The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1963/07/08City Hail Anaheipt, Californis July 8, 1963 RgGUTAR MBHTING OP 1HH_ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMAlIS3I0N jtBGUTAR_MESTING - A Re:gular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion was - called to order by Chairman Mungail at 2:00 0`Clock P.M., a quorum being present. COl~9~iIggIONffitS; Allred, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Camp, Chavos, ~auer. - CObA~IISSIOI~R: Sides. - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Areidt. Deputy City P.ttorney: Purman Roberts. planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs. - Reverend LeRoy Miller, Pastor of Paith Lutheran Church, gave the Invocation. - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag. - The Minutes of the meeting of June 24, 1963, were approved as aubaii#ted. COPIDITIONAL U38 - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. PRANK W. SAG'RHTT~ Owuer; c/o L-G-S Cor- pBRhIIT N0. 387 portion, 2120 South Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Lessee; -- CHARLBS G. SCHLBGHL, 433 West 8ighth Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permisaion :o CONSIRUCT A 38RVICE 3TATION AND A DRIVS-IN dt WALiC-UP RB3TAURANT on property described as; An irreguiar parcel of land having a frontage of 200 feet on the norbh a~.de of Lincola Avenue, a frontage of 228 feet on the north side of Wilahire Avenue, and an average depth of 500 feet, plus oz minus, the easteriy boundary of said property beiag approximateiy 485 feet west of Carieton Avenue. Property preaentiy classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL A(7tICULTURAL, ZOlJB. Sub,ject petition was continued from the meetings of M~rch 18, April 15 and 29, and June 10, 1963~ to permit the petitioner an opportunity to submit reviaed plana. '2oni"ng Coordinator Martin Rreidt advised the Commisaion that tha Planning Depastment had. received a telephone call prior to the meeting from the agent for the petitioner requesting that sub,~ect petit3.on be terminated, due to the fact that another conditional use permit and a reclassification was beiag filed on aub,ject property. Cowmissioaer Canp offered Resolution No. 812, 3eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commiasioaer Chavos~ reeommending that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 387 be terminated~ due to the fact that the petitioner had request~d sa~d :ermiaation. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: ' AYHS: COI~IISSIONffit8: Alired~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ~~ N089: COh9~tI99T0AIDAS: None. ~ ;: ABSBNT: COMMISSIOI~BRS; Sides. ....._.._~._.~.~.._~_..._..... ..~.._._.__..._ .~.~..~..~........._ ~ - -- _ ,. .._ ~ . _ ; • , , . ..... . . i ~ . . -~, ..,~ _ MINUTBS~ CITY PIANNING CQl~4~lI3SION~ July $~ 1963~ Coatiaued: 1638 1tHCIAS9IPICATION - OONTINUED PUBLIC FffiARING. ~ JULIUS and BDITH~NATHAN, 801 North Loara NQ. 62-63-116 3treet, No, 236~ Anaheim,.Califarnia~ Owners; requesting thst ~ peroperty described as: A rectangalar parcei of ian.d haviag a ' frontage of 66 feet on the east side of 8ast Street and a depth of 211 feet, the southerlq boundary of said property being approximately 345 feet ~orth of the ceaterline of Santa Ana Street, aad further described as 400 South Ba9t 3treet, be reciassified from the R-2, 1W0 PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, Z01~ffi to the R-3, MiTI,TIPLB+FAMILY RB37fDBNTIAL, ZONH, to construct a 7-unit siagle story apartment developmeat. 3ub,~ect petition was continued from the meetings of May 27, 1963~ aad June 10, 1963, in order to a'ilow the pet3tioner aufficient time to aubmit revised plot plana. Mr. Juliua Nathan~ one of the petitionera, appeared before the Commisaion aad ateted thet a revieed plot piaa had been aubmitted, sairt plan ineorporating the auggesfiiona of tlie'Coaimia~aion in that the propoaed development wouid have S uaita, instead of the originai plaae eubmittcd. Tqe Comiaiaeioa reviewed the plot p~an submitted. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THB HBARING WA3 CLOBBD. The Commission discussed the possibility of requiring only one access drive instead of a periphery drive since subject developmeat would only have 5 units, that if the northesiy drive were illiminated, the proposed structure could be relocated 3} feet northerly, and the southerly drive area could then be increased to 21 feet which would provide a two-lane 18 foot access d.cive and an additional 3 feet for landscaping. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated that if this relocation were conaidered by the petitioa~ the remaining 7 feet on the northesly boundary could then be used for either iapdscaping or patios, and that previous requests for a 21 foot drive or a periphery drive were usually needed for developmenta considerably igrger than 5 units. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolutioa Ido. 813, 3eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, aeconded by Commisaioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Couacii that 8etition`for Reciassification No. 62-63-116 be approved, subject to the relocation of the proposed atruct~ire 3~ feet to the nerth, provision of an 18 foot access drive, and sloping the roof of the proposed garage away from the easfierly property line. ($ee Resolution Hook.) On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYB3: COhAlI33IONffit9: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlend. NOBS: C~A4I3SIONBR9: None. AB3HNT: COhadI33I011BR3: Sides. ~ RBCIAS9IPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~ARING. WALRffit and LBH~ INC., et al, 2580 West N0. 62-63-126 Lincoln Aveaue, Anaheim, California, Owners; PRANR R. HFIRT, 2580 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An L-shaped partion of land having a frontage of 62 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a froatage of 89 feet on the east side of Magaolia Avenue, the southeriy bouadary of said property being approximately 254 #eet south of the centerline of Magnoxia Avenue be reclassified from the R 6, RHSIDBNTIAL.AGRICULTURAL~ 20NH to'the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COi~4!ffitCIAL, 20NB to . utilize the existing property for a reai estate office. ~ Subject pe4ition was continued from the meeting of June 10, 1963, in order ta allow the i petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans. ~t i , ~ : ~ . a _~~.T_ _-_____. .,_... ___~._._, , . . . , , -~.', , ..,; . ~ .: ; ., c . ~.._- - ---_ -~.... ..._... o ~ a` , ~ . ~~ I 1 . I I .~~ ' ' • ~ ~ ~ MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CQh9~lISSION, July 8, 1963~ Continued: ~ 1639-~1 RBCIABSIPICATION - Mr. Frank Hart, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the N0. 62-63-126 Commission and reviewed the reviaed plans with the Commission, said (Continued) plans having been subantted at the Commission hearing. The Commission noted for ail petitionexs, that a poiicy had been established by their body in which any revised plans were required to be submitted to the Planning Department the second Priday before a Commission meeting in order to allow the Plannittg Department time to review the plans for Code conformance, and in order fos the plans to be submitted for Interdepartmetttal Committee recommendations, and that to consider subject plans would be contrary to the Commission's policy, and would be granting a• ivilege not afforded others who were re~uired to submit revised plans. Through questioning by the Commission, it was detrmi,:ed that the petitioner did not plan to remodel or remove the ex.isting structure, that the proposed driveway would be black- topped and located on Lincoin Avenue, It was then noted by the Commission that similar rzuqests for utilization of existing resident3al structures on State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue were required to expend several thousand dollars to convert the existinp, structures into commercial office facilities, and the pc:titioner should be no exception. It was further noted that if regulations were not attached to requests for the utilization of existing residential structures for busineas gnrgoses, any hone the City mhght have for the ultimate development of the center city area might not materialize, and that the proposed development would not be an asset to the City. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission discussed adhering to their policy of requiring the planning Department to review a11 zevised plans, requiring pians which would indicate remodeling to present a commercial appearance, and that the petitioner be required to submit reviaed plans which would incorporate a more busineas and professionai office building appearance. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-1~46 to the meeting of July 22, 1963, in order to allow the petitioaer time to submit ele~ations and design for the proposed use of subject psoperty to present a more comm~ercial appearance. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. TiiNTATIVS MAP OP - DHVELOPffit: GAIAXY CON3TRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 450 Hast 17th 3treet, 1RACT N0. 5232 Costa Mesa, California. ENGINBffiZ: J. BERT WHBB, 323 Alva Lane, Costa Mesa, California. 3ubject tract, located on the north side of Anaheim Road, west of the Santa Pe Raiiroad, is proposed for subdivisiou into 44 M-1, LIGHZ INDUSIRLIL, and P-:,, PARAING- IANDSCAPING, 20NB, Lots. 2oaing Coordinator Mart?n I{reidt reviewed'the'~1~~°yed of'subject tract, noting that subject property was shallow in depth, that the developer proposed to subdivid said property into 25 foot wide iats, that upon subj~zct mep being reviewed at the Interdepartmental Committee, the developer was advised to submit an enlargement showing huw acces~ drive would be installed tog~°ther with a parking-landscaping plan~ that said plan had been reviewed by the traffice engineer and found to be unsatisfactory. A letter then was read from the developer explaining his reason for the proposed subd3.vision noting that it would lend itself towards mor~ flexible deveiopment. Letters from the Anaheim Union Water Company, and the Oxange County Planning Commission were read~ the Sattez stating a number of reasons why sub3ect tract should not be approved as it had been submitted, namely, the number of access points~ adequate traffic lanes through said tract, proposed parking plan and the propoaed widths of the lots. Mr. George Weytel, representing the deveioper~ reviewed for the Commission the proposed subdivision together with reasons for its proposed width of lots, and stated that the developer was eudeavoring_to abide by all the City's regulations. _-_-r----._._.__..._----._...... __--_____ .------.__.___ _._-----.__-------_._._ . _. . ,s~ R __ --... - 1 i ~ ! I i ~ i i i` ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ---....__- / MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CODAlISSION, July 8, 1963, Continued; 1639-B TBNTATIVB MAP OP - Mr. Rreidt stated that he felt there had been a lack of communication 1RACT N0. 5232 9.n that it had been recommended that the developer prepare the map (Continued) to indicate access across the development, that two access points might be sufficient, and ia answer to the Cormnission~s question whether the Pianning Department did not have sufficent time to answer the developer's questions~ stated that copies of the typical parking lot standards together with other information had been rendered the developer, but that it seemed apparent that more structurea were pxoposed for the land than ryould be acceptable for Code compliance with the regular P-•L 7cning requirements. T'ke Commisaion discuased the practicality of the pruposed 25-:oot lota, that 50-foot lota should be the minimum acceptabie, that the propoaed lot widths might be in conflict with the 3tate 3ubdivision Map Act, and that there aeemed to be no real advantage.to a 25-foot iot, since this aize would mate almost undevelopable any industrial area. Mr. Weytei then stated that only the lightest of industriai development would be ~ Utilizing the proposed development. After conaiderabie coasi8eration by the Commission as to the type of setbacka, parking and lot widths, the repreaeatative of the developer agreed to by atipulation, a two week continnaace ia order to iacorporate suggeations by the Commisaion for lot widths and ~_-"........... e£x2 u2v2i'vGm2u~ 62oAGeiGo OY~rGj/Y ~:~ «......t~=^•$ :O !:-= .^.C'!~ =~^'•i~e..e..+a Commia8ioaer Rowland offered a motion to continue Tentative Map of Tract No. 5232 to the meeting of July 22, 1963~ in order to allow the developer time to aubmit a reviaed map increseing the lot widtha to s misfimum of SO feet together wiLh Code requirementa relative to P-L, Parking-Landacaping, 2one, Commisaioaer Perry aecoaded the motion. MOTION CNRRISD. VARIANCB N0. 1583 - PUHLIC F~ARING. J~9 W, and LOI9 CONNELY, 528 3outh Cardiff~ Anaheim, California, Ownera; requeating permisaion to CONa1RtJCT AN ADDITIONAL APARTMSNT UNIT AND WAIVBR OP TH8 POLLQWYNG (1) RBQUIRBD RBAR YARD (2) RBQUIRBD 8ID8 YARD (3) GARAGB RBQUIRBMSNT (4) BUILDING SBPARATION~ AND CS) MIDiIMUM LIVABLS PLOOtt 9PAC8 OP 1~225 9QUARB PBBT~ on property deacribed aa: A rectaaguiar parcei of l~nd having •£roatage of 60 feet on the weat aide of 8~st Street and a depth of 242 feet~ the aoutherly boundary of daid property being epproximately 270 feet aorth of the canteriine of Lincoln Avenue, aad furthes deacribcd aa 123 North 8aet 3treet. Property preeantly cla~~ified as R-3, Multiple P~mily Resideatial, Zone. Mr. J~me~ Connely, oae o!' the petitionere~ xppeared before tha Coa~ission to aa~war sny qua~tion~. Tho Co~mi~~ioa di~an~~ad ~he propo~ed deveiopment aoting that no hard~hip wa~ indieatad, that littla open ~pace wa~ baiaQ Saft for recreation purpo~e~~ that it would be diffieult to Qain sece~a to the Qara~e~~ that an additionai parkin~ sp~-ee miaht become ~vailable if Lhe ~pace wa~ u~ed betwaer. tha ~araam and the structure~ that with the propoaed ~dditioa, the dea~ity would be 17 dateiliaa an3ta pes net rasideatiai aere, that ths froat yird did afford ndditional areen area, that the exi~tia~ soning,wa~ multipie f uaily re~ideatial~ aad that a techaicality existed in that one faa-ily,re~idaatial requiramenta ~rera beiA~ ased wheraa• if tha dweiling units ware connected t:ii~ would be coaeidered sn spartmeat and wouid not require the 1,225 equare feet pes dweilin~. No one oppo~ed aub,~ect.petition, TF~ F~ARING WAS CLOyH9. _ ,~~c--- - - -r-.___..._ ...--- t~ ~ • 1640 MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COWAlISSION, J~lY $~ 1963, Continued: VpRIANCB N0. 1583 - Commissioner Pebley offereZ nesolution No. 814, Series 1963-64, and CContinued) moved for its passage and adoption, seConded by Commissioner Alired, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1583, subject to cond3tions. lSee Resolutioa Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: pyg$: COMMI$3IONBR3: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. pQgg; CONAlI3SIONHRS: Chavos. pggBNT; COMMISSIONBRS: Sides. Commissioner Chavos qualified his "NO" vote by stating that the petitioner did not qualify for a variance, and that to grant said variance would be giving the petitioner a privilege not enjoyed by others in the area. VAR7ANCH N0. 1584 - PUBLIC 1~ffiARING. ANAVIL CQRPORATION, 887 South Los Angeles Street, - Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT 2W0 ~2) SINGLH PAMILY RBSIDHNCBS, AND WAIVffit OP (1) RHQUIRE~ PRONT ~;nw ggmgere~ eNn (2l QNB ACRH MINIMUM ARBA on property described as; p rectangular parcei of Sand having a frontage of 160 feet on the west side of Aivy 3treet and a depth of 100 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approxi- mately 345 feet north of the centerline of Alomar Avenue, and further described as 601 and 605 Alvy Street. Property presently classified as R-A, Residential Agricultural, 2one, Mr. Harry Griffith, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the history of the development of subject property, noting that when adjacent property had been subdivided, subject property was too small for subdivision, that when the property to the rear was sold for office development, a strip of land had been purchased which then made it possible to develop subject property, that front yards in the adjacent tract were 20 foot setbacks, and that the only reason that reclassification was not instituted at the present time was because of the time element, since it was hoped to const=uct the two proposed residences while the construction crews were in the area of subject property. The Commission then noted that subject petition could be approved subject to the rezoning of the property into the R-1, One Pamily Residential, Zone, prior to final building inspection, and that the reclassification should be initiated by the petitioner. No one opposed subject petition. TFIg HBAltING WAS CLOSBD. Commission Ailred offered Resolution No. 815, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1584, subject to conditions. CSee Resolution Book.) . . . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: qyBS; CONAMISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Peoley, Perry, Rowland. :YOHg; CONA7I3SIONHRS: None. pgggNT; COMMISSIONBRS: Sides. RSQUBST TO THH - In the review of the Planning Department recommendations, it was HNGINHffitING noted that undez Reclassification Nos. 61-62-4 and 61-62-17, bonds DgppR~dgpT had been posted to insure the construction of masonry walls adjacent to the-property line to the east s:t the time the property to the east waa dev~eloped. Since the Commiscion had appruved Variance No. 1584 s-t the meet?ng of July 8, 1963, these walis should be con3~ru~cted. _~._~._..-~-------_------------_.__--~--- ..~.--------- _~ .. _. ._ _-. , : _, _ _ . T. ~ ~ ~ ~ , • .. . . . . /~. L ~ ..~ . . ~~ !N V W MINUTS9, CITY PLANNING C01~9~1I38I0N, 7uly 8, 1963, Coatinued: -. ~~~_~~~. . . 1641 RBQUBST TO T!~ffi - Commissioner Rowiand offered a motion to recommend to the Bngineer- HNGINHBRING ing Department that Bond Nos. B-100596 and C-7042764 be secalled, DgppgTMBNT and that the owners of properties under Reclassification Nos 61-62-4 ~ (Continued) and 61-62-17 be =equired to 4onstruct the required 6-foot masonry walls pri~~r to final building i~lspectioa of the proposed dwelling units ad,?acent to property'in said reclassifications, namely, 601 ~ and 605 Aivy Street. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. ~ MOTIQN CARRIBD. ~ VAR7ANC8 N0. 1585 - PUBLIG HBARING. ANAVZL CORPORATION, 887 South Los Angeles 3treet, Anaheim, California, Owu~rs; r.questing permission to CONSTRUCT TWO 31NGL8 PAMILY RBSIDSI~Ci3~ AND WAIVBR OT,' C1) RBQU?RAD FRONT YARD SBTBACk AND (2) ~biS ACRB MINIMUM ARBA on property described aso A rectangular pa~cel of land having a frontage of 132 feet on the west side of Trident Street and a depth of 117 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately l00 feet south of the centerline of Beacon Avenue, ~nd further described as 905 and 909 Trident Street. Property presentiy classified as R A, Residential Agricuitural, Zone. j Mr. Harry Griffith, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated that I the existing well wouid be removed and subject property would be subdivid into two lots. that the 20 foot front yard setback was in conformance with existing setbacks in the area, that the multiple family developraent to the south of subject property haG on~y a 15 foot setback, and that the curb was now in but that no sidewalks had been installed. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TH$ HBARING WAS CLOSBD. Commissioner Pe'~ley offered Resolution No, 816, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Variance No, 1586, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoin~ resolution was passed by the following vote: AY83: COMldI33I0NBR3: Allred, Cazap, Chaves, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland. NOHS: COMMI33IONffit8: None. ABSBNT: COhAlISSIONHRS: Sides. VARIANCB N0. 1586 ~ PUBLIC HRARING. WILSHIRB OIL COMPANY, 727 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California, Ownerp GH(YiGB RiURPHY, 9476 P~llet Street, Downey, California, Agenk; requesting permission to B3TABLISH A WALR-UP RESTAURANT AND WAIVBR OP RHQUIRBD PARKING, AND PRONT YARD SBTHACK on property described as: An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 233 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and a frontage of 182 feet on the east side of 'West Street.- Property presentiy classified ~s R~O, One Pamily Subusban, Zone. . Mr. George Murphy, agent for the petitioner, reviewed the proposed development and noted that subject property was the only parcel fronting on La Palma Avenue, which remained in the R-0, 2one, that others had been rezoned for commercial or multiple family development, that no res3dence existed withia the vicinity of subject property, that commercial facilities in the area would beaefit by the proposed use, and that the Hoy Scout headquarters was located to the east, the Plood Control Channei to the south, and the hospital to the west of subject property. In response to the Commission°s question as to the reason the petitioner did not apply for a reclassification of subject property, the agent replied that reclassification proceedings took longer, that the service station had been granted under a variance, and that the propose3 ase ~,vas a conditional uae in the existing zone, but was not : permitted through the filing of just a conditional use permit. ~ ~_._.~,._._.___.___~_.____~__.__._._._..~_..__,___,_._.~;_._.__..._..._..~. ~ _" ._ ,T_. ~~ ..,~t ~ . . ttl C1 ~' ~ MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COMMI33ION, July 8, 1963, Continued: 1642 ppRIANCB N0. 1586 - The Commission noted that the Commission could not legaily (Continued) approve subject petition under the present zoning regulations. Zoning Cuordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the reason the subjpct method of petitioning was suggested by the Planning Department, stating that the propased restaurant could not be estabiished in an R-0, 2one under a conditional use permit, therefore, the va=~iance was suggested. A colored rendering was s~~bmitted for the Commission's consideration, and the agent informed the Commission tlizt said structure would be made of inetai. Mr. James Proctor, representing the Wilshire Oii Company, described the proposed structure noting that sheet metal was proposed so that the structure would be compatible with the service station, In response to the Commission's question whether the sign would be a rotating sign, the agent responded in the negative. The Commission discussed the proposed structure noting that it was too small to ?~e considered an asset to the asea, that ihe proposed metal stiructure wouid add nothing, that although the proposed structure would be compatible to the service station, it wouid greatly detract from the existing medical, professional offices, the existing hospital, and the Boy Scouts headquarters. Purther discussion was held between the Commission and the ageat for the petitioner on the merits of the proposed structure and its compatibility *o the area, the type of material to be uaed, and the appearance seemed rather gaudy and so similar to other drive-in restaurants. The agent further stated that the psoposed development seemed conservative in appearance,and had been accepted by other cities' Planning Commissions, that as builders of service stations, they had considerable contact with development review and planning departments, that he felt that the prflposed development would be acceptable to the Commission, and that if the Commission desired, the designers had another plan which utilized concrete biocks and sheet aretal corners which was somewhat largex, but that said plans had not been considered, and were not immediately available for the Commission's consideration, that subject property had been under the ownership of the petitioner for some time, with s limited number of uses for it, and that the proposed development aeemed to be the most economical way to use *.he lanu. A le2ter of opposition was read to the Commission from the Anaheim Memorial Hospital, in which opposition was expressed to the waiver of the parking area. No other opposition was received. Tt~]g HBARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commisaion further discussed the incompatibility of the proposed small metal structure to the existing s:ructures; that the site was ideal for aommercial develop- ment with a presentabie coffee shop which would be more acceptable, that parking should be provided which would adequattly serve the patrons, and requested that the petitioner submit sevised.plans to the Commiseion. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to reopea the hearing and continue Petition for Variance No. 1586, to the meeting of July 22, 1963, in order to ailow the petitioner sufficient time to aubmit revised plans incorpo=ating brick or block v~all - no metai construction, and that revised piaas ahould be submitted hy July 12, 1963, in order to be considered by the Commisaion of that date. Comm:ssion Rowlaad seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. VARIANCB N0. 1587 - PUBLIC I~ARING. tIDRALD and OLGA SOORD, 412 South Oli~e Strett, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAN-DO BUILDHRS, 15501 South Beliflower Boulevard~ Hell~.ower, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONS~U~T AN ADDITIONAL DWIILLING ANP WAIVffit OP (1) BUILDING SBPARATION, (y1 RgQUIRSD RHAR Y~RD (3) MIN:MUM LIVABLH PLOCtt ARBA OP 1,225 SQUARB PE$T, AND (4) RBQUIRHD ACCH33 PROtA ALLBY TO PHRMIT ACCHSS PROM ZHS SIRBBT, on property described K,s; A rectangular parcei of land having a frontage of 50 feet on the east side of Olive Street and a depth of 140 feet, the southexly boundary of,said property being approximately 209 feet r.orth of the centerlinecf 3anta Ana Street, and furtrier described as 412 South Olive Street. Property presently classified as R-3, Multiple Pamily Resider:tiai, Zone. , ----~---- , - . . -- ..--- ~- - ------ " ~.'_~ __ . . . .--- . .. _.._ `J ~ ~ MINUTB3, ~=!: ~':1-NNING COi~AlISSION, July 8, 1963, Continued: 1643 VARIANCH NO< <~87 - 1dr. Mel Geiaao, speaking for the r.v-4itioners, appeared before the (Coniinued) Commission and stated that only one additional strueture for ' single famil; use was proposed, The Commisaion reviewe3 tl:e plot plans. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. 1~IH HBARING WAS CIASBD. The Commission discussed the reasons for requesting ingress and egress to Olive Street since the existiag aliey was available for such purposes, that the plans might be revised by turn3ag the structure around, that to permit access to a street might aet a precedent~ and then the Commission indicated on the plot plan a method of revising to the agent, in order that the curb aeed not bm cut into for access to the street. Mr, Gerano stated that the petitioners had the entire rear yard nicely landscaped, that by reversing the structu=es proposed, the landscaping which was planted at considerable expense would have to be removed, and that the petitioners did not want to remove this landscaping. Commissioner Perry le£t the Councii Chamber at 4:17 P.M. The Co~issioa suggested to the agent for the petitioner that he consult with the planning Department to ascertain acceptable methods of revising the plot plan, and thus avoid vaziances from Code requirements, that the Commission would approve iess than 1,225 squaze,foot of livable floor space~ but that the request for waiver of the "building separation", "required rear yard", and "required access from the alley to permit access ffrom the street" be denied, and that revised plans should be submitted to the Commiss~oa for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissi~ner Perry returaed to the Council Chamber at 4:25 P.M. Coooaissioaer A12red offered Resolution No, 817, Sexies 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded b~ ;a,~ssicn ~a~:2au~~ ta grant Item No. 3, waive•r of Section 18.80.080, and der.y Item Nos. 1~ 2~ and 4, Section 18.32.030, 18.32.080 (3), and 18~32.100 of Yetition for Variance No. 1587, and that final revised plan3 be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of a buiid3ng permit, (aee Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYHS: COM~iI33I01VBR3: ASlred~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Muagali, Pebiey, Rowiand. NQB3: COFASISSIONffitS: None. ABSSNT: COh¢~lIS3I0NffitS: Sides. ABSTAIN: COhNfISSI0I~RS: Perrq. VAR7AIdC8 N0. 1588 - PUBLIC F~ARING. HIARD AND QtOQCHTT PLUMBING COMPANY, 12361 Bveaingside Drive, Santa Ana, California, Ch~mers; requestiag permission to WAIVH SITB DBVELOPMBNT STANDARDS: (1) 3IX (6) POOT MASOHItY WALL RBQu:.~NT ffiVCLOSING SITH~ AND (2) PARKING RBQUIRBh18NT on property described as: A rer:angular parcei of land haviag a frontage of 42 feet on the aouth side of Sycamore Street~ sud a frontage of 172 feet on the west side of Orange Street, and further described as 708 East Sycamore Street. Property presently classified as M-1, Light Industrial, Zoae. ~ Mr. John Biard~ one of the petitioners~ appeared before 4he Commission and reviewed the existiag uses adj;-cent to subject property noting that a chain link fence was preseatly existing ont~he southeasterly and southerly boundaries, that a soiid wood fence existed on tihe northe.sterly boundary~ that an existing concrete bloc~C structure abutted a portion of th.e westerly property lines, that waiver was requested for the reguired masonry wall along the balance of the easterly property line, as we11 as, the ~r,isting chain link fence, and that the only portion not enclased of the storage area would be a strip parallel w.ith the alley to the west. ~.-.- ~ ~ ~ __ __,___--- _.. _.___.~ ~ _ _ - - '_"".:....._-,^, . - . -~^ ~ ~,_..:r . .. . MINUT83, CZTY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1963, Continued: ~64.'~ VARIANC3 N0. J.°38 - The Commission note~ ihxi }hz ~,eiitioner requeste~ warve_ of ~C;,atinued) parking, bnt was propo~ir.; enlarging the fa~:ilities ;.a~~ ~would, " therefore, require additional parking faci..Lties; thaz'; he wouid be depriving adjacent proEierty owners their ps~vile~;e <~f parking facilities fror.ting on their propGzty, further, that upon a field inspect::on of subject prr,~ert::~ no parking far.ilsti~~s were being made availaL•~le, that tlie er.pansion proposed ~~.s #oo great for. shu parcel of land, and that although the prap~~sed type of industrial deve~opment was acceptable, any further expansio~ faz the :c:id seemed questionable. a Ray 5].ocun!,s~.t°nkinE, in behalf of the petitioner, stated that ik was praposed to stxpamline t'~e ~~peiation by the constructi~~n of new faeil:ities, that m~x:e parking roight be provi.~°d f'o.r tlxe emp:.cyees in the rear portion for the errrloyees utilizinO tnp faci.lities, a,:! 4h:1t the proposed facilitie.=: together with •:~.e me~thod of operatio~n, appeared to be a cumpatible methud of ope:otion f~~ subject pxoperty. Parther discussion relatice to a t;~rning area for trucks to the rear. of the propesty was held; tk,e possibility of the abandonment of the railroad easement, additional parking facilities and the possibility of parking trucks where the existie~g pipe was stored Furthex, the Burgie Comnany, to the north of subject property, ;id been required to provide ample ~,~r::='.g =~ =h~ =pF=e`•"`1 ~f its industrial site. T~ffi HBART*:ii~ 1n.48 CLCSSD. It ~ras noted by :lzz Commission that sabject property cou].d be developed. •a:ithiix the existing zone, th;e princi.pal questian for the Commissior. to cons:ler wa:athe mason=y wall construction, thst it be a re~qu~reme~s if subject petiti~n were epproved~ that an adequate turning radius be pr~vided at the reas of :~ubject pi~ger~~y, together with adequate parking facilities. Commissioner Yebley offered Resolut~.r '•.~• t~18, °eries 1953-04, ~nd nio~;.~ for its passage and ado~tion, seconded by C~ar~*.i3sioner Caznp, to grai~t Petition for Variance i~c~, 158E, sub~ect to providing an 6Gt9yiio~2 :n:uzing :sdius, and that a11 other provisions of the M-1, Light Industr:'.a1, Zoa_• shail be complied with, except that a masonry wall adjacent to the easterly gropertY Sine fl~onting onto a railroad right-of- tvay n~.°d not be constructed. (See Resoiut'_on Book.) Oii ~oll cel:l the foregoing resolution wss passed by the ,foilowing vete: pY,BS; COMMIgSIONffit8: Alired~ Camp, v:~uc:; Mungall, Pebl.°y, rerry, Rowland. NOBS; ^Ob9dI3SION8RS: Cha~ros. AH3BNT: ~OMMI38IONBR3: Sides. VAP.IANCH NO. 1589 - F71biZC I~ffiARING. MADfiL T~• DW~LAS, e: al, 1677 South Ninth Street, ' Anaheim, California, Owners; TIi0hL4S A. R&Y, c/o T~! RBY RBALTY . TBNTATIVB `6AP OP SALHS, INC., 811 South Buclid Street, Anaheim, Califosnia, Agent; TR~CT N0, 5245 requesting permission to WAIVB TFffi RBQUL.isu Lv. WIDTH TO PBRMIT T~iH CQ'7S11:UCTION OF A Si: ,LH PAMILY SUBDIVIS'LON on property descrir ~d a.s; A tectangui~;r ~iraped parcel of land havir.6 $ f~ront.ge of 333 feet on the vtr^t side o'i Ninth S':reet and an average depLh of 585 feet, tne southerly 'boundary of said propert:y bei~.ng apgrox:mat41 y 130 feet north of the c.e;nterlir.e of Kimberly Avenue, and fur~her desczit~ed. as 1677 South Nin~` Street. ;e..operty oresentiy classified as R-A, RH3I~HN'CTAL AGILICULTURAL, Z~NS• Sub,~ect tsa~t is proposed for subdivisiac- into 18 R-1, Single Family Residential, 2oned lots by DBVffiOP~t: HOMIi LAND COMPANY, Sg7 So4.th Los Angeles 3treet, Anaheimr California. BNGINBBR: McDANIEL HNG):NHRRING COMr'AN`.', 222 Bast Linc~ln Avenue, Anaheim, Califorr.ia. ,.:. ~__.._..._~~..____--__~.____.~..--- -- •-----~ _. __._-_._...-- ---_.__ .,.- - _._.. _ --- - ii~ ~ t .,_ _ . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~~ ~. j~ ~ ~a ~q ~ \ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMAlISSION, July 8, 1963, Contihued: l645 VARIAh'~ N0. 1589 - Mr. Tom Key, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Comaiission and submitted a render.ing of the proposed lot split, TBNTATIVB MAP OP and reviewed the lot sizes adjacent to subject property noting ~ctnCT NC1. 5243 that, although the.proposed iots would be less than Code (Continuert' requirement, the total square footage would be more than presently existing lots in the area, and the method of division • was the only feasible way subject property could be subdivided. The Commission revi~:wed the plot plans together with the tentative tract map, noting that subyect property would be south and adjacent to the proposed park site. Nc o.:e appe:;red ir. ~pposition to subject petition. THs .;~?ARING WAS CL0.SBD. C~~z~missioner Chavos offered Besolution No. 819, Series 1963-64, and moved for its paassage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for ~/ariance No, 1589, subject to conditions. (See Re3olution Book.) On roll call the fnregoing rESOlution was passed by the following •~ote: . AYES: COMMI33IONHRS: Allred, Camp, ~havos, Gauer, Mungall, Pe~lpy, Perry, Rowiand. NOHS: COhMI33I0NBRS: None. Ab3BNT: COMMI3SIONBR3: Sides. Subject tract was coi:s=dared in r.~njunction with the Public Hearing of Petition for Variance No, 1589. The Comm~s~ion reviewed the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations relative to subject tract. Commissioaer Chavos offered a motion tc approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5245, subject to the following conditions; (1) That ahould this subdivisi.on k+e developed as more xhar. one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall tv. yabcitted in tentati.we €orm for approval, (2j That Tentative Traci i3o. 5245 ~~ appr.oved subject #o the p,rarrtin~- of Variance No. 1584. (3) That the storm diaan connection to the Ozange Caunty Flood Controi Chanr.el shall be subject to the approval of the Orange C~~unty Flood Control Dis•tr.ict. (4) That the street be reaiigned with Laster Avanae, i.P the existing well can ~e abandoned. Ca!nmissioner Petriey seconded the motion. ~M01'ION CARR1.iD: - CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC H8A1tING. R. PATON, PBRN PARSONS AND CHCIL HUSTON, as P~tMYT NO. 443 trustees of tEie Anahei~t Mission of Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Lattes Day ~~ir,ts, 5834 Temple City Boulevard, Temple City, California, Owners; P. fi. HANSHN, 5834 Temple City Boulet•ard, Temple C:.ty, California, Agent; :equesting peru~ission to BXPAND AN BXI3TITG CHURCH AND IiELATBD PACILITIBS on pr.aperty described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 30Q f.eet on the south sicle of Chateau Avenue, and a frontage of 110 feet on the west side of Walnut 3treet, and further described as 827 South Walnut Street. Property presently classi:ied as R A, RflSIDBNTYAL AGRICUL- TURAL, ZONB. A letter was read tu the Commission from the agent for t:he pe#itioner, regarding the fact that Variance No. 754,granting the use of subjPCt property :or a period of three years, and ren.°wed, expired ,~uly 5, 1963. Commissioner Cam~~ left the Counci.l Chamber at 4:55 P.bl. ~ ~ ~ , , . - -- . . . . ~ .. . , , ~ . :-,., , : ~. _.. ., . K~ . . . . . j . . _. _ ~ . . ~...- . ~... . - ~ ~~ 6..: ... ..-_..~. - ~~...... ~. . -:~~.. . , ~ ~ - ~ . , . , ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ \1 MIAfUTB3~ CITY PLANNING COFAlISSION, July 8, 1963, Conti.nued: 1646 ~f 1 CONDITIONAL US8 - Bishop F, B, Hansen, agent for the petitioners apppared before the pBRMIT N0. 443 Commission and reviewed the proposed development of subject (Continued) property, noti~ng that construction would begia ±*_: the Fall of this year, and tl~at the architect for'the developmeal: would present more coaplete plans for the C;ommi§sion's coasideration. Mr, Arthur Hensler, architect fbr the petitioner, stated that the plans submitted represented a rather co~servative arcbitectursl desigr, whicti would be compatible to the imme~!iate community, that ample setbacks were provideii on both sides, that a 50 foot strir of landscap.~ng and adeyuate parking area was proposed~ and that the materials of the structure would be stucco and concrete blocks, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THH HHARING WA3 CLO$BD, 2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt noted fc,: the Coa~mission thac the proposed development was located within 15 feet of the property line, which was in violation of Code: Section 18.04.090 (1-c), and that a 5 foot 6 inch masonry wall existed on a portion of subject property, Commissioner Carp returned to the Council Chamber at S;US P.M, Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 820, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No; 433, subject to conditioas, (3ee Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed ~y the following vote: A~: C~AAlIS3IONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NO~BS: C~lMISSION~t3; None. ~1H3BNT: COMMIS3IOPIDRS: Sides, AB3TAIN: CQFAiIS3I0NHR3: Cunp, Commissioners Chavos and Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5;06 P,M, CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HHAItING. THOMA9 A, BBYRyg, c/o DORIS MORSB, 1901 Caiifornia PPRMIT N0. 444 3treet, 3an Francis~o, California, Owner; PACIPIC 30UTHWBST RBALTY COI~ANY, 215 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles 14, California~ Agent; requesting permission to EgTpgLISH A BAIVg WITH WAIVffit OF: • (1) MINIMUM PIVB (5) AQtB 3ITH RBQUIRBMBNT; (2) FIpTY (SO) SIRUCT(TRB (3IGN1 SBTBACK RBQUIRT3M~NT on pro~erty described as; A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of iS5 feet on the north side of Anaheim Road and a de?th of 773 feet, the easterly bouadary af said property being_approximately 495 feet west of the centerline 6f Miller 3treet, and further described as 16191 Anaheim ]toad. Property presentlq classified R A, RB~ID$NTIAL AQtIC'JLTURAL, ZONH. Mr. W, B, Burke, representing the pe#itioner and the Security First National Bank, appeared before the Commission, and stated tha~ after making many industrial area studies, the Bank felt that a bank located in the proposed industrial area of Anaheim was deemed advisable. Commissioner Gauer returned to the Council Chambe; at 5:10 P.M. Zhe Coimnission reviewed the proposed development noting that the proposed structure covered a portian of subject property, that this might create a laadlocked undevelopable portion of land, and stressed to the agent that this fact could not be considered a hardship at a later date if a portion of subject property wese sold to another party, The agent then stated that parking space would be utilizing a major portion of the unused land, and that possibly a road might be developed through the rear of the parcel at some future date. ^'~~ No one appesred in opposition to subject petition. • ~ THB I~ARING WAS CLOSBD. ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CQMMI33ION, July 8, 1963, Continued: 1647 CONDITIONAL USH - Zoning Coordinatoz Martin Rreidt advised the Commission that as a PHRMIT N0. 444 condition of approval of subject petitioa, if the Commission so (Continued) ruled, would be the reclassification of 'subject pr~~oerty to the M-1, Light In3ustrial, 2one as required ia Reciassification Nc, b1-62-69 for t;e Northeast Industriai Area. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 821, Series 1963-64, abd moved i,r its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for ~onditional Use Permit No, 444, subject to conditions and the reclassification of subject property as required for the Northeast Industrial Area. '(See Resolution Bbok.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYB3: CO~A1I33IONBR3: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowiand, NOB3: COi~4lISSI0NBR8: None. ABSBNT: .COAAlISSIONBRS: Chavos, Sides. Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 5:12 P,M. COAIDITIONAJ, USB - PUBLIC FIDARING. R. W, and HBLBN M. QtIhat, 11541 Woodiawn Avenue, PBRMIT N0. 445 Santa Ana, California, Owners; ROBBRT L. MARTIId, 433 West Linculn Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTAHLISH A CH4IRCH AND RBIATBD ;ACILITIBS on property described as; A rectangular pazcel of land having a frontage of 440 feet on the south aide of South 3treet, and a frontage of 632 feet on the w~st side of Sunkist Street. Property presently classified as R A, RBSIDSNTIAL A~tICULTURAL, ZONB. Mr. Robert Mrrtin~ agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, acd advised the Commission that if any questions arose, the architect, Joseph Coiumbo, would be available to answer them. 2oning Coordinator Martin Areidt, advised the Commission tha: the prop~sed pians covered the northerly 468 feet, and that the petitioner might ciarify the statement that the southerly 264 feet was being proposed for R-1 subdivision of 12 iots. Mr. Martin then stated that the southerly 264 feet was being proposed for subdivision . into 12 single family lots, that the Segai description submitted with the petition covered the enti=e parcei of land, and the ccnstruction of the proposed church fac:i:.ities would take place within the next two years. No one appaared in opposition to subjeci petition. ~ Tf~ HHARING WA3 CLOSBD. ~ ' Mr. Kreidt advised the Cc;~m.iesion that if sub'ect ~ . J petition were approved, the•only type ~ . of development for subject property woi.ld be in accordance with the plans the Commission approved, and that if the Commission desired, a condition could stipulate that said - petition was approved for all except the sou:herly 264 feet. Commissioaer Gauer offered Resolution No. 822, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ,, and adoptxon~ seconded by Commissioner Pebit~, to grant Petition for Conditionai Use i Permit No. 445. for all but the southesly 260 feet and subject to conditions. ~ (See Resolution Book.) . On roil call the foregoing =esolution was passed by the following vote: ( AYB3: COhAlISSI QJBEtS: Alired, Chavos, Gauer, Mungali, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ~ , NOB3: CQh9~iISSIOI~RS: None. ~ AHSBNT: OOIYAlISSIONBRB: Sides, ABSTAIN: CONIlNISSIONBRS: 'Camp. 6 , ~ ----------_._-----,--------, ------~-._ _ _ ___. . ~ ~_~.---~- , -~- -, i - ..:~ ~ _ ~-~ . . . _ _ ._; _ ...__ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTB9, CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION, July 8, 19b3; Continued: CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HSA1tING. SOUTHSRN G~i;NTIHS GAS COMPANY OF CALIFORN7A, pBRMIT N0. 447 P. 0. Box 2736, Termiaai Ann::., Los Angeies 54, California, Owner; ROSBRT M. OLSON, P. 0. Box 2736~ Terminal Annex, Los Angeles 54, Galif ornia, Agent; requesting permission to CO'riSiZiUCT AN 8-FOt7T BY 12-POQT BILLBOARD on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 620 feet on the south si3e of Aatella Avenue, and a froatage of 1~210 feet oa the west side of State College Boulevard, and further described as 1919 3outh State College .Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INUUS1RIi.:. and P-L, PpRgING- LAND3CAPING, ZONBS. Mr. Joseph Hasencamp, representing the petitioner, appearcA before the Coma;ission and stated that the proposed advertising media for the requested biliboard wouid be to advertise the natural gas facilities offered by the petitioner, and also the new developments in the area using the gas facilities, that the petitioner would be located on subject praperty for some time, and in iesponse to questioning by the Commission relative to landscaping, replied that no landscaping was planned for the area immediately adjacent to the proposed billboard. No one appeared in opoosition to subject petition. The Commission in their discussion relative to the compatibility of the proposed billboard, indicated taas ii subjeci petiii~n wexe fi~pi8"vca~ thi~ should be conside:ed as advertising a product of the petitioner on its own premises, and that it should not set a precedent for the establishment of biliboards in general in the area. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 823, Series 1963-64, and m~~ved for its Eassagc and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional iise Permit No. 447, subject to a condition. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolutipn was passed by the foilowing vote: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauez, Mungall~ Pebley~ Pexry~ Rowland, CONDITIONAL USB - PUHLIC F1BA1tING. pHRMIT N0, 448 Zoning Coordinator Martin Bredt, advised the l:ommission that the attorney for the petitioners had requested consideration of hearing subject petition during the even3ng session, if there was no opposition. Chairman Mungall determined that no one mras appearing in opposition to sabject petition, Commissioner Allred offered a riotion to postpone hearing of Petitioa for a. ,.+itioaal Use Permit Na. 4A8, to the evening session of the Commission meeting. Commission Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to recess :he meeting for dinner and to reconvene again at 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION ~:ARRIBD. Chairman Mun6a11 reconvened the Regular Meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission at ?;15 P.M., all Commissioners beiag present, except Commissioner Sides. R7INiTTSS, CIT3t PLANNING COin'hiI3SI0cI, Juiy 8, i~53, C~niinued: 1648 CONI)ITIONAL U3H - PUBLIC HBARING. PUBLIC 1~ARING. GBORGE A. GADB, 1$6 Hmerald•Bay, PBRMIT N0. 448 Laguna Beach, California, Owner; NORMAN H. 31~ffiDBGAARD, 401 West Bighth Street, Santa Ana, California, agent; requesting ~pzmission to BSTRBLISii A kBBTAU~t1NT on property described as: An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 410 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, and a depth of 1,268 feet, plus or minus, the 2asterly boundary of said property being adjacent to the Union Pacific, Railroad right-of-way, aad further described as 501 Hast Orangethorpe Avenue. Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, P-L, PARRING IANq3CAPING, and P-1, KUTOMOBILH PARRING, ZON&S. •Mr. Norman 3medegaard, agent for the petitioner•, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, notiag a change in the elevations,that the -front elevation wa~id be a ranch-type structure rather than that• which the Commission was viewing, ancl that one of the lessees was present to verify the proposed change in elevations, if the Commission desired to hear it. Ia response to a ques4ion by the Commission, the agent stated that only the corner parcel of subject property would be used for restaurant purposes. Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, advised the Commission that the entire subject property was a3vertised rather than that property on which the proposed restaurant was to be located because the existing trailer park and otner existing facilities would have to be reloc~ted if this we=e aoi cione. The agent for the petitioner stated that no liquor would be served in the proposed restaurant. No one appeared'in opposition to subject petition, 1HB H6ARING WA3 CLOSBD. Commissioner Pebley offered.Resolution No. 824, 3eries 1963-64, and moved for its passage~and adoptioa, se'conded by Commissioner Camp, to graat Petition for Conditional Uae Pe;afit No, 448~ subject to the petitioner submitt3ag a front elevation indicatiag tlfat"~hese wodld be ranch type and to be considered as Bxhibit No. 1-a, and additional conditions. (See Resolution Book,) On roli call the foregoing resolution was pa.ssed by the following vote; AYBS: CQMMIS3IOI~ffiR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOES: (:Oh4dISSI0NBR9: None. ABSBNT: COhAiISSION~tS: Sides. RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC 1~ARING. GAHTUNH ABANDONATO, 1700 Irviae Avenue, Newport N0. 63-64-1 Beach, California, Owner; property described as: A triangular ~ .. __ . . nArrni nf 1.an[t hapino a frnn±a~os. nf 717 fnai~ ~n ~t:~ ~~^~ ^i~~ ^w . CONpITIONAL U9B Palm Street, and a frnntage o£ 261 feet•on tfie easterly side of - PBRMIT N0. 442 3anta Ana Preeway, said property being westeriy of the intersection of Palm Street and Guinida Laae, and further described as 1361-1401 Palm Street, Property presently classified R-A, RB3IDBNrIAL AGRICULNRAL, ZONS. RHQUBSTBD CIASSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB P.4MILY RBSIDSNT7AL, Z~2df1. RBQUB3TBD CONDITIONAL U3E: CON3IRUCT 1W0 SINGLB S'l'ORY DUPLIDC APARIMBNTS AND WAIVBR OF ~ THB POLLOWING: (1) RHQUIRBD RBAR YARD SHTHAIX, (2) TEN (10) POOT GARAGB WIDTH, AND (3) TEN (10) POOT HND TO BND BUILDING SBPARATION. Mr. Don Lander, speaking for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development,~s-oting that moving the last garage #o the south, the 15 foot setbsc:. couin still be maintained, , , . ...- { ~ - -------= . ~- ---- -- ^---,-----~----- - ., - _._.-..-~I - ~- . . __..... ..~_ V ~ ~ 1 . ~ . ;;;;, ~ ; . i ' ~ ., ~~; - ~ ~ _ _ ~~ _.------ . _. ~ : -- , . -- g ~ 1963 Continued: ?65u MINUTH3, CITY PLANNING C~1MISSION, Jily 8, ~ gBCiAggIPICATION - The Commission noted in reviewing the plan that by muving the N0. 63-64-1 proposed southerly garage to the south two feet, and to the east ,._,e e~~~ ~t,o oarage width waiver could be eliminated, ona anu 'vi~a-+,a.. -, CONDITI.ONAL USB that it should be a requiremeat that the southerly tip of subject PBRMIT N0. 442 property should be landscaped, to which the petitioner stipulated (Continued) his agreement to this reqaired landscaping; and further indieated to the petitioner the possible methods of relocation of the garages to accompiish increasing the wiflth of two of the garages. The agent for the petitioner noted that the Report to the Commission recoaenended a six (6) foot masonry wall adjacent to the freeway frontage, but that he proposed to plant trees and shrubbery there to buffer the freeway noise. The Commission then stated that it had been their experience that a masonry wall together with trees and shrubbery were necessary to buffer any freeway noise, and the condition stipulating this should remain. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 825, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Councii tha~t 'retitioa :a: Recl»ssification No. 63-64-1 be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolutian was passed by tfi e following vote: pygg; COMhIISSI0NHR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOg3; COMMI3SIONBRS: None. pBgBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Sides. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 826, Series 1963-64, and moved for it: passage and adoption, s~_conded by Commissioner Camp, te Brant Petition for Conditioaal Use permit No. 442, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: pyg3; COMMI3SIONHR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gzraer, ~inagall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NpBg: C(X~9~iISSIONBRS: None. pgSgNT: COMMISSIONFRS: Sides. RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HHARING. JAMES W. and JC1AN H. J~~ 2~04 West Lincoln N0. 63-64-2 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; JOHN B. BACRMAN, 14192 Newport Avenue, Tt~stin, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting that property descr~bed as: A rectanguias shaped po=iiou ~: =a:d ::~:•=~n °- frontage of 264 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a'degth of 600 feet, the - easterly boundary of said property being approximately 300 feet wesic of the centerline of Stinson Street, and further described as 2704 West Liucoln Aveaue, be reclassified from the R-A, Residential Agricultural, 2one to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone to construct a small retail shoe store. Mr. John Backman, agent for the petitioner, appeared befoie the Commission and stated that a few minor changes should be made reiative to the parking area as shown on the plot plan, since there was a possibility that the petitioner wonld not u4ilize the entire rear property for parking purposes, but would later develop it with structures, that the proposed structure would be retocated toward the rear to allow for parking facilities on the front portion of the property, and that development of the additional property *a the e rear would be in conformance with ali C-1, Code requirements. .... ,Y T.~__ . , __ ~ ------t-----~_..._._.._.._____~_..~ , . . . ~.___.~__. {~ ~ • MTTrttTe.4; CITY PIANNING COMMIS3ION, Juiy 8, 1963, Continued: 1651 RSCLASSIPICATION ~ The Commission expressed concern relative to the possible resale of N0. 63-64-2 the rear portion of subject property', and the buyer would try to CContinued) claim a hardship because of the iriability to have proper ingress and earess. that the Commission has experienced many such reqaests in the past, that the petitioner might realign the structure to ailow adequate ingress and ea*sss to the rear portion of the proFerty; and that plans should be submitted by the petitioners for the Commission's consideration. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Ti~ffi I~ARING WAS CLOSBD. The Commission discussed the inadequacy of developmeat plans for tlie entire parcel, that this should be required before the Commission considered reclassification of sub,ject pro;;erty, that easements might be necessary for ingress and egresa to the rear property, that plans shouid be revised to also include the proposed type of signs, as well as, the easment affecting the rear property, and that the petitioners shouid coasult with the Planning Department for assistance ia the preparation of the required plans. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64~2 to the maeting of July 22, 1963, in order to allow the netitioners sufficient time to submit revised plans indicating the development being ~ proposed for the rear property, adequate ingress and egress togethe'r with easements for said ingress and egress, and a more compatible elevation. Commissione: Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. RHCLA3SIFICATION - PUBLIC FffiARING. WILLIAM C. GARRHT, JR., 1202 North East 3treet, and N0. 63-64~3 RICHARD V. HATHCOCK~ 1202 Bast Kenwood Avenue, Anaheim, California; Owners;H.L,SBNSON, 1803 North Old Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, CONDITIONAL USB Calif.ornia, Agent; property described as: An L-shaped portion of pBRMIT N0. 446 land having a frontage of 81 feet on the south side of Renwood Ave- nue, a frontage of 229 feet on the east side of Hast Street, and a frontage of 171 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive, and further described as 1202 North Bast Street and 1202 North Kenwood A~•enue. Property presently classified as R A, RBSIBNTIAL AQtICUL- T[JRAL, and R-1, ONH PAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, 20NH. t2~iTn3Tn"7i c;L185IrICATIOi'~c C-1, .3BIGRBCRHOQD CO.M.!L*mCZA?., 20.*I5. RHQUBSTBD CONDITIONAL USB: B3TABLISH A SffitVICB STi4TI0N. Mr. B. L. Benson, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the residentiai and commercial deveiopment in the immediate vicinity of subject property, noting that the traffic on Bast Street was becoming too heavy to permit a good living environment. and that the property was an ideai area for a service station. 2oniag Coordinator Msrtin Areidt, ir,riicated on the propo:~ed General plan the area in which subject pzope=ty was iocated. Mr. Bdward Hartnell, 1313 Candlewood, appeared before the (:ommission in opposition to subject petition, stating that he represented the residents of Tract No. 2202, of wh.ich a portion of subject property is include3, had abided by tia restrictions and covenants on file in the Recorder's Office for the past nine years io maintain the tract as a low density residentiai area among the commercial ventures which were gradua].ly surrounding it, that the proposed reclase,~rication to neighborhood commercial zoning would be an encroachment, that this proposed reclassification was requested in order to construct a service station, which would be in direct violation with the legally recorded deed restriztions, and the only way said deed restxictions could be removed, would be to have the consent of more than 60% of the residents of the tract,that the proposed General Plan does not indicate subject property for cortuqercial development, that to grant subject petitions would interject strip commercial zoning ia an otherwise residential area, representing a cancexous growth becaming more prevalent along more heavily traveled streets in Anaheim, that a number of residents were present in the Council Chamber. Chairman i~ungall requested a showing of hands opposing subject petitions, and 20 indicated opposition, 8 indicated approval. . . , • ------ ~ . ~. _ , ~ ~ ~ ; ~: . MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING COI~9~fI33I0N, J~ly 8, 1963, Continued: io5~ RHCIASSIPICATEON - Mr. Hartnell further stated that he had the signatures of property . N0. 63-64~3 owners of 35 homes of the 48 homes in Tract No. 2202, that Bast 3#reet,~~ceording io the proposed Geaeral YlaA, would not be widened CONDITIOtdAL U3B north of La Palma Avenue, aad that the properiq owners urg~6 4~e pffitMIT N0. 446 rommission to maintaia the single family residential integrity of (Continued) the tract. Mr. Harry Strasier~ 1215 Barl.Circie~ appeared in oppositioa to sub,jeet petition, atating that he oppoaed aervice atationa at eac~ intersection in tHe esst and norLheast Fart of the City~ and that aervice atatioas were an encxoachment into siagie family residential environment of the area. Mr. W. ~~. Garrett~ 1202 North Hast 8treet~ appeared in favor of sub,~ect petition and the owner o.F the R A parcei of aub,~ect property atatiag that this parcel was left when the origina.l orange grove w~a converted into a aubdiviaioa~ that the area had changed from~ the qu~~et reaideaLiai area~to buaiaee~ aad induatrial uaea~ that with this.chaage and the iacrease of.traffic resultiag from the change~ the living enviroament hed becase~ untenab:e beesuae of lhis, and wae the basis for the requeated change in ciaeaificatioa~ both in 1960 aad thie time. Mr. Richurd Hanaock~ 1202 8enwood Drive, the other property owuer~ requeating aub,~ect w.r,.re_:. ~t,. c~nmmie~ion and ateted that it waa impoasibie to !lC140Oiii2is~a~7u~;e'yy.aO:C.. - reeide in ~n environmeat where noieea could not be biocked out, tha~t an average of iS00 to 1800 eara an hour pasaed on Saat Stiseet during the buay part of the day~ this coant having been made by himeeif in the mazn3ng~ that when the achoola were open together with the Pulierton Junior Coliege and Orange Sta4e College, thia wouid iacreaee traffic considerably, that reaidenta on Hast Street were unabie to obteia acceaa to the atreet from their drivea becauae of thia flow of trsffic~ and that baaed on theae f4cta~ he ielt sab,{ect petition ahould be approved. In rebuttal Ms. Beaaoa atated that aervice atatioaa ahould be coaatructed so that they would be able to aervice the people ia the immediate vicinity of the area. ~ ~ixa wAS ci.osan. Commiaaioner Chavoa atated that the Commisaion could not conaider traffic as a bsaie reaeon for e change of zone~ thet land uee was the Commiaaioa'a reapoaeibiiity~ that atany of the fiaeat hones in the Baet were buiit oa a ma,~or thoroughfare, ~ad thRt the Commiasion h~d epenti coaaiderable time dusin~ work aeaeione Co determiae the beet lsnd developmeat in the immediste viciaitq of aub,~ect property~ un~i 4h~ pray~osed Gaa0:a1 Plen reflected the Comaieeioa'e feel3Aga reiative to the proper laad development for aub,~ect property aad property in the immediste viciaity. Commieaioner Chavoa offered Reaolution No. 82T, 3eriea 1963-64, and moved for ita psaeage and adoption, aecoaded by Commiaeioaer Perry~ to recommead to the City Council that petitioa for ReclassificatioA No. 63-64-3 be disapproved based oa the facte that the proposed eerviee statioa would be detrimentai to the low denaitq reaidentiai eaviron~aent of the area, that it uwu2d constitute epot zoning, that one portion of sub,~ect property Asd deed sea`s~fc.~fana of =ectsrd f31ed rthich gz~hi*3*e~ *he ~_ee C+f ths aronerty for other than reaidential uae, said reatrictions haviag been upheld ia a court of law, and that .during wor~.sessioas the•Commisaion had made a compiete analysis of the area and had revised~theis thinkiag~ proposing low-medium denaity on the weat aide of Sast Street, south of the Riveraide Preeway~ and the proposed service atation would thea be imcompatibie to that reaidential use. (See Reaolution BooY.) On roil call the feregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; pyBS; CpNAtISSIOI~ffit8: Alired~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungali, Pebley~ Perry, Rowland. pp,gg; CONA~IIS3I~I~tS: None. pgggl~T; C069~lISSIOI~1ffit3: Sides. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 828, Series 1963-64~ and moved foz its ; passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditionai j Use Fermit No. 446, based on the fact that the proposed use would be incompatible with ~ the low denaity residential environment adjacent to subject property. (See Resolution Aaok.) ~ On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: ~ pyBg; C0~4tISSIOIJffit3: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland, ~ NOH3: COhAlISSIONHRS: None. ' i AB3BNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Sides. ~ ~ ~ ,y`( E ~ . • ~' ~k~ ~~~: ` '. ~ ~. ~.J MINUTB3~ CI'"Y pLANNING CaNAlISSION, July 8, 1963, Coatinued: 1653 RHCIASBIPICATION - PUBLIC l~ARING. 9AMUHL RATZ, et al~ H. G. and CATHHRINH F~YDBMAN, N0. 63-64-5 2663 Aaaheim Road, Anaheim, California~ Owners; Tf~ DRAMAN CQMPANY~ 9776 %atella Aveaue; An~heim~ Ct~1~Ifot*_+ia'o eroen#; Qso-~e*#~ ~+eec*3bed CONDITIONAL U3S as: Aa irregular portioa of land having a frontage of 968 feet oa PBRMIT N0. 449 the north side of Anaheim Road, aad a fror-tege of 908 feet on the easterly side of the Riveraide Preewaq, and an average depth of T8NTATIVB MAP OP 6~F0 feet, and further described as 2663 pnaheim Road. Property 1RACT N0. 5231 presently ciassified as M-1, Light Induatrial, 2one. RSQU8ST8D CIASSIPICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, 201~. RSQU88T8D CONIDIT30NAL U98: CON3IRUCT A ON8 ANA 1W0-STORY MULTIPLB PAMILY PLAIdVBD R88IDBNTIAL DEVBLOPM8IVT WIT~I CIIRPO~tT3~ AND WAIVBR OP ONB-STORY HBIGHT LIMITATION. TBNTATIVB TRACT: PROPOSBD SUHDIVISION INTO 12 R-3, i~lULTIPY.g PAMILY R8SID8NTIAL~ 20N8 ' Y.OTS. (DBVBL~'ffit: T!~ DRAMNN COMpANY~ 97T6 Betelle Avenue, Anaheim~ Caiiforaia; ENGIN88R: MCDANIBL BNGIIVBffitZNG (70I~~ANY, 222 BaaL Liacoin Avenue~ Aaaheim, Caiifornia,) 2oning Coordinator Martin Hreidt, r~ad a letter from the developer in which a requeet for an extensian of time of two weeks wag ~ngc~4, ~.+ ~=~±p* t~ a»~;y +w_ p_+~ _a_;;_. eufficient time to revise plana. , Idr. FIa:ry Strasier, 1213 Bar1 Circle, appeazed in oppoaiiioa to aub,~ect petition, and etated that he oppoeed any residential development in iadustrial or commercial azeas, that tr:£fic developed from 4he propoaed apartments combined with the traffic from any industsiai area would cre~te a hazard and auisance, as well as, endangering the iives of childrea ].iving in the apartments; that he also felt that residential development along a freeway would also be an untenable situation~ since he presently lived along the Riverside Preeway, and that the best uses to be propased and approved along the freeway frontages would be commercial or iadustrial. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-5, Coaditional Use PErmit No. 449, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 5231 40 the meeting of July 22, 1963~ as requested by the developer, iu order to allow the developer sufficient time to revise plot plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. BLHA HALL, et al 2119 West Hall Road~ Anaheim, N0. 63-64-6 California, awners; WALLY NICiCBL, 13794 Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca;.ifornia, Agent; property described as; A rectar~,gular parcel VARIANCB N0. 1590 of' land with a frantage of 237 feet on the south slde of Ora~oe Aveaue~ and a deptti of 282 feet, the easterlW bounda.ry of said property being 263 feet west cf the centerline of Rnott Avenue, and further described as 35~8, 3602, and 3608 West Orange Avenue. _________ Prouertv nreagirtl~_cl,a~ified R-A, RBSIDENTIAL AQt:[CULTURAL, 20NH, RBQUBSTBD CIASSIFICATION:~t-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY ABSIDBNTIAL, 20NB, RHQUBSTBD VARIANCB: CONSTRUCT APAitTMBNTS WITH WAIC-BR OP (1) MINIMUM SPACB B$1WEBN BTRUCTURBS: ~2) YARD RBQUIPtHI!ffiN15 AND (3) ONH-STORY HBIQiT LIMITATION. Mr. Wally Nickel, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed devel~F~at noting the size and shape of the land together witla existing development to the nortn and south of subject property, that the request for waiver of the sideyard setbacks a.pplied only to the garages, that by mutual consent of the owners these garages were p?aced back to back~ and that he would be g7.ad to answer any questions the Commission might h~~ve. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE3~ CITY FIANNING CQhAlI9SI0N, July 8, 1963~ Coatinued: 1b34 RBCLASSIPICAT~ON - The Comp~iasion inquired why the parcei to the easi of aubject 63-64-6 parcel was not inciuded in sub,ject petitioa, to which the ageat replied that he had made an attempt to purchase the property, but VARIANCS N0. 1590 that the owners had no iatention oi seliing or deveiopiAg 4ne CContinued) easteriy parcel for another developmeaL~ that the propoaed density would be compatible with the parcel to the west on uhich reclassi- fication had been appro~ied but aot finalized, aad that an easement was being obteiaed for the southerly property line. The agent further asked for a cfar3ficatioa as to the propoeed atreet dedicatioa on Orange Avenue notiag aome diacrepancy, • 2oning Coordinator Martin ICreidt atated that the Ccunty of Orange had propoaed the atreet width for Orangc Avenue at 80 feet, whereas the City of Anaheie- reanired t:~e atreet width of 90 feet~ and that the tetephoae power eub-atation had an 80 Faot aefiback, but ia the approvsl of Conditional Uae Permit No. 30i covering the property, one of the conditiona required that eidewalka and fuii dedication be made at the tiae the property to Lhe weat wae developed. Harold Dove~ 8731 We&t Orange Avenue, appearea before the Commisaion atating he wsa represen- ting the property owner to the ea~t af sub±ect propesty~ and atated that the two residencea to the eeat were constructed prio: to t~eing annexed to the City, that they were not oppoaed to apartmente~ aince anything wae better ehan ene exiasing weeda oa deept lota~ but was oppoaed to two atary conatsuctioa, sad the requeatxd waiver of o#her than standard conetruclion, that he relied on the Coma~iaeion'a 3udgemen~k oa the propoeed developmeat~ eince the~r experieece waa co.nsidrrable 3~ m~ltiple family developmeat, and utilizntion of deep iot propr.rty ahou~d 'ba d!eveloped to ika highest and beat potentiai~ and that ne had purchased his property with the uaderataading that aay multiple family developn[eat would be aingle atory conatruction. Maao Car1 Redlich, 3618 Weat Orange Avenue~ appeared before the Commieaion in oppoaitioa to the propoaed two-~atory coasLructioin and atated that ahe did not oppase the propoaed multipie femiiy deveiopment to the weai~ of aub,~ect property when iL wae consiwered for reciaasfication~ because plane as Freaented iadicated eingle atory coaatructioa~ that the method of conatructioA of the @wo atory apartmeate wouid be directed easteriy and woui~i create aa invaaion of the privacy of the hom¢a to the east, that ehe preferred ain~le atory becauae property valuea woqld be conaiderably higher~ Lhat the aiagle atvey conatruction on Orange Avenue~ east of Knott Avenue, aeemed to be quite ~ceep~~l~le, ar~d tha4 from ~nformation ahe had received} a variaace for the waiver of aingle atory development for the propoaed apartmenta to the weat of aub,~ect property was to be coaaidered ahortly bq the Commisaion to permit two-atory coastruetioa. The Commisaion iaformed the opposition that a variance would oaly be granted if the petitioner cauld ahow a hardahip in that hia neighbora en~ayed a privilege aot afforded the petitioner at the time plot plana•approved by the City Coqncil in granting the rqciaeaification~ and then asked tihe oppoaition to view the proposed development plans. Ia rebuttal, Mr. Nickel atated Lhat multiple family development ot. the north side of Orange Avenue was 18-20 per lot, and although called single story~ reached a height of 35 feet, that' the petitioner was attemptiag ~o conform with as many Code requiremer.ts, but in attemptiag to achieve the 16~ unita per acre, some structures had t4 be turned to the side #o pro:•3de for parking area, and if one story were requirpd~ some of the recreation area would b omstted such as the swimming pool. THp HBARING WAS CLOSHD. The Commission noted that the requested waiver for side yard requirements was to permit an existing dwelling to remain within six (6) feet of the easterly property line aad also to permit an existz:,g garage to be utilized which was located within two (2) feet of the easterly propc•rty line, that the coverage, density, and proposed de'sign was compatible, but that the petitioners could use a littie more imagination in proposing other than scored stucco for the materiai to be used far the elevations on the outside. In zeply, the agent stated that the developers had not decided on the finish, but that when plans were presented for fil3ng, he had been informed that the type of material should be indicated, and scored stucco seemed the only material that came to hia mind, but that the final plan probably would show other than ecored,stucco. ,._ . --~ -- ~ -----~~- -, s -- ,,: . __. ._...--- ~ , _-~' i _,_ . - ~ r~ u MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CaMMISSION, ,~uly 8, 1963, Continued; 1655 RHCLASSIPICATION - Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 829~ Series 1963-64, N0. 63-64-6 aad and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner perry~ to recommend to the City Councii iaai Peiiiica €or Reclasai- VARIANCH N0, 1590 fication No. 63-64-6 be approved, subject t~ coaditions.(See Reaolution (Continued) Hook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AY83: CQhAlI3SIONHR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungali, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOB3 : C~A~II98IONSR3 : None . ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Sidea. Commiseioner Ailred offered Reaolution No. 830~ Series 1963-64, and moved for ita passage and adoption~ aeconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petitio~ for Variance No. 1590, aub,~ect to the uae of atone or wood on the front elevations~ in order to impm ve the appearance of the atructares, and other eonditions„(See Reaolution Hook) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the £oiiowing voie: AY86: COMMI58ION8R5: Allsed, Cemp, Chavas, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Pe:ry~ Rowlsnd. NQBSt COMMIS$IONSRS: None, AHBBNT: GOMMI88IONBR9: 8idea. RBCLAaSIPICATION - PUBLIC FffiARING, l~t. & 1dAS, CIAUDE CR0.SITY~ 11311 Chapmaa Aveaue~ N0. 63-64•7 Gaxden Grove~ Californis, Owners; POSTBR OIL INC., 21S North 8ueaiyptua Avenue, Iaglewood~ Cslifornia, Ageat; requeating bhat property deecribed as: An irregular portioa of land having a froatage of 198 feet oa the weat eide of Harbor Houleverd and a frontage of 124 feet oa the norfih aide of La Palma Avenqe, end further deacribed as 1001~1013 Harbor Houlevard, and 103-105 La Palms Aveaue~ be reelaaaified from the R A, RBSIDffiVTIAL AQtICULTURi:L~ ZONB to the C-3~ F~AVY C01~9~1ffiiCIAL~ 20H3~ TO PffitM3T TFiR ESTABLxSI~lBNT OP A SBRVICB STATIC'"~.. Mr. Charlea A. McLuea, repreaenting the agent for the petitionera, appeared be~ore the Commiseioa aad seviewed tkee prapoaed aerviae atation, notiag that ~t would be conetructed in conformance with all the lateat propoaed aervice station etandarda, that two aervioe ataLione were loeated on the aouthesly coraera of the interaection, and that thc proposed aervice atatiott would be a considere*le improvement ia comparison vrith the exiating structure. The Commisaion noted that the propoaed aervice station would be in cloae proximit;~ to the Municipal Court aKd the City Park, that aufficient landscaping shouid be prov3ded to enhance the development~ and that the service statioa developers couli~ zmp~ove_the structures, in order that theae abations could be more compatible to their~surroundinga. Mr. McLuen atated that the Texeco Compnny had explored the poasibility of another type of structure in Texas and the aouthwestern states, but that oa a nationei basia the proposed structure would be in keeping with the adverLisement of their product~ and that it was hoped that in the future a definite improvemeat could be made for a more compatible structure. The Commission stated that since the agent for the petitioaer had stated by stipulation that the proposed service station standards would govern the development of subject property, a copy of the Service 3tation 5ite Pevelopment Standards should be made a part of the exhibits of the plot pian filed with the petition, that the request for reclassi- fication was for heav~ commercial zoning, but only a service station was proposed, to which the sgent replied that a conditional use oermit was not filed for construction of a service station in the existing clasaification o£ subject property, but the zoning was also required. ~ -_-°-- - -------- --- - -- - - - --°._.. --- .~ , "~- .. _ a ~ .i MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1963, Continueds 1656 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. McLuen further ~tipulated that the Planning.Department had been Noa 63-64-7 very cooperative in assisting him in obtaining all the necessary ;Contfnued) documents, together with pertinent information, and he wished to go on record as appreciating these courtesies. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE I~ARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the unsightly appearance of the property to the weet, said property bein9 a portion of property belonging to ~he City of Fullerton Water Company, and further expressed the desire that the Planning Dep~irtment Contact the City of Fulle:•ton Water Company to suggest poasible landscaping of their oroperty north of La Palma Avenue and west of sub3ect property; that the proposed reclassification ahould be for a service station only or any neighborhood commercial zoned uce only, and thet landscaping should be in accordance with all proposed service statior. site development standards. Commiseioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 831, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoptian, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council, thet Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-7 be approved, sutiject to the filing of deed restrictions limiting the use of subject prnperty for a eervia~ s~ation ar a~r C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone use, together with development in accordance with the proposed service station site development standards as atipu],ated by the petitioner, together with other conditicnse(See Resolution Book) ` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES1 COMMISSIONERSi Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, 1'ebley, Perry, Rowland. NOES~ COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIOPIERS~ Sides. ANIENDMENT TO - PUBLIC I~ARINGa AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, SECTIOl~fS 18.08, 18.40., 18.48, TITLE EIGHTEEN and 18.64, and the ADOPTION OF SERVICE STAiION SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. \\ i 1 ~ i ; ~ 1 i ~ 3 i 4 i ~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed service station site developmertt standards, together with tho E~roposed amendments to Title 18~ f~rther noting that after a number of conferences wfth Mra Louis Chappelear, manager of the Technicaland Ordinances Department of Western Oil and Gas Associ:cion, numerous work sessions with the Commission, and conierences with various department ~eads in the City~ the proposed standards, together with ttie resolution recommending adoption of these s~andards, copies uf Khich the Commission had re~eived for review, had been formulated to be adopted and forwarded to the City Councile Mr. Kreidt then introduced Mra Chappelea~•~ Mr. Louis Chappelear, appeared be:ore the Commission and expressed his appr~ciatian~• for the opportunity afforded him in being ab4.e to appear befor~ the Co~nnission, and also in being able to consiilt with the various City officials rolative to the service station site development standards, that the City of Anaheim was a pioneering effort, and a future pattern which other cities would follow for development of service stations, that the oil industry had done a great deal of "soul searching" relative to the appear- ance of sundry materials, flags, banners, temporary signs, etc., which gave an unsiy~-tly appearance to service stations, that he did not oppose prohibition of this, but felt that mary operators depended on these extras to auyment their income or. to bring attention to their products, and perhaps a time limitation could be plaa~d for these displays on a temporary basis only, or special permits could be obtained for the tem- porary use, or displaye Mr. Chappeler, further stated that limiting the service station sites to ma~or and secondary streets seemed ambiguous, since other cities might have different stan~iards for streets. Mr. Kreidt then stated that streets could be designated by their w:.dths in parenthesis namely, major(120 feet), primary (106 feet), or secondary (90 feet). I ~ ~ ~ _..~_.,-.-_ ~ - - ....__~ , ~ _ _ ~/ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~ g (~j ~ t~ MINUTES, CI?Y PL~NNING COMMISSION~ July 8, 1963, Continued: 1657 AN~NDNIHNf TO ~~ Mr. Chappelear continued that in proposing the "standards" the TITLE FiG.}1TFEN Commiss3on ~as propos±ng regul~t=+?ns by Co~e.adoRtic+n which would ~o-~tinued) tell a service station operator beforehand what.he.could do in order to comply with the City's requirements, which in his estimation was an excellent step forward for orderly development of the growing ciCies on the west coast. Commissioner 3owland stated that the standards did not regulate what he could advertise but the metho~.i of advertising, that banners for special rvents and sales by special permit might ~eem ideal, but these sales could extend from sale to sale thus the bannere and signs ~ould remain indefinitely. Mr. L'happelear stated that the recommendation of signs being rertwved...£rom..the lipe-of- site of the motorist was excellent from the standpoint of sa£ety.to.pedestriaas.aad motorists alike, but that in the item limiting signs~ he would recommend that price signs be made a part of an approved method of advertising for•~'ths•s.ta.tiors. operatian... Mr: Kreidt then suggested to the Commission that perhaps the price signs could be i incorporated in marquee signs, since tho,broken line on the Exhibit "A" was the bouradary, andi signs outside that line were prohibitede ; ~ The Commission isviewed the required setbacks noting that these were indicated..as a measure of safety for pedestrians and motoring public, that this was of great concerh to the Commission if anything obstructed t~he motorists view, that telephone booths in ~ the corner ar~a should also be considered as obstructing the view and should be removed ~ ~o another area of the service station site, that offensive banners, signs, display of ~ other than automotive goods and supplies were some of the basic reasons that service ' stations were being opposed in the vicinity of a residential area, because these presented an "eyesore" in the area. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts cited some instances when ordinances were approved which became retroactive, and stated that this could be considered for the proposed "ctandards". Mr. Chappelear then stated that the association he represented was in accord with the "standards" except for the few minor exceptions of price signs, possible limitation of special advertising signs, and designation for approved station sites, and he personally felt that the "standards" would be endorsed by the oil industry nationally; that by the inclusion of a specified zone with a parcel of land large enough for service station development, and permission to develop in a zone by right, was a a great step forward for orderly development by the provisior~ of possible use of intersections in a commercial zone, if it were compatible to the surrbh~nding area. Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 9:58 p.m. The Commission continued their discussibh~ as to the suggested changes tu the documents presented to them, further noting that $y right service stations could be established in s~ commercial zone~ fout did not limit it to those areas, since each property ovmer hac the inherent right"to petition for a zone change even in a residential zone. Mr. Kreidt then reviewed the proposed changes with the Commission to determine whether all preted as the Commission had designatede to the resalution and the Exhibit "A" suggested changes had been properly inter- THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 10:03 p.m. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 832, Series 1963-64, and moved for its ~ passage a~d adoption, seconded by Commissione* Chavos to recommend to the City Council that Amendment to Titls 18, Chapters 18.08, 18.40, 18.48, and 18.64, together with Exhibit "A" "Service Station Minimum Site Development Standards be adopted. On•roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOESs CpMMISSIONHRS: None. ABSEPTfs COMMISSIONERSs Sides. ..~_._ _ , ~ -- _--- --_ __ --- -~ . ~ ,. , , ~. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 8, 1963, Continued: : ~ 1658 . ,I~em No. 1 REPORTS AND - VAAIANCE NOa 1563 F~CO~JIMENDATIONS Dillow 8 nneddock, ServiceSi:ation located at Katella .°.vs^ue a.^.d Haster Street - request for clarification of two plantex aress. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the written requ~st f~om the attorneys fnr._... the•petitioners relative to.a clarification of ~he two planter areas inscribed.in green and red on the plot plan~ •~ Mr.~Norman Smede~aard, repressenting the petitionera, appeared. before the.Commission, and stated that the petitioner was unaware at the time the patition was..grantad•-tkLat.. planter areas were required, that the Shell Oil Company, lesseee of tha.ser.v.ice....:.... station were the first to agree to landscaping for service stations•in.Anaheim,-•that the oil company was heartily in favor of this t,~pe of beauti£3oation,..but..did.nat... :eel that subject property was large enough to permit insialLatior~.of._.the.,planta~--•.- areas in question, that the main opposition was because of.the clossness•.o£..tha.•••-••. proposed planter areas to the pump islands which might create•~a hazard for women and• children using the station facilities. ••••~••••••- • Ths Commission reviewed the plot plan noting the location of, t~+e pianter axae~...baing•... considered, commenting that there had been considerable discussior. relative to.the•. . nroqosed planter areas, bui: there was a possibility that the Commisston had inadvert- ent•ly tailed to indicate to the petitionera at the hearing the locatlon oi_.tneae. plenters~ that if this condition created a~hardship in the de~relopmr,nt of the service stetion, the Commission might consider rescinding this oondition.• ,••~.•• •~ ~ Comtrissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 83~, Series 1963-64, and rtloved fo~ its pasFage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Camp, to rescind Resolution No. 716, Series 1962-63~ by incorporating within the proposed resolut3on amendment to Condition No. 2, deleting the,r~quirement that landscaping be installed as indicated on Exhibit No. 1, and shall read as followsi ':2. Installation of a planter area a., che northwest corner of sub3ect property and tres wells as indicated on Exhibit No. 1, plans for safd landecaping and treewells to be submitted to and sub~ect to the approval of the Superintsndent of Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping and tree wells to be installed prior to final building inspection." On roll call the foregoing r~esolution was paBsed by the following vote~ A1fES: COMMISSIONERs+ Att~rpd, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. NOESi COMMI~SIONERS~ None. ABSENTt CCiu1MMISSI0IVHRSt Sides. ITEM N0. 2 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-75 Artklur 8 Eloise Hbrman, William A. R~ Lucille E. Haynes, Ralph F. Haring, and James West:•um, 2139-C West Ball Road, Anaheim, California~ Owners~ J. Richard Huffman, 2139-C West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, AgentR property located on Lincoln Avenue west of Euclid~ 'Mr. J. Richard Huffman, agent for the petitioner, stated that altnough both the Commission and City Council had approved subJect petition, and +!~~ ordinance had been read on said reclassification, upon asking for a building permit tr, construct a coffee shop, the interpretation of the deed restrictions did not include s coffee shop, that the motel owner to tha east of subject property had atated at both hearings that he did not oppose the coffee shop, and that he desired that the Commission make a statment as to their intent when the deed restrictions were approved•. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that their expression of business and professional uses only did not indica:2 offices, that the petitioner had filed de~d restrictions stipulating the aforementioned uses, and that..it_.was.his.epinian.. .. that the Commission could secommend to the City Council their intent when Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. 648, Series 1962-63 was approved. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to advise the City Council that the intent of the Commission in Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. 648, Series 1962-63 had been re-considered, AYfd it was the Commission's intent that a coffee shop would be a compatible use under the original deed restrictionse Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i~ ~~ ~' MINUTES, CITY PT:ANNING COMMISSION, July S, 1963, Cbq~inued~ s Planning Conqress axillo, Ca1~€o~n3a• Coomisaioner Gauer asked that a reservation be made for him.to attend.ths.Southesn... Cal#fornia Planning Cdngress. All other Commissioners advised.~the.Commi.selon.Secretary tisa~t they would be un~ble to attend. ~ • _ ITEM N0. 4 Orange County Use Variance No. 5193 Construction of a singie family dweliing on a.parcel of land containing an existing single family dwelling in the R-1, Single Femily Residence Diatrict located on the,west size of Garza Avenue approximately.•42Q feet south of Pacific Place, north of Gexden Gra.va. . .. ~... Zoning Coordin~tor Martin Kreidt reviewed the location of sub~ect petition for the ~ Commiasion, and' presented the plot pian. Coneniesioner Chavos offered a motion to advise the Orange County P1a~ning..Commissioa . thet due to the propose type of structure and the location of.;sub~sc.t_.propsrty~ the Anaheim Planning Comnission had "No Comment". Commissioner Rowland saconded the motior.. N;OTTON CARRIED. • • • • . ITEM N0. 5 Orenge County Use Variance No. 5194 Removal of an existi~g garage end patio for the converaion of .said property into off-street parking of 9 spacea to be used in con~unctian with an accountant's office, property being located at the aouthweat corner of Brockhurat Street and Pacific Aqenue, southwast of Anaheim. "' 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed sub~ect Use Variapce with the Planning Com- " mission, the Planning Commission's recommendation of denis~ Qf rezoning in reclassifi- catien of Case No. 611, and the subsequent rezoning of~sub~ect property by the County to the R-P, Residential Professional District. The Commission discussed the unsightly appearance of the residences being used for commercial purposes on the east and west sides of Brookhurst Street, nort}i bf Lincoln Avenue, and the past limitations of the City of Anaheim in the restrictive use of residential structures for commercial purposes, particu,~rly the manner in which parking is provided. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning Commission that Use Variance No. 5194 be denied on the following grounds: The existing structure ~s located within the future rig~t-of-way_of Brookhurst S~reet. Commercialization of the existing residential structure would be detrimental to the existing residential development in the area. Parking areas, particularly when ad~acent to residential structures, should be adequately screened with landscaping and masonry wall construction. Given the approved R-P, Residential Professional zoning, all existing structures should be removed and replaced with appropriate commercial facilities which are compatible to the residential properties and would be an asset to the community in which subject property is located. . ~ MTNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COIdMISSION, July S, 1963~ Continued 1660 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 6 °...~~~NG:TIO.:S Ora7go Caunty~Teatativa 'm'-a~ oi Ti17{i4 C3t~. SI7~i (Continued) Proposing 89 R-1, One Family Residential, Zone lots located on the north side of the Riverside Freeway and south of the Santa Ana River in the east Anaheim area. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 5179, ; to the Planning Commission and reviewed the staff_recommendat3ons.• ... . ,: The Commisaion discussed the status of i~wo tracts preViously approved on abutting properties to the west. Commisoioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the Oran,ge County.Planning.Commission favorab,le consideration of the single family subdivision of sub3ect property with a request that the following factors be considered~ - ... _ 1. In the event the developer desires to obtain utilities from the City..of.Anahe3a-, a utilities annexation agreement is necessary, wherein the developer..stipulates to the installation of utilities and street impro~ements in aGCOrdance.with the City of Ana~aim standards. Deviations from existing Ci~~y of Anaheim a~~andards contained withir~ #he ~re;~c~se~ +.*?ct a*e? a. 8atavia S:reet, a secondary highway~ should have a cross section of 90 feet. . b. Starfire Street, Starling Way, and Maychelle Drive should be improved as collector streets with 64-feet of right-of-way, or at least 40 feet of roadway in the 60-foot cross section. c. The "knuckle" provided at Lot No. 17 may not be necessary. d. Clearhaven Circle and Cul-de-Sac Avenue should be developed with a minimum radius of 50 feet. e. The drainage across Batavia Street shall be accomplished by an under- ' ground system. No cross-gutter should be permitted. f. Lot No. 42 should have 70 feet at the froczt yard setback instead of 68 feet. g. Lot Nos. 44, 51, and 56, as reverse corner lots, should have a width of 78.5 feet at the rear yard setback. ' h. Property line radii should be 15 feet at all street intersections. 2. The temporary access will have to be approved by the State Division of Highways and the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Co., in the event that the aforementioned .. own.their r3ght-of-way. . . 3. The discharge of water into the Santa Ana River would have to be approved by the Orange County Water District. 4. The well on Lot No. 12 should be abandoned. 5. Approval of sub3ect tract should be withheld pending a decision on the precise alignment of Taylor-Lakeview across the Santa Ana River, as it would intersect with Batavia Street. 6. That conside~=ation be given to requiring additional points of access from sub- 3ect tract to the property directly west. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiOn.. MOTION GARRIED. ITEM N0. 7. Initiating reclassification of certain real property for multiple family zoning, now being used as such, together.with the trailer park now existing. ~~.A ~ ~ ~ ,1 ~ MINUTE5, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July g- ~9G3, Continubd~ 1661 RtrORT~ i+idD - 7TEm f30.- 7(Cvili.illued) j RECOMMENDATIONS Initiate Reclassification ( (Continued) • ~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt preset~ted a quarter s~ctipn map.~nqll~cat~d .al~~in ~ ro eities tn the s,outhwest Anaheim area, and su eeted th~It ~sicn. ~ P P 99 ~=~~~~1 direct the Planninc~ Department to initiate reclassific~tion p, ¢~4py~9 • the existing R-A, ~esidential Agricultural, Zone to the R=3~'~Itsl ~~~~~~'~~F,asLIY.Rssidential, ; Zone, since certain of the properties have alrsady b~eeA,de~-p~,oA~d ~4~ ~tiple family ~ uses, and the existing trailer park comes within tl~..,~atagory,of;lowrqaediam residential use. . . ... ~ Commissioner Perry offered a motion to direct tt~ ,P,~ann~ng ~i~artm~nt to initiate R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone raclaasificatiqu;: ` s for.gropsrty located along Palm Street south of Winston Road sputhpFly #~i~~~t~!:~R.-1• One Family Residential, Zone lots on the south side df Midw~.y ~iei~. Coma~iigion~r Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that the aforsmention~d r~claseffioation proceedings ~ WOU1G DB consid~red e~ thb 62iY1e i.iGm 85 B COwtrlByi.a ao7~v: v: v~i0 '~l:O~JZ.!"«3 ~l:L'0~`:°~ ! relative to the trailer park located on the south side of Midway Drive. : ~ ADJOtJRNMENf - There being no further buciness to discuss, Comnissioner Chavoe offored a motion to ad~ourri the regular meeting of the Anaheim Planning Co~a-isaion. "' Commiasio~er Pebley sac~nded the motion. NIOTION CARRIE0. The me~t~ng,ad3purn~d at 1Ot55 p.m. Respectfuliy submitted, Secretary, Anaheim Planning Commission ~_ _.-._ _~_._..~ _._..__-- --- - --_..._ _------ ----~-----, , ---~- ---_ -- ~id , ~ - ~: .___... `v ~ ~