Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/06/24~ ~. . ~ ~ u, ~--l ~ ''' ~`'~,~. ~~ ~ -:~ City Hall ~'» ~ Anaheim, California June 24, 1963 RBGULAR MEBTING OF TH3 ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING CONQ~tISSION ~ ~ ~ ,s RBGUTAR MBBTING - A Regular Meeting of the nnaheim City Planning Commission was ~ called to order by Chairman Pro Tem Gauer at 2;00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present. / , , i PRBSHNT - CHAIRMAN PRO TBM: Gauer. COD9~,iISSIONffiiS: Allred, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ; ~ 1 ABSHNT - COMMISSION&'tS: Camp, Chavos, Sides, MungalL ~;, ± PRBSBNT - Zoning Coordinator: ~Martin Kreidt. ; Deputy City Attorney; Furman Roberts. ~ Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Rrebs. ~ INVOCATION - Reverend Crockett, Pastor of Orangethorpe Methodist Church, gave ~ the Invocation. ~ ' I I FLBDGB OP - Commissioner RowJ.and led the'Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ALLHGIANCB APPROVAL OP - The Minu*es of the meeting of June 10, 1963, were approved as '1HB MINUTBS submitted. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTI?NHD PUBLIC FIHARING. BMPIRB FINANCIAL CQRP~tATION, PERMIT N0, 357 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; property described as: Ttivo rec#angular portions of land, Portion "A" TENTATIVH MAP OP having a frontage of 333 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, TRACT NO. 4230 and a depth of 255 feet; Portion "B" having a width of 333 feet and a depth of 1,019 feet, the northerly boundary of Portion "B" being adjacent to the southerly boundary of Portion "A"; and the easterly boundarq of Yortions "A" and "B" bei.ng approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Beach Houlevard. Property presently classified R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRI- CULTURAL, ZONB. C~ Subject petition and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230 were continued from the meetings of February 4 and 18, March 18, April 15, and 29, 1963, at the requ t of the petitioner. REQUB3TSD CONDITIONAL U3B: TO CONSIRUCT A TWO-STORY PLANNBD MULTIPLB F LY •' • • RESID.ffiVTIAL DBVBLOPMENT.AND WAIVHR OP THB SING STORY HBIGHT LIM.ITATION FQR PORTION "B". SUBJBCT 1RACT CONTAIN3: Thirty-three (33) proposed R~3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, and one (1) proposed C-1, NEZGHB~tHOQD CONRdffitCIAL, ZONH lots. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter to the Commission from the developers of subject property in which a request for a four-week extension was made. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 357 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230 to the meeting of July 22, 1963, to allow the petitioner sufficient time to resolve all development problems. Commissioner A11red seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. - 1617 - ~ i , ~ .. _ ._... ..__,-._._._.._.~__._----~ \ __._ ,--_-_.~58 ~, ---- ~~ ~ . . , ~ .~ 1618 irange heim, NC., enue, !0. 2 . 2 133 'URAL ~ nd ~ed e the ed 'PY s ion ~ch ,d ea, efer ie ts. ~ll and ~C ' . ..~ ~~ i "i s t 1 ~ ~ i ~ , ; x s i 1 ~ ~ ~ a ~~ K- ~ ~ ,~,~:~„~ ! ~ ~ ~ `~: ~ :1 MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING C01`9~fISSION, June 24, 1963, Continued; • 1619 ~'`~ .~ CONDTTIONAL USB - Subject tract was consiiered in conjunction with the public hearing =~ PERMIT N0. 381 of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 381. ~ TSNTATIVB MAP OP Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt reviewed the Interdepartmental ~ TRACT N0. 5151 Committee and Planning Department recommendations for subject j (Continued) tract with the Commission. Commissioner Perry offered a mution to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5151, subject to thc: follcwing conditions: ~~ ; 1. That should this subdivison be developed as more than one subdivision, each ! subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That this tract map is approved subject to the approval of Conditionai Use Permit No. 381. 3. That a modified cul-de-sac, provided 1t the terminus of Vallejo Drive, sliall be subject to the approval of the City Hngi.neer, Hngineering to be provided by the City of Anaheim and construction by •the developer. 4. Thnt the access rights to Western Avenue and Orange Avenue, except for Lot 3 and street openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 5, That the dwelling units and garage units designated by letters and numbered letters shall not be delineated on the final tract map. 6. lhat the northerly 2~ feet of the westerly 745 feet of subject property shall be recorded as Lot No. 29, to be used exlusively for block wall ~ construction and landscaping, and to be labeled, "Not A Buildable Site". ~ 7. That due to the size and shape of subject property, and the manner in which the abutting property to the North has been developed, the crossWsection of the westerly 745 fee7 of the proposed street shall be improved as follows: Adjacent to Lot No. 29, a 1 foot parkway, a 14 foot travelway to centerline of the street, a 20 foot travelway and parking lane from the centerline to the soui.ia c;urbface, and a 10 foot soatherly parkway; and further provided that the northerly parkway extending easteriv 745 feet from the westerly property line, shall be posted with, "No Parkiag" signs by the developer in accordance with City of Anaheim Standards. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. . TSNTATIVE MAP OP - DSVBLOPHR: PI3HBR-MONT~GOMHRY-R03S, 10835 Santa Monica Boulevard, TRACT N0. 5227 Los Angeles 35, California. BNGINHBR: Jennings-Halderman-Hood, 1833 Hast 17th Street, Suite 200, Santa Ana, California. Subject tract is located on the south side of Orange Avenue, approximately 663 feet east of Beach Boulevard, and contains 36 proposed R-1, One Family Residential, 2one lots. Zoning Coordinato= Maztin Kreidt advised the Commission that a=evised tentalive map •had been submitted after the Interdepartmental.Committee meeting which incorporated the suggested street iayout pattern, that the Planning Department after a brief analysis of the map noted that a.portion of the land being subdivided was marked "Not A Part", and that it might be suggested that the engineer clarify the "Not A Part". Mr. Hugh Halderman, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that the "Not A Part" parcel located on the nostheast corner of the subject tract was a separate parcei under separate ownership, that the developer would be unable to make dedication on that parcel because of the separate ownership, that the property preseatly being subdivided had been sold at least twice previously, and that with the right of eminent domain on the "Not A Part" by its owners, the developer could not make dedication on said parcel. 1 ~\ `------------- ._.._.__. . _ ~z ', I~ . _. ._ I I I z ~ a ~q 9 3 ___ . .,.~ i . ~ ~.~._...._._. ---_ _--- =- - -_ . . , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 24, 1963, Continued: 1620 S TENTATIVB MAP OP - Mr. Kreidt then reviewed the requirements for residential agri- E 1RACT N0. 5227 cultural zoned property, noting that the "Not A Part" parcel had ~ (Continued) more than one residential stzucture on it and was less than an ~ acre in size, and that if the "Not A Part" had been recorded ~ prior to 1951 the requirement of R~A propert'y being not less than an acre would not be applicable. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that conditions could not be attached to parcels of land not included in the tentative tract. The Commission discussed the division of the original parcei of land, its relationship to the illegal lot split, and the possibility of the develope•t attempting to obtain the dedication of the Orange Avenue frontage of the "Not A Part" parcel, and that if said parcel had been sold a year and one-half ago to a third party, the condition could not be imposed. Mr. ICreidt advised the Com~nission, in clarifying the recordation of an illegal lot split, that many illegal lot splits were recorded daily, that the City was unabie to maintain control over this, that such lot splits could be roade, but upon being used, would have to comply with the Zoning Code, that the proposed dedication and improvement condition of the "Not A Part" parcel had been imposed on similar sitqations many times, that the Planning Department would have to check the County Records to de:ermine when the lot split had been effected, and that ss a condition of approval the Commission might stipulate that full dedication of the Orange Avenue frontage for subject tract and the "Not A Part" be required, but that if the developer was unsuccessful in obtaining the dedication of the property from the owners of said parcel, dedication would then only cover the Orar.ve Avenue frontage of subject tract. Commissioner. Sides offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5227, subject to the following conditions: .l. That shouid this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for appzoval. 2. That the access rights to Orange Avenue, except at street openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 3. That provisions for drainage westerly to Beach Boulevard shall be provided, including easements and construction of the drainage facilities. 4. That a six (6) foot masonry wali shall be constructed adjacent to the planed hi.ghway right-of-way line on Ocange Avenue, where Lots 1, 17, and 18 side on to said arterial highway, provided that said walls shall be stepped down to 24 inches in the front yard setback. Reasonable landscaping including irrigation facilities shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the Orange Av~nue parkway along the full distance of said walls. Plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superinten- dent of Parkway Maintenance. Following the installation and acceptance of said plans, the City of Anaheim shall assume .the responsibility of the landscaping, 5. That the approval of subject tract shall be contingent on the full dedication and installation of all improvements of the Orange Avenue frontage for subject tract as well as the "Not A Part", but that if the developer is unable to obtain dedication from the owners of the "Not A Part", dedication and improve- mrnts shall be only for that portion of the tract frontage of Orange Avenue. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. 1 ~ I _ . ~'. ~y~c~ -------'--.__..... ~ .. . . . . ,~., _ ;;~ '_~ '.~ ~ ~ i ; 1 ~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ I . ~ . i ' 1 _ ---.. ,.....e....__- ~-` --- ~~ ~ l MIDTUTB3, CITY PLANNTNG CObA1ISSI0N, June 24, 1963, Continued: 1621 VARIANGB N0. 1581 - PUBLIC HHARING. IRA A. and ETTA KSfiSH, 1922 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; KBNNSTH KEBSBB, 849 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVB THH REQUIRSD M-1, and P-L SITE DHVBLOPMBNT STANDARDS on pro~~erty described as: An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 177 feet on the north- easterly side of Los Angeles Street, and an average depth of 249 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 1,120 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1942 South Los Angeles Street. Propescy presently ciassified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and P-L, PARKING IANDSCAPING, ZONBS. Mr. Kenneth Keesee, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the propose3 light industrial ~evelopment, that photographs had been submitted which indicated that a similar setback as was being requested existed approximately one- half mile south of subject property, and that the proposed construction would be the first in agproximately 25 years in the vicinity of subject property. The Commission noted in their field trip to subject property the variance in the set- back of properties along South Los Angeles Street, that upon street dedication of 12 feet, these setbacks would align structures immediately abutting the ultimate street, that it might be to the advantage of the petitioner as well as assisting the Commission in their decision of subject petition, if the Pianning Department made a study of the variabie setbacks on Los Angeles Street; that the study might indicate that a more uniform plan for setbacks might be arrived at, that subject properiy was no~ too fa~ from the City of Orange City Limits on which a number of attractive commeicial developments were being proposed or had been developed, and that the existing structures were an eyesore as viewed from the Katella Avenue overpass. No opposition was presented against subject petition. Ttffi H&ARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance No. 1581, to the meeting of July 22, 19C+3, in order to permit the Planning Department sufficient time to prepare a study of the existing setbacks on Los Angeles Street, together with suggestions of a plan of development for future building setbacks for the industrial area in which subject property and adjacent property is located. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. SPBCIAL STUDY - Commissioner Alired offered a motion to direct the Planning RkiQUBST TO THH Department to make a special study of the industrial area on pLAN11ING DSPARTMHNT South Los Angeles Street, which would indicate the existing building setbacks, the proposed width of South Los Angeles Street, possible alignment of any future setbacks for South Los Angeles Street so as to be compatibile with the City of Orange commercial development adjacent to the Anaheim industrial area, and to complete the report for submission to the Commission at their meeting of July 22, 1963. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. ftIf+NCB N0. 1582 - PUBLIC HHARING. MILRS 0. HANN, 10691 Allen Drive, Garden Grove, - California, Owner;'VAL'ZAJHC RBALTY, 13422 Verann Avenue, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to TABLISH A RBAL HSTATB OFPICE on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land ving a frontage of 64 feet on the east side of Magnolia Street, aad a depth of 97 feet, e northerly boundary of said p~.operty being approximately 586 feet south of the nterline ef La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1016 North Magnolia Street. operty presently classified R-1, ONE FAMILY I:~~IDSNTIAL, ZONB. . Val Zajec, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated that .nce the prnposed use was similar to the original use which had been granted through variance on subject property, this means an application was made. ~'~~. ,,~ i.~ '~' ~ i I ' ' i ~. _ .. - ~. ( } ( J ~"'~ MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jnne 24, 1963, Continued: 1622 VARIANCH N0. 1582 - Mrs. Herman Bruno, 935 North Magnolia appeared before the (Continued) Commission and stated that a number of the neighbors had met with her relative to suSject petition, and had arrived at the conclusion that any business use for property fronting on Magnolia Avenue should be made through application of C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone reclassification. The Commission noted for Mrs. Bruno that upon a previous request for commercial zoning at Magnoiia and Ball Road, the Commission had granted this, but subject to the remuval of one home for each two homes reclassified, in order to provide for sufficient parking facilities, and that subject property had been denied a previous relcassifi- cation because there was insufficient parking facilities together with the fact that the alley abutting to the east of subject property had a dead end at the northeasterly corner of subject property, and that said aliey was for residential use only and not to be used commercially. Mr. Miles Hann, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated trat th~ entire inside of the existi:~g structure was developed for commercial use, thzt to renovate the existing structure for residential use would involve the expenditure of several thousand dollars, that commercial facilities existing directly across the of:nn4 F.~n~n g~t.'nn~ n.nr.a.~f~v n.i 1~ho ~±l~n .'~0:: :::C ~.::«~ ~::° ..~~... .... _ ... ..J.._ ~.' _~,_"~ ~ _" ._ ., r^~. .. ......... ::~y^.. which had been granted extended to any similar use or type of business which might be requested, Mr. Matthew Lanza, 930 North Magnolia Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that the traffic on Magnolia Avenue was greatly increasing due to the fact that the Orange County officials had designated the.street as a primary arterial highway and was the only north-south street bisecting the entire County, and thea quoted tb.e increase in vehicles using the street noting there was a 300~, increase which indicated the use most appropriate was commercial, due to noises and fiimes emanating from the vehicles. The Commission expressed their opi.nion that an increase in traffic could not be a reason for rezoning of property, and that many cities had main thoroughfares bisecting their most exclusive residential areas. THH HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 804, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption~ sec~nded by Commissioner Sides, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1582, due to the Fact that subject property had insufficient parking facilities, and were using a residential alley to gain access to existing p3rking facilities, a use for which the alley was not intended. <See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYHS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Pebley, Pezry, Rowland, Sides. NOBS: CObA1ISSIONBRS: None. ABSHNT: COhAIISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall. Commissioner Sides in voting to deny subject petition, stating that those who had appeared in favor could be likened to having one's hand on a hot stove and the other on ice, one negated the other. .i~~ `.;- ;t ~ '~ ~ 1 i ------- --... ~-- -- - --- -- --.._,_.. --- -------_-.. _____---- --- -- ~ ~! ~ ~ / ~.. V~ ~ i . ~_ _ - - •~ - . Ac. ~ ~ ~ T-- --,F---- ---_.----- - I 1 _ .. -• ......_.,=n..._.W..._._..._~_.._.---- -------.r_....~.._.~~,-- -- _. . _ ---. ~) (Ll MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jtme 24, 1963, Continued: ~ 1623 CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. RBNBAR, INC., 1422 North Central Park Avenue, PffitMIT N0. 437 Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to UTILIZE THOSH USB3 IN A M-1, LIGHT INDUSIRIAL, ZONH, WHICH RHQUIRBD A CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT AND SUCH USES AS RSTAIL DISIRIBUTING PIRMS PRIMARILY SBRVICB COMMffitCB AND INDUSIRY, ONLY INCIDBNTAL SHRVICB TO TFiH GENBRAL PUBLIC PHRMITTBD; AND 3UCH 3BRVIGH AS BUSINBSS PIRMS, INCLUDING BUSINBSS AND PROPBSSIONAL OPPICH3 PRIMARILY SBRVING CO~hA1BRCB AND INDUS'IRY, ONLY INCIDBNTAL SHRVICH TO THH GSNERAL PUBLIC PffitMITTEC; AND THB WAIVBR OP THB 330 POOT DISTANCB LIMITATION WHHRB ADJACHNT Tn 1HB .SXTERIOR BOUNDARIBS OP A PUBLIC SCHOOL, on property described as; A rectangular shaped portion of land 825 feet by 650 feet having a frontage of 361 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Street, and containing~ 49 M-1, Light Industrial, 2one lots. The easterly bonndary of said land being approximately 640 feet west of the centerline of Walnut Street, and fuzther described as Tract No. 3970. Property presently ciassified as M-1, LIGHT INDU3IRIAL, ZONB. Mr. Nick Barletta, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the events relative to development of the industrial tract of which subjeCt property is composed, noting that the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone code was modified about six (6) months ago, which now necessitated fhe filing of a conditional use permit each time a lessee in the tract wished to establish in the tract, that this was creating quite a nuisance and through the filing of subject petition it was hoped that any SUUJC~jLLCI1L ueveiopmeni migni ue accompiisned without an eight-week delay by ttie Yiling of conditional use pe~mit For a specific use. In reply to a question by the Commission of the proposed uses which the petition had in mind which was not permitted in the light industziai zone, Mr, Barletta replied that he hoped to establish a printing plant, that office uses were not permitted, and that the industrial park had been designed so as to accommodate commercial and industrial use, ' and to develop the tsact to its highest and best poten*_ial. The Commission reviewed the uses permitted for the industrial park, and noted that development of the area should be permitted as originally granted under the special use permit, that there appeared to be some unsightly signs viewed from Walnut Street, which seemed to be located behind two existing buildings, and that subje.ct tract should have more landscaping on the front to distract fxom the industrial appearance. Mr. Barletta advised the Commissiort that the signs in question would be relocated on the wes~erly portion of subject property and would face Broadway, that 80% of the uses granted under Special Use Permit No. 50 would not be allowed in the light• industrial zone, a:;d that by the requirement of more landscaping as suggested would reduce the amount of parking now being provided. Purther reviewed of Special Use Permit No. 50 indicated that landscaping was one of the requirements in the approval of said petition and the industria? tract, and that if subject petition were approved, this would permit completion of an industrial tract approved three years aE,,, provided that it met with all M-1, Light Industrial, Zone requirements. Mr. Jack Pleming, 601 Kiane Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated that he resided directly behind the incust•rial parkT that - one of the reasons the residents of the area did not oppose the Special Use Permit No, 50 was because specific uses were stipulated, and that when any new use was being proposed,adjacent residents were permitted to voice their opinion regarding any objectionable development, that the reason the school authorities did not oppose the previous request was because these safeguards had been provided, and that each new use of the industrial park should be coiisidered on its own merits rather than given a blanket approval of any type of use. Mr. Barletta, in rebuttal, stated that the petitioner could not jeopardize their position by allowing individuals to pass judgement on property which the petition had paid for, although he present a sot+.d argument, that a brochure had been mailed sometime ago emphasizing the fact that development tias contingent of conditional approval, that the industrial tract and structures were leased to tenants and were owned by the petitioner, and that the~ petitioner had no intention of downgrading the industriai tract by allowing objectionable uses. ,h :x -~ `:;~ ~ ~ -7 t i i ~.~._.,._...~_i_ -- --- _. - - --..... _..__ .._... ...._._._...-- ---~--.. , _...-- --- ,__ _ °------ .--------. C~ ~ MINUTgg~ CITy PIANNING COMMI33IOld, June 24, 1963, Continued: e 1624 CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Sarietta in answer to the Cormnission's question as to the PffitMIT N0. 437 possibility of.the no3,se and objectionable factor affecting the (Continued) schools, stated that the petitioner under the previous permit was allowed any use listed in tkie light industrial zone, and that the structures near the opponent~s"property were too small to permit heavier and objectionable uses. Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts advised the Commission that the petitioner had been advised by the City Attorney Joe Geisler,that a conditional use permit was required for any use in the light iadustriai zone as stipulated that the list could be more extensive than presently required on subject property, and that the Commission could then pass the petition on its own merits. In clarifying the stipulation in Special Use Permit No. 50, that no use should be permitted which would be detrimental to the area as weil as a time limitation being stipulated in its granting, Mr. Roberts stated that when that time of a condition appeared in a variance or a conditional use permit, the Commission would have to hear it at a public hearing, and that the City Councii had made the stipulation in order that development of the industrial park could be controlled. THH HBARING WA3 CLOSBD. Mr. Roberts then advised the Caremission that the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone code requirements stipulated that aa~ uses which would be o~noxious by reason of emission of odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise~ vibration, electromagnetic dieturbance, radiation, or other similar causes might be required of the petitioner which would act as a safeguard for both the residential uses as well as the existing school and the proposed junioz high school. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt. stated that there were 53 uses permitted under the M-1 Code requirements, that it was the intent of the petitioner to establish any induatrial use permitted in the M-1 section of the Code, and that the request was made because subject property was within 330 feet of an existing schooi, Purther discussion was held by the Commission relative to uses permitted under the $pecial Uae Permit No. 50 and the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone, noting that if sub,~ect petit3on W?r~ ~2nroved, any signa or lights might be detrimental to the school, that they should be directed away from both the resident3al uses and the school, and that although the M-1~ Sectioa of the Code provided broader uses, it also stipulated that required setbacks be required, obnoxious uses were prohibited, thus acting as a safe- guard. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 805, 8eries 1962-63, aad moved for its passage and adoption, aeconded by Commiasioner Pebley, to grattt Petitioa for Conditional Uae Permit No. 437, provided that sub,~ect property be developed in accordance with on-aite development atandarda of the M-l, Light Industrial~ Zone and the requirement that any lights or aigna be directed away from the reaidential usea and the achool. (See Reaolution Sook.) On roil call the foregoing resolution"was`passed by the'following vote: AY83: COMMISSIONBRB: Allred, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOBg; COMMISSIONBR3: None. pB3gNT; COI~A~IISSIONSRS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall. CONDITIONr+:• USH - PUBLIC FffiARING. PBRRY HOLLBY~ c/o CASUALTY INSURANCB COMPANY, pgRlyI_ T__^N0, ~'38 810 South Spring Street, Los Angeies 14, California, Owner; WILLIAM L. RUDOLPH, A.I.A „ 2614 Weat Seveath Street, Los Angeies 57, Califoraia, Ageat; requesting peraiasion to (1) ESTABLISH AN OPPICH COh~L$}C PUR AN INSURANCfi HBADQUARTBR3 HII1H ADDITIONA* R~LATSD USBS, (2) BSTABLISH A RBgTAURANT WITH COCRTAYLLOUNGS ON GROUND PLOQt on property described as: A triangul~r parcei of land having a frontage of 935 feet on the southwest corner of Manchester Avenue, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 666 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Bouleeard, and the southerly boundary being approximat~iy 692 feet north of the centerline of Alro Avenue. Property presently ciassified as R~A, RHSIDBN- 7IAL AGRICULTIIRAL, 20N8. , __ _.._. ~.._ ^~...~_.. __ _~ ~ - ----~~~ , ., .. . _ ' ~ ~ -^----r------ , , _. ---- -- ---- ..,, : > ~ . ~ MIN[iTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 24, 1963, Continued: 1625 CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Wiiliam Rudolph, agent for the petition, appeared be£ore the PBRMIT N0. 438 Commission and reviewed the proposed three stage development of (Continued) subject property, noting that the first structure will house the insurance company, the second stage would be the development of an eleven-story office building and the third stage would be the development of a three-story structure, and presented colored renderings of the entire three-stage development for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Rudolph further noted that the proposed restaurant would be for the future development when the proposed eleven-story structure kouid warrant it. The Commission discussed. the proposed use as it related to the Disneyiand Policy adopted by both the ^ity Council and the Commission, and further discussed with the agent the proposed parking iayout. Mr. Robert P. Poster, representing the Disneyland properties appeared tefore the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated that he was opposed to the overall proposals of subject petz.tion, that the petitioner should have been made aware of the City of Anaheim~s Disneyland Policy, that the petitioner at first stated the structures would house the national headquarters of the insurance company, but later stated that no specific type of tenants would occupy other offices within the eleven- 3~0L9 R~rt~rt~~rg ~rn~Qaot,i ag th~ g~~CAd F::wS~ O: ti2'rciG~~u2u~~ ~i18i Pialy3 8y submitted made it difficult to determine any completion date for each phase, that said plans had insufficient detail to determine whether any direci sales activity would be consumated within the structures, and that with such insufficient detail or information, the representatives of the Disneyland enterprises were unable to properly determine whether the proposed structures would be compatible to the recreaticnal integrity of the area in which it was proposed to be located. The agent for the petitioner then stated that the first phase would be the national headquarters of the insurance coQpany, and that the second and third phases of develop- ment could be subject'to the Commission's and the City Council's approval. The Co:nmission discussed with the agent for the petitioner development review by the Commission and the City Council of any future development, that approval of the first phase of developm?nt would not incorporate the minimum required three acre site stipulated in the Disneyland Policy, that plans as shawn indicated that the petitioner was desirous of obtaining approval of only the first phase and had not presented complete development plans fur the secoed and third phases, and inquired of the petitioner whether the petitioner had any definite plans of developmen~ for the last two phases. The agent for the petitioner contended that a comprehensive pian of development had been submitted, that the client, namely *.he insurance company, wanted immediate approval of the first stage of development, but that he could not make a statement or promise for any other phase of development. Zoning Coordinator Martin Lreidt, advised the Commission that if subject first phase were approved, a stipulatio~ might be made that development must be for the first three acres, therefore insuring that the balance of the ~roperty could not be sold off and could only be developed for the proposed second and third phase of the proposed develoFatent. Mr. Poster then inquired of the agent whether rental facilities would be available in the first phase building~ to which the agent replied in the affirmative noting that seid tenants would be compatible office tenants on short term leases. Mr. Poster then stated that this was precisely contrary to the Disneyland Policy which required one type of business facility with no rental to other than affiliates of the company, and that it was his understanding that the Disneyland Policy only permitted commercial development in the area as national headquarters offices, and in pxevious commercial requests, the Commission and City Council had denied said requests because of their retail commercial aature which was contrary to the Policy. TH8 HBARING WAS CL03ED. ---, -. ---- ~ '. , -_ .._ --- -_~___.. , . .._ ~ ~ f~- ~--- ~ _ ~ ' ~ ~ • ' !a .~ ~ V ~ MINUTSS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 24, 1963, Continued: 1626 CONDITIONAL USB - The Commission expre:,sed the opinion that too many loose ends PBRMIT N0. 438 seemed to indicate serious consideration of its impact to the (Continued) recreational area, that the Disneyland Policy should be a controlling factor, and the Commission could not render a proper decision until something more concrete were submitted which would specifically indicate the proposed uses and occupants of the structures being proposed. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts in his interpretation of the Disneyland Policy stated that the proposed establishment within the Disneyland Area would prohibit aay- thing other than an insurance counsel to serve the headquarters office of the insurance company, and any other legai counsel would be servicing customers thereby being in violation of the intent of the Disneyland Policy. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and cantinue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 438, to the meeting of July 22, 1963, and direct the petitioner to consult with the City Attorney's office, the Planning Department, and the representatives of Disneyland ~n order to resolve difficultures relative to proper development of subject property. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HHA[tING. JOHIV H. KINNBY, JR., 1441 South Los Angeles Street, PHRN,IT N0. 439 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to BSTABLI3H AN BMPLOYBB'S PARSING LOT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of Sand having a frontage of 100 feet on the west side of Zeyn Street, and a depth of 114 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 78 feet south of the centerline of Midway Drive, and further described as 1443 South Zeyn Street. Property presently classified as R-1, ONE FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH. Mr. John Rinney, ,jr., the owner appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. Mr. Bd Cronan, 12472 Haga, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated he represented the owners of the Midway Trailer Park who owned property immediately to the north and south of subject property, that in the Commission's consideration of subject petition adequate provisions should be maua to require a masonry wall adjacent to subject property to protect said property from damage, and to insure the privacy of trailez dwellers, that the petitioner had attempted to exchange subject property for a portion of land owned by the trailer park owners, but had been unsuccessful in resolving these aegotiations, that a parking problem did exist on Midway Drive from the parking of employee automobiles on the street. that at one time the petitioner did have sufficient parking facilities, but had converted the parking lot into a storage area, that aithough the trailer park owners wouid like to have the parking situation remedied since a hazard had been created, the residential integrity of the trailer park should be considered since the proposed parking facilities were not contiguous to the Sight industrial area and wer2 entirely within a residential zone, that there was a possibility that the proposed parking facilities would be utilized by trucks, and that the Commission should continue to maintain the westernmost boundary of any light industrial development on the east side of Zeyn Street. Mr. Kinney, in sebuttal, stated that trucks would not use the proposed parking facilities which had been designated for employees only, that it was his intent to remove the employees cars from public thoroaghfares, that a schooi was located across the street from the industrial facilities, and the parking of cars created a hazardous condition to the children, that the petitioner was not asking for a change in zone merely requesting permission to use the area for parking by employee::, and that there were only 7 to 8 employees who worked the night shift which was finished at 11.30 p.m. THB HFu-RING WAS CL0.SBD. ~ ~.l ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COihAlISSION, June 24, 1963, Continned: 1627 CONDITIONAL USB - Zoning Coozdinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission ~•~iat a PffitMIT N0. 439 conditional use permit for use of property #o the north of the (Continued) industrial development by the traiier park ~wners, it was continued after being heard by the City Council to such time as all problems which had been inherited by the City at the time trailer parks were no longer under the jurisdiction of the State, that a complete study had been made of all existing uses of property for trailer park purposes, which had not been specificaliy approved by the City, that this study was now being analyzed by the City Attorney~s office for approval and possible requirement of the trailer park owners for permission to utilize the existing property for the existing uses through zoning, and that he would suggest that subject petition be continued until this petition had been filed, and also to encourage the netitioner to meet with the City's representatives and the trailer park owners to possibly e.ffect an exchange of propesty to maintain the residential inte~.r?.ty o:' the west side of 'Leyn Street and still permit the petitioner to provide parking i_:: :ties for his employees. The petitioner then agreed to such a continuance. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 439, to the meeting of July 22, 1963, in order to allow the adjoining property owner to file for conditional use of property adjacent to subject property, and to afford the petitioner an opportunity to negotiate a trade of property ; and meet with the City's representatives to resolve these differences. Commissioner ~ Rowland seconded the motzon. MOTION CARRIHD. ~ PUBLIC HEARING. RHCIASSIFTCATION - HVA BIBIANSKI, 2760 Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; N0, 62-63-127 WILLIAM J, KISGBN, 1814 Bayless Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a CONDITIONAL USB frontage of 354 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue and a ~BRMIT N0. 436 depth of 410 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 310 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2760 Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH. . RBQUSSTBD CLASSIPICATION: R-3, MIILTIPLH FAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZONB. RHQUH3TBD CONDITIONAL USB: CONSIRUCT A SINGLH ST(~iY MULTIPLB FAMILY PLANNBD RBSIDENTIAL DHVffiOPMSNT. Mr. William Kisgen, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and staYed that in a previous request for multiple family zoning the petitioner had proposed two-story construction, but was now proposing single story development, that the owner of subject property had terminated her chicken ranch and was desirous of suppiementing her income by proposing the proposed development. The Commission expressed the opinion that multiple family development was not within 3/4 of a mile of subject property, and to approve subject development would encourage additional multiple family development in an area almost completely developed for low density single family residential use. Mr. Robert Hooker, 2748 3tockton, appeared before the Commi~sion and asked to view the plot plan, and upon viewing the plans, asked whether Stocktm would remain a dead end street or would the petitioner proposed to open the street for ingress and egress to the multiple family development being proposed. The agent replied that the street would be as presently developed and would not be opened for use by the proposed development. Mr. Adeline Stockdale, 2947 3tockton, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, piesenting a petition signed by 18 pe=sons requesting that subject property be developed similar to the single family integrity surroundiag it, and asked that the persons opposing subject petition who were present have a showing of. hands. Six persons indicated their presence in opposition. V ~ MINUTAS, ~:ITY PLANNING COhAfIS8I0N, June 24, 1963, Contirlued: ~ .. . 'r~ S i 1628 i RBCIASSIFICATION - M~c. John Slavey, brother of the petitioner~ appeared before the N0. 62-63-127 Commission in favor of subject petition stating that the petitioner needed additional income, that a portion of the chicken ranch had CONDITIONAL USH been sold to a church, that the balance of the operation of the PffitMIT N0. 436 chicken ranch had been terminated so as not to arouse the ire of (Continued) the neighbors, said termination having caused a great financial loss to the petitioner, that the only persons he could visualize op~osing subject petition were those residents who had purchased homes since the aforestated activities took place, and that the ptoposed development had been designed so as to be esthetically compatible with the single family residentiai em~ironment surrounding subject property. THH FffiARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 808, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconed by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-127 be disapproved based on the facts that the proposed use would be incompatible to the low density residential environment surrounding the property, and that subject property was developable for single family subdivision. (8ee Resolutioa Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin¢ vote: AYB3: CQMMISSIOI~lt3: Allred, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOB3: COMMISSIONBRS; None. ABSBNT: COMMTS51ONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 809, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commission~ar Perry, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 436, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resalutioi~ was passed by the following vote; AYB3: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, rebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOE3: CObAtISSI0NHR3: None, AB3BNT: COMMIBSION~t3: Camp, Chavos, Mungall. RBCtASSIPICATION - PUBLIC t~ARIN~. DOUGLAS BISHOP, 7429 Bast Third Stree~, Downey, N0, 62-63-128 California, Owner; G~QQGB SBLTZ, 411 North Bush Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as; TENTATIVB MAP OF A rectangular shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 306 f~et. 1RACT N0. 5208 on the east side of Magnolia Street and a depth of 570 feet, t:~e ~noriherly boundary of said property being approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Broadway be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDffiVTIAL AQtICULTURAL, 20NB to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONH-to ~ develop subject property into one and two-story multiple family residential de~•elopment, TSNTATIVB MAP RHQUEST •- SUBDIVIDHR: GEOitGB R. BBLT2, 951 South Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, California. ENGINBSR: VO~tHBIS-1RINDLB-NHLSON INC., 13794 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, Ca7ifornia. Subject tract proposes twelve (12) R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone Sots. Mr. Jack Jolly, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property was contiguous to neighborhood commercial zoned property to the north as weli as heavy commercial zoned property, that strip commercial development fronted Magnolia on the west of subject property, and that the proposed development had a lower density than was permitted in the requested reclassification. . , F . ~ ~ 'i~:: : i*'~~ `, ... __ /~ . _ ._._. "__'_'.. . . _ . . . . . . .. . . . .. ........ . . . . _ .'.:_, ...~.~...,. . .___""_""_" .:,; ; . .. . w. ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTS3, CITY P7ANNING COhAtISSION, June 24, 1963, Continued: 1629 RHCLASSIFICATION - Mr. Robert Moore, 2561 Runyon Place, appeared in opposition to N0, 62-63-128 subject petition and stated that subject property had been deaied a change in ~oniag twice previously, and that he had purchased TBNTATIVB MAP OP his property with the assusance that subject property wouid remain 1RACT N0. 5208 in its present zoning. (Continued) Mr, Harry Miliigan, 411 South Gilbert, appeared before the Commission and stated that although he iived one-half mile from subject property, his main concern was the development of apartments in the vicinity of subject property, that a survey had been made which showed that apartments in the City had a serious vacancy problem which subsequently added to the school development problems, that the Commission should coasider the possibility of the area turning into a slum azea when so manp apartments remained unrented, and that he hoped the Commission would consider the single family residents in the area by requirin.a3 that subject property be developed for single family subdivision. J• ;T• Hazelton, 2565 Runyon Place, appeared in favor of subject petition, and stated that his property backed onto subject property. Mr. ,Tames B. Wood, 2554 Runyon Place, appeared before the Commission in oppoaztion to subject petition and noted that subje~ct development wouid~be adjacent to homes vained a~ .~jr.~i.~i~vvv ~^v .o-p~v~vvv~ ~iao~ uuvj2C~ ~iv~ci j ~Au~.C~. ...Zj ~~~ ~ ~° .°.+.^.~.~C~. :v~ u~ubi2 family subdivision, that with the proposed 36 dwelling units a parking problem would arise, and asked the Commission why the petitioner had previously been denied reclassi- fication of subject property. Chairman pro tem Gauer advised Mr. Wood that any number of reasons miRht have been noted at the time the petition eras heard, and that previous actions by the Coamission could be reviewed by anyone in the Planning Department. In rebuttal, Mr. Jolly stated that some of the apartments being proposed were larger than many of the homes adja.cent tc the subject property and could rent for 1~ times the rental of any single fami7.y homes in the area, that with the advent of commercial deveiopment to the north of subject property, that the proposed multiple famiiy develop- ment wouid act as a huffer to the single family residences, that with commercial development on the west, side af Magnolia Avenue, subject property might easily become commercia7. in the futt;re, and this would be impracticai to consider any commercial development adjacent to a single family development, and that traffic being generated from the proposed de•velopment would not create a problem to other residences since the proposed developmenf; was providing its own street which would have ingress and egress from Magnolia Avenue. Mr. Robert Moore, 2561 Runyon Place, expressed concern about development of apartments in the exclusive residential development of the Sherwood Homes area. Mr. Jolly stated that he had contacted residents on Runyon Street and had received some comments in favor•of subject petition. .. THH H&ARING WA3 CL03HD. In reply to the Commission~s aqestion as to whether the petitioner would be willing to limit development of subject property to one story, Mr. Jolley stated that this aspect had been explored~ but feit that the two story being.proposed was adjacent to the commercially zoned property to the north and sinqle story development adjacent to the singie family residences, and that the investment return ruled out entire single story development, and then seviewed the various structures being proposed with the Commission noting that two story was well outside of the required 150 feet from R-1, One Pamily Residential Zone. The Commission noted in their fieid trip that muitiple family development on Magnolia Street did not have two story construction within two miies of subject property. r' ~ I . ' I i ~ ~ ~ - - --. ____.._._.. _ _ _. __ i ~_ . ) ._ ~~_,__.. , ,_ , ,_., . _ _~ ~ ~ , . . _ .~ . ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COI~4dISSION~ June 24, 1963~ Continued; ... . _.- ,l ~ ~ ~ ~ 1630 ~ i R8CLA3SIPICATION -- The Commission not~d that their body had used the proposed Genera? N0. 62-63-128 Plan as a guide for the development of the proposed area, and the Pian indicated single family :es.idential development, and if the TBNTATIVB MAP OP Commission was to consider subject petition favorably, it wauld TRACT N0, 5208 have to be considered for revision on the proposed General Plan, (Continued~ ~.hat although the proposed development was of a high quality, it was not the proper form of development when adjacent to a great deal of low density residential development, and that any multiple family development which the Co~mnission might consider in the vicinity of subject property, should be confined to the northerly side of Broadway. Commissioner Perry offased Resolution No. 808, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-128 be disapproved, based on the fact that subject property could easily be developed for single family residential uses, and that multiple faaiily residential development should be confined to the north side of Broadway. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COhA4ISSI0NHRS: Allred, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOgS; COMMISSIONgRS: None. p~gpT; COMMISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall. Subject tract map was considered in conjunction with the public hearing of Reclassification No. 62-63-128, Commissioner Perry offered a motion to disapprove Tentative Map of Tract No. 5208, based on the fact tha~ reclassification of subject property had been denied, therefore, nullifying development of the proposed subdivision into twelve R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, Sots. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTIt~N CARR.L;A.::. Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 5:30 P.M. RHCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBAItING. BLBANOR J. SI{BLTON, c/o MARY S. BHBKS, 944 Pacific N0. 62-63-129 Avenue, Suite 1, Long Heach, Californise, Owner; PRAHIC C. ROBINSON, JR., 9830 Atlantic Boulevard, 5outhgate, California, Agent; requesting that property described as; A rectangular parcel of iand having a frontage of 110 feet on the north side of Pay Lane, and a frcntage of 135 feet on tk-e west side of West Street be reclassified from the R-1, ONB PAMILY RBSIDffiVTIAL, ZOAffi, to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB to e3tablish a seven (7) unit, single story apartment building. Mr, Frank Robinson, agent for the petitioner, reviewed for the Commission the proposed use of subject property noting that the proposed development would round out the balance of construction adjacent to the multiple family developments_now.in,existence. It was noted by the Commission that subject property had been stipulated as one family residential zone property by the City Council at the time Tract No. 1607 was approved for multiple family development, the reason being, that it was the desire of the City to maintain thE single family residential integrity on West Street, and that conditions had not changed to alter the Commissionts previous stand on the method of development. The agent in reply stated that for economic reasons the petitioner desired to develop the vacant land for multiple family use and had attempted to resolve the problem by proposing sing].e story development. --- - --- - ---~ • - -- -------------, •--r-- , • . .. . _._..._. :._._._..-._... _ --i~ • ~ . . . ~ , : -~-- ~ MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 24, 1963, Continued: 1631 RBCIASSIFICATION - Mr. Harold Mack, 312 South West Street, appeared before the N0. 62-63-129 Commission in opposition to subject petition stating that he (Continued) sepresented four other persons in the Council Chamber, that he had purchased his home in 1947 when the property was being deveioped for single family homes, that previous action by the Commission and Council reflected the desires of the residents in the area by requiring that subject property be developed for low density residential use to buffer the multi~le family development to the west on Fay Lane, and it was his hope that the Commission wouid continue to require that subject property be developed for singie fami.ly residential use by the construction of two homes on subject property. Mr. W. R. Peacock, 324 South West Street, appeared in opposition and stated that he concurred with all of Mr. Mack~s statements. In rebuttal, I~ir, Robinson stated that the continued rise of the cost of land made development of subject property for single family residential use prohibitive. The Commission noted that it was not a factor for the Commission to consider land values but the proper land use and its compatibility with surrounding development. THS HBARiNG WAS CLOSSD. Commissioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 5:35 P.M. Coamissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 809, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassificatior No. 62-63-129 be disapproved, based on the facts that the proposed development would be incomnatible to existing low density single family residential development to the east and south of subject property, that subject property could casily be devaloped for single family use, and tnat past history of zoning actions on subject property proposed that subject property be developed for single familp use, and nothing had altered to justify consideration of a change. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Alired, Gauer, Pebley, Rowland, Sides. NOBS: COMMISSIONERS: None. l.BSffidT: COhLtifISSIONBRS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall. ABSTAIN: COhAiISSIONffitS: Perry. RHCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, i~ILLIAM M, and MARY S. RAUM, 1950 Hast Sycamore N0. 62-63-130 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; J. C. DBVSLOPMBNT CO., 2127 West Ball Road, Suite B, Anaheim, California, Agent; xequesting that property described as; An irregular shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 110 feet on the west side oE State Coliege Boulevard, and a frontage of 151 feet on the south side of Sycamore Avenue, and further described as 1950 Hast Sycamore S:reet be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS to the C-1, NBIGHB~tH00D COMH~RCIAL, ZONH to permit the remodeling of an existing single family residence for utilization as professional offices. , Mr. Jerry Castetter, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. The Commission reviewed the pians as presente3, noting that the proposed use would be consiatent with the Commission's thinking as indicated on the proposed General Pian. No one appeared in oppos±tion to sabject petition. TFffi HBARING WAS CL0.SBB. -.~ i•_ ; i I I ~ I I ` - ----_ ____--------- ---- - ~I . -~.,~~ __.~; ~ ---,---- - ~ ~'t- _~:_------ _ ~ ~ c~:} MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COh4tISSION, June 24, 1963, Continued; 1632 RBCIASSIFICATION - The Comroission expressed the desire for additional landscaping on N0, 62-63-130 Sycamore Street to separate the proposed comaercial use and (Continued) parking from the residential character of existing development adjacent to subject property, and that the agent for the petitioner should endeavor to relocate parking facilities so as to incorporate the addxtional landscaping. Mr. Castetter, stated that his firm would occupy the existing structure for thej~ offices, and that parking would be for clients only. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 810, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-130 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the fozegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: CQMMISSIONIDtS: Allred, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NQBS: COMMISSIONIItS: None. ABSENT: CO,W~iISSI0i3a~cS: Camp, Cn3vos, hiungaii. RHCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I~ffiARING> ETHYL M. REBD, et al, c/o M. W. RBHD, JR., ~ N0. 62-63-131 2045 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, California, ! Owners; SANTA FEE SPRINGS INDUSTRIAL PARK, c/o JOHN B. RIIROY ; CONDITIONAL USB COMPANY, 618 South Spring Street, Los Angeles 14, California, ! PffitMIT N0.S. 440 and 441 Agent; property described as: A rectangular portion of land ~ having a frontage of 1,293 feet on the south side of Orange- ~ wood Avenue and a frontage of 640 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, said property being divided into Parcei "A" and Parcel "B", and fur.ther described as follows: PARCBL A being a rectangular parcel and having frontages ~ of 640 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and 255 Eeet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue; PARCBL B being easterly and adjacent to Pazcel "A" and covering the remainder of the previously descsibed property. Property presently classified as R-A, ~ RBSID~ITIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ RHQUHSTBD CIASSIFICATION; PARCBL "A" TO C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMh1ERCIAL, 20NE, and PARCHL "B" TO R~3, MULTIPLH FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONE. RHQUESTBD CONDITIONAL USE: B57ABLISH A ONB AND TWO STQRY MUJ.TIP:B PAMILY PLANNHD N0. 440 R&SIDSIVTIAL DBV.BLOPMBNT WITH CARPORTS ON PARCSL "B" - WAIV~t OP THH FOLLOWING: GARAGH RHQUIRBMENT TO PffitMIT 1HB CONSTRUCTION ~ OF CARPORTSq THH 150-FOOT HBIGHT LIMITATION; MINIMUM SPACH BHTWHBN STRUCTURBS; RBQUIRBD FRONT YARD; RHQUIRBD DISTANCB '- HBTWBEN MAIN BUILDINGS AND ACCBSSORY BUILDINGS. ~ RHQUHSTBD CONDITIONAL USB: (1) HSTABLISH A MOTHL ON PARCBL "A" (2) ESTABLISH A POUR-STORY No. 441 OPFICB BUILDING ON PARCHL "A"; WAIVffit OF THB TWO AND ONB-HALP (2~) ST(~!Y HBIGHT.LIMITATION. Mr. Richard Guthery, representing the agent fos the petitioners, appeared before the I Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that if the multiple family I development and the commercial facilities did not have sufficient parking facilities, this could be remedied by the reduction of the proposed motel, and in response to a question by the Commission, stated that it was proposed to develop the multiple family residentiai request first, and that the commercial frontage would not be developed immediately. The Com.mission reviewed the plot plan submitted, noting the deviations from the require- ments stipulated in the Anaheim Piunicipal Code. I ~ Mr. John V. Thompson, 335 West rangewood Avenue, appeared before the Commission and ' stated that he had resided across the street from subject property for 28 years, that ; there seemed to be a discrepency between the agent's presentation and the pians as he viewed them, that he had been interested in the proper development of property adjacent '. and in close proximity to subject property for some years, that a great deal of andesirable ~ . ------i---_. , - .~... - . . . . . - - . --- / - , ~ . i - ~ . ~ - ~ ~ ~ . ~-~,..~. •---'_--r. . . _...__ . ~ Q ~_._._----- ----- i ~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Juae 24, i963, Continued: 1633 RBCLA3SIPICATION - construction had been permitted to be built in the asea which N0. 62-63~131 was gradually creating a slum appearanee, that he w.as not opposed to the Commercial aspect of the development, that the CANDITIONAL USB developers of subject property might consider other a3jacent PffitMIT NOS. 440 and 441 property'when proposing high rise development, that after ~CONTINUED) considerable discussion with members of the Planning Commission and the City Council, he understood that commercial recreational facilities were required by Code to be built within 1,300 feet of Harbor Boulevard~ so as to be compatibie with the Disneyland area, that he was opposed to strip development of business professional, multiple family and then low density, as was being proposed in subject petition, that the Commission should consider development of low density single familv re~idential use as incompatible when located too close to Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, and that a 28-foot strip of Commercial being proposed might set a pattern of development for the entire area if approved. Mr, James Buskirk, 318 West Wilken Way, appeared before the Commission opposing subject petition, presenting petitions signed by 133 single family residential owners encompassing the are of Orangewood Avenue, Haster Street, and Harbor Boulevard, that the residents were desirous of the development of subject property for low density residential use, and that it was inconceivable not to continue a stub street, namel;r, either Tiara or TYy, througn subjee~ property as 1aw density s~^.g2e f~s±l.y hames, p showing of hands indicated that 11 persons were present opposing subject petition. Mrs. Ioah Ployd, 2147 South Oertl~y Drive~ appeared in opposition to subject petition and noted that a street and carpor~ts would be immediately adjacent to the bedrooms of homes fronting the west side of Oertley Drive, that the Commission shouid determine whether the proposed development is a compatible use in such close proximity to residential uses, and if so, that any development proposed should be similar to the Disneyland Hotel and should require as standards as stipulated in the Code to be adhered to. Mrs. Barbara Dennis, 2154 Madrid, appeared in opposition statin/; that she opposed multiple family dwellings in an area which should be primarily ieveloped for low density residential use, and that subject property in part couid be ideally developed that way. THS HBARING WAS CLOSHD. ~ i I i i ~I Commissioner Rowland stated that Iie would hesitate to approve the proposed development as presented to the Commission, but that he also did not wish to disapQrove the petition without giving the petitioner an opportunity to present adequate plans which would be in line with the Cammission's past thinking for the ultimate development of subject property after giving due consideration to the findings presented in the Report to the Commission, and that if the designer recognized these many discrepancies, there might be a drastic change in the presentation of compatible plans. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion tq reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 62-63-131 and Conditional Use Permit Nos. 440 and 441 to the meeting of August 5~ 1963, in order that the agent for the petitioner might consult with the Planning Department for an interpretation of the Commission's recommendatioms in order to properly incorporate any changes to the revised plans. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. pMgNDMBNT TO - CONTINUSD PUBL?C HBARING. INITIATBD BY THB CITY PIANNING CHApTHR 18.64 COMMISSION, 204 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. ' CONDITiONAL USBS Amendment to Title 18, of the Anaheim Municipal Code, by the amendment to Chapter 18.64.020 (3-p), to permit the establishment of a planned residential developments in the R-0, One Family Suburban, R-1, One Pamily Residential, R-2, 2Wo Pamily Residential, and R-3, bfultiple Pamily Residential, 2ones, but to prohibit the establishment of Planned Residential Development in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of Apsil 29, and May 13, 1963, in order that the Planning Department might obtain additional information to present to the Commission relative to the amendment to the Conditional Use's. J ~ _.~ _____~___ . , _ _____ __. _ , . _.._._ .. _ ~ ' ~ 34 683, tch 11 ion. ~a the 88, MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, June 24, 1963, Continued: 1635 RBPORTS pND - ITBM N0. 3 RBCOt~1BNDATIONS ~ (Continued) ORANGB COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 5182 Proposed 362-unit trailer park in the M-1, Light Tndustrial District located on the south side of La Palma Avenue approx- imately 400 feet east of Red Gum Street, nortl~east of Anaheim. Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt presented subject use variance for the establishment of a trailer park in the Northeast Industrial Area to the Planning Commission. It was noted that the previous petition for a trailer park on subject property was denied by the Orange County Planning but angraved b~ *he Board of Supervisors and, because of the expiration of the permit, the new petition was filed with the County. The Commission discussed the Industrial Areas Analysis and recommendation No. 8, specifically which states "That no further residential uses, including trailer parks, be permitted in the Northeast Industrial Area". A copy of a Setter addressed to the Orange County Planning Commission from Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc., was read to the Planning Commission, said letter stating their objections to the approval of subject use variance. Commissioner 3ides offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning Commission that Use Variance No. 5182 be denied on the grounds that the requested residential use would be detrimental to the existing and pr~jected industriai development of the Northeast Industrial Area. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ITBM N0. 4 ORANGH COUNTY USB VARIANCB N0. 5186. Construct 2 single-family dwellings with attached garages to be used as model~ in connection with the sale of dwellings in all units of Tentative Tract 4427 located on the northeriy side of the Rivezside Freeway opposite and westerly of Cerro Vista Drive, in Santa Ana Canyon. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented subject use variance for the establashment of two single family dwellings on property previously approved for single family subdivision on the north side of the Riverside Freeway easterly of its intersection with the Newport Freeway. Commissioners Sides offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning Commission that Use Variance No- 5186 be approved provided that the said dwellings are established in accordance with Tentative Map of Tract No. 4427. Commissioner Alired seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD. ~Z~ ir'~. 5 ORANGB COUNTY USE VARIANCB N0. 5169 Requesting permission to construct a sand and gravel screening plant and the storage or stockpile of materials in connection therewith in the M-1, Light Industrial District, located approxi- mately 2000 feet east of Jefferson Street at the end of a 12 foot easement which extends eacr, from Jefferso~s Street at a point approximately 200 feet north of the Riverside Freeway, east of Anaheim. Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt presented subject use variance from the establishment of a sand and gravel screening plant and the storage or stockpile of materials in connection ther~with to the Planning Commission, anc~ further noting that the petitioner proposed to excavate from the 9anta Ana River bed screening and storing on the premises the sand and gravel processed, _ ..~--~ il. I I / ! . ~___._.___..__ _ ..----_..' ~ ~ , ~ i` i I I I ~ ~ hlINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C~4IISSION, Jun~ 24, 1963, Continued; 1636 RBPCRTS AND - ITHM N0. 5(Continued) RBCOMMffiVDATIONS (Continued) The relationship of the proposed use with the proposed regional park development was discussed by the Commission. Commissioner Sides offered a motion to recommend to the Oraage County Planning Commission that the poasible noise, dust, and truck traffic generated by the proposed use and its relationship to the projected light industrial development of the Northeast Industrial Area be considered, and that appropriate safeguards 'for the ultimate development of abutting properties be established, iacluding a possible time limitation on the requested use. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 6 SERVICE STATION STANDARDS - Set for Public Hearing Comnissioner Perry offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for Public Hearing before the City Planning Commission, on July 8, 1969, revision to Chapters 18.OB, Definitions; 18.40, ~-1, Neighh~rhood Comnercial, Zone; 18.48, C-3, Heavy Gomaercial, Zonef and I8.o4, Conditicnal Uses, together with Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards. Comnissioner Allred secorsded the•motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNII~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Alired offered a motion to adjourn temporarily to the meeting of July 1, 1963 at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., to discuss in a work session all revisions to the proposed Gen~ral Plan, and other necessary business. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION GARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9a15 0'Clock P.M. .._.._.---~_.__.. - :-_~1fii , Respectfully submitted, ~ PLANNING COMMISSZON SECRETARY .~.__._._.__.~:. ~..._,___, ._.... ~{