Minutes-PC 1961/11/13~
~ ~ ~
~
- ~'~'~`~~F ` ; _
~~ ~ ~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
November 13, 1961
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the City Planning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Gauer, at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Suimnars.
ABSENT - COMMlSSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
PRESENT - Senior Planner - Marti~ Kraidt
Assistant City Attornay - Jos::Gaisler
Cortmission Secretary - Jean.Paga
INVOCATION - Raverend p. L. Casebear, Pastor of tha First Christian Church,
gava tha lnvocation.
RLEDGE AF - Commissioner Mungall led the Pledga of Allagiance to the Flag.
ACLEGIANCE
~1PPROl~aL OF - The Minutes of the Meeting of Qctober 3Q, 1961, were approved as
MINUTES submittad.
PUBLIC HEARING - PRECiSE PLAN STUDY N0. 28-72-2, rsl~tive to that area bounded on the
north by the alley parallel l'n and midway between lincoln Avenue and .
Chestnut $treet, on the eoyv by S~arbor Boulevard, on the south by
Broadway, and on the west b~ ~Iir~n Street. ~
Subject Pracise Plan 5tudy No. 28-72-2 was continuad from the meeting
, of Oetober 13, 19b1, with the directive that three exhibits be prepared ~
by the Planning Oepartmant Staff, said exhibits to include a plan for
R-3, Multiple Family Residential, development; a plan for development
of the subJect properties in groups of-three iots with r~m~ivai of
residences from one lot in each group for the provision of parking
• facilities; end a plan indicating removal of the axisting structures
for development af an integratad commercial complex. A report, retative -
to the intentions of th~ School District in.respact to the future _
expansion if any of the Fremont Ju~ior High School facilities, was to
' be submittad also to the Commission.
~ Chairman Gauer reviewed tfie discussion held on the subJect matter at
the maeting on Octobar 30, 1961, and offered an opportunity for any
interested parties in'the`audienca to speak before the Commission.
No ona:appeared before the Commission. -
Senior Pianner Marfin- Kreidt dispiayed maps-of the subJect and sursound- ,,.
ing ~rea. He descr.ibed the present,la~d use.of the subJect and abutting ~
properties~ indicating:Lhat ttie subJect propertias contained a pre-
dominanco~of si.ngle famity :restdential devetopmant wi,th the exception I
of a churth located.on the noctheas't:cornar:cf Citron Street and
` Braadway,; tha`use.r~f six lots'for mul.ti~l,e:'family rasidential purposes, ~
a r~ai-estste offiee establtahed in an existing residence, a small ~
_ ~ ,
, ;99 ;
_ . .. y :
.
~
, .: ~ - ,..
,
~ _ .
:. . :
. .~~~~1`;u.ttil~~~_.'-a.., ~:., .~..ti.'< ..::iri~ . ~ r..,.7~..i ,~::..65,..ri~A h.4s._r.eo-. H-.:...?,:,tc~r~_.s.:;r.r'1G .~ --~ .. .,. d:,;
' ~ _' ' _. _ _ .~' c
,- ~ .
MINUTE5,_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1961, Continued:
; _
PUBLIC HEAR!NG - servica station at the intersection of Broadway and Harbor Boulevard,
SContinued7 th~cs small commercial enterprises on Harbor Boulevard and Chestnut
Street and two arcels containin a contractor's ffi d d t'
, p g o ce an a oc or. s
office. He stated that the propertles fronting on Broadway were class-
ified in thu R-2; Two Family Residential, Zona with the exception of
three lots at the intersaction of Broadway and Harbor Boulevard which
,were classified in the C-2, General Commercial, Zone, that the properties
across the alley to the norY~ and situated on.Chastnut Street ware
classified.in the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone,including the
school property~with tha exception of the three lots at the inter-
section of Chestnut Streat and Harbor Boulevard which ware classified
in tha C-2, General Commarcial, 2one, and that the north side of
Chestnut Street was classified in the P-1, Parking, Zone with the
excepti~n of the three lots fronting on Harbor Boulevard which are
classified in Lhe C-2, General Commercial, Zone.
Mr..Kreidt displayed three Precise Plan Exhibits, prepared by the
~lanning 0epartment Staff, and indicated that all tnree plans recommend-
ad that the properties locatad on both sides of•Chestnut Street remain
in their present classification of P-1 and C-2 for the north side of
Chestnut Street and R-3 and C-2 for the south side of Chestnut Street
beca~se said zoning appears to be compatible zoning to serve as a
buffer between the commercial development on Harbor Boulevard and
Center Street and th~ exlsting residential uses in the area. Mr. Kreldt
descr~bed the su99ested development for those properties abutting
Broadway. He indicated that the existing church development on the
northeast cornar of Citron Street and Broadway ~~~s considered a com-
patible use on ali three exhibits, therefore it should be excluded
from the proposed development outlined in the three exhibits.
Precise Plan No. i indicated that R-3, Muitiple Family Residential,
2oning was proposed for the six parcels abutting the existing church
development, that R-2, Two Family Residential, Zoning with an area
reserved for parking facilities, was proposed for the nine parcels
abutting the R-3 Zone, and that the existing C-2, General Commercial,
Zane would remain on the three lots located at the intersection of
Broadway and Harbor Bou'levard. Mr. Kreidt suggested that in the interim,
before a determination could be made and a definite plan established
for the optimum development for the entire neighborhood, it was recom-
mended that~at the present time~any use of the properties for a commer-
cial venture be permitted on~y by variance with a recommended time
limitation of two_years in crder to prohibit the development of a use
that would be incompetible with the existing development in the area.
He also recommended that each variance be considered on its own merit.
.
Mr. Kreidt presented Precise plan No. 2, indicating that it outtined
. , an alternate proposal for the use of the sabject properties. This
plen recommended that 15 lots, situated.between the church development
and the existing C-2 Zone, be classified in the R-3, Multiple Family ,
Residential, Zone and developed in eccordance with R-3, Multlple Family
Residential, Code requirements. He stated that Precise Plan Ne. 2
migtit be considered the highest and best use of the subject prc~perties
regardless of the.ultimete development of the City owned propes•ties
on the south side of Braadway, that removal of some of the structures
and provision of off-street prirking fec,iitties.wi.th accesa fro`m the alley
would be necessary ;for conformance with Code requirements, and that two
story multiple family.rc~sidential deVelopment would be compatible with
the existing two'story;units presently in the area._
Precise.Plan No: 3 Was presented as an additional alternative. It ?
indi"cated-that C-1, Neighborhood Commerciel, zoning was proposed for ;
, nine lots extending westerly from the existing.C-2 Zone to abut proposed ~
R-3, Multiple FamiTy Residenf~al, 2oning for s1x lots extending westerly '
> . , . _ , _ ,. .
. _ _
.,
_: ~. . ..::
;,~ , •
~.. ~,.
,. ' i
~ ~' 1
-_- - . ~.~~,'-6~'.~ ~. k.•: ~~..::~ t .._ it} ...~r..L" t ~i 7.} rn . .~ , _. N.. ~ _. ,. .~ "'. ~E. .. ..!Sh,~. 4.c~; i'~'~1i.7~iR1 ...;:io±:t. ~ . . . o
.~ ~ 3. .,l. ~'.~
' .,r
~ ,
' _
~
~
. '; ,
a u
~ ;::; ,
• ~ :~ :
x';
O ~ ~
501
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13. 1961. Continued:
PUBLIC HFARING - to abut the existing church facility. Mr.'Kreidt stated that the
(Continued) R-3 Zone would discourrge future expansion of commercial uses to the
west, that it was a compatible use with the existing h!gh school and
church facilities, and that it would serve as a buffer for the existing
residential development to the west along Broadway which is presently
developed entirely for residential purposes. It was recommended that '
the proposed C-1 zone properties be developed in groups of three lots, i
that the existing structures be removed, that parking be provided in j
accordance with Code requiremc;nts at the rear with access from the
alley to the north, that a 15 foot landscaping setback be established, i
and that the use of the property be timited to business and professional i
offices only.
Chairman Gauer offered an opportunity for any interested parties to
express an opinion upon the plans presented. • .
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Tl+.e Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject properties:
l. That Precise Plan Study No. l, designated as Exhibit No. 3, is
hereby recommended to the City Council for the adoption as a
Precise Plan for the ultimate development of the subject properties.
2. That the development for commercial purposes of those properties,
as proposed on Precise Plan No. 1, be permitted by the approval of
Petitions for 4ariance only.
3. That seid Petitions for Variance shall be subject to the following
conditions: a) Time limitation for a period of one year s~bject
to review by the Planning Commission at tha expiration of said
period of time; b) Sign limitation to one only~with a minimum of
six (6) square feet; c) All buildings to be utilized under said
variances shall meet Building Code requiremPnts, (Parking facilities
shall be provided in accordance with Code requirements); d) The
residential appearance of the bui~dings shall be maintained; e) Use
of the property shall be limited to business ar professional offices
only.
4. That the development of those properties proposed for R-3, Multiple
Family Residential, toning as proposed on Precise Plan No. 1 is
considered a compatible use and in conformance wi~h the existing
and proposed development of the subject area.
5• That those properties located on the north and south sides of
Chestnut Street remain in the P-l, Parking, 7..one, the R-3, Multiple
Family Residential, Zone and the C-2, General Commerciat, Tone in
accordance with thsir present classi4ication.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 131, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Canmissioner Alired, to recommend to
the City Council the adoption of Precise Plan Study No. l, as outlined
on Exhibit No. 3, for a Precise Plan for the ultiinate development of
the subject properties on the basis of the aforementioned fi~dings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
f ~
F ` '.. ~
t
;:a r
's
a
1
~ ~
a
' S02
,
~ MIPlUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13. 1961, Continued:
C~NDITIQNAL USE - CONTINUED Pl8 LIC HEARING. Petition,submitted by FRANK KROGMAN, 2344
PERM17 ~0. 169 Wagner Street, Anaheim, California, ONner; requestina permission ku
ESTABLISH COCKTAIL LOUNGE IN.C~JNJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, on p,roperty
described as: A parcel 240 feet by 320 feet with a frontage of 240 feet
~' ;~ on,La Palma Avenue and located on tha southwsst corner of La Palma
{ Avenue. and Magnolia Avenue; excepting a parcel 135 feat bv 135 ~Feet
located on the southwest corner of La Patma and Magnolia Avenue:, and
futhar described as ~027 North Magnolia Avenue. Property presently
+: classified in the C-1, N'e1GHBORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of October 30, 1961,
in order to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to submit full~~
dimensioned development plans for review and consideration by the
- Commission, and to obtain a report relative to the landscaping and wall
g requirements imposed upon the subject and abutting properties at the
ti : time of development.
Mr. Frank Krogman, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that he had submitted a revised plot plan for the propose:d
building.
A report was submitted to the Commission indicating that research i~to
the history of the devetopment of the subject and abutting properties
had revealed that the petitioner had paid a landscapiny fee, that
landscaping could be installed immediately upon receipt of a directive
from either the petitioner or the Commission, and that a definite con-
dition in respect,to the installation of walls where the subject pro-
perty abuts the residentlal zone was not specifically included in the
reclassification of subJect property or the development of the residen-
tial tract. It was indicated, however, that the wali requirement mzy
have been cunstruad to be included in the condition requiring compliance
with all engineering requirements. The Commission ~~scussed the attach-
ment of a deed restriction to Petition for Reclassification No. 55-56-29,
which prohibits the establishment of any tyae of drive-in eating estab-
lishment, and Mr. Krogman indicated that the A t~ W Root Beer Stand
established on the subJect property is not considered a drive-in type
of operation because window service is not provided and it is necessary
to enter the buiiding to be served.
I Commissioner Marco~x suggested, in view of the information in respect
to the payment by thc petitioner of a landscaping fee in the amount of
$180 for the landscaping of the subjuct property and the abutting
residential tract, that the Superintendent of Parl,~way Maintenance be
notified to install~as soon as possible,the p~lm trees that were origin-
ally planned for the subject development.
Commissioner Allred noted that at the present time there are severai
signs erected in tfie rigfit-of-way~whicfi will require removal~ and the
petitioner indicated that the signs would be removed immediately.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
E
~ :_
~
The Commission diswssed the completion of the wall along the westerly ,
boundary of subJect property and the petitioner indicated that the ,
alley abutting the subJect property on the west was owned by the City,
therefore he would be Crespassing if he fnst;alled the wail. The
Commission noted that the matter of the wall.installation could be
resolved, that the City might consider assumin,g the responsibility of its,
maintenanae, and that tha petttioner should consider cooperating with
the davelopers of tha abutting property in order to eliminate the
present unsightly appearance of the area. It was also noted that the
petitioner had beer~involved originally in the subdivision of the residen-
tial tract although the pr~sent ownership has been changed and the
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~-- Y-
- -- -- ~_ ( ~ --..
`J
~ t ~
503
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13. 1961 Continued:
CONDITIQNAL USE - development has not been completed. qfter lengthy discussion in respect
PERMIT N0. 169 to the degree of responsibility for the installation of the wall by
(Continued) the developer as opposed to the petitioner, the petitioner indicated
that he wouid endeavor to negotiate with the firm of Doyle and Shteld
for the completion of the wall on a 50-50 basis.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition: •
l. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a cocktail lounge in
conjunciion with a restaurant.
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
proposed to be located.
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate
ta ailow the fuli develcpment of the proposed use in a manner not
detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, sa'fety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use wiit not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to
carry the traffic in the aret~. ~
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 generai welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That the petitioner agrees to negotiate with the firm of Doyle and
Shield for the completion of the existing wall separating the Krogman
property from the single family tract to the south and fronting on
Magnolia Avenue.
7. That the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance is hereby directed to
install landscaping in the uncemented portion of the existing park-
way on subject property in accordance with the requirements of said
Department, cost for said landscaping have already been paid to the
City by the petitioner.
8. That the fioor pians for the interior of the proposed building be
subject to the approval of the City Councii.
9• That na one appeared in opposition to'subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 132, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summers,
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 169, :ubject to the
following condition: ' ,
1. ~evelopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be a
necessary prerequisi~.e 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, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
?erry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
t,..
~_r -~~ .,.~... ? . . . ._
, .,,.
. _.-. : , ._~ . ., . _ . , . ~}.. , ~. , , ,.
:s ,.•-~:
, ~
. ~.J ~
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 1 1 61 Continued:
504
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petltio~ submitted by SIU1S W. LEHMER, 1554
N0. 61-62-38 Cris Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; Rothman-Steen and•Associates,
223 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that
the property describad as: A parcel 480 feet by 1,285 feet with a
frontage of 4b0 feet located on the north side of Katella Avenue between
Nutwood Avenue and Dailas Drive, its southwast corner being approximately
186 feet east of the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Dallas Drive,
be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3,
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition is submitted in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 168.
SubJect petition was continued from the meettng of October 30, 1961,
at the request of the petitiorer's agent,due to an error made in the
Preliminary Title Report submitted with the subject petition.
Mr. Gordon Steen, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the property had originally appeared to be projected
for single family development but that the proposad development was
logical. He described the proposed establishment of a low density garden-
type planned unit development with a circular access drive provided with-
in the development, with the installatior. of a wall enclosing the entire
development,and~~:ithanample amount of recreatlonal facilities and lawn
area.
Mr. Robert Ames, 1759 South Dallas Drive, appeared before the Commission,
submitted petitions of protest containing 171 signatures, and enumerated
the reasons for the objections to the subJect petition and Conditional
Use Permit No. 168. He indtcated that the ob,jecttons were based upon
the possibility that the reclassification and development of subject
property would create spot zoning, transient renters, alleys in an
area that does not have alleys, aileys adJacent to existing homes, danger ,
to children frora additional traffic, a price war on apartment rentals ;
in subJect area, the neGeS~ity of ~hildren Qlaying in the streets or
front lawns of existing homeowners because of the lack of a nearby ~~
playground facilities~addad taxes for existing property owners, lower ~
property values for existing single family residences, and a noise ;
factor. Mr. Ames stated further that there was an abundance of vacant
apar~tments in the subiect area. He submttted a newspaper clipping,
relative to the temporary restraint~imposad by the Planning Commission
of the City of Garden Grove for the development of multiple family
residential units, and presented a cartoon characterization In protest
of the proposed development.
A letter of protest signed by Mr, and Mrs. E. E. Miller, owners of
property in.the subject area, was submitted to the Commission.
The petitioner's agent, in rebuttal, stated that the proposed develop-
ment would not create noise because of the extremely low denstty and
the distance from the adJoining properties. He stated that adequate
recreational facilities would be provided within the development, that
the traffic would be confined within the development with the only
access provided from Katella Avenue, and that a wall would be installed (
surrounding the enttre area. He stated further that there would be ~
approximateiy 7.8 units per acre in the entire development, that one,
twq and threa bedroom apartments would be included in the development,
that trash pick-up arrangements would be made and would be confined to
the interior of the development, and that a fire hazard would not be
created because of the low density of the .development.
Mrs. Betty Marquedt, 1665 South Nutwood, and Mrs. Margaret Richmond
voiced objections to the proposed development because of the encroach- !
_ ; I.
''~~ _... r ..~~...,._5 iL I..~.~:~w.~ ... . .. . .. `::V ~. .... ... :~ , ..... __..._._ ._.... ._'_ __ "" ._
° ~ . ~
f': .
~
_ ~
~- ~
~. '
~
~
~ ..
~ ':.`''
~
~,,.: . .
~
~;~ ~
~
ry, ,_._._,_: ; :;;~;:'s;
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N November 1 1 61 Continued:
505
RECLASSIFICATION - ment into the orange groves presently in the area, the possibility of
N0. 61-62-38
(Continued) a fire hazard, the close proximity to single family residential develop-
ment
nd th
f
, a
e amount o
vacant apartments within the City.
THE HEARING WAS CLffSED.
Commisstoner Pebley indicated that with the installation of a six foot
wall surrounding the entire development~ and with access limited to
Katella Avenue, there would be less noise and traffic generated by the I
proposed development than would be created by a single family residen-
tial development. He stated further that the proposed luxury-type
development would be an asset to the area and appearad to be a suitable
use oftfie subject property.
The Commission discussed the projected extension of the streets abutting
the subJect propertyfor conformance with the proJected street pattern
for the area, and it was noted that cul-de-sacs would be required~at
the terminus of these streets.
Commissioner Marcoux noted that the subJect proparty was surrounded by
single family residential zoning and development, and that a street
pattern had been established for possible futura development and traffic
circulation.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Raciassification No.
61-62-38 be denied on the basis of the following findings:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above
described property from the R-A,.Residential Agricultural, 2one to
the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone.
2. That the proposed reclassificatlon of subject property is not
necessary or desirable for the orderly and.proper development of
the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subJect property does not '
properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally I
established in atose proximity to subJect property and to the zones and.
their permitted uses generally established throughout the community.
4. That the surrounding area is presently classified in the R-l, One '
Famfly Resldential, Zone and is developed for single family residen-
• tial purposes, and the proposed reclassification would constitute
spot zoning in the subJect area.
5• That the proposed development would not permit the completion of ~
the street pattern projecr.e~! for the subject area. . '
6. That verbal protests from residents in the subject area and petitions
of protest containing 171 signatures were recorded against subJect
petition. •
On roll call the aforementioned motion failed by the following vote: ~
AYES: COMMf5SI0NERS: Gauer, Marcoux, Summers. I'
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
I
Commissioner Perry indicated that he did not consider the type of ~
devalopment proposed for the subject property to be detrimentai to the
' surrounding area.
t~ ~~ . . . . . ' ~ ~ .
506
P1INUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1961, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that since
N0. 61-62-38 a majority vote was not obtained, a motion for approval of the subject
_(Gontinued~ petition was in order for cpnpletion of the present consideration of
the subJect petition, and that, if the motion did not receive a majority
vote in order to forward the subJect petition to the City Council, the
petition could be continued and automatically referred to the City
Council after 40 days provided a majority vote was not obtained at
subsequent meetings within said time limitation.
_ The Commission then discussed tha proposed installation of carports
rather than garages. The petitioner's egent indicated that the ends
of the carports would be enclosed and their interiors would not be
visible from adjacent properties. The Commission also discussed the
problem of the stub streets abutting subject property: It was pointed
out that the plot plan for the development could be modified by the
developer so that the projected street pattern could not be completed.
(n response to inquiry from the Commission, the Petitioner~s agent
indicated that the proposed development would be under the control of
one ownership and that a manager would be on the premises at all times.
., a
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to recommend approval of the
subject petition based upon the followi~rg findings:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above
described properties from the R-A, Residential Agriculturai, 2one f
to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential; Zone. ~
2. That the proposed reclassification of sub,;ect property is necessary '
or desirable for the orderly and proper ~evelopment of the community.i
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly I
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in
ciose proximity to subject property and to the zones and their 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 quani~Yy of traffic, which
will be generated by the permitted uses; in accordance with the
circulation'element of the General Plan.
5• That the proposed development will be a self-contained unit,
physical;y separated from existing single-family development to
the east and west.
~. ~
~: ~ .:. :
6. That verbal protests from residents in the subject area and
petitions of protest containing l71 signatures were recorded against
subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 133, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commtssioner Allred,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
~la. 61-62~38 be approved, subject to t5a following conditians:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
2. Dedication of 60 feet from the monumented centerline of Kateila
Avenue (40 feet exis_ing),
3. Preparetion of street improvement ptans and instailation of all
,~ -~-^---~~--^-~- ~ r,_____,..__.,~_.,,~
„ , .. ,.
,_. .... .. .~. .;... .,.. ~..,..~ ."i~ h
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION_, November 13. 1961. Cont.inued:
RECLASSIFICATION - 3mprovements for Katella Avenue in accordance with the approved
N0. 61-62-38 standard plans on file in the office of the City Engineer.
(Continued)
4. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Katella Avenue.
Payment of $25.00 per dwelling unit Park and Recreation fee to be
collected as part of Building Permit.
Provision of areas for adequate trash storage and pick-up subject
to the approvai of the Director of Pub~ic Works prior to Final
Building Inspection.
Subject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 168.
Provision of modified cul-de-sacs at the terminus of Midwood Lane,
Tamara Lane and Folsom Street to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, prior to Final Building Inspection.
Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the west, north
and east boundaries of subject property prior to Final Building
Inspection.
10. Maintenance of a fifteen (15) foot building setback, except for
proposed carports, from the property line on the east and west
boundaries of subject property.
11. Time limitation of one hsnd~ed eighty (18U) days for the~accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4. .
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 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CBMMISSi0NER5: Aii~ed, Gauer, Mungall, Pecley, Perry.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Marcoux, Summers.
ABSENT: CGMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
CONDITIONA! USE - PUBIIC HEARING. Petition submitted by SILAS W. LEHMER, 1554 Cris
PERMIT N0. 168 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; Rothman-Steen and Associates, 223
South Claudina Street, AnaheiR, California, Agent; requesting permission
to ESTABLISH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, on property described as: A
parcel 480 feet by 1,285 feet with a frontage of 480 feet located on the
• north side of Katelia Avenue 6etween Nutwood Avenue and Dallas Drive; -
its southwest corner being approximately l$6 feet east of the northeast
corner of Katella Avenue and Dallas Drive. Property presently classifie
in the R-A, RESIOENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Subject petition is submitted in conjunction with Petition for Reclass-
ification No. 61-62-38.
p rocammendatian was submitted to the Commission that, in view of the
approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62^38, the same condi-
tions be attached to the subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 168.
Mrs. Margaret Raymond, 2026 West Farest Lane, appeared before the Com-
mission and protested against the proposed installation of carports
rather than garages. She stated that although a wall would be provided
on the westerly boundary line, the noise factor that would be created
E
~ ~ ,'~ :
508
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13, 1961. Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE - by the proposed development should be considered. She complained that
PERMIT N0. 168 she was denied permission to erect a carport over the driveway on her
(Continued) property. The Commission indicated that tha matter did not have a
bearing on the subject petition.
Mr. Gordon Steen, the petitionar's agent, appeared before the Commission I
and stated that tha carports would be enclosed, that the aroa would not
be visible from other properties, and that pedestrtan access walks
would ba provided from the parking areas.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and datermined the following facts regarding the ~
subJect petition.
l. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: A planned unit develop-
ment.
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
proposed to be located.
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 ta the peace, hea~Ch, 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
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved ;
to carry the traffic in the area. ~
5• 7hat the granting or" the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions ;
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, heaith, '
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ;
i
6. That the specific waiver of the required off-strPet parking require- '
ment pertaining to the provision of garages for the subject develop- !
ment is deemed to be satisfied by the installation of carports under '
authority granted by Section 18.64.070 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
;. That verbal protests from residents in the subject are•a and
petitions of protest containing 171 signatures, were recorded against
subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 134, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to
grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 168, subJect to the "
following conditions: •
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7.
2. Dedication of 60 feet from the monumented centerline of Katella
pvenue (40 feet existing).
;. Preparation of stre~t improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for Katella Avenue in accordance with the approved
standard plans on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Katella Avenue.
~
~~::~::; {
C_._._.._-.~
~ ~ .
5~9
~ ~
MINUTES. CITY PL ANNING COMMISSION. November 13, 1961, Continued: j
CONDITIONAL USE !
- 5• Payment of $25.00 per dwelling unit Park ~nd Recreation fee to be i
PERMIT N0. 168 collected as part of Building Permit.
(Continned) ~
6. Provision of areas f~r adequate trash storage and pick-up subject
~
to the approval of the Oirector of Public Works prior to Finai
6uiiding inspection. ~
~
7. Subject to the approval of Petition for Rec•.lassificatior ko. i
61-62-38• !
8. Provision of modified cul-de-sacs at the terminas of M'~wood Lane, j
Tamara Lane, and Foisom Street to the satisfaction of tnz City
~
Engineer, prior to Finat Building Inspection.
9. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the west, north, and
east boundaries of subject property prior to Final Building
inspection.
10. Maintenance of a fifteen (15) foot building setback, except for
proposed carports, from the property line on the east and west
boundaries of subject property.
11. Time limitation of one hundred eigh:y (180) days for the accomplish-
mant bf Item Nos. 2, ;, and 4.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order tu
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, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. ~
, NOES: COMhIlSSlONE~S: Marcoux, Summers. ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris. j
.
VARIANCE N0. 14 ~
16- PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by WALTER McBES, 14612 Strong ~
Place, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE
~
~MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT on property described as: An
irregularly shaped parcel with a frontag:: of 43 feet located at the ~
far end of Strong Place east of Laramie Street; and further described ,
as Lot 56 of Tract No. 3706, and also described as 14612 Strong Place. ~
Property presently classified in the R-l, QNE FAMILY RESIDENTiAL, ZONE.
I
Nr. Walter McBee, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and ?
stated he ^ad nothing to add to the information contained in the sub- i
ject petition. I
I
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission reviewed plans for the proposed family room addition
to an existing single family residence.
The Commission fourid and determined the following facts regarding the
subJact petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroachment of fourteen
(14) feet into the required rear yard of subject property.
2. That there are exceptional o~ 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.
' ~:4_ l . .:'~-%~. ~ ~ ,
! 9
, `.;
i
I ;
~ a
~.
~~
Y...
Q . lrJ ~
. . . . . .. } . ..; ..;
. ~ . . . . . .~~~~~~
~ • ~ ~
JIO
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSlON, November 13. 1961. Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1416 -3• That the requested variance ~s necessary for the preservation a~d
~ (Continued~ enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property
in question.
i 4. That the requested variance will not be mat2rially detrimental to
i 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 wtll not adversely affect the Compre-
~ • hensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 135, Series 1961-62, ~
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred to grant Petition for Variance No. 1416, subject to the ~
following condition:
~
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibits 1, 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 welTare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Parry, Summers.
NOES: COMIMISSIONERS: None. `
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris. i
VARIANCE N0. 1417 -PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by ED HUND, 920 North West Street,
Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH AND LOT AREA IN ORDER TO SPLIT LOT INTO 7W0 PARCELS on property
described as: A parcel Iil feet by 192 feet with a frontage of 111
feet located on the easterly side of West Street between Autumn Drive 1
and North Street; its northwesterly corner being approximately 500 ~
feet more or less south of the southeast corner of Autumn Drive and ~
' West Street and further described as 920 North West Street. Property i
presently classified in the R-0, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, 20NE. ~
I
Mr. Chester Brooks, 919 North West Street, appeared before the Commis- !
sion and stated that he was opposed to the proposed lot split of an ~
R-0, Residential Suburban, lot on the bases that the subject area '
should remain in the R-0 Zone, that the number of R-0 lots in the ~
City are gradually being eliminated, and that the proposed ;5 foot
frontage would be inadequate and will be a detriment to the subject
area. He remarked that the large homes presently being constructed
on the northeast corner of North and West Streets were an improvement
to the area a~d that the properties in the subject area should be
encouraged to develop in a similar type of construction. Mr. Brooks
inquired about definite building plans for the subject property, in-
dicated that he did not consider it advisable to permit the lot split
without review of detailed building plans for the property, and
requested that the Commission improve the area rather than permit
construction which might prove to be undesirable. He displayed
renderings of attractive homes and req~ested that the Commission
require similar type of development in the subject area. He stated
his property was lecated on the west side of West Street facing the
subject property and that he wished to maintaintheresidential suburban
appearance in the area, and called upon the Cortrnission to develop a
,. '~` ~~`- _.. _.
~
~
I ':
5
?"
_ ..;.::., . ;.;.. . . . . :. ._.~..:~
. ~ ~ ~ '~~~ ~~~~~~
511
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 13 1961. Continued:
' VARIANCE N0. 1417 -suitable plan for the entire area before permitting smaller homes on the
(Confinued) properties which he considered would have a detrimental effect upon the
surrounding area and would depreciate property values. He expressed
~ concern cna4 aiti-i~uy~ ~ha p~~F~s~d 2Q-- w='-'~d n~rmit hames containing
E." ' ~ 2,000 s.quareJfeet in accordance t:ith Code requirements, that a variance
~;, might be obtained to permit the construction of a smaller residence.
€:.
S
CoRanissioner Pebley noted that the lot split would permit two lots each I
having an excess of 10,000 square feet and that a 2,000 foot residence
would b= required on the subject property. ~I
Mr. Srooks stated that he was not objecting to the lot split in itself~ I
but that he did not consider it advisable to permit the split without ~
revie~+ of def3nite building plans for the property. f
Mr. Ed Hund, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stated that ~
he did not have definite building plans, that he intended to live in the ~
existing residence located on the northerly portion of subject property,
that he intended to sell the southerly portion if the subject petition
were approved, and that the proposed lot width dimensions conformed with
the size of lots abutting subject property on the east. He stated furtherJ
fh~t the lor would remain vacant unless he could split the lot for sale (
and that he was aware of the 2,000 square foot building liveable floor
area requirement.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
The Commission discussed the advisability of continuing the subject ~
petitinn in order that detailed building plans could be provided,in-
dicaking the type of residential development that would be established j
an subject property~ and the possible improvement of the existing j
residence which would be considered a non-conforming residence in the i
R-0 2one.
Lengthv discussion was held relative to the side yard Coc~e requirement
of 109(, of the lot width or a mir.imum of 9 feet for the R-0, Residential
Suburban, 2one, which would protect the abutting properties and still
parmit the cnnstruction of a residence containing 2,000 square feet of
liveable floor area.
Commissioner Ailred offered a motion to deny Petitton for Variance
No. 1417 on the basis Chat the abutting properties were classified in
the R-0, Residential Suburban, Zone and that, in his opinion, the
subject property ehould remain in accordance with R-O, Residential
Suburban, Zone stendards which would tend to up-grade the area~whereas
it would down-grade the area to perm~t the establishment of lot widths
containing less than the minimum Code requirement of 90 feet.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Pebley reviewec7 the matter of side yard requirements and
noted that to impose a requirement greater than 5 feet would reduce the
amount of frontage available for the construction of a residence, which
would tend to affect the appearance of the area, and he noted that in
other`areas desirabie development was achieved although 5 foot side
yards were provided. Commissioner Summers noted that 5 foot side yards
would be adequate. The Commission recommended that the petitioner
consider the improvement of the existing residencein order to improve
the appearance of the subject properties.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regzrding the
subject petition:
:,;i~, d. ~,~:.i,r„ :,a.• ' . ,.~ p~..,~1§.
k .. . _ . ~~--. .. .. .. .. ... ., , . . ....
'~' : ~:, ... ' ~r. t.~t.fi~ tt~' .
I
~
I
. ; `
r:
?'~_. . ~~~:.
!.~ - • ~'
512
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COPIMISSION November 13, 1961. Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1417 -1.
~Continued)
~. _
~
c
7hat tha petitioner requasts a varianca from the Anaheim Municipal "
Code, Section 18.20.030 {4) to permit the split of an existing lot
classified in tha R-0, Residential Suburban, 2one into two (2) lots
with frontagas of 56 and 55.8 feet.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi-
tions applicable to the proparty involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply genarally to the property or class
of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3• That the requested vartance is necassary for the preservation and
enJoymant of a substarttial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property
in quastion.
4. That the requested varianca will not be matarially detrimental to
the public welfare or inJurious to the property or improvemants
in such vicinity and zone in which tha proparty is located.
5. That tha requested variance will not adversaly affect the Comprehen-
sive Ganeral Pian.
6. That the R-0, Residential Suburban, Zone requires, in Code, Section
18.20.020 (4-d), that no dwelling shall be erectad thareon having
less than a minimum liveable floor space of 2,000 square feet.
7. That varbal opposition was recorded against subJect patition by ona
owner of property in subJect area.
Commissioner Summers offered Resotution No. 136, Saries 1961-62, ~nd
moved for its passage and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Pebley,
to grant Petition for Variance No. 1417, sub,ject to the foitowing
conditions:
1. Recordation of a Record of Survey indicating tha lot subdivision on
subject property in accordance with Exhlbit No. l.
2. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
West Street.
3, Installation of sidewalks in accordance with the adopted standard
plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
4. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
mert of Item Nos. l, 2, and 3.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the mee;:3ng and were found to~
be a necessary preraquisite to the use of the proparty in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfara of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passad by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
VARIANCE N0. 1418 -PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by LAWRENCE M. OLSEN, 14(i22 Puritan
Circle, Anaheim, CaliTOrnia, Owner; requesting permiesion to WAIVE MIN-
IMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT on property described as: An irreg-
ularly shapad parcel with a frontage of 39 feet located at the far end of
Puritan Circla'east.of Jamboleya Street; end furthec described as Lot
74 of Tract No. 3~+38~ also described as: 14622 Puritan.Circle. Property
~
.....~ .
513
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1961, Continued:
~
~ .•~
~
~.
VARIANCE N0. 1418 -presantly classified in the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTlAL, ZONE.
(Conttnuad)
Mr. Lawrence Olsen, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and •
°•.a.e~ Fe ha~+ ^cth:zg ta s~d to the 1nP~rmstian car.t~tn~d ta th~ ~n~}eat f
petition. ~ '
The Cw;.nission reviewed constructian plans for the comple~~ .,n of a room I
addition to an existing single famil.;f residance,~construction having
commenced befora subject property was annaxed to the City of Anaheim. ~
E
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED I
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subJect petition: ~ ~
l. That the petitloner requests a variance from tha Anaheim Municipal (
Code, Section 18.24.030 (3) to parmit ancraachment of 19.5 feet i
into required rear yard in ordar to parmit a room addition to an ~
exis;ing singla family restdence.
2. That thara are excaptional or axuaordtnary circumstances or condi- ' ~
tions epplidable to the property involved or to the tntendad use of
tha proparty that do not apply generally to the property or class of
use in tha same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance ts na~essary for tha prasarvation and
enJoyment of a substantial property right possessad by othar pro^
perty in tha sama vicinity and ;one, and denied to tha proparty in
question.
4. That the requastad variance wili not ba matariatiy detrimental to the ~.
pub)lc welfare or inJurious to tha property or improvaments in such
vicinity and zona in which the property is locatad.
5 That the requested variance will not adversely affact the Compre-
hensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject patition.
Commissioner Marcoux offared Resolution No. 137, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Allred,
ta grant Petition for Variance No. 1418, subject to the following •
condition:
1. Davelopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. .
The foregoing condition was recited at tha meeting and was found to be ~
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to perserve
the safety and welfare of the citlzens of the City of Anaheim. ~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the f,ollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Geuer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, I
Summers.
NOES: GOMMi5Si0NER5: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morrls.
VARIANCE N0. 1419 -PUBLIC HEAitING. Patition submitted by SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMpANY, 65 j
Markat Street, San Francisco, California, Owners; Richfield Oil Corpora- j
tion, 645 South Mariposa Avenue, Los Angeles 5, California, A9ent; a
requesting permission for STORAGE AND WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION OF BULK 'i
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND OFFICES FOR SALES PERSONNEL on property described ,'j
. i ~~
..
;r
_ ~ ;~
I '-
~~ .;
'~
,~ : C , ~
.;• E . ~ ,
~....... • ~ ..,.. . ,. ... . . .. _ . . . . . . . ' h . . ... . .. . . _
<~ r , . :: _ .: •. i. . :. ;;.. l~ .: ,.. , . _ .~. . .._ ~`~.. . . , .. . , ,. ~ : i
* . ~~ ~^~ "k1.e~'.`.~oy ~~ ~ <s±`r'~ .,... C~ . .a ~+ ynr .r' > .~ z ~ ` :+,r. -
N[ - -~~H/i.. . ^K?lmnl SHhY~~.q.y, •..ii-.. . ~b...Y.+1Y!%Mik,~;K....:rMC_
~ `!~
.'~
~1
k j
~ ~
+
. ..
' . .
~
. . _' . ~ .
. . . ~
~ F J
. . ~ ,~ ' ~I ~ ' .
~ ~ ~ ~ . .
~1
~~'J
. .
. ~ . .. . ~ . . ' . . . . . . . . ~ . . i
_ 514 ~
MINUTES CITY PIANNING'COMMISSIQN November l3. 1961, Continued: ;
'.'r
VARIANCE N0. 1419 -as:..A parcal 140 feet more or less by.172 feet more or less with a
~Continued) frontage of 140 feet located on the southerty side of Ellsworth Street
and locateu on the southwesterly corner of Elisworth and Olive Streets. ;
Property presently classified in the M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, 20NE. • ,'
~
~ _ _
Mr. R. W. Carter, representative for the Richfield Oil Company, appear~d~ '; :
,
before the Commission and stated the Company proposed to lease the ~
subJect property from the Southern Pacific Railroad Company for the ~ ~
• establishment of a storaae and wholesale distribution outlet for bulk j
patroleum products in conJunction with offices for sales personnal. :
Mr. Carter stated that denial of the subJect petitirn would be dis-
~
criminatory against the subJect property bacause it was classified in
n.r ~.,...
;::~',•:'<?' .
the M-1, Light Manufacturing; Zone and there wera other bulk distribu- .
~
~~.; fi`. ;
tion centers in the area. He stated further that the proposed install-
ation would be in conformance with tha general area and that a wall
ld ba installed to serve as'a buffer to safeguariJ the sin9le family
w ~
ou
residential propertias abutting the subject property on the west. He '
stated further that a wall would be installed on the southerly boundary j
of subJect property, that landscaping would be provided, that the con-
on would be attractiva and of the highest type and would be in
cti
t
.
ru
s
conformance with the ganeral use in the particular area, and that the ,;
tanks wouid be located underground.
The Commission discussed the height of the wall as indicated on the }
plans presented and the petitioner's agent indicated that the company
would be agreeable to the requirement of the installation of a six (6)
foot masonry wall.
Mr. L. A. Ford, 301 Ellsworth Street, appeared befure the Commission ~
~ and stated he was concerned about the. type of facility that would be :
~ ~
~stablished, and that he did not consider the area large enoughfor the ,
{
~ proposed building, the storege tanks and th~ required amount of parking ;
for trucks and automobiles. He stated further that the petitioner
should be required ta comply with Code requirements and that he com ~
sidered the subject property more suitable for a warehouse or similar _
a
use. d
a
Mr. Kenneth Lae, 914 West Center Street, attorney representing owners '
of property in the subject area, appeared before the Canmission and j
presented a petition of protest containing eleven sign~tures. He re- ~, ,
' viewed deveTopment plans and indicated that although the subJect pro- ~
perty was-zoned in Che M-l, Light Manufacturing, Zona he did not con- z
sider the proposed use to be compatib~ with the existing development, ,
that the wall would not provide an adequate buffer, that the premises ,`~
were presently~needed for parking area, and that the proposed develop- ~
ment would create a treffic hazard for the children in the area. He .,~
~ stated further that the residents in the area did not consider it a
~
i
dasirable type of deveiopment and ob,jected to the trucks that +xould be
entering the pcoperty for loading.
. i
:
The petitioner's agent indicated that one gasoline distributing truck - a
' ~ would be located on the property, and that there would be 4 under- ~
. ground tanks at the Presen+_ time. ?
~ eared before the Cammission and stated that he was
Mr. Ceci1 Baiees apP l ;
~
+ leasing Yhe subJect property from the Southern Pacific'Company, said ;~
~ lease expiring the 30th of-November.. He stated further that the cars
" 7
in
parking in the area at the present time would be required to park ~
the street thereby creating a parking probiem, and that the.children :,.~
~r
y wou;ld be denied a playground area if the property were
i:n the area
}~
_~.~:r. s ,
developed for the proposed. use. ~
~s` ~z ~`~
~~t~ . , :
The petitioner's agant indicated that tha`ma,jority of the deli4eries for ~~
.q
~ y
. . . . . ... . .
. . .. -~
'_~ ~
!~. :
. .
. .. . . . ' ' . . . ~ .
~
la
S ~ . ' '
. . . . . . . . ~' . . . .~
F
~ Fi - ~
. . .
.. . . , . . . . ~
.i~
J
Y
~ ( .
>~
. ~ . .. . .. . .
~4
L ,
~
E k
#
.'~ t
~
~
~ ~r
~:,~'
1 <.
f
~
µYC .~~+ l .
.~ . . ... :
~
~~ .~, ~ . ..{.'a~
~,,(
t~ 1~:~J~ "t"'
y- L (.,a~+e, ~~~~~ "~
_ ~..~~°~J.'~..i"G~!.-~L~.Y y...~~...'~t ~.,'~~.~.,.. /r:.:~l~. .._.~ ~~... ,..~., v~....N;w.vin~.~3~~i` \:n'.c_W+h:"~~.. 4..._ ~.. .c',5. }_....,~~. _ ~~''~N4,G..a.,~~,~
~ ~.
,.
. ~ . ~ . . ~ ~. i
.. ... - ~ . ~~
~i
- ,'~ '
515
~
- MINUTES. CITY_ PLANNING COMMISSIQ:1, November 13 i9oi Continued:
VARIANCE N0: 1419 -gasoline products would be made from the Arange County refinery and
~Continued) that the proposed operation would be for the distribution of smaller ~
' commercial uses of petroleum products. •
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' ~~'
!
~ j Correnissioner Pabley tndicated that he considered the subJect property
~ inadequate in size for tho proposed use in view of the possibility of .
future expensian of tha business.
J The Commission discussed the present unsightly condition of the subject
property and Mr. Baines indicated that he had an indef3nite lease for I
agricultural purposes as long as it was not developed and that he was i
~~~ },,,1 agreeable to the recommendation in respect to cleaning the premises. I
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the
proposed use woutd be considered an M-2, Heavy Manufacturtng, Zone use
not allowable in the M-l, Light Manufacturing, Zone, It was pointed
out that the petitioner had an alternate choice of either filing a
Petition for Reclassification of subject property or the filir.g of a
Petition for Variance and that the subject petition was deemed a more
suitable vehicle for the presentation and consideratior of the request-
ed use, because an M-2, Heavy Manufacturing, Zone classification would
permit an encroachment into an area classified En,the M-1, Light
Manufacturing, and R-i, One Family Residential, Zones.
The Comnission found and detormined the following facts regarding the
subJect petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 1$.52.010 to permit the establishment of a storage ~
and distribution outlet of bulk petroleum products ln conjunction
with a sales office. ~
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditians 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 ts not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substanttal 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 be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zoneln which the property is located, because the sub-
Ject property is not adequate to provide for the present installa-
tion and the possible future expansion`of the proposed use, and
because the proposed use is an M-2, Heavy Manufacturing, Zone use
which is not suitable for the M-1, Light Manufacturing, 2one,or
• compatible with the abutting R-l, One Family Residentiel, Zone.
5. That verbal opposition, in edditto~ to a petition of protest
containing 11 signatures, was filed against subJect petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Rasotution iJo. 138, Serias 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissi:?ner Summers,
to deny Petition for.Variance No. 1419 on the beses of the afore-
' mentioned findings.
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
,; ~
i~
- ;;',
~„
;:~ :
~ - :::; i
`:'%;
.:,:,
`
~3;~±
y:r~;:',.:'i A;:~i •'1`„~,.;v
J Y ~ ; ,~. (y : 1 ; . . +~)d~ ~ t N,~,r- `3 .. J.'`'iY*C~3 f r~ L ..3,. , '~.
~ ~ ~ . ...N'+.;«K. . -a ~ ~+' .~.. "^ r.. w„ ~~ ~ ~, ~
} i • ~ ' ).-. ~ i
l
\~ ~
1 ~ ):
~
' . . . . ~ -4.~;~ ~i55"L, i~ . . ___I ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~' ~. . . ~ .
~ ~ . 516
MINUiES. CtTY PLANNING COMMISSION. Novembar.13. 1961, Continued.
VARIANCE N0. 1419 -AYES: COMMISS{ONERS: Rilred, Gauer, Pebley, Summars.
Continued} NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Marcoux, Mungall, Perry.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris
C~tssianer Perr~ not~d tl:at ~a constdsred tha gropas~3 use ta ba
' suitable because of the Rresent condition of the subject area and that ~ ~
~ the installation would be an improvement to the s~bJact property. ~
!
F 1}ssistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that, in .
„
!
• view of tha majority vote by the quorum present, which is required for
the approval or denial of a Petition for Variance, the subject petition '
could be referred to tha City Council either by an appeal, by an action
~,,+::-;. of the Council, or by a motion by the Planning Commission.
~ ~r ~~ ~
~ Commissioner Marcoux offerad a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mung~ll
' and carried,that Petition for Variance No. 1419 be raferred to the City
Council to ba scheduled for public hearing and consideration by the -'
Council.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by OOROTHY BRUNSON, 1649.Laurel Glen ~
PERMIT N0. 176 Road, Santa Cru~, California, Owner; Ben Rochelle, 5525 Carlton Way, ~
~ Los Angeles 28, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN
AUTOMATIC CAR WASH on property described as: An irregulariy shaped
parcel witfi a frontage of 205 feet located on;the east side of Beach
Boulevard between Lincoln and Orange Avenues,;':its northwest corner being
approximately 175 feet south of the southeasf cocner of Lincoln Avenue
' and Beach Boulevard and further described as.130 South Beach Boulevard.
~ Property preeently classified in the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~ The petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated there was i
e
~ nothing to add to the information contained in the subJect petition. •
~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
f {{{
Interdepartmental'Committee and Staff recommandations were submitted to I
~ the Commission. Commissioner Allred indicated that the use should~be ~
s. iimited to an automatic'car wash only. (
k ~
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
~ subject petition:
t l~-
1. Thet the proposed use is properl~!;"one for which a Conditional Use
E--~ Permit is euthorized by this Code, to wit: an automatic car wash.
~ 2. That the proposed use ti~ii not adversely affect the adJoining land '
~ uses and the growth and development.of the area in which it is pro- -
~ M ,. : . posad to be located... _ ~
~• 3. -That the size and:shape'of the site proposed for the use ~is adequate .
to allow;the'fu1T devalopment of the proposed use in a mannec not
detrimental'to the particular area nor to the peace, health; safety,
' end general: welfare of the citizens of the City of`pnaheim.
~~ 4. That the traffic generatad by the pro~~sed use will not impose an
undua burden upon th~e streets,and highways designed and proposed to
carry the treffic in the area.
~
~ `~:<;,r . S.- That.the granting'of.the Conditional Use Permit under-the conditions
xr `,"'~ > . impo5ed, if any, wfll not be detrtmental to the peace, health, safety,
b~t{~
' and general walfare of the citizens.of the City of Anaheim. ';;
, yr~
~ .~
~ ~~,~,~~
,1;~Y~n.,~
~~: ~~h~ ,
'
6.- 7hat no one appeared in opposition to subject.petition.
~ ~ .
p' ~ ;
T3
'~h F~ ; ~ . ~ ~ .
. . . . .
~*y.
~' . .
.. ~
?~ e4r~ ~ ":,1
~
1/ { ~'.iu~ 1._. x ~. '.~,, ~ .,. , . .
. . ~ . . . ~ .
,
^ . ; . , ~ ~ ~ ~
.~ .
~. ~ ,
.. ' . ~
'
~, _~ ~
h ~.
~1 .
..
_
.
~`
~ ~
t~ r ~ ^' p
~~
~ y s~~! ~i
.
.
,
~ GF '
r h ~, J
i
J4'
~
4
u j
'
:'
' ~ ..'.
^rs-
~ µr
F
'
.
tl M . ~.
r LfS~t +.~-. ~
1 ~ Y ; ~ ~
~
t
~ .
1
.: .- ~; . .
. ~. : -
~, . .~. ~ ~
:': '., ". ~ . . ", , 1~ ~i.
V . 1 c.
4 ~ ', f ~~ ~~,`p ~
?
,j
..4w.~E~51
G'~'
.'~,
r .. .. ......, r» ' . ...,.
}"~.~U.. , i:^X~~/~.. ^~~1 .~ . .Y .t.MiUR.1. L x.hNlF~.,~G~.... 1 <~llt,~ A :L . r.~.t. .- ttMC) .ratsn~ ta~GrN.C:v. I.Y.h 4.~lVAtllufrw. . .i.. ~~ . .ii .. . T t~ ~~.. , .. .,. ~
1i. iti ~7?~!
~
~
~
517
~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13. 1961. Continued: ~
~ CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Atlred offered Resolution No. 139, Series 1961-62, and
, . _,
~ i
F_
~
k
~,. ,
F . '
F., ~~~~.. .
PERMIT N0. 176 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to
(Continued} grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 176, subject to the
following conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2,
with the provision that all aroaosed landscaaina shall be installed
prior to Final Building Inspection and with the further provision
that plans for the proposed landscaping of the Beach Boulevard
parkway shall be submitted to and subJect to the approval of the
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance.
2. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all
improvements for Beach Boulevard, subject to the approval of the
City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on
file in the Office of the City Engineer.
3. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Beach Boulevard.
4. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 2 and 3.
„ 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 pre-
serve 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, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Summars.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by CHARLES W. and MATH•ILOA A. DIEKMpWN,'~
PERMIT N0. 177 2134 Pine Avenue, Long Beach, California, Owners; C. F. St~einen, 11920 ~~~
O1d River School Road, Downey, California, l~gent; requesting permisslon
to ESTABLISH A 54-BED SANITARIUM on property described as: an irregularly
shaped percel with a frontaga of 150 feet located on the west side of
Magnolia Avenue between Lincoln and Crescent Avenues; its southeasterly
corner being approximately 338 feet north of the northwest corner of
Lincoln and Magnolia Avenues. Property presently classified in the R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
,
....~....r.. ~....~... . ,....,..: '. n:'.'r'//.
The pettfioner appeared before the Commission and stated that a previous ~
request to establish a sanitarium on fhe subject property had been ~
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in June, 1961, and
that the present petition was for permission to establish a sanitarium
for ambulatory and non-ambulatory patients.
The Commission reviewed development plans and discussed the narrow drive-
way access indicated on the plot pie,ns for the provision of access to the ~
parking area at the rear of subject property. The patitionar indicatecl
that tfie same plan had been approved previously, that the petitioner had
sold the abutting,property to tlie south therefore the driveway access
could not be increesed, and that the parking area was in:excess of Code
requirements.
The Cortanission dis wssed the possibility of,revising tha development
plans in order to increase the access area, and the. petitioner indicated
that it would require app~•oximately a one year period of .ime in which to
obtain the approval of the State Departmen:t.of Welfare, the Fire Depart-
I
_ _ ,
.. _ -,.. ,-.
;z
~~
A
... . ~ ~ ... r . ~ Y .. ...~.;:-i il. V..F_ .. -..,t. ... . i_..... i. ~. ~ . f ~: ( 3
;ryrx, ~.:'.:r.~. .. s.,:.»+, ..irv,.~... ' ~ ~.:„~ r.A.;+~a.n:; 2-n;:~v:,ar~?,cc -_.._ . _.., . . _ .,.,.
~ f:: ~.~ ;5~
~~. Wi:
.
'r'
,y
f . . .
'
~
f
~
a ,i
~.._ ~ ~_. ..
. . ~ . . .
~••
518
~ ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13. 1961, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE - ment, and other agencies that were concerned with the proposed type of
PERMIT N0. 177 development. He stated further that the abutting property had been sold
(Continued) after the Commission and Council had approved the previous plans. The
~. Comnission discussed the problem of providing adequate access area for
fire trucks and indicated that the ptans approved by the previous
~ , ~ application should be reviewed.
RECESS
RECONVENE
_H
!.,
E . 0 :.
~
k
- Chairman Gauer called for a recess at 4:20 0'Clock P.M. in order to
obtain records from the Planning Department tn respect to the subJect '~
property. j
- Chairman Gauer called the meeting to order at 4:30 O~Clock P.M. ~
The Commission reviewed the development plans submitted with Special I
Use Permit No. 75 and discussed the possible revision of plans to permit ~
one-way access drives 8 feet in width on the north and south sides of
the proposed building to provide ingress and egress to the interior
of the subject property. Wall requirements were also discussed and it
was noted that the Code would require the installetion of walls contiguous
to those areas reserved for off-street parking facilities, and that a
six foot chain link fence w~s installed along the Flood Control Channel. .
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 this Code, to wit: A sanitarium for ambula-
tory or non-ambulatory patients. ;
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land
usas and the growth and developmer.*. of the area in whlch it is pro- a
posed to be iocaLed. ~
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate
to allow the full developmer.t of the proposed use in a manner not •'
detrimental to the particular area nor *.o the peace, health, aafety,
and general welfare of the cltizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed '
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 the citizens of the Gity of Anaheim.
6. That no one appeared in opposttion to subJect petition.
3
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 140, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summe~s, '
to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 177, subject to the
following conditions: '
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. l, 2, and ~
3 as amended to pravide accass drives 8 feet in width on the north __
and south sides of the building, and with the installation of all
proposed landscaping prior to Final Building Inspection, plans for
landscaping propo'sed to be installed in the parkwey portion abutting
Megnolia Nvenue to be submitted to and subject to the approval of
the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance.
2. Inetallation of a six (6) foot masonry-wall on the southerly 259•54
feet of subject property and the easterly boundary of the parking
_ _~.. .,f: --,-
~ ~ .,;"',~: : , l-',. .: , . . , _ ., ~. v. ~ .. . F a .,..
z;Y
: .:
.,:utl __. "s_':}. t.~.i, ~' -
. . . ~~~ ~ W . . ~ ~~~..~. . .
519
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13. 1961. Continuad:
,: ;.
CONDITIONAL USE - area prior to Final Building Inspection.
PERMIT N0. 177
(Continued) 3. Installation of all improvements for Magnolia Avenue in accordance
with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City
E~~yi iaar. (
' !
~ 4. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for streat lighting purposes on ,
Magnolia Avenue.
~ 5• Provision of utility easaments along exterior boundarias as deter-
• mined to be nacessary by the Director of Public Utilities to `
adequately serve the subJect proparty and other property. ~
6. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days fur the accomplish- ~
mant of Item Nos. 3, 4, and 5. . ~
The foregoing conditions were recitad at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serva the safety end weifara of the citizens of tha Ctty of Anaheim.
On roll call tho foregoing resolution was passad by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrad, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Petley, Perry,
Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
_ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris. ',
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by CALVIN 1. PEBLEY, 824 Ramblewood
PERMIT N0. 178 Drive, Anahaim, Californta, Owner; Ralph Dornette, 1623 East Verde
Circle, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permtssion to ESTABLISH
A TEMPORARY CHURCH on propc~rty described as: A parcel 127 feet by 140 ,
feet with a frontage of 140 feet located on the northerly side of Arlee
Place between East and Orange Streets; its southeasterly corner being
approximately 240 feet west of the northwesterly cornar of Arlee Place
~ and East Street and further described as ;021 Arlee Place. Property
presently classifiedin the M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, tONE.
Cammissioner Pebley left the Council Chambers.
Mr. Ralph Dornette, 1623 East Verde Circle, appeared bef~re the Commis-
sion and stated he had nothing to add to the information containew in
the subject petition.
(n response to inquiry from the Commission, the petitioner's agent
indicated that the temporary church to be established on subject
property would be utilized by the East Anahaim Christian Church for
a one year pe~iod of time.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '
The Commission raviewed plot plans submitted with subJact petition and
noted that the parking area had never been lined in accordance with
Code requirements.
The Comnission found and datarmined the following facts regarding the
subject petition.
1. That 2nti proposed use is proparly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a tamporary church.
2.. That the proposed use wiil not adversaly affect thr; adjoining land
. uses and the growth and davelopment of the area in which it is
preposed to be located.
~-~,~i:~,e•S)`i, rr.:~..., .,`., . .,.. . .. , ,. ....,- ~ . , .. . . l,' .. ~..`..... _ .e.~ ,_ '~ d..t:Y .. ~. t_7•',S. . ,.., ., ._._ .....__ .
1
;
. 1
a
~
~
~-- -~~'~~~
:~
,
,' <<~
~ 5
~: j : . . ~ . ' ~~ ~ ~..
..
~.... ..._~ ', ' . .
~ . -
~
. ;:~ _ -'' . ~~~ .
520
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISS!^u November 13. 1961. Continued:
E'
G• CONDITIONAL USE - 3• That the size a~d shape of the site proposed for the use is
~ PERMIT N0. 178 , adequate to allow the fuli development of the proposed use in a
~Continued) manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
~ ~ - health, safety, and ganerai weifar~ af ii~e citizans af the City
of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed usa will not impose an ~
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to ~
carry the traffic in the area. I
i
5. That the gr2nti~~g of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions (
imposed, if any, :~ill not be detrimental to the peace, health, ~
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That no one appeared in opposttion to subjeot petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 141, Series 1961-62, and I
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to ~
grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 178, subJect to the
foilowing conditions:
1, Development substantially in accordance with Exh~ibit No. 1 with the
provision that the parking area be striped in ~ccordance with Code
requirements.
2. Time limitation for the period of one (1) year subject to review ~
by the Plan.ning Commission at the expiration of said period of time,
The foregoin~ conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequ3site to the use of the property in order t~
preserve 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: GOMM!SSIQN~RS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry, Sun~mers.
NOES: COMMISS;ONERS: None
ABSENT: CON9NISSIONERSt Hapgbod, Morris, Pebleyo
Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chambers.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by DOROTHY ANTES, 2021 Blanchard,
N0. 61-62-43 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that the property described as:
A parcel 85 feet by 120 feet with a fronta9e of 85 feet located on the
east side of Placentia Avenue between La Palma and Underhill Avenues;
its northwest corner being approximately 660 feet south of the southeast
corner of La Palma and Placentia Avunues and further described as 420
North Placentia Avenue be reciassified 4rom the R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the. C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
No one was present to represent the subject petition. ~
Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried; to continue the subject petition until later in the meeting
in order to provide an opporfunIty for the petitioner or her representa- ~
tive to appear before the Commission.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition sybmitted by HENRY and ROSA STEINBRINK, 516 s!
N0. 61-62-44 Revere $treet, Anehei,m, California, Owners; Rothman-Steen and Associate ,4
~ 223,South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that
~ the property described as; •PARCEL l: An irregularly shaped parcel with
a frontage qf 230 feet on Santa Ana Street end a frontage of 750 feet
more or less on Placentia Avenue and located orr the southwesterly corner ~
i
., ,`
• _ ~_
_ f
, ,,.., . • , ,
, ;;
, < _ , ,,.,
,
r;~. . ;. .~ g~~ .~, ... . .., ~. 1_.~~'wirYi~a !, ,t .a. ~ ~~ T~ r.~~ .na ..:p~ , ~ ~`~: .'.: ~ i.
_ .. ,...,. ~. : ~ ~ _,~', :: ~ i
, . . . ..~' l~f~'d. .-...~*.c.,r, .. ~.....t . 1 . - ~ ~o ~' ~a . ?S~_ '.YSlG. '".Yt~S1A{~:}F!RFi-`,. ...---,--~-•---_-r.'+-- .. . . ...,1~: ,. t ..
i: i
MINUTES CITY PtANNING COMMISSION November l3, 1961, Continued:
~ I
~
~ .,
r
„>
~: . _
RECLASSIFICATION - of Santa Ana Street and Placentia Avenue; excepting an irregularly ~
N0. 61-62-44 shaped parcel with a frontage of 110 feet on Santa Ana Street and a
~Continued) frontage of 125 fee.t on Placentia Avenuo and located on the south-
westerly corner of Santa wna 5treet and ~iacentia Avenuz. ?RRCcI 2: ~
An irregularly shaped parcel with a frontage of 110 feet on Santa i
Ana Street and a frontage of 125 feet on Placentia Avenue and located I
on the southwesteriy corner of Santa Ana Street and Placentia Avenue be
reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1,
NEIGHSORHOOD COMMERCIAL (Parcel 1), and C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL (Parcel 2),
20NES.
Subject petition is submitted in conJunction with Petition for Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 174.
Mr. Gordon Steen, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission~
and described the proposed reclassification of the subject property to
the C-3, Heavy Canmercial, Zone for the existing service station located
on the southwesterly corner of Santa Ana Street and Placentia Avenue, ;
and to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone for the development of a I
neighborhood shopping certter abutting the service station facility on
the west and the south. He indicated that a doughnut shop, a small
market, various small shops, a laundromat, and a hamburger shop would
be installed at the present time with a proposed professional office
building to be constructed at a later date on the portion of subject
property fronting on Santa Ana Street. He cited the need for a small
neighborhood commercial development within waiking distance of the
adJacent residential section to the west of subject property and quoted
statistics indicating that the number of families in the area would
support the propased development. He stated further that the traffic
on Placentia Avenue served as a barrter for pedestrian shopping at the
larger shopping center located on the east side of Placentia Avenue
at Anaheim Olive Road.'
~. 1'he Commission reviewed development plans and noted that the proposed
developme~*_ reGuired ~53 parking spaces in accordance with Lode re-
f- quirements for the amount of proposed building area, whereas, 95 park-
ing spaces were indicated on the plot plan. Mr. Steen stated that he
,. had computed Y.he amount of parking area and was under the impression
that tt was in excess of the amount required. Code requirements for
the subject pcoperty were read to the Commission.
Mr. David White, 1923 East Santa Ana Street, inquired about the pro-
roperty abutting Santa Ana 5treet and was informed
posed use of the
p
that the property was indicated for the future site of a professional
office building. •
~•' Mr. F. H. Moore, 915 5anta Ana Street, requested information and re-
~' viewed development plans for the proposed center.
~ ~ The Commission dis wssed the inadequate amount of parking area indicated
on the plot plen and it was pointed out that under the present provision
in the Code, a walk-up type restaurant would be considered in the same
category as a drive-in, for which the Code specified the amount of
parking required, and that tha park'sng requirement•was related to the
~ use as specified in the Conditional Use Section of the Code.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
r a , Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised .the Commission that the
~~ '~ proposed walk-up hamburger shop and doughnut shop were not basically
~ r:"~ different from a driJe-in, the only difference being that the customec
?~'~~~~ ` was not served in"the car, end that, if they ware considered an allow-
~ri~~ r
. ; able use;on the subject property, the aniount af„parking indicated by
.
,~~ .
~
:'' _
-
'' _
~:~ _
~5... "1 ~ ... ~ ~ .. , . . . .. ~ . . . . .
)
~{
~ ~ ' - ..~ ' , '
i ~
~~ . ... . ~ ~ . ' . ' ..
{ . . . . . . .
- .. .
'E.7?~;Li~•<
F'~`. ` ~~ 8! ~'? _.'~b .iih?f:~~f .~.1 _ ..-}lr.. .1~ ..~.tx ,./Yi _ .~; ~ -~~..,~Yi-rOYi~"~.':.A2LH7fR'f,~•2::b~ ~_
~j ~ ' _.~ .. ..,_ . , .., ,. ~ . . . w . _
~
~~
u+?~ y:y, ,~ ~ : ~ ~ ..: , ... . ..
~ ..e.;'ta.~~'~.~:i:r'?~tr'+uk~wa~.~',..cr,:.
y~ V
y,, a
e: :
~ r . . ~ . ~ ~. 1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;
~ i_ .
1
MINUTES: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13. J961. Continued:
522
- RECIASSIFICATION -the Code would serve as a guide for such establishments. He indicated
N0. 61-62-44 further that the proposed walk-up facilities were covered by Petition for
(Continued) Conditional Use Permit No. 174 and that the subject petition concerned
the matter of establishing the use of the property for neighbr..;hood
[ ` ,. commerciel development.
L
~ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
~.,w. .,..~ . . ._...
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassifization of the above de-
~ scribed praperties from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to
the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE (Parcel 1) and the C-3,
HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZOk:: (Parcel 2).
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary
or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3. 7hat the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in 4
close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per-
mitted uses generally established throughout the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require
dedication for ar.d 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.
~o~issicner Ms;ngall 4ffgretl R?S~~LLl4!1 No, 143; Ser9es 1961-62, and ~
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to ~
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-44 be approved, subject to the foliowinr. conditions: ~
i
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 2 as
amended, to provide perking area in accordance with Code requirements,~
said parking area to include that area designated for the future
building site of a professional office building. ~
2. Provision of landscaping in the parkway portions of Placentia Avenue ;
and Santa Ana Street abutting subject property, plans for said ~
landscaping to be sumbitted to and subject to.the approval of the ~
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and to be installed prior to ;
Fina1 Building Inspection, except that said landscaping shall not j
be applicable to existing service station. '
i
3. Dedication of 53 fee.t from the monumented centerlfne of Placentia
Avenue (30 feet and 50 feet existing). .
4. Dedication of 30 feet fran the monumented centerline of Santa Ana
Street (24r75 feet existing).
5. Preparatton of street improvemant plans and instailation of ali im-
provements for Placentia Avenue and Santa Ana Street, subJect to
the approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted
standard plans on file in the -0ffice of the City Engineer.
6. Paymant of $2.00 por front foot for street lighting purposes on
Placantia Avenue and Santa Ana Street.
7. Tima Timixation of one hundred eighty..(180) days for the accomplish-
:.?l+,.,lJy'. ,:::i~~S~
ii
_ ,y,
..,,>
_ + ~ ~~;
. ,. .:.~. '?.. . ~ . ~ . ,. ,. . ~I -~,. .,? ~..:... ,1!~ <,~>+:.. fl.`'.~ ...-!~,' .f _...#1,.~+:.t .. . . . . . . , .. . .,~ s .~. yrb
. . . . . ~ , ~ .. . . .
_ u/4 ~`^
Lf~ `
l . . . .
~ ... ..
~
f
d'/
~'
4'.'.
~_
~ ~~~~~ ~
. 1
1
. . . ..
523 ~
~. { MINUTES. CITY PIANNING COMMISSION. November 13. 1961. Continued:
ment of Item Nos. 3, 4, 5. and 6.
Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the southerly and
westerly boundary lines where subJect property abuts the R-l,
One Family Resldential, Zone prior to Final Building Inspection.
Subjact to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 174..
~ 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- I
~
~ serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of ~he City of Anaheim.
y1 ~ . :,:
F
~ On rolt call the foregoing resolution was passed bythe following vote:
;
~.
'
AYES: COMM!SSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: C6MMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
~
a
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by HENRY and ROSA STEINBRINK, 516
;: PERMIT N0. 174 Revere Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; Rothman-Steen t~ Associates,
's. 223 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting per-
miss.ion to ESTARLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT arid WALK-UP DtlNUS SHOP on
~
~ property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel with a frontage of ;
230 feet on Santa Ana Street and a frontage of 750 feetrtore or less on ~
~.`- Placentia Avenue and located on the southwesterly corner af Santa Ana I
~
!' l
Street and Placentia Avenue; excepting an irregularly shaped parcel with
;`' a frontage of 110 feet on Santa Ana Street and a frontage of 125 feet I
, on Placentia'Avenue and located on the southwesterly correr of Santa
qna ~creet and 'riac~ntia Avenue. ~raper~ey prese~~tiy ctass~`i~~ ~~s
'a::
'
the R-A, Residential Agricultural, 2one.
~
_
;;
Subject petition is submitted in.conjunction with Petition for Reclassi-
f. '
fication No. 6t°52-44.
Mr. Gordon Steen, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission
a~d discussed tha amount of parking area for the proposed development of
~` a neighborho~d commercial shopping center including a walk-up hamburger
shop and a doughnut shop.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Tha Commission reviewed development pians and noted that the proposed
~ development required 5S additional parking spaces in order to comply
~. with Code requirements for the amount of floor area indicated. The
~_ Commission diswssed the possibility that the required amount of park-
f ~ ing might prove to be more than necessary for the proposed use of sub-
ject property.
Commissioner Mungall suggested that the area indicated for the future ~
professional office buiiding be paved and utilized for parking area '
until such time as a determination is made as to whether the shoppin,n., ~
center would require additional parking area and that, in the event
it was proven to be unnecessary to raquire the entire amount stipulated
by the Code, a Petition for Variance could be filed in order to con-
struct the proposed professional office building.
Mr. John Rothman, tha petitioner!s agent,,appeared before the Cortmission
and stated that the market'proposed for the subJect p.roperty would not
generete the volume of treffic thet is attracted by a large super
market because it would cater basically.to neighborhoad tcade. _
, i .
. _ . .._ - -- -•.~. s;
-,
__-__.~ ,..
~. ., ~. ~.. ..„..:: ~.i.-.. ~~r,C~_iiu. o~ _ ~ u< ..v ~....~- .. .~ :.:.. . -.~ ~...`i -J ~ .~,~ . ~ . -~~ ~ , .
,.,..::. . ~:i,i~ , . /,..,iktir.t...~. ,.~~~.._:~~.t.,r.a~~...ti ,_ ., „r,~r...
524
MINUTES CITY P.LANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1961. Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE - Comnissioner Pebley indicated that the paving of the area mi~ht create
PERMIT N0. 174 anunnecessary expenditure of money. Commissioner Perry indicated,
(Continued) however, that the Commission had estabiished the policy of requiring
the stioulated amount of parktna in accordance with Code requirements
for other developments because It was considered a necessity and that
a definite policy should be adhered to. Commissioner Allred indicated
that he considered the proposed number of parking spaces would be
adequate for a neighborhood shopping center but it was pointed out
that the subject property was lo~ated on a major thokoughfare which
might attract more than a neighborhood trade. ~
Assistant City.Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission to specify
that the area proposed for the future building construction be utilized
for additional parking in order to comply with.Code requirements and
that in the future, if plans were developed for the addition of the
proposed professional office building, the Commission would be pro-
vided with an experience factor for determining the amount of parking
that would be necessary, and on that basis could grant a variance for
the office building provided it were deemed a proper development.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject FFtition:
1. That the r,roposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a walk-up restaurant
and a walk-up doughnut shop in conjunction with other commercial
:' :;fatilities on subJect property.
T_. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located.
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed :'or the use is ad-
equate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
heaith, safety, and generai weifare of the cittzens of the Ctty
of Anaheim.
4. ThaY the tra`fic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed
to carry the traffic in the area.
5. That the granting of, the Conditional Use Permit under the condi-
tio~:s imposed, if any, will not be detrlmental to the peace, health
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That, in order to comply with the parkino ~equirements of the
Anaheim Municipal Code for the propo~~d development or subject
property, that area indicated as tne sita for the future develop-
ment of a professional office building shall be blacktopprd and
striped end utili~ed for par!<ing. Any futur.e plans for the
construction uf.addiLion?: buildings will rer. ;re the filing and
approv~i of a Petition for Variance fram the parking requirements
stiralated by the Anaheim Municipal Code.
7. 7hat no one appaared in opposition ~o subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 143, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its pessag~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summers,
. to grant Petition,foi- Conditional Use Permit No. 174, subJect to the
fol,loHing conditions:
1. Oevalopment substenttally ln ectordanae wi.th Exhibit No. 1 as
~:;i -
. ~.:'~. . .. ..
. i . : .. f'. "
.. . .~.
:~~; . . ~..l r~Y , r.:t 4.:~:.. ~ ~ ... , , ._ , i . '
{~.~ ~ ~ ~
,--= ---- .
~'
~' . .
~
~
525
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1961, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE -
PERMIT N0. 174
(Continued)
F
~
~. ~
~,
amended, to provlde parking area in accordance with Code require-
ments, said parking to include that area designated for the future
building site of a professional office building.
2. Provision of landscaping in the parkway portion of Piacentia
Avenue and Santa Ana Street abutting subjact property, plans for
said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of
the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and to be installed prior !
to Final Building Inspection, except that said landscaping shall notl
be applicable to existing service station. ~
~I
3. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of Placentia l
Avenue (30 feet and 50 feet existing). !
4. Dedica'tion of.30 feet frorri 'the'monumented center.line of Santa Ana ~
Stceet (24.75 feet ..exi sti ng) . . . .. , .. ~ . . ,.. . . '
5. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for Placentia Avenue and Santa Ana Street, subjact to
the approval of the City Engineer and in accordance wlth the
adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting puraoses on
Place~tia Avenue and Sant~ Ana Street.
7. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (184) days for the accomplish-
ment of item Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
8. Provision of a six (6) foot'masonry wall on the southerly and
westerly boundary iines where subject property abuts the R-1, One g
ranily °asidar~tial, Za~a p~3ar ta Finei 8uiiding inspection.
9. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-44.
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 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, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, ~
Perry, Summers. ;
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by IRVING DUMM, P. O.~Box l, Natoma,
N0. 61-62-45 California, Owner; Albert Johnson, Jr., 9776 Katella Avenue, Suite "L",
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as:
A parcel 272 feet by 1,136 feet with a frontage of 272 feet located on
the east slde of Magnolia Avenue between Ball Road and Cerritos AVenue;
its northwest corner being approximately 1,285 feet more or less sou:h
of the southeast co~ner of 8ali Road and Magnolia Avanue be reclassified
~ from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3, MULTtPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,.ZONE.
Subject petition is fi,led in conjunction with Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 175 for the establishment of a planned unit development
: ~r; on subject property.
L y 5 ~ ~ ~~. . . ,.. , . .,~ . . . .~.., _... . ._- ~ . . . ,
Mr. irving Dumm, the petitioner, appearad before the<Commission end,
~~.~ in response to inquiries from Mrs. Richard Peckron, 2543 Chanticleer
`~ ~'s
~ ;~ ,
, , a: ~ ,
r
~
~. '
t
~ ~~. c=Jyr. ~ .. .:;~1'. , ~ ., , , t, ~ ~,. , ,.. .. , ..~k. ., . , ..,^ .. . ..r_r.."a~v, ... ~ _ --- -'
~
~
_ ~ . ..`
~
~.
~ .. _
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 13 1961 Continued:
~
,
526 ~ ~ ;
RECLASSIFICATION - Road, stated that the proposed ~lanned unit development would consist
N0. 61-62-45 of single family dwellings, that the ercrance would be from Winston
(Contir.~ed) Road, and that the parking area would ue on the southern portion of the
property and would not be adjacent to any property lines because a
private alley would be provided separating the development from the
abutting single family residential development.
The Canmission reviewed development plans and it was noted that the
plans specified 5 foot walls on the east and south boundaries of subject
property. The petitioner indicated that he would comply with the 6
foot height requirementfor the installation of said walls in accordance
with Code requirements.
It was pointed out that the proposed development did not indicate the
required number of garages for compliance with Code requirements and
that it would be necessary to stipulate a waiver of the Code requirement
in order to ievelop the property in accordance with plans presented. The
Commission discussed the possibilit.y of reducing the amount of guest
parking in order to provide additional garages but the Commission agreed,
however, that the amount of guest parking indicated on the plot plans
would be an asset to the development.
Chairman Gauer read a letter from the B. I. C. Ball and Magnolla Company
in favor of the subject petition. He also read a petition, containing
the signatures of 34 residents in.the subject area, requesting that the
apartment development be limited to single story and that an alley be
provided to separate the abutting single family residential development
from:the proposed development.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to inquiry fran the Commission, the petitioner indicated
that the walis would be located on the east and south boundary lines of
' subject property, that access to the garage area wouid be provided by
a 30 foot private road, that the development would contain approximately
8 units per acre, that entrance would be provided from Winston Road,
which will be improved to a width of 60 feet, that the private road or
alley would have ar entrance from Magnoliz Avenue on the southerly
boundary of subject property, that the development would contain single
family apartments, and that the proposed development would be an asset
to the area.
Mr. Robert Wark, 9211 Chanticleer Road, was informed that the wall would
be constructed prior to the Final Building Inspection of subject property.
The Commission found and determined the following facts ragarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassiflcation of the a6ove describ-
ed property from the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone ta the
R-3> Multiple Famlly Residential, Zone.
2. That the proposed reciassification of subject property is necessary
or desirable for the orderly and prooer development of the c~mmunity.
3. That the proposed rectassification of subject property does properly
relate to the zones and their•permitted uses locally established in
close proximity to subJtct property and to the zones and their
permitted uses generally established throughout the community.
~
r ,,,,,, „_:..,::,
~,n~.y :'_~ ~ __..
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require
dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because
• ~said property d~es relate to and abut upon streats and highways which
~?' . 'i ~ ,: t$l.... ::'' - . .....
~. ~
: . ,~
',;; {
~ . ';
,,
,
~ i
~. f
_ ....._....+~.~:,i
v ~'
~ ~
.._.._.
~
,.,. __._._ _.
~ ~
.;_-- --- __` __ .__~.~. _._...-~:;--_----._. ..~:.:_,
~
y,
F
i
° ~ 1
~.
5~7 ~
• MINUTES. CITY PLAN4ING COMMISSION. November 13. 1961, Continued:
RECtASSIFICATION -
N0. 61-62-45
~Continued)
are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which will
be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circula-
tion element of the General Plan.
5. That one letter in favor of subject petition and a petition con-
taining 34 signatures requesti~g limitations on the proposed dr_••,ielop~
ment were recorded in respect to subject petition. No one api•aared
in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 144, SeriPS 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissiosier Allred, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-45 be approved, subject to the foilowing conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. l, 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6 as amended.
2. Installation of a sic (6) foot masonry wall on the easterly and
southerly boundaries of subject property prior to Final Building
Inspection.
3. Dedication of 32 feet from the monumented centerline of Winston
Road (10 feet existingl.
4. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of Magnolia
Avenue (30 feet existing).
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road or the installation of ornamental
street lights in conformance with a street lighting plan approved
by the Director of Public Utilities.
6. Payment of $25.00 per dwelli~g unit Park ar.d Recrea*_ion fee to be
collected as part of the Building Permit.
7. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road, subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted
standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
8. Provision of trash storage areas,as determined by the Director of
Public Works,which are adequate in size, accessible for trash-truck
pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence or wall.
9. Provision of utility easements along exterior boundaries as deter-
rtiined to be necessary by the Director of Public Utilities to ad-
equately serve the subject property and other proper;:y.
10. Time limiration of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.
11. Subject to the approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 175•
The foregoing conditions wera 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 welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrecl, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
cJOES: COMMISSIONER5: Mone.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER3; Hapgood, Morris.
, ,wYr' _ ~;.`i1'~..,1 t,[`l;:~;=,,.~~~_ . ~ . F , .'~i.'4, ,. . , . ..., •~if ~~ :.~.,... G .i`}~;'_:.1.. ~ ^,r M1 ,.. ~~ , ~ ~
. .. -__ _ . - . ..- . . . . . . . . ,1./.'Sz l~.~~~ f
, :';;
.c,_ ,_x'JY.
I - yw ~
~ ~'
_ . MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13, 1961. Continued:
'e
7(
,
"i:: .
'.
___'
' ~ ~
~
.
S~IO ~
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by IRVING DUMM, P. 0. Box i, Natoma,
PERMIT N0. 175 California, Owner; Albert Johnson Jr., 9776 Katella Avenue, Suite "L",
Anaheim, California,.Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH GARDEN-
'fYPE,APARTMENTS on.property described as: A parcel 272 feet by 1,136
feet with a frontage of. 272 feet located on the east side of Magnolia
Avenue between Ba11 Road and Cerritos Avenue; its northwest corner being
approximately l, 285 feet more or less south of the southwest corner of
Ball Road and Magnolia;'Avenue. Property presently classified in the
. R-A, Residential Ag~icuTtural,.2one.
SubJect petition is submitted in conjunct;on with Patition for Reclass-
ification No. 61-62-45 to permit the e"stabli§hment of a planned unit
' residential developmant on subject property.
Mr. Irving Dumm, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated he had nothing to add to the information contained in the
subJect petition.
The Commission reviewed developn~ent plans and, in response to inquiry
:: I from the audience, noted that the trash pick-up area would be subject
to the approval of the Director of Public Wcrks.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the number of garages indicated on the develop-
ment plans and noted that 96 garages were shown~whereas 110 garages are
required in order to comply with Code requirements. It was also noted
that 34 guest parking spaces had been provided. The Commission agreed
that the amount of guest parking area would compensate for the inade-
quate.numF~er of g_!'_ges.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
ss~bJect peti tion:
1. That the proposed uBeis properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a planned unit residen-
tial development.
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-
posad to be located.
~ '
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate
to allow the full development of the proposer! use in a manner nct
detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of Lhe citizens of the City of pnahelm.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to
carry the traffic ln tt~e 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 generei welfare of the ciCizens of the City of Anaheim. ~
6. That one letter in favor u'f subject.petition c~d e petition contain-
ing 34 signatures'requasfiiig limitations on the proposed development
,;;,: ` were recorded,in raspect`to subject petition. No one appeared in
~?;.: opposition to subJect petition. !,
~:L. . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~i
~ i~~ 7.- That under-the authorit overned b Section 18.64.070 of the Anaheim '
~4`z< Munici al Code the rovision of 95y9are es for the ro oeed develo ~
t~ ~t: ~. P ~ P 9 P P P'
~ - mant:is hereby deemed to be;aiiequate due to tha.provision of 34 guest '
~~~~$~~,i :~ parking spaces on subJect property. ..
~!jjt~
it.. ~`r ^ •N ' . ' . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . ~ . . . . ' y
.. . . . ... . . . . .. . .
M1:'1
... . .. . . ... ... .. . .~ .' . . . .
, .. . . ~ . . ~ ~ '~ ~ , '
~ f .. .. . . ' . ' ' ' . . ~ .
M1r F 3~.: ~ .. . ., . . . . . . . rt..
~ '
~ 4'~
~t~ . ~ ~' . . ' '. ~ ~ ~. ~ '
T ` . ' .. ... . . .. . :
r ~ . ., . . . ., . k .
f~ ( ~
S~J...7~s~ . ~n~~.JF~~.f~~:,~h.r.1$l.,l,4r ~.r.~'.~~) ., 3~,~,sci,~i. ~,..>,r ./,f..:... [,>...:2,-.f tJ~dv..'F_..S~h-~i•~R1..~dY..?y:` . . . , . _~ ,,.._St~~~:
".'rS. F ~ ". s~d y, c;t ~ °fl s .~..~.:.i:~.., „t 4~ :~<+~•~r ~. ~ ~ ~
o' f~
_ ~ . . .. ': ~ ~ - . . ~
. . . .. , . . . n _ . . _ .
. .. . ...:. -~,. .
.. . . . . . . . . . F . , , r...
. . . . ' . ~. a 4 ' ;v,,~.,~. M,,:• ~ ~ . ~ . , . . .
, . . ....,..~ . `
~
1 _'
- .~ .. ~. .. .. ~
~ ~ ~ . ~ .. ~
~ !
~~ .
~ ~ ' . . ' . . . ~
529
MINUTES. CITY PIANNfNG COMMISSION. November 13; 1961, Continued:
, COhDITIONAL USE .- Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 145, Series 1961-62, and
PERMiT N0. 175 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissionor Allred, to
(Continued) grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 175, subject to the ~ '
following conditions:
r ~
j 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2,
`• 3, 4, 5 and 6 as amended.
~ 2. (nstallation or a six (6) foot masonry wall on the easterly and ~ •
southerly boundaries of subject property prior to Final Building
Inspection.
Y I
"`=~`'' 3• Dedication of 32 feet from the monumented centerline of Winston ~
Road, (10 feet existing).
- 4. 'Dedication of 53 feet fran the monumented centerline of Magnolia
~ Avenue (30 feet existing).
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road.or the installation of ornamental „
- street lights in con`ormance with a street lighting plan approved by ~
the Director of Public Utiliti•es.
6. Payment of $25.00 per dwelling unit Park and Recreation fee to be
collected as part of the Building ?ermit.
7. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of alt
impr.ovements for Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road, subject to the •
~
approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted '
standard plans on file in tfie offfce of the City Engtnaer.
, ~
~
~ 8. provision of trash storage areas, as determined by the Director of
I
~
Public Works, which are adequete ir, size, acc~ssible for trash-
r
e{ truck pick-up, and adequately encloseu by a solid fence or wall.
A . ~ ;
~ 9• Provision of utility easements along exterior boundaries as deter- '
~_ mined to be necessary by the Director of Public Utilities to ade-
quately serve the subject property and other property.
~
~
10. Time limitation of one f~undred ei ht 180) da s for the accom lish-
9 Y ~ Y P
~ ment of Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.
r
~.: 11. Subject to the approval of Petition for iteclassification No. 61-62-45J '
The foregoi.ng conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to ~
i-. be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
I
~.< serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
q~ -.~. . ~ .
. .
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
~; ' Perry, Summers.
~, NOES: COMMISSIONERS:. None. ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgaad, Morris.
~
e n s b
RECLASSlFICATION PUBLIC HEARING. P titio u mitted by CARL LAWSON, 811 Royal Way, I :
N0. 61-62-46 Anaheim, California, Owner; George E. Baney, 1412 Damon,.Anaheim, ~
~
California, Agent; requesting that property described as:`.A parcel
~
,~ `; 50 feet by 109 feet with a frontage of 50 faet located.on the easterly ;~
~ side of Harbor Boulevard between Water and South Streets; its north- I
si~a;`=; westerly corner baing approximately 100 feet south of-the southeasterly
~~, :`~ : wrner of Harbor Bouievard and Water Street and.further desc'ribed as
~
~ p4~~\ ¢~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ' . . .. . . . -
`
f
t'~`~%r C`: ~ ~ . . . . ~. . .. ~ . . . - _ . . . . . . ~ . ~~.
,
~.. , ~ , . . . . ~
~ ~ ~ - . . .. .. . . ..' . . i ~ ~
.
.
.~
~ . ~ . . . ~ . .. . . . . . ~
5t ~ :~ ~. ~.~,, , - ..,
~~ .
S 7
~ ~ ~ . .
~ .. - ,. .. ~ . . ~.. . .. . . . . .
y ..,w ; i.~;. ~,. . -.~aa.•:'~' S~u3f ~.drd 4....~.;w. .4 r._ ., . r,~ ,1. _1~. ~ r, ~ ~ .
. , i~. A. 1~ r. N~ [ '~ 4.,h k.i,.: ...4!"4 .. ~ .'f!'t,. ~
..l,~ ~~
.. . .
' ~
~ ~
~ !~
~ ' . .. - ~~ . ~ . .
~ '~~y~AF >~ sf~'Y~~~f~. •l.~ `T~t .~.. ~r~ .
1-A~•.svi'~C~'. i,•..IA~~ J. -f.. )~ Y't~
~~ i:~'
1 '~,4
1 ~
. ~,~ . . ~ ~ . . ~~ ~ . . ~.
. .. . . . .. .. . ~ ~ . ' . ~
• 530
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13, 1961. Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - 608 South Harbor Boulevard be reclassified from the R-1, ONE FAMILY
• N0. 61-62-46 RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~Continued)
Mr. Carl Lawson, thie petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
;. stated he had nothing to add to theinformation contained in the subject
~ petition. •
f The Commission reviewed the development plans for the proposed removal
~ I , of an existing dwelling and tha eraction of a modern office building.
The Commtssion dis wssed the present state of transition of the pro-
perties in the subject area and Commissioner Pebley noted that, if the
~ L?•i";:'',' properties in the area were granted a raciassification without develop-
-">:`' ` mant plans, conti-ol over the use of tha property would be lost and the
existing residences might be converted to unsightly commercial butldings.
Commisstoner Allred suggasted that a planned development for more than
ona lot be considered. In response to inquiry from the audience, Chair-
- man Gauer noted that the Commission had denied a request for commercial
use of property located on tha westerly side of Harbor Boulevard but
that the City Council had reversed the Commission's action and had
grartted the use.
Chairman Gauer read a letter containing three signatures protesting that
prop:~sed reclassification would permit an invasion of privacy, that the
1ot was too small for the proposed building, and that the traffic pro-
blem in the area would be aggravated.
The Commission discussed the present zoning and land use of the subject
area and that the medical building on the southeasC corner of Harbor
Boulevard and Water Street had been estabtished by variance.
It was pointed out that parhaps the owners of the two properties abut-
ting subject property to the north, one of which contains the previously~
diswssad medical building, could investigate the possibility of re- ~~
classifying the three lots, thereby eliminating the spot zoning of the
subject property and esteblishing the zoning commensurate with the land I
use of the property containing the medical building. i
The owners of the property to the north of subject property wer.s in the ~,
audience and indicated that they were interested in the reclassificationl
of their properties to the C-l, Neighborhood Commerclal, 2one. i
Commissioner Allred suggasted that the petitioner acqui.re tha property
abutting subJect property to the north for incorporation into a suitable~ „
development rather Chan to endeavor to utilize a parcal that is inade- ~
quate in size for ~ suitable commercial davelopment. Mr. George Baney
appeared before the Commission and 'indicated that he was purchasing the
subjact property, that he would not be able to finance tfie acquisition
of both properties, and indicatad that,he had a tima limit.in~which to ~ .
close ascrow proceedings.
Senior Planner Martin Kreidt.suggested that the owners of the three ;
propertias locatad on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and !
Water Street; inciuding the subJect property, come into the PI'anning
Dapartment and discuss the possibility'ofincorporating the three pro-
perties into the-proposed reclassification in order ,to provide a uni-
form zone classification for the area. ~
Mr. Delmar Pebley,'ownsr of tha proparty on the corner northerly of
subJect property indicated that,'although ha had cequested C-l, :
Neighborhood:Commerciai; 2oning-previously, the doctor~s.office on his ,=,~
property had been astab1ished'by a Petitibn for Varlence and that he ._,,y;;;
_. , . f
. . . . -. , ~~ . .~ ~ -~ . . , 1 -: ~,
. . . _ ~ . . ;•I
. . .. . ~~ ~ . ~.~ . . . ~~;
, ~ . . . . _ . . .. . _ . . _ . . . . , .. ' . ". - ~ '~:~;~ ...~,
, , i.
` . ` , , . ....:,..
. . ~ ~ _ ~ . yh'4;I
~s7r~y
~ i
, _ 1''.~~"~:i
r s~L .~ ~.,,.,~.,. rat.. 2..:_r-w ......_..~a:w<a,~...~,x , .....~..~..,.t_v_ .,.elr..,.1,~,.r_.., r~t.:,nw.na...nunn-» ...M. _ . _..., . ... ~~. 1
~~
r°''a
1 MINUTES. CITY PLANN4NG COMMISSION. November 13, 1961, Continued:
-- i~.
531
RECLASSIFICATION - di~d not consider the reclassifi,cat•1on of his proPe;+.y.at,this time to be
N0. 61-62-46 of particular advantage to him. Commissioner Allred noted that to
Continued) reclassify the three properties would establish a uniform zoning and
~ ~ that the correct zonir.g for the corner property might prove to be
valuable for the owner sometime in the future.
The petitioner's agent stated that he was p~rchasing the subject pro- ~
party subject to the approval of the Petition for Reclassification and
that, if the reclassification were not approved, he woulu' not pursue
the matter and was not particutarly interested in.the outcome.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the advisability of requiring a precise plan
study of the subject area. Code reauirements for the installation of
walls on the north and south boundaries of subject~property were also
discussed. It was noted that to require the installation of a wail
might not be desirable in the event the abutting properties to the north
were reclassified in the future.
Commissioner Pebley inquired about the advisability of continuing the
subject petition in order to include the two properties to the north of
subject property in the sub,ject petition, thereby elimina~ting tha
necessity for the installation of walls separating the properties. It
was noted that to include the northerly propErties would require re-
advertisement of the subject petition. Commissioner Pebley indicated,
however, that he did not approve of reclassification of the three pro-
parties without the review of development plans. It was pointed out
that the propertias could be restricted in order to prevent the conver-
sion of existing residences tor canmercial purposes and that the reciass-~
irication couid be iimited i~~ busi~ass and prafassional offItes only ~
subject to the approval of plans. '
The Commission discussed the problem of permitting two-story dEVelopment ~
abutting single family residential development.and it was noted that a ~
precise plan for the area would be desirable for Commission considera-
tion. The matter of the proJected streeY widening, in accordance with !,
the circulation element of streefs and highways, was also discussed.
Commissioner Summers offered a motion to recommend to the Citv Council
that the subject Petition for Reclassification be approved. The motion
failed Tor iack of a second.
Commissioner Perry offeresJ a motion, seconded by Commissloner Mungall
and carried, that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-46 be continued
until the meeting of November 27, 1961, at which time a Precise Plan
Study of the subject area shali be prepared by the. Planning Oepartment
5taff end submitted to the Commission for consideration. _
' The Commission recommended that the owners of the properties abutting I
subJect property to the north should.contact tha Planning Department if '
thay were interested in submitting a request for the reclassffication of '
their properties in conJunction with fhe subJect property.
RECLASSIFiCATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition subinitted by_DOROTHY ANTES, 2021 Blanchard,
•N0. 61-62-43. Anaheim, California,'Owner; requesting;that property described as:'
A parcel 85.feat by 120 feet w,ith a frontage of 85 feet located om the
east side of Placentia'Avenue between La Palma and Undarhill`Avenues;
its northwest corner being app~'oximately`660 feet south of the southeast
corner:of'La'Pelma and'Placentia Avenues:and further described as 420
' North Placentia Avenue,be reclassi,fied firom 'the R-A, RESIDENTIAC AGR1-
CULTURAL, ZONE to the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD Ct1MMERCiAL; ZBNE. '
I '
. ,. , . . ~~ ~1... p,~.'~Y"".~..!'`.4.':'1, r . .,,_?tr~ . t.. ~'~ :^.e..~i . ,.... .. , ., ...~: ...?.r.r..4i r,w . ..,..,, -~~l: .9tSC$7~'#iy. ~ ~.X.:'+.:?.: ~
~: ---~- i
~
532 ~
MINUTES` CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 1 1 61 Continued: ,
RECLASSIFICATION - SubJect petition continued from earlier in the meeting in order to pro-
N0. 61-62-43 : vides an opportunity for tha petitioner or her agent to appear to re-
~ (Continued) pres~nt the subJect petition. No one appeared before the Commission.
~~ Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
~ and carried, that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-43 be continued
until the meeting of November 27, 1961, and that the patitioner or her
~ agent be notified to attend said meeting.
P
P RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by RICHARD WINELAND, et al, 5~5
.~;~-:;~~; N0. 61-62-47 Dwyar Street, Anahsim, California, Owner; M. Douglas, 626 Wast Common-
t wealth.Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting that property
' described as: A parcel 200 fee~ by 250 feet with a frontage of 200
~. . feet located on tha south side of Pampas Lane between Euclid Avenue and
~ Loara Street; its northwest corner being approximately 280 feet east of
~ the southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Pampas Lane be reclassified
~ from the C-1, NE•IGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE (Restricted to Medical
G' offices) to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESiDENTIl,:., ZONE.
Mr. M. Douglas, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission
and stated he had nothing to add to the information contained in the
subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CL05ED.
The Commission reviewed development plans and it was noted that the
elevation plans for the proposed apartment development appeared to be of
an extreme design. It was suggested that the petitioner modify the
elevaticn plens in order to present a more suitable appearance. The
petitioner's agent indicated that they would revise the elevation pla~s ~.
provided the motif was not changed.
Interdepartmental Gommittee recommendations were submitted to the Com-
mission and it was pointed out that a Park and Recreation Fee would be
required for the subJect development.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject patition:
1. That the petitionar proposes a reclassification of the above des-
cribed property from the C-l, NEIGHBORH00D COMMERCIAL, 20NG (~estrict-
ed to medical offices ) to the R-3~ MULTlPLE FAMILY RESID~N?'!AL,20NE. •
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary .
or desirable for the orderly and proper developmant of the
co~renuni ty. t
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly ,
relate to the zones and their permitted.uses locally established in
closa proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per- ~
mitted uses generally established throughout the community. :
4. TheC the proposed reclassifIcetion of sub,ject Qroperty does not re- ~
quire dedication for and etandard improvement of abutting streets !
because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and high- f
~ ways which are imp,roved to'carry the type and quantity of traffic, ~
Nhich wil~ be genarated 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 Mungall offered Resolution No. 146,'Series 1951-62, and
, I _
~ '~ µ '+~Y'''"~~'~ 14~~.. A:-.° ,y~+.,;,. ~, ~ 7.?Kd~~` ~.1 ;'F:.Sf ,(,z `~t, ~ i4r ~~:~~ .
_ ,.~, .
'~ r~'
~
.~ _.-..-._ ..._i _ ': ~h !'' .
~ ~ i
'3 -'.,
~. 1 , ~ _ ,.,o .~
533
MINUTES. CITY Pl.ANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1961, Continued: ,
• RECLASSIFICATION - moved for its passage and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Marcoux, to
N0. 61-62-47 recommend to tha City Council that Petition for Raclasstfication No.
(ContInued} 61-b.-~:7 ba appraved, subJect ~o tha `aiiowing conditiona:
~~ ~ 1. Davalopment in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 with the
eievation pl~ns subject to review by the D1.snning and 6uildina
Departments.
2. Installation of sidewalks in accordance with the approved standard
plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
3. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Pampas Lane.
4. Payment of $25.00 per dwalling unit Park and Recreation Fee to be
collected as part of the Building Permit.
5. Time limitation of ninety (90) days for the accomplishment of Item
- Nos. 2 and 3.
The foregoing conditions ~•:are recited at the meeting and were found :o
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the safety and walfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vota:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Summers.
NQES: CQMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMiSSfONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.68 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE
ADDITION OF SECTION N0. 18.68.060 CONDI•TIONS AND REGULATIONS.
~
~
~ ': ~:
The proposed amendmant was submitted to.the Cortmission. It was pointed
out that the amendment refers to a procedural method for the handling
of conditions and regulations in respect to the granting of Petitions ~
for Variance or Conditional Use Permit. Said amendment specified that
whenever an application is filed for a Patition for Variance or Condi-
tional Use Permit, the application shal•1 be deemed a~ application for the
waiver of all items which will be requirad to approve the application.
However, it atso provides that there shall be no implied waiver unless
there is a speci'fied waiver in the grant~ing of the petition. Therefore,
all applications will be construed to apply for all necessary variances •.
and waivers but none shall be construed to be granted unless spectfically
_ set forth in the resolution of approval. . j
THE HEARING .WAS CLOSE0.
Commissioner Summers offered Resolution No. 147, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co~nissioner Pebley, to i
recommend to the City Council the amemdment to Title 18, Chapter.18.68
of the l~nahaim Municipal Code by the addition of Section No. i8.68.Ob0
CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS. , •
The foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: •
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Ma~rcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Sunmers. =~
NOES: COMMI55IONERS:`'None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgnod, Morris,
I•
~ :;. ~ I
!
: .: ,,, ~.
,.~:
~ . . . ~ S '1.~~
~ ~ . " . .. '. . . . . ` ~~~.
~_
.,. . .- ~ -::h~' ~. ,a~aF:`..iN , ...~~:.:~`: , ~~~::.~ a . ,~;:~`e_ ~.-.,.,::~ ,. e~.~~:~~. , r.1:. ~.c_,i/.{?t,. ~e.:jfht~. e ..~.~zr.11, ~ ~ ~ ~ . 1. . ~ i.~..11,~~
~ r-_-- -- - _.~__~.~..__....._._..
~;' ':' ` ~
~` ~
~. ,:
S
!~
~
. ~
. ~ , •
534
MINUTES CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION November 13. 1961. Continued:
CURRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 1: ORANGE COUNTY TRACT N0. 4412:
A Tentative Map of Tract No. 4412 was submitted to the Commission. Sub- (
jecC Cract, iocated northerly of Lincotn.Avenue and extending easterly ~
from the Santa Ana River, constitutes the subdivision of a portion of
Tract No. 4321 and is proposed for 98 single family residential lots.
It was pointed out that the subject tract was a portion of 7ract No. 4321(
which had been recommendad to the Orange County Planning Commission on I
August 7, 1961, for approVal. ~
i
Chairman Gauer directed the Planning Commission Secretary to receive and I
file the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4412•
ITEM NOe 2s ORANGE COUNTY TRACT NOo 4187:
. ENGI~ERER=Haiol~Y RaabELI°l3178ou~~Fit~uc~id~~ven~ieA~~inafie;m aCal~~oin~ao
Subject tract located on the north side of Houston ~treet, westerly
of Gilbert Street, abuts the southerly lioundary of the Riverside Freeway,
and contains 17 lots.
The Commission reviewed the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4187 which pro-
poses as follows: 1) Subdivider to construct single family dwellings
on each lot; 2) Street improvemants to conform to O.C.R.D. specifica-
tions; 3) Sewage disposal'.by means of Anaheim City sewer system; 4)
!ots Ye he ?~nn c~~~arP fPfit; ~1 Water service by City of Anaheim; 6) All
structures to be removed. j
The Commission noted that, although sane of the lot frontages did not ~
meet the City of Anaheim Code requirements for R-l, Single Family
Residential, 2ona, the over all size of 'the lots was adequate and would 9
conform with the existing resid~ntial development in the subject area. _
• Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Comm~ssionar Parry and ~
carried, that the Planr.ing Secretary transmit notice te the Orange '
County Planning Commission that the Anaheim City Plannin3 Commission
recommends approval of'the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4187 as submitted. '
ITEM N0. 3: ORANGE COUNTY CONDITIONAL PERMIT N0. 976:
A notice received from the Orange County Planning Canmission relative
to Conditional Permit No. 976 was submitted to the Commission. Subject
petition requested permission to establish a wholesale business for the
mixing and packaging of cement, sand, and gravel, both substantially of
the size and in the location indicated on the plot plan submitted.
There will be a maximum of six employees. Off-street parking for eight
cars will be providod in the area in front of the building as indicated
on the plot plan.
The Commission reviewed the plot plan submitted an3 i: ti+as pointed ~ut
that the area to the west of the subJect property is presently involved
in annexation proceedings for"annexation to the City of Anaheim and that
tha City Council has projected single family residential'development for
that area.
Conuntssionar Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Summers
and carried, that the Commission Secretary transmit notice to the Orange
P.lanning Commission that the Anaheim Planning Commission recommends
approval of Conditional Parmit No. 976 subject to those administrative
regulations and conditions which the County Planning Commission sees as
necassary to insure compatibility with the future character of the area;
and that raports on the effects of the proposed use be obtained from the
Orange County Water District and the County Road Commissioner.
-.
-~-~-~-- ,
~.
, ;,;--- ~----=-ti
~ _ ,., : r ;
,... ......:_ ~ ~~_,;;,~ '
,.,.: ..;~, rr~. ,,r,,;...,r.,..~:,,._~ ; -. ...
- , '
. ~.;,
'G:.
~ l
MINUTES, CITY P6ANNlNG COMMISSION, November 13. 1961 Continued:
~ ~.:: ~l 1 ~.
~
535
CO?,itESFVNDENCE - ITEM N0. 4: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE PERMiT N0, 4792:
Continued
A notice recelved•from the Orange County Planning Commission relatlve
to Variance No. 4792 was submitted to the Cammission. Subject petition
requested perrtilssion to construct a tem~orar,y st~rage and repair building
in connaction with an existing construc.tion office and storage yard in
` the Al(0) General Agricultural (Oil Production} District.
The notice stated that the building will be used for the storage of
parts and materlals and fbr the repair of coristruction equipment, and
will be approximately 30 feet by 30 feet in size, located a minimum of
90 feet from'the centerline of Linda Vista Avenue and approximataly
220 feet from the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue as indicated on
tha piot plan submitted. Said building will be removed from the premises
on or before the expiratlon of the original permit. The original permit
was for the establishment of a construction office and storage yard for
a period of ane year in the Al(0) General Agricultural (Oil Production)
District. Subject property is located at the northwest corner of
Orangethorpe Avenue and Linda Vista Avenue, east of P!a~entia Avenue.
Commission~r Summers offered a motion, seconded by.Commissioner Allred
and carried,that the Planning Secretary transmit notice to the Orange
County Planning Commission that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss!io}n
:'~~<.~"~^dI1°.^.a5 .^.^pj.'.~v'1o i vF v56 ir~oi i aiiCo ii'v. ~j j~ Si7u,~ oi.i. i.'v 1110 ~~.1~IIV 1{.1 OII
that a time limitation be established for the proposed use, if deter-
mined to be necessary. ;
ITEM N0. 5: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE PERMIT N0. 4870:
A notica recetved from the Orange County Planning Commission relative to
Use Variance No. li$7L~ was sthmt:*_ed to the ~ommisston. SubjAct petit?on
requested permission to continue the use of an auto repair business and
an'automnbile wrecking yard ,in the MI(0) Light Manufacturing (Oii Pro-
duction) District. Subject property is located on the east side of Van
Buren Street 50 feet north of Cherry Street, in.Atwood.
Subject petition 5tated that the auto repair operation will be conducted
in the wrecking and storage :rea and in the parking area at the rear of
the premises. The wrecking of automobiles and storage of salvaged
material will be withinthe area enclosed by the existing 8 foot ~~gh
solid fence as indicated on the plot plan submitted.
The Commission noted that on August 23, 1955, Use Variance No. 229g
granted with conditions the existing use of subJect property for a
period of three years, and that Use Varianc~ No. 4152 was conditionally ~
approved on September 24, 1958, for the continued use for a period of
three years. i
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
carried, that the Commission Secretary transmit notice to the Orange i
County Planning Commission that the Anaheim Planning~Commis5ion recom- !
mands approval of Use Variance No. 4870 subject to administrative reg- ~
ulations and conditions, wtiich the County Planning Canmission sees fit ~
to impose so as to insure compatibillty with surrounding iand uses, ano ~
that the use be limited to a maximum time period of two (2) years. ~
I.
ITEM N0. 6: RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER LEE MORRIS:
Chairman Gauer'read a letter of resignation submitted by Commissioner
Lee Morris from the position of Planning Commissioner for~the City of
AnaFoim in which capacity he had sarved the City for approximately five
and nna-half years.
j.
' ~
.--~- ,
~.:.."a"`i ,_ .t,-~-__.., . .._ . .. . . .,• ~'. _ ... _ . , 9.,ri': 1 • ,. , . .,':i: ~7J . ~l. _..... . •:,~ ~ ~ . . ,
~~':
s f
,,.,, ~ ~
kINUTES..CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13, 1961, Continued:
CORRESPONDENCE - Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Summers
(Continued) and carried, that the Planning Commission Secretary transmit notice to
Gommtssioner Morris and to the Clty Gounci! that the restgnation of
~ Commissioner Morris is accepted with regret and with the acknowledge-
, mant that he has served the City well and has been an asset to the
Commission in his capacity as Commissioner and Vice-Chairman of the
Planning Commission.
REPORTS RND :- ,ITEM N0. 1: R~PORT ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT Na. 48:
aECOMMENDAT10N5
A report was submitted on Special Use Permit No. 48, which had been
reviewed at the meeting of October 30, 1961, and had been continued
until tha meeting of November l3, 1961, in order to~provide an
opportunity for the Commission to make a field inspection of the
subJect area in respect to the proposed revision of building plans for
the construction of a church complex. The report indicated that the
petitioners had contacted the Plenning Department on November 7, 1961,
at which tima tha building plans were revisad amending said plans to
conform sub5tantially in accordance with the original plans approved
by the subject petition.
Chatrman Gauer directed the Planning Commission Secretary to withdraw I
tha reauest for Commission review of subiect aetition.
ITEM N0. 2: PRECISE PLAN STUDY N0. 29-94-2: ~
A Precise P1en Study of the area conteining a vacant parset of land
locatad at tha northeast corner of South and East Streets was submittad ~
to tha Commisston.
~~
Seni~~r Planner Martln Kreidt displayed Land Use and Zoning Maps of the 1
sub,ject erea and explatned that the study was prepared at the directive ;
of the City Council for submission to the Commission as a result of tha
denial of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-19 on October 10,1961.~
P.recisa Plaiis f~r the subJact property were displayed. Precise Plan
No. 1 racommended standard R-3, Multipla Family Restdential, develop-
mant, for those properttes extending northerly from South.Street on the
east side of East Street, with an alley and a wall separating said
R-3 developmant from~a single family residential subdivisio~ containing
fift~en R-1, One Family Residential, lots with access provided from
South Street. •
Precise Plan No. 2 proposes the use of additional land for the estab- ~ ;
lishment of a planned unit development with a peripheral drive and a
wat) separating the development fram a sic.gle famOy residential sub- i
- division containing nina R-l, ~ne Famiiy ne:~idenLiai, iats.
, Precise Plan No. 3 proposes a standard R-3, Multiple Family Residential, -
development along East Street wlth an alley abutttng the easterly and
northerly boundaries of the devalopment with the remainder of the pro-
posed development for an R-O, Residential Suburban, development con- i
talning ]O lots and providing access from:5outh Straet. 1
The Commission discussed the proposed plans end Assistant City.Attorney
Joe Geislar advised the Commission that tha property oovnars were not
opposed to the R-1, Ane FamiJy Residential, development but that they
obJected to the building dimensions. It was suggested that a minimum
floor area of 1800 'sq fte:be:recomnendeil faoethe"single' family iesiden~ital ;
davel,opment. Mr.'Geislac statas further that the City Council could :.;
~_f.e_.._ .~_ _,..~....~srs.....s,._ _x _~,, ~:~~.is..« .......e..«., w~.« «ti~« ~tie:. .
~
V
~
599
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 13, 1961, Continued:
REPORTS AND - a joint endeavor ~nitiated by the owners of the property.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Continued} Commissioner Mungati offered a motiqn, seconded by Cortunissione~ Perry
and carried, that Precise Plan No. 2, indicated as Exhibit No. 4,
be-recommenda,: to the City Council as the optimum development for the
subject area, and that Precise Plan No. 1, indicated as Exhibit No. 3,
be racommended a~ an alternative plan for the development of the sub-
~ JecY properties.
ADJOURNMENT - There betng no further business, the meating was adjourned at 6:30
0'Clock Pe M.
Respectfully submitted, ,
~
N P.AGE, Secretar
~~_..~._.~ ---, - --
., . . .. . „ .-,•i ~