Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/04/15I ' ~ ~~' ~ '~ ; r City Hall ~ Anaheim, California April 15, 1963 ; REGULAR MEETING OF TIiE ANAt~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR Iu~ETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being presento PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungalla COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Sides. ABSENT - COMMISSIOIJERSs Craig, Perry. PRESENT - 20NING COORDINATOR: Martin Kreidt. DEPUTY CTTY ATTORNEY: Furman Roberts. PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY: Ann Krebs. INVOCATION - Reverend Murray Lo Morford, Pastor of the First Nazarene Church, gave the Invocatione PLEDGE OF - Chairman Mungall led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flage ALIEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of March 18, 1963 were approved with ihe THE MINUTES following corrections Pa9e 1450, after paragraph nine the following should be inserteds Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 3s30 pem. Minutes of the meeting of Aprii 1, 1963 were approved with the following corrections: P;gE 1486, Paragraph two,should reads Commissioner Pebley in offering the foregoing resolution stated that the proposed development would be an asset to the City and would be a compatible use although it was located between two single family sub- divisions and because of the quality of the homes in the tract abutting the west side of sub~ect property, and located in the City of Orange, that commercial and multiple family had been established to the east of sub3ect property, that the southerly por- tion of sub3ect property was ad~acent to the Newport and Riverside Freeway interchange; and th4t the northerly portion abuts onto the Santa Ana Rivero Paragraph fi.vQ, line two, should reads be in ~~i^F.ation of sound planniny by the ^ location of the multiple family developmento.e~subdivisionso Page 1495, Paragraph four~shculd read: Commissioner Chavos stated that to his know- ledge the Commission had not approved any zoning application with the submission of precise plans; that cheap housingoo<oplans. REQUEST TO - Mre Frank Beck, 1424 Laster Street, appea~ed before the Commission RESCHEDULE and requested that sub~ect pet;tions be continued from the after- RECLASSIFICATION noon session to the evening session for public hearing, basing NOo 62-63-98 and his reason on the fact that the neighbors wished to personally COImITIONAL USE appear to oppose subject petitions and to allow their legal PERMIT NOo 403 representative to be present to state their reasons for oppositiona - 1507 - i; 1 ! .. .- _...-- _-__ r----_~ r:..._~__..~__-____.___;_; _._..._.r._..__...._..__.~.....- ~ i ~ __ . .. _ _ ' ; • ? i • . ,. ..i . ~ ~'. MINUTES, CITY pLANNING COMMISSION, April 15, 1963, Coni:inueds ~ 1508 QUEST TO - Chairman Mungall stated that all that was needed was a'peti- SCF~DULE tion signed by the residen~s and three spokesmen to present CLASSIFICATION the opposition's positiono e 62-63-98 and bIDITIONAL USE By voice vote the Commission ruled to hear sub3ect petition as RMIT NOa 403 it was scheduled on the agenda and as it had been advertised (Continued) legally., and because the petitioner and/or his representative were not present to defend theix petition. CLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC I-~qRING. EMPIRE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, e 62-63-64 6750 ilan Nuys Eoulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; property descrihed asz Two rectangular portions of land, Portion "A" tmITIONAL USE having a frontage of 333 feet on the south side of Lincoln RMIT NOo 357 Avenue, and a depth of 255 feet; Portion "B" having a width of and 333 feet and a depth of 1,019 feet, the northerly boundary of NTATIVE MAP OF Portion "B" being ad~acent to the southerly boundary of Portion ACT NOa 4230 "A"; and the easterly boundary of Portions "A" and "B" being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boule- vardo Froperty presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL- TURAL, ZONE. b~ect petitions and Tentative Map of Tract Nqo 4230 were continued from the meetings February 4, 18, and March 18, 1963, et the request of the petitioner. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE for Portion "A", and R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE for Portion "B"o REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY PLANNED MULTIPIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPN~NT AAID WAIVER OF TF~ SINGIE STORY HEIGNf LIMITATION for Portion "B". SUBJECT TRACT CONTAINS: Thirty-three (33) proposed R-3, MULTIPIE FAMILY P.ESI- DENTIAL, and one (1) proposed C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONE lots. ning Coordinai:or Martin Kreidt read a letter from the owners of svbject property questing an additional two weeks continuance, in order that sub3ec# petitions ght be heard in con3unction with a petition for reclassification and a tentative act map for property ad~acent to the east of sub3ect property. mmissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reciassification 0 62-63-64,Conditional Use Permit No. 357, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230 the meeting of April 29, 1963, at the request of the petitioner in order to ar sub3ect petitions and tentative tract map in con3unction with petitions filed r the prcperty easterly of subject property. Commissioner Allred seconded the tione MOTION CARRIED: • • MATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: J& C DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 2127 Ball Road, Suite "B", ACT NOo 5114 Anaheim, California; ENGIIVEER: Hal Raab Surveying Company, 10566 Magnolia Avenue, Suite "110", Anaheim, Californiao Sub3ect tract, located on the east side of Webster Avenue, appoximately 0 feet south of Orange Avenue, and contains nine (9) R-1, One Family Residential, ne lotso ning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission s~ab~ect tract and noted at at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting the developer had been inforrned that ~me of the proposed lots did not conform with Code requirements, that the developer ked tha•~ sub3ect tract be continued so that it might be cons3dered in con~unction th a Variance he would file immediately, and that said variance was scheduled for iblic hearing on April 29, 1963. ~mmissioner Camp offered a motion to continued Tentative Map of ie meeting of April 29, 1963, in order that it might be heard in variance being heard on that dateo Commissioner Sides seconded ,RRIED. ~g _...._._._.._.----~~ ---_~'W , 1 Tract No. 5114 to can3unction with the motiona MOTION _ ._...._... ._ . -- ~ / ~S[: ~ ~i I I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 15, 1963, Continueds 1509 COtm ITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC I~ARING ::,ANK W. SACKETT, Owner; c~o L-G-S PERMIT N0. 387 Corposat3an, 2120 South Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Lessee; CHARLES G. SCHIEGEL, 433 West Eighth Street, Santa Ana, Cal?forrtia, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A SERVICE STATIOM APID A DRIVE-IN or WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 200 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, a frontage of 228 feet on tlie ~or•th Side of Wilshire Avenue, and an average depth of 500 feet, plus or minus, the easterly boundary of saia property being approximately 485 feet west of Carleton Avenue. Property present~y classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. • A letter was read to the Commission from Htr. Chaxles Schlegel, attorney representing the petitioner, said letter stated t6at plan& incorporating usage of the entire par- cel of sub3ect property had not been completed ancJ requested an additional two weeks in which to submft completed revised planse Commissioner Sides offered~a motion to continue Petition for Condi~ional Use Permit No. 387, to the meeting of Apxil 29, 19b3,..in o~c~er to permit the petitioner suffi- cient time to submit revised planso Cqmmissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. COPID TTIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC 1-IEARING. CHARLIP. N. and MAE P. BROCK, PERMIi N0. 381 3133 Orange Avenue, and MINORU and MATSUE SHIOTA, 3139 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; CARL BELVEDERE, BEMA IMlEST1V~NT COMPANY, INC., 2101 West Edinger, Santa Ana, Cali- fornia, Agent; requesting psr~ission to CONSTRUCT A SINGLE STORY PLANNED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH CARPORTS A6ID OPEN PARKING - WAIVE FRONT YARD AIVD PARKING REQUIREN~NTS on property descx~bed as: Two irregular parcels of land located on the northeast corner of Orange and Western Avenuese PARCEL N0. 1 having a frontage of 240 feet on the east side of W~stern Avenue, and 320 feet on the north side of the Carbon Creek Fload Control Channele PARCEL N0. 2 having a frontage of 500 feet on the north side .af the Carbon Creek Flood Control Channel, and an appoxi- mate depth of 300 feet, the westerly boundary of Parcel Noe 2 being ad~acent to the easterly boundary of Parcel Noe 1, and further described as 3133 and 3139 Orange Avenuee Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZOPTE. A letter was read to the Commission from the agent for the petitionexs, in which a two weeks° continuance was requested in order to complete development planso Mr. Donald Dodge, real estate agent for sub~ect property appeared before the Commission and stated that the requests were necessary in order to afford the petitioners suffi- cient tirne to complete a tentative tract map for subdivision of sub3ect property, and that the entire package of plans would be submitted to the Planning Department by April 17, 1963e The Commission then advised N[r. Dodge that the Planning Department and the Interdepart- mental Committee must review any tentative tract map before being eubmitted to the Commission, and that the Commission required complete development plans in order to render any decisione " Commissioner Sides offered a motion to continue Petition for Cohditional Use Permit Noa 381, to the meeting of April 29, 1963, in order to allow the petitioners suffi- cient time to suhm~it complete planso Commissioner Pebley seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. i ' ~ i I ~ i ~, .. ...__. __ ._ _ - -. -~ . ~~~ ~ _ ._ ___ . ; -~ ~ ,. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,.April 15;-1943; Continu~ds 1510 COPIDITIONAL USE - CONTINfJED PU$LIC E~ARING. CALARK• CORPORATION~ 10502 West PERMTT N0. 395 Katella Avenue, Anahelm, California, Owner; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONSISIING OF FIVE (5) SINGIE FAMILY DWELLINGS on property described asa An irregular L-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 90 feet on the west side of Western Avenue, approximately 13~ feet north of Stoneybrook Drive, said property being 310 feet, plus or minus in depth, and als0 having a frontage of 49 feet on the north side of Stoneybrook Drive, approximat~ly 285 feet west of Western Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of March 18 and April 1, 1963, to provide the petitioner an op~o.tunity to con~act the abutting property owner to the south and the Planning Dep~rtment in the preparation of revised plans. Mro Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner appQared before the Commission and stated that he had contacted the ad~oining property owner and had been advised that he had no intention of selling the property, since it was purchased with the intent of living with his family on the.property; tha~ it was proposed to keep sub~ect property under one ownership, therefore no subdivision map was necessary, and that no parcel could be sold hecause a private drive was proposed to the homes. The Commission reviewed the reasons fox use of the 6,OOu square foot lot area in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone noting,that ttiis zone was a transitional zone for cities who had not provided zoning for any otheF type of development. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed for the Cotnmission the back9round of the discussion for the filing of a subdivisi,on map,.with.the City Attorney noting that if sub~ect petition were approved without the~.fi~ing of a subidivision map, this would constitute a violatiori of the State Subdiv3sion,Map Act since the petitioner proposed five (5) homes on a parcel o~ lande The Commission determined through questioning the Deputy City Attorney that the requirement of a sub8ivision map being filed would reduce the number of dwelling units because a 60 foot dedicated street would be required, that the proposed development would abut onto an existing public street, and that the proposed pri- vate street Nould amount to a common easement which would not be the stendard required by the Cityo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt noted for the Commission ~nat the proposed develop- ment would have a twenty-five ~25) foot yard of paving, ~hat this type of development would not be encouraging a proper living environment as presently existed to the south and west of subject property, and that the density proposed would be considerably higher than that presently existing on properties adJacent to sub~ect propertya Mr. Knisely asked that the Commission take some action on sub~ect petition and stated that if the development of subject property were in violation of the State Subdivision Map Act, he would later file the map, since he did not want to be in violation of the law. Chairman Mungall inquired whether therf; was any additional oppos3tion to sub~ect petition, and received no replye TFiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the compatibility of the proposed development noting that it was iri excess of the requirement for apartment.se~tt~i3t ~rq,shap@sqf the subject~property made:deyelppale~~,rath~x„~if£icu~t,::that the property~ owner of the parcel to the ~outh and east had not appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition, and that the plans as presented would be an asset to the area, since the proposed development would have a masonry wall on the north, south, and west property lines. Mr. Kreidt then noted for the Commission, that if the Commiasion w:shed to approve the ~ sub3ect petition, it would be required that the buildings be,set back and a x'eduCtion of the rear yard area to 15 feet, this then would allaw for the development of a five (5) foot strip of landscaping in the front yard area, and reduce the "all-paved" look pre- sently being proposed. _ ` . ~,_ _ _ .- -- ------- _. ~ __...._____~ .. -_ ~. ,r-__~___.._..__-_ , ~ . . . • . ~ : . . . .... _ _ • . , ., _ _ , i; _--..T - ~ ~~: o /' , ... r ~ ~ , ;. , {: MINU'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 15,~ 19b3, Contique~i,= 1511 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Allred offered AQsolution No. 714, Series 1962-63, PERMIT N0. 395 and moved for its pessage anil adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~ (Continued) Pebley to grant Petition fp~ Coqdit~.onal Use Permit Noo 395, ' sub~ect to condltions,(See Resolution Book~l ! ~ Un roll call the foregoing xesolutlon was passed by the follawing votes i AYES COAM~IISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides. ~ ~ NOES: COhMIIISSIONERS: Chavosa , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Craig, Perrya Commissic~ner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote hy stating:that the petitioner was develop- ing an~axea in a residential agricultural transitional zone; that the proposed developme~~t was a substandard singl~ family .dev~lopment; that.sub~ect petition violated precise and good sound planning requirements, that suh3ect petition vio- lated Section 18.640030 .(2-h, d, and e) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and that the Commissfon had,denied a rEqiaes~ several weeks,8go in whdchia ~a3d~31aa d~velopm~nt ' was pruposede . RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAI~ING. GEORGE P. McCLAIN, 112 East Rosslynn, N0. 62-63-94 Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting that property described ass A rectangular paTCel of land having a frontage of 141 feet on the east side of Los Angeles $treet, and a frontage of 93 feet on the south side of La PaLna Avenue, be reclassified fxom the G2, General Commercial, Zone to.the C-3, ~AVY COMbMEECIAL, ZONE to permit the establishment of an automobile agency on sub3ect property. Mr. L. J. Holt, 1118 Mayfair, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had purchased eub3ect property from the petitioner, that on hhaz~Ch 19, 1963 he had appeared before the City Council requesting the issuance of an interim business license for the sale of automobilos on the property, and that the on~y reason he was requesting the reclassification was for the possible developmant at some future date for heavy commercial use. The Cammission discussed with the petitioner the proposed use of sub3ect property noting that a small used car agency was being proposed, that sub3ect property was considerably smaller than usual for the sale of and display of cars, that the petitioner did not propose to overhaul:cars on the property, and that sub~ect prop- erty had gAo9ta1'cominercialo2onit-g, b~~C•that the,City CounCil fe1t;^Ehat.the:property couldialso a~1b1toksub~ectheroprT~erty operating with a heavy commercial zoning which PP Y P PQ Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing aub3ect petition and received no reply. TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission continued discussion as to the size of sub3ect property, that the petitioner proposed to use the rear portion of an existing plurtJ~ing shop for offices, that there would be insufficient parking facilities, that if subject petition were to be approved, offices should be established in the existing barber shop, thus eliminating the shortage of parking facilities, that the Department of Motor Vehicles required an office and other necessities on the property, if a used car lot were being proposed, and that if sub3ect petition were approved it be limited to the use of sub- ~ect property for a used car lot or any C-2, General Commercial, Zone ~uses. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt noted for the Commission that there presently existed a Conditional Use Permit Noe 319, for the establishment of a retail tire service on sub~ect property which should be terminated if ~lsub~ect peti.tion ixere'a~s~ra'vt~'d. ' ~ Commiesioner Allred offared Resolution Noe 715, Series 1962-63, and moved for its i E. passage'and adoptiont seconded by CommisslonQr,Camp, to recommend to the City Council E that Petition for Reclassification Noe 62-63-94 be approved, sub~ec~'to the recorda- ~ tion of deed restrictions limit3r-g the use of sub~~ct property to the establishment of - - a used automobile sales lot and offices and anY C-2 uses, togethex witn other conditions (See Resolution Book). , • ~ ~ I h • ~ ~ ~ . I F '~_ ._ ~ - ____.,,..,.__.`. ~ ---- . _ _ _ - -- ~ . . . , . . ,~ __. ' ~ ~ _ _ ._~ , 1 , _ ,__ . _ . . ..__ _ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 15, 1963, Continueds• 1512 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll,call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes N0. 62-63-94 (Continued) ' AYES: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides. NOESi COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERSs Craig, Perryo TERMINATION - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 730, Series 1962-63, OF CONDITIONAL and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner USE PERMIT N0. 319 Camp, to recommend to the City Counai: that Petition for Condi- tional Use Permit Noa 319 appz~oved by the ?'lanning Commissivn and the ~3ty Council be terminated, s3nce Petition for Reclassi- fication Noe 62-63-94 recoaunended for approval was passed kry the Planning Commission April 15, 1963, which superceded 'sub3ect'petitiono On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passec~ by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos,.Gauer, Mungall,.Pebley, Sides.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENIs COMMISSIOIVERS: Craig, Perry. VARIANCE N0. 1563 - PUBLIC t~ARING. WIJ.LIAM H. and MARY C. DILLOW, 1844 Haster Street, Anahelm, California, and CLARENCE and RHEA L. W~DDOCK, 1844 Haster Street, Anaheim, California, Craners; CLARENCE N~DDOCR. 1844 Haster Street, Anaheim, Californie, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS PSRTAINING TO BUIIDING MATERIAL fOR SERVICE STATION - WAIVE A PORTION OF THE BLOCK WALL REQUIREN~NT AND RELOCATION OF DRNEWAY APPROACHES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER VARIANCE N0. 1523, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTIOH OF A SERVTCE STATION on property described as= A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 486 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and a frontage of 150 feet on the east side of Haster Street, and further des- crived as 100-220 East Katella Avenue. Property presently classified as C-1, NEIGHBOR- HOOD COMN~RCIAL and C-3, I-~AVY COMN~RCIAL, ZONES. Mr. Clarence Meddock, agent for the petitioners appeared before the Commission and reviewed what was being proposed and the restrictions which had been imposed in a previous petitione The Commission discussed the request for the removal o# the block wall requirement, and noticed that under similar heavy commercial zoning on ths corner ad~acent to sub~ect property deed restrictions required the fire resistant materials from which th~ peti- tioner requested a waiver on a similar deed restriction. Mr. Meddock informed the Commission that a representative of the oil company proposing to construct the service station was present if the Commission wished to ask any questions relative to the service station construction. Chairman Nfungall inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber opposing subJect petition, and received no replya T1~ I~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resulution Noo 716, Series 1962-63, arid moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1563, sub~ect to conditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Craig, Perrye ^~ ~::.~: ,._ -- ~ ~ ~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 15, 1963, Continued: 1513 VARIANCE N0. 1564 - PUBLIC FffiARING. NU:AGARET BLACI4NELL, 1106 West North Street, Maheim,, Califorqia, ~wner; LYNN E. THOMSEN,, 520 Dwyer Drive, Anaheim, Celifornia, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A THREE (3) FAMILY DWELLIN~ UNT!' OF LESS THAN 2000 SQUARE FEET PEP. DYdELLIh'G UIdIT APID CREATE A LOT OF LESS THAN 90 FEET IN WIDTH on property described ass An irregular parcel of land having.a fiontage of 152 fQet on the south side of North Street and a frontage of 145 feet on the west side of West Street, and further described as 1102 West North Street. Propexty presently classifded a3 R-0, One Family Suburban, Zone. Mr. Lynn Thomsen,t agent for the petitionez~ appeared before,the Commission and briefly outlined what was being proposed for sub~ect property, and further stated that the Planning Department had~informed him that the legal description submitted with the petition was incorrect, whgreupon he had then mAasured'the_sub~e~t.property ,, , and verified that the dimensions stipulated by the Planning Department were correct, that the tri~lex~: which he proposed would,~ie.impossible to construct because of the change in lot size proposed for lot•split', and t~at,he. now proposed 3ust the lot split, and inquired what the Commission's. feelings were relative to construction of a duplex before he submitted revised plans for their consideration. The Commission inquired of 2oning Coordinator Martin Kxeidt why the petitioner was allowed to file a variance., that the property could.properly be split and rezoned for R-1, Single Family Residential, Zonee Mr. Kreidt advised the Coqunission #hat if the property had been reclassified to single family residential zoning, the lot split would have been the likely thinq to require a variance, but that this would not have.pe~mitted the construction of a tri- plex whioh the petitioner proposedo .. The Commission determined that the agent for the'petitioner had purchased sub~ect property with the intent of building the proposed trip~.ex: in a zone which requires 10,000 square feet per lot, that the petitioner felt that since there were severai homes on West Street with less than 2,000 square feet, and subJect property was sufficiently large enough to divide the lot. The Commission in general voiced their approval of a lot split, but were not in favor of either a duplex or triplex. Mr. Bernard We Jordon, 1132 Park Avenue, appeared before the Commission representing twenty-five (25) persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition to sub~ect petition, and stated homes in the vicinity of sub3ect property had been constructed ranging in the $35,000 to $50,OOOclass, that the proposed development would be in violation of the residential suburban zoning in that it would propose multiple family development in an extremely law density residential area, that the' proposed subdivision of sub3ect property would create two substandard lots, that he was asking for a privilege not afforded the other property owners in close'proximity ;o sub~ect property, that the Planning Commission had recently recommerided denial for a multiple family development in the.area of Westmont Street~ that the Commission should consider the rights of property owners in the area wha had purchased their homes with the understanding that the surrounding area in the vicinity of sub3ect property would remain residential suburban zoning, that the petitioner had purchased sub~ect property knowing the zoning restrictions, and that sub~ect petition should be denied on these bases. Mr. R. Lo Ulrich, 730 North West Street appeared before the Gommission in opposition to sub~ect petition, and stated that he lived two doors south of sub3ect property, that he had a 113 foot frontage and 2/3 of an acre lot with a home of more than 3,000 square feet, and ~hat the Commission shouid deny subJect petition and permit the area in which sub~ect property is located to remain as it had been for the past nine yearso Further discussion was held with the petitioner relative to the lot split noting that even though the frontage would be substandard the square footage of each lot would be more than the minimum required for the present;zoning of sub~ect property, and further determined,through Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, that sub~ect petition could be approved for the lot split only. ~-~ ~ ~ I i ~ ~{; / .~' . ~ - --- , _~. ~' _ „F---- . . ~~.~_ .--- ~ ~ ' _~ ~ S MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,,ApriT 15, 1963, Continued: 1514 VARIANCE N0. 1564 - Mrs. fi. Le Ulrich, 730 No~th West Street,stated to the Commission (Continued) that she had heard that:one,of the proposed lots had already been sold, and ttie agent fox the petitioner stated that an 85 foot frontage lo~ had been sold but was still in escrowo Mr. Ae L. Mahoney, 1123 West North Street, advised the Commission that although his lot measured more than 1Q,000 square feet he hed only a sixty-two (62) foot frontage on North Street, and that if the proposed lot &plit were approved it shouid be required that the petitioner meet all of the othex R-0, ReSidential Suburban, Zone requirementse THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed.th~e approval of the lot splft and the possibility of requiring that plans incorporating th~ development q£ pfiopexty for two homes be submitt~d by the petitioner, that the Tesidents in the aTea might have less obJection if plans could be viewed by them, and that plans then would be sub~ect to architectural control, for later submission to the Commi'ssion for aparovale Commissioner Allred offered a motion to ap~arovQ Petition for Variance No. 1564 for the lot split only, which was lost for want of'a secon~le. The agent for the petitionqr advi.sed the Comm3,ssinR he'did not wish to be restricted to architectural control and desired to have thp Comtnission render a decision relative to the lot split, and possiblity for development of a duplexo Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 713, SeFies 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavog, ta.deny.Petition for Variance No. 1564 based on findings.(See Resolution BoQk) ;. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe~l l~y the following vote: AYES: CGMMISSIONHRS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungell, Pebley, Sides. NOES: COMMISSIONHRS: Allreda ABSENTa COMMISSIONERS: Craig, Perrya VARIAI~E NOo 1565 - PUBLIC I~ARINGe FREE N~THODIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, 1171 North West Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE BIACK WALL ON A PORTION OF THE NORTE~RLY PROPERTY LINE on property described ass An irregularly shaped parceZ having a frontage of 133 feet on the west si~e of West Street between La Palma Avenue and Romneya Drive, the south- easterly corner of said property being approximately 740 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1171 North West Streete Property pre- sently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZO(VE. Reverend St;anley Herber, representing the owneP appeared before the Commission and- - reviewed for the Commission the location of sub~ect property together with the portion of property requesting the waiver of the block wall, and further stated that the pro- posed parking lot would be facing onto the 16~ foot right-of-way of the Anaheim Union Water Company which separated sub~ect property and the garages of the apar'cments to the northa The Commission reviewed the plot plan together with the area map, and noted that the irrigation ditch would eventually be turned back to the owner after the existing orange groves were ~developel~with 'stru~tui'es; 'that' the petitioner a~a not oppose the masonry wall at the time Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 218 was approved, said wall being recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee, and that if the masonry wall were waived it should be required that a chain link fence be erected to prevent the children from crossing over the irrigation ditche Reverend Herber informed the Commission that he was unaware of the requirement for the entire length of the north property line at the time the previous petition had been approved, that a chain link fence would be rather unsightly, and suggested per- haps another type of fence. Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber oppoeing sub~ect petition, and received no reply. i I 1 -- - - - -- ..% - i ~ ~._ -- . . . -- . .___ . __ . . ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 15, 1963, Continuedi 1515 VARIANCE NOo 1565 - THE F~ARING WAS CLOSEDe t (Continued) ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noe 718, Series 1962-63, ~ and moved for its p,assag~ anQ adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~ Gauer, to gzant Petition for Variance Idoo'1565'y sub3ect to the construction of a chain ~ link fence on the northwesterly 153 feet of sub~ect propeity in lieu of the previously ~ required six (6) foot masont.y wallo (See RQ'solution B.ooke) On roll call the foregoing resoltttion was qa~sed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chevos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sidese NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Cra3g, Pe~ryo COImITIONAL USE - PUBLIC t1EARINGe ISABEL F0.STER GAMBLE, 3067 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, PERMTT NOe 401 California, Owneg; JAN~S,Ja W00D$, 13421 Olive Street, Westminster, California9 Agent; requesting permtssion to ESTABLISH A REST HOIu~ on property described ass An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 171 feet,on the north side of OFange Avenue and an average depth of 395 feet, the easterly boundary~of said property being apptoximately 1170 feet west of the center- lir~e of Beach Bouleverd, and further de~GSilaEd as 3067 West Orange Avenueo Property pre- sently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Mr. James Je Wocds, agent for the petitioner, appearQd before the Commission and stated he was the proposed developer of sub~ect,pr:operty, tha.t he had received a certificate of need for a rest ho~ne in the area from the State of California, that the site had been approved by the FHA; that the State Board of Health had approved the development plans, and that tn~ proposed development would be compatible to the proposed hospital located approximately 300 feet from sub~ect propertyo The Commission determined that the petitioner proposed a rest home although plans indicated a convalescent home, that if a convalescent hospital were proposed, parking facilities would have to be increased, that plot plans submitted were inadequate and substandard to provide the proposed service, that the petitioner should contact both the Planning and Engineering Departments to determine the Code requirements before submitting r2vised plans to the Commission, since the proposed location for a rest home was consistent with previously approved hospitals and nursing homes in the vicinity of subject propertye Chairman M~:ngall inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing sub3ect petition, and seceived no replye Tk~ FiEARING WAS CLOSEDe The Commission discussed the required amount of time that would be necessary for the submission of revised plans for consideration by the Commissiono '- ' Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 401 to the meeting of May 27, 1963, in order to permit the petitioner sufficient time to coqsult w•ith the Planning and Engineering Departments before submission of revised plaqs in~orporating all the suggested changes necessary to conform to the City o: Anaheim Code requirementso Commfssioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ~ Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 4:50 pom< and returned at 4s55 pemo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC F~ARINGe COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT, INCe, Po Oe Box 47443, PERMIT N0. 404 Anaheim, California, Owner; JA11~S WHITE OIL COMPANY, Fo Oe Sox 72, Ontario, California, A9ent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land at the southeast corner of Wesichester Drive and Lincoln Avenue with frontages of 307 feet~on Westchester Drive and 266 feet on Lincoln Avenue, said property known as Lot No. 1 of Tract Noe 3886, and further described as 102 South fiestchester Drivee Prope~~y presently classified ae G 1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zonee ,. _ __.._. _-•- ---- ___~ _ --... _. . --~ : ~ , . _ . , ~ V ~ ':.;~:~ • .. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 15y 19639 Continued~ _ ~ 1516 , CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone p:esent to ~ PERMTT NOo 404 represent the petitioner, and received no replyo I (Continued) . ~ Zon3ng Coordinator Martin Kreidt informed the Commission that ~ the proposed development was being proposed in a G19 Neighborhood Commercial, Zone which permits small stores but not a service stationo i i Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny sub~ect petition based on the fact that a service; station would adversely aiieci ihe balance of the commercially zoned ~ property, and that there were three other service stations within 300 feet of sub3ect property which were located at the 3ntersection of two ma3or streets whereas the proposed service station was located on a.col~.ector street and a ma3or streete Commissioner Allred stated that it should be the prerogative of the petitioner to represent his petition, and that it should not be denied without some cause. The fore9oing motion los•t for want of a second~ Commissioner Sides offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditi~nal Use Permit • Noo 404 to the meeting of April 299 1963, and to advise the petitioner that his petition had been rescheduled for said meetingo Commissioner Allred seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~ CONDITIONAL USE - S~ V~ HUNSAKER and SONS, 15855 East Edna Place, Irwindale, PERMIT NOo 406 Califorr~ia, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RECREA- TIONAL FACILITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a 72 foot frontage on the south side of Pearson Avenue and a depth of 172 feet, the westerly boundary of sub3ect property being 112 feet east of the center- line of Sprague Lane9 and further described as 212 Pearson Avenueo Property presently classified as R-3, MULTIPI.E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that subject petition, was merely to clear up a techr.icali±y ir. the original petition approvalo Mro Sa Vo Hunsaker9 Jro appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission°s consideration, but would be available to answer uestionso 9 Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no replyo THE FIEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 719, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by~Commissioner Sides9 to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 406, sub3ect to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the forego3ng resolution was passed by thr following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allredy Camp, Chavos, Gauery Mungall, Febley, Sideso NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Craig, Perry. ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION9 NOo 62-63-82 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim' California; requesting that property described as= An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 165 feet on the south side of Center Street and having a frontage of 152 feet on the west side of Cherry Street be reclassified from the C-2, GEI~RAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE ta the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo /, _.. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO.~lMISSION, April 15, 1963, Continued: 1517 RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission N0. 62-63-82 their past action relative to sub~ect petition, and noted that _~Continued) when subJect petition was being set for public hearing by the City Clerk, it was noted that the property had been incorrectly advertisedo Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber opposing sub3ect petition, and received no replyo THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Pei:ition for Reclassif~cation Noe 62-63-82 be approved as originally recommended by the Anaheim Planning Commission.by Resolutioq Noo 670,.Series 1962-63 at the regular meeting held on March 4, 1963a Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 5s00 p,me RECLASSIFICATION - GRIFFTH BROTHERS, A partnership; 867 South Los Angeles Street, NOe 62-63-98 and MABEL To DOUGLAS, 1677 South Ninth Street, Anaheim, California, and Owners; THOMAS A~ KEY,•c/o Toln,Key Realty Sales, Inco, 811 South CONDITIONAL llSE Euclid Street, Anaheim, Cali'fornia, Agent; property being considered PERMIT NOa 403 described as: An iriegular po;t3on of land having a frontage of 1190 feet on the west side of Ninth Street, the westerly boundary of said property being ad~acent to the Orange County Flood Control Channel and the southerly bound3ry being approximately 130 feet north of the centerline uf Kimberly Avenuea Said property consisting of two (2) parcels, and further described as 1677.South Ninth Streeto Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MqLTYPLE FAMILY REStDENTIAL, ZONEe REQUESTED COImITIONAL USE: CONSTRUCT A MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - WAIVE ONE (1) STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION. Mr. Thomas Key, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated that he was available to answer any questions the Comm;ssion mfght have, and briefly described the proposed development of subject propertye The Commission discussed the possiblity that the northerly portion of sub3ect property was being proposed for a neighborhood park site9 that all the residents appearing in the Council Chamber were of the opinion that the City was planning to locate a park on sub~ect property, that the petitioner was prop,,:ng two story apartments although these structures were being propot,ed 150 feet from low density residential i~omes, and that the Commission should reque~t a definite statement from the City Council relative to the proposed park site, before the f:~mmission could properly consider sub~ect peti- tions. Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 5:07 pome Mr. Harry Griffith, one of the petitioners appeared before the Commission and stated that he had contacted the Parks and Recreation Commission who seemed quite surprised that the City had not elready made a decision on the proposed park site for sub~ect property, that h~ had been waiting for four years for the City to make up its mind when he had first offered sub~ect property for a park site, and since the petitioners had plans in the development stage for the proposed use and the C3ty had not made any definite commitment subject petitions were filedo Planning Director Richard Reese advi~ed the.Commission that he had heard that the City Manager's office had scheduled a meetirrg for 11sp0 aome, but because of other commitments, this meeting had not taken placee ~ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _. ~ T ~ . --_ . i =_ F~ . - ~ . . -- ~ ~ IJ I ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 15, 1963, Continueds 1518 RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised th~ Commission that ; N0. 62-63-9B landscaping plans for ~he power line easement were not included ~ and in the plot plan, and if the Commission desired to consider i COImITIONAL USE sub~ect petitiop favorably, these plans should be submitted for ~ PERMIT N0. 403 their approvala { (Continued) ~ Mre Joseph No Yount, 1413 Iaster Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that a11 the property owner; of single family homes in the area had voted for bonds for a park site, and were under the ~ assumption that sub3ect property would be purchased for that purposeo Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification ~ No. 62-63-98 and Conditional Use Permit Noe 403 to the meeting of April 29, 1963, in order that the Comonission might request the City Council to indicate their intent as to the acquisition of ~ub3ect property for, a park site. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono N.",JTION CARRIEDa , PROPOSED - Locations Ninth.Street between Cerritos and Katella Avenues; PARK SI7E property proposed for reclassification in Petitions for Reclassification Noe 62-63-98 and Conditional Use Permit NOe 403~ ~ Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to request that the City Council indicate to the City Planning Commission their intent as to the,acquisition of property loca- ted on the west side of Ninth Street between Cerritos and Katella Avenues for development as a neighborhood park site, in order that the Commission may properly consider pending Petitions for Reclassification Noo 62-63-98 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 403, which are to be again heard and considered cn April 29, 1963e Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo RECESS - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner and to reconvene at 7 peme Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDa The meeting recessed at 5=10 0'Clock pome RECO NE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the Regular Meeting at 7:10 0'Clock peme all members being present except Commissioners Craig and Perryo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIG HEARINGe RAY Wo CRIMM, 1951 Ravisia Lan2, La Canada, N0. 62-63-99 California, Owner; Mo Le McGaughy, 2966 West •Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property being considered described VARIANCE N0. 1566 as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 440 feet and on the south side of South Street and a frontage of 632 feet on TENTATIVE MAP OF the west side of Sunkist Streeto Property prssently classified . TRACT N0. 5101 as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3, MULTIPIF FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONEe REQIJSSTED VARIANCE: iNAIVE ONE (1) STORY f~ IGHT LIMITATION AND BLACK WALL REQUIREN~NTSo SubJect tract, ^roposes twenty-one (21) R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone lotso Mre Mel McGaughy, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and briefly ! reviewed what was bein9 proposed for development and noted that two school sites were j being proposed to the west and south of sub3ect property, and that a church was located I to the north. The Commission noted that the proposed General Plan pro~ected sub~ect property for lew , density residential development and inquired of the agent why sub~ect property had not been considerad for subdivision development of single family homeso Mr. McGaughy replied that land costs,were so prohibit;~~e that only the expensive type homes could be pro~ected, and that it', the schools were to be developed the proposed , apartments would offer a new concept for ttie East Anaheim area, and would afford teachers j a place to live. j ~ i __ _..._.__ / _ ~r~ . : .~ . . ... ... . -- ~ ~ ,• _.~~~+...~ a .;~,a~ • . ~ ~ ~~~.,'~~ ~ ~ y\ ~ ~ I t I MINUTES, CIT1 PLANNING COMMISSION, ApriL 15, 1963, Continued: 1519 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Ro C. Ball, 612 Colt Street, appeared before the Commission N0. 62-63-99 in opposition to sub3ect petitions and stated he represented the East Anaheim Homeowners Association, 28 of whom were pre- VARIANCE N0. 1566 sent in the Council Chamber, that the proposed development ar~c~ would be incompatible to the single family development presently : TENTA~IVE MAP OF taking place in close proximity to subject property, that the ~ TRACT NOo 5101 proposed General Plan pro~ected low density single family ` ~Continued) development, and to grant ~ubfect petitions would create a ; hardship on the development of property, parks, schools, etco, ;, since subject property was pro~ected as low density, that the ' traffic emanating from a multiple family development would increase the hazards to ~ children, and that with Autonetics planning to reduce their personnel the first of ( the month apartment vacancies would incre.ase from 10~; to a considerable higher i percentage. , Mre William Silverman, 507 Westgate Drive9 rep~esenting the Rio Vista Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub~ect petitions and stated that he opposed the two story construction as well as the proposed apart- ments, that the number of cars would overload ~khe streets, that the recent action of the residents of Yorba Linda was indicative of what new residents of the City thought of zoning development plans for the City that the City officials would have to be responsible for their actions in later years ~f prospective residents went elsewhere to reside, and that the Commission should deny sub3ect petitions and follow the proposed General Plan which profected low density single family residen- tial development for sub3ect propertya Mro McGaughy, in rebuttal, stated that the proposed development was considered a low-med3um density development and would be an asset to the areao Commissioner Sides took issue with Mre Silverman°s remarks stating that he felt a certain amount of animosity was in~ected against the zoning decisions rendered by the Commission and the City Council, and that his opinions reflected his own and were not representative of the East Anaheim residentse Mro Silverman, in reply, stated that if finding fault with the Commission and the City Council was animosity, he was guilty, and that he was only trying to save the E~eople in the City from any further embarrassmento 'ih'E HEARING WAS CLOSED. C.ommissioner Sides offered Resolution Noo 720, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noe 62-63-98, be disapproved based on findings. (See Resolution Booko) Commissioner Sides in offering the foregoing resolution stated that the proposed General Plan profected the Commission's thinking for the development of ^ub~ect property for low density development, and that the-~roposed•development would•be. incompatible to the existing single family resfdential development now taking place in and around sub3ect property, and in accordance with Planning Study Noo 45-114-4, Exhibit 2 as adopted by motion of the Commission on May 4, 1962e On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the follawing vote: AYESi COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sidese NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Craig, Perrye CortQnissioner Sides offered Resolution Noo 721, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by r,o~issioner Allred, to deny Petition for Variance Yo. 1566, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet AYES: OOMMISSIONER6s Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley, Sideso A1~ESt ~MMISSIONERS~ None. ABSENTt ~MMISSIONERSs Craig, Perry. i ~ ~ ------ - .~.- , - "`iY --~.._~~''~ ..~._ . ^-z--~-- ~~ ~ MIN[!I'ES, CITY PLANNII~ WMMISSION, April 15, 1963, Continuede ~~~, I;~ ~ ~ 1520 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - SUBDIVIDER~ MEL McGAUGHY, 2966 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 62-63-99 Californie; SURVEYOR~ STEPHEN W. BRADFORD, 125 South Claudina 5treet, Anaheim, California; subject tract, located on the southwest corner of VARIANCE 1~. 1566 South and Sunkist Streets and covering approximately 4.6 acres, is pro- and posed for subdivision into twenty-one (21) R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESI- TENTATIVE bIAP OF LIENTIAL~ ZDNID, lots. TRAGT bp. 5101 (Continued) Subject tract map was considered in con3unction with the Public Hearing of Reclassification No. 62-63-99 and Variance No. 1566. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 5101, based on the fact that sub3ect propertyshould be developed for single family subdivisiott as pro3ected on the proposed General Plan. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. NqTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. KIYOSHI NAKAMURA, 11618 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa N0. 62-63-100 and Monica, California, Owner; ZeROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent; property being considered is described ass OONDITIONAL llSE An L-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 492 feet on the south PERMIT AA: 405 side of Orange Avenue, and a depth of 635 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 664 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. Property presently classiried as R-Ay RESIDENTIAL AGRICIJLTURAL~ aDNE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONt R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. RBQUESTm OONDITIONAL USEt OONSTRUCT A MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNID RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH CARPORTS. Zaning G~ordinator A4artin Kreidt read a letter from the agent for the petitioner which requested a two weeks continuance of sub~ect petitions. Mr. LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitionex, appeared before the Coimnission and stated that the report to the Commission indicated that it would require more than two weeks to submit plans which would incorporate all the suggested changes, but that bir. Rose, being the architect, could submit revised plans by April 19, 1963, and that if the financiers of sub3ect petitions agreed, revised plans would be submitted. Mrs. Edith Eton, 641 Bror.wyn Drive, appeared before the Commission representing seven (7) persons in •L•he Council ~hamber in opposition to subject petitions, and stated that her property abutted to the east of subject property, that the proposed development would be incompatible to the single family development to the east and north of sub3ect property, that two-story construction would be an invasian of the privacy of her home, that the r.oises emanating from the proposed development would be detrimental to the health of the single family residents, that the additional traffic would increase hazards to the children using Orange Avenue, and that the proposed General Plan projected low density residential development for subject property. Mrs. Vescio, property owner on Hronwyn Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that ~ the main oppositi:on was that homes would depreciate with two s•tory construction, where ~ people were constantly moving in and out, and that no comparison could be made where two-story ~ single family homeE were located, since the second story usually had bedrooms, whereas the ; apartments would have a complete dwelling unit. ~ A number of the residents then reviewed the plot plans with the architect. Mr. Knisley then statsd that property to the west of subfect property had been zoned for neighborhood commercial uses and a school was to the south of subject property, and that the proposed development would act as a buffer between the coimnercial and sing~e family development to the east. Mr. LeRoy Rose stated tt~at one of the reasons for asking for a continuance was so that plans could reflect a sixty-four (64) foot street, instead of the proposed twenty-eight (26) foot street, and that this street would give additional access to the residential development to the ea'st of sub~ect property. THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~ COI~WlI55I0N~ April 15, 1963. Continueds 1521 ,,` 1 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission further discussed the proposed development, noting that N0. 62-63-100 and the Commission's thinking on the proposed General Plan indicated sub- ~ect property for low density residential development, that subject ODNDITIONAL USE property could be developed for a single family subdivision, that PERb1IT Ap. 405 the City had other odd-shaped lots which would not lend themselves (Continued) to single family subdivision, that the price of land was only pre- ~ dfcated on the land use available, and that sub3ect development would ~ be incompatible to the surrounding ' low density resi- ' dential developments. ~ ~ Cotmnissioner Camp offered Resolution No, 722, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and i adoption, seconded by Conmiissioner Allred, to recc~~ur~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-100 be disapproved, based on the fact that the subject ; property could be developed for single.family subdivision, that it was incompatible ~ with the resldential developmentsnow existing on the east and north of sub~ect property, and other additional findings. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet , AYESs CAMMISSIONEkiSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides. NQESi ~OMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENfs OOMMfu11ISSI0NERSt C~aig, Perry. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 723, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded b Cortunissioner Allredt to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 405, based on findings. ~See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet AYES~ OOMMISSIONERSe Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides. ; NOESs OOMMISSIONERSs None. ! ABSENT~ ODMMISSIONERSt Craig, Perry. i RECLASSIFICATION PUBLIC HFARING~ ELMER A• PRESTON~ 3619 Lewis Avenue, Long Beach 7, N0. 62-63-101 California, Owner; requesting that property described ass A rec- tangular parcel of land having a frontage of 100 feet on the west side of Harbor Houlevard, and a depth of 150 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 238 feet north of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described as 1221 North Harbor Boulevard, be reclassified from the C-2, General Commercial, Zone to the C-3, Heavy Commercial, Zone to permit the expansion of the existing used car lot to the scuth of sub3ect property. Chairman Mungall inquired if there was anyone present to represent the petitioner, and received no reply. Mr. R. V. Troge, 1220 Raleigh Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subJect petition and stated that sometime ago subject property had bfen reclassified to general commercial use, and up to the present time the only thing done to the property was the removal of the swimming pool and the•relocation of en existing building to within ten (10) feet of the alley, that hugh floodlights had been erected which would be detrimental to the health of single family residents to the west of sub3ect property if they were not slanted away from the residences. THE HFARING WAS CiASID. The Commission discussed the reason for requestinq C-3 zoning, when a conditional use permit had been recently approved for the requested use, that by Iaw commercial floodlights had to be slanted away from residential developments, that the alley might be used for a race track, thus jeopardizinq the children in the residential area to the west, and discussed the re- quiremer~t of a m~asonry wall to separate the alley from the corrnnercial used car lot, that if a reclassification was granted, it should be for the requested use or any general commer- cial uses. ~ ''~ i ~. ~ ~ .--~__.,_.._~. _ _ ~ - .. _. _. _ .._ _ _ .. _. .~.-'.. w. _.... .. . .1 . . ~ . . . . . ,». . . . . . _... . . .--- ~ ~ I I MINUTES~ CITY PLAMQING WbUYlISSION~ APRIL 15, 1963. Continuedt ~ 1522 RECLASSIFICATION - Coaonissioner Side's offered Resolution No. 724, Series 1962-63, and N0. 62-4:,-),O1 moved for its passage .and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chaws, (Continued) tq reco~mnend to the City Council that Petition for Reciassif ication No. 62-63-101 be approved sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution $ook.) Commissioner Sides in offering the foregoing resolution, stated that in addition to the recomQnended conditions,that it be required that a six (6) foot masonry wall, measured from the finished grade level of the existing property, be constructed on the west property ' line of sub3ect propertp-, On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet AYESt W6UNISSIONERSt Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer,,Mungall, Pebley, Sides. NOF,Ss ODMMISSIONERSt None. ABSENTt ~MIRISSIONERSt Crai.g, Perry. • TERMINATION - Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No, 731, Series 1962-63, and OF ~NDITIONAL moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, USE PER)AIT t~A. 370 to reco~nend to the City Council that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 370 be terminated, because the Commission had reco~mnended for approval, Reclassif ication No. 62-63-101. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYESe CJOMWISSIONERSi Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, lilungall, Pebley, Sides. NOzS~ OOIrlNMISSIONERSe None. ABSENTt ODMMISSIONERS~ G~aig, Perry. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARIIVG. ROY PORD, 11741 Highway 101, Orange, California, O~ner; AA. 62-63-102 KEN HIMES~ 1555 Baker, S~ite B, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting that property described asr An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 165 feet on the southwesterly side of Idanchester Avenue, and an average. depth of 270 feet, the southerly boundary of said property coinciding with the boundary line of the Anaheim City Limits, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRIGULTURP.L, ~JNE to the C-1, NEIGHBOR2~AOD ~MMERCIAL, ~NE to permit the establishment of a professional office building. Mr. Ken Himes, agent for the petitiuner appeared before the Cormnission, and reviewed for the Cortmiission the proposed c~e:•sZopment, stating that the off ramp of the freeway prevented single family development on subject property, that although a single family development existed to the south of subject property, Meyer Street deadended approximately 150 feet from svbject property, that the City of Or~nge would like commercial development similar to the cotrnnercial development now existing in the area, that the Abbey adjacent to the north did not oppose sub3ect petition, that the development.would complement the area, since residential development would not be able to withstand the noises from off-ra~ freeway traffio, that a landscapa architect planned to retain many of the plants and trees, that the air-conditioning units rrould be below the roof in a suspended ceiling, that a great deal of interest had been shown~ and 50,~ of the proposed offices had been leased, and then presented a colored rendering for the Cortanission's consideration. Chairman )ltungall inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply. THE HFARING WAS CIASID. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Comonission that if the colored rendering was proposed to be part of the file, the City Council required that a reduction be made to the rendering so that it might becomg a permanent part of the file, and that the petitioner proposed two access drives, one of which had only a 9 foot 6 inch clearance, which would be . insufficient for fire.equipmeret clearance. _ .. . .. . _ .. . - -3'~ , 1 i .~i I ~ ~ . ,~ ~ ~ MINUIES, CITY PLANNING ~MMISSION, APRIL 15, 1963. Continuede - `. ~~ .., =_~ 1523 j RECLASSIFICATION - The Cormnission discused the requirement of an eleven foot clearance, ND. 62-63-102 and noted that this would detract from t:ne appearance that was being (Continued) proposed, and that there was one driveway which was open and sufficiently . large en~ugh to accomodate both fire and trash equipment. Cotmnissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 725, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage ~ ahd adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-102 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) Commissioner Pebley in offering the foregoing resolution, stated that a finding be made that the petitioner stated, that the air-conditioning ducts would be completely enclosed, and that one uncovered access drive would be sufsicient for fire equipment and trash trucks, thus permitting the second covered access drive to remain as proposed on the plot plan. On roll call the foregoir~g resolution was passed by the following votet AYESt OOMMISSIONERSt Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides. NOESt OOMMISSIONERSt None. AE3ENTt ODMMI`:~SIONERSc Craig, Perry. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. J~HN and RITA PHIPPS, 1557 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, ND. 62-63-103 California, Owners; T.eROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 101 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, and a depth of 339 feet, the easterly boundary of said prope~ty being ad3acent to the Orange County Flood Control Channel, and further described as 1557 Katella Avenue, be reclassified from the R-0, ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD OOMMERCIAL~ ZANE, to permit the establishment of professional off ices in an existing structure. Mr. LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and briefly reviewed ~ ~ what was proposed as well as the utilizat3.on ~~f the existing structure. ' } ! Mr. Harry Knisley appeared before the Conenission and stated that he was in favor of the ; proposed reclassification, and that he had offices two doors east of subject property. ~ Mr. John Phipps, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the new i owner planned to maintain the residential integrity of the area. ! Chairman Mungall inquired if anyone was present in the Council Chamber opposing sub3ect '~ petition, and received no reply. ~ ~ THE HFARING WAS CIASID. ~ i i The Commission reviewed thc- drawings submitted, and noted that although the use was appro- ' ' priate, it had been the Planning Commission's policy to require remodeling to the ~ ! residential structures with a commercial front, that parking requirements might require changes to the structure, and that the City Council required that any home being used for j ' ~commercial purposes could not also be used for residential purposes, and that the City ; , Council had approved a similar request in August, 1961 with approval contingent to sub- ! ~ mission of plans. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 726, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage 1 and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, ~o recoimnend to the City Council that ~ Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-103 be approved sub~ect to conditions, (See i Resolution Book,~ ~ Commissioner Allred in offering the foregoing resolution requested that in addition to the ~ reco~mnended conditions, an additional condition be required~ namely that if the northerly ~ portion of subject property were at some time proposed for cotmnercial development plans for the nev~ structure should be submitted to the City Council for approval, and ; that any changes to front elevations be submitted to the City Council before its publ~.c , hearing of sub;ect petition. _ ~ ,I , . ; T ~ ~ - '~_ _.~__. _ .._.... _ _ :-----1 ~, .._~. ' . - . _. ~~ . ~- ~ . ... RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the f.ollowing votei N0. 62-63-103 (Continued) AYES: OaMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, )dungall, Pebley, Sides. NDESe OOMMISSIONERSt None. ABSENTt OOMMISSIONERSt G~aig, Perry. ,`'s ~ ~ i i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARING. LAVE DOMRIES, 706 South Knott Avenue, and ~. T. SCHROIDL~ ND. 62-63-104 and 712-714 South Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; iJEIL REITMAN, 1919 East Center Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described OONDITIONAL USE as: An irregular portion of land consisting of t~xo(2) parcels. Said PERaIIT I~A. 407 land having a frontage of 206 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue, the northerly boundary of said portion of land Being approximately 805 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue and the southeasterly boundary being adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control Channel, and further described as 706-714 South Knott Avenueo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL' ~NE. REQUESTID CLASSIFICATIONt R-3~ MULTIPI.E FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL, ~NE. REQUESTID ODNDITIONAL USEc ODNSTRUCT A MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELAPMENT - WAIVE ONE (1) S1DRY HEIGHT LIMITATION. Mr. Neii Reitman, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and briefly reviewed past action on the northerly portion of subject property, and noting that he had acquired the southerly portion of subject property, and was presenting plans for develop- ment of the entire parcel; and further stated that he had tried to contact the owner of property to the north of subject property, but had been unsuccessful in interesting the owner in development of his property, and that the agent for the petitioner did not plan to sell the apartments, but would be kept under one ownership. The Commission reviewed the plot p10n, noting that a twenty-five (25) foot drive was proposed around the perimeter of sub3ect property, that two story construction was pro- posed within '.50 feet of R-1, One Famil Residential, Zoned lots, that the City Council had formerly suggested a sixty-four (64~ foot street between the property to the north and subject prop~~rty, that the petitioner proposed box-like structures which would not create a desirable living envoronment, that although +:-,a Co~mnission felt sub~ect property was compatible for multiple family developmeht, the proposed plot plans were undesirable, that twenty-seven (2'7) ~nits pe~ net residential acre was being proposed which ~ras twice the density pro~ected on the preliminary General Plan, and that plans might be improved if the recreation area were relocated toward the center of the proposed development. Chairman Mungall inquired if there was anyone present in the Cvuncil Chamber opposing sub~ect petition, and received no reply. THE HEARING WAS CIASID. . ' ~ The Commission continued discussion relative to requiring a sixty-four (64) foot street on the northerly portion of sub~ect property, it suggested that the petitioner contact the Planning Department relative to suggested changes which might be made, and to have the designer of the plans present to incorporate these changes in the revised plans' that the ~ plans ae presented were not acceptable to~the Commission, although the use requested was proper, that if the property rnmer to the north later appeared requesting a waiver of j Code requirements, knowing he did not agree to develop concurrently with the petitioner, ~ hardship could not be claimed, and that the City Council's policy as to street development ~ would not permit half-streets. I ! ~ / , • _ _ ----- ~ .._.~ _ . ~ _.-~.-~------ __. _ _ .. ->«-- ~-- ~, ~ . ~ ' j MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING OOMbIISSION~ APRIL 15, 1963. Cnntinuedt 1~2~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING WI~AISSION, APRIL 15, 1963o Continueds 1525 RECLASSIFICATTON - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt asked that the Commission give their N0. 62-63-104 and conception as to the approved density for sub3ect property,so that the petitioner might incorporate this density in his discussion with OONDITIONAL USE the Planning Department relative ~b ievi'sions desiied by the Co~mnissinn PERMIi ND. 407 in the plot plans, and that if the Commission did not appr.ove of reqair- (Continued) ing a dedfcated sixty-four (64) foot street on subject pr.aperty, that a modified cul-de-sac street in the center might be feasihle, but would not solve the development of the northerly prooerty~ The Coimnission indicated tha~ the density for sub3ect property could be based on a slightly higher density than what was being proposed for the north property under Reclassification No. 62-63-78. Cortanissioner Camp offered a motion to re-open the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 62-63-104 and Conditional Use Permit No. 407 to the meeting of May 13, 1963, to allow the petitioners sufficient time to consult with the Planning Department, in order to submit revised plans for the CoTmnission's consideration. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiona NqTION CARRIID. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARING. GRACE II.IZABF".? pICKERSON~ 1608 East Lincoln Avenue, N0. 62-63-105 and Anaheim, California, Owner; MA}2~;ilIS E. PITMAN~ JR., 1605 East South Street, Anaheim, Calitornia, Agent; property being considered is WNDITIONAL USE described ast An L-shaped parcel of land having frontages of 375 feet PERMIT N0. 408 on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and 250 feet on the north side of Broadway, and an average depth of 770 feet, said property being located easterly of Wayside Place and westerly of Date Street West, and fur- ther described as 1608 East Lincoln Avenue. property presently classified as C-1, NEIGHBOR- HDOD Q~MMERCIAL~ and R-A' RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ 7ANE5. RBQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONa R-39 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ~NE. R~l1ESTED WAIDITIONAL i1SEt aDNSTRUCT A MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNID R~IDENTIAL DEVEIAPMENT WITH CARPORTS - WAIVE ONE (1) S'PORY HEIGHT LIMITATION RBQUIRFI~IENT: Zoning Coordinator Martin Kxeidt read two letters from the developer of the proposed develop- ment in which a four week continuance w•as requested i~ order to incorporate suggested changes to make it more compatible to the surrounding residences. Cotmnissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 9c15 P.M. Mr. Stanley Hankins, 223 Wayside Place, appeared before the Commission and presented a petition signed by eighty-five (85) persons who resided to the east, west, and south of sub3ect property, all opposing sub3ect petition, and then stated that he was one of the three (3) spokesmen representing forty-five (45) persons present in the Council Chamber opposing subject peti.tion, that the proposed development would increase property taxes for the existing homes, that a two story multiple family development would be an encroachment into the singls family envi:onment on three sides, that all the home owners had lived in that area from seven (7) to ten (10) years, and had devoted many dollars and hours of hard work to make the3r homes something to be proud' of, that the single story homes would be ii the shadow of the two ~tory structures, that the property had remained undeveloped for seven (7) years, and thus had increased in value, that the value of the single family homes represented $750,000, and the intrusion of a multii~le family development within the single family area would decrease the property value. Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 9c18 P.M. and returned at 9:25 P.M. Mr. A. C. Paris, 217 Date Street West, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub~ect petition and stated that the proposed development reminded him of the housing units around military bases. Mr. Walt Sheppard, 1701 East Elm Street, appeared in opposition and stated that as a carpenter he had built' many of the multiple family developments in southern California, and that he would not want to have that type of development near his home. i~ _ _..._.. __ ..... _._.._--___ % ~ ~'. ~ .-.. . . __ . . . ._. ~k.J ~ \J ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOM-r1ISSI0N, APRIL 15, 1963. Continuedc - _..~ _ _-~ 1526 ~ i RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. C. T. Lockhart, 205 Wayside Place, appeared 3n.n{aposition to subject I t ND. 62-63-105 and petition and stated that he had thoroughly investigated the zoning in the area before he had purchased his home, and.had purchased his home i oDNDITIONAL USE with the knowledge that the area would be single family development, PERMIT ND. 406 and if the pxoposed development were approved, this would .increase ~Continued) the number of families from a comparable number.of. seventeen (17) dwellings to one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units, and that this would represent an "isle of multiple family units in a sea of single ~ family homes". Chairman Mungall inquired whether the Commission desired to continue subject petition as ! the petitioner had requested~ The Commission felt that sufficient evidence had been received for them to render a decision. ' THE HEARING WAS CLOSID. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 727, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-105 be denied, based on the facts that the proposed developme~t would be spot zoning, that it would be incompatible to the residential environ- ment of the area, and that the proposed General Plan projected highway related co~mnercial development for the northerly portion of sub3ect property. (See Resolution Book.) On rc+ll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESt OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungally Sides. NDESs OOMMISSIONERSe None. ABSENTt ~MMISSIONERSs Craig, Pebley, Perry. Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 728, Series 196'~-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cotmnissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 408, based on findingso (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votei AYES: OOMM~SSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gaue~~, Mungall, Sides. NOESt ODMMISSIGNERSs None. ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERSa Craig, Pebley, Perryo F2ECESS - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minuteso Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. k1~TI0N CARRIID. f ~ The meeting recessed at 9s30 F.M. AFTER - Q~airman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 9:40 P.M., all commissioners being RECESS present, except Commissioners Graig•and•Perry. - - REPORTS AND - I!'EM AA- 1 REOOMMENDATIONS OONDIT'_~NAL USE PERMIT N0. 379 - CHIP CHASIN~ 1801 Newport Boulevard, • Suite 22i; Costa Mesa, California, Owner; NDNEI.I. LITTLE, 1425 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to construct a SERVICE STATION on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 1,240 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter from the agent requesting permission to be heard at the Commission meeting. Mr. Newell .Little, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the Commission had continued subject petition for six weeks, that he wonld not present +ny change in plans at that meeting, and requested that the Coimnission render a decision on the plans which had been submitted. ~_~ __--.-- -._.._ _._ _ __.__. ~,,.._ ~ . -_____~ ~ _. ... . ... . . __ ~ , ~ ' ~ . :- _ . _ . MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING mMMISSION~ APRIL 15, 1963. Continuedt 1527 REPORTS ANID - ITF]ut N0. 1. ( Continued. ) RECUMMENDATIONS Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised .the.Ccmmission that Mr. Littla had discussed disposition of subject petition with the City Attorney's off.ice,.and it was the opinion of his off.ice that the Commission could either postpone rendering a decision, .or.deny sub3ect petition, but that approval of the petition would have to be scheduled at the meeting to which it ~vas continued. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. The Co~mnission discussed their previous thinking on sub3ect petition, noting that the location of the..~xoposed service station was not.the proper location, that there would be only one access to Beach.Boulevard, and that no definite plan for development for the rear portion of .the property had heen presented. CoTmnissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 729, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 379, based on the fact that the proposed location of a service statian was incompatible to the development of the area, that the petitioner had not shown proof that he would not be in violation of Section 18.64.030 (2-b, d, 3) of the Zoning Code, and that insufficient development plans had been submitted for development of the entire subject property. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed hy the_fa].l..owing vates AYESe OOMMI&SIONHRSc Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Sidese NOESs COMMISSIONERSt Pebley. ABS~NTs OOMMISSIONERSc Craig, Perry. ITEM N0. 2. . Resignation of Commissioner James Craig. Zoning Ccordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter to the Cormnission from Commissioner Craig addreseed to Mayor Coons, indicating his resignation from the Planning Commfssion in view of the failure of the Yorba Linda annexation. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Mungall, reque~ting that a letter be sent to Commissioner G~aig expressing their regrets to his resignation, and expressing their appreciation for his work performed as a f ellow member of the Cortunission. NpTION CARRI ITFNI ND. 3. Residential Development in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE through use of the conditional use permit, and requesting permission to construct one and two story residential units on the 6,Q00 square foot lots permitted in the R-A, Residential Agricultur~l, Zone. The Cotmnission discussed at length the number of petitions being filed in which peti- tioners proposed to construct substandard residential developments in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone, considered a holding zone, with less that the required 7,200 square feet for single family homes, that many requests had been for multiple family residential developments without the requirement of a reclassification to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, that the tr`ansitional zone should only be used if no other zoning were provided, and that the Coimnission should consider setting for public hearing, a change to the Title 18 - Zoning Code, amendinq Chapter 18.64.020.(3-p), to eliminate the'Zoophole" a:forded developers in constructing substandard residential developments. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that there was some confusion and amblguity in '~ the terminology of Chapter 18.64.020, and that •the R-A, Residentiai Agricuitural, Zone section of the Code should remain as is,. ' • ' , I . -..,.e.. Cormnissioner Sides: offered a motion to direct the Coromi9sfoft Secretary to set fnr public ~; ' hearing at the regular mseting, April 29, 1`~63, consideration for amendment of~ Chapter ! I ~ ~ 18.64, Conditional Uses of the Zoning Code •to permit the establishment of planned reaiden~ial ' i • d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e R- 0, R e s i d e n t i a l S l i b u r b a n, R- 1, O n e F a m i l y R e s 3 d e n t i a l, R- 2, T t Y O F a m i i}r ~.~ : Reeidential, and R-3, Multiplo Family Residential, Zones, but to prohibit the establishment of ~ Planned Residential Developments in the R-A, Resid~ntial Agricultural, Zoneo ' ~ ' ` 4ommi'ssioner Chavos seconded the motion. NqTION CAREtIED. ` J _ _.`.~. __~._~ ._ , , ----- . i T ~ ,,,. --_-.,.;__,_ ______ ---- .. . , ~ -~,t ~ ~ ~ ~ . .ti, ~ ----. ___ U "~ ~ I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION, APRIL 15, 1963o Continuedt 1528 REPORTS AND RE~MMENDATIONS (Continued) _ ITEM 1~. 4. Property being proposed for a school site on the weat side of Ninth Street, approx;.mately 275 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter submitted to the Commission dated April 4, 1963, signed by Narold L. Franzen,pssistant Superintendent of the Anaheim City School District requesting approval of the Planning Commissicn, on th., acquisition of a 5-acre school site located on the west side of Ninth Street, approximately 275 feet south of Katella Avenue. The Commission noted that the proposed school site was in accordance with the Commission's proposals as reflected on the proposed General Plano Commissioner Pebley.offered a motion to advise the Anaheim City School District, that the proposed school site purchase be recommended for approval. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono NqTION CARRIID. ITEM ND. 5. ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT AAo 50704 SUBDIVIDERs BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIESy 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue; ENGINEEFs McDAl:IEL ENGINEERING OOMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located at la Palma Avenue, Red Gum Street, and White Star Avenue, is proposed for development of 1308 acres into 15 M-1, Li3ht Industrial, Zone, lotso Zoning Coorainator Martin Kreidt presented to the Commission, the Or~nge County Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5070, which is located at the northwest corner o£ Red Gum Street and La Palma Avenue, and is proposed for subdivision of approximately 13.8 acres into 15 M-1, Light Industrial, Zone, lots. The Coimnission noted that the proposed development was in accordance with the Industrial Areas Analysis as reflected on the proposed General Plan. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recom~nend to the Orange County Planning Commission that Tentative Map of Tract No. 5070 be app:oved with the provision that a 25 foot building setback be established along Red Gum Street, Street "A" and White Star Avenue, that the equivalent of a 50 foot, P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zone be established on La Palma Avenue, that the proposed cross section of Street "A" p.roposing a 4-foot concrete gutter be replaced with standard "Type A" curb and gutter, that the face of curbs be located 20 feet from the centerline of Street "A", that the City normally permits temporary waiver of sidewalks on interior industrial streets provided that the entire parkway be landscaped withaut trees in the ultimate sidewalk location, and that the section of the recently adopted M-1, Light Industrial, Zone Ordinance, pertaining to landscaping standards be submitted to the County for their consideration. Commissloner Chavos seconded the motion. NpTION CARRIED. ITEM 10.1. 6. • .. _ - ODNDITIONAL PERMIT N0. 1035~ Olive Assembly of God, located on Dowling Street, north of Lincoln Avenueo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed with the Commission the sub~ect conditional permit for the construction of a church in the A-1, General Agricultural District on the west side of Dowling Street, approximatel.y 150 feet nnrth of Lincoln Avenue, north of the City of Orange. The Commission noted the general location of sub~ect ,~ .~arty. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to advise the (' • :.aunty Planning Commission that the Anaheim Planning Commission appreciated their ~ .~eration and to advise them that the Comm?.ssion had no comment on sub3ect petitiono Com~ .~:ioner Chavos sec~nded the motion. MOTION CARNIr.'D. ~--- I ITEM NA. 7. CAND7TIONAL USE PERMIT AU. 229 - Owen Cc+mpany, establish a re•tail auto- mobile dealers- .p on property at the sou~:heast corner of Ball Road and Los Angel.es Street - granted by Planning Coimnission Resolution No. 307, ' S~:ries 1961-62, May 15, 1962. ~ ~ ~~ --- -- -----~~ ___ _ _ ----- __......_ --- ---- ~ _ / ,,...,,..,.. ~ . , ............._~...,-~---- ----- - ~ ' . ~ ~ : .._ _ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION, APRIL 15, 1963. Continuedz r1 LJ 1529 REPORTS AND - ITF~A BA 7. (Continued) REfAMMENDATIONS ~ (Continued) 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreid~c reviewed for the Planning Commission a letter dated April 6, 1963 from the Chrysler Corporation rgquesting a six months' extension of time and approval of revised plans, together with a letter dated April 11, 1963, requesting approval of later revised plans. The Commission reviewed the previous extensions oP time and the development pla+ns originally approved for sub~ect property and compared these ~:ith the new development planra, marked Revision No, le Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to grant an additional extension of six months' time from April 30, 1963 to October 30, 1963, but that the revised plans as submitted be denied; and further that the petitioners be informed that sub3ect property is located at the entranceway to the Southeast Industrial Area in the City of Anaheim; that the •revised elevations are inadequate and are not compatible to the information submitted on the plot plan; that the roof of the showroom building does not appear to be compatible with other recently established structures in the area; that the landscaping plan was not submitted, and that at such time as complete development plans incoporating adequate elevations, plot plans, landscaping plans, and a type of architecture compatibie to the area,.are available for the Commission's considsration, that they be submitted to the Commission for their considerationo Cormnissioner Pebley seconded the motion. G7DTION CARRIED. OORRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 1. ANID REVISION TO MINUTES. MISCELLANIDUS , .,` i ! ; ; The Commission discussed the possibilities of streamlining the minutes of aach meeting offering comments and suggestions to assist the Commission Secretary, namelys Summarization of the petitioner's remarks, the opposition's remarks, discussion by the Cotmnission, specif ic f indings and conditions when a resolution was offered, and the Commissioner's name in controversial matters. ITD~I NJ. 2. Letter from Mrs~ Robert J. Croft, 638 South State College Boulevard. A letter was read to the Commission which had been received from Mrs. Robert J. Croft, relative to rezoning the 600 block of South Sta~e College Boulevard. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt then reviewed for the Cortmiission the various methods which could be used to permit a masonry wall to be constructed in the front yard setback of homes fronting on South State College Boulevarda The Co~nissi.on discussed the masonry wall renderings as they pertained to tlie proposed amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code~ Commissier.er Camp offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to acknowledge re eipt of the letter and to contact the property owners• in the 600 block of South State College Boulevard to discuss the possible solution to their request for rezoning and present the Commission's thinking relative to the proposed masonry wall construction in the front yard setback. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. NDTION CARRIID. ITIIrI I~. 3~ Appointment of a Planning Commissioner to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Chairman Mungall read a request from Mayor Coons r.`~ich asked that the Planning Commission appoint one of its members to represent them on the Parks and Recreation Commission, since former Commissioner Marcoux had been their renresentative. .; 3 ~ i ~ i ;~; ;