Minutes-PC 1960/09/06~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
September 6, 1960 .
St~~LA~ D~EBTPG OF 1'f~. CITY.PLANNING_COMb1ISSxON..
R~ ~?ffiG =•~,mIlas Dl~eeffag of ifie Citq Planniag Commission was called to order
a1t 2_~5 ~"CIlocTc p.b[. bp Chairman Gaaer, a quorum being presetrt:
~' -~ 6A~. Eo~tissioners; DuBois, Hapgood, Marcotlx, Morris,
~PIl ~ S1~ers. Commissioner Allred entesed the Meeting at
2=2~ P.D~
~' - ~omer Mauerhan.
~~ -~e ~E"srmltes c€ the bteeting of August 15, 196~ were approved with
m~e czua~e~itiarn eg pa~e 1, sezond paragraph, add "Summers" to list
off ~^^~~~~a~aers present.
~' - ~Irs~ PIla~nag ~izector - Richard Reese
aIla~nnmg ~ecl~i~*~**¢ - Gordoa Steen, Martin greidt
°~*~*~^* ~"ctF B~tto=ney - Joe Geisler
iIla~nag ~at Secretary - Shirley Taylor
~RB3~~ 1~- ~- ~EC ~EP~: PgTITION submitted by George Allen Lawto~, 2026~~1.
116.flIlmvv ~a~e, ~eim, California, requestiag permission to• NAIi+~
A~I~L f~E FARD 48TBAC,~ RHQUIRfiINHNT TO PBRMIT A PIVB FOOT BN-
~T ca the property described as: A parcel 68 feet°by 100°
ffeet vant~ a£rontage of I00 feet on Psimzose Streetand°ibcatrd-an•
ft~c ~st coraer of Primrose Street and Willow Avenue and
ffmsC~oes desuibed as 2026 West~ Nillow Avenue. The property is •pre-
~SIl~ Epass,i£ied R-I, SINGLB.FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL.
~~ ~eem, YPaaaing Technician, read the application reqaest. Mr.
i
f3e~s~ fi~rtca, the applicant~ appeared before the Commiasioa aad stated
1t~a1t ~as ~ia coacera was safetq aad visibility. He added that he
j lh~ ~~~ his neighbors and had sigaed statement from the neighbor
~ mezlt ~s sapportiag his proposal. THS FffiARING WAS CL05HD.
A~eg ,gQe Ceisler stated that there was no ordiaance regarding
i ~mim,g ~oIls 6eiag Iocated i~ front yards, but there was an ordinance
~£eaces ar aay construction in the froat yard setbact.
~mmssno~es Morris offered Resolution No. 58~ 3eries 1960-61, and`
; ~€cos ats passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood
~s~~i~ ~saaaace l~to. 1289, subject to the following conditioa:•
Il_ DeacIlop ~t ia conformitq with plans presented.
'~e €aaegosag conditioa is found to be a necessar prerequisite to the
. ase o€ tme Frcpertg in order to Freserve the safe~y and welfare of the
i".ntiams ~€ ~mlt~.
Oa a~Ilfl Eafl7~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following~vote;
•~3e C~EYSSIQ~S: DuBois, Gaaer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Morris,
k Mnngall and 3ummers.
~= ~33E~S: N~ne,
~ ~~~'~CE~l~233E4aI.~S; Mauerhan and Alired.
VAB~'~ ~_ ~2~- l~L.I~ S~RING: PHTITION snbmitted R~lling: Hills Iaves•tment Corp.,
c% D~_ Fsed 9hnbia~ 427~ Der,nison St., Los Angeles 22, California,
aeopmesitis~g pesmissioa to ~AIVB MINIMUM LOT SIZH RBQUIRBMHNf AND WAIVH
~'~SD B&98 F~BD SStBAAC[ RBQUIRBMflNTS, on the property described as;
lG tsia~ss shaped parcei at the northwest iatersection of Broadway,
1Ps~amit Staee~ aa~ the 3aata pn~ Preeway with a frontage of 104 feet on
99aY~ett 3`~w'ct ~ a froatage of 115 feet on the $aata Ana Preeway.
'H~e ~zftg i~ presentlq classified R-2, 71V0 PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL,
~a_ baa,~ Feabodg apprssred be£ore the Co~misaion represeating the
IDoSIlsag s~`aB~.s Eavest~nt C.rpo~:ation. He stated that the compaay im-
IIrase~ al*~ it~eir property ra~;~+Er than holding it for iaveatment only,
-I-
~.
~ --------------~- --- ___._._.... ------_.._..__...--------------- ~
_. ~ " ~
~` ~ _ ~ .
~
MYNUTB3, CITY YIANNING OOI~AfISSION, September 6, 1960, CO~ITIN[JBD:
qARIANCH N0: 1289>~' and ~they woaid be unable -to- iaprove the- sn~sject pra~rty mithout a
CCppTINpBD•~- Variance. Mr. Colby, 21T Kaimrt, appeared before the Commission and
asked what type of bnilding rrould be constrncted, bir. Peabody re-
piied it would be a duplex xith a tvo-caz garage. A letter rras read
from Mr. Ira Munsey, 1143 Nest Brosdway, protestingthe variaace. THH
HBARING WA3 CLOSHD.
-° Commissioner Marzowc offered Resointion No. 59~ Scries 1960-61, aad
• moved"for its passage and adoption, seconded by Com~issioner DnBois,
granting Variance No. 1290, subject to the folloxing conditions:
P e~-^^
1. DevaEopment in confoznity xith pians presented.
2, Interdepartmental Committe~ Requireaents:
a, Payment of $2.00 per froat foot for street lighting purposes.
b, $25.00 per dwelling unit Part g Recreation fee to be co2lected
as part of Building Perait.
The foregoing conditions are foun3 to be a necessary prerequisite 40
the use of the property in order to preserve the safety and welfaze
of the Citizens of Anaheim.
. On roll call the foregoing resolution xas passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIUNi'RS: DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcowc, Morris,
• Mungall and 3u~ers.
NOBS: COI~AlISSIONE4tS: None.
ABSffiVT: COAAfISSIOddBRS: -taue:han aad Alired.
VARIANCE~NO~ 1291- PUBLIC HEARING. PHTITION snbmitted by C. Ray McCoy, 2128 Virginia
Avenue, Anaheim, California, requestiag permission to WAIVB MINIMUM
RBAR YARD 3HTBNCR REQUIREI~NT TU PERMIT A SIR FOOT HN(1t0A(~IN~NT, on
the property described 2s: A parcel 70 feet by 1~;8 feet with a
froniage of 70 feet on Visginia Avenne and located on the south side
of Virginia Avenue between Reseda and Peregriae Streets; its north-
west corner being 290 feet east of the southeast corner of Reseda
Street and Virginia Avenue and further described as 2128 Virginia Ave.
The property is presently classified R-1, SINGLB FAMILY RHSIDffiiTIAL.
Mrs. McCoy appeared before the Comoission and stated the patio was
already buiit at the rear of her home; but Luw theq wished to enclose
the patio, which rvould encroach into the zFgnired rear yard setback.
No one appeared in opposition to the granting of the Vari.ance. THH
HPARING WAS CIASHD.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 6~. Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, s~conded by Commissioner Morris
granting Variance No. 1291.
On roll call the foregoing resolution xas passed bp the following
vote:
AYES: C0~l~lISSIONIItS: DuBois, Gauer. Hapgood, Marconx, Morris,
Mungall and Su~ers.
NOH3: COMAlISSICk~StS: None.
ABSENT: COM~SISSI03~Et5: Mauerhan and Allred.
VARIANCS N0. 1292- PUBLIC I~IDARING: PHTITIODi submitted by Williad A. Woodmaa, 2432 Chain
Ave.. Anaheim, California, requesting permission to p1AIVB MINIMUM
PRONT YARD SHTBAC[ R~UIRF1~iT 1'0 P~tM1IT A 15 FOOT HNCROACfAlBNT on the
property described as: A pazcei 60 feet by 100 feet with a froatage of
60 feet on Chain Avenue a.nd located on the south side of Chain Ave.
betticcen Topo and Monument Streets; its nortHeast corner being 220 feet
west of the southwesY corner of (:hain Aveane and Topo Street and further
described as 2432 Chain Avenue. 17ie property is preseatly classified
R-1, SINGLB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL.
Mr. William Woodman was present at the heazing~ and noted the supportiag 1
signatures of four property omers in the area iacluded in his petition. ~
Mrs. John McConnel appeared before the Covoission and stated tt~at the I
homes in the subject area rere pnrchased nnder deed restrictions, which i
included stipulation that no fences wouid be permitted in the front yard ~
setbacks. She presented a petition signed by 21 residents on Chain r
Avenue oppo~tng the request. Mr. MoodAan stated that he had a petitioa
~
i,
~
_2_ ~
,
--- ---_ __. _ ..._ -- -~_._.._. ., ~
~ _. _ - ___`__/
(~ ~ U'
~~
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CpMMISSION, September 6, 1S60, CQNTINUBD:
qARIANCF N0. 1292- supporting his request signed by 8 residents on Chain Avenue
Tf~
(CONTINUBD) .
HBARING ~IAS CLOSHD.
Mr. Geisler stated that the garage of the subject propertq was 22 feet
" back from.the property line, whereas the zoning ordiaance requires
'
-~
` 25'feEt; therefore the encroachment would actually be 20 feet. He
adned that deed restrictions are private and couid be enforced by
private suit as the proposed variance requesf would be in violation of
the Deed.
Commissioner Morris offered Resolution No. 61, Series 1960-61, aad
moved for its passage aad adoption, secoaded by Commissioner Hapgood
denyittg Variance No, 1292,
On roll call the foregoing resolutiion was passed by the followiag vote;
AYH3: COMMISSIONSR3: DuBois, Gauer, Ha~good, Marcoux, Morris,
Mungall and Summers.
NOB3: CQMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Mauerhan and Allred,
VARIANCH N0. 1293- PUBLIC HBARING. PHTITION submitted by %eadall L. and Carolyn M.
Despain, 2775 W. Wilberta Lane, Anaheim, Califoraia, requesting
permission to WAIVH MINIMUM SIDB YARD SETBACR ON RHVBRSg Cat[VBR 1;pT 1,p
ALLOW HXISTING SIX POOT WALL, on the property described as: A parcel
with an average width of 60 feet and a depth of 109 feet wi4h a
frontage of 80 feet on Wilberta Lane and loce.tad on the narthwest corner
of Wilberta Lane and Yana. Drive, aad :urtaer described as ~775 West
Wilberta Lane. The propertq is preseatly classified R-1
SINGLB FAMILy
,
RBSIDHNTIAL.
Both applicants were preseat at the hearing~ and m one appeared in
opposi#ion to the granting of the Variance. 1HS HSpRII~G WpS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Morris asked the applicants if the wall was alreadq in
existence, and how long before had it been erected. He was iaformed
that it had been built approximately one year ago by a contra~tor
before building permits for fences were required. Mr. Geisler said
there was a requirement for any constructioa exceediag.a cost of.$25.00,
and any fence would now require a building permit, 3ixteen property
owners' signatures were oa the application snpporting the vasiance re-
quest.
Commissioner Allred offered a Resolution and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summers, granting Variance No. 1293,
subject to the following condition:
1. Install sidewalks on Wilberta,
The foregaing condition is found to be a necessary prerequisite to the
use of tlie property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the
Citizens of Anaheim.
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CObMI3SI0NBRS: Alired, Guaer, Hapgood and Summers,
NOS3: COhAIISSI0NBR3: DuBois, Marcoux, Morris and Mungall.
ABSBNT: CObAfISSIONHRS: Mauerhan.
Due to a tied vote~ this matter will agaia be considered at the 3eptember
19th meeting.
RBCIASSIPICATION- PUBLIC HBARING: PBTITION submitted by Metropolitan Trust Company and
N0. P-60-61-17 Silas W. Li~hmer, 1419 South Huclid Avenue, Anaheim, California, re-
questing that 4he property described aso 'A parcel ~8Q feet by 1290 feet
with a frontage of 480 feet on Katelia Avenue, and located on Yhe north
side of Katella Avenue betweea Brookhurst Avenue and Nutwood Street; its
southeast corner iying approximately 455 feet west of the northwest
corner of Nutwood 3treet and Katella Avenue~ be reclassifi~r from R A,
RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL to R-3, MULTIPLH EAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL,
_3_ ,
{
~
~
-..___._ ._;.. _ _. .
,~ -.--__.__._-_r____.._. _------•-- ---.._~. _...~_. ._
--~mim _-~-._._....__..._.._~ ..._
't
i
~
~
i
i
;
__
i ~ .-------- ~ ~., ~ - ~......,......._ --- -_.. ._.. ----- - .
_ .~ --
~ ~
~ MINUTSS, CITY PIAN~IING CONAMISSIO~I, $eptember 6, 1960, CONTINUSD:
"RBCIASSIPICATIOIQ-
,~ Mr. Lehmer appe~red before the Commission and stated that the subject
I
F~60=61=17
N0 property was a life estate and now'contaxned orange tr°es to !io 60
~
.
~~p~I~gp)• years old. Thig developvieat wouid be similar to one~on Nor.th Magnoiia
Avenue called "The Commons". Mr. Robert Ames,.1759 South Da11aQ, pre-
sented petitions with approximately 130 ~ignaYures, opposing the grar.ting
' of the reclassification, as the ex~'gting single family residen#iaY de-
j velopments would be divided by the proposed muitiple family 6welYings,
`
~ and alleys would be just five feet from windows oa some o~` Lhe R-1
properties, while traffic would be iacreaeed by cuttiag through streets
~ which now are dead-ended within 4he R-1 area. The propercy owners
in the area would like to see the property developed for R-i. ~dr3. John
~ Marquit appeared before the Commission and spoke in epyosit3on to the
request, stating her belief thut the approval of R-3 in the asea wou2d
~ be the opening wedge for apartments on Nutwood Sireet also; wh3.3e suffi-
cient apartmente siready existed in the City and achools wes~ already
overcrowded. Mr. Sam Warren, 1735 3. Ivanhoe, epgear:d befo:e the
Commission and remarked that about two blocks from th~. yubject E~r3p~^ty
there existed a good sized apartment development.' ilr. Lehmer cosmei:~C°d
that his proposed developmeat would be single story, two-bedroom
apartments, and that there was a waiting list for "The Commons" He
again pointed out that he could not sell t:!° property. Mrs. Clifford
R:chmond appeared before the Gommission and stated the wall around the
the property would be five feet from her bedroom w~ndows, and that the
plans show no opening on Katella Avenue, therefore at least 200 cars
would be traveling through the residential atreAs in the area. Several
other residents of Ivanhoe Street, Judith Lane, Midwood Lane, and
Porest Lane voiced their objections to the proposed development. THB
HBARING WAS CLOS~D.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolutior No. 62, Serips 1960-61, ar.d
woved for its passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner Iiapgood,
recommending to the City Council thaL R~c].ass±fication No. 60~-61-16 for
R-3, MULTIPLE PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL be denied.
Oit roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilow£ng vote:
AYB3: COMMISSIODIBRS: Aiired, DuB_is, Gauer, Hapyuod, Mar~oux~ Morris,
Mungali and S!:~mers.
NOSS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSBNT; CONASI381ONHR3: Mauerhan.
RSCLASSIFICATION- PUBLIC HHARING: PBTYTION submitted by girb} and Hele~ Ann :'.air~ 501 So,
'NO. P-60-62~18 Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California reque~~iAa that thp property described
as: A parcel 50 feet by 100 feet, with a f'rontage of 50 ree.•t on Rnott
Avenue and located on the west side of gnott : veaue betwePn 0=a~~ge iind
Lincoln Avenues; it~ southeast carner being approx. ~1Q f.eet no...h ~.f
the northwest corner of Orange and Rnot~ Avenues, and further des~r3bed
as 501 South Rnott qvenue be reciassified from P.~A, RBS:IDBNTIAL
AGRICULT[JRAL to C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD COhAlAACIAL.
Mr. Kirby Hair appeared before the Commission and stated that a
Variance in their neighborhood was granted b~ the County for ceramic
business, and that the asea was partly Gommercial in nature. He said
he felt a real estate office wouid be compatible with other existing
businesses close by his property. No o~e appeared in opposition to the
granting of the proposed reclassification. THB HHARING WAS CL0.SED.
Commissioner Morris asked the applicant why he asked for a Reclassifica-
tion rather than a Variance, and Mr. Hair replied he inteaded to bni.ld
an office on his vacant lot. Commissioner Morris asked what was plaaaed
for the balance of the prc~erty, and wa~ informed that there were no
plans for development at present.
Commissioner DuBOis offered Resolution No. 63, Seriea x960-61, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded By Commissioner Alired denying
Reclassification No. P-60-61-18, for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial.
-4-
i I
I
i '
~
,
~ , ._. _ __, _ _.. _ .---.-~.._ ___ __ _ __ _ ---._ ..._._. ...-------.:._----- ___ -- --.- -- _ _
~ -- - - ---- - -- -_.___. ~ _ _. .1-
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN~~ ~"NAiI..°,~ZON, Septembe: 6, 196C, CONTINUHD:
RHCIASSIPICATI~'+- ~hi zoi'. ~:all the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiar~ vote:
Ncl, P-60-'~1-J.8 :C'ri?'.• ; COAlA~IIS3IONHR3: Ailred, DuBois, Gauer, Hap¢ood, Marcouu,
(~pi~t~_?NUrD) ._ Morris, Muagail and Summer°,
:~0}3S: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABS~iT: COMS4Y3SIONHRS: mauerhan. '
RBCIA35IPICATEI'i~~- PUBLIC HBARING. PSTITIUN submitted by Adeesto;:s, Inc., 1600 West Cloast
R0.' P-6G-61--15~ I~ighway, Neti~art'Beach; ~'aitfornia request tha•t the propertp described
as: A parcel 467 feet oy 640 feet with a. fro~*tage of 467 feet on
Grand Avenue and located o,_~•the eas* s3~1e of (~:and Avenue between
Linco]n and Crescent Avenues; its acut,`r.west car:!e- be..ng annrux. 83G
feet r,•~rth of :i~ northeast corner c-" ?.iuco3n And Grand A~~enacs ~e
reclassifieo from R-A, RBSIDBNT~.+i AGR:[C[JL1Un!+T. to n-3, MULTIPLE ~°u3',.Y
' RBSIDHNTIAL.
A rec;uest liaG been recei.ved to postpon this hearieg in conjuction with 1
Tentiative Alap of Tract A'o. 3903. Co~~~i~~aioner Mung~:ll m~ved that
Reclassifir.ation P7o. F-6Q-61-19 be helA oWer until th.~ Meet ag of
Septenaber 79; iy60. Ttie n~otion was seconded bq Commiss:ones Marcoux ;
and carried, At this tine there was protes~t~frok neigliborin~ propert; i
owners who tad mad2 spe~;ial arrangements to be present at th~ hearing, ~
Mr. John Ortiz, 7944 Jxcksou Way, appeared before the Commission and ~
stated that .since the applicant had been notified only that the hearing ;
might be pos•tponed, but not t:hat i,t definitely would be postponed, he ~
£e12 the applicant ought to be present. Mr. Geisler stated that tLe i
Plannir.g Cor,naission could reo~ei: #he hearing by rescinding thv_ir i
motion and re~ceive ~estimony with reg~.rds to tae oppositior. preser..t. ~
Commissioner ~:u.;gsii ~oved to rescind his mot3on, secovd 1 by Com-
missioner S!amm~rs, and unanit~ously ca:siu~. ~Commissiones Idorris as~ed
the Chair wh:;t 'rhe intent wa:a ~eg~arding •r;:re ;:ote, and was informeci by ;
Chairman Gauer that no vote wouS; be ta`;e~n un:il the applicant could
be present tc present his views. P. petiti:~n protesting the reqvest
signed by 6~ ;~ume owners was sub~it~ted. Mr. Glen Dysinger, Superinten-
dent o~' Centr~i~a Rchool Distr_ict appeared before the Commission and
stated thF~t the R,inker Deve].opment Company also asked for a varir~nce for ~
15 acres ticross the street for R-3 units on R-2 zaned propesey. The i
property along Aighway 39 and along iiZ:..;ln Ave, was c~~erc'al, he }
added, and school attead~ace ,'igures ~ere b~.sed on the current zoniag
in the area. The CeatraF.ia Scftool District had had all plans upseti by q
commercial progertiea be'.ng developed .'or R-2 and R-3, and it was causing ~
an undue hardsh+.~, on the S^h~oi District, he pointed out. Mr. ,john
Ortiz again appeared before ine Commission supparting-views gia•Pa b~ ~
Mr. Dysin;;zr. He adr:~d that his child was only able to attend ac`.aol ~
two hours each day because o.f the crowded conditions resulting in "half- ~
ses~in^:~~'. Corrmissioner Morris asked Mr. Ortiz what type of developr~ent
wou?~i he like to see on the subier,t property. Mr. Ortiz replie!l Y~e ,~
t~ad nothing in particular :.r.Iq~R1, ~ud Comm~c+sioner Morris pointed out ~
4hat single-fam+'iy davele~.nent wouid a2so ia~.:rease the school attendance. ~
Mzs. Clair Ama.~son. a resideat uf th~ aren appeared before the Com- ~
mission and siateri t:u* st~: would like tc± see R-1 de+~elopment on the ~
subject pxopercy, callir.g attention ±o school attendance problems ss a
weil as traffic density, ?.t xras noted thst Grand Ave:~ue in the City of ~
Auaheim, was pr.:posed f~r only a 64 ft. locr~,l str~et under the rtubjeet
•~ract. ~
Commissioner Nlorris moved that this heazing and action e.n :'ract No. 3909 ~
be conti~nrd to September 19, 1960 at the applicants request. This ~
motion w;,s seconded by Commissioner A11red and unanimousl;v approved. ~
RBCLAS^oIPICATION- PUBLIC HBARING: PSTITICN submitted by D. H. Sei.ditz, et ai, Hope, North ~
N0. P-60-61-20 Dakota, requesting that th~ property described as: Two adjoining parcels
Parcel 1 heing near rectangular shaped, 330 feet bS~ aa average depth of ;
1175 feet; its northerly boundary varyiag between 165 feet and 200 feet j
south of the ces~terl3ne of Lincoln Avenue. Parcei 2 being a parcpl 330 ~
feQt by 600 feet, adjoining the westerly liae of Parcei 1; its
northerly houndary lying 740 feet t south of the centerline of T.i~coln
Avenue, its easterly line lyiag 955 feet ~ west of the southrvest corner !
of Lincoln and Western Avenues~ be reclassified from R-A, RBSIDRNTL:L ~
A~P,ICULTURAL to R~3, MULTIPLE PAMILY It~5YD8NT:A,L'. .
-5-
~
s
~
~
J
d~ V
,,. _ -- -----
.
~
MINITB3, CITY PIANiVING COhAtI5S70N, September 6, 1960, CONTINUHD:
RHCIA3SIPICATION- Mr.'W. C. Nyeoff, of~Mel-Mack Realty, appeared before the Commission
N0: P-60-61-20 representidg the appltcazrt, and suggested that~thi9 t:~~aring be held over
CCOHTIN[1~) until the next meeting becaase the applicant or his architect was unabie
to be presenY on the present date. Also involved with the rezuning
appiication was Tentative Tract Map No. 3886. Mr. George Wiliiams of
the G^ntrulia 3chool District appeared before the Ccmmi~33oa and vioced
objecticn to the proposed rezoniag due to the already extremely over-
crowded conditions of the schools in the district. Mr. W. P. Mason,
296b Lincoln Avenue, appeared~before the Commissioa and stated that the
zoning map showed C-1 zoniag pius some R-2 and R-3 in the area, and
' pointed out that a grammar school was under~eonstruction south of
Liacoln Avenue. THE HH9RING WA3 CL03BD.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
carried that the hearing and action on Tract No. 3886 be continued to
the meeting of September 19th at the applicants request.
RHCIASSIPICATION- PUBLIC HBARING: PETITION submitted py Broadway Village of Anaheim, 801
N0. F-60-60-21 North Loara Street, Anaheim, California, requesting that the property
described as: A parcel 150 feet by 200 feet, with a frontage of 200
feet on Euclid Avenue and located on the northwest corner flf Buclid and
Csrescent Avenues be reclassified from C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COhAlER~IAL to
C-2, GBNBRAI: C~CIAL.
.
,
,
i
~
~
~
I
Mr. William Perry oC Coldwell Banker Co., appeared before the Com-
mission representing the applicant, and oresented a rendering of the
buildiag proposed for coastruction, which would be a"Coffae Dan~s"
restaurant. Mr. Perry noted that there would be a sepa.~ate entr~ hall
into the coffee shop and right turn off the main hall would lead to the
steak house and cocktail bar. He catled attentson to the fact that a
6 story office building request was recently granted for the opposite
corner from the subje:t property. Fie sai3 the seatiag capacity of the
restaurant would be 126 and fur the steak house 153; and ih ere would be
landscapiag in front and on the sides, with a wall around the side and
rear uf the property. Mr. Anthony Andino of Pairhaven Drive appeared
in opposition to the granting of the reclassification, stating his
concern with late hours of cocktail serving. He noted anyone with a
liquor license had a_ight to serve liquor from , q,M, to 2 A.M., and
he pointed out that small children were in the neighborhood ~~ would
catch school buses in the area. Mrs. Grover Haiber, 551 Pai.rhaven
appeared and stated children would not be safe if the proposed use were
granted. Mrs. Sryant of 554 Pairhaven supported the oppositson. The
applicant stated that no precise plan had beea submitted when this use
r~as previously appiied for on the property, and therefore ~he applicatinn
was denied at that time. They now have pians for a restaurant and only
a 15-stool bar, which was considered a minimum, he added. THB HBARING
WAS CLOSSD.
Commissioner Mungali offered Resolutian No. 64, Seriea 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, secondecl by Cnmmissioner Marcoux
recommeading to the City Council that Reciassification No. P-60-61-21
for C-2, GBNSRAL COMhffiEtCIAL be approved, suY,ject to the following
condition:
1, Deveiopment in conformity with plans presented, inciuding 10 feet
of landscaping along the street frontage.
The foregoing coadition is fouad to be a aecessary prereq~i~ite to the
use of the property ia order to preserve the safety and ti~elfare of the
Citizens of Anaheim.~
RBCIASSTPICATION- PUBLIC f~ARING: PHTITION subm:l.tted by Barl A. D~~nn and B. Neal Beaver,
N0. P-60-61-22 5650 Ashworth St., Lakewood, i;alifornia, requesting ~hat +.he property
described as: A parcel 103 feet by 235 feet with a front•age of 103 feet
on Suclid Awenue, and located on the east side of Eucli~i Avenue betwe~~n
Aatella Avenue and Sumac Lane;'it6 aoutrwesterly corner be~ng 260 feec
North t of the northeast corner of Katella and Huclid Aven~es be re-
class~fied from C-1, NAIGHBORI:OOD COMMBRCIAL to C-2, GF,NHRqL ^•OMMBP.t;IAL.
~
~ ~The vote
i, I AYES:
; I NCES:
i ABSENTs
~. - - ~~~ - --~:
-6-
on tha fox•egoing resolution was as follows:
COMMISSIONER:is Allred, DuAois, Hapc~ood, ~Narcoux~ Morris and Munac,ll.
COAM~IISSIONERSs Gauer and Summers.
COAIMISSIQNER: Mauerhan.
___....._...__..---.___._.._..--•.......____.._._... _
~.___._~ .------_._._-.- -
C~ Cj ~
~ ~,lP ' _~J
~ MINUTBS, CITY PIAIVNING COMMISSI~T, Sep2ember 6, Z960, CONTINUBD:
~
' RBCLASSIPIGCTION- ' Neither applicant was present at the Hearing, and no one appeared in
i fi9. P-60-B1~-22 opposition to the graa4iag of the Reclassification. THB HBARING WAS
j CCONTINUSD7 CLOSBD. .
Cammissioner Morris voiced his opiAidn that a true familq restaurant I
with only a s~all cocktail bar was a very different situation from the ~
proposed use which appeared-to be primarily~a cocktail bar. Concern
was also expressed over the fact that the proposed bar abutted existing
single family homes to the north.
Commissioner Morris offered Resolution No. 65, Series 1980-61, aad moved
far 3ts.passage and adoption; secoaded by Commi~toner Summe=s recommending ;,
to the City Coundl that Reclassification No. F-60-61-22 be denied because ;
of its cloae proxi,:tts to single famiiy residential areas. ~;
Oa roll call the forega¢~g resolution was passed by the following wte:
AYBS: COMMISSION~t3: Alired, DuBois, Gauer. Hapgood, Marcoux,
Morris, Mungall and Bummers.
NOBS: CaNA~IISSI0NHR3: None.
~ ABSBNT; COMMI3SIONBRS: Mauerhan
RHCIA5SIF7rJ1TI0N- PUBLIC HBARING. PHTITION submitted by DaWid S. Collins, 1077 W. FJall
'NO. F-b0=61=23 Road, Anaheim, California, requesting that the property descrfbed as:
A parcell20 feet by 60 feet with a frontage of 120 feet on South '.os
Angeles Street and located on the west ~ide of Los Angeles Street
between Ball Road and Vermont Street; its suuthea~t corner being
approximately 325 feet ncrth of the northwest corner of Ball Road and
3outh Los Aageles Street, be reclassified fYOm P-L, PARKING-IANDSCAPING
to Gl, NSIGHBORHOOD COMAfBRCIAL.
Mr. Max Bliss appearpd before the Commission representing the applicant
and stated that landscaping would be provided in front of the proposed
building. No one appeared in opposition to the granting of the reclassi-
fication. THB HBARING WAS CL0.SBD.
It was moted that the existing p-L calls for a 60 foot landscaped set-
back whereas the plans indicated a 28 foot landscaped setback along
Los Angeles Street. ,
Commissioner DuBois offered Resolutiou No. 66, Series 1960-61, and aoved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux recommend-
ing~to the City Council that Reclassification No, P-60-61-23 be approveu
for C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COhAlHRCIAL, subject to the followiag coaditions:
1. Development in conformity with plans presented, with 28 feet oJF
landscapiag along Los Angeles Street.
2. Interdepartmeatal Committee requirements.
a. Dedicate 53 feet from centerline (30' exist.).
b. Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes.
c. In~ll sidewalks.
d. Ninety day time limit
The foregoing conditions are found to tre a necessary prerequisite to the
use oF th2 property in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the
Citizens of Anar~im,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, DuBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mungall and 3ummers.
NOBS: COMMISSIONffitS: None
ABSHNT: C(?~1M7SSIONHRS: Mauerhan.
RBCIASSIPICATI~1- PUBLIC HSARING: °PSTITION snbmitted by Bleanor M. Markham, 11829 ~iowa,
N0. P-b0-61-24 I.os Angeles 29, Califoraia, requesting that the~prbperty described as:
-7-
~ _ ~---~----------------------------------------------~.~.,
„ ~~_ :~isa !~
i _
I '
,, .
_. . .
-----.... ........__,_.._.....~....._... - ----- - -- ~' --.~. ---
~~ C~ ~ ~ i
; ~
~ MINUTES,CITY PIANNING CQ~AlISSION, September 6, 1960, CONTINUHD: (
RHCYASSIFICRTION- An "~" shaped parcel with a frontage of 235 feet plus or miaus on ~
' N0. P-60-61-24 Vermont Aveaue, anr! located on the south side of Vermont Avenue; its •`
~ (CONTINUHDI southwesterly ltne bordering the Santa Ana Freewaq; its northwesterly ~
j corner being approximately 410 feet southwest of the itttersection of
~ tht centeriines ef Citron Street and Verxont Avenue be reclassified
; ' from R-3, l~IILTIPLB F.~IILY RBSIDHNTIAL to M-1, LI(~IT MANUFACIVRING.
Mr. Jim Jewett, agent•for the applicant, appeared before the Commission
and s4ated that adequate parking would be provided as per City
specifications. ~Mr. Colfoid appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated her objections to manufacturiag zoning facing residences, and
pointed out that the property immediately to the rear of the subject
property had b?en denied for M-1 zoning. Mzs. Howard Campbell appeared
before the Commissiott stating her preference to apartments rather than
manufacturing for the subject property. Mr. Hennig appeared before
the Commission, owner of the~adjoining property to the Sonth, and stated
his interest in the development. He added his opinioas that a 6' fence
should be built about 10' back of the property line aloag Vermoat Ave.
and landscaping placed in front of said fence, thereby presenti~g a
pleasing appearance to the aeighborhood. THS HBARING NAS CL03ED.
Commissioner Murris offered Resolution No. 67, Series 1960-61, and
mored for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood
secommeading to the City Council that Reclassification No. F-60-61-24
for M-1, LIGHT MANUPACTURING be deaied, due to the predominently
residentia~ nature of the surrouading neighborhood.
On roll ca12 the foregoing resolutinn was passe~' by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMI3SIONBRS: Allred, DnBois, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mungall and Sumraers.
NOBS: CObAfISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNr: COMMISSIONSRS: Mauerhaa.
"TBNTATIVB MAp- A Tentative Map of Tract No. 3909 was preseated to the Commission. The
'OP TRACT subdivider is Rinker Development Co., P. 0. Box 2025, 10600 ga4ella qve.,
N0. 3909 Anaheim, California. 1lie tract is located on the east side of Grand
Avenue, 347.20 feet north of Lincoln and contains 21-Proposed R-3 lots.
This map was submitted in conjunction with Reclassific+ation No.
P-60-61-19. It was moved by Commissioner Allred, seconded by
Commissioner DuBois, and carried that Tentative Map of Tract No. 3909
be held over until the September 19th mec•'sing at the applicants request.
THNTATIVB MAP- The subdivider is Marjan Development, Iac., 9562 Ball Rd „ Anaheim,
OF TRACT California. The tract is Socated on the southwest corner of La Palma
N0. 3614 _ Avenue and Rio Vista St., and contains 57-Proposed R-1 lots.
A letter was submitted requesting withdrawal of the subject tract map.
It was moved by Commissioner Allred, seconded bq Commissioner Summers,
and carried, granting the withdrawal of Tentative Map of Tract No. 3614.
THNTATIVB MAP•- The Tentative Maps of Tracts 3916 and 3945 were presented to the
OF TRACTS Commission. The subdivided is Chip Developmeat Corp., 12911 Helfaet,
3916 and 3945 Garden Grove, Californza. The tracisare located oa tl.e *orth side of
Simmons, 990 feet east of Haster Street and contains ~~ Proposed R-1 lots.
Mr. McDaniel, engineer for the subdivision map, appeared before the
i;ouuqission and explai=.a~1 that after the map wns submitted, Tract 3916
was split into two trac~:s, Nos 3916 and 3945; the:efore he requested that
both be considered at this time.
It was moved by Commissioner Alired, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, and
carried that Tentative Map of Tracts Nos. 3916 and 3945 be approved,
subject to the Interdepartmental Cpmmittee requirements.
-8-
~,
~
\
;
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COt~I1SSI0N, September 6, 1960, CONTINUHD: .
I
'WAGNBR-SUNRI3T~
Attorney representing the Burris Sand Pit, 15292 H. Anaheim Olive Rd.,
~ ANfiHXATIOaV
~ which comprises 100 acres, and lies partly within the boundaries of thr.
land proposed for annexation, appeared before the Commission aad stated
! that they felt it was better to red~ain in the County uatii all the sand
i
was extracted and the excavation fillir~g was accomplished under the
County regulations. Chairman :;at:~r a:sked for an explanation of ~y
they beleived there would be ar•~ probiem in the City. The attoraey re-
~ plied that 75 acres of the sa;,3 pit would be in the County and 25
! acres in the City if the annexation were approved. In answer to
question regarding how loag the pit would be under excavation~ the
~ attorney stated that the leases had 15 years to run, aad he added that
County Water District land was included in the proposed a~exation. A
letter was read from Mr: Wagner stating he was not ia favor of the
annexation, along with other letters stating oppositian. Mr. Geisler
,, stated that the Planning Commission only reports and recommends on
annexations, but could not change the boundaries; however the Com-
mission could recommend denial. He further noted that it takes approai-
mately 2596 of the owners of an area to propose aanexation to the City and i
that S1% of the valuation of the land could stop the anaexation at a
Protest Hear3ng. THB HHARING WAS CLOSSD.
Commissione= DuBois moved that the Wagner-Sunkist Annexatioa be re-
commended !;o the City Council for approval. The motion was seconded
by Coms,issioner Mungall, and unanimously carried.
PUBLIC FIBAttING- Consideration was ~}ven to a proposal initiated by the Citp~Piammia~
~ Commission by its motion to amend Title 18, Chapter 18.64 "Zoniag
Code - Unclassified Uses" by adding a new use, to wit; Post Offices,
to Section 18.64.010.
Resolution No. 68 was off~ered "oy Commissioner Mungall, seconded by
Commissioner Hapgood, and unanimously approved that the amendmeat to the
; Unclasaified Uses, adding Post Offices to Section 18.64.010., Title 18
of the Zoning Code be recommended to the City Council for approval.
PUBLIC HBARING- Consideration was given to a proposal initiated by tYie City Councii
by Resolution No. 6139 adopted nn July 12, 1960 to amend Title 18,
Chapter 18:64, zoning code - uncla.ssified uses, (formerly Articie I%, °~
Chapter 2, Section 9200.13) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, by adding a ;
use, to wit: "any other uses not specifically provided for or authorized :
in any other zone or zones herein", and to further consider changes in +
proc-dures in said chapter and to consider addiag other specified uses
to said chapter.
Mr. Reese noted that this amendment has been considered by the Plaming
and Attorneys office. A preliminary concept was reviewed with the City
Manager and it was now felt that a review of the entire Unclassified
Use section was necessary. This study is now in progress and would be
presented to the Commission on September 19th.
~ :
It was moved by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Summers, ,
and unanimously carried that the proposed amendment be readvertised and
reconsidered aic the September 19, 1960 meetiag of tht~ City Pianning
Commission.
CpitgHSppNDID~iGE- A letter from the City Manager's office was read regardiag the j
possibility of the Planniag Commission's meeting on Monday eveaings
instead of afternoons, and possibly meeting the first three moadays
rather than twice a month. Chairman Gauer stat•ed he would lite the
Commission to meet with the City Council and clarify what is expected ~
of the Ylanning Commission and what they can expect from the City Connci2.;
Mr. Reese presented the following data relative to this subject;
_q_
I
i ~ `
~~ i
', .
~ ___ ____ .__.__ . .
, _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ _.___. ---- -----------. -
~ ,~ ~--- ------
~ C~ ~!
~ .. ~~ ~ ~
MIANTBS, CITY PLANNING COA41I3S~ON, September 6, 1960, CONTINUED:
CQtRHSPODiD~iCB-. N[JMBHR OF FffiARINGS In the period between July 1, 1957 and September 31, ~
(CONTINUBD)~ ~ 1960 the City Planning Commission wiil have conducted 881 pnblic hearin~gs.~
This averages out to 22,6 new hearings conducted during each month, or i
11.3 per meetiag. This is just under the present agenda limit of 12
new public hearings~each meeting. The breakdown is as follows:
Piscal Year No. of Heariags Ave./month.
1957-58 271 22.5
1958-59 281 23.4
1959-60 256 21.3
7/1/60-9/31/60 73 24.3
The monthly volume of hearings appears to be unusually high for the
first quarter of 1960-61, particularly in view of the drop from
1958=59 to 1959-60. If this rate were continued throughout the present
fiscal year, the total number of hearings would reach 292, but would
still fali within the limit of 12 new public hearings each meeting or
about twenty four per month.
It was pointed out that in additibn to the twelve new Hearings each
meeting there are hold-overs from previous meetings, tract maps, and
special studies. Mr. Reese suggested that the present load seemed to be
adequately expedited withoui~ undue delay to the appiicants, and that
additional meetings might better be utilized to complete the General
Plan and new Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Marcoux moved that there be a policy meetiag set at the
convenience of the City Council and City Manager, at which time the
entire Commission and the Planniag Director could be present for
discnssions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alired and
unanimously carried.
CQtgBSpp~TDffidCH- A letter from Orange County Planning Commission was read regarding a re-
quest for a Conditional Use Permit at the northwest corner of South
$treet and Sankist Avenue for construction of a church and parochial
school in the A-1 General Agricultural district. ~
t
Chairman Gauer made suggestion that planniag items referred to this body ~
by the County be placed on the regular City Planning Commission agenda ~
so that Commissior,rrs have opportunity to review the application!•: ;
~`J prior to the hearings. ~
:
Commissioner Morris moved that the proposed application for Conditioaal ~
Use Permit be recommended to the City Council for approval. 1t-e motion ;
was seconded by Commissioner Alired and unanimously carried. ~
CORRBSPONDBNCH- A lett?r from Orange County Planning Commission was read requestiag a
Use Variance on the southe=L y side of the Riverside Preeway frontage
road, approximately 600 feet westerly of White Star Avenue, east of
Anaheim, to permit constraction of an office building and parking of
vehicular equipmeat for an engineering and construction company in the
A1 (O) General Agricultural and Oil Production Districts.
Discussion was held and it was noted that the preliminary General Plaa
£or the Hast Anaheim area proposed low density residentiai and the
proposed county regional park. The proposed use was commercial and
industrial in nature and this type of development was proposed to be
confined to the area aorth of the Riverside Preeway. It was felt this
use would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests in the
general area which would tend to destroy the long range general plan
proposal for separation of incompatibie uses and would further confiict
with tk:e with the proposed regionai park. It was also noted that the
access ;to the Freeway would eventually be eliminated and that the serv.ice
road was still subject to question due to present consideratioas of the
La Palma Avenue overerossing.
-10-
ANA~iEIM IIIiION HIGH - A letter from An~heim Union High School District and Mr. Wiaes,
gtgpQL CpAggSp~IDBNCH the Secretary was instructed to duplicate and sead copy to each
Commissioner since the letter was informational only:
YLANNING DIRHCTat'S Mr. Reese reported that there has been many problems with legal
ggp~tlg~NID' ggCOl~41BND1,TI0N3 descriptions oa various planning department appiications. These
legal descriptioas are supplied by the property owaers, and
~ often prove to be incOrrect. Other problems have arisen
through the misund'erstanding of engineeriag and other requirements,
• therefore a proc~dure list had been prepared which could be issned
with applications and would require signature by the applicanC
indicatiag he had read the procedures and requirements. During ;
the discussion which followed, it was pointed out that Tatle I
Companies charge for their services in supplying legal description:l
and preliminary title reports, and that'this fact shouid also be
made known to the apF'icants. 3
. ~
' Commissioner Summers moved that the proced~re lists be studied ?
by the Commissioners, and considered at the Planning Commission i
Meeting of September 19, 1960. The motion was seconded by '
Commissioner DuSois and carried. ;
~J~ _ The Meeting adjourned at.6:10 O'Clock P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
c».a ~. ..~ ..
Richard Reese, Secretary
-11-
V
f
1
I
~
~
~~
5lIMITBg, CITy piA1VNING CObAtIS3I0N, September 6, 1960: CONTINUHD: