petitioned the Commissioa to require single story apartmeats for the proposed developmeat; and that the construction of high-density multiple family of subject property would add to the congestion of the eiementary schooi in the area. THH HBARING WAS CIASBA. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 476, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommead to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-1a be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessa=y prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Ci#y of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: pYBS: COMI~fISSIONffitS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry. NOHS: CONRlISSIONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COh4dISSIONBRS: Allred, Hapgood, Perry. Assistant City Attorney, Joe Geisler, stated that a Conditional Use Permit should have been filed in conjunction with §ubject petition since subject petition consisted of more than ten (10) multiple family units which constituted a planned-unit development; that he felt that the City Council would not act upon subject petition until a Conditional Use Permit had been filed aad acted upon by the Commission. RHCLASSIFICATION - YUBLI~ HBARING. WILSC~N S. NAKAMURA, 2760 West Orange Avenue, N0. 62-63-20 Anaheim, California, Owner; LLOYD H. MOUNT, 421 Bast Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; requss#xng that property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of Dale and Orange Avenues, with an 800 foot froatage on Orange Avenue, and a bS5 foot frontage on Dale Avenue, and further.described as 2760 West Orange Aven~e, be reciassified from the R-A, RSSIDffiVTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIrLB PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, 2~VB to establish a single siory muitiple family residential development. Subject petition was filed :.n conjunctiun with Condi~ional Use Permit No. 294. Mr. Lioyd B. Mount, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission and submitted readerings of the proposed plan for development with copies of both elevation and plot plans; and stated that revisions o;~ the renderings indicated that the number of units were cut down and a recreation area was desi;;ned for the units eliminated; that he didn`t consider it necessarily an R-3 type development, that i~t should be considered R-1~ because ~esquare footage per apartment dwelling was more than that was required of such a development, since each unit consisted of o30 square feet; that the general trend in Southern California as well as in Lhe nation as a whole fa.vored the proposed ~type of dewelopment in order to reduce land use costs; that it was economi~:ally impracticsl to develop land in and around Anaheim for low- density homes because of the high land prices being paid and asked for; that the reason the area in Southern California shoMed more multiple family units being constructed than single family units was because of the aforementioned land use cost; and that developers were t:ying to provide living accommodations for the many people moving into this area which wouid provide housing in the low-medium price range to satisfy people moving into Orange County who plan to ~rork in the industry in the area; that most of Southern Califoraia was like Manhatten Isiand becauae ii was building up so f+~st that prices would never go down; and that low-density deveiopment would be a thing of the past in the very near future. ~', ,i~ E ~`, ;," ~: ' {,.' ~ • :...._.-: • ~,.::• v~ ~ ~ , . ,, , ~. _ ~::t:.: .. .. .. _ . . . .__ _ __..,.. - ti .. : ~ ~ ~ '~z ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <~ ~ MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING C.'Y~AlISSION, August 20, 1962, Continued; 1171 ItHCIA3SIPICATION - Mr. Harold Raab, 2T41 West Orange Avenue, appeared before the N0. 62-63-20 Co~mission in opposition ~to subject petition~ representittg (Continued) siztq-five (65) home orvners adjacent and in close proximity to subject property and stated that subject property was surrouaded by low-density siagle famiiy homes; that the preliminary General Plan indicat2d and proposed subjec* groperty for Sow-density homes; that plot plan.s indicated prinate streets in the development, and he was aurious to know who would maintain these priVate streets; that said streets were substandard in comparisoa to standard primarp and secondarq streets ia the City; that although the agents for the petitioner stated'that lots were sold for $20,000 an acre, this being divided by 4 which was normal family lo1S per acre, would amount to $5,000 plus about $1,600 for miscellaneous improvements would be a far ery from the amount thp petitioner stated, as the basis for high cost of homes ranging from $25,000 to $35,000.00. Mr, Brwin Rodin~ki; 700 South Was~o, appeared before the Commission in oppositioa to sub3ect petition and rsesented a petii,ion signed bq 45 residents of abbuting properties which abutted subject property, and stated that 25 persons were the Council Chambers in opposition to subject petition; said petition stated that if subject property was to be considered rezoned, the reclassification should be to an R-1 zone in keeping with :he surrounding residential community. Mr. Mount, in rebuttal state~ that whenever,R-3 development was proposed for a predominately low-density development; that residents in that vicinity generai opposed such reciassification, but that the area was weli suited for the type of development as proposed since it abutted on streets th~.t carried heavq traffic. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Yerry offered Resolution No. 477, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage aad adoption~ 3ecanded by Commissioner Mungall~ to recommend to the City Council that Petitioa for Reclassification No. 62-63-20 be denied on the bases of findings. (See Reaolution Book). On roll call t.he foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote: AYffi: COhAtIS3I0AffitS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Perry. NOES: COhAfIS3I0NBRS: None. ABSBNT: CQhAlIS3IONffitS: Alired. Hapgood, Pebely. CONDITIONAL U38 - PUBLIC F~iARING. WILSON S. NASAMURA, 2760 Weat Orange Avenue, PffitMIT N0. 294 Anaheim. California, Owner; LLOYD 8, MOUNT, 421 Hast Broadway, Aneheim, California, Agent; reques~ing permisaion to CONSIRUCT A PIANNBD-UNIT EBVBLOPh~NT W1I1?i .'4, TSN (10) POOT RBAR YARD SHT- BAC'S RHQUIRBMENT an property described as: An L-shaped parcei of land at the south- east of Dale and Or+ange Avenuesf with an 800 foot frontage oa Orange Avenue~ and a 65S foot froatage on Dale Avenue~ and further deacribed as 2760 Weat Orange Aveaue. property presentiy classified R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZOI~ffi. Sub3ect petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-2U. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,i ~ , ,: Mr. Llqyd B. Mount, ageat for the petitioner, appeared befure the Commissio~a and stated he aothine further to add for the Commission~s consideration, TFffi FffiARING WAS CI.06~. Commissioner Perry offered Resolutioa No. 498, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded bq Commisa:ioner Meiagail, to deny Petition for Conditionai Use Permit No. 294, on the bases of findings. (See Reaolution Book). Oa roii cail the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYBS: CONA4ISSSONS1tS:. Camp~ Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Fiungaii, Perrq. NOBS: C01~9`[ISSIOIIHRS: None. ABSHNT: COhAiI3SI0NER3: .Alired, Hapgood; Pebiey. Commir,sioner Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 10~41 P. M. , ~. ~ ~ ~: . ~ _.., .e . . ~~Y_:. .. ..,. . . .... . . ._, . ... . , .. .r.. . . ~,': ~:1 C, S,i.~~...~ :n .,. y::a h,..4 . . ... . ~ . ~ 5.,. ~ , _ : ; .------- MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CO~.lSSION, August ~ 1962, Coatinil~,S: 1 ~~ 'e'' 1172 ~ G I RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC FIDARING. J~ P. and IVY B. RYAN, 526 North Bush Stree,t, ~'~ ~ N0.••b2-63-21 Anaheim, Califor~fia. Owners; MANCO DBVBLOPI~NT COMPANY, 160 Gui id La 8 A'artmeat No 1 Anaheim California Agent• i1 i , .~:`. n a n ~ p requeating that'property described ae : A reetangular parcel of land with a 55 foot froatage on tHe west side of Harbor Boulevard, and a depth of i~9'feet plus or minus, the northeast corner of said property being 162 feet plus or p~inus, seuLh af the south~aest corner La Verae Street and Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 841 North Harbor BoulevarcY be reclassified from the R-l, ONH pAMlyy R&SIDHNTIAL, ZONS, to the C-1, I~ffiIGHB~IOOB CaAAfffitCIAL, 20NB to eatablish general office space in an existing residence. Mr. Loran Covingtoa, a~gent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that sabject pr6perty was purchased for the purpose of using it for office space only; that noth€ng would be stored in the buildiag; and trucks wouid not be using the building for delivery purposes or.pickup purposes; and that he would revamp the front of subject property to present a fascia appearance other than a home. Mr. Pred Rush, 902 Jade Way~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he did not oppose the proposed use of subject property, that all property in adjacent to said property needed easily accessible parking area; that when he had obtained permission to convert an abuttiag residence to commercial use, he was required to provide parking facilities, and that he wanted the petitioner to provide a similar parking space for his clientele; thaY the ailey was only 15 feet wide and parkiag of six cars would be simost impossibie if said alley was used~which the petitione•r proposed as parking area. THH FffiARING WAS CLOSHD. The 2oning Coordinator~ Martin Breidt~ informed the Commission that there was no acceas,from the front of subject property to the rear; that four (4) spaces were prbposed off the alley which would require the removal of the fence in the rear to gain access to said spaces; and that there were two (2) spaces abutting an existing driee on the south side of subject property which 'led iato an existiag oae~car g:,rage. The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether he pianned to remove the existing garage; to which the petitioner replied that he hesitated removing said garage; that the petitioner felt that adaquate parking was being provided for the type of busiaess he proposed; and ~at he doubted that all parking as was proposed would be used at one time during the course of business hours. The Commission noted that a fifteea (15) foo4 aileq to the rear of subject property would be somewhat narrow to allow parting of six (6) cars as well as enteriag and leaving said parking spaces; that it was possible that with C-1 zoning subject petitioner's business would increase thus creating a shortage of parking space. The Commissioaer inquired of the petitioner whether he was willing to restxict use of sub3ect property to businesa apd professional use only, which would then reduee the number of spaees required for parking purposes, rather tSan A regular C-1 which required SO% of the lot being reaerved for parking purposes; to which the petitioner replied in the affirmative. Commissioaer Camp offered Resolution No. 479.~3eries 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommead to the City Council that Petition for P.eclassification No. 62-63-21 be approved subject to conditiona. '(aee Reaolution Book). The conditions as atated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were found to be a necessarg'.prerequi9ite to uae of the property in order to preserve the safetq and welfare of the:citi~ena of the City of Anaheim. On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: pyB3; COMMISSIONffitS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungall,`Pebiey, Perry. ~ •~; NOBB: COI~AlISBIOIVBRSi None. ~ r~ j~~'' ' ABSHNT: COU4dISSI01~ffiltS: Alired, Hapgood. ,i' ~r:,,,, ~; _ ~ x-~ _ , : ' .~.i1 ' . ,~ ~ . - .. ~ , ~ . ~ . . ~. ~ .. . ~;: ~ '~,: ~ ~ .. . . , . ~ . . . . . . i ~ : ;~` ~ ~ ~a- _" .'ac.. ~.. .,... r ....... , h''»a,'+? a.._r~...Y c n,..~.....~ t~ . ._.a . , . ,n'1 + . .. ... ..,1_-~ . <<.. ... 1 ..i.... ..... . ~ . . . . . ~ ~ I I ~ _ . ~ ' jP ~:::_~ ' ~i -~ X~ . \J ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~.,.'.~.. ,,~,_.O MINUTBS, CITY PTANNING C~AlISSION, August 20, 1942, Continued; 1173 RBCIA3SIFICATION - PUBLIC F~WtING, HDWARD N.'and MARY ROSE; 2016 Plippen Drive, . N0. 62-63-22 Aaaheim, California~ pivners; requeating that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 134 feet plus or miaas by 65 feet plus or minus, at the northeast coraer of Carnelian 3treet and Ratel~a Aveaue, and fqrther described as 1794 Carnelian Street be reclassified from the R-1, OI~ PAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZQNH to the C-2, 1~ffiIGHB(~tHO~ COhA~!ffitCIAL, 20NB to establish a real estate office and professional offices, Mr. John WhiLe, representiag the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission aad etated that the petitiener aeeded the spece for himself 3a order to function itt his business; that the oalp change woulcl be dressing up the exterior of subject property as it appeared from gatella Avenue; that the trend along gatel•la Aveaue was professional and buainess use; that subjeet property detracted from the subdivision as a.home now existed; that although deed restrictions were on the homes, it would be financially uafeasible to attempt ta obtaia a loan for the construction of a professional type o'i building; that if the propoaed reclassification were granted sub,ject property would preseat att attractive enterance into the subdivision tract to the north; and that no traffic would be pro,jected for Carnelian Street since parking facilities and ingress and egress would be on Batella Avenue. The Comm38siott aoted that•subject property had been up before for consideration by the Commission under aaother rrciasaificatiott; that it had been withdrawn bp the petitioner because one of the Interdepartmental Recommendationa was the requirement of dedicatioa on Katella Avenue, which wouid have required the removal of the existing single family resi- dence;and that with the pro,jected wideniag of Batelia Avenue. the existing home would be encroaching on the projected widened Katella Avenue. Idr. Larry Thomas, 1773 Carnelian Street, appeared before the Commission ia oppoaition to sub3ect petition and stated the existing home was 50 feet• fraa the centerline of Katella Avenue; that with the proposed wideaiag of gateila Aveaue the home wouid be on the right-of-way.l3ne.;,;.that there were 52 offices on gateiia pvenue, 22 of which were vacaat; tbat when sub,ject propertq was previousiy before the Commigaion; a pet~.tion of pro4eat coaLaiaiag`39-signatures from residents in the subdiviaioa tract to the west and north of'~iub,~ect property was filed;. that approximateiy 150 offices were under conatruction; and that he couid see no logScai reason for qsing a aingie fami~y resideace for the type of busineas project bq the petiitioaer with so many pre sed and vacant offices available; that the home was a very charming home aad that he wc,uld like to aee it remain ae a aingie family residence. Mr. White in rebuttal, s!ated thet he fe2! that sub,ject deveiopment was the proper tqpe for aubject property~ because it fronted oa Batelia Aveaue~ a very bueq thorough - fare; aad that he was awa~ of the aixty (60) feet dedication of property whea Katella Aveaue was pr~poded for wideniag, Tfffi F~ARING WAS CL0.4BD. • The Commiasion aoted'that the recommeadation of the 8ngineeriag Department required _ improveaeQte being mad~ inmediateiy and dedicatioa of right-of-way for 1Catella Aveaue ' as one of the stipulations in graating or recommending approval of aub,~ect petitioa. Commiesioner Chavos offesed Aeaolutioa No. 480~ Seriea 1962-63, and moved for ita paa~ sage aad adoption, aeconded by Commisaiotter Mungall to recommead to the City Couacii - that petitioa for Reclasaifieatioa No. 62-63-22 be diaspproved on the bases of findiaga. (See Reaolution 8oot). Ott roll caii tl~e foregoing reaoiution was paeaed bq the followiag vote: AYBS: C01~AlI9SIOI~IDEtS: Camp~ Chavoe, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagail~ Pebley, Perrq. NOB3: COF4tISSI~IBItS: Node. , ABSBNT: COi~1IS3I01~IffitS: Alired, Hapgoo~. ~ ~ ~~~...~r.~ ;~ ~ " . ~..~.J..~ .~_. ~ .. ~'..-~ ..... ..... ::'~I(.. .... .. .., i~. ,..•':~ . , ,7 l,.:. ~~~~~~:.~:}~.41 1.~~:.~~r~ i, s ~ ' 4 ~.~ ~ ~` , \ . ~ ' ~: '! ~ { ' F, CU : ~ Q , ~._ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 20, 1962, Continued: 1174 CONI'INUED ~ PUBLIC FiEARING. AMENDMENf AND ADDITIONS TO TITLE 18~ CHAPTER 18e52 RELATING TO M-1~ LI(~ff MANUFACTURING, AND CHAPTER 18.56 RELATING TO M-2, HEAVY MANUF ZONES. 5ub3ect hearing was conti~ued from the meeting of August 6, 1962 in order that the Planning~Department might complete research on suh3ect.amendment... Planning Director Richard Reese, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the items being amended, some of wliich had been covered in a work session. Mr. Reese also advised the Commission that the Chamber of Commerce and ihe Board of Realtors~had spent a great deal of time in making a study of the problems that were apparent in the Code regulations. Letters were read from both the Chamber of Comanerce and the Board of Realtors approving the preposed amendment and additions to both M-1 and M-2 Zonese Commissioner Camp offared ResoZution Noe 481, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passaae and adoption, seconded by Gommi'ssioner Chavos,to recomiaend to the..City.Council that the proposed changes to Title 18, Chapter 18052 relating to M-1, Light Manufacturing uses be adoptad. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the £oLlowing..vote: AYES: COhaAISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry. NOES~ COMMISSIONERS~ None. ABSENTt CONfMISSIONERSt Allred, Hapgood., ~~ Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 482~ Series 1962-63, and moved•for its.passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry~ to recommend to the City f Council that the proposed changes to Title 18~ Chapter 1856, relating to M-2, Heavy Manufacturing uses be adopted. On ro11 call the foregoing reso3ution was pasaed by the following vo~te~ AYES: COMMISSIONHRS~ Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. F N:IESe COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTt COMlAISSIONERS, Allred~ Hapgood. Coromissioner Pebley offered a motion to directthe C~mmission Secretary to write letters of thanks to the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors thanking them for the effort and time taken by their Industrlal Commi.ttees in assieting the Anaheim Planning Department formulate the amendments snd additions to Title 18, Chapter 18.52 and ~ , 18.56 relating to M-1 and M-2~ Light and Heavy Manufacuring, 2ones. Commisaioner ~ Chavos eecnnded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS ANB - ~,TEM N0. 1. RECOMMENDATIONS Amendment to Resolution No. 410, Serias 1961-62, relating to the - Disneyland Area. Planning Director Richard Raese, appeared before tha Coamiission and reviewed trie pro- poaed change to sub~ect emendlnent, and distributed•copies for the Coromission's use. Comnissioner Camp of#ered a r~otion to adopt the proposed amendment to Resolution ~ No. 410, Commissioneir Pebley eeconded the motiai. MOT.ION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2~ . ,, ~' ; •. , PARKING STANDARDS PROPOSED FOR USE BY THE PLANNING DEPARTA~NT.' !' , ;, ~,,~,;, Plan~aing'Director Richard Reese~ appeared before the Comnaission and informed the, ,~~kP,~~a; Commission that a set of parking standards were compiled ior the Commission's review, r~ , _ { ~`'~~" . . ' - ~ ~ - ~ l ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . . . ~ , . . : ~ . . . .. . . . .. ~ . .. , . . . f, .. . ~ . . .. _ . ... ~ ' ~ . ~ ! ~ . . , . .''. 'N T t ' ~ . ~ ~ . . : ~' ~ ~ i h IdY . ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ . . . . . . . . . (1. '~'~ .°,?~ t~ :' x 'x; ,~~'~ ~~ , ~ ~'; ~~.r-` :, ~.r~ . .~~;, r-..f i ~ -kr+.~ ' ~.~,. ~:Yt.~ H~ >.a~- ~hy.Z`w.~.~. _ ~...., ~ _; f V __;:p,!„d _. _..._ . _ ~_. ~_ .... . ,../~ . .- t ~ ~. .-t, s._. . ~ . _~ _ __-" '-'•~ -' - . ^ ~,A i..j^ :~Y~ , _ _ . ~ ~I ~' ~ . . ~ ~ - ~ . . . ~ ± ~~ ~ . .. ._ ~. .. . ~ . . ~ . . . . . .. . . ~i ... ~ , . • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . _~.r, • :~..~ ~ . . . . . . _..,,:. . . _. ~ . . . ' :.~;~ ~~. ... . . . . . . ' . ' ' ' ' ~ . . '. ~.. ,.. . . . ~:. ~ . :.. . .... . . - - ~..~.~i . . ~ . . ~r~ : ~'~' 4..., ~ , j ~ ~ .. . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . .. , ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . Z17J . ~~ MINU'f~S~ GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 20y 1462~ Continueds . REPORT$ AND - Item•No. 2 (Gontinued) RECOMN~NDATIONS ' which seemed to coincide with the•pro~osed••parking requiraments as . projected at work sessions held-by..~he Coi~pnission. Mr. Reese then ~. submitted the parking layouts.to aach of the Commissieners•fnr the.ir review., .,. ~, rsments and their vari- ~ ~ Tlie Comtnfssion discus'sed ttie various layouts for parkiag rec~ii ~x~~~ ~ . ation to the Co~aission's reCent adop'ted resolutioa-on•}aaxkiri9--s8Q ~ Commissioner Chavos offbred Resolution No. 483; 5erfes No. 1962-63, and moved for its E passagA and,adoption, se~onded by Commissiones Perry,~to r'eco~mend to the City Council ~ that parking standards as represented in the 8x1~3bi~.••A-••1ie• aPPxoy~- p On roll call the foregoing re§olution was passad•by the.fallowing votes AYES: COMMISSIONNERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley~ Perry. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. , ~ ABSENTt COMMISSIONERSr Allred, Hapgood. ITEM N0. 3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 147 - EXTENSION OF TIUI~ ~ FOR CHRISTIAN CENTER CHIIFi~H,. •1341••West La Palma-Aveb ~ A letier requesting an extension of 180 days for-the complet3op of conditions..in the ~ sub3ect petition:wa's read to the Comonission.• Commissioner Mungall, offered a motion to approve extension of .180 days on Conditioal Uee Permit No. 147; seconded by Commissioner-Marcoux. b10Ti0N CARRIE~. ADJOURI~IIEDIT - There`being no further business to transact, Comdnissioner °srry offered a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Camp. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~. ?he me9ting ad3ourned'at 11i25 0'Clock P~ W. ResppctfulTy submitted~ F . . . ' .. . ' . . .. C. .. .. . . . . . . / . ANN KRfiBS, SEC ~Y ' ANAHEIM PLANNING CONQJIISSION ~ ~ , ~ ; . ! ~ _ _ ;~`;;a