1959/04/01
3274
City Hall, Anaheim, California - April 1, 1959 - 7:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCILMEN: Borden, Coons, Fry and Schutte..
COUNCILMEN: Pearson.
CITY MANAGER: Keith Ao Murdoch.
CITY ATTORNEY: Preston Turner..
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williamsc
CITY ENGINEER: Thornton Piersall.
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Robert Wo Munga11.
Mayor Schutte called the meeting to order.
RESOLUTION NO. 5130: Councilman Borden offered Resolution No. 5130 and moved for
its passage and adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book, page
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING JOHN WOODSTRA,
ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO REVIEW AND
AUDIT THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SALES TAX RECORDS OF THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
'TO DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF MONEYS DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1958.
On roll call the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Borden, Coons, Fry and Schutte.
None.
Pearson..
The Mayor declared the foregoing Resolution duly passed and adopted.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. F-58-59-30: Submitted by Earl Singleton, et ale
Mr. Murdoch recommended a 30 day extension of time be granted to
comply with conditions outlined i.n Resolution of Intention No. 4973; that an
agreement is being drawn for cash payment to be made for street lights at the
time other lmprovements are made which are included in the bond.
On the recommendations of Mr. Murdoch, 30 day extension of time was
granted to Reclassification No. F-58-59-30, on motion by Councilman Borden,
seconded by Councilman Fry. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Schutte announced that this was the second work session held for
the purpose of considering the text of the new comprehensive zoning ordinance.
Mr. Eisner addressed the Council regarding the suggestion of adopting
a new ordinance at this time and retaining the old map; that to do this would
create difficulties, especially in the commercial zones where there are presently
three zones and the new ordinance will create nine zones. He further advised
that in preparing the ordinance they investigated Anaheim and tried to fit the
zones to the map according to the present uses of the land. That at the present
time the ordinance and the map have been subjected to public hearings before the
City Planning Commission; that the map is the tie between the new ordinance and
where these things are applied in the City of AnaheimQ He felt that definite
questions would arise in the conversion between the old map and the new ordinance.
Mr. Eisner explained the pattern that had been rather continuously
followed by him over the last 10 years, and named some of the other communities
that have gone through this same process..
Mr. Murdoch called attention to the fact that the map itself had never
been published; that there was only one copy of the proposed zoning map. He felt
that the only problem was in the matter of ti.ming and could see no reason why
the City Council could not consider the text of the ordinance prior to the con-
sideration of the zoning map, however, to place the new zones as shewn on the map
into effect would mean the adoption of the whole thing, as might be amended, or
the adoption of sections as a part of the whole. He referred to the method con-
~.......,~_,,,,,,.. """,-,~,.<"~"____"""""""",__,,,,,,,,,,.,".c,.,.~=--.,,,__ .";...._-,...,"""~"!'._,...-.jo/Ip..;-.c...~..,.___"'"
3275
City Hall, Anaheim, California - April 1, 1959 - 7:00 P.M.
sidered at the last work session, wherein by reference in the new ordinance,
present zones could be designated according to their new zone names, and re-
ferred to specific examples thereof, illustrating some of the problems where we
do not have compatibility between the old and new zones. After thoroughly
checking into this, Mr. Murdoch felt that it was not practical to use that
method of trying to call something in the present ordinance under a name which
is included in the new ordinance.
It was noted tha.t the Ci ty Counci 1 had expressed "lits desire not to
apply the new zones on specific parcels of property until the public has been
duly notified of these proposed changes.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out two ways this might be accomplished, one, to
hold off the adoption of the entire package until review of the provision of
the text itself, and then go through the hearings on the map and adopt both
portions at once, and, two, to use the provision where the present zones remain
in effect until they are sufficiently changed by the City Council after
notification and hearings. He further explained that this would mean that the
adoption of the text would not actually accomplish anything as it applys
specifically to the land, however, it would finish the discussion on the text
of the ordinance itself, and would be the intention of the City Council to
follow this text on any new zones that would be applied or on any rezoning.
The Council could then proceed with the rezoning of specific parcels of properties
in areas as a part of the whole, and, either as you complete the hearings on
an area, adopt a new zoning on those areas only, the balance to remain as
presently zoned, or, wait until the entire City has been considered and adopt
the new zoning on the entire mapo
Mr. Eisner explained that the Council has heard the people on
matters dealing with the ordinance itself, and suggested that the hearing
be reopened and the map taken to the people at this time. He recommended
that the ordinance not be adopted without the adoption of the map.
Mrc Hardy advised that to adopt the ordinance at this time and portions
of the map as they are heard and considered, would be deviating from the re-
quirement of uniformity, due to the fact that you would be applying a set of
regulations on one parcel of property that you are not applying to others, simply
because the hearings had not yet been held and the areas rezoned.
Mro Turner was of the opinion that it was not necessary to have a map
to adopt the zoning ordinance, that the only map needed was one showing a master
plan. He stated that the hearings that have been held were for the purpose of
adopting the zoning ordinance and not held for zone changes. He felt that
adequate notices had been given for the adoption of the ordinance, but not for
the map, and that the city should continue in existence the present zones until
such time as they are changed by appropriate procedure.
The method considered at the last work session, that of redesignation
of existing zones, was ~ found to be impractical and could not be accomplished.
Mr. Turner felt that to permit the existing uses to continue and by
working out of the proposed new ordinance those provisions that constitute actual
change of zone, he felt the ordinance could be adopted without any difficulty.
The memo prepared by the Planning staff comparing the R~ M, and C ZOffiS
to the new ordinance, was briefed by Mr~ Murdoch.
In considering the ordinance itself, it was felt that all of the zones
as established by Section 9200.2 were necessary.
Section 9200.Rl-D-6: After discussion of this section, it was considered by the
City Council that the provision allowing lesser than 1225 square foot floor area
of dwellings be removed; that there be no dwelling units below the established
minimum of 1225 square foot floor area~
Councilman Coons brought up the matter of establishing in the ordinance
a certain percentage on which lot areas within a subdivision tract could vary.
"** See ADDENDUM
Discussion resumed and Mr. Eisner advised that a provision could be
-"-"~~.
3276
City Hall, Anaheim, Calif~rnia - April I, 1959 - 7:00 P.M.
written into the ordinance, authorizing the Director of Planning or some other
administrative body, to make such a change on the basis of hardship, not to
exceed an established certain percentage.
Mr. Turner suggested that the ordinance contain a provlslon where upon
submission of the map, the City Council could reserve the right to approve lots
of less than the minimum requirement when it appears to be under certain conditions.
To the City Council this appeared to be a reasonable provision and the
City Attorney was requested to draft a sample provision allowing deviation by
the City Council from the established minimum in certain cases.
Section 9200.R2-5 was discussed, regarding building or structure height limitations
and the reasons therefor9
Attention was also called to the number of buildings that can be placed
on a lot, this being determined by the size of the lot.
Councilman Coons referred to a former statement made in open meeting
regarding two story structures and the invasion of privacy, and felt that this
should also apply to single family residences that are two story structures.
It was felt that this same provision should be added to Rl-B-5 section
(same as R2-B-5 section).
Discussion was held regarding the necessary depth between multiple
structures to insure privacy, taking into consideration the angle of sight.
It was considered that a provision be worked out for the R zones
establishing a distance of 100 feet for rear yard and 60 feet for side yard.
In all R zones, it was noted that the maximum structures are not to
exceed 35% of the lot area. The Council felt that this should be increased to
to 40%.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Mayor Schutte announced that the
next work session would be April 22, 1959~
Councilman Coons moved to adjourn to Tuesday, April 7, 1959, 7:00 P.M.
Councilman Borden seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOUR~
SIGNED. .. ~1_ 2)-</~~
City Clerk
**ADDENDUM
Regarding Section 9200.Rl-C-6, Councilman Coons felt that the provlslon outlined
in Section 9200.Rl-D-6, allowing for a certain percentage of the dwelling units
in a subdivision to be reduced; that this provision should be added to Section
9200.RI-C-6, said reduction not to exceed the minimum of 1225 square feet.
---;
;""']
;,*."......~_~~~..~..o..'~~,,".,d___~_~~