Loading...
Minutes-PC 1962/09/05~ ... ~ . ::~- ~~ . .. ~t., gfiGpLAR~'MggTING pp Tl~B ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING COh~lISSION RBGUiAR MBHTING - A Regular Meeting' of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was calied to order by Chairman Gauer at 2;00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRBSHNT ABSHNT FRBSBIVT INVOCATION pLBDGB OP ALLHGIANCB APPROVAL OP MINUT&R - CHAIRMAN: Gauer. COh~IISSIONIDRS: Camp, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley. - COL9dISSIONBR~: Allred, Chavos, Hapgood, Perrq. - 20NING COOR~fNATOiR: Martia Kreidt. ASSISTANT CITY ATTOttI~ffiY: John Dawsoa. COhAlISSION SBCRETARY: Ana grebs. - Reverend Herbert Kiucic, pastor of the 2ioa Lutheran Church gave the invocatioa. - Commi9aioner Pebley led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Fiag. - The Minutes of the meeting of August 20, 1962, were approved with - the following corrections: pafge 1149, third paragraph should be ABSSNT: COihA~IIS3I0I~TffitS: Allred, Hapgood. pa e 1149, fourth paragraph should be PRBSBNT: 20NING COORDINATOdt: artin Rseidt., AS3I3TANT CITY ATTatI~Y: Joe Geisier., COAl~lI3SIQN SHCRSTARY: Ana grebs. Rddition to Page 1152, ead of Conditional Use Permit No. 277: "Commissioner Chavos qualified his vote by stating that the plans as presented indicated the proposed structure to be simply a bar instead of a restaurant and a bar; and that a stub street aa!aely Prances Drive apens into a shoppiag center parkiag area where children wiil be wandering into a parking lot which wili be ' extremely hazardous and that it wili be contrarq to good planning." Chairman Gauer qualified his vi~te by stating that the "hofbrau idea" was just a clasay name for dew:loQing something that he felt the Commission did not waat; that the plan as preseated did not show enough room for a restaurant even a"family restaurant", and his experience from everything he had seen in the City of Anaheim had been that the proposed hofbrau degenerated the area; and that it • represented nothing more than a beer parlor, and in his estimation was not according to the word of "hofb=au". Commissioner Marcoux qualified hie vote by stating that the proposed structure was no4biag more than a"hole in the wall". . - 1176 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • City Hall Anaheim, California September 5, 1962 ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTffi, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, September~5, 1962. Contiaued; CONIDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PU3:'.IC I~ARING. STANDARD OIL OP CALIPORNIA, 605 West pHRMIT N0. 266 Olympic Soulevard~ Los Angeles 54, California, Owners; FOSTBR 8c BLBISffit, 1550 West Washington Boulevard~ Los Angeles 7, California~ Agent; requesting permission to BUILD 1W0 (2) 10 PBBT BY 25 PBBT STBffi. BILLBOARDS on property described as: An irregular parcel of land at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, with a 200 foot frontage on both streets, and further described as 9012 Beach Boulevard. Property presently clasaifSed as C-3, HBAIiY COD4lBRCIAL, ZO~. Subject petition was coatinued from the meeting of ,aly 9, 1962, in order to allow the City Attorney's Office sufficieat time to formulatf the Biilboard Ordinance. Mr. David H. Larson. 1800 McMahon Avenue, Long Beach, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission, and stated that he had nothing further to add for the Commission~s consideration~ but that he was awaiting the ruling of the City Attorney in reference to the proposed Biliboard Ordinance being written for the City of Aaaheim. T1~ffi HHARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission inquired of Assistant City Attorney, Joha Dawson, what progress had been made in drawiag up the Ordinance for signs. Mr. Dawson replied that very little had been completed and little progress had been made in completion of said Ordinance. Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to reopen the bP3ring and continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 266, to the meetiag of October 1, 1962, in order to a11ow the City Attorney's Office additional time to complete the City Ordinaace governing signs. Commissioner Pebleq seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. VARIANCH N0. 1513 - CONTINUBD PUBLIC fIBARING, TBD HVHRBTT BARKBR, 1832 South Mountain View Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; STANLBY L. ROSBN, 318 West Lincoin Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting per- mission t~ (1) CONSTRUCT COMhffiRCIAL AND INDUSZRIAL BUILDING, <2) WAIVB MINIMUM LOT ARBA RBQUIRBMSNT; C3) WAIVB PRONT, RBAR AND SIDB YARD SBTBACR RHQUIRBhffiNTS; oa propertq de- scribed as: A rectangular parcel of land 62 feet, plns or minus, by 357 feet, plus or minus, with a frontage of 62 feet, plus or minus, of the east side of Mouatain View Ave- nue, the northwest corner of said property being 372 feet, plus or minus, south of the southeast corner of Mountain View Avenue and Aatella Avenue, and further described as 1832 South Mountain View Aweaue. Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDENTIAL AQtICULT[TRAL, ZONB. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of August 6, 1962, in order to aliow the petitioner an opporti~~nity to submit revised plot plans. Mr. Stanley L. Rosea, 318 West Lincoln Avenue, Agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated !`?~at revised plans had been submitted; that with the revised plans, parking facilities were more than ample as required by Code for any existing commercial structure; that two <2) more parking spaces were provided; that the probiem of a parcel of iand being Sandlocked would not be too difficult to solve because there was a parking easement being granted to cross propertq to the north of subject property, which would not present any 1ega1 problem; that the fact that only two-thirds (2/3) of subject property was being proposed for use for something that had been dane previously on subject street; that untii the area had been completely developed from the tsansi- tional stage of trailer park property, residential property and manufacturing property~ subject development wouid be in conformance with Code requirements; aad that two (2) additional advantages to the area would be derived by graatiag of subject petition, (1) that a buffer zone would be created between the traiier area to the south and the commercial development to the north, and (2) that it provided the necessary parking area aeeded for the propoaed deveiopment. The Commission noted that the plot plaas did not indicate any elevation on the front of the building; 4hat the Commission could not determine whether or not a box type of building would be erected; that other buiidings adjacent to subject propertq presented favora~ie elevations and wese nice buildings; that the required twenty-five.(25) foot setback was not iadicated an the plot plans;_that'if the proposed development were compieted it would hide the apartment buiiding adjacent to subject property as seen driving from the south; and that parking was provided on both the commercia! and ~.. ' ~ .r ~i.."',.'. ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~-ri:u ~~,-,~:, MINtTTSS, CITY PIANNING CaMMISSION~ September 5, 1962, ~.~::r..t;.uv~~:: 1178 VARIANCB N0. 1513 - the proposed development with th~; h.:.;.~ i ii3 ~.:~s:~s• c~ elimination of (Continued) said parking if the easement were ~~)~+ .-:<:ya~;ate from the lot. The agent for the petitioner informed the Commission that both narcels of ~*ege*ty WQSP ander o!!e o~e*sh;p; a~d the± lega?1y the par:iag eas2~er.t could not be sold separately from the subject property because the easement went along with the sale of subject propertq and not as a separate part of subject propesty; and that a disinterested party such as the City could provide the subject easement as a public easement through the property adjacent to subject property. The Commission asked the petitioner what he intended to do with the existing home on the parcel to the west of subject property, to which the petitioner replied that the owner of subject home wished to remain in the home in that area. THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission continued discussion on the absence of elevations with the petition; that the twenty-five (25) foot setback as required should be complied with; and that they would like to see elevations and plaas before they would consider subject pe#ition. Commissioner Pebiey offered'a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance No. 1513, to the meeting of September 17, 1962, in order to permit the petitioner sufficient time to consult with the planning Department regarding el~vations and plot plans. Cortimissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUHD PUBLIC tffiARING, ROBBRT WASSERMAN, 1123~ Ralle Vista, PBRMIT N0. 293 Beverly Hills, Califarnia, Owner; LLOYD B. MOUNT, 421 Bast Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A PL4NNBD-UNIT DBVHLOPMBNT on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 571 feet, plus or minus, on the east side of Rnott Avenae, and a depth of 612 feet, plus or minus~ the northwest corner of said property being 378 feet plus or minus, south of the southeast corner of Liacoln and Knott Avenues. Property presently ciassified C-1, NEIQiB~tHOpD COhIl~ffiRCIAL, ZONB. •~ Subject petition was contiaued from the meetiag of August 20, 1962, ia erder to permit the petitioaer an opportunity to submit revised plot plans which would include street dedications through sub,ject property. 2oning Coordinator, Martin Rreidt, advised the Commission that the agent for the petitioner requested a two-week continuance in order to develop entirely new plans for subject property. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 293, to the meeting of October 1, 196~; as reguested by the petitioner, and to advise the agent for the petitioner that the hescing was continued uatil October 1~ 1962. ~ommissioner Marcoux seconded the motioa, MOTION CARRIHD. RBVISBD TENTATIVB MAP - SUBDIVIDHR: RINKER DHVELOPMBNT CORPl1RATI0N, 10600 Katel?a OP TRACT N0. 4476 Avenue, Anaheim, California, BNGIAIDBIt: VOORFffiIS-TRINDLB- NELSON, INC., 13794 He.ach Bouievard, Westmittster, Cali- fornia. 3ubject tract is located between Santa Ana River and the Newport Freeway at the northeast corner of the intersection of the Newport Freeway and the Riverside Freeway, and contaias 182 proposed R-1, One Pamily Resi- dentiai, Zone, lots., . Mr. Frank Richardson, representing the appiicant~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothiag further to say, but would he glad to answer any questions the Commission might have. ,.. i ~{ I ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .»,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTB3 I I e ~ ( , C TY PIANN NG CQ~fl~fISSION~ Sept mber 5, 1962, Coatinued: . .. ~'?`.~~~.... _. 1179 ~,~ ` ~ ~ RHVISBD TBNTATIVB MAP - The Commission discussed the possibilitq of projecting for the OP TRACT N0. 44T6 proposed single familq homes a mi.nimum of 1,525 square feet floor (Continued) area; and inquired of the petitioner whether the tract would be drained at the northwest corner of subject tract. The =epresentative for the petitioner advised the Commission that the aubdivider would abide with the Code.requirements as they preseatly stood; that as the plot plans were oniy in tentative form he could not speak for the subdivider if anq major revisions to floor plan requirements were made. Assistant Citq Attoraey, John Dawson, advised the Commission that the Commission could not enforce an Ordinance which was not in effect; that the only Ordinance that could be enforced would 6e 4he Code as it presently e~3sted; and that if the Commission wished to impose any conditions, this would be one of the reasons for appeal to the Council. . The Commission discussed the possibility of tentative approval of the tract map with a change in the Ordinance covering subject property relative to said revision of 1,525 square feet fioor area, instead of 1,225, as the Code presentiq required; that it could possibly be subject to Architectural Control at the time the final tract map was submitted. Mr. Dawson stated that in the event the tract map was approved at the 1,225 square foot floor area requirement, and the proposed Ordinance was passed, that by the time the final map was fiied it would have to be up dated to meet the Code requirements at that time. Commissioner Mungali offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 4476, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, subject to the foliowing conditions; 1. Requiremeat that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted ia tentative form for approval. 2. 3treets "A"~ "P", and "G" shall be sixty-four (64) feet in width, with forty (40) feet between curbs. 3, Dedication of all access rights to "B" Street from Lots 60 and 165, 4. Drainage across "B" Street, a 3eco^_dary Highway, shail be by means of an uader- ground sqstem. 5. ~?---- -__-~-~e~rainage shall be by provisions into the Santa Ana River and with the approval of the Orange Countq Plood Control District and the`Orange County Water District. ~ 6. '7C" 3treet, south of "P" Street,~as conne in to th~e Co~un~j y Street shail be use ~a emp rary access.~;e '~~'~~i¢ ,v1J.~~;"e:~-K .~~,.~ir.Qu ~/-~~ 7. The off-site access road~ the Countq Street shall be wideaed to prov de s twenty- four (24) foot traveiway, with approval of tihe Orange County Road Department. 8. Subject to Architectural~Controi Committee approvai of building plans prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 9. Installation of a median landscaping strip between "Fi" Street and the d+~g service roads; pians for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approvai of the 3uperintendeat of Parkway Maintenance,.and sai laad ca i to be installed prior to Final Buildiag Inspection; and that the ~#~o "B" Street be subject to the approvai of the Bngineering Deparfinent. ~ ~ •. ~ . . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~C _._~n~~,_ .; J~ ~~ ~ _ :. _ ~ ,~ _, 5~~ ~~ ~ . s~rmxa :.k. • . . . ~ . ~ . ~ ' . . ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ -~.~.i ~ .. . . ' ~ ' ~ MINUTffi, CITY PIANNTNG COhAIISSION, September 5~ 1962, Contiaued 1180 . e ( ` ~ RBVI3ED TBNTATIVB MAP - 10. Recordation of the followiag aames for the proposed I OF TRACT N0. 4476 ` streeta as identified oa subject tract map; (Continued) ; c Street Name 3treet Name ~ A: Alderdale Avenue P: Addiugton Drive i. `' ~ 9: Bstayga g,.~oo± . ~: ~".s~n: 3:- ^t ; ' ~ C: Aneta Circle H: Allengrove~Street ~- ~~ ~ D: Ardara Circle J: Abbott Street f 8: Alicia Circle ~ ~ Commissioner Muagall also offered as a finding the following: r E• ; That the applicant be advised with the letter of transmittal of the action which had takea place; that a new Ordinance was being processed with new requirements which f~ wvula tikely affect the applicant; aad that the applicant wonld thus be fully aware ~: ' of these uaw requiremeats. • ~ ~ MOTION CARRIBD. ~ ~ ~ VARIANCS NO. 1520 - PUBLIC I~ffiARING. WARREN L. BLMBLAD, 2459 Level Avenue, Anaheim, , F~ California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVB RBAR YARD SET- i ' BACK R~UIRBMSNT on property described as: An irregular parcei `."of; land with a 60 foot frontage on Level Avenue, 85 feet plus or minus on Liacoln Ave- •` nue, at a depth of 100 feet plus or minuffi, the southwest corner of said property ~ being approximateiq 110 feet east of the northeast corner of Level Place and Levei , Avenue~ and further described as 2459 Level Avenue. Propertq preaeatly classified R-1~ O1~ffi PAMILY RH3IDENTIAL, 20Nffi. I ~ Mr. Warren L. Slmblad, the petitioner appeared before the Commisaion and atated he i s had nothing futher to saq to the Commisaion for their consideration. ~ ~: t Chairman Gaqer iaquired if there was any opposition to subject petitioa, and received ' ~ no anawer. ~ i . ~ '~ 1HB I~ffiARING WA3 CLOSBD. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 484, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its , passage and adoptioa, aeconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petitioa for Variance , No. 1520~ aubject to conditions. (See Reaolution Book), ~ ` On roil call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote; t AYB3: COi~lISSIONBRS: Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Alnngai7., Pebley. NQBS: Cd~M~IISSI0NBR3: None. ~ ABBBNT: C~AlI39IOI~IDRS: Alired, Chavoa, Hapgood, Perry. . ~ : y. .. ~:"_ . VARIANCB N0. 1521 - PUBLIC ~ARING. ARTHUR W. and HDNA H. IItUSH~ 810 •Soutk j ~ . Los Angeles Street, Ana~eim, California, Owaers; I.GFiBN V. CASSY, 801 8outh Los Angeles Street~.Anaheim, Califoraia~ Agent; ~ requeatiag permisaion to ADD A SALBS AND SBRV%CB OP AUTOMOBILBS TO AN HXISTING PACILITY ON ADJACBNT PROPffitTY on propertq described as; A rectangular parcel of land ~ with an 84 foot frontage on the east side of Los Angeles Street, ani a depth of 154 feet~ plus or minus, the aorthwest 'corner of said,property being 126 feet south of the southeast corner of South 8treet and Los Angeiea Street, and further deacr3bed as 810 South Los Angeles 3treet. Propertq presentl.y classified,R-3~ MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ ZONH. • • ~, `< ~ ;;y -; . : ; ~;; t' .i€ . ~a , ,~~ ~ -.~..'.. ' ~"~ ~..--~,,;I.:i r. ,s. _t. :;~. ~ i-_:`:~.. ~i:,~~P,'~.l .Cr. - ~..:... ~ . ~ , _,~..... ,~ . .. . _ . ' . ,.. _ . , 5 4 : .S t .t!`T ~ .., . .. _~;~ ~ '. ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ , .~. ~ . . ~ . ~ .~~ ~: MINOTB3, CITY PIANNING COD4~dISSI0IV~ September 5, 1962, Continued: 1181 ~ ~ ~ F VARIANCB N0. 1521. - Mr. Lawen V. Casey, 801 South Los Angeles Street, agent for the <Continued) petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothing further to add for the Comm.ission's consideration, but that he wouid be glad to answer auy questions the Commissiom might have, ~ The Commission reviewed the piot plans as preaen*.ed with the petition. Chairman Gaues inquired whe#her there was 'any ~pposition to subject petition, and received no aarswer. THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission inquired of the petitioner what type of building was proposed for the rear of the lot; to which the petitioner replie:? that the same tqpe of building as was constructed across the street, namel~, a concrete block type of building wou~G be erected on the future building site. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 485, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp~ to'gf~nt Petition for Variance. No. 1521, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the failowing vote: AYSS: COhA2ISSI0NBRS: Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley. NOB3: COMMISSIONffitS: ~ne. ABSffiVT: COA9~fISSIONHRS Allred, Chavos, Hapgood, Perry. ~: VARIANCB N0. 1522 - PUBLIC fiBAitING. RAYMOND J, YOUNG, 236 Aiorth Normandy, Anaheim, California, Owner; JOHANNA K. HBGEL~ 855 South Placentia Avenae, ~ Anaheim, California; Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A RBAL BSTATB OPFICH on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land 62 feet ~ by 117 feet at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and State College Boulevard, and further described as 504 North State College Boulevard. Property presently E classified R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH. ~. ~ Mrs. Johanna Hegei, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and t staYed that she had nothing furthez to say for the Commission's consideration. ~ _ Mr. Jay Leer, 1349 Puma Avenue, Norwalk, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petitioa and stated that he was not opposed to the use of the property, F but was apposed to the variance as the petition reques,ted; that he represented the ~ dev~loper of Tract No. 1246, adjacent to the north of subject property; that an area ~ of $30,000 homes and above standard apartment buildings was immediately adjacent to subject property; that under a variance subject property would have to be completely ~ enciosed by a masonry wall; that a masonry wall was constructed to the west of the allay to the rear of single family development to separate the single family develop- meat from the proposed commercial development Lo the west; that said wall immediateiy north of subject prbperty then would be separating }his commercial development; and ~ that the use should be zoned under a reclassification, rather than a variance. The Commission noted that the existing house and garage were propos~d to remain, and that this would not conform with the architecture of the proposed shopping center to the north. Mr. Leer stated that plans were oa the drafting boards for the'commercial development to the north; that if a reclassification of sybject property were then granted when ~ any proposed changes in architecture were beiag pianned for subject property, it could ", !,t then be controlied by the Architectural Control Committee of the City so that a !: presentable appearance itt conformity with the iaodern shopping center to the north ;i'~~s would then be required. • . ~; vr _,' ~ ., ~ . ~ , ;68.- ~ "•'Jj t,'~ ~ . p ~ ~ MINUT83, CITY pIANNING COh9dISSION,' September S, 1962~ Continued: 1182 VARIANCB N0. 1522 - Flsa. Hegel informed the Comm3ssion that she was planaing to make (Continued) some chaages to the t~uilding"in accoidance with the changes in the shopping center, but tHat she did not kaow at what stage of development the shopping center was, and therefore, had not' presented aay,to the Commission. Mr. Leer informed the Commission tha~ plans would be completed within sixty (60) daqs of the proposed shoppiag area to the'north of sub3ect property. The Commission noted at a joint meating that,the Cop~mission had with the Citq Council, that sub,ject variance would not lie granted by the Coundl because a land hardship could not be established; and that subject petition should have been filed under a reclassificatioa x+hen t2ie petitioa was originally submitted bq the recorded owner of the property. ' Mss. Hegel informed the Comm;ission that the reason a variance was requested r~ther than the suggested reclassification was because the petitioner did not have eltfficient time and felt that a variance could be a more expedient means for the~use, siace the property was in escrow. Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt~ informed the Commission that the recorded owner was informed at the time he had filed his petitioq that'a petition for variaace was aa incorrect vehicle to establish the required use; and that the petitioner insisted upon filing subject petition; and that the owner was als~ informed that it was the poiicy of the Commiasion to require plaas to be submitted with the pelition, which the petitioner failed to su'omit. ~ THS I~ffiARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 486, Series 1962.-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded bq Commisaioner Pebley~ to deny Petition for Variance No. 1322, on the bases of f3ndiags. (8ae Resolution Book). ~ On roll call the foregoing resoluts.on was passed bq the following yote: AYBS: COMASIS3IO1~EtS: Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mangail, Pebley. N~S: COI~AlISSIONffitS: None. AH3HNT: C0~9~lISSIONffitS: .Alized~ Chavos, Hapgood, Perry. ~~ONDITIONAL U9B - PUBLIC HBARING. 7AND 83TATBS INC., 9101 Brookhurst Street~ Anaheim, PffitMIT N0. 298 California~ Owners; PAANlC CARSON~ 9101 Brookhurat Street, Aaaheim, Caiifornia~ Ageat; requeating permiasioa to have ON-SALB OF HSBR IN RB9TAUItANT on property described as; A rectangular parcel of laad with an 80 foot frontage on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a depth of 150 feet, the ncrtheast corner of said propextq being 190 feet west of the southwest corner of Firookhu~st Street and Lincoln Aveaue, aad further described as 2220 West Lincoln Avenue. Yro¢~rty ~LPROAtly classified r-1, NBIGHB~tH00D COMb~tCIAL, ZONB. Mr. Prank :.ars~.n~ agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nothing further to say, except that the petitioner was forced to request subj~eet use in conjunction with a billiard hall aad restaurant; that no bar or stand-up service would be permitted; and that the sale of beer would oniy be in coajunction witb. the sale of food. • Commis:sioner Pebley inquired of the petitioner whether he ~ad been in to request a permit to o~erate.a family tqpe billiard hall approximately three (3) months ago, to which the petitioner replied that he was in the Council Chamber but did not speak. R~'`- . . ~ ~ ..,.~ . ~ ,.. ,,,.._..w, ,.,. , . _., . : . .. .....,,. . . . : . _ ,. ,. , 1 ~ : . r . r - _ .. _ .,,... ~ ,~ F . .f ~ ' . ~ .• .~ ~ ~~~.~ . . . . ~ . ' ~ . . ~ ~-:;t 5 . . .. . . . ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ !: [~~y~, . ~~ . . ~ ; i ~~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING C01~4iI3SI0N, September 5, 1962, Continued; 1183 , CONDITIONAI, USH - Comaissioner Pc~bleq said that as he recalled he offered the PffitMIT N0. 298 =esolution to approve the.use of the property for a family type . (Continued) billiard hall but that now he felt some remorse in offerin that ~; ~: .. I S ~ -,~ , .'~` , r."+ r g resolution because the petitioner was aow in to request permission to sell beer in what was suppose to have been a family tqpe faciiity; that he wauld not have approved the previous petitioa if he had known that the petitioaer would be in aeveral months later asking for the sale of beer in a familq type sports cettter. Chairman Gauer inquised if there was any opposition to subject petition, and received no response to his reques~. TFIIt HBARING WAS CIASBD. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 487, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seeoaded bq Commissioner Marcoux, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 298, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bq the followi,ng vote: AYB3; COb4~lI3SIONBR3: Camp, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungall. NOB3: CObA1I3SI0NERS: Pebley. AHSENT: COMMIISSIONBRS: Alired, Chavos, Hapgood, Perry. RBCB33 - Commissioner Camp moved to recess the meetiag for tea minutes. Commiasioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION GIRRIBD. The meeting recessed at 3;20 0'Clock P.M. RECONVBI~ - Chairmaa Gauer reconvened the meeting at 3:40 P.M. Commissioners Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, aad Pebley being present. CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. DOUGLAS J, CARUTHBRS and La V9Y PRANCBS CARUTHBRS, PffitMIT N0. 300 520 3outh West Street, Anaheim, California; Ovmers; GLOHAL VAN TII~S, INC., 9100 Bast Garvey Boulevard, South San Gabriel, California, Agent; requestiag permission to CONSTRUCT MAIN OPPICBS OF VAN LII~ffi S, on property described as: A triangularly shaped parcei of land with a 754 foot frontage on the southwest side of the Santa Ana Preeway, and aa appsoximate depth o£ 400 feet, the northerly poiat of the subject property being 30 feet south of an exteasion of the centerline of Baii Road. Propertq presently classified R A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, zor~. Mr. Floyd Parano, Secretary of the Global Van Lines, Inc,, and ageat for the petitioner. appeared before the Commission and stated that members of the staff and management of Global Van Lines were in the Council Chambers to answer questions which might arise; that the proposed development would incorporate all the clerical and exscutive staff of Global Van Lines; that the area being piovided for trucks would'only be used by trucks waitiag ta be loaded sad not ssa warehouse and transfer facilities; that the proposed development would be similar to the types of structures that insurance compaaies had; that the Global Van Lines served and operated in fifty states with one hundred keq areas ovesseas; that four acres was projected as the requirement needed for future growth in oxder to expand the area to 35,000 square feet for a growth within the next 10 to 20 years; that present needs indicated 15,000 square feet for the next 5 years; and that he had several renderinga of proposed plot plaas which he would like to have the Commission review. ~~?s------~- ~ ~g ,,, ~ Y~' . . .~ S~. ..~ , .. .. , --•~---~------ ... ~ .:1.~~. ` :':~ :/. ~'~,' ~ .~~.:~!~~~ Y~ i ~ - p ~ ~ ~. y::~/ 1 i/ MINUTB9, CITY PIANNING CONAtIS3I0N~ September 5, 1962, Continu?d; CONDITIONAL U3H - The.Commission reviewed several plot plaa.~ as submitted by the PBRMIT N0. 300 petitioner. (Continued) Mr. Faraao further stated that another site had been tentatively selected, but several executives of the company felt that the Disneylaad Area would be moze desirable; that the Global Van Lines hoped to construct something which would be symbolic of their name similar to the Capitol Record bailding; that the first exhibit was representative of what they proposed to construct, aithough the second exhibit, which had a more dynamic character and seemed more appropriate~ could not be presented because the plans were only in rough draft and no projected cost had been detexmined by the architect; and that the Commi.ssion represented the last obstacle which they had to overcome, and he hoped for a favorabie ruling. Mr. Parano further explained to the Commission the various factors in the exhibits as presented;aad that they hoped for a sculptured affect to be presented with the final plaas of the proposed structure. The Couimission inquired of Mr. Farano whether the buildiag would be tilted up; that~the plot plans indicated a stress-type of construction. Mr. Parano replied that aone of the plans were completely fiaished of the proposed development; and that approval was aeeded in oraer ~;wt :.*.~i* buiiding plans and the building itself could be completed no later than June 1, 1963, to facilitate moving a; the offices to the new location before the rush season of moving began. Mr. Bdwasd 3chumacher, one of the executives of Global Van Lines, informed the Commission that the trucking as noted on the application form wouid be rather qualified; that trucks would be in the area at one time or another; that it was not proposed to have a terminal or warehouse activity, but would only be used as a facility for waiting or a layover of several days.only; and that the facility would be used primarily for office records and headquarters of£ices for the executive ataff only. Mr. Gordon Scott, an executive of Global Van Lines, informed the Commissioa that all repairs and aervicings on the trucks aad vans would be done at the Pico Rivera atorage ~ facilities. Chairman Gauer noted that the proposed development would be a fine addition to the ~ Commercial Recreafiion Development of the area from the stanclpoint of land use; that the p.lanning Department and the•City Council be encouraged to review any plans if there ~ we:re aay considerable changes to plot plans preaented; and that Bxhibit No. 1, as presented; seemed to be the minimum which could be approved. - Plannind Director Richard Reese, informed the Commission that submission of detaiied ' plans were not needed since Suilding Codes goveraed construction, The Commisaion noted tha: the secoad readeringa of the plan as viewed by the Commisaion ' ~i previousiy v~as a considerable improvement; that the petition coafoxmed substantiallq - with plana as presented; that if a major change were made after the Commission granted - subject petition, said plans should be submitted to the Commission or the Council for review. Commissioner Muagall noted that the petitioner must prove that the use of the land was a specific use needed; and that a findiag should be attached to the resolution which - would give the Council aad the Petitioner a chance to upg=ade the facilities if this would be economicaily feasible. Commissioner Camp noted that the eievations as preaented by the petitioner for the ` approval of denial of~the Commisaion could be approved sub,~ect to chaage; that the Commission was :aware that any elevations presented to the Commisaioa which were then revised for the Councils approval usually turned out to Be other:than.what the Commisaion orig~nallq approved;,that;the petitioners wese:not apec~latora, but were siacere in their desire to coapiq with the City of Anaheim's requirements in development \ ',' - " ~"..,"''" ` . ... .a~.1,'~.9.~ :~:~~.,....iitd .4°.'4.! ._'r1~'" .~.....'~1 Y1; __. n r7~_, .ti+r.~ . 5;'.f'~~~.:i'.'.~.~`7~ .l~'~..r~`~~'d , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,\ ~ ~ ~. i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. : E' i ~ MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CohAlISSION, September 5, 1962, Coatinued: .; ,'~ 1185 CONDITIONAL USB - of the proposed facility which would be economically feasible on PffitMIT N0. 300 the property; and that the petitioners should strive to develop the (Continued) proposed building as nearly as possible to the dynamic character nf the commercial recreation area in which it was located. Commissioaer Camp offered Resolution No. 488, Series 1963-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditioaal Use Permit No. 300~ subject to conditions. (See Aesolution Book). On roll call the foregoiag resolutio: was passed by the following vote: AYRS: COU9~lIS31ONffit3: Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley. NOBS: COMMI33IOIVffitS: None. ABSENT: CQMAtISSIONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Hapgood, Perry, RBCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING, JBS3H g, and CAT.I,IB A. PRUSTT, 311 3outh 8tate` N0. 61-62-120 College Boulevard, Anaheim, California~ Owners; CHpRLFS J, and CLARB DUCOFP, 1430 Vinevale Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestiag that propertp described as: A rectangulaz parcel of land 70 feet by 110 £cet, with a frontage of 70 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, the northeast corner.of said property being approximately 90 feet south of the southwest corner of Broadwaq and State College Boulevard, and further described as 311 gouth State College Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-1, OI~ PAMILY RBSI- DBPiTIAL, ZONH to the C-1~ N,SIQiB0RH00D COM7~iBRCIAL~ ZONB, to establish a real estate office. Subject petition was considered bq the Planning Commission at the meeting of June 25, 1962, at which time the Commission recommended to the Citq Council.approval of t4~e petitioners~request for withdrawal of subject petitioa. Mrs. Ciare Ducoff, agent for the petitiouer, appeared before the Commissioa and stated they were now the purchascrs of subject property; thaf rezoning now was tteceasarq for the agent for the petitioners to conduct .their propoaed use of subject propertq. Chairman Gauer asked if there was any one in opposition to subject, and received no reply. THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commissa.on noted that it was possible they had erred ia their suggestioa to the petitioneLS to withdraw subject petition earlier and to instituYe~proceedings for a variance; that subject property should have been reclassified, since the Councii did not wish to grant a withdrawal on subject petition. Commissioner Mungall noted that sub,~ect petition would create spot zoniag in the area, and seco~emeaded that property to the north of Broadway and iacluding a11 property to the south as far as the ldilk Bar~ should be_reclassified so that spot zoning would not be in affect. Coamissioner Marcoux offered Resolntioa No. 489~ 3eries 1962-63, and moved,for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commiasioner Caap, to recommend to the Citq Council that petition for Reclassificat3on No. 61-62-120, be approved subject to conditiona. (See Resolution Book). The wnditions as atated ia the Resolutioa Book aere recited at the meetiag and were fouad to be a`necessary prerequisite.to the use of. the propertq in order to preserve the safety and welfare of;the citizens of tihe City of Anaheim.. ~. . .. i . ~ - ~ ~~-...-- _ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~- MINUTB3, CITY PIAt~I~tt~iG COMMISSI~i, September 5, 1962, Continued; ~ . :,~ 1186 ~` Commi~sioner Mungall noted in his voting on snb,ject petition that approval of Reclassification No. 61-62-120 would create spot zoaing in the area, and that he was ~`' . opposed to such spot zoning. INITIATION OP - Commissioaer Marcoux offered a motion to have the Planning RBZONING OP PROPBRTY Department initiate proceedinga for public bearing to neclassify property described as; 22.3, 227~ 305, 315, 321, and 327 South 3tate College Bouievard,bobereclassified from R-1, ONH PAMILY R&4IDHNT7AL, ZONB to the C-1~ NBIGHBORHOOD COhU4HRCIAL, ZOi~ ab a.Publie Hear•iag to be held October 1, 1962, by the Planning Commission. Commissioaer~Mnngall seconded the motion. MOTION GIRRIHD. RHCIASSIFICATION - PUSLIC I~ARING, HtTBERT and JAId VH8 WADB, 3512 Orange Avenue, N0. 62-63-23 Anaheim~ California, Owners; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with 80 foot frontage on the south side of Orange Avenue, and a depth of 282 feet* plus or minus, the northeast corner of said property being 400 feet west of the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Knott Avenue, and further desc;~,bed as 3614 Oraage Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A,'RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, Z(~,to the R-3, MULTIPLS PkMILY R&SIDHNTIA.L~ ZONB, to construct a 6 unit apartment hous,e.. Mr. Hubert Wade, the.Qetitioaer, appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothiag further to add for the Commission's.consideration. The Commission reviewed the plot plans and noted that the plot plans indicated a 37.996 coverage with each unit having approximately 1~06? square feet per unit; and that subject property was in close proximitq to other muitiple family developments. Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was any opposition to subject petition, and received no response. TH8 HBARING WAS CL038D. ~ ~:~ ~ ~~i ; :~: ~ .. .. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolutian No. 490, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seco,nded by Commissioaer Camp, to recommend to the City Couacil that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-23, 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 necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to perserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COhAtISSIONHRS: Camp, Gauer, Marcoux,.Mungall, Pebley. NOB3: COI~II33IONBRS: None. ABSBNT: COA9dIS3I0NffitS: Alired, Chavos, Hapgood, Perrp. RBCIASSIPICATION - J. TYSON BLLIS, 5611 Las Lomas~ Long Beach, California, SID SYBRANDY, N0. 62-63-24 18742 Carbon Canyon, Piacentia, Califoraia, Owners; RAYMOND R..RIBAL~ 1424 North Harbor Boulevard~ Fullerton, California, Agent; requeatiag that property described as; A rectanguiar parcel of land with a 183 foot pius or minua frontage an the west side of Euclid Street, and a depth of 100 feet, the southeast corner of said property being 237 feet plus or minus north of the xiorthwest corner of Sallie Lane and Huclid Street, aad further described as 1637-1645 3outh Euclid Street, be seclassified from the R~A, RHSIDBNTLIL AGRICULNRAL~ ZONB to the C-1, I~ffiIGHBat1i00D CONMBRCIAL, ZONB to permit the coatinued use of a real estate office and doctora office. v iis~ RHCLA3SIFICATII~i - Mr. Raymond Ribal, agent for the petitiuner, appeared before the I30. 62-63-24 Commission and stated that Lhe petitioner was present in the (Continued) Council Chambers; that the plot plans as presented weze the intentions of tse petitiober in improviag subject property; that a driveway existed between the two ~uiidiags wi~3ch Fa:e ~xoposed ~' for reclassification with adequate parking facilities in the rear of both buildings; that subject propertq was pr.esently being used under an Orange County Use Vaziance; that the southerly building was being used for a medical office and the northerly building was being used as a real estate office; that improvements of the street were completed on Euciid Street; that property to the south of Sallie Lane was substantially • a commercial zone; that to the north of subjecL• property the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way liae ran as well, as well as the Southern California Hdison 1Yansmisaion line; that 4he purpose for requesting the chang•°~s of the reclassification was that certain changes might be made to the struct~ues, so that they would present an appearance as office buildings rather than residences; and that subject property came into the City of Anaheim on annesation with the present use and has continued at this use up to the present ti~e, with annexation having occur=ed approximatelq four (4) years ago. - The l:~mczission reviewed the plot pians which indicated the proposed changes to subject property. Chairmaa Gauer asked if there was aayone in the Council Chamber oppoaing subject petition, and received no reply. THH HBARING WAS CLOSEn. Commissioner Yebley offered Resolution No. 491, Series i962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Mungali~ to recommend to the Citq Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-24, be approved subject to conditions. (See Fasolution Book). The conditioas as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were found to be a aecessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and weifare of the citi.zeas of the City of Anaheim. On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the f.~liowing vote: AYfiS: CObAlI38IONHRS: Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley. ~ NOB3: C~OI~BtISSIOAIDRS: None. ~ pHSHNT: COb9riISSIONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Hapgood, Perry. RHPORTS AND - ITBM N0. 1: Amendment To Bxisting Parking-Landscaping Zone RBCQt~LMBNDATI0N3 Zoning Coordinator Martin Areidt, reviewed the conditions and needs of an amendment to the existing Parking-Landscaping Zone as presented to the Commission on the field trip. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to set for public Hearing the meetiag of October l, 1962, Ameadment to the Parking-Landscaping Zone of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Commissiones Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ITBM N0. 2: Amendment tn Title 18; Chapter 18.80, Minimum Livable Ploor Space Por.Single Pamily Homes. Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, reviewed £or the Commission the area proposed as the boundary for limitation of minimum livable fioor space being that.area east of State College Bouievard to the City limits present and future, which would incorporate the miaimum livable fioor space of not less than 1,525 square feet. , ~ ~ >;~> ' ~. ~ %~ , ~. ~. ~.a. - _..~ _....___.. ~ ~ ~~ ! ~ , ~ ~` 4 MINUTB9, CITY,pIAIdQING COU4fI33I0N~ Septemtier 5, 1962, Continued; 1188 RBPORT9 AND - Coamis9ioner Marcoux offered a motion to direct the Planning RECOh~IffiVDATION5 Departmeht to insti~ute proceediags for Public Hearing on (Continued) Ameadment to Title l8, Chapter 18.80 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to be heard at a Public meeting September 17, 1962. CO~O1j.9834iiEi Ce~^p eeco^_de~ tL+e motiow. HGTIQ:~ GA.'w I~*?. ITBM N0..3: Planning Study no. 47-122-5 Planning Director Richard Reese, reviewed subject Planning Study f.or the Commission ahd suggrsted that the Commission adopt said Planning Study by Resolution and that a copy,of saitl Resolut3oa be forwarded to the Orange County Planning Commission to sid them in their Land Use Study as projected for the area immediately adjacent to the City Limits o~ Anaheim, covered by Planning Study No. 47-122-5. The Commission 3ecretary upon checking previous minutes, noted that Planniag Study No. 47-122-5 was adopted by a Resolution No. 429, Series 1962-63 at the meeting of Juiy 23~ 1962, and that a~:opy of said Resolution together with Resolution No. 428 ceveriing trie Laad Use Policy of the Commiss:ton for area bounded by Santa Ana River, Bali'Road; State College BOUlevar'd and the Riverside T+reeway, and Resolutioa No. 430 covering Commissio~ Policq:regarding Service Stations~ had beea forwarded to the Orange: Coynty. piarining l'.O~61S1910A oa July 25, 1962. ADJ~N~ - There being no further busiaess to discuss, Commissioner Pebiep mo~red Co ad,journ the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Mungail. MOrPION CARRIBD. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 O'Clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, V ANN RRBBS, Se retary Anaheim Yianning Commission ~~ . P ,.:. f . ': . •,ii.~ i_.T... " -~'."~ ~[4~._. ..~M1.i. . r- . ....