Minutes-PC 1961/11/27_ - ~ ~
w
City Hall
Anaheim, California
November 27, 1961
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING.COMMISSION
REGULAR MEEYIN~ - 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.
- CHAIRMqN: Gauer; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perr~, Summers. Commissioner N~orris
entered the Councii Chambers at
3:00 0'Clock P.M.
- Senior Planner - Martin Kreidt
Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler
Commission Secretary - Jean Page
- Revere~d Isaac J. Apol, Pastor Christian Reformed Church, gave the
invocation.
- Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
- The Minutes of the Meeting of November 13. 1961, were approved as
submitted.
CONDiTIONAI USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by Craig Jewett and
PERMIT N0. 170 Company, 1303West Valenci"a Drive, Fullerton, Californ~.a, Owner,.requesting',
permission to ESTABLISH A DRIVE-IN RESTRURANT on property described as:
A triangularly shaped p,,rcel with a frontage of 250 feet on Ball Road ~
and a frontage of 195 feet, more or less, on Knott Avenue and located ~
on the southwesterly corner of Sall Road and Knott Avenue and further I,
described as 3500 Ball Road. Froperty presently classified in the I
R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, I
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 30, 1y61 to
provide an opportuntty for the petitioner to obtain written permission
from the Pacific Electric Railroad Company to utilize property abutting
the railroad tracks for additional parking for the proposed development,
and to permit the re-advertisement of the pr~perty incorporating the
•railroad company's property.
Mr. C~aig Jewett, the petitio~er, a~peared hefore the Commission and !
submitted a copy of a ene (1) year lease obtained from the Pacific
Electric Raiiroad Company to permit the use of their property for
additional customer parking for the proposed drive-in restaurant. He
indicated that the proposed parking area layout had baen revised to
permit parking for 25 cars inciuding the railroad company's property,
and that the railroad property would be filled, graded, and paved for
parking purposos. He.stated that he could use the property to within
fifteen feet of the railroad tracks, and noted that the property was
difficult to develop because of its shape and iocation. ,
The petitioner indicated that the lease did not contain an~option for I'
renewal and the Commission discussed the posslbility of the cancellation II
of the lease thereby creating a reduction in the amount of eighteen park- ',
ing spaces. .
THE kEARING WAS CLOSED.
:~;a,. ;~:.T
~
;
. i
~
-
;
539
MINUTESs CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1961, Continued:
COi~DITIONAL USE - The Commission reviewed development plans and discussed the amount of
PERMi? NO~. 170 landscaping recommended by the Planning Oepartment Staff for the subject
{Contlnued) property. It was noted that the recommended landscaping wouid be in-
stalled in the parkway portion of the property abutting Bail Road and
Knott Avenue.
The Commissian discussed the amount of floor area indicated on the plans '
submitted with the subject petiti~n in relation to the amount of parking i
area. The petitioner indicated that the plans included the patio area ~
which would be covered and attached to the building. The Commission in- ~
dicated, therefore, that it wouid ~ut ;,e desirable to reduce the amount i
of gross floor area for the proposed building in order to provide add- ,
itional parking area. I
Mr. Burt Reed appeared before Yhe Commission and stated that he would
be the operator of the proposed dri~ee-in restaurant, that he w~s
operating similar units in other.cities at the present time, and that
experience had proven that the required amount of parking was not
necessary f~r the proposed type of business. iie stated further that
the proposed p~!-king area would be ample to supply the amount needed
for the operation and that Fiiday~ nights were the only period'sin which
the entire amount of parking might be utilized at any one time.
o Thc ~am.nissian found ar.d determined the following facts regarding the 9
subject petition:
l. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a drive-in restaurant.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land ~
uses and the growth and dovelopment 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 d~velopment of the proposed use in a manner not
detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of ~tiaheim, provided,
however, that the lease for a portion of the parking area is renewed '
annually.
4. That the traffic generated by th~ 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 City of Anaheim. i
!
6. That the proposed development of subject property constitutes an
improvement of the subject property and is compatible with the
surrounding area, provided, however, that the lease for a portion I~
of the parking area is renewed annually. I
7. That under the authority governed by Section 18.64.070 ot the Anaheim'.
Municipal Code, the provision of 25 parking spaces for the proposed
development is hereby deemed to be adequate due to the unique cir- .
cumstances involved in the development and improvement of the sub-
~ ,ject property.
8. That no one appeared in opposition to subJect petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 148, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred ru
i
~ -
~ V ' ~
~_, . ~
~~
~
~~ ~
540
MINUTES CITY PIANNING COMMISSION November 2 1 61 Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE - grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 170, subject to the
PERMIT N0. 170 following conditions:
(Continued)
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2,
3, and 4.
2. Provision of twenty-five (25) parking spaces under the authority
granted by Section 18.64.070 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. In
the event twenty-five park?ng spaces are reduced in number, this
permit shall become null and void.
3. Installation af lands ~ing in the parkway portion of the highwdy
rights-of-way of Bal. ~toad and Knott Avenue, plans for said land-
scaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the
Superintendent of Parkway Mainte~ance and said landscaping to be
installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
4. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of Ball Roac
and Knott Avenue (30 feet existing), ir~cluding the leased property.
5. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for Ball Road and Knott Avenue, including the leased
nroaerty, sub,ject to the approval of the City Engineer and in accord-
ance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the
City Engineer, including catch basin and connection to an existing
15 inch reinforced concrete pipe.
6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
aall Road and Knott Avenue.
7. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
8. Time limitation of one (1) year for the use of subject property,
subject to review annually by the Planning Commission of proof of
a renewed lease from the Pacific Electric Railroad Company covering
the southwest portion of subject property.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the :•~operty in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
The fnregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NqES; COMMI,SS{ONEftS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUEn PUBLI: HEARING. Petition initiated by Anaheim Planning
N0. 61-62-32 _ Ccmmission, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider
reclassification of property described as the northerly 260 feet of the
property described as foitows: a parcel of proparty located between
Water and South Streets; said property having a depth of 160 feet
westerly from the right-of-way of East Street from the M-l, LIGHT
MANUFACTURING, and P-L, PARKING L9NDSCAPING, ZONES to the R-3, MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
Subject reclassification was continued fro~~i the meeting of October 2,
1961 with the recommendation that the parties involved, the Planning
Staff, the representatives of the City, and the property owners part-
icipate in discussion in respect to the subject property.
--- ; .. --„~--r,-,-,--,_ -------•-
~
a
~-
a. 1
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 27, 1961 Continued:
541
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Harold McCabe, attorney representing Mr. Jewett; owner of Parcel Na 3
' N0. 61-62-32 of the subject properties, appeared before the Commission and read a
(Continued) letter from W. H. Jewett.Company, dated November 27, 1961, requesting
that the entrance to the property at 631 East Street be provided at
. the north side of said property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEp.
Assistant City.Attorney Joe Geisler displayed maps of the subject
properties and reviewed the history of the development of these pro-
perties, 'the court actions that had taken place, and the subsequent
initiation of the subject petition. He indicated that the temporary
driveway,that is installed on the property owned by E.D. Johnson~is
not in accordance with the present ordinance whichis pending for the
reclassification of the subject properties to the M-I, Light Manufactur-
ing and the P-L, Parking Landscaping, 2ones. Mr. Geisler stated that
discussions had been held with the property owners involved and with
the owners of property on the east side of East Street, and that a plan
had been prepared for consideration by the Commission and City Council.
He indicated that the property owners specified that sidewalks be in-
stalled on the subject properties, except for those areas reserved for
access, including the property occupied by the Wilshire Oil Company,
that the existing single driveway access be removed, and that a drive-
way access be installed servin9 the Jewett Company property and the
property occupied by the Glen Aire Company. He stated further that an
existing fire hydrant may necessitate removal, that the Glen Aire
Company wished to have accass from Water Street, and that there were no
objections from Mr. Jewett or Mr. Johnson far the requested use. Mr.
Geisler stated that there would be a 25 foot landscaping zone parallel
to the stdewalk and that the property owners agreed to the proposed
tandscaping of the subject properties. The property owners considered,
however, that the installation and the maintenance of the•landscaping
in the parkway portion of the properties should be the responsibility
of the City.
Et: ,. : I
F .
~,. ",
~_ ~
~' I _
g..,;<.. , ..;
1.. ~:~:;;,:-;._..,
Staff recornme~datio~s relative to the amendment of Ordinance No. 878
were submitted to the Commission. Assistent City Attorney Joe Geisler
advised the Commission that the property owners would be required to
comply with the conditions of the amendment, that the ordinance would
be enforced, that a sixteen (16) foot roadway would be required, and
that the properties have been involved in legal difficulties,thus the
endeavor to resolve the problems by conferences and agreements.
The Commission discussed the suggested installation of landscaping as
recommended in thc, Staff Report. After lengthy discussion, it was
suggested that the owners of the subject properties install the recom-
mended landscaping and that the City be responsible for its maintenance.
Ccmm?ss3orer °ebley tndicated that he did not approve ot the~suggestio~f
thzt the City maintain the landscaping or that the parkway portion of
the subject property be iandscaped. t1e statad tfiat he did not consider
it necessary to landscape the six foot area between the curb and the
sidewalk if the properties were required to provide a twenty-five foot
landscaping area abutting the sidewalk. He stated aiso that he did not
consider the maintenance of the landscaping.to be th< ;ty's responsi-
bility because other ereas in the City are not maintained by the City.
Assistant City Attorney indicated that the subject properties presented
an unusual circumstance in which it would be to the advantage of the
City to maintain the landscaping, and he cited instances where the City
does maintain landscaping in certain areas of the City. Commissioner
Marcoux noted that in cases where the City does malntain the land-
scaping, the ~andscaping presents a suitable a.ppearance, and that he
considered : ~nstallation of tree wells in the parkway portion of the
sub,ject prc,,.^ as to be beneficia) to the surrnunding area. Atter
• 542
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1~,61, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - discussion relative to the installation of *_ree wells on the existing ser-
N0. 61-62-32 ~ vice station property, the Commission ind3cated that such landscaping
(Continued) could be omitted.
The Commission discussed the recommendation that vehicular parking be pro-
hibited on both sides of East Street which had been requested by the pro-
perty owners in the area. The attor~ey representing Mr. Jewett stat:ed that
they would be opposed to such a prohibition. Ghairman Gauer noted that in
other areas, where the streets have been post~d to prohibit street parking,
it had improved the traffic congesiion problem 3nd had encouraged the use
of the required off-street parking facilities.
Commissioner Mungall ?r.dicated that, i~ his opinior., the proposed driveway
access should be installed, ha!f on the ,lewett property and half on the
Glen Aire prope,•ty. Assistant CIty Attorney Joe Geisler indicated that
the Glen.Atre Company would cooperate and that they wished to provide
access to their property f~om Wa*_er SY.reet. The Commission discussed
the location of the driveway northe~ly of the existing fire hydrant and
Assistant City Attorn.ey Geisler 3ndicated that, if the access were pro-
vided at the sugges*_ed locatio~, it would require a cut through the
landscaping zone which he did not ca.^.sider to be particularly objectionable.
Commissioner Morris entered the Cour.cil Chambers at 3:00 0'Clock P.M.
The Commission found and determi~ed tl7e fu3low~ng fn4ts r~ga~ding the
subject petition:
1. That the amendment of Ordinan.cp No. 878 as contained hereir. be recom-
mended to the City Gouncil for adoptio~.
2. That the proposed amendment of Ordinance No. 878 is deemed necessa~y
and desirable for the o~derl,v and proper developme~t of the community.
3. That the proposed amendme~t *.o Qrdir.ar.ce No. 8.78 would properly relate
to the zones and thetr permitted i~ses locally established in close
proximity to subject property and to the zones a~d their permitted
uses general!y es±abl.ished *hreughou* *_he tommun~*_y.
--. That the adoption of the p~oposed amPndmenr. of Ordi~ante t~o. 878 does
require the standard improvemer.t of abutting streets because said pro-
perty does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which are pro-
posed to carry the type and quanr.i,*.y of traffic, which will be generat-
ed by the permitted uses, !n accordanc.e with the circulation element
of the General Plan.
5• That the Pla~ning Commission recommends to the City Council that the
westerly ar.d easterly sldes of East S!:reet be posted prohibtting the
parking of vehicles between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. along said street
between Water Street ar.d South Street.
6. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Counci: that
the amendment af Ordinar.ce No. 8,78 include the amendment of the legal
description of the sub,ject properties, in accordance with City Council
finding of August 8, 1961, as follows:
"A parcel of property located between Wat.er and South Streets;
. said property having a dep±h o* i50 feet westeriy r"rom the west-
erly right-of-way line of East Street."
Commissioner Marcoux offered Rese?~*_ion No. 149, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recom-
ment. to tha City Councit the amendment of Ordinance No. 878., sub_iect to
the following conditions:
1. Preparation of street improvemant plans and installation of all im-
provements, including sidewalks, where said improvements do not exi5t
for the west side of East Street between Water Street and South Street,
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with the
adopted standard plans on file ir, the Office of the City Engineer.
2. Removal of an existing driveway on Parcei No. 4 and replacement with
st~ndard curb and gutter and tnstaltatiun of a maximum thirty (30)
~,:~ ~:ti'a;:
4~._.~:
--.--~
.__ , ~;' - -- . ~ ~~~ ~ . .'~ ., ., - ~.~ . ...~'. ,.__~---
V ~ 1 ~
~
~ . , : ,~
~ _
~ ~, .--. - 1---_.~._~
.~:. . .. ~ . .
~:'
~~~._~.. ~.~ ~ ~ ~ . .
~.~~~ _. .. -. ~ .-. ~
~.~>_~.~. ~
.
~ ~.. _ ' ':~. k .~
~ 1 ~
~./ EJ
MINUTES. CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1961, Continued:
~.`
RECLASSIFICATION - foot wide comnercial driveway, centrally locatad, un Parcel No. 4 ~
N0. 61-62-32 subject to:the approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with
fContinuad} the adopted standard plans on file in the Office oi thz City Engineer. !
3. Installation of a maximum thirty (30) foot wide commerciai driveway
at the southerly fifteen (15) feet of Parcel No. 2 and the northerly
fifteen (15) feet of Parcel No. 3~ 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. i
4. Prohibition of driveway construction or vehicu~ar access to East i
Street for Parcels 1 through 5, except as outlined in Condition ~
Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Instaliation of landscaping and maintenance thereof in the required ~
twenty-five (25) foot landscaped portion of the sixty (60) foot ,
P-L, Parking Landscaping, 2one on Parcel Nos. l, 2, 3, and 4, pians ,
for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval
of the Superintandent of Parka:ay M~intenance.
6. Installation of a 7.3 foot wide landscaped strip in the parkway
portion of the East Street right-of-way across Parcel Nos. 1 through
4, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the
approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance; said lend-
scaping to be maintained by the City of Anaheim.
7. Installation of a watering system to insure the proper maintenance
of the landscaping required ~in Condition Nos. 5 and 6 contained
herein, plans for said system to be submitted to and subject to the
approval of the Superintendent of parkway Maintenance.
8. Prohibition of all ftashing or neon lights or signs on Parcel Nos.
1 through 5 and prohibition of all signs in the twenty-five (25~ foot
landscaped portion of the sixY.y (60) foot P-L, Parking Landscaping,
Zone of Parcel Nos. 1 through 4 and in the parkway portion of the
highway right-of-way of East Street abutting Parcel Nos. 1 through 5•
9. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days fcr the accomplish-
ment of and/or compliance with Condition Nos, l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
and 8.
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 s,fety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Pebiey.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Ptorris.
Commissioner Allred indicated that he did not approve of the recommended
conditions for the proposed amendment of Ordinance No. 878 because he did
not constder it proper that the City be ~esponsibie for the maintenance
of portions of the landscaping area. Commissioner Pebley indicated that
fi~ was not in favor of the recomnended conditions because, in his opinion,
the parkway portians of the right-of-way should be cemented and that land-
~ scaping was not necessary for this area in view of the requirement that
a twenty-five foot parking-landscaping zone be established abutting the
sidewalks for the entire length,nf Parcel Nos. i through 4.
544
MINUTES~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Novemb~~r 27, 1961, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUEQ PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by DOROTHY ANTES, 2021
N0. 61-62-43 Blanchard, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described
as: A parcel 85 feet by 120 feet with a frontage of 85 feet located on
the east side of Ptacentia Avenue between La Palma and Underhill Avenues;
its northwest corner being approximately 660 feet south of the southeast
corner of La Paima and Placentia Avenues and further described as 420
North Placentia Avenue be rsclassified from the~R-A, RESIDEN7IAL AGRICUL-
TURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of November 13, 1961 in
order to provide an opportunity for the petitioner or her representative
to appear before the Commis'sion.
Mrs. Dorothy Antes, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated she had nothing to add to the subject pPtition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commi~sion reviewed development plans and discussed the proposed
lo~ation of the buildings at the rear af the property with parRing pr•c~-
vided in the front. It was noted that two commercial buildings in the
subject area were located closer to the street and provided parking at
the rear. Mrs. Antes stated that parking at the rear was undesirable
because it would not provide adequate lighting and because it would not
attract as many customers as the proposed parking in the front. She in-
dicated that the electric signs would be attached to the commercial
buildings to provide additional lighting for the parking area which would
be of benefit to th.e commercial development.
~ . The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
j subject Fetition:
' I 1. That the etitioner
~ P proposes a reclassification of the above describ-
ed property from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUP.AI, ZONE to the C-l,
" NEIGHBORH000 COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
i 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary
or desirabie for the orderly and proper development of the community.
i
3• That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locatly established in
close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per-
mitted uses generally established throughout the community.
4. That the propos~.d reclassification of subject property does require
dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because
said property does rzlate to and abut upon streets and highways whtch
,.~e proposed ~o ca~ry the t•ype and quantity of traific, which will be
generated by the permitted u:;as, in accordance with the circulation
element of the General Plan.
5• That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 150, Series ig61-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconcled by Commissioner Pebley, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Nc.
61-62-43 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhib~. Nos. 1 and '1
with the provision that a minimum six (6) foot wide strip of land-
scaping be provided along the h(ghway right-of-way line of subject
' property, pians for~said landscaping to be submitted to and subject
to the aF~roval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, and
i__, ~ _~._......._.._------_ ___.__. ~
_. ___.._ ._ .__
. ... ... . _ .~....e..
• ,
~ ... -~:lL'"-~.~~ ~,. . ,~.. . , . .. _ . .. ; .:.. ~. .. ~_ ~. ~.:,. -':-~1: i ,1i:9): . . ~ . ~-
~ ~ ~
~
S:
~.
:
, I
~: : I _..
' __-------- r ~
. \.J
545
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING__COMMISSION November 27, 1961, Contlnued:
RECCASSIFICATION - said landscaping to be installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
No. 61-62-43
(Continued} 2. Dedication of fifty-three {53) feet from the monumented centerline
of Placentia Avanue (30 feet existing).
3. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements on Placentia Avenue subject to the approval of the City
Ersgineer and in accordance with the adopted stundard plans on file
in the Office of the City Engineer.
4. Payment of $2.00 par front foot for straet lighting purposes on
Placentia Avenue.
5. Provision af trash storage areas, subJact to tha approvai of the
Director of Public Works, which are adequata in siza, accassibla
for trash pick-up and adaquately enclosed by a solid fenca or wall
prior to Final Building Inspection.
6. T(me limitation of ona hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Noe. 2, 3 and 4. •
Tha foregoing condttions were recltad at the meating and ware ~found to ba
a r~ecessary praraqufslte to the use of the proparty in ordar to preserve
tha safety and welfara of the citizans of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungatl, Pabtey, Perry,
Summers.
NOES : CQ;1H f SS t ONERS : P~ona.
ABSTAINED:CO+IMISSI(1NER5: Morris.
ABSENT: C~MMISSiONERS: Hapgood.
Commisaioaer Pebley left tne C~uncil Chambers at 3;15 0'Clock P.M.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUF,D FUBLIC HEARING. Pe ition submitted by CARL LAWSON, 811 Royal
~10. 61-62-46 Way, Anaheim, California, DE~MAR PEBLEY, 800 West North Straet, Anaheim,
California and EARL F. VI,PON~~ 604 South Harbor Eoulevard, Anaheim,
California, O~vners; George E. iianey, 1412 Damon, Anaheim, California,
pgent; requesting that propertiy described as: A parcal 150 faet by 109
feet with a frontage of 150 faet along Harbor Boulevard, located at the
southeast cornar• of the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Water
Street; and further described as 600-608 South Harbor Boulevard be re-
classified from tha R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGH-
BORH000 COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Subjact petition was continued from the meettng of November 13, 1961 in
order to'permit the preparation by the Ptanning Department Staff of
Precise Plan Study No. 30-73-2 for thf• possible use of properties in the
subJect area and to permit the owners of properties, abutting the subject
proparty contained in the original petition, to indicate whether they
were intarested in incorporat!~g the reclassification of thair properties
in conJunction with the subject petition for reclassification. Subsequent
to the meeting on.November 13, 1y61, the owners of the abutting properties
had includad a request for r.~:alassification ln the subJect petition, the
properties were re-advartised, and a Precise Plan Study had been prepared
'for consideration by the Commissi~n. '
Senior Planner Martin Kreidt displayed zoning and land use maps of the
subject area and described the existing zoning and land use of the sur-
ro~rsding area. He noted that the p:-operiies were developed primarily
for'single family residential purpcses; that a doctor's clinic had been
established on the nortw•:4st corner of Harbor Boulevard and Water 5treet;
that a saries of office buildings had been estabtished by varia~ce on tha
~~ ~
~
~
r. . ..
~
'``:,~
54b
MINUTES, CITV~PU~NNING COMMIS~~ION, Novr:mber 27, 1~61. Continued:
RECLASSIFiC~,'•fON - west el•ie of Hatbor Boulevard including doctors' offices, a drug store, ~
N0. 61-62••46 a two-story office building; and~ a converted residence, said offices
{Continued) presently classified in the ~-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone; that an
exist~~g F~ofessional office had been establish~:d, apparently.by variance,!
on the southeast corne~ GT ~-larbor Boulevard and Water Street, said pro- (.
perty included in th~ :u:,Ject Petitior. ror• Reclassification; and that the
Board of Realtors had estab~isred an or"Tice ouiiding oy variance in an ~
existing residence loca2~..:i s~utiiErly of the subject properties. Mr. ~
Kreic!t displayed a Preciae• P~.yr~ 5i.udy of the area whici.: indicated the j
use of the properties, lacated ~n both sides of Harbor Boulevard exterid- ~
i~!; southerly from Water S•~^eet tc South Street, for besiness and pro- !
fessional offices He nor.ed r.hat rhe property concerned in ~etition for f
Reclassificat+on No. 5i-62-4y :-~es also included in the Preci::: Plan ~
Study. Mr. Kreidt recommende~ that the height of any buildii~9s, to be ~
located on the p:•~perties ind;cated in Precise Plan No. 30-7:-2, i:e ~
lirrited to single story within 40 feet of the abutting single family ~
r~s?'~a~ial propertias to prevent the invasion of privacy that two-story ~
strur.tures would permit. He also recommended that windows be prohibited ~
on LE~e rear of any :.vo-story buildings where said windows would overlook ~
the adjacent residential development. Mr. Kreidt pointed out that at ~
, the present time there wac a new two-story office building located on the
west side of Harbor Bcule•~ard a~d that the subject Petition for Reclass-
ification requested the esLablishment of a two-story ~rofessional offi~:e
buiiding with parking undern~ach.
Mr. George Baney, the petitioners' agent, appeared be:fore the Commission ~
and inquired about the effect the recommended forr.y f~oot building s~at-
back from the alley, abutting subject property on *.he east, wc,:~ld have
, on the qroposed two-story structure to be erected on •~~h,jec. pr~~pe!•ty. ~
He indicated that development plans showed a 35 `o~-;. ua~ilding setback 1
• and that the recommended 40 foot setback might int.:rfere with the pro- ~
posed architecture o` the building which may ba mare suitable for iha
area. Mr. Baney stated furthPr that an adequate amount of parking area
would be provided for the propos~:d building. The Cc~mmissi~n discussed
~ at some ler~yth thc matte~• of the building setback from the alley an~i the ~~
necessi*.y ior establishing a~olicy for the subject area. !t was no;ed
that a six foo: la~~dst,apino strip would be raG;:~red in the parkway por•tion
of the 5ubject properti~s, and that a drive,way approach was indicated f~om
Harbor Boulevard. ~
~
Mr. Delmar Pebley, 800 West North Street, owner of the corr•,ar property
incorporated into the subject petition, appe.ared before the :'nmmi~sion
and stated that he was =n favor of the reclasaific tton of the subject
properties but that he was opposed to the canve;sion cf the existing
residences for comm:~rcial purposES. He s~:ated further that he was in
favor of the raclassiPication of the entire area pi•ovided tht h~~nes were
remeved and new comRercial sC~:.~ctures. that were suitable to tna area,
~lere erec:ed. ~;. Pehl~y poirted out that the fui~+re street widening
would have an effect upon the smalt lots and that the locat'on of the
bui'idings on tF.• lots must be care~`uily cc~nsidered. Ne :ndicated that
to impose: re~trictior.s, that w~uld make it diff~cult ~o canply~~.~iyht have
a detrim!:ntai ~:ffect upor~ tFe area in the future.
Mrs. Sylvia H~swkins, 620 South Harbor Boulevard, appearr;d before the
Commission ~:id ~tated ~hat most of the property owners i~ Lhe area wer~:
in favor of thF reclassif~caCion. However, they did ~ot c~nsider i^
suitable to utilize th~ existing residences for commercial purposes,
and were of the opinion that the dwellings shouid be removc•u frorr time
to time as plans for the use and development of ti~e prnpPrties were
evolved. She stated further that, if the use of the existing buildi~gs
were permitted, it would.be de'trimental to the remainder oi~ the pro-
perties and would develuate these propercies.
_____._..._.__~_.._..._. ---._-._
! ._. ~
;
G :_ .
c i
~~ ~
5~+7
MINUTES. CqTY PLANNING COMMISSION,. November 27, 1961, Continued:
RECLAf~SiFICAT10-i - Dr. Kott, 6C1 South ~arbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and
N0. E~-62-46 stated that he was in : or of the proposed reclassification to the C-l,
. Cor.*_inued) Neighborhood Gommerr.ta., Lane proyided the existing residences were re-
moved and new structures were arected and provided the uses were restrict-;
ed. Chairman Gauer reed a letter of protest, dated November 18, 1961, ~
:ontsining the signatures of three residents on Helena Street. He also '
~
read ; le;ter of opposition, dated November 26, 1961 containing nine
;
signatures of'r~s?dents ~n ~,aien_ Street, protesting that the reclassifi- i
cation of the e~*.ire ;rea cvould c;eate strip zoning and that any com-
mercial deveia.pm?^' should be established by variance. ,
:1r. T~d Willia,ns, 009 South Helena Street, appeared before the Commission,',
~tated he had s~bmitted the letter of oppo~ition, and reviewed the items ,
outlinea in '~z letter of protest. He indi~aLed that any commercial
d_velopment of the subject area should h~•ve restrictions imposed that
would make it: mandatory that all existing structures be removed before
the E~roperty c.ould be utilized.
Assista~t, City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that a condi-
tion cou~~i be imposed requiring that, prio!• to the reclassificatEon of
the pr~•perties, the existing structures be re:-~ved before thC commercial
zoning co~sld ~e establistied, thus 't would bec-~me s prerEquisite to the
establishme-+t: of the commercial zoning that the existing structures be
removed.
Mr. Williams indicated to the Commission that 'ie was speaking for the
peopte in th~• area and t4iat, if a condition were stipulated as outlined
by Assistant City Attorr,zy Joe Geisler, he would not be opposed to the
propo:~ed reclassification, and that he considered it imperativ= in order
•~o na.intain a control r~y~r the properties and to avoid future controversy.
Mr. George Downs, 610 '•~uth Pine St~eet, appeared before the Commissiqn
and made note of Petitic~n for Reciassificatiori No. 6i-62-49~ which.wa.<,
scheduler~ for public hearing and concerned ~i~s. ~f the properzies on the
west side of Harbor Boulevaru~ and which was in:luded in ~recise Pian
:tu~y No. 30-73-2. He stated that there v:~~ a:ecd res~riction filed
whe:~ tne subd€~~is'on was established which proh?bits r.he use of any of
the residences i~~ Tract No. 406, located on the west sid~ ~~f Harb~~r
Bouievard, for any purpose other than residential use. He requested
that thc: Fetition for Reclassification e,contirued until such tfmr, as
a copy of t;ie deed restrict~on ceuld be obtained. It was noted *.~~at th~
deed restriction concerned the prope involved in Petition ior Rec!as,-
ification No. ~1-62-49 and that Precise Plan No. 30-73-2 was nn a
suggested reclassif~catiun Lut w;:s mereiy a qu1~~ for th: ~ommi~sion to
consider because of the state of transition or the subjec.t aroa.
Assistant City At:orne~~ Jr.~e Geisler adv~sed the Commission that Ct~e
fil'sng of deed restrictions is a persoi:al :onvenant that does not bind
th~ City. Howev~r, deed restrictions do serv.: as a fac~~or of deter•mina-
tion of whether a proposed reclassification shall be accompli~hed.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Morris inquired abaut the subnission of plans for the devel- ~
opment of the center property,included in t:~e subjecY Petition for Re-
classification~and it was noted that no plans had been prepared cr sub- ~. .,
mitted for its davelopment. The lack of plans for the development vf the (
cen!.er ~ropercy was discussed at some length, and Assistant Cit; 1lttorney I
Joe Geisier advised the Commission that the subjr.cL petition could be
appro~red wi~h the requirement that each parcel submit plc.is for ri~velop- ~
ment ~or the approval by fiha Commission before the re:iassification ur ~
the propar~y became effective. He stated further tha.~ a statement of ~
policy could be made rp?~Yive to the establist~ment of a;; foot buila3ng I
setback from the a~ley. ' ~•
F
€;
r
B
5
'Lr.:~..r~~b'dt:..~'~_"": _..~ ~ ~r- ~ _ , ,. .r' - __~ yi' .,~~.,,_,.,_..r~
~ ,
.. .Y ~
, .
~.: / -, ---c.----- , :~
~ ~ ,i~. :~._ ,.~.
~ ~.,.n ..~.a~..~,ic.~._...: ~. ~~. .._ ~.~. ~: : :.',.. : - •. ~;~. . . ~.. .,
. .,.. ~. . . ._ . _ . . ..~. . _ ,..
..~,... . , . " .. .. .. - ..,..'.__ .. . _ . - .
. , ~ .... .,.=cr..... ..~ . .. . . ..
~ ~
5~+8
MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING•COMMISSION. November 27, 1961. Continued:
R'eCiASSIFICATION - The Commission discussed the matter of the advisability of limiting the
' N0. 61-62-46 type and size of signs and Commissioner Aarcoux indicated that the signs
sContinued) should conform in appearance with those un the properties located on the
~j ,~ west side cf Harbor Boulevard.
The Commission discussed the matter of the advisability of limiting the
type and size of signs and Commissioner• Marcoux indicated that the signs
should conform in appearance with those on the properties located on the
west side af Harbor Boulevard.
The Commission also discussed the present poor condition of the ailey~
abutting the subject property~and the matter of the improvement of *_he
alley. Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler iriformed the Commission that
the present theory regarding atley improvements~was that the property
owner was responsi~le for the construction of the alley~ because it was
of benefit to the abutting property~and the general citizens do not pay
for an improvement that primarily affects a particular property. He in-
dicated, however, that the City would maintain the ailey after construc-
tlon. He stated further that the alley abutting the subject properties
would require reconstruction~because of its poor condition~which could
not be considered a matter of maintenance. Mr. Ted Williams stated that
he did not consider it the obligation of the adjacent property owners
to pay for the reconstruction of the alley for' the convenience of the
commercial development.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion that the owners of the subject. pro- i
perties be required to reconstruct the alley abutting the subject pro- i
perties and that the City maintain said aliey after reconstruction. The i
, motion failed for lack of a second. ~
_ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the ~
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a rectassification of the above described
property from the R-1, ONE FANILY RESIDENTIAL,.ZONE to the C-l, NEIGH-
_ BORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
' 2. That the propos~d reclassification of subject property is necessary
or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3. That the propcsed reclassification of subject property does properly
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established
~ westerly of subject property and to the zones and their permitted
uses generaily established throughout the community.
~ 4. That the proposed reclassification uf subje~t property does require
dedication of abutting streets because said property does relate to
and abut upon streets and highways which are proposed to carry the
- type and quantity o~f traffic, which will be generated by the permitted
uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the General Plan.
5• That it is hereby established as a matter of policy that any two
story s,tructures established on thosP properties abutting the wester-
ly and the easterly sides of Harbor Boulevard between Water•Stree.*,
and"South Str@e•:~following appropriate reclassification~shall 'main-
tain a second 'story building setback of 35 feet from the boundary
lines of the alleys~abutting the rear of said properties~ and further
~ provided th?t the easterly and w~sterly extremities of said.second
story censtruction shall contai~ no windows for visibility to the
residential properties abutting to the east and west.
~,_~. i; 6. That verbal opposition'and two letters of.protest were recorded
~~~~.,;_,, against subject petition.
r
'~'~. i
~'~~ . '
x
. ~ _
,,
~b.~ci~,S-::~•..: ~.~. ~ . .:.~.r,'3x ~ ~: <..x~..;. ~ .1 ,,'..~.._~ ~~::.s..'. , -Y..i_ .P , , .,.~.n ' 1~~1- ..a.a ., ..T f .. £~~.s.i;a .
~
y
~
~
r
-
-._ ..._ ..
~ ~i
~
~
549 ~
I MINUTES..CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, IJovember 27, 1961, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - ~. That it is hereby recommended that separate ordinances reclassify
! h0. 61-62-46 subject Lot Nos. 12, 13, a~id 14 upon satisfaction o•` the canditions
i (Continued) applicable to each of the lots as hereinafter contained.
Commissioner Summers offered Resolution No. 151, Series 1961-62, and '
moved for its passage and adoption, saconded by Commissioner Allred, to ~•
racommend L~ tha City Council that Petition for Reclassiftcation No.
61-62-46 be approved, subJect to the following conditions and subJect to ~
the amendment, requiring the filing of dead restrict(ons, as offered by
Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, and carriad:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhtbit Nos. 1 and 2 for
the devalopment of Lot No. 12, Block D, of Tract No. 409, with the
stipulation that windows shall not be tnstalled at tha rear of the •
proaosed building.
2. SubJect to tha ra~~lew by the Planning Commission and City Council of
the. developmant plans for commercial use of Lot No. 13, Block 0, of
Tract No. 409.
3. Removal of the existing residential structures on Lot Nos. 12 and 13
of Block D, Tract No. 409.
4. Installation of a minimum six (6} foot wide landscaped strip abutting
the front property lines of subject properties, plans for said land-
scaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Super-
intendent of Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping to be installed
prior to Final Building Inspection.
5• Posting of a two (2) year bond to insure theinstallation of a wall
along the southerly boundary line of subject property where subject
property abuts property classified in the R-l, One Family Residential;
Zane.
6. Maintenance of a thi~ty-five (35) foot second story building setback
for any two-story structures established on subject propertdes from
the easterly property lines of subject properties and further pro-
- vided that no windows shall be installed at the rear of the second
story of said two-story buildings.
r, ~
7. L'imitation that all signs erected on subject properties shall have a
maximum area of eight (8) square feet and shall be unlighted.
8. Recordation of deed restric*ians by the owners of subject properties
3imiting use of said propert?Ps to business or professional offices
only prior to Final Building Inspection.
9. Provision of off-street parking faciiit~es in accordance with Code
' requirem~nts prior to Final Suilding lns~ection.
10. Dedication of forty-five (45) feet from the monumented centerline of
Harbor Boulevard (37•25 feet existing) for Lot Nos. 12, 13 and 14,
Block D, of Tract No. 409.
11. Prohibition of the use of any residenxial structure for commercial or
combined residential and commercial use.
12.. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- .
ment of Item No. 10.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necessary prerequisite. to the use of the properYy in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. -
~ ~
~;~
~
~. . .
~ 1
~ , ;~
S , .-~i.ulfis.,
... ~~Ij. f~.1,,.. Z...~. . .~~ i'....._
~F t _
C
~ .~. . ~ ~.__~ ~ ~'~. , . . .
N0: 61-62-46 -
Continuad) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A11rQd, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall, Perry,
Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. '
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Pehtey.
Commissioner Pebley returned to the Counc3l Chambers at 4s00 0'Clock P. M.
VARIANCE N0. 1421 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition eubmitted by SYLBA B. MARKS, 2612 West Lincoln
'Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; D. W. Dotson, 250 East Pacific Coast
Highway, Wilmington, California, Agent; requesting permission for the
CONVERSION QF GUEST HOUSE TO LIVING QUARTERS on property described as:
A parcel 100 faet by 194 feet with a frontage of 100 feet located on
tha south side of Lincoln.Avenue between Magnolia Avenue and Stinson
Street; its northeast corner being approximately 200 feet west of the
southwast corner of Lincoln and Magnolia Avenues, and further described
as 2612 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified in the R-A,
RESIOENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mr. D. W. Dotson, representative for the~petittoner, appeared before
tha Commisston and stated that tha proposad convarsion of a guest houss
was not in order to permit a rental on the subJect proparty but that It
was in order to provtde living quarters for the patitioner's mother and
her nurse, Ha stated furthar that tha pattt(onar had bean unfortunata
in retatning an unscrupulous contractor~ who had commancad the conStruc-
tton of the guast house without obtaining building parmits or perrf~isslon
for the proposed construction, and that she has presently contracted 'areli
able builder to complate the buildtng.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Tha Commtssion r'ound and determined the foliowing facts regardfng the
subJect petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.16.010 to permit the conversion of a guest house
on subJect property into living quarters.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi-~
tions applicable to the property involved or to the i~:ended use of
the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of
use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other pro-
perty in the same vi~inity and zone, and denied to the property in
, question.
I _
4. That the requested variance will hot be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurlous to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requested variance wili not adversely affect the Compre-
hensive General Plan.
6. That i*, is hereby recommended to the petitioner that the subject
.property be cleaned.and cleared in.order to present a mure orderly
appearance for the benefit of the surroundi~g nelghborhood.
7. That no one eppeared in opposition.to subject petition.
Commissioner 14u~~all offered Resolution No. 152, Series 19b1-62, and
moved for its pas,sage arid adoption, secondEd by Commissioner Marcoux, to
~ r,~. . -~,_ ' J9~, 'H2A ~ ..5: / . . . . . . . . ~ ~ .. ,.^.~+~a~w~t
u2!! .. .. .. ... .... llf_.. f.. ....~... . . .. _. ._ . .... _ . .~.....~..../~. . ... _.. ..%~~.'.~~~~~ ...,....,.5;,~~Y3NS:'-vX^'.c`[~ . .
!
S'
~' ~ ~ 4~~a~~.
~. , .~ . _ i
r:
1-----
~ ,
~~
c~
~::J 1
551
,~
e
Z.
t •,
~
~ _ _ ;.,. _ _ . --
c~ ~ ~
;. ~ d
~"
i; .
r:'
~,
HINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 27, 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1421 - grant Petition for Variance No. 1421, subject to the following conditions:~
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. l, 2, ~
and 3.
2. Time limitation for the proposed use of the guest house for a period
of one (1) year subject to review by the Planning Commission at
the expiration of said one (i) year period of time.
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 Anahaim. •
On roll call tha foregoing resolution was passed by the following vota:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
VARIANCE N0. 1422 - PUBLIC HEARING. ~etition submitted by ALLAN CAMPBELL, 11611 Oesmond
Street, Gerden Grove, California, Owner, John 0. Watt, 9951 Belfast
Driva, Gardan Grove, California, Agant; requesting permisston to OPERATE
A BEER BAR on property dascribed as: A parcel 70 feet by 330 feet with
a frontage of 70' feet located on the west'side of Brookhurst Straet ba- ~
tween Broadway and Oranga Avenue; its northeast corner being ~,?roximate- ~
ly 565 feat south of tha southwest corner of Broadway and ?rr.ekhursY ~
Street, and further described as 4i7 South Hrookhurst Street. Property ~
presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENT.IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mr. Allan Campbell, the petitioner, appeared before 4.he Commission, stat-
ed that he was the owner of the subJect ~roperty; that the subjecY pro-
perty had been utilized in the past for a similar operation; therefore,
he was requesting the subject variance in order to permit the.establish-
ment of the same type of business; that the previous operator of the bar
had been involved in difficulties with the City; that the redwood ex-
terior of the building would be refinished; that the building number was
wrong because of the reassignment of building numbers in the City; and
that the premises had been occupied formerly by the CA~tErhi~rv Rnnm.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Gei~ler informed the Commission that the
sub,ject property had been approved originally by variance for the estab-
lishment of a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages, that ~~lans were
submitted for the kitchen and seating arrangement but that the Building
:rmit had never been finalized and the building had nPVer been completed,
•~~ : the vartance had been terminated by the City Cou~ncll because of
failure to canply with the conditions of approval, th~t the operation was
merely a beer bar and food had never bee~i served, that .~a:: sui,: had
been instituted by the City to enforce cor:pliance, that it: h~sd been
determined by the Court that the operation w~s in violati'., that an
appeal was pending but is not being pursued, and that the 'ty should be
sustained in the law suit because the variance was never e,•;Anted for the
type of operation and the building had never been complet~cl in accordance
with the approved plans.
The petitioner indicated that he had originaily applizd f•:~r a, variance
for the establishment of a cocktail lounge and restauran+., chat he had
leased the~property with the understanding that the ts~ant would complete
the plans, that the tenant had difficulty in obtaining a regular liquor
license therefore he had~commenced the operation of a beer bar, and that
the lack of complia`.e with the conditions of the lease agreement was
the reason for the breaking of the lease by court action.
~-
:~ _._..
.
~
~ ~ - ~ --__._
_
552
~ ~ MINUTES..CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1422 - THE HERRING WAS CLO5E0.
(Continued)
The Commission discussed the number of cocktatl iounges and simiiar
establishments presently in the subject area. '
The plot plans submitted with the subject petition were reyiewed~and the
Commission noted that no plans for the interior of the building had been
submitted and there was no indic~tion that a kitchen would be provided.
Commisstonar Pebley noted that it would not ba advisable to epprove the
subject petition until such time as definite plans were prepared and
detailad fioor plans were submitted for consideration.
Tha Commission found and datermined the following facts regarding the
subJect petition:
1. That tha petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
' GoZe, Section 18.16.O10 to permit the establishmant o'F a bear.bar.
2. That the requested variance will ba materiaily detrimental to tho
publlc v:elfsre or Ir.Jurious to tha property or Improvements tn such
vicinity and zone in which the proparty is locatad and will not ba
an asset to tha surrounding area.
3e That na one z.~ppeared in opposition to sub~ect peti~ion.
Commissioner Morris offared Resolution No. 153~ Saries 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Pebley to
deny Petition for Variance No. 1422 on the basis of the aforemantioned
fi~dings. '
On roll call the foragoing resolution was passed by the following vota:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gausr, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall, Pebley
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMM15510NER5: None.
ABSENT: ~OMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
VARIANCE N0. 1423 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MAX L. and OPAL F. CHILDERS, 2887
West Lynrose Orive, Anaheim, Califurnia, Owners; requesting permission
to WAIVE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS on property described as;
A parcel 72 feet by l00 feet with a frontage.of 72 feet located on the
north side of Lynrose Drive between Gaymont Street~and Birchleaf Drive;
its southwesterly corner being approximately 2;0 feet east of the north-
easterly corner of Gaymont Street and Lynrose Orive, and further describ•
ed as 2887 Wast Lynrose Drive. property presently ciassified in the R-l,
ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
The petitioner appeared bafore the Gommission and stated he had noChing
co acid to"the information contained in the subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLO5E0.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requesxs a variance fr~m the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroachment of five (5)
feet into the required rear yard of subject property in order to •
permit the construction of an.addition to an existing single family
residence.
2.: That there are excep2ional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- ~
tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property thet do not appiy genereiiy to th~"property:or class of '
_ , ~• -
,S
~i~J:..~:~:,':~~~.:. :, '__ "_._.''.
.. , ~. ~ . . 1 .
553 {
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1423 - cf use in the same vicinity and zone. ~
~Continued)
3• That the reques*_ed variance is necessary•for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other pro- ~
perty in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the prnperty in
question.
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre-
, hensive General Plan.
6. That the tract in whi~°.n subject property is located was developed
under County jurisdiction and sidewalks were not required to be l
constructed. ~
7. That no one appear~d in opposition to subjact petition.
Cortrnissionsr Marcoux offered Resolution No. 154, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
grant Petition for Varianca No. 1423, subjact to tha following conditions:;,
1. Development substantialiy in accordance with Exhibit No. 1.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of tha proparty in order to presarve
tha safaty and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call tha foreg~ing resolution was ~assed by the following vote:
AYES: COMM!SSIQNERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
VARIANCE N0. 1424 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by CLYDE and JOAN SCHLUNO, 18221
Peralta Hi11s, Anaheim; California, Ownars, Salvatore S Lewis D'Antonoli,
11831 Medina Drive, Gerden Grove, California, Agents; requesting per-
mission to ESTABLISH A MOTEL on property described as: A parcel 225
feet by 296 feet with a frontage of 225 feet on West Street and located
on the northeast corner of West Street.and Winston Road; excepting a
parcel 15U feet by 160 feet with a frontage of 150 feet on West Street
and located on the northeast corner of West Street and Winston Road, and '
furthsr described as 1326 South West Street. Property presently class-
ified in thelR-Ay RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURALe . ~.
Mr. 5alvatore D'Antonoli, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the .
Commission and stated that the proposed motel was the best use of the
subject property because of its locatton in the Oisneyland area. He
stated further that they did not intend to develop the rear portion of
the subject property at the present time and that it would remain in
citrus trees.
The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that a fifteen foot
setback was provided at the front of the property to the area proposed
for the construction of a swimming pool and thet ttie building was indi- ~
cefed at a thirty-five foot building setback from the property line. ?
The,Commission discussed the..5taff Recommendations that the setback be ,;
_revised to provide a twenty (20) foot setback in order to comply with j ';,
the policy established by tha City Gouncil for motels in the area. .The !. ;
I ; i
~,
_ ;
.
~.;.:.., .'. -'. . . .~ ".,.~ ~.~ .. ._. . . .' ... .. . ~ . ". ~ , .' ~. '~., , . ~ .~ ..~'~~ ~~ • E~:'.~~
,.. ~ ~ . y f_c
. . . ~ ~ . . . _ ,~~:
-. : _ . . ~ . . . . . ~
.. ,- .... .,. .
'~.~r-_- ~*^~^TS:*1.:~~.~ .1~!~ti~ns.',-v , , r:~i::~!. '' i..,~,..~;7ti . . ~..-i.t. .:._r,. ~%. ~-._ ~` =~=~.~ t i~. .~ , ... ! .. _.-.;?s,,...*.V ,. _.!= ~..',~~ ~ . .. . ,. - ":~~~` . ~, 4~~:.
~ '
553
~ I MINUTES. CITY PLANNlNG COMMISSION. November 27, 1961, Continued;
~ ' VARIANCE N0. 1423 - of use in the same vicinity and zone.
~ (Continued)
~~`.~ ~ ~ ~,
r . .
€ . !
4.
5.
That th~ r~~uested variance is necessary•for the preservation and i
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other pro-
perty in the same vicinity a~d zone, and denied to the property in
question.
That the requested variance will not be mater3ally detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre- ~
hensive General Plan.
6. That the tract in which subJect property is located was developed
under County ~urisd:cti~n and sidewalks were nat required to be
constructed.
7. That no one a~peared in opposition to subjact petitton.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resoiution No. 154, Serias 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
grant Petition for Variance No. 1423, sub,ject to tha followtng conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. l.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
a nece,ssary prerequlsite to the use of tha property in order to presarva
the eafety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roli cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMlSSlONERS: Allred, Gaue~, Marcoux, Morris, Mungail, Aebley,
Perry, SummErs.
NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS: Hapgood.
VARIANCE N0. 1424 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by CLYDE and JOAN SCHLUND, 18221
Peralta Hilts, Anaheim; California, Owners, Salvatore ~ Lewis D'Antonoli,
11831 Medina Driva, Garden Grove, California, Agents; requesting per-
mission to ESTABLISH A MOTEL on property described as: A parcel 225
feet by 2g6 feet with e frontage of 225 feet on West Streat and located
on the northeast corner of West Street and Winston Road; excepting a
parcel 150 feet by 160 feet with a frontage of 150 feet on West Street
and located on the northeast corner of West Street and Winston Road, and
further described as 1326 South West street. Property presently class-
ifted in the 14~Az RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL. ~,
Mr. Salvatore D'Antonoli, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the proposed motel was the best use of the
subject proPerty because of its locefion in the Disneyland area. He
stated further that they did not intend to develop the rear portion of
the subject property at the present time and that it would remain in
citrus trees.
The Commission reviewed:development plans and noted that a fifteen foot
setbeck was provided.at the front of the property to the area proposed
for the constcuction ~f a swimming pool and that the building was indi-
cated at a thirty-five,foot building setback fran the property line.
The Commission.discussed the 5taff. Recommendetions that the setbeck be
revised to provide a twenty (20) foot setback in order to comply with
, the poiicy estab.l3shed by,fhe City 6ouncil _f.or motels in the area. The
i
I , _, ' ,
: .,,,
.. .
:.: .~:,~~.'A/aY • ~,.~.y .,.Y..:~. f}.G...~.:..;... ~.~~)t"iT~S+.hT~~..1..'..:.::F;..L._~.~.Ai:..x..~..~:~V~Y~n _ •.:..V.,W~.~v.~u.r.... ~~.
__. .` .~ ..i~.. •u..~. . . . . .
. 'r,
ti `.
~ .. i ~ . ~ ttit~~~
0
554
MINUTES CITY PLANNING C~OMMISSION November 27, 19bi,'Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 142!} - petitioner's agent indicated agreement with the proposed revision in add-
~Continued) ition to the recommended provision of landscaping.
THE hEARiNG WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the lack of plans for the development of the
entire parcel of subject property and Assistant City Attorney Jo,e
Geisler advised the Commission that, under the variance policy establish-
ed fo~ the Disneyland area, it would be necessary for the developers to
obtain a variance for the future expansion or developmant of the remain-
der of the property.
Commissioner Mungall indicated that he considered it necessary that the
devalopment plans be revised to increase the size of the units to a mini-
mum of 300 square feet. The petitioner~s agent indicated that he was
agreeable to the proposed alteration of the unit size.
Commissioner Mungali pointed out that the elevation ptans for that por-
tion of the building fronttng on West Streat were not attractive and.he
recommended that the elevation plans be revised to provide a mare attrac-
tive appearance. The petitioner's agent stated that the pians ctsuid be
revised to provide an additional amount of brick and rock on the frontage
of the buildings, that landscaping would be provided, and that they had
received permission to remove the existing wall between the subject
property and the service station on the northea:+t cornt;:° of West Street
and Winston Road.
Assistant City.Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Cortunission that the
Planning Department could exercise architectural control over the devel-
opment plans and that the approval of the revised plans could be made
subJect to the approval by the Building and Planning Departments.
Tha Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance frvm the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.16.010 to permit the establishment of a motel on
subject property.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi-
tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply generally to the property or• class
of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property ~
in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
4. That the requested variance wiil not,be materially detrimental to'
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
$. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre-
hensive General Plan.
6. That the subject petition has been considered in accordance with
the variance policy established by the City Council for the Disney-
land Area as delimited on the General Plan.
7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offere;d Resolution No. 155, Series t961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to
~ s .
U
555
~'-
e
F;i= -
r..
r
I,'
%'i
~.."..:~yi.
MINUTES..CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 27, 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1424 - grant Petition for Variance No. 1424, subJect to the follov+ing condi- ~
_~Continued) tions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 ~
with the stipulation that the petitioner shall submit a revision of ~
elevation plans for that portion of the proposed building fronting ~
on West Street, said elevation plans to be'submitted to and s~~ject !
to the approval of the Building and Planning Departments, prior to I
issuance of a Building Permit. ~
2. Maintenance of a 20 foot landscaped setback, plans for said land- '
scaping to be submitted to and subJect to the approval of the
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping to be
installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
3. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the north and east
boundaries of subject propCrty or the posting of a two (2) year bond
to insure the construction thereof, in the event the property to the
north and east is developed for residential purposes within said two
(2) year period of time, prior to Finai Suitding inspactiaz.
4. Provision of a minimum liveable floor area per dwelling unit of three
hundred (300) square feet.
5. Oedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of West Street
(40 feet existing). •
6. Praparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for 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.
7. Installation of sidewalks along West Street in accordance with the
adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
8. Payment of ~~.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on West
• Street and Winston Road.
9. Time limitation of on~: hundred eighty (180) days for the a~complish-
ment c~f Item Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were fuund to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the pro~erty 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: COMN~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Morrls, Mungaii, Peoiey,
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMlSSlQNERS: None.
pBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
VARIANCE N0. 1425 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition subn~itted by GLENN CARL SKINNER, 2339 Rhodes
Ave~ue, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owner;~ requesting permission to WAIVE MIN-
IMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS on property described as: A parcel
60 feet by 100 feet with a frontage of 60 feet located on the northerly
"side of Rhodes Avenue between Minot and Ventura Stre~ts; its southwester-
;;:~' ly corner being approximate?~ 55 i'eet easterly of the northeasterly cor-
' ner of Minot 5treet and Rhodes Avenue, and further described as 2339
Rhodes Avenue. Property presently classified in`the R-1, ONE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
_ ~
'i+~+!~~;:
~
~'.. .._ , ...~~..~~1 ~ .., .... .. .. . ~_ ... ,.... .4 . ~. ~';..i,i:~.,...~~;}.z~.i?i~:~ . .
. ,,
R ~. . . . . .~ ~ ~
~- ----
~
556
~ `I
MIY!JTES, CITY PLANNING_COMM_ISSION. Novemb~sr.27, 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1425 - The petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing ~
(Continued) to add to the inform¢~tio~ conta!ned in the subject petition.
THE HEqRlNG WAS CLOSED. ~
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding tMe
subject petition:
•l. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.24.030 (3) to permit an encroachment of six (6) ~
faet into the required rear yard of subJect property in ordar to
construct an addition to an existing single family residence.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- ~
ttons applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of ;
t,he property that do not apply generally to the property or class
af use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and ~
enJoyment of a substantial'proparty right possessed by other pro- ~
party in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in
quastion. ~
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to 1
• the public welfare or inJurious to the proparty or improvements in '
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. +
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre- ,
hensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. '
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 156, Series 196i-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summers, to
grant Petition for Variance No. 1425, subject to the following condition=
. 1. Development substentially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
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
tha 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: Alired, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
VARIANCE N0. 1426 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by J. W. HEINZ, 722 Provential
Street, Anaheim, Ca!tfornta, Owne r, requesting permission to WAIVE MINI-
MUM ~RONT AND REAR YARD SETBACIC REQUlREMENTS on property described as:
A parcel 105 feet by 105 feet with a frontage of 105 feet on Westmont
Drive and located on the southeasterly corner of Westmont Drtve and
Dwyer Driva, and further described as 1232 Westmont Drive. Property
presently classified in the R-0, RESIOENTIAL SUBURBAN, ZONE.
Mr. E. F. Forstier appeared before the Commission and stated that fie
. represented Mr. Heinz, the patitioner. He explained that the petitioner
wisfied Eo encroach 12~ feet into the required front yard and 17~ feet
~ into the required rear yard to permit the construction of a single family
residence on subject property fronting on'the extarior side yard of said
~ +~~~~... ~ - " i:`.,- s:~: ~ -.,~,;~ . ,. .~,, i.:r ~_
~
~~ ~
( 1
. =i
5
,~
~
1
r ;:2j
~l ~
~..,
~ ''
~,
~
557
MINUTES CITY PLANNING i.0i'v~lSSION November 2Z, 1~61, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1426 - property. He stated that the F,roposed residenca woutd have a 25 foot set~
(continued) back from Owyer Orive and a 12.6 foot setback from Westmont Drive.
The Commission discussed deed restrictions on the subject property and ~
noted that the restrictions re~~ired a 25 foot setback for the exterior ~
side yard of any property abutting a street. l
Commissioner Allred state~ that, in his opinion, the residence should be
placed to front on Westmont Drive in order to conform with the existing
I
residential development in the area. 'ihe petitioner's agent indicated ~
that the requested variance was in order to provide floor area in excess
of 2,000 square feet and that it would be impossible to alter the pians
submitted with the subject petition in order to face the residence on ~
Westmont Drive. It was noted that the deed restrictions required a
minimum of 175~.square feet of building area.
Mr. Neil Le Vecke, 1226 Westmont Drive,appeared before the Commission
~ and stated that he was the owner of the property abutting subject pro-
perty on the east. He stated that, if the residence were placed'122
feet fran the sidewalk on Westmont Drive, it wouid desCroy the existing
alignment of the residences in that block, that his residence was sit-
uated 42 feet from the sidewalk line on Westmont Drive, and that the pro-
posed construction would block his property in view, light and air. He
called attention to the matter of the deed restrictions recorded on the
properties in the subject area and stated that, if the proposed resi-
dence were permitted, it would be in violation of said restrictions and ~
that the petitioner would be exposing himselt to legal action by the ~
owners of property in the area. Mr. Le Vecke stated further that other ~
neighbors in the area were aiso opposed to the subject petition and i
would oppose the petitioner in this action.
Mr. W. G. Roberson, 1233 Connecticutt Avenue, appeared before the Commis-',
sion and stated that he was opposed to the subject petition, that with
minor changes the proposed residence could be constructed in such a
manner that it would protect the neighbors' investments, and that he had
located in the subject area because of the deed restrictions placed upon
the aroperties~which he considered to be beneficial to the area. He re-
I quested that the Commission comply with the original 25 fuot setback
requirements for the rear of the subject property.
Mr. Heinz, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that he was not aware of the deed restrictions until the day previous
to the scheduled public hearing and that he would not have purchased
the property had he been aware of the restrictions.
Commissioner Allred asked Mr. Heinz if he wished to revise plans in
order t.o comoly with the restrictions or if he wlshed to withdraw the
subject petition.
Mr. Heinz indicated that he wa~ ~~t interested in withdrawing tho
petition or in revising the plans at the present time.
The Cammission found and determined the foilowing facts regarding the
• subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a varia-~ce from the Anaheim ~tunicipal
Code, Section 18.20.030 (1 and 3) to permit ~n encroachment of twelv~
and one-half (12~) feet into the require6 front yard and seventeen
and one-half (17,E) feet into the required rear yard to permit the
construction of a single family residence on subject property front-
ing on the exterior side yard of subject property.
2. That there are no exceptlonal or extreordinary circumstances or con-
r.. _'.'.'
-~' 9
, .~
•~
;.~ y,
~
55$
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 27 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1426 -
(Continued)
~ t
~ ~ 3.
ditions.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.
That the reGuested variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property
in question.
4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the prop~rty is located.
5. That the proposed variance would not be compatibie with the existing ~,
development in the subject area.
6. That a Oeclaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions is
recorded on the subject property prohibiting the proposed encroach-
ment into the front and rear yards of subject property and that the
proposed construction on subJect property would be in violation of
said private deed restrictions.
7. That verbal protests from two owners of property in the subje\ct area
were recorded against subject petition.
Commissior.er Morris offered Resolution No. 157~ Series ig61-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to
deny Petition for Variance No. 1426 on the bases of the aforementioned
findings. •
, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, M.rris, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by DELOS and GOIDIE PATTERSON,
PERMIT N0. 180 P. 0. Box 159, Alta Loma, California, Owners; Roy S. Stuhley, 1100
South Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting per-
mission to ESTABLISH 37-UNIT MOTEL on property described as: A parcel
l00 feet by 222 feet with a frontage of 100 feet on Lincoln Avenue;
and Tocated on the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenuo and Da1e Avenue.
Property presently classified in the R-A, RE5IDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mr. Roy Stuhley, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Comnission
and stated that the proposed 37 unit motel was a use compatible with
the development in the subject area and that it was a iogicai use be-
cause of the traffic conditions in the area and the divider strip on
Lincoln Avenue. He stated further that the break in the divider strip
would provide easy access to the property, that the improvements had
baen dedicated to the City in 1958 with the proposed proJect in mind,
and that the establishment of the motel would provide the highest and
best use of the subject property.
The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that the plans in- ~
dicated that kitchens would be provided for the 350 square foot units.
The petitioner's agent stated that the kitchens were included because
most of the motels in•the area do not have them, that in their opinion
kitchen fecilifies would offer more to tenants, and that the deveTop-
ment could be considered an apartment-motel.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler read ±he definition of "tourist
, . . . ~..: . . . , .
r t? ~~ ~ { ~ .:d ~h ~ ; ( ~ .. i ~~ ~ yr~ a . - r.! .
. _.~~ts,t ..._c..,-r..M y. 17~ ....:r~. ~ ...~:4..1i. .. _..i .....y~ . ~`,.~•~.~~.:~ i:.~:u f:..~i~Qt.~1~~~ x -L ~-.~ . . ..,. ~ .... ..
..~ a:: s
~
~
3
s
1
,;
_:=_s
, :d
~7
..i.~::~,3
a;~ d
,~
.~. y:~i.:.~ "~l
559
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1961, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE - courts", •~uhich inciudes motels, as defined in Section 18.08.730 of the ~
PERMIT N0. 180 Anaheim Municipal Code. The Commission noted that the proposed plans
fContinued} appeared to be a proposal for substandard apartments, and that land- ~
scaping plans were not included.
Mrs. Loza, 225 Mall Way, reviewed development plans for the proposed ~
development.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and det~irmined the following facts regarding the
subject petition: ~
l. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use I
' Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a motel. ~,
2. That the proposed use will 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 grant'ng of the Conditional Use Permit under conditions
imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the proposed devalopment does not adequately comply with Code
requirements for the establishment of a motel.
5• That the proposed develupment, as indicated on the plans submitted
with the subject petition, constitutes an over-use of the land and
is basically a proposal for the development of apartment dwellings
which do not comply with the R-3> Multiple Family Residential, Zone
Code requirements.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 158, Se~ries 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Canmissioner Marcoux, to
deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 180 on the bases of the
aforementioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution ~•las passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
- ,I'~
0
feet north of the northwest cUrner of Lincoln and Euclid Avenues, and ~. ~
further described as 231-A North Euclid Avenue. Property presently
classified in the M-I,.LIGHT MANUFACTURING, 20NE. ~
~.
Mr. Robert MacMahon, attorney representing fhe petitioner, appeared be- ~
fore the Commission and Fresented plans for the development of an auto j
repair shop, including motor tune-up and brake repair, on subject pro- ~ ~
perty. . f ~
. ~ ~ • :~
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by BEN J. HESS, 231-A North Euclid
PERMIT N0. 181 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; Robert W. MacMahon, 403 California
Bank Building, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to
ESTABLiSH AUTO REPAIR SHOP INCLUD{N~ MOTOR TUNEUPS and BRAKE R.EPAIR on
property described as: A parcel 61 feet by 310 feet with a frontage of
61 feet located on the west side of •Euclid Avenue between Lincoln Avenue
and the Santa Ana Freeway; its southeast corner being approximately 335
!
,
,
a
a
1
.... . .;:,. ... . ~ ..
;.
,.
l..: ~.\; :~ . . . ~ ~ i:~
. . . '. l.... , i_ . ,"~ n < ~. _ .. ..._._ . ~~
U : ~J
_ ,h :~~.;~
~ , ; ;;`~:.~
560
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1961, Continued: ~
CONDfTfONAL USE - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
PERMIT N0. 181 '
' (Continuad} The Commission reviewed ~evelopment plans and noted that the use would I
; be established in a new building located on the west slde of Euclid ~
~ ~ Avenue northerly of Lincoln Avenue.
~ 1
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
• ~ subject petition: i
' 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditionai Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: an auto repair shop. I
~ ~. 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land '
uses and the growth and developrtient of the area in which it is pro-
posed 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
de*_rimental to tha particula~ area nor to ths peace, h~alth, 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. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
~ 6. That the requested use is presently in operation on subject pro-
E perty, havir,g been gran*_ed an interim permit 6y the City Council.
E
~ 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
f
r Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 159, Series 1961-62, and
~ moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to
. . grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 181, subject to the
~ . following condition:
~ 1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
~ The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
,"r 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 rotl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
c b
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
CQNDITION/~L USE - PUBLIC HEARiNG. Petition submitted by DOYLE and SHIELOS REALTY COMPANY,
PERMIT N0. l82 831 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; KAK Enterprises
(a pa~tnership), 912 South Park Circle, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH HOFBRAU RESTAURANT WITH"ON SAL'E"BEER
on property described a~: A parcel 264 feet by 344,feet,wi:th a f'rontage
of 264'feet located on the east side.of Euclid Avenue between Ball Road
and Beacon Avenue; its southwest corner being approximately 150 feet
north of the northeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Ball Road. Property
presently classified in the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~ '!,, _ ,;: J.~ '`__ • . .. r.
r.
~
r. ~ .
~___.:
.r__....__.
."-.:--'-'._~_
..... ~
~
~ ~
563
~_. MINUTES.~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 27, 1961, Continued:
~ RECLASSIFICATION - Avenues; its northeast corner being approximately 935 feet south of the
N0. 61-62-48 southwest corner of Lincoln and Knott Avenues, and further described
~'' ~Conti~vad) as 9181 l:nott Avenue be raclsss'sfied from the R-a~ ~cg~pFNsinr.p~~l~~i-
~_,: ~
r TURAL;'Z~NE'to 'the R=3, MULTIPLE FAMICY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petitions for Conditional
Use Permit No. 179 and Variance No. 1420.
Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney representing the petitioners, appeared before~
the Commission and submitted a letter requesting that tha subJect peti-
tion be continued until the meeting of December 11, 1961, in order that
revised plans may be submitted, which w!11 conform to the zoning raquire-i
mants of the City of Anaheim, for Commission consideration. i,
Commissionar Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner All~ed
and carried that tha subJect petition be continuad until the meeting of
December 11, 1961, in accordance with the request submitted by the
petitioner's agent.
Mr. John Wycoff, 673 Vta Media, Buena Park, appeared bafore ihe Caminis-
sion and indicated that he wished to review the plans submitted with the
subJect petitions and inquired about notification in respact to the con-
tinuance of said petitions. Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler inform-
ed him that notices had been given in accordance with Code requirements
~ and that th~ motion offered by the Commission for continuance of the
subject petitions until the meeting of December 11, 1961, was sufficient
notice in respect to said continuance.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by EDWARD and 'JIOLA GRIGGS, 918i
PERMIT N0. 179 Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; Southeast Mortgage Company,
2135 West Bati, $uite 8, Anaheim, California,.Agent; requesting per-
mission to ESTABLISH GARDEN TYPE APARTMENTS on property described as:
An "L" shaped ?arcel with a frontage.of 80 feet located on the west side
of Knott Avenue betw~een Lincoln and Orange Avenuas; its northeast corner
' baing approximately 935 feet south of the southwest corner of Lincoln
and Knott Avenues, and further described as 9181 Knott Avenue. Property
presently classified in tha R-A, RESIOENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
SubJect petition is filed in conjunction with Petiticn for Reclassifica-
tion No. 61-62-48 and Petition~for Variance No. 1420.
Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney representing the petitioners, appeared be-
fore the Commission and submitted a letter requesting that tha subJact
petition be continued until the meeting of Oecember 11, 1961, in order
that revised plans may be submitted, which will conform to the zoning
. requi~aments of the,City of P.naheim, for Gommission consideration:
Cortmissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred
and carried that the subJect•petition be continued until the meeting of
December 11, 1961, in accordance with the request ~submitted by the
petltioner's agent.
~; • VARIANCE N0. 1420 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by EDWARD D. and VIOLA GRIGGS, 9181
~ Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; Southeast Mortgage Company,
2135 West Ball, Suite B, Anaheim, California, A9ent; requesting per-
s mission to WAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATI~NS; ALSO WAIVE ENCLOSED
~ , GARAGE'AND WALL REQUIREMENTS on property described •as: An "'L" shaped
~ parcel with e frontage of SO feet located on the west side of Knott
' '' '~ Av~nue:between Lincoln end Orange Avenues; its northeast corner being
~ approximately 935 feet south of the southwest corner of Lincoln and Knott
~,~ ,~ Avenues, and furtfier described as 9181 Knott,P.verue. Property presently
~ t classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
.~
~~..::~:~
~
P , ~ ~ - . .: ~ ... , . ~ . , . . , .
~ . . . . ' . . . . . . . .. .
~t - . .. . ~ . . . .
! ~~:' . . . . . ~ . . . . . .
~ . .. ' . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ - . ~. ' ~
~ ~ . - . .. . ~ . . . . , . . . ~ . _i ' . . . .
~
~ ...,'. '~. . . ..
t1 ~c4`.~J.'.L_ , ~ ~.. . , .:: i . . _ . r . . , _ ... . . - _ ....-_ . 7 . . .. ~ . . ~ . .. . . . . ....... ~. ~-~~~. .. . .
~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ .
~~}.~.`'^g:.{*.y+»t~~.,w.Sia ..».~:_,h ~~~~.u.i~wi+~+.:.~,'S..k_-~F"~,:~h.~.c~~~.~ .
,~'
t '
r.,v
~
- ._.: ~. :...,. ,.~~..:.,.. ., .. ,n~^.ir:, ~... ~i` ,. , .
. . .. ~ ~v+' : ~ . ~ ~ ~,~~~ . ~.
564
MINUTES CITY PI:IiNNING COMMISSION November 2 1 61 Continued:
' VARIANCE N0. 1420 - Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassifica-
~Continued) tion No. 61-62-48 and Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 179.
Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney representing the petitioners, appeared before
. the Commission and submitted a letter requesting that the subject
petition be continued until the meeting of December 11, 1961, in order
that revised plans may be submitted, which will conform to the zoning
requirements of the City of Anaheim, for Commission consideration.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred
and carried that the subject petition be continued until the meeting
of December il, 1961 in accordance with the request submitted by the
petitioner's agent.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by CHRISTIE VAIL, 202 West North
N0. 61-62-49 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; Betty Roberts, 723 North Los Angeles
Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described
as: A parcel 56 feet by 110 feet with a frontage of 56 feet located on
. the westerly side of-HarbQr eoulevard between Water and South Streets;
its southeasterly corner being approximately 155 feet north of the north-
westerly corner of Harbor Boulevard and South Street and further describ-
eJ as 715 South Harbor Boulevard be reclassified from the R-1, ONE FAMILY
RESIOENTIAL, ZONE to the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE (restrictad
to business and professional offices).
Mrs. Betty Roberts, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commis- j
sion and described the proposed construction of an office building at ~
the front of an existing residence to be used for a doctor's office.
She stated that the proposed use was the best use for the subject pro- ~
perty, that the residence would not be used for ~esidential purposes,
and that it was in conformance with other commercial uses northerly of
subJect property. She also indicated that the subject property had been i
incorporated in Precise Ptan Study No. 30-73-2 Which had been prepared 9
in conjunction with Petition For Reclassification No. 61-62-46. .
Mr. Ervin G. Cook, 724 South Pine Street, appeared before the Commission,~
stated he owned the property in close proximity to subject property~and
that he was opposed to the subject petition on the basis that the sub-
jact property had been deed restricted limiting the use ~of the pro- j
perties in the area to single family residential use only. He stated ~
further that the proposed parking area was not adequate, that the alley
behind the subject property on the west was definitely substandard, and
that the traffic problems in the area would be increased if additional
commercial development were permitted:
Mr. George Nemy, 710 South Plne Street, appeared betore the Commission
and s~at2d that fi2 flwned proparty adjacent to the subject progerty on
the west, and that he was opposed to the subject petition on the same
basis as Mr. Cook had outlined.
Mr. George bowns appeared before the Commission and stated that he was
opposed to the subject petitian because of the deed restriction placed
upon the property, and he indicated that the property owners in the area
were not aware of the deed restrictions when the properties containing
the business and professional offices were reclassified. He stated
_;d
further that the alley was inadequate to•serve the sub~ec property, i
that the parking area was also inadequate, and that the traffic problems I:
would be increased in the area.
Mrs. John Waite, 2439 Paradise Road, appeared before the Commission and
stated' that she represented the doctor that wiehed to establish the
office on the subject property, that fhey'considered-the proposed park-
ing to be adequate; that the properly was too valuable to remain for
residential purposes, tha~t the existing res;idence would be converted (
_ + ,
_ i
---'^^-~-~-~- _:~,..~i'~.,5 i....r.~. ... ....~".,. ! " .._ . ..._... t~„~ ~~~'..s , . .fi:_. . ~, ,,, .7_ . . } . `i.;i^~.n s7"~~~i`.•._.~:~_'~'.~ .._.. ._. < <_~.__ _~ ..5. c,i:
.. ~ - .:~._:r~
. - ~ . ~ . .';~^..
565
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOh November 2, 1 1 Gontinued:
~>_._; ~
€':.: . . ..
E
_,_.,. ,.
:;
RECLASSIFICATION - into professional offices also, that the new structure would be placed ~
N0. 61-62-49 on the front with access from the rear, that the alley would be used
' for accpss to the property, and that the alley would require improvement. i
Mr. Cook requested that the Commission continue the subject petition, if
the Commission was considering the adoption of Precise Plan No. 30-73-2,
in order that the residents, that would be affected bythe suggested
plan, could be notified. Commissioner Morris noted that the Precise
Plan Study had been prepared by the Planning Staff in order to serve ~
as a guide for the consideration of the possible development of the
subject.properties. i
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
The Commission found and determined the following facis regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above de- ~
scribed p~e~erty from the R-l, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the
C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE (restricted to business and pro- ~
fessional offices only). ;
2. That the proposed reclassification 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 pro-
perly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally establish-
ed in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their ~
permitted uses generally established throughout the cnmmunity.
i
4. That proposed reclassification would create a spot C-1 Zone surround-~
ed by property ctassified in the R-i,One Family Residential, 2one. ;
5. That verbal evidence was submitted relatlve to the recordation of
deed !-estrictions limiting use of subject property to residential I
use only.
6. Thet the proposed development of subject property does not provide
adequate parking and ingress and egress on the subject property,
thereby encouraging parking along Harbor @oulevard which would be
detrimental to the area and would create a safety problem for the
con~~nuni ty.
7. That the proposed development of subject property would require the
use of the alley abutting subject property on the west in order to
provi~ie access to the property, that sa~d alley is deemed to be i~-
adequate for the provision of access, and that said alley should be
improved its entire length before abutting properties are utilized
for commercial purposes.
8. That the existing structures shauld be removed from the subject pro-
perty and a suitable commercial development be provided containing
adequate parking area and ingress and egress to the property prior
to any reclassification.
9. That verbal opposition by three owners of property in the subject
area was recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Morris offered Resolution No. 161, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
recommend to the City Council that Pet9tion for Reclassification No.
61-62-49 be denied on the besis of the aforementioned findings.
~
~
{
~
~ 566
MINUTES, Cli'Y PLANNING COMMISSION November 27 1961 Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
NQ. 61-62-49
Continued~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by ATHRU2 INC., a corporation, South I
N0. 61-62-50 Gate, California, Owners; Rothma~-Steen b Associates, 223 South Claudina ~
Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described ~
as: A parcel 120 feet by 130 feet: with a frontage of 130 feet on Ball '
Road and located on the southeast ~orner of Ball Road and Western Avenue ~
be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-3, ~
HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE. i
i
Mr. Gordon Steen, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission,~
made reference to a recent denial by the Commission of a request to
establish a service station on the northeast corner of Ball Road and i
Western Avenue, and quoted traffic figures for the subject area obtained ~
from the City Engineer. He stated further that there was a need for a
service station at the suuject location, that an existing service station;
was located across Western Avenue on the west, and •hat denial of the i,
subject petition would constitute a monopoly in view of the existing j
service station in the subject area.
THE HEARING 41n5 CLOSED.
The Commission reviewed the plot pian submitted with subject petition.
Mr. Steen indicated that detailed development plans were not available,
because the petitioner had not obtained a tenant for the subject pro-
perty. He requested that the reclassification be granted limiting the
C-3, Heavy Commercial, 2one use of subject property to service station
use only. ~
;
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the i
subject petition: `
i
I. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification or' the above describ-j
ed property from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the C-3, j
HEAVY COMMERCIAL, 20NE (limited to service station use onty) or any ~
C-l, NEiGHBORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE use.
~
;
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary
or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.~
~
3• That the prapcsed rer'~ssif~cation af subject property does properly ':
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in I
close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per-
mitted uses generally established throughout the community.
4. That the proposed reciassification of subject property does require
dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because
said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways
which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which
will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the
circulation element of the General Plan. I
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No..162,.Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. ~
_ .
~
~ .
r_ct ._..~~.f,~-~' ..,...... ,_„ , _, !.~..._ L.~..,.. , ~,:1:!,. ~~.~'~.c~•..r.~~~. ' _~... . . ~t
~
-1
0
4
,
~
MINUTES..CITY PL•ANNING•COMMISSION. November 27, 1961, Continued:
,e
567
RECLASSIFICATION - 61-62-50 be approved, subject to the following conditions: ~
~ . ~ N0. 61-62-yo
F (Cont3nued) 1. Davalopment substantialiy in.accordanca wtth Exhibit No. i.
~~ ~ 2. Recordation of C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, 20NE deed restrictions limiting ~
usa of subject property to service station use only or any C-1,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMHERCIAL, ZONE use.
' ~ 3• Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of Ball Road ~
~" (50 feet existing). ~
i ,:„ ~
~~ ~ti, k. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of Western E
~ Avenue (40 feet existing). i
i. .
5. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
~ provements for Ball Road and kestern Avenue, subJect to the approval
of the City Engineer andin accordance with the adopted standard
plans on file in the•Office of the City Engineer, including a catch
~ basin and connection to an existing 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe.
5.
~. 6. Payment of.$2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Ball
~ Road and Western Avenue.
i:
c 7. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
i ment of Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
t
The foregoing conditions were recit~d at the meeting and were found to 6e
~. a necessary prerequisite to the use uf the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens af the City of Anaheim.
~;` On roll cayl the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote:
E: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Gauer, Marcoux, Horris, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summe>~~.
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Y,apgood.
~
~ ~.
~ ~
~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petit•ion submitted by A. A. EDMONOSON, 6701 North
N0. 61-62-51 Millar Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; Thelma R. Murphy, 918 West
Centar Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property
descrtbed as: A parcel 160 feet by 310 feet with a frontage of 160 feet
located on the west side of Miller Street betwaen.Anaheim Road and Orange-
thorpe Avanue; its southeast corner being approximately 1,100 feet, more
or less, north of the northwest corner of Anaheim Road and Millar Street,
and further described as 13$1 North Miller Street be reclassified from
the R-A, RESiDENTiAL AGRiCUL7URAt, ZONE to the M-1, LiGHT MAytffACTUit1NG, ;
ZONE. I
-
~. ,~.
,. ~ ~ .. . ' . , .. . . . ' ~ . .. ' L
. , " ~ .::;:~n,~~..L-.e~ ...r,..;'~..1 l. .1~.'a.i.~. ~ ..:..,".r f.: /,,....:,~e.u~~. r. . r ~;19i:'1d.:.. ... h. ~.. . ,. .. .. ~ ~..
Mr. Paui McGhehey, 6691 Miller Street appeared bafore the Cortmission and
stated that he was opposed.to the subJect petition because it would not
be an asset to the area,:and thet the use of tha streets by the heavy
aquipment would add to'the presant traffic.congastion in the subJect area
due'to ~the location of tfie Autonetics plant in close proximity to subJect
property. He stated further that he considared tha best use of the sub- ~
Ject property would be for single family residentiai purposes at the
_ . f.
~ • _ ~ -,
~ I _
Thelma Murphy, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission,
stated that the existing residence on the subJect property would remain
to serve ws a temporary office for the proposed heavy equipment storage
yard, thati the residence would be utilized for residantial purposes for
the protection of the equipment, and that in the future, the dwelling
may be removed from the property.
~
~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 27, 1961, Continued:
568
~, ` RECLASSIFICATION - present time and that he intended to continue living in the existing
I Np,'6]-62-51 residence on his property as long as possible.
(Continued)
~ Mrs. Yvonne Jambon, 6722 Miller Street, Placentia, appeared before the
Commission and stated that she was not opposed to the proposed M-1,
Light Manufacturing, Zone, but that she was opposed to the proposed use
of the subject property. She stated that another use might be suitable
~ for the subject property, but that the proposed use would be detrimental
to the area and would have the equivalent effect of a junk yard. She
" stated further that the street is heavily traveled at the present time,
that the use of the street for heavy equipment would be a hazard, that
all the other property owners in the area at'e opposed to the subject
petition, that the proposed use is in opposition to the Anaheim Master
~~ Plan for the subject area, and that the area might be more suitable for
apartment development or for trailer parks.
Mr. Fukuda appear,ed before the Commission, protested that the proposed I
use would create a junk yard out of the subject property, and indicated
that he did nct consider the property suitable for R-1, One Family Resi-
dential, development and that any industrial use of subject property
~should be for the benefit of the surrounding area.
A letter of protest against subject petition, containing eleven signa-
tures,was submitted to the Commission.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
~ Mrs. Murphy stated, in rehuttal, that the proposed use of the subject
propert~ would not be for a junk yard, that the heavy equipment is used
for roau ~~uilding and will be on the job most of the time, and that she
did not consider the proposed use to be detrimental to the area.
Assistant City Atforney Joe Ge.isler advise~- *he Gommission that the
2oning Ordinance prohibits the residential use of M-1, Light Manufactur-
ing, Zone properties, and that the residential use of the subject pro-
perty would not be permixted. He stated that a watchman's shelter is
not considered a residential use because it would not provide the usual
residential facilities. He indicated further that, prior to the adoption
of the present Zoning Ordinance, a similar use may have been established
in the subject area which would now be considered a non-conforming use
and could continue to exist although expansion would not be permitted.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
i. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above describ- ~
ed property from the R-A> RES!DENT!AL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ta the M-l,
LIGHT MANUFACTURING, 20NE. •
2, That the proposed ceclassification of subject property is not
necessary or desirable for the orderly end proper development of
the community. '
3: .That the proposed use of subject property does not properly relate
to the zones and their permitted uses locally`established in close
proximity to subject propeFty and to the zones end their permitted
uses generally estabJished throughout the community.
4. That the proposed yse of subject flroperty for a heavy equipmeat
~ stoxage yard particularly:,by.the wide-load equipment carriers.will
' imp~se an undue burden upcn the existiag streets intended to carry
' - the tr$ffic ~,n the vicinitq of~sub3ect.,property. •
> : „ . ,. . ..
. :-
~> tr: ti~..rl,:as 'k+ , ~ , . ,, , . .: :r . , . < :.~_ y t /,; ::`. ear. nt ": " ': s:.Y± `~ i c'?~r7~"F~~i'r,ti ~-~ .~:-rc- .---
~.`
569
MiNUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON. November 27, 1961, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - 5. That it is hereby recommended that the owners of property in the
N0. 61-62-51 subject area cooperate in a joint endeavor to establish a plan for
{Conttnued} the ulttmate maximum development of the properties in the surround-
ing area.
• 6. That verbal opposition from three owncr:~ of property in subject area,
in addition to a letter of protest containing eleven signatures, was
recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 163, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-51 be denied on the bases of the aforementioned findings.
On roll call Y.he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Al~red, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
PUBLIC NEARING - OIL WELL DRILLING PERMIT N0. 1- Application for permission to establish
an OIL WELL DRILLING OPERATION in accordance with Title 17, Chapter 17.12,
Section 17.12.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Subject property
located southerly of Ball Road, easterly of Brookhurst Street.
A request for permission to establisF. an oil well drilling operation by
the Standard Oil Company of California was submitted to the Commission.
Exhibits, prepared for tlie subject application, were read and submitted
to the Commission.
Mr. Don Ao Nielsen: r~:presentative for the 5tandard Oil Company, appeared
before the Commission and stated that the application prepared by the
Company was in accordance with all canditions and specifications contain-
ed in the Ordinance. He stated further that the Company would comply
with all requirements, that the Company has had a great deal of exper-
ience in drilling operat'ons within City Limits, and that the proposed
project would not be detrimental to the surrounding area and would be
of benefit to the commuiity.
Mr. D. J. Crodin appeared before the Commission, stated he was the
geologist for the Standard Oil Company, and described for the Commission
the exploratory process and the method of deviated drilling. He indicat-
ed that the subject property had better than average possibility for the
discovery of oil, and that they would probably drill to approximately
12,000 feet beneath the surface and would cover approximately a two acre
site.
The Commission reviewed plot plans and maps for the proposed operation
and Commissioner Marcoux inquired about tne maximum height of the tanks.
Chairman Gauer noted that the elevation of the tanks appeared to be
above the proposed wall sur;•ounding the project.
The Company's agent indicated that the tanks would have a maximum height
of eighteen (18) feet whichis within the Code requirements, that approx-
imately eight (8) feet would be above the height of the wall, and that
eleven (11) wells would probably be drilled.
Commissioner Pebley expressed concern in respect to the height of the
tanks, in view of the possibility that vacant property in the area
might be developed for residential purposes at a future date. Commis-
sioner Marcoux sugge5Ced that the tanks ue insCalied underground, per-
mitting a height of eight feet above ground, and Commissioner Pebley
~
, ~ . , ..:. ~: .7
, .. ~
. . .. ~~'~-.:1
. . - .";.~",.'~
~ ~ ~~
' a
~./
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27r 1961, Continued;
PUBLIC HEARING
~ ~Continuad)
s .
~
~ ~
1
i
~ . •~ ~
~;
N
~
E
E
t.
~.
~
~ ~ ,
~ :l
e
6~~~.....i. ... _
570
- indicated that, although the cost woutd be somewhat higher for the
operation, it would be for the benefit of the surrounding area and any
future development.
Mr. A. M. Cooper, Oivision Drilling Engineer for the Standard Oil
Company, appeare~ before the Commission and stated that it was possible
that the tanks could be placed partially underground but that, from an
operating standpoint, the Company would like to keep the tanks above
ground. He stated that operating problems were increased in under-
ground installation, that there would be flood accumulation, and that
the workers would be required to work in the sumps that were formed.
Mr. Cooper displayed rend~rings of the proposed operation, stated that
the tanks would not be colored, noted that if the project were develop-
ed in accordance with Code provisions with landscaping outside the pro-
posed wall, the height of the tanks should not be objectionable, and
informed the Commission that if the circumference of the tanks were in-
creased, it would require more land and would reduce the number of wells.
He stated further that within ten years the trees to be planted in the
landscaped area would attain a height that would adequately screen the
entire oroject from view.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
The Commission discussed Code provisions for the commencing of drilling
operations, the advisability of establishing a time limitation for the
total drilling time, the required payment of $100 per drilling site,
and the advisability of establishing requirements for the possible
abandonment of the operation.
The Company's agent indiceted that a two (2) year period of time would
be satisfactory with the possibility of requesting an extension of time
at the expiration of said time period if it were deemed necessary.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding Oil
Well Drilling Permit No. l:
l. That the granting of such permit and the drilling for or producing
of oil thereunder will not create a nuisance.
2. That the granting of such permit will not be detrimental to public
health, safety or welfare.
3. That the granting of such permit and the drilling for or production
of oil thereunder in the location specified will not create a fire
hazard or other hazard detrime'ntal to the public welfare.
4. That the granting of such permit will afford equal protection to ail
propert~ ew~ers withtn the area affected by the granting of such
permi t.
5. That the granting of such permit will not deny to any property owner
the enjoyment of a substantial property right granted to other owners
in said vicinity affected by said permit.
6. That the granting of such permit will conserve property values and
encourage the most appropriate use of land in the immediate vicinity
and area affected by the granting of said permit.
7. That the granting of~seid permit will not be detrimental to the
orderly development and expansion of ihe City of Anaheim and the
direction of building development according to a.well ordered and
~~zoned plan.
,. .. . . .,.~-.L . .~.~i. . (. S .. . -.` ...
~~~ ' ~.. . . . . . .
if
1
`/ ~.
~ .. ,. _ ' t' e ~ 6.: ' . .
i '~
~ i :f
.
, . _ ., , . , .,.. •
.:. . ... ;,....... ~~_~1i . ,
- :
~ ~ ~
~ 571
~.
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 27, 1961, Continued:
PUBLIC HEARING - 8. That the granting of said permit will not violate any deed or tract
(Cuntinued) restrictions relating to any tract or property affected by said per-
~` ;`. mit unless said permit is consented to or said restrictions waived
~ ~ i
r
f:
i
~
F '
~' ~
. ~ .
€`
~
E
~
~
~ +
in the manner specified in said deed or tract restrictions or in the
' manner required by law; provided, however, that in the event that any
applicant for permit has inadvertently obtained an oil and ga~ lease
~ covering property containing such restrictions, that such applicant
shall be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain a waiver of such
restrictions or may be permitted to quitclaim such property.
9. That the granting of said permits will not be in violation of any
State law, regulation or court decision nor any City ordinance.
10. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Canmissioner Mungail offered Resolution No. 164, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to
recommend to the City Council that Oil Well Drilling Permit No. 1 be
approved, subject tc the following conditions:
i. Compliance with the conditions specified in Titie i7, Sec!ion
17.12.050 through Section 17.12.410 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
2. Time limitation for a period of two (2) years subject to review by
the City Council, upon proaer request, at the expiration of said
two (2) year period of time.
3• Subject to condition Nos. i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, S, g, 10, 11, and
12 outlined in Exhibit "3" submitted by the petitioner.
4. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 4, 4"A",
and 6.submitt2d by the petitionero
5. Subject to the requirement that upon completion of drilling, or
after abandonment, each well site shall be restored to its former
condition with all hoies filled and leveled and all trash and debris
removed; that upon abandonment, a twenty-five (25) foot concrete
surface plug shall be required, with a steel plate,welded over the
top of each drilling ~iole at least four (4) feet below the natural
ground level, that the abandonment shall canform to all applicable
state, county and city regulations, and that compliance with said
regulations shall be effected sixty (60) days after abandonment.
She 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, Morris, Mungail,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
CURRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. i: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4881:
Notice received from the Orange County Planning Commission relative to ~
Use Variance Permit No..4881 was submitted to the Commission. Subject
netition requested Fermission to establish a consulting engineer's
office in tha R-1 Si'ngle FamiJy Residence bistrict. SubJect property
loca~ed on the north si~e of Ball Road frontage ruad approximately 430
feet east of Yardley Street, west of Anaheim.
I
• _ , I `
',:; .I
~ t: ,
.~:~ BC~,;-~;~1 w ' ~;:~..;
r -
I ~~;
~~
~ . . _ . "_-'.._.~~w .~
~ .
V
~ ~ .. .~ ~ - ~ .
MINUTES..CITY P6ANNING COMMISSION. November 27, 1961, Continued:
{
57z
` CORRESPONDENCE - The petition submitted indicated that the office would be located within
~Continuad) the exisYing dwelling,`thatthere would be no employees other than resi-
~ dents of the dwelling, that off-street parking for two cars would be pro-
€ vidad in the existing drivewey, that there wouid be one double-faced
~, ~ shingle type sign with a maximum area of two square feet located on the
~ front property line in the center of the property, and that a Front Yard
~~ Variance was requestad for the sign.
The Commission noted that the driveway was in violation of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, and that the proposed use would establish a precedent
for commercial encroachment into a residential area.
Commissioner Mungall offered e motion, seconded by Commissioner Summers
and carried, that the Planning Secretary transmit notice to the Orange
County Planning Commission that the Anaheim Planning Commission recom-
mended danial of the subJect petition on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
REPBRi'S ANd - iTEM N0. 1: CONDiTiONAL USE PERFiIT N0. 1b9:
RECOMMENDATIONS
A report was submitted to the Commission relative to Conditlonal Use
Permit No. 169 in respect to the matter of tha installation and condi-
tion of a wall located southerly of subject property contiguous to the
commercial development owned by the petitioner Mr. Frank Krogman. .
The report indicated that an investigation had been made to determine
the degree of responsibility of the petitioner for the provision of the
wall and the pos3tion of the developer of the residential_tract (Tract
No. 2332). The informatlon obtained from the developer of Tract No.
•. 2332 appeared to place the responsibility for the present condition of
the wall upon Mr. Krogman.
The Cr..mnission discussed the evidence submitted in the report and at the
Commission meetings and noted that Mr. Krogman had been advised to neg-
otiate with the developers of the residential tract for the completion
of the wall. The Commission directed the Planning Llepartment Staff to
contact Mr. Krogman and euggest that he offer a solution to the City
Council at the Council Meeting on,November 28, 1961, in order to re-
solve the problem of tha wall.
ITEM N0. 2: WORK SESSION'SCHEDULE:
Proposed work session schedules were submitted to the Commission for the
establishment of work sessions related to the completion of the General
Plan.and Zoning ~Grdinance Programs.