Minutes-PC 1961/08/21----------. ~
~ Ci~la11
Anaheim, California
August 21, 1961
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AN~'+F~~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- ~
~
- A Regular Meeting of the City Planni.ng Commission was called to order by i
Chalrman Gauer, at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present.
- CHAIRMAN: GAUER: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, ~.
Pebley, Summers. ,
- COMMISSIONERS: Perry, Morris. ~
PRESENT - Planning Director - Richard Reese
~ Senior Planner - Martin Kreidt
Assistant City Attorney - Fermin Roberts
Commission Secretary - Jean Page
INVOCATION - Reverend Father Qulntanens, Pastor St. Boniface Catholic Church, gave
the invocation.
PLEDGE OF - Comnissioner Allred led the Pledge of Allegiancp to the Flag.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - 7he Minutes of the Meeting of August 7, 1961 were approved as submitfed.
MINUTES •
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by ARTHUR G. and KATHERINE C. NEIS-
PEF.MIT N0. 127 WANGER, 821 Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, i:alifornia, Owners; requesting
permission to OPERATE A PRE-SCHOOL DAY NURSERY on property described as:
A parcel125 feet by101 feet with a fro~ttage of125 feet on Catherine
Drive and located or. the south side of Catherine Drive between Euclid
Avenue and Catherine Drive, and further described as 1632 Catherine
Drive. Proper~y presently classified R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Arihur Neiswanger, the petitioner, was present and indicated that
he had ncthing to add to the information presented at,tne meeting of
August 7, 1961 and that outlined in the Planning Department Staff Report.
The Staff Report, indicaking that the petitioner requested reconsideration
of subject.petition, whic.h was approv.ed by Planning Commission Resolution
No. I, Series 196i-62, approving use of subject property for a day school
nursery, was submitted to the Commission. The Commission noted that the
subject petition had been re-advertised in accordance with the recommendation
of the Assistant City Attorney submitted at the meeting on August 7, 1961.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the proposed change in the parking requirements
because the petitioners fourd it impossible to comply with a part of Condition
No. 1 and with Condition No. 2 of said Resolution, and it was pointed out
that the passage of an additional Reselution rescinding Resolution No. 1,
Series 1961-62, would be necessar~~ in order to permit parking in accordance
with the original plan submitted by the petitioners. Mr. Neiswan~3er
tndicated that they proposed to provide threc; parking sPeces bn the east
h81f nf'subjec't property to be~situated a~C the front~of the bui1diny setback
line.
The Gommission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject
petition:.
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit
is authorized by this Code, to wit: A Pre-School Day Nursery.
2. That the proposed use wili not adversely affect the adjoi~ing land uses
and the growth and development of the area ln whicl~ it is proposed to be
1 oca ted .
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to
allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental
to the particular area nor to tha peace, health, safety, and general wel-
fare of the citizens of the Ci~y of Anaheim.
- 318 -
~
, . ; _
: t~; ,
_ _ I ~
~`. ~~
. ~ . ~ ~ . . .. _ __ ri IrrM~~ae~1~~~r~err~ - . ~ 'i.~ `~ •
~ , ~ ~ 319
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 2~, 1961, Continued:
~ CONDITIONAL USE - 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use wili not impose an undue
I PERMIT N0. 127 burden upon the sti'eets and highways designed and improved to carry the
Continued traffic in the area.
i 5• That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under~the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
' i
+ 6. That the petitio~er requested reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit
~, ' No. 127, approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. l, Series 1961-
62, approving use of subject property for a pre-school day nursery,
. ( because the petitioners find it is impossible to comply with Condition
. I No. 1 in part, and ~.~iti~ Gondition No. 2 of said resolution.
~
r~- . 7. 7hat Resolution No. l, Series 1961-62, is hereby rescinded and
t Resolution No. 40, Series 1961-62, is hereby adopted subject to the
~ ~` conditions provided for herein.
8. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Summers offered Resolution No. 40, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, ser ^.ded by Commissioner Allred, resclnding
Resolution No. l, Series 1961-62, and granting Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 127, subject to the following conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. l.
2. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall, reduced to three and one-half
feet (3~) feet in the fror.t yard set-back area, along the east boundary
of subject propert~~.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the use of t.he property in order to preserve the
safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgaod, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEN3: ~OMMISSIONERS: hbrris, Perry.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by UNITY CHURCH OF TRUTH AND
No.. 61-62-9 RELIGIOUS EDUCATIONAL CENTER, 2015 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California,
Owners; HAROLD L. WEIRICH, 420 South Euclid "A", Anaheim, Cali.fornia, Ruth-
orized Agent, requesting that property described as: A parcel 155 feet by
250 feet with a frontage of 250 feet on Bush Street and located on the
easterly side of Bush Street between Lincoln Avenue and Broadway; its
" southwesterly corner being approximately 141 feet north of tha northeasterly
corner of Bush Street and Broadway, and further described as l04 South Bush
Street, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE to the
R-3. MULTIPLE fAMILY RESIDENI'IAL, ZONE.
Subject petition is subn.~tted in conjunction with Petition for Variance No.
1388, and was continued from the meeting of August 7, 1961 in order to pro-
vide the petitioner an opportur.ity to submit plot plans, indicating the
entire development proposed for subject property, to the Commission for
consideration.
Mr. Haroid Weirich, the Petitioner, appeared before the Commission, submitted
a plot plan showing the entire development proposed for subJect property, and
sCated that a mistake had been made ori the origtnal plans where the areas
reserved for off-street parking facilities had been labeled "carports"
rether than "garages.~'
TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ ~ •
_ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, l961, Continued:
~
32a
kECLFIS~i~iCATiOY - The Cart~nission fou^d a^d determi^ed the following facts regarding the ;
N0. 61-62-9 subject petition: '
Continued !
1. That the petitianer proposes a reclassification of the above described ,
property from the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE ;
FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL, 20NE. ~
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3• ihat the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly
relate to the zones and their permitte.d uses locally established in
close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted
uses generally established throughout the community.
4. That th~ ~roposed reclassification of subject property does not require
dedicatinn for and standard improvement of abutting streets because
said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which
are improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which will be
generated by the permit±ed uses, in accordance with the circutation
element of the Ger.eral Plan.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to sub;ect petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 41, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoptior., seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend
to the City ~ouncil ~hat Petit.ion for Reclassification No. 61-62-9 be
approved, subjec.t to Y.he following conditions:
1. Developmer.t substar.*iallv in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.
2. Repair of curbs ar.d damageo and/ar hazardous sidewalks in accordance
' with the approved standard plans on file in the office of the City
Engi .^,eer.
~ 3. Pa~menY. of $25.00 per dwelling uniY., Park and Recreation Fee, to be
collected as part of the Building Permit.
4. Subject to the approval c~f Petition for Variance No. 1388.
5. Time limitatior. of ninety (°~0) days for the accomplishment of Item No. 2.
The foregoing conditians were re,:?ted at the meeting and were found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the
safety and wetfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the f,ollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Summers. .
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: ~OMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry.
'4RIANCE W0. 1388 - CONTINUEO PUBLIC H£ARING. Petition submitted by UNITY CHURCH OF TRUTH ANO
RELIGIOUS EDUCATIONAL CEN'TER, 2015 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California,
Owner; HAROLD L. WEIRICH, 420 South Euclid "A", Anaheim, California, Auth-
orized Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE MINIMUM SIdE YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMFNTS AND SINGLE STORY HEIGHT I.IMITATIONS, PROVISION OF CARPORTS
INSTEAD OF GARAGES, and MODIFIGA710N OF 25 FOOT REAR YARD VEHI".LE ACCESS AREA,
for property described as': A parcel 155 feet by 250 feet with a frontage of
250 feet on Bush Street and located on the easterly side of Bush Street
between Lincoln Avanue and Broadway; its southwesterly corner being approxi-
matety l41 feet nortl~: of the ~ortheasterly corner of Bush Street and Broadway
and further described as 204 South Bush Street. Property presently classi-
fied R-1,'ONE FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL, 20NE.
~ ~
MINU'fES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued:
VARlANCE M0. 1388 - Subjec*_ petition is s~bmitted in conjunction with Petition for Reclassifica-
Continued tion No. 61-62-9, and was continued from the meeting of August 21, 1961 in
order to permit the re:-advertisement of subject petition to include the
waiver of Code requirements in respect to Section 18.32•060 to permit two
story construction within 150 feet of property classified in the R-1, One
Family Residential, Zone; Section 18.32.060 to permit the construction of
carports rather than garages; Saction 18.32.120 to permit the modification
of the 25 foot rear yard vehicle access area in order to provide 24 foot
vehicle access area; in addition to the original request for waiver of
Sec*_ion 18.32•J80(2) to permit construction of residential units within
five feet of the side property line rather than the Code requirement of 7~
feet from :he side property line.
Mr. Harold Weirich, the petitioner, appeared before the Cammission and pr~-
sented development plans for the propused construction of two story
multiple family residential units. It was noted that the petitioner had
stated that garages were to be provided rather than the carports that were
indicated on the plans previously submitted to the Commission.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
That tiie petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.32•080(2) to permit construction of residential units
within five {5) feet oi the side property line; Section 18.3z•060 to
permit two story construction wlthin 150 feet of property classified in
the R-l, One Family Residential 2one; and Section 18.32•O80(3) to permit
rear yard vehicle access area with a depth of 24 feet.
That there are exceptional or• extraordinary circumsta~ces or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to the property o~ class of use
in the same vicinity and zone.
That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
en~oyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in
the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental tu the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the prope~ty is located.
That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive
General Plan.
Thrt no one appeared in opposition to subject petitton.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 42, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, that
Petition for Variance No. 1388 be granted, subJect to the following
conditions:
Developmert*_ substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos.
Subject to the approval of Petition f~~ Rec~assification No. 61-62-9•
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the
safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Summers. .
None.
~:
~ .
~ ~ O 322
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by KEN GEORGE D01, 2958 West
N0. 61-62-12 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Catifarnia, O:+ner; M. L. McGAU6HY: 2966 West
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Authorized Agant, requesting that
property dbscribed as: Parcel 1: A percel 275 feet by 275 feet with a
frontage of 275 feet on tha south side of Lincoln Avenue between Beach Boule-
vard and Oale Avenue; its northwest corner being app~oximately 270 feet east
of the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard, and Lincoln Avenue. Parcel 2;
A parcel 33$ feet by 1,000 feet with a frontage of 338 feet abutting Parcel
1 on the South, its west boundary being approximately 332 feet east of the
centerline of Beach Boulevard and furthar describad as 2958 West Lincoln
Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the
C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES.
SubJect petition is filed in conJ:inction with Tentative Map of Tract No.
4261 and was continued from the meeting of August 7, 1961 in accocdance with
a request by the petitioner that the subJect petition ba continued until
the meeting of August 21, 1961•
No one was present to reprasant the subJect petition. It was notad that
the petitioner had been contacted by the Planning Staff, that notice had
been given that a variance would be nacassary in arder to dEVelop the
subJact property in accordance with the plans presented, and that the peti-
tioner had indicatad that he would be in attendance at the scheduled
hearing.
Chairman Gauer directed that the subJect petition be continued unt(l later
in the meeting in order to provida tha petitioner an opportunity to appear
before the Comm-ssion.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - SUBDIVIDER: M. L. McGAUGHY, 2966 Wast Lincoln Avenue, Anahe(m, Callfornla.
TRACT N0. 4261 SubJect tract (s locatod on tho south slde of Llncoln Avenue 3j2.08 feet east
of Stanton Avenue and contains 22 proposed R-3~ Multiple Fam`ily Residential,
lots and one proposed C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, lot.
Subject tentative tract map is filed in conjunction with Petition for
Reclassification No. 61-62-12 and at the direction of Chairman Gauer was
continued until later in the meeting in order to be considered in ~onJunc-
tion with said Petition for Reclassification.
RECLASSIFICATION - CON7INUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MAX and DONNA McHENRY, y
N0. 61-62-13 6455 Roland Street, Buena Park, California, Owners; requesting that property ~
described as: A parcel 100 feet by 370 feet with a frontage of 100 feet +
on Ball Road and located on tha north side of Ball Road between Knott Ave-
nue and Westvale Driv~; its southwest corner being app'~ximately 300 feet
east of the northeast corner of Knott Avenue and Ball h~ad, be reclassified
from the R-A, RES,IDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3> MULTIPLE•FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
~ Subject petition is filed in conJunction with Petition for Variance No.
1387 and was continued from the meeting of August 7, 1961 in order to permit
thr. preparation of a study for the establishment of a Precise Plan for the
, ultimate devetopment of the subJect area to be submitted to the Commission
for consideration, and in order to prcvide an opportunity for the nvners
of property in the subJect area to meet with the Planning Staff for discus-
sion and review of the requested study.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission ~
and informed them that he had met with the owners of propet•ty ln the subject ~ ~1
area in order to endeavor to arrive at a decTsion in respect to the most ;
suitable and the highest and best use of the subJect and abutting properties. ;
He stated that oniy three property owners would be directly affected by the ~ ,
proposed development contained in the subJect petitican, that they had dis- .
cussed the matter at a meetinn: +hat a plan for development'that would be I
acceptable to all of the affectad property ohners wes not formulated, that ~
the property owners ob,jected to ihe subJect petition primarily becausa they ~,
j i
i ~
~~ ; ~
i ?.,~ ~
~
_ •j
,~.____.-~_
. . . .. "~.r.~T . ... .i... ... . ..~~ ..., .!~~:. . . . .. ^`..,i~.;t~+,:~.. ~..~.....,..~. ..... ...~~.___._
~
~ _
~ ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLAN~JING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued:
RECLASSlFICATlON - were concerned that the proposed multiple family residential development
'•=C, 61-62-13 would be detrimental to the future sale of their properties for commercial
Continued purposes, that the proposed development presented in the subject petition
was compatible with the existing developmeRt in thp area, and that the
petitioners did not consider the proposed development to be detrimental to
the other properties.
Mr. Robert Haneline, 3~+21 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission,
and stated that he was not necessarily in opposition to the subject petition,
but that he was concerned about whether the proposed development would
jeopardize the property to the east ~f subject property for future commer-
cial development.
Chairman Gauer stated that the Commission generally considered R-3, Multiple
Family Residential, development to be compatible with commercial develop-
ment and would probably support any future commercial development in the
area. He indicated that, in view of the lack of a definite plan for the
development of abutting properties, it was not possible to determine
whether the ultimate ~evelopment of the area would be for commercial
purposes.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Studies of the subject area, as prepared by the Planning Staff, were pre-
sented to the Commission for review and it was noted that agreement had
not been reached in respect to a group endeavor for the ultimate develop-
ment of the subject and abutting properties.
The Commi::sion found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described
praperty from the R-A, RESiDENTIAI AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3~
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary
or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in
close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per-
mitted uses generally established throughout the community.
7hat the proposed reclassification of subject property dces require
dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streats because
said pruperty does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which
are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which wili be
generated by the permitted usas, in accordance with the circulation
element of the General Plan.
i. That verbal opposition was recorded and a letter of protest was filed
against subJect petition at the meeting of August 7, 1961. Although
no opposition was recorded at the meeting of August 21, 1961, a letter
of protest was filed against subJect petition on August 13, 1961.
Commissioner Febley offered Resolution No. 43, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and addption, seconded by Canmissioner Allred, to .
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-13 be approved, subJ~ct to the following conditions:
l. Development of subJect propeity substantially iR accordance with
Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
Recordation of R-3. Multiple Family Residential, Daed Restrictions
limiting the use of subJect property to multiple family occupancy.
De~+.ication of 53 `eet from the monumented centerline of Ball Road,
~i0 feet existing~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ 324
~ ~11NUTES, CITY PLANNING COhiMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued:
RECWSSIFiCATiON - 4. PreparatEon af street improvement plans and installation ot ail improve-
N0. 61-62-13 ments for Ball Road, in accordance with approved sta~idard plans on
~ y ~ Continued file in the office of the City Engineer.
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Ball
Road.
6. Payment of $25•00 per dweiling unit Park and Recreation Fee, to be
collected as part of the Building Permit.
7. Provision for utility easements along the exterior boundari~s as
determined by the Director of Public Utilities:
8. Time limitation of ninety (90) days for the accomplishment of Item
Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necessary prarequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
~ On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passad by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
. Summers. '
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: hbrris, Perry.
VARIANCE N0. 1387 - CONTINI.iED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MAX and DONNA McHENRY,
6455 Rotand Street, Buena Park, California, Owners; requasting parmission
to WA I VE S I NGLE STORY t1E I GHT REQU I REMeN i Ai~~ WALi. Re~,L' i Fci;~~. ~ S far p; ap~r :y
described as: A parcel 100 feet by 370 feet with a frontage of 100 feet
on Ball Road and located on the north side of Ball Road betwean Knott
Avenue ancl Westvala Drive; its :~outhwes: cornar baing approximately 300
feat east of the northeast corne~ of Knott Avenue and Ball Road. Propa~ty
presently classifled R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Sub,ject petition ts filad in co~Junction wtth Patitlon for Reclassification
No. 61-62-13 and was continuad from the maeting of August 7, 1961 In order
to ba considered in co~Junction with said Petition for Reclassificatlon.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agant for the petitioners, appeared before the Comm(s-
sion and stated that no obJections had bean recordad at tha maeting of
August 7, 1961 In respect to the requestad waivar of tho one story haight
limitatton for co~struction of two story units withln 150 feat of tha R-1,
One Family Resldantial, tona. Ha statad that tha raquasted waloer of the
wall requirements had baen dtscussad at tha prev(ous meeting and that the
petitioners would either install the required walis, or prafarably, would
post a bond to insura the construction o4 the walls.
Mr. Robart Haneline, 3421 West Ball Road, appeared beforu the Commission,
and stated that ha considnred it nacessary for tha prtvacy of adJacant
properties that the walls be required to coincide with tha complation of
the apartment development.
7HE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission reviewed developmant pians for tha proposed constructlon
and indicated that block watis should be installed on the east, north and
west boundary lines.
The Canmission found and datermined the f^llowtng facts regarding the
subJect petition:
l. That the petitionar raquests a vartance from the Anahetm Municipal
Coda, Sectlon 18.32.060 to permit con~truction of two-story units
within !50 feet of tha R-A, Residenttai Agriculturai, 2one.
.,.,, , . , ,. . f : . ... ,a ;~~.,
71H ., . .____~.~~.T~--,.. ' :, . .. . --
, , , i..• _
~
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 325
VARIANCE N0. 1387 - 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con-
Continued ditions appiicabie to the property involved or.to the intended use
of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class
of use in the same vicini.ty and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoymer~t of a substantial property right possessed by other property
in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Comprehen-
sive General Plan.
6. That no or.e appeared in opposition to subject petiT.ion.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 44, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adop*_ion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant
Petitior for Variance No. 1387, subject to the following conditions:
1. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-13•
2. Deveiopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2
with the exception that six {6) foot masonry walls be installed on
the east, north, and west boundary lines of sub,ject property.
3. Provision of a fifteen (15) foot landscaped front yard setback, plans
for said landscaping to be submitted to and approved by the Sup~rin-
tend~nt of Parkway Maintenance and installed prior to Final Building
Insoection.
4. Dedicatian cf 59 feet from the monumented centerline of Ball Road
(30 feet existing). •
5. Prepara*_ion of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements in accordance with the approved standard plans on file in
the office of the City Engineer.
6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Ball
Road.
7. Time iimitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
The foregoing conditions ~oere recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMM9SSIONERS: Rllred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Summers.
NOES: COMM{SS"9NFRS: None
ABSENT: COPIMIS516i~tERS: Morris, Perry
~.
r
, :
~
r
~
f:. . ... "A
VARIANCE N0. 1392 - PUBLIC HEd1RING. Petition submitted by EDWARD L. and IitIS ELLIOTT, 2453
West Grant Street, Corvallis, Oregon, Owners; VERA 8~ OSTER, 709 South
Los Angeles Street, Anahal~~, California, Agent; raquesting permission to
ES"~BLISH LEGAL OFFICE IN EXISTING RESIDENCE and PROVIDE FOUR PARKIN6
SPACES on property described as: A parcel 47 feet by 158 feet wixh a
frontaga_of 47 feet or P.roadway and located on,the north side of Broadway
between Har~cr Boulevard and Citron Street; its southeast cornar being
~
~'
;;,~ .. :. .
_:
~ ~ ~
MI^~~7E.:>, CITY PL?:t~:iING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 326
VAkIANCE N0. 1392 ' approximately 273 feet west of the northwesC corner of 3ro~~iw~ay ar.v
Contin~u ~ed __ Harbc~r Boulevard and further described as ~25 West Broa~~+ay. ,rop~rty
pres~.ntly classified R-2, TWO FAMILY RESlriiyTlAl, 24l~c.
'vera B. Oster, Representative for the petE:!c~ners, appeared be~~re the
Commission and stated she had nothing to add to the Informati,on con-
tained in the subje;:t petition.
THE HEAR ~!~G ~~AS CLOSEO.
~omn(ssioner Mungal' offered a motion, seconded by Commis.sipner Hapgo~~<I,
to grant Fr,~~*id.~, for Variance No. 1392, subject to conditions recorune!+ded
in Yhe 5r_~t¢ Reoort.
On roll cai; ~he moi:ion for approval was defeated by the follo~ving vate:
AYES: COMMIt:~l~NERS: Hapgaod, Munga~l, Surrnu!•s. ~
NGeS: i,A~N~i5SI0NERSc Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Pebi~y.
A&SENT: COMMISSI~NERS: hbrris, Perry.
Commissioner Allred stated that he had recommended denial of ?atition
for Reclassification No. 61-62-2, which was a r~quest to reclassi`y
subJect. n~vp~rty in order to utilize it for the purpose outlined i;i
the subject petition, and that, in h~s opinion, he consirared the arer
to be residen~ial in nature at th~ pre;ent time and he ~still did not
consicler the s~d•.,ject property to.be suitable for a comrnercial us>e.
Tha Commission found and deterriined th~. following facts regard;r•~g the
subJect patition:
1. That the petitioner reques;s a~=s'~••:::a from the Anahaim Mur~ici~,ai
Code, 5ecr.ion 18.28.010 (1) tc, eatatiish a profe~ssional offtce in
an exist?~~g residence in the R-2, Two Family Re.~idantial, Zona, and
Sactior~ 18.t~4.030 (1-b-1) in ordar to ps•~vide faur parking spaces
rathar th~r. ti~e required seven parking .spaces.
2. 3';~at tr,ere are no exceptfonal or extraordinary cir'cumstances or con-
dltions ap~licable to the prope~ty involvad or to the intended use of
:ha nr~~6~tY that do not pNply generelly to the propcrty or class of
use i;~ the same vicinity and zone.
3. Thae the .requested varie,nce is not necas:~ary for the praservation
and en,joyment of a substantial p~oparty r'ight possassr,d by ather
prc.,:orty in the s.rna victntty and zcne, anu o.ntad t~ tha prcaparty
in quastior..
4. That a commerciai ~~.^.±ure in an exist•ing resldpnc~ is not compatib'e
with tha abutting residential development.
5. That na one~appeared in opposition to sub,lect petttlon.
(:•nmtssio~ar ,Al!red c~fferad Rasoiution No. 45~ SA!'I'dS 1961-E+2, and mov~d
•`or !ts pes~age, and aduption; seeonde~i by Comrtiic,sionar Pebley, to dany
'?etitton fc~r 'Iariance No. 1392 on the basis of *.i~a af~ramentionad f!:~d-
1 rgs. .
t re'.~ ca?1 the foregoing rasulutlon w~~ p~ss~ed by tha rollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailresl, Gauer, 1~larcour.,Pebte,y.
NOHS: COMMISSIONERS: 4apgood, Munga'•', Sursners.
ABSENT: COMMIS510PlERS: Morris, perry.
~
~- :
~ ~
~
~ . ~~
,i
~ .. 1 i
VFieZIANCE NU~~ -?UBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by Edward R. Stuart, 2214 Fostoria
'treat, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE FENCE
t£IGHi LIMITATlONS IN REAR YARD on property described as,: A parcel g0
feet by 90 feat with a fronxage of g0 feet on Ord Way and located on the
nordiE~s: corner of Ord Way and Fostoria Street, and further described as
2214 Fos .~ie Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE FAMILY
RESIDFNI .~, ZONE.
Mr. Edward Stuart, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stated
tha~ he had cut the corner of the existing fence before he was aware of
Code requirements, that he wished to relocate the fence for a safety
,'actor f!+~ I;;; ;m•~11 children in order to provide a lar•3er play area in
the rr~a~ ;ard of subject property, that it would be an improvement and
of h~r.efit to the neighborhood, and that it would be of benefit to him-
°.e1 i .
'~~ie: HEARING WAS CLCSED.
A letter signed by Michaei J. Lee, endorsing the subject petition, was
submit*_ed to the Commission.
The Corrt~nission reviewed the plot plan submitted with subject petition and
discussed the relocation of the fence and the location of a large walnut
tree. The petitioner indica+:ed that the fence would Se constructed next
to the sidewalk, a~d that he dic' not consider Sandscaping feasible because
ef the problems of rr,•intenance d.~e ce the bus stop at that location.
Commissioner Marcou:< indicated that he did ~ot consider a wall right on
the street facing Ord Way to be desirable fo~~ the area and it was point-
ed out that when the key lots are purchased there are no objections
by the our~_hasers in respect tc fence setbacks.
Commissio~ier Pebley indicated that he considered landscaping along the
fence to be a necessity because of the appearance it wou'Id present in
a few years.
The Commission discussed furthe~• the necessity for landscaaing and Cor.,-
missioner Pebley offered a mo:~c:~, seconded by Commissi;,ner Summers, to
grant Petitior: for Variance Nu. '+393, subject to *_he foll~:.ving conditions:
l. Development substantially in zccordance with plars presented with
the exception outlined in Condition Nc. %.
2. Maintenanca of the minimum sid~: yard ?an~iscaped s~:t-back af three
(3) feet 4`~utting and parallel to the south proi,artv 1'ane of sub-
ject property, maintenence of said ltindscapi~g to be 2 condition
ot approval of subJect petition.
The Commisslon discussed the lac.k of an aaequatE p~ot pldi~ a:id that the
dtn~ensions indic;ted or. the plan submitted do not ~~p~~6eC to be ~o scale.
Commissionar Pebley offerPd ro withdraw the motion, with the approval of
the second by Gommissioner Sumrters. Summers withdrew second.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a moeion to deny the subJecL petition be-
cause he did not consider the wail suitable on the properry line abut-
ttng Ord Way. The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissloner ~ebley offered a~notion, seconded by Commissioner pllred and
carried, tr, co~tinu~~ the subje~t petition until t'r,~ meeting of Se.ptember
6; 1961, in order to ~rovide the Commission an additic,nal opportunity to
visit the subject propsrty and to provide the peti';oner with an oppor-
tunity to pi-edara and submit a plor p,an, drawn to scal~e, fully dimen-
sioned, and indicating the existing location of al! tree;;.
i,_~...i _! ~_ . .. ... . .. ,,. ~. . . , . . ~ ..T^ . .,. . . , ",~',± i b~
,
,
~
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 328
VARlANCE N0. 1394 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MR. and MRS. E. W. YOUNGER, 234
Monument Street, Anaheim, Californla, Owners; requesting permission to
WAIVE MINIMUM RE~AR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT for property described as:
A parcel 78 feet by 110 feet with a frontt~ge of 110 feet on Broadway
and located on the northeast corner of Monument Street and Broadway and
further described as 234 ~or~~~aent Street. Property presently classified
R-1, ONE FAMIIY RESIO~NTIAL, 2CNE.
Mr. Edward Youn~er, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that he was rsquesting the variance in order ta enclose an
existing patio, that he had contacted the neighbors to obtain their
approval of the construc~ion and signatures on the subject petition,
that it would be an improvement for the neighborhood, and that it
would increase his taxes.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
l. That *.he petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, ~ection 18.2L..030 (3), Which requires for subjact proper'.y a
minimum rear yard of 25 feet, to permit the encroachment of 17.3
feet into the requtred rear yard in o!der to construct an addition
to an existing residence.
2. Thet there ar~: exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi-
tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of
use in the same vicinity and zone.
3• That the requested variance is necesse~y for the preservatton and ~
enJoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property
in the same vicinity and zona, and daniad to the property in question.
i
4. That the requested variance will not t~e materially detrimental to the i
' public welfare or inJurious to the property or improvements in such ~
.vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requestad variance will not adversely affect tha Compre-
hensive Ganeral Plan. ~
~
6. That e(ght signatures of residents tn the subJect area, indicating
approval, wara submitted with sub~ect petition, and that no verbal
opposition was recorded agair.s~ subJect petttlon.
Commisstoner Marcoux of'erad Resolutton No. 46, Sartes 1961-62, ar~d
moved far its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
to grant Pctition for Variance No. 1394, subJect to the following
condition:
Developmeit substantiaily in accordflnce with Exhibtt No.
The foregoing condition was recited at the maettng and was found to be
a necassary prarequtsita to the use of the proparty in ordar to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of tha citizens of the City of pnahaim.
On roll ~all the foregotng resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrad, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers. -
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nona
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry.
~.
~' '
~ -
~.
~
I
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMlSSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 329
VA~YiANCE N0. 1395 - PllBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by Edward and Harriet Rich, 2536
Greenleaf Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; ROBERT DAVIS, 1)77
Newpor•t Boulevard,Newport Beach,California,Agent; requesting permission
to WAIVE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT on property described as: A
parcel 60 feet by 100 feet with a frontage of 6Q feet on Greenleaf
Avenue and located on the sauth side of Greenleaf Avenue between Hanover
and Hampton Streets; its northeast corner being approximately 240 feet
west of the southwest corner of Hampton Street and Greenleaf Avenue
and further described as 2536 Greenleaf Avenue. Property presently
classified R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Robert Davis, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Com-
mission and s':ated that he had nothing to ad~ to the information
contained in the subject petition.
The Commission reviewed~the plot plan submitted with subject petition
and the agent indicated that the proposed construction of a family room
addition would be compatible with the existiny residence, that it would
have a hip roof matching the residence roof, that it would have a
stucco exterior, that th2 entire building would be repainted so that the
colors will match, and that the construction would be in accordance with
the existing residenc°.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
l. That the petitioner requests a variance from the p,naneim Municipal
Code, SeLtion 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroachment of twelve (12)
~ feet in the require:: rear yard of subject property in order to
construct a family room a~dition to an existing residence.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi-
. tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply generally to the property or class
~ of use in the same vicinity and zone.
i
I 3• That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
~ enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
~ property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property
in question.
' 4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the
I public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property ~s located.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Comprehen-
sive General Plan.
6. That no on~ appeared i~ opposition to :ubject petition.
Commissioner Allred offe•ed Resolution No. 47, Geries ~961-62, and moved
for its passage and adopt~on, seconded by Commissioner Peblef, to grant
Petition for Variance No. 1395. subject to the following conditions:
1. Development substantially in accordancP with Exhibit No. 1.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Cify of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following Oote:
AYES: - GOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers.
NOE3: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry.
~ ~ . ~~~.,. _~ ....i..; . . ...., ,. .._ r ... ~ .~:... _ ~~`:,. ..... .i.-~:"~• if~~'_'.."'__' .__.__....
i,,: ~
~ ~ . .
~
MINUTES, GlTY PLANNlNG COMM!S5lON, August 21, 1961, Continued: 330
VARIANCE N0. 1 96 - PUBLlC HEARING. Petir.ion submitted by ELLEN WARD, 332 ntc~dor Drive,
Anaheim, California, Owner; Requesting permission to !:fF11VE FENCE HEIGHT
LIMITATION on property described as. A parcel 72 fee.r by 106 feet with
a frontage of 106 feet on Kendor Dr9ve and located on the northeast
corner of Kendor Drive and Coolidge Avenue and further described as
332 Kendor Cri~~e. ~roperty preser.tly classified R-1, ONE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL,7.ONE. '
Mrs. Ellen Ward, the petitioner, appeared before the Com~c;ssion, and
described her request for permission to maintain a block wall with
colored plastic height additions in order to preserve the privacy
~ecessary for the safety and welfare of her children and herself. Mrs.
Ward explained that she was a widow, that she worked swing shift and
her children were alone evenings, that the location of her home on
the corner did not afford the privacy she considered necessary, and
that the wall was an improvement to the property.
Mr. Samuel Tremarche, 328 Cool.idge Avenue, appeared before the Com-
missior., stated tha~ he lived next. door to the subject property on
the east, and that he was not objecting to the height of the wall but
that he was objecting to the manner in which it was constructed.
The Commission noted that Y.he condition of the abutting property on the
east was ir. a disorderly condition and that the property should be
cleaned up.~, Mr. Tremarche assu!-ed the Gommission that the materials and
s~ jur.k so*red against the subject wall would be removed.
The petitioner submitted two letters of support for the requested
va~iance, which were read t.o Lhe Gommission, one sig~ed by Mrs. Richard
Sordahl, own~r of property abutting sub,;ect property on the north, and
the other sig~ed by Mrs. J. Marlow, 216 Kendor Drive.
_ The Commission discussed the subiec*_ wall and indicated that the wall
presented a good appearance and was colorful. The petitioner indicated
that the contractor that had installed the original block wall was also
' installing the colored plastic addir.ior.s at a very reasonable price ,
because of the petitioner's finar.cial situation.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A Staff Report re~,:ommendation was submitted to the Commission, indicating
that if the subject petition were app~oved,it should apply to the exist-
ing wall only, a~d that additional fencing should not be permitted in
view of T.he fact that. the norther?y property line oT subject property
abuts the Buena Park City Limits and it was possible that the maximum
height limitation might co~flict with the requirements of that City.
The Commissior. found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
l. That the petitioner requests a variar.ce from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.04.090 (2-h-1) to permit the construction of an
eight (8) foot fence.
2. That ~here are exceptional or extraordi~ary circumstances or condi-
tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use
in the same vicinity and zone. ~
3. That the requested variance is necissary for the preservat'son and
en.joyment of a substar.tial property right possessed by other property
in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
4. That the requested variance will not be meterially detrimental to
the public welfare or i~ijuriaus ta tha property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
:.;r. sroRr_o.
_--""~'. r. ° '~, , _ ~ .. . , . , ~' J' ,. ..:•, a.~~ ~fi _:.. --- - _ ... ..__..._.__
r
i
~
i~
G ;
~
; -_
~
I~
~ ~ ` ~
~' '
~
. ~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANN ING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 331 ~
VARIANCE N0. 139b - 5• That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre- ~
Continued hensive General Plan.
~'
6. That the maximum height of the existing wall is hereby established at ;
eight (8) feet and that the approval of the subject petition is
limited to the existing eight (8) foot wall only. ~
7. That verbal opposition by one owner of abutting property to the east, `
in respect to the manner of the construction of the wall on subJect ~
property, was recorded against the subject petition, althcugh no
objection was recorded in respect to the waiver of the height limit- ~
ation. Two letters of support for the subject ~etition were filed
with the Commission.
~
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 48, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to grant
~
Petition for Variance No. 1396 on the basis of the aforementioned find-
ings. ~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: '
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, j
Pebley, Summers. ~
NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry. ~
VARIANCE NO• 1397 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by EDWARO G. VALEK, Star Route, Lake
Isabella, California, Owner, requesting permission to WAIUE SlNGLE STORY
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS for property described as: A parcel 130 feet by 140
feet,with a frontage of 140 feet on Trident Street and located on the
west side of Trident Street between Ball Road and Minerva Avenue; its
southeast corner being approximately 332 feet north of the northwest .
corner of Ball Road and Trident Street. Property presently classified
R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~
Mr. Henry Fredericks, 626 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, agent for
the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and described the'pro-
posed two story apartment development on property classified in the R-3,..
Multiple Family Residential, Zone. •
THE HEARING WAS CL.OSEO.
The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that the requested ~
variance'was necessary to permit the proposed two story construction i
within 150 feet of property classified in the R-1, One Faml~y Residen- i
tial, Zone across Trident Street on the east, and that it would con-
farm with the existing development in the area. ~
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 1$.32•060 to permit`construction of a two story apart-
ment development within 150 feet of property classified in the R-l, _
~
One Family Residential, 2ane.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- I
tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
~
the property that do_not apply;genara1ly to the property or class ~ -
of use in the same Jicinity and zone. I
3. ~That the requested vafiance is necessary for the preservetion and j
enjoyment of a substantial property.right possessed by other pro- ~
~
perty in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in i
:
~
. ques t i on.
,. ''
~
_ .
_ ., .
J•.;
.. , ~ .. . ~ .. . . . . . '. Y f .
~e~~n.•f.:.r.t4.J4~,.4 . ....~~:.1.~.. .. ~ ~_..... ., . . .~i~... ~Lh.....~. .r~e.1~'.~'i ~Wrr:'}I'5~...i ...,.. -. ~.n{ ~. ...,. . ~~. .~~~tii~
~
~"
~ ~ .
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 332
VkttiANCE N0. i397 - 4~ That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to
Continued the public welfare or injurious to the property er improvements in
such vicinity and zone ln which the property is located. ,
5• That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre-
hensive General Plan.
6. That the abutting properties to the north and south had been
developed for two-story construction under the R-3, Multiple Family
Residential, Zone requirements in effect at the time of their
construction.
7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 49, Series 1961-62, and
inoved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood,
to grant Petition for Variance No. 1397, subject to the following
condition:
Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. l, 2, and 3.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: f,OMMISSI0NER5: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nona
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry.
' VARIANCE N0. 1398 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by Frank Stilwell, 851 North Los
Angeles Street, Anaheim; California, Owner; requesting permission to
SPLIT EXISTING'LOT INTO 1W0 PARCELS, of property described as: An
irreguiarly shaped parcei with a frontage of 9b feet on Cherry Way and
~ ' a frontage of 132 feet on Glen Drive and located on the northwest
corner of Cherry Way and Glen Drive. Property presently classified
R-A, RESI~ENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
The petitioner was not present. No one appeared in opposition to
subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. .
" The.Commission reve wed the tract map of subject property and noted
that adjacent properties had been permi.t~ed lot splits by waiver of
Code requirements.
Commissioner Marcoux indicated that he considered it necessary that
the petitioner appear before the Commission in ordar to obtain inform-
ation in resaect to the present degree of construction under way on
subject property and whether Building Permits were obtained for this
construction.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley ~
1 and carried, that Petltion for Variance No. 1398 be continued unttl
the meeting of September 6, 1961, and that the petitioner be notified
to attend seid hearing in order to provide the necessary informatlon
in respect xo the existing construction and the Building Permits
~'~ obtained for subject property.
, :
{ -^ . . . ... , ~. . . . . .. ~ _ ~ . . i
e ' ~ ~ REVIEYIED -
f~~'~ . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
~S f~ ~ . ~ . . . . .
~:~~~ a .
,,.. r yp .. . .
. . . . ... .. . . . . -~ . . ~ . , . . ~
.. . ~ . .. : . .
r _ ~ . . . . . ..
} . .. , ~ .. . . .. _~ ... . ~ . ~.
~ , . . . .. . . . .
~, . ... . . . , . . .. .
i . , . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
r
r ~ ~: . . ~ .. . ;
F ::. ,,; .. . , ~ ~ . i
- ,
~ ; .
~.--~--
~•d ~:'-~"d3~. •'_ ~-,'_~`7~~.;'h ..:+:,:*/ .. . ~~-'t ..,;.`....7-. , .'.~:. . .~::',, ,.,r, _. ,ri... ., ..:vi.~.;•'~3~v_~.z~.'s_• :~I ~~ - ~ i
y
I , _
, . .. . .
_ , , _ _ . ,. :.
:3 .
`i ,;:
. 1 ;~
*<
. _?:.
. ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 333
i ~
k CON~ITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by ALBERT B., ARTHUR G. and ROBERT
P~RMIT N0. 144 R. BRANDT, 4440 Ambrose Avenue, l,os Angeles 27, California, O~+ners; re-
questing permission to ESTABLISH A TRAILER PARK on prop~rty described as:
An irregularly sha?ed parcel with a frontage of 580 feet more or less on
Santa Ana Canyon Road and a frontage of 1,880 feet more or less on
~ Jefferson Street and Santa Ana Canyon Road and further described as
8241 Jefferson Street. Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL
j ' j AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
Mr. Robert Brandt, the pet~tioner, appeared befo~e the Commission and
stated that upon verbal communication from the Planning Department, he
~ had contacted the State Highway Department in respect to the proposed
secondary highway overcrossing of the Riverside Freeway, and that he had
been informed by the State that their work was completed, that no add-
itional money wculd be invested, and that any further work was strictly
within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. He stated that he had
• checked with the Countv offices also and was informed they had no
further plans for the subject area.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 305 South Kenmore, appeared before the Commission,
= states that he owned property across the Santa Ana Canyon Road southerly
of subject property, that he was not opposed to the subject petition
provided it was a high-class development, and requested permission to
review development plans.
Mr. William Hadley, 17141 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before
the Commission, and stated that he owned property abutting subject
property on the west,that he understood that the area was projected for
single family residential development, and that he was opposed to the
proposed establishment of a trailer park on the subject property.
Mrs. Vera B. Officer, 16941 East Santa Ana C~nyon Road, appeared before
the Commission, and stated that she owned property situated to the west
of subject property, that she preferred more single family residential
development in the area, and that she was opposed to the proposed
trailer park.
A Staff Report recommendation was submitted to the Commission suggesting
that the subject petition be continued for four weeks to permit the City
to contact the County, the City of Orange, and the State Division of
Nighways in order to devel.op a Precise Plan for the alignment of the pro-
onsed secondary highway presently incorporated in the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways and in the Plan of Arterial Streets and Hi9hways of
the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Don Bolinger appeared before the Commission, stated that he was the
owner of property in the area, and requested information in respect to
the conditions that would be imposed upon the development of the trailer..
~ park. Chairman Gauer informed Mr. Bolinger that the subject petition had
not been approved and that it would be n~acessary to obtain information
in respect to the proposed secondary fiigh~iay development before actio~
couid be taken upon the subject petition.
Mr. John H. Gilmore appeared b•efore the Commission and stated that he was
the reprasentative of the owner of 4 acres of property in the subject
t area. He states that he had no objections to tf~e proposed use of the
subje~t property but that he wished to call to the Commission's attention
that the County proposes a street paralleling the Santa Ana River, that
the use of the land ber~veen tha old Santa Ana Canyon Road and river has
presented a problem for some time, that studies of the area had been
made but no decisions•had bEen rendered, and that the proposed develop-
ment on subject property would set a pattern for the area and will
create an island of land. Mr. Gilmore stated further thetfx. would
~ ,
-•: request that the City make a study of tha area because proposed zoning
~ area hed not been established, and that, in his opinion,
for the subJect
:
,, .
tha area would be suitable for use for trailer parks or multiple family
;;~:,;;
;;; residential development because of its close proximity to industrial
"=" development within the.City of Anaheim. •
¢ STATED
/
~
~ ~
.
~ . '
- ------`~ ~
~ " ~~~r . „ . .. ,,,.. __._...__.. _.. . .---
- .. ... ... , ~ v-
~' :
~
~~
~
~ ~
s' I
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 334
CONDITi0Nf4l USE
PERMIT N0. 144 - Mr. Brandt, the petitioner, assured the Commission that the proposed
trailer park would be limited to adults only, that it would be of a
high quality and value, and that it would be an asset to the neighbor-
hood.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussea at some length the necessity for continuing the
subject petition, due to the present construction work on the freeways
and secondary highways in the area, until the highway plans were avail-
able for the Canmission's consideration.
Two letters of opposition to the proposed development and a letter of
protest from the City of O~ange .were submitted to the Commission and
~hairman Gauer indicated that the letters would be read at such time
as the subject petition was again considered.
Commissloner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Cortimissioner Pebley
and carried, that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 144 be
continued until the meeting of September 18, 1961, to allow the City's
Public Works and Ptanning Departments time in which to contact the
County of Orange, the City of Orange, and the State of California
Oivision of Highways for information in respect to a Precise Plan for
the alighment of proposed secondary highway presently incorporated in
the Master Plan of Arterial Highways~and the Plan of Arterial Streets
and Highways of the City of Anaheim.
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMlT N0. 145
~
~ .
- PUBLIC HEARlNG. Pett*_ion submittad by EDWIN C. BECHLER, 3065 Lincoin
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission ta cSTABLISH
~c TRAILER PARK on property described as: A parcel 640 feet by 1,320
feet with a frontage of 1,320 feet on Knott Avenue and located on the
west side of Knott Avenue between Ball Road and Cerritos Avenue; its
northeast corner being approximately 635 feet south of the southwest
corner of Ball Road and Knott Avenue and further described as 1243-1411
South Knott Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICUlTURAL, 20NE.
Mr. ~lycoff appeared before the Commission and stated that he was present
r;, represent the petitioner.
Mr. Patrick Ochoa, 1330 Oriole Street, appeared before the ~ommission
and complained that the notification of the public hearing on subject
petition permitted only.one week in which any interested parties could
make an investigation whereas the petitioner had an unlimited amount
of time in which to formulate his plans. He stated further that a
trailer park in the subJect location would not carry their share or the
tax burden,that the property was originally zoned for agricultural or
residential purposes, that the caliber of the intended trailer park
was not known, that the park would create trafficaongestion at the
main entrance to the school across the street from subject property,
that it would increase the danger factor for the children tn the area,
and that a sufficient amount of information in respect to trailer parks
was not available.
Mr. James Kelley, 1336 Oriole Street, owner of adjacent property,
appeared before the Commission, and steted that petitions had been
submLtted containing in excess of 300 signatures, protesting the proposed
trailer park, in addition to lefters and postal cards protesting the
proposed development, that hed been filed against subJect petition.
He stated that objections to the traiier park were for a number of
reasons, one of which was that it would be detrimental to 'the community
and the property in the surrounding area. He steted further that it
would be an invasion of his privacy, that the occupants wouid be of the.
t~ansit type of persons, that it wau;d creata.~a strain upon schoel
fecilities and other services, that most of the peopie in the area were
: ~ .
;~ f~`,
. .:. .,~,, ~ ~ . .., -. .
w~:..=; ., , .~. ..,..~:'!.., i'.:.r..k..i _. ,,...,~~ _ ,i~~.,",~ t
~ ,,
.~..,. . ._.. _ aa~:~_ ~K.... ,. ..ry..~__;G::~^!k. ~_c.;.~ ~.f ~~. . . ... :~~ . ..
i
I
!
~ .. .
~ ~ ~
~ ...
_:~ . ~
~ > ~
. ~
~ ~
_- ;:: ~
' --
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PIANN .
ING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: ~ 335 ~ , ~
CONDITIONAL USE - ~
opposed to the development, that it wouid be situated adjacent to a i ~
PERMIT ND. 145 single family residential section, and that there would be no natural
Continued barrier such as a street between the residences and the,trailer park. ~
Mr. R. E. liamilton, 1232 Orioie Street, appeared before the Commission ~
and stated that he was opposed to the subject petition because the only ~ ~
egress provided would be on Fremont Street. ~ .
~
A letter of protest recelved from the Savanna School District was sub- ~ ~
a
mitted to the Commission, in addition to 34 postal cards, two letters, ;
(
and two petitions containing 315 signatures, protesting the proposed ;
establishment of the trailer park. ~ ~
The petltioner's agent presented a rendering of the proposed devetopment ~
and noted the excessive size of the individual lots. He stated that the '
trailers would be new, modern trailers that were not purchased by people I a
with children, that the park would only permit adults; that 199 trailer t 3
spaces would be provided; that the rental fee would prohibit the rental ?
to families with children; that a recreational area would be provided ~ ?
containing a putting green, shuffleboard, a lar9e swimming pool, and a '
portentous lov-~ge within the building; and that the trailer park wouid ~
be self-contained with laundry facilities provided within the park. ~
He stated further that the objections in respect to school facilities
and other problems were not pertinent because children would not be
~
permitted in the park, that the park would not increase the traffic in
~ the area as much as would placing of streets within the area, that the
access to Knott Avenue was sufficient to carry the amount of traffic
s generated by the park; that the owners of subject property I_~s paid taxes
upon the property for approximately 20 years and as a consequence were
desirous of developing the property in order to receive income from it
and that a trailer park would give them the greatest return for their
investment. Mr. Wycoff added that, contrary to belief, a trailer park ~
of the proposed size is practically the equivalent of single family
residential development in sharing the tax hurden because there are no
expenses as far as schoqls are coricarned or the maintenance of lights
and streets which is the responsibility of the owners.
Mrs. B. D. Hammer appeared before the Commission and inquired of the
petiti~ner's agent that if the trailer park had difficulty in fill?ng ~
the trailar speces, wauld the restrictions be lowered to permit children.
~
Mr. Wycoff assured the Commission that a trailer park of the intended
nature of the proposed development could not afford to lower require- .
ments by permitting families with children.
RECESS - Chairman Gauer cailed for a ten minute recess at 4:00 0'Clock P.M. to
permit review of the development p!ans for the subject property of
Conditional Use Permit No. 145 by the audience.
AFTER RECESS - Chairman Gauer called the meeting t~~ orderat 4:10 0'Clock P.M.
THE NEARiNG WA5 CLOSED. '
The Commission found and determined the following fTcts regarding the " ~~
subject petition:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is author?zed by this Code, to wit: A trailer park.
2. That the proposed use will.adve:-sely affect the adjoining land usas ~
and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed .
to be located. i
3. Tha't petitions of protest, containing 315 signatures, in addition to I
•ather writtenkand verbal protest~ were recorded against subject ~ '
petition. . . ~
_' HAVE
•
........
... ,~. . 4 ~ . . , ... _'.Y...o.~ ,
~ ~ ` •
~i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 396
CONDITIONAL USE - Canmissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 50, 5eries, 1961-62,
PERMIT N0. 145 seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to deny Petition for Cond~tional
Conttnued Use Permit No. 145 on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed •5y the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEFS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, ;,
Pebley, Summers. '
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ~ .
ABSENT: COMMISS,IONERS: Morris, Perry.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by Mbra~a-Fulton Building Company,
PERMIT N0. 146 6305 Woodman Avenue, Van Nuys, California,tlwners; Ferman Suilders, Inc.,
6305 Woodman Avenue, Van Nuys, California,Authorized Agent; requesting
permission to ESTABLISH A TRIIILER PARK on preperty described as: An
irregularly.shaped parcel with a frontage of 785 feet on the north sid~.
of Crescent Avenue beeween Gilbert and Brookhurst Streets; its southwest
corner being approximately 640 feet east of the northeast corner of
Crescent Avenue and Gilbert Street and further described as 230I West
Crescent Avenue. Property presentiy classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL and the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMIL.Y RESIDENTIAI, ZONES.
Mr. Edward Kirby appeared before the Commissi~rn and stated that he was
the designer of the proposed 180 unit traiDer pa-k. He stated that the
proposed park would be a deluxe type, that it is in a suitable location
because of the close proximity to the golf course site and the City Park,
and that the developers had analysed the project and believedthat the
land use was suitable.
Mr. Theodore Worth: 702 North Gilbert Street, apneared before the Com-
mission and requested information as to whether the trailer park would
be limited to adults only. The petitioners agent indicated that it
would be limited to families without children. Mr. Worth stated further
that the proposed trailer park would abut SOO feet of his property on
the north and east, thereby enveloping his property. He stated that he
was opposed to the proposed development because he did not consider the
proposed chain link fenr,~•: to be adequaCe to provide privacy for abutting
properties, that he and his neighbors bought their large parcels of land
in the subject area in erder to provide privacy for their families, and
that 175 families would be tooking into his back yard. Mr. Worth noted
that there were schools in close proximity to the subject property and
stated that he was opposed to any temporary type of living which the
trailer park would encourage. He stated, however, that if a block wall
were provided and if the park was a high type;park with ad~its only,
the neighbors would cooperate.
;'~.~
~ c~" s~:' ;:
The petitioners agent indicated that the trailer park would provide
approximately 10 sites per acre, that approximately 2400 square ;eet
would be allowed per-site, and that the expando-type of trailers would
be encouraged as rentars.
The Commission rev~ewed development plans and Chairman Gauer inquired of
the Assistant City Attorney if the park could be restricted to adults
only.
Assistant City Attorney Roberts informed the Commission that he did not
believ~ that a condition restricti.ng the iase of the trailer park to
adults.only could be legally imposed and that the matter would require
further research as to the legality of such a condition of a~proval.
Commissioner Pebley indicated that, although the developers of trailer
parks make assurances that thair developments will be limited to adults
only, experience has shown that chi;~ren are accepted in varlous ~parks
with'in the County. He stated furtaer that parks containing children
throw a tax burden upon the tax payer, that he was opposed to the estab-
lishment of a tcailer park in the sub,ject loca1ity, and that muitiple
~ __ ~;,.. ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Con*_inued: 337 ~
CONDITIONAL US~ - family residentiai development, ;.~ovide more in tax funds than that pro- ~
PERMIT N0. 146 vided by trailer park developments. ~
Continued
Chairman Gauer indicated that trailer parks are required to pay a heavy
tax, some of which is returned to the City for use as City revenue. Mr.
Worth inquired about the irrigation line that is provided through the
subject propErty to serve his property and the Commission indicated that i
the developer would probably be required to maintain the line. The i
Commission discussed tl?e matter of drainage of the area ana Mr. W~rth
noted that there had ~een difficulties in the pa~t.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commi~sion discussed furth~r ^he suggested limitation of the trailer ;
park facility to adults only. i
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred
and carried, that the subject p~itition be continued until the meeting of ~
September 6, 1961, in order that the Assistant City Attorney could i
research the possibility of imposing a restriction as a condition of ~
approval of subject petition, ?'imiting the use of the trailer park
development to adults only.
A request from the Superintendent of Parks was submitted to the Commis-
sion relative to the formulation by resolution of a formal request by the
Commission that the Park Department prepare and submit a revised park
development plan, including tha park property and the school property
abutting subJect property on the north, that said plan should indicate
access and parking facilities relating to the existing and proposed
facilities, and Yhat said plan be submittad to the City Council'for
review and cons!deration.
' Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 51, Series 1961-62, seconded
by Commission~•r Pebley and carried, requesting that the Park Department
prepare a revised park development plan for the par•k proposed to ba
located adJacent to the subJect property of Conditional Use Permit
` No. 146, and that said plan be submitted to the Canmission at the
~- meeting of September 6, 196i, far Commission review end censidaration.
CONDOTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by LILLIE and VIOLA JOHNSON, 1335
PERMIT N0. 147 Norwood Street, Anaheim, California, Ownars; RALPH A. ~tiLKERSON, Pastor,
14612 Standish Avanue, Anaheim, California, Authorize~ ~lgent; requasting
permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH on property described as: An irragularly
shapad parcel located on the north side of Norwood and Candlewood Streets
batween Raymond Avenue and Marona Streat and furthar dascribad as 1335
Norwood Straet and 1326 Candlewood Straet. Proparty prasently classified
R-A, REStDENTIAi. AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Reverend Ralph Wilkerson appeared bafore tha Com~nission, presented a
rendering of the proposed church, and stated that tha rendering showed
parking area at tha front of the property abuttirig the southerly
property tine. He informed the Commisslon that soma of the neighbors had
suggastad that the proposed parking in the front of the property be re-
located to the area abutting the Riversida Freaway and the original par'x-
ing area be planted with landscaping which would ba of more benefit to
the naighborhood.
Mr. Joseph Garcia, 15~+3 Marona Strdet, appeared before the Canmission,
inquirad about the denomination of tha church, complained that the two
streets that abut the southerly boundarias of subJact property woutd
not rrovide adequate access for tha amount of traffic that would be
generated by the proposed use, and inquirad abaut possible raimburse-
ment to the ownars of property abutting subJact proparty on the south
for tha installation of the existing masonry wall.
~
~.,. . .. ..
Mc. Ouane.Stout, 1316 Candlawood Street, appeared bafore the Commission
• and inquired about possible extension of the parking area to the west so
that cars could not utilize tha existing streets for parking purposes.
~ 4
~ ~ •.
MINUTES, ClTY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21,
COND'rTIONAL USE - Mr. Peter Schmidt, 1337 Merona Street, appeared before the Cnmmission
PERMIT N0. 147 and inquired about the denomination of the church.
Continued
Mr. Darretl Guest, 1309 Candlewood Street, appeared before the Commis-
sion and stated that his only objection to ~e proposed church was that
it would create traftic congestion.
Mr. John Vickery, 1327 Candlewood Street, appeared be4ore the Commis-
sion and suggested that the parking area be placed rtaxt to the northeriy
property line alongside the fence so that trees could be pla nted on the
south to serve as a buffer.
Mrs. Lillie Johnson, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission,
and stated that she was one of the owners of the subject property, that
they had many opportunitles to sell the property for trailer parks or
residentiai development, and that they considered the proposed use to
be the most desirable for the community. She stated that the church
would conduct services on Sundays with some weekday programs, that it
would not add to the traffic congestion because other residents in the
area would be attending church services at the same time, and that the
entire community will benefit b~~ the church at the subject location.
Reverend Wilkerson informed the Commission that the church would be a
Unitarian Church, that services would be conducted twice a week, that
Sunday evening services will be over by 9:00 P.M., that the ch~:rch is
considered to be desirable, that t~e was formerly leader of the Ministerial
Alliance, and that there should be no pro~;ems encountered in the area.
Mrs. Viola Johnson, owner of the subject property, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the denominatian was considered to be of
very good reputation, that they were quiet and were fine people, and that
the church would be of benefit to the community.
Mr. Joseph Colombo, 2132 ~orth Main Street, Santa Ana, the architect
for the church project, appeared before the Commission, and stated that
the proposed development would serve as a buffer for the existing resi-
dential development because of its proximity to the on ramp of the River-
side,Freeway which was constantly in use by the trucks serving the indus-
trial section of the area. He stated further that the number of cars
using the subject property would not be as great as if the property were
developed for high density residential use, and that there would be less
traffic created by the church than !:ould be created by other uses. Mr.
Colombo stated that the number of parking spaces to be provided are in
accordance with Code requirements although additional parking spaces
could be provided to the north of the building if the bulding were lo-
cated further south on the subject property, however, the existing
design was intended to provide the maximum buffer for the residential
development. He added that he did not know what arrangements could be
made in respect to the requested reimbursement for the existing wal.ls.
A dss cussion was held relative to the installation of iron gates at the
entrances to the subject property so that the parking area would not be
used whenever church services were not being conducted and the archi-
tPct indicated that the Fire Department would need be consuited in this
matter.
The i.ommission reviewed development pians and discussed driveway and
landscaping requirements. It was noted that the petitioners Nere wiiling
to provide a minimum 25 foot strip of landscaping abutting the existing
residences. The Commission discussea the necessity for providing cul-
de-sacs at the stub end of the existing streets in order to provide
turn-eround areas for cleaning purposes.
Commissioner Mungall indicated tha~ in his opinion, trees should be j
planLed on the north side of the wall !ocated on the southerly boundary
line of subject property which would serve as a,sound barrier. ~.
j - ..
, . . , __ _ ..... ~. ...,,~"°~~ . . ,.
T
. . . . .. ' . . :'j
. ' ~. . . ' ~ . ~~~
~ ~.:. . ~ . ~ • ~ . .
~ ~ ~
l11NUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 339
CONOITIONAL USE - It was noted that westerly one-third of subject property was not included
PERMIT N0. 147 in the church project and that the installation of fencing should be re-
Continued quired surrounding the entire property.
Commissioner Gauer informed the audience that a letter had been received,•
which would be submitted to the Commission as an item of correspondence,
comalaining that liquor stores were permitted whereas there were too many
objections to churches. He stated that he considered the residents in the
area of subject property to be fortunate that the church development was
proposed for the subject property and that it would be valuable and an
asset to the community.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by Code, to wit: a church.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is pro-
posed to be located.
3• That the size and shape of the site proposed far the use is adequate
to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not
detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undua burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to
carry the traffic in the area. .
5• That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of tha citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That verbal opposition by two owners of property in the area was
racorded against the subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 52, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant
Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 147, subject to the following
conditions:
l. Davelopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1 with the
exception that the central parking area be relocatad from the south
side of subJect property to the north stde of subJect property and
that landscaping ba installed as outlined in Condition No. 2.
2. Provision of a minimum 25 foot landscaped area on the southerly
boundary line abutting existing wall whara subJact property abuts the
R-1, One Family Residential, 2one and on the easterly boundary line
whare subJect property abuts the R-1, One Family Residential, Zone,
axcept for those areas reserved for access drtves and walks, that
trees shali be plantad as part of this landscaped area, that plans
for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subJact to tha ~
~:pproval of tha Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, that said
landscaping shall ba installed prior to Ftnal Building Inspectfon,
and that this condition shall not apply to the westerly 232•34 feet
of subJect property, measured along the southerly property tine.
,s ~,. Instailation of a six (6) foot• masonry wall on the easterly property
line where said property abuts property classifiad in tha R-1, One
Family Residential, Zone.
4. Dedication of modified cul-de-sacs at the end of Norwood 5treet and
Candlewood withi.n the subject property.
~ NINSTALLATION OF A SIX (6~ F00T MASONRY WALL ON THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY
L1NE WHERE SAID PROPERTY ABUTS PROPERTY CLASSIFIED IN THE R-1~ ONE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE~ BETWEEN NORMOOD STREET AND CANDLEW~OD
STREET.~ -
~:.,,'':i;
~.
~
~ ' j
~ ~
~~. ~
Fhe foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anahein.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry.
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 61-62-14 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by ROBERT L. WETZLER, 929 Spring Street,
Anaheim, California, Owner; STEPHEN F. GALLAGHER, Califurnia Bank Building,
Anaheim, California, Authorized Agent; requesting that property described
as: A Parcel 124 feet by 280 feet with a frontage of 124 feet on Ball
~ Road and located oi; the south side of Ball Road between Beach Boulevard
and Fern Street; its northwest corner being approximately 42 feet east of
the southeast corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard, be reclassified from
the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCI~L, and
the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NES.
! Mr. Robert Wetzler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, pra- ~
t ~ sented a sketch of the proposed development, and stated that the subjoct
€ ~
property abuts property on the west which he owns and which is presertly
k • classified in the C-3, Heavy Commercial, 2one, is situated on the southeast ~
~' corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard and measures 42 feet in width and
'• 277 feet in depth. He stated that the proposed service station would be
located on Ball Road with the proposed development of a commercial building
~ to be located southerly of the service station and abutting Beach Boulevard.
Mr. Wetzler explained that he was requesting t' t architectural requirements
~ be waived for the subject property because he wos endAavoringto obtain f
;' taases before proceeding wi,th the construction and that it might be neces- i
~ sary to alter development plans according to the I.essee'~ requirements. i
It was pointed out that the City Council had issued a directive in November '
,
196o to refer development plans relative to Tentative Tract Maps and
~ Petitions for Reclassifications to the Planning and Building Departments
~
for review.
The petitio~er indicated that he did not intend to establish a cocktail
lounge on the subject property, that the requested zoning was to complete
«
'~t~°e east, and that it appeared to be the logical procedure for developing
both properties.
THE HEARING WA5 CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the sub-
ject petition:
l. That the petitioner prcp~~es a reclassification of the above aescribed
property from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTl1RAL, 20NE to the C-3,
HEAVY COMMERCIAL, 20NE limited to service sYation use only for the
northerly 150 feet and to the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE for
the southerly 125 feet.
-% ,
~ ~
,
w s°THE ZONING TO CO,INCIOE WITH THE NARROW STRjP ABUTTING SUBJECT PRCPERTY
'
~
~ _
s'h ON~
~
.
• ~.'~~~~- ~ 1;':
._--.~ ..,.,~
. ~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 340 ~
CONDITIONAL USE - 5• Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im- !
PERMIT N0. 147 provements for the modified cul-de-sacs in accordance with the ~
Continued approved standard plans on file in the office of the City Engineer.
I
6. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180} days for the accomp- '
lishment of Item Nos. 4 and 5. i
'I
I
~
~ j
.~..~~. ... _
~ ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANN•ING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 341
RECLASSIFICATION - 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary
N0. 61-62-14 or desirable ror the orderly and proper development of the community.
Continued ~ ~
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in
close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per-
mitted uses generally established through~ut the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require
dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because
said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways
which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which
will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the
circulation element of the General Plan.
5• That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
• Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 53~ Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to recom-
menti to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-14
be approved, subject to the following conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2
with the submission of the C-l, Neighborhood Commercial, development
plans, and the plot plans for the proposed service station to the
Planning and Building Qepartments for review.
2. Recordation of deed restrictions limiting use of the northerly 152
feet of subject property to the C-3~ Heavy Commercial, Zone for a
service station oniy or to any C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone use.
3. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of Ball Road
(50 feet existing).
4. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for Ball Road in accordance with the approved standard
pians on file in the office of the City Engineer.
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Ball Road.
6. Time limitation of ninety (90) days for the accomplishment of Item
Nos. 3, 4, and 5.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequi:,ite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serva the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of R~aheim.
On roll call the foregoir.g resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by FRANK and IDA R. BASILE, 809 South
N0. 61-62-15 Knott Avenue, Anaheim, Calif ornia, Owners; ROBERT W. MpCMAHON, 403 Cali-
fornia Bank Buildirtg, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property
descrtbed es : A Parcel 160 feet by, 2~S feet with a frontage of 225 feet
on Knott Avenue and located on the southwest corner of Knott Avenue and
Savanna Street.and further described as 829 South Knott Avenue, be re-
• classified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUtZAL, ZONE to the C-1,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, IONE.
. , . , : i:: , . . .., ?;t . 1 _ _S,. _ _. --'--°"~.awx
w . . ..{~ . .. .
~ . .~:.r. .-~~ ~ ~ . ~ . . .
~~
. .. .. _ j `* ,v , .
~~
. . . . . - ~ . . :=-i1~' . ~ ~~
~ I
~
I
i
I
~
. ~•
',. ~
~
---.~ ~..,
~ ~ .. .. .. .. ,. _ .
. . ~ ~ ~ • ~
~
. ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLFN NING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 342
~
RECLASSIFICATiON -.A letter, dated August 10, 1961, sighed by Robert MacMahon, the petition-
N0. 61-62-15 er's agent, requesting that the subject petition be continued until the ~
Continued meeting of September 6, 1961, was submitted to the Commission. '
Commissioner Summers offered a motion, seconded by
Canmissioner ~
Allred
' and carried, that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-15 be continued ~
until the meeting of September 6, 1961. ~
RECLiASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by RINKER OEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, '
N0. 61-62-16 P.O. Box 2025, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property ~
described as: A parcei 317 feet by 330 feet with a frontage of 330
feet on Lincoln Avenue and located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue (
between Knctt and Western Avenues; its northwest corner being approx- i
imately 1,600 feet east of the southeast corner of Lincoln and Knott
Avenues, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE
to the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Frank Richardson, agent for the Rinker Development Company, appeared
before the Commission, stated that the subject property was a portion of
Tentative Map of Tract No. 3886 whtch was recently approved by the ~
Planning Commission, and that the petitioners would comply with the
recommendations stipulated in the Staff Report and the Interdepartmental l
Committee Recommendations.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
l. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described ~
properl•y from the R-A, RESIOENTIAL AGRICULTIlRAL, ZONE to the C-1,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary ~
or desirable for the orderly and p~oper development of the community.
3• That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly ,.
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in f
close proximity to subject property and to the zones and tneir per-
mitted uses generally established throughout the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require
• dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because
~ said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways
which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which
will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the
' circulaticn element of the General Plan.
. 5• That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 54, Series 1961-62, and moved ,
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recom-
mend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-16
be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a six (6) foot landscaped strip parallel to and abutting
the northerly property line and the westerly property line after
dedication of the new street proposed to abut the existing westerly
property line, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and sub- ~
ject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance ~
and the instailation of said landscaping to be accomplished prior to
the Fina1 8uilding lnspection.
2. ~evelopment substantialiy in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2
with the exception of the required landscaping. ~ ;
1
,
~ k~' i:?' f '
~ __
..,:.,1 :~ ~ ~. . S ~....^~ ' . ,
, ~-. . . .~. ~. ''J~~. . .. .: .: ..,. . _ :_ . `':~'.'~ . '. 1 ... t .....:. ~ _. `~..'.. ~ ~ ; . 1 ~.'. !. . . .r ~. ~t . ~ :.1~~~~.~~::,:~~
,
~
. ,;;•,.;
~ ~~.
~ '
C
P. .
a.
i. ~, .. . ~ . ~ . .
- ~----~-~_ ~
y V
~ !
~ . ~
k~ ~
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes along
Lincoln Avenue and the new street, or the installation of ornamental
street lights in conjunction with the street lighting plan for Tract
No. 3886 to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Utilities.
6. Time limitation of ninety (90) days for the accomplishment of item
Nos. 1 and 2.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
• AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
• Pebley, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry
RECIASSIFICATION - f~UbLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by NEALE R. 2UIDEMA, BERNICE EIDSON,
N0. 61-62-17 G02 South Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; BERNARO GOTTLIEB,
411 North Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana, California, A9ent; raquesting
; that proparty described as: A parcel 90 faet by 140 feet with a frontage
;: of 90 feet on Euclid Avanua and located on the east sida of Eucitd Avenue
between Broadway and Alomar Avenue ; its southwest corner being approx-
" imately 390 feet north of the northeast corner of Euclid Avenue, be
reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-l,
. NEIGHBORH000 COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~
Mr. Bernard Gottlieb, the patitioners agent, appeared before the Commis- .
ston, reviewed the recent reclassification of property abutttng subJect .
property on tha south to the C-1, Naighborhood Commercial, Zone, and
stated that the subJect petition was raquestad in ordar to complete the
davelopment of tha two parcels. Ha stated further that tha existing .
~, -building would be converted into an office building containing offices
, 'For an investmant company, an attornay, and a contractor.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
, The Commission found and daterminad the following facts regarding tha
subJect petltton: ,
i l. That the petitioner proposes a reclassifieation of the above described
property from the R-A, RES{9ENTIAL AGR{CIftTURAt, ZONE to tha C-1,
~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
t • ''
~ 2. That the proposed raclassification of subJact proparty ts nacessary
or dosirable for tha ordarly and propar devalopmant of tha community. ~
3• That the proposad reclassiftcation of subJact proparty does proparly
relata to the zones and their permitted usas locally astablishad in
~ close proximity to subJect property and to the zones and their
~ parmitted uses generally'established thcoughout the community. . .
4
4. That the proposad reclassificatton.of subJect proparty does raquire
dadication for and standard improvement of abutting streats because
~. "s ~ said proparty does relata to and abut upon streets and highways which ~
, e
~ s ~
~ ~;
,t~ ~
z~ .. _
_ .--~ ._..._ . ~:,.,,. . , , ,. . . ... i +.. „ ,. .,. .. . .'-.t>'; , S . .. :r,?+. ~~ . _
W . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued:
343
RECLASSIFICATION - 3• Dedication of64 feet for new street as shown on plot plan.
N0. 61-62-16
Continuad 4. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for the new sYreet, in accordance with the approved
standard plans on file in the office of the City Engineer.
,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 341+
~. _
- RECLASSlF{CATlO!! are praposed:to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which will
N0. 61-62-17 be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circula-
Continued tion element of the General Plan.
• 5• That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
~:.' .
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 55, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood, to recom-
i~ rnend to the Ci:y Council that Petition for keclassification No. 61-62-17
' ~ be approved, ubject to the following conditions:
, 1.
~
2.
Developn•nt substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
Installation of a six (6) foot landscaped setback abutting the plan-
ned highway right-of-way line and instailation of landscaping in the
parkway portion of the dedicated streets, plans for said landscaping
to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent
of Parkway Maintenance and landscaping to be installed prior to Final
Building Inspection.
3. Recordation of deed restrictions limiting use of subject property
to business and professional officeso~ly.
4. Limitation to one (1) sign with the maximum size of three (3) square
feet attached to and parallel with the face of the office building.
$. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall aiong the east and north i
bounda,ries of subject property, or the posting of a bond for wall
construction on the north boundary line of subject property with a
two (2) year time limitation.
6. Dedication of 53 feet from the mon~mented centerline of Euclid Avenue
(30 feet existing).
7. Preparatian of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for Eucl~id Avenue, in accordance with the approved stan-
dard plans on fite in the office of the City Engineer.
8. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Euclid Avenue.
9. Provision of utility easements along exterior boundaries as deter- ~
mined to be necessary by the Director of Public Utilities to ad- •
~ equately serve the subJect property and other property.
10. Time limitation of ninety (90) days for the accompl'ishment cf Item
Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve -'~~
the_safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll ca1T the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES:, COMMISSIONERSi .Ailred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
~ - Pebley, Summers.
NOESi . COMMISSIONERS: None -
- ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Per.ry.
,
.
l
.
.
~ _
.
'
'
~ '~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC.HEARING.:. Petition submitted by WILLIAM D. REMY, 1545 West Katella
'~ ~i'r.~ N0. 61-62-18 Avenue; Anaheim,,California, Owner;`J. R. Nason, 616 West Commonwealth. i
t~~~` • Avenue, Fullerton, Cali;fornia, Agent; requesting -that, property•described i
`
`' ~~"i;,r~ " -. ass. A parcel 100 feet. by 127::feet with a frontage of 100 feet on Katella
~t k;~ Avenue and loceted on the northwest:corner'of Katella Avenue:aid Bayless
i ~,~~~~~,~,'
'~ 3 ~ ~ ,
n ,
~,a
la~ai s ,
Yy~ ~ ~.~ ; ~
. . ~ . . ~ . . `! r
~ (r..
~. ~ x
s
~ . . ~ ~ ~ .
~ l
a
~ ;r~ak
~'
~ '~ ? ~ ..
.
~
" ~!
~ ~
s
~a . !~;. r
x Fas.z' sr. . .
, , , . . . .,
..~.: . . t4~,
~ t .
!
~~ ~~,M°
1~#'~ Lr ~
~ - ;~ ~. ~~
; th~~
k ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
-!y~~~
!'~:~~.':V-°.
_
_ .. ,~..4.....v_..., _,.. ~.a,~..,...._., . ..,,...,,o,,...~... ..,r~,..,.,._~_...,._.~......~.,..........~~.~......,__w.__ , ... .....~~ 1~.~
R, y~~.E"~y}•n~,r~'~~:
<
S~
4
- y`e t"~,, L ~ T:. ~P 'hf X.,
1 3_ 4 ~! ~1 ~ ~:Z i4~L~jLLT.th ~x7viCl:Sf +C! . ~ Z, r~'~':. ~
?~. r!u f "3. .~:'~,:~~*~G. :$.~ .h~.:'if
~~
..~7
.
.' ~
. _ .'~~ ~,ti.
. . ( ~ . . .
~
- ' ^
- .
. .
.
~..
~ . .
.
.
;
.
.... ~'.~
., ,.. _r ...:' '..~ . ~.
' ':.• "
.
.. . .. , -. . ~~.
~.. . ...
. ~ .._.. _ ~r~~
'~""~..~a.
".. . . . ._. .:',..:. ' ~.: - ~.: - .
.. ..:-~. • .. : . .'. . .~ .
t '~,
. ~ . . ~ ~ . .J ~ ~~~ .
. . . . . ~r~.
.
.
-
.
-':~
.,_; . . . . . . . .. a
MINUTES, CtTlf PLANNING'~OMMISSION, August 21; ~,~1, 's:•'~:t*.3nued: 345 ,. ~~ ,
~ j
RECi.R551FiCATiBN - Street, and further dasr.~ i'ou:, ct: '° ~'~fest Ketells AvenLe, be recla~s~
~ ~
N0. 61-62-18 ified fran the R-1, ON~ ~'~'~~iE:,',' ,'"~5 .:r:2TlAl, 20NE to the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD i
Contir:;~ed COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. William Remy, the pet:C!:F"!':i'p ~~~eared before the Commission and
stated that his agent had prepared and submitted the subject petition
requesting reclassification of subJect property in order to pe~mit the ' ;
use of an.existing structure for professional afficas.
Mr. Stanley Stovall, 1524 Holgate Place, appeared before the Co~nission ~ ~
and stated that the petitioner had informed him that he intended to
raside'and to maintain an office in tha existing residence. Mr. Stovall :
inquired about the appearance of the building and if it would remain
~ residential in character, whather the property would be deed restricted,
and whether`walls would be installed. He stated he did not consider l
:;`'.;1~:; tha existing grape staka fence to be a suitable barrier between residen- ,
~_:'~`~~''` tial use and commercial use.
Chairman Gauer indicatad that Staff Recommandations relative to the sub-
ject petition recommanded that the residential appearance of tha exist-
ing structure be maintained and that a six foot masonry wall be provided
rather than the existing fence. Chairman Gaunr indicated, howe,ver, that
' tha existing fence abutting the F1ood Contr~( ':i~annal on the south would
be permitted to remain and that the walls sF~u:.i conform in color. ..
Mr. Stoval reviewed davelopment plans with the Commission and inquirad
~ about the size and location of any advartising signs for the proposed
business.
7ha Commission discussad the location and size of the sign as shuwn on ~
the plot plan and indicated that the sign should be located at the
E:-. '' altarnate site locetion shown on Exhibit "1" and that it shouid be con-
~: structad in accordance with the sign plan shown on Exhibit "2".
The patitioner assured the Commission that tha sign wonld not ba a neon • ,
sign,.that it would contain a vary discreet type of advertistng, and
that he had plannad to construct tha sign to match tha existing wood
fance.
The Commission discussed the installation of sidewalks in accordenca ~
with tha recommendation by tha Interdepartmental Committoe and the
patittoner requasted that the sidewalk not be requirad at tha present
time. Commissionar Pablay and Commissionar Allred indicated that the
sidewalk lnstallatton would be of benerit to the petitloner's businass
and that it shouid be installad at the present time. it was noted
thet the Ctty would provide stdewalks acrosstfie Flood Control Channel
. to correspond with the sidewalk installatlon on the subJect property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDr ~
~
~ '
K., '~. r. . ._ . .
. . . . ..
Tha Commission found and dat---inad the following facts regarding the .~:
;
subJeet petition:
1. That the.pati,tionar proposes a reclasslfication of the above dascrib- '
ed.property from"tha R-i, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~.ZONE to the C-1,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,.ZONE.
2. That the proposad reclaesificatlon of subJect proparty is necassary
or desirable for.the orderly and'proper davelopmant of the comnunity.
~ , 3• That the proposed reclassi:fication of.subJect propartr daes properly ~.
~ . ralata to;the zones and their per.mitted uses locally establishad ih
,.
~"
'~ close~proximity,.to subJact property and to-.tha zones and thair par-
,
,
'" ~;; ~ - mitted uses ganerally estab1ished throughout~tha community:
. .
~r~,~. ,'~`
~ .;:astre„e,'~
. .
_ _
-
va ~i~?33'~'Sk
i~i~..SC;:
~,,,. ~ ~ ' . . . . . . ~ ~ . .
.
~ ~ _ ' .~ . . . . . ..
,. , ' .~. ~.: . ~ - . ~ . .
.
' -
~
~~
~ :~ ~4.~:~:
;~'~ 't. .
. .
~ . . . . .
. . ' ' , .
. . . . .. .
. ,
'
, ' ' ' ~
~
:
~
' (
1~.5C .. . .
.
_
. .
,
.,
. . .
,
. ,
' •
: . . . ' ~
- . . -
..
_
, .
~
. . .. _
~~~
~` L
~LC 1
~
~ . . ' . . . . ~
'~
~
. .'
. .
'.
'
~
~ -~ .
- ~.
~
~ . •
:tl
n ~ .~.4 ~, . . .
.
:.
.
.;
. .,
.~..
' .:
~ . . .
~'." '-' . , .: -.,
y
A
'~'~+ MN.?:~ r
~ :
r~'
'
'~~~
~r~~
Y
` ~ ~~ ~ ,
~ ' ~ ~~ .
~ 1 f ~ ~
~
t
( ^
k
+~a~YC^x~~Y~.v ~
.'_~t'S~t~~,M'~_I,:TlS:e:N..fpFr,:N.~ ~~-C.. r ..........,.,..~~1.
. ....~ _i.~ff ~ ,ilb'~Y'iY' ..._~ L'!_YSv...~~.,..x_T'~vFY.r. ._ r'•1avtK..J,•1.':yA.,~rw1 ~~~ M
~ ~- . ..i ~
~ 4'
~
~
. ... . ... ,....., . . ~ .. . . ~.. ~-•~
.. ... _._: '_._+_. ' ' ' ir ~ . . . : : ~ . . . ~ , : :. J .~ .:_... . .
.. ~ . ~ . ~ . .,. ~ ~ . ^~~ . .
~ 346
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued:
~. RECLASSiciCATfON - 4• That the proposed reclassificatior~ of subject property does not
~ N0. 61-62-?S, require dedication for ai standard improvement of abutting streets
~ ~ Continued because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and
highways which are improved to carry the type and quantity of
traffic, which will be generated by the permitted uses, in accord-
ance with the circulation element of the General Plan.
~'
~.:
6. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the north boundary
of subject property to conform with existing wall color.
7. Time limitation cf ninety,(90) days for the accomplishment of Item
Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were `ound
to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to
preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
" ~ " ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Perry.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by KEN GEORGE D01, 2958 West
2966 West
MCGAUGHY
L
I.:•r
k" ,
.
N0. 61-62-12 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; M.
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property
described as: Parcel l: ,A parcel 275 feet by 275 feet with a front-
age of 275 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue between Beach
Boulevar~ and Dale Avenue; its northwest corner being approximately
`' ' 270 feet east of th,e:southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln
Parcel 2: A parcel 338 feet by 1,000 feet with a frontage
- pvenue
~ .
of 338 feet abutting f'arcel l on the south, its west boundary being
d
~
;; approximetely 332 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard an
ther'described as 295~ West Lincol.n Avenue, be reclassified from
fu
~, -_
n
RESIDENTIAL AGRIClILTURAL; ZONE to the C-l, NEIGHBORH00D
the R-A
~~ 'x~,~
; ,
COMMERCIAL'and the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMICY RESlDENT1AL, ZONES.
~f
f[ ,r ~ ~ {„li}
fJ. ~: 1~~u~'.d .. . . . . . . . . ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~
~ . . .. . . . ' . ' . .
~ . '~~`' 4. ~
~;KwLr ; . . . .. ~ . ' . . . . . . . ~ , ~ -
. .~ 'cji .
')~ . . . . . ~ . . .. ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . .
' . ~ . .. ~ . . . . . . , .
~
~ t ,_ ~ _ ..
.
. '.., .'. ..~ ' . , ~. . ~.~. . . ' -. ~ . . .
. .
: . . . ...~ . ~. .- . .
'
~
'
. . .
J~ . .~. . . . .... . , . .
.. .
.
.,. . . . : .:
. ..
, . . .. ~~ . .i. ' . ~ . .. ~ .
~ - '
'' .: '
ft . ' . ' ~ . ~ . . . . . - . , .
~ ~. ~'..~ . .. ~. ~ • . . . . '. . .
•.'
~.
ti.i ! ~
.~ e..: " .
. ~ ... . ..... ' ' . . ~ . ~'.. ..-.
.
.
~'
k ~ 1 1 r
~ ~
..
~
~.
~ .
~
rw
b'~.LL~....,,..~e..v~;~ w~- -
'
'
~ ..~:,~^`7P~d,f:7._~'~e~3.'.;:;.-"" :nJ~~!'..',~ K~,-,_t,S.^.xi,~.~. ..~ ~....f ..:1.'~~tl..t~~..t'~M~"'~.Nl'a:'x'"~.?J..~i.=.!~t tl..,. a...r ... .. ..-,. .
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 56, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 61-62-18 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Limitation to one (l) unlighted sign 4 feet in width and 6.3 feet
in height in accordance with the sign plan shown on Exhibit No. 2,
said sign to be located at the alternate sign location shown on
Exhibit No. 1.
3. Substantial maintenance of existing residential character of the
front portion of subject property with the exception that side-
walks be installed on Katella Avenue in accordance with Condi-
tion No. 4.
4. Installation of sidewalks on Katella Avenue (in accordance with
approved standard plans on file in the office of the City Engineer)
5. Recordation of C-l, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone deed restrictions
limiting use of subject property to business and professional
affices only.
~
I .
~,Y ~'
$
~,
~ l
~
before the Commission in respect to the reques e
ject property.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux and
carried, thaL Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-12 be continued until
the meeting of September 6, 1961, and that the petitioner be notified.
~ ~.'~ ~ ". . .
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 347
E_.._ '_ . .. . . . . ~ . . . .
L
RECLASSIFICATION - Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract No.
~ ~o. 6~-6a-~2 4zbt. .
r Continued
Subject petition was continued from earlier in the meeting. No one appeared
t d reclassification of sub-
TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 4261 - SUBDIVIDER
~
M. L. MCGAUGHY, 2966 West Lincoln Avenue,Areheim, California
Subject tract is filed in conjunction with Petition for Re~lassification
No. 61-62-12 and was continued from earlier in the meeting in conjunction
with said petition.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 4261 be continued until the
meeting of September 6, 1961, in order to consider said tract map in
conjunction with Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-12.
CORRESPONDENCE - Item No. 1: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCES N0. 4813~ 4814. 4815, and 4824:
Notices received from the Orange County Planning Commission relative to
Use Variances No. 4813, 4814, 4815, and 4824 were submitted to the Com-
mission. It was noted that the requests for variance were in order to
establish temporary real estate offices and temporary advertising signs,
constructed in varying dimensions and to be located at various locations,
~for the sale of tract proparties located at the northwest corner of Rio
_ ~ Vista and South Streets, and at the southeast corner of Sunkist Street
and Ames Avenue respectively, in County territory.
• The Commission reviewed the request outlined for each Use Variance
petition and the location as outlined on che plot plans submitted. Tne
Commission discussed the necessity for requiring that the signs be re-
moved and the posting of a bond to insure said removal. Chairman Gauer
suggested that the signs be dated, that a time limit be placed upon the
` signs, and that at the expiration of the stipulated time limit the signs
be removed.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
carried, that the Planning Secretary transmit notice to the Orange County
Planning Commission indicating that the Anaheim Planning Commission
recanmends approval of Use Variance Permits No. 4813, 4814, 4815,•and 4824,
subject to the condition that a time limit of one (1) year or less be
placed upon the use of the proposed signs and that e bond be posted to
insure the removal of the signs at such time as the time limit has expired
or the properties have been sold.
Item No. 2: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIAN~:E N0.'4E19:
Notice received from the Orange County Planning Commission, relative to
Use Variance tvo. 4819, Was submitted to the Commission. Subject petition
requested permission to estabiish a 109 unit trailer park in the A1 General
pgricultural District. Subject property is located at the northwest corner
of Blue Gum 5treet and Coronado Avenue northeast of tne City of Anaheim.
The subJect peti.*_ion stated that the trailer park will consist of an office
and recreational huilding, trai.ler space and utility structures all sub-
stantially of the-,size and in the location as indicated on the plot plan
.. submitted withthe Petition: The petition stated further that the trailer
;park will;be enclosed by a-six foot block wall as indicate.d on the plot.
plan, that, there wil] be one.double-faced sign,`containing a maximum area
of 150:square,feet.on each face, located on the B1ue Gum 5xreet property
'li.ne and to`the north of the,:•entcy drive.with a minimum 15 foot ground;clear-
ance
. ... ' ..' . . . ,rr
~ :'~#..71.~5.t,~<.. ~,.?~.:.,° ._......c.sr..°<:".? . .... .,.~:._; M ,..,_.°.,,t~kxs".5"_~Sr'~.~'i'~+~17+ ___._.,,~~4.._u...u:,~___
~G~
~ ~ ,
.. ~ •'~ .: . , .
_ ~ ~ . ' . ~ ~ _. f' .
. ~ ' • ~~~ .~ .
~.. M{NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 3~$
E
€ '~ CORRESPONDENCE - A ietter was submitted to the Commission, which wps signed by Fred P.
' ted Chambers of Commerce of
~~
t.
~':.._.
i:
Continued Clatworthy, General Manager of the Associa
Orange County, enclosing a resolution adopted by their Board of Directors.
The resolution urged the establishment of a realistic plan for the p~-eserva-
tion of industrial properties in Orange County and thab the governing
bodies resist the inciusion of ~ses other than industrial in the industrially
zones areas.
Chairman Gauer directed the Planning Staff to transmit a reply to the
Assuciated Chamt ~ of Commerce of Orange County thanking them for the
communication, e~id indicating that the letter was submitted to the Commis-
sion, that the Commission would.endeavor to abide by the recommendations
outlined in the resolution, and that the Jetter and resolution would be
referred to the Anaheim City Councii for their consideration.
The Commission then discussed the necessity for establishing a definite
plan for ti~:: ~ity and County area in the northeast section of the city and
Planning Director Richard Reese reviewed previou~ actions upon property
in the subJect area. He described the natural boundaries, such as the
freeways and the major and secondary streets, that serve as open-space
buffers between industrial areas and residential development. He indicated
that the Preliminary ueneral ?lan snould be amended if it were determined
that all or a portion of the industrial section located west of Blue Gum
Street should be utilized for residential purposes.
Chairman Gauer stated that the Commission could consider amending the Pre-
liminary General Plan to indicate B1ue Gum Street as the boundary line and
that no encroachment into the industrial section located west of Blue Gum
Street should be utilized for residential purposes. _.
Planning.Director Reese advised the Commission that the Orange County
Board of Supervisors had adopted emergency Qrdinance uo. 1:81 on August
- 9, 1961; zoning the area bounded by Orangethorpe, lmperial Freeway, Santa
Ana River and Jefferson Street to the M-1-5 acre zone until such time as
studies could be madeand a Master Plan could be adopted.
Tha Commission reviewed the development plens of the proposed trailer park
and Planning Director Richard Reese pointed out that the half-width of
Coronado Street was indicated as 20 foot street whereas 30 feet is required
i~ addition to the 30 foot half-width a 10 foot minimum landscaping area.
Two letters of protest, signed by Edward and Prisciila Hill and by Edward
and Vernetta Dargatz, were submitted to the Commission, indicating objections
~ to the use of the property for other than industrial development.
Mr. Reese.stated that the suitability of the area included in the subject
petition for medium density residential purposes, rather than for industrial
purposes as is presently indicated on the Preliminary General Plan, should
be considered by the Commission in view of past recommendations and actions
by the City Council and the Commission in respect to the approval of two .
previous treiler park petitions. He inquired if the Commission preferred
medium density residential use or industrial uses for the subject area.
Pianning.0irector Reese thereby inquired of the Commission that, if they
considereci the subject petition an appropriate use of the subject property,
en excerp~ of the minutes could'be fcrwarded to the Orange County Planning
Commission incorporeting the recommendations made on the,previous actions
that had already been approved for the subject area and clearly defining the
Cornmission's intent in respect to the utilization of the subject area for
medium density resid'ential, including trailer parks. :
The Commission then djscussed the boundaries that could 6e.proposed for de-
limitation and recommended.:that the area•bounded by Placentia Avenue. on
the west,:Orangethorpa Avenue on the nocih, Blue.Gum Street.on the east, .
end the..Riverside Freeway on.the:south be indi"cated as medium density resi-
dential on the Prel`iminary,'.Gener.al_Ptan•' The;Commissi,on.noted that the
Plann_i_ng Director:should.send an ~xcer.pt.of the;minutes:to the Orange County
Planning Commisston:to outline 'the~Commi;ssion's tfioughts i~ respect;to the
, 1, .. . .
..,,. .':wr¢ „(.p ~r t..J.,~; ~~~~ F ' "1,' iW~:+.~ tk.x~F u. rr ~ t ~:C,
.tr ~-.r, ..----.--^~'.~.~~~ ,.~ . ~.' t~'h..~_...a....`Yu.u 3'; ~, .+L . ,.{i.i _......4 ~ . . . :L:"FYa n~.F'K ."'~ ~"~~'~'v.:• a".~~. a L Z ... ...._ - ..... . .
} C T
i.
~~..r~
- . . . . ~~~:, , _ t'. a -'ii,'N~
t ~
~
~
'~
. . . ~ ~ '. ~ ~ . . . . . . .. ~ . ~ ~ ~:~`. . ~ . . . ~ . .
~ MtNUTES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION; August 21, 1961, Continued: 349
~
~ CORRESPONDENCE - proposed developm.:nt ofth~ subject area and noting recorronendations in
~ Co~tinued respect to amending the,Preliminary General Plan providing for medium density
residential for that portion of the northeast area indicated and expressing
their policy recommendation that no residential uses be permitted east of
~ Blue Gum Street and that Blue Gum Street be considered the westerly bounda~•y
af the Northeast industrial Area.
~ :.: :• _ .
k `' Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux and
~ carried, that the Planning birector transmit a letter to the Orange County
~ ~ Planning Commission as directed, and that the two letters of protest in'
re5pect Yo the subject petition also be forwarded.
Item No. 3: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 136:
~ ~
A 1~tEer, received from Dr. R'. E. Hook, Pastor of the Grace Baptist Church,
dated August 10, 1961, was ;;uh•niLted to the Commission.
The letter requested that the Commission reconsider Condition Nos. 5, 6, and
7 of Resolution No. 6, Series 1961-62 in respect to the extension of Haron
Street, and Condition No. 10 in respect to the instaliation of masonry walis
on the easterly and westerly property lines of subject property.
The letter also indicated that the property abutting subject property on the
east has been purchase.i for the construction of a new church building by
the Free Methodist Church, and stated that the extension of Haron Street
would be detrimentat to the churcl~ ~~operties. As a consequence,tfiey re-
quested that the conditions relcc+.~~ to the street be deleted until such
time as the problem could be kor!,ed out.
The Commission discussed the necessity for the Free Methodist Church to
obtain a Conditional Use Permit in ordet to establish a church an adjacent
- property, and it was noted that when the church made application for the
Conditional Use Permit the matter of t9e sLreet could be incorporated in
any action taken at that time.
cl~airman Gauer indicated that he would have to be excused from the meeting,
Lr.cause of a previous appointment, and offered a motion that Commissioner
Mungall serve as temporary Chairman.' MOTION CARRIED.
The Commission then discussed the requested alleviation of the wall require-
ments and the possibtlity that the petitioners couid post a bond to insure
construction of the wai.ls. Commissioner Allred noted that the church might
discover at a later date that the wall-requirement for that portion of the
property abutting the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, would have to be
provided as a protection for the church property in respect to the use of
the parking area by the commercial development.
Assistant City Attorney Roberts advised the Commission that the wall re- ~
,quirements could not be deleted by amendment of the resolution of approval,
and ihat the change in the condition should be ra-advertised because it
wes a change that would have a signtficant effect upon the property interest. ~
Commissioner Allred indicated that, in his opinion, walls.ehould be required ~`.
- and that the matter of tHe extension of Haron Street could be discussed at
suth time as the other church applies for a Condiiional Use Permit.
~ In respcnse to inquiry by Plenning,Director Richard Reese, the Commission
-i ndicated thaE if the petitioners wished to'pursue the matter of the waiver
of the wall,requtrements at..this time, they should refi)e for a Conditional
- Use Permit at;the peti.ttoners,expense, and that the.request be set for
Public Heari.ng:
Commissloner pllred offered a.motion,,seconded by Comnissioner Pebley and
carried, *_hat the petitianers be no.tified;that,epplication should be made
for a Petition for Conditional Use`Permit-requesting waiver of:the wall re=
quirements of the Code,,.or that a tiond shouid be posted with e two (2) year . I
time;limitation to insure said wa.ll-construction. E ~,
a
~
_. ~ „ : .
.. ;.
;. (
.. ~. .~, ~ '~Ifi x ..~.3^au~~... ».. . ~ a.. ..t ~ ,: .~.._.•rs+a.. , ~ ~. . ~.'rsE ,~ .. . ~ . .
. . ..: . ..~.. ... ' . ..IF.~^~LLi1~: .`M14r lce~x'ISI{~yfETlO'_C~MJ_ , e3a'~~ f . _ :. • ~
~. ' fi ~. R (s r •. : ~ . . 2 .: ~yV T~ ~~,~a,~ ,,r . .. . ~
t y; i~' i - li. ~..:::k. ~<e'~'S~i~:~.~~! ~~wx~ -C.?'_ i .i`+~ :'.51`.lg~{?A7'7'~.i~ k:arlu.~i'~>q~'yC'~ ~,'~ .
4 1 1 i: ~ J Gr .
~ ~
, ,
. ' .'. . ,.. :
_ ' ~
' .'~ ...~ .;. ,.~ '~ ~. ' ~ ,
~i .}
.' ;
. . -~ ... ... ..: ~.:
,., _~... -.~. . -~ . ,.. . .., . ..: t ".„ .
~
~ :.. ~ ~ ~~ . ~ _ ~ .. ~ . . ~ ..~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,-August 21, 1961, Continued: 350 ~~~
~ .~
CORRESPONOENCE - i.tem No. 7: REPLY FROM STATE DiViS10N 8F HIGHWAYS: q
Continued ` ~ ~
A reply, received from the State Division of Highwayson August 11, 1961,
relative to Resolution No. 16, Series 1961-62, which requested the improve- i .~
ment of the State owned property located at the northeast corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Euclid Avenue, was submitted to the Commission. It was noted ~ ;
that the letter indicated that the property would be cleared of existing ~ ,a
debris or weed conditions and that it would be posted to prohibit unauthorized I -j
parking. s
The Commission reviewed the letter and indicated that it was their intention 9
that the area be improved so that it would remain in a suitable condition, ,.;
preferably with landscaping. '.
.;
~ , Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and ;
~~;;;; carried, that a letter be transmitted to the State Uivision~of Highways ~
~; ~~'. thanking them for the proposed'improvement of the property, in@icating that :
"' '~ the Commission was desirous of having the area improved with landscaping, I
and suggesting thet if the State could not find it possible to landscape ;
the area, that it be ded3cated to the Cixy of Anaheim in order that the area =
. mey be maintained.with the City assuming the responsibility for the main- ;
tenance of: said landsca{:~ing. ( '
Item No. 8: LETTER REGARDING CHURCHES AND LIQUOR STORES: ~
i
A letter received fcom Mr. Harry Miller, dated August 21, 1961, was sub-
mitted to the Commission. The letter made reference to the approval of
s bIC~~1 SS selling liquor and suggesting that the est3blishment of a church
involves.various delays.
The Commission reviewed the letter and noted that the law permits.any in-
- c+iv?dua] to file for an; requested use and that all matters are treated
with equal concern.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley
' and carr3ed, that a letter be tranemitted to Mr. Miller indicating that
his lettnr was reveiwed by the Commission and thanking him for his civic i
~ pride and his interest in the welfare of the citizens of the City of AnaF,eim. ~
~ REPORTS AND _ Item No. 1: LAND USE STUDY - EAST SIDE OF PLACENTIA AVE~UE AT UNDERHILL
RECOMMENDATIONS AVENUE:
~ p Precise Plan for the land use development of the entire block of land .
~ - located on Placentia Avenue north of Underhill Avenue, vias submitted to
~ •the Commission. it was pointed out that the requested study was at the _,
~ directive of the City Council in conJunction with the request for reclass-
ification of property contained in'Petition for Reclassification No.
~ 60-61-96.
The Commission discussed the Precise Plan prepared by the Planning Staff ~ ~
and indiceted that~Exhibit No. 3 appeared to be the most suitable and would
provide che best use of the land. It was noted that the indiceted plan
could not be.adopted as a Prec~:;e Plan of development for the subject area
because a:Pu6lic Hearing was not being conducted by the ~ommission in respect -
`' to the subject area at the present time.
Commissioner Marcoux indicated that the plan agreed upon by the Commission
should be referrad to t~e City Council for fheir consideration.
Commissioner-'.Febley left the Councll Chambers at 6:30 0'Clock P.M:
'~ ' , Item No. 2: LAND USE STUDY - KATELIA'AVENUE, SANTA ANA FREEWAY,
F ~'~r 3i • ' MOUNTAINVIEW AVENUE (Southerly): ,
~,~ i_ }ry{ , , _
~;iF~.,~ A'pracise Plan of tand use dev~lopment for the property ]ncated in the ~
~~' ~~~s~~`f' vicinity:o'• ICa,tella Avenue, Santa Ana Freeway and i~c:luding ~3ountainview
,.> .w .. _
:. . ,. _ , - _
cs~
_., , ,
,
~ ~.
q r: . ; , ,
~ ~ ~. BU5INESSES . . -
^4
'L ..S ~~~. . ~ . . . .
'~r Li.V. .~~ ' '
i ~ ~
a~~ ~ l
rl~ . ~ .~ ~ ~ i
~
A'~N r ~7 y . :
~,~ t ~ L . ~~ !r . , ~"7 +:
e~ ~L ~f~.t1 } 4.
IM1 `~
ry~TJ ~~~u~~ . . ., . ,:;ry ~' _ . : . ~ y}1r.
y~ ~~~;y1` .•' ' ~u,.~.~.x. '. .~, .. ~ . ~~~ ' .. ~, :; F ~ ~ ..,
~~~14YC7f~~!` y 1 ..t..~... _ . _ ..F.~ ti_,..~S.~T'+_a :..Ck .~~.. d.Y:L~/~~'+i~:te? `:~. ~.R'n~ ~~Yl7:t~'~'nM:1'~YFBJ.: ~4'~.i'~..4.JF%1`.3.'lf" _ Y/b7 .~ ~.~+.t ~ : ~,5 .1.... h. d e, ~~ l_ .,~ r 1 c+a>-~1~'
~'~ ,` ~.:, ~ r f ~~ h ~ '.. ~ y s ~~s ~-„'~'e, ~~'~$y;~'~3` . ,l,Rfiv~;k,y'~~.~'iE%'`a, ~,iY''.e~.`,y `s^R . Tar.a:.S°,~r4~.'~tj"'~cf'~'..~CL~i,.~i`.t~~7`'~ ~.r;i . ~4
~r ~ ~ r ~ . . . .
~ ,~~ ^o n h ~ ~ ' I
,,
~ ~~~ _ ~- .~.. . ..
_ y
, . , . . . : '~. ..::.
... . .....~,. ...,-.,~. ......,, .., :..,_.,..
~T^9'~'".l:'.S.H_:' '~~ •' ~
C t`
~.
~ ~ ~
`
,
~ ~ ~., . . , . . . . . . . . : ~ . . ~ . . . . ~ ~ . . . ~ . .;. ~
~ MINUTES; CITY PLANNING`COMMISSION, August 21, 1961, Continued: 351 ~
N _
~ REPORTS AND -.Avenue,:was submifted to the Commission. It was not2d that the requested ~ ~
~ RECpMMENDATIONS study was at the directive of the City Council. ~
Continued ~
The Commission reviewed the proposed plans and land use studies prepared by I
. the Plenning Staff and indicated that Exhibit No. 3 should be recommended i •
~•~ as a Precise P]an of Davelopment for tha subject area to the City Council. .
L . . . ~ . . . ~ . ~ :~ : I ..
~ ~OJOURNMENT - The Meeting was adjourned at 6:45 0'Clock P.M.
~ ~ Respectfully submitted,
~.
~
` ' f
(
~' '~ gnedAbys SMartinrKreidt
~. ~r,,,.:'.= •
cs:
K:; ~ _
~
.
.
_
~ .
~•r.~::~_.r..~
~ ~ ' . . ' ~ ' ~
~ .. ~ ~ ~ .~. . ~
..
~...
~. -.
~ ':~ -'. ~ . ' . . . . . . ~ .
. . . . ~ . . . ~
.
. .
' .
~
~ . . .
.. . . . .
, . . . . .... .:
. .
~ .
. _
. '
.
. ' ' . ~ . . . ' . .
~ . ~ . ~, ~ .. . ~ ~ . 4 _
. . .... ~..~~j:
."~?1
«.t'-~;.~'~
-,~.:,~1`~;';i;. ~