Minutes-PC 1962/01/08i..+' ~~ ~;` ..
City Hali
Anaheim, California
Januery 8, 1962
REGULAR MEETING•OF THE ANAHEIM CITY P[ANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR I~tEETING - A Regular Meeting of tha Anaheim.City Planning Commission was called
to order by C~iairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being
present.
PRESENT
ABSENT
PRESENT
tNVOCATION
- i:H~lIRMAN: Gauer; COMMISSIONERS
Allred, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
PLEDGE OF
Lp LEGlANCE
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
- COMMISSIONERS: None.
- Senior Planner - Martin Kreidt
Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler
Cortenission Secretary - Jean Page
- Reverend Francis E. Cook, Pastor of the First Methodist Church, gave
the Invocetion.
- Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
- The ap~roval of the minutes of the mee*ing held on December 27, 1962,
was continued un~il the meeting of January 22, 1962, because the minutes
were not available due to heavy work load in the Planning Department.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by RINSE-AWAY CORPORATiON
PERMIT N0. 183 OF AMERICA, 59Q5 Pacific Roulevard, Huntington Park, California, Owner;
requosting permission to ESTABLISH COCKTAIL LOUNGE iN CONJUNCTION WITH
• RESTAURAPIT an property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel with
. a frontage of, 20G feet located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard be-
tween Orangewood and Katella Avenues; its southeast corner being approx-
imately 420 feet north of the nor.thwest cornar of Harbor Boulevard and
Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2041-2059 South Harbor
Boulevard. Property prese~tly classified in the'R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGR!-
CULTURAL, 20NE.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of November 27, 1961
and December 11, 1961, in order that :he petitioner may present detail-
ed floor plans of the interior of ttie building for the Commission's
considerati~n.
Mr. Zack Pendicini, agent far the petition~rs, appeared before the
Commisston and described the interior of the proposed building, the
seating capacity and the location of the kitchen for the preparation
of foo3 to be serve~ in conjunction with the cocktail lounge.
The Commission reviewed development plans and the petitioner's agent
indicated that plans had not been ravised, that the propused use was
for a cocktail lounge, that the interiur plans iradicate location of
ta6les an~+ kitchen facilities, and that if a license is not obtained
from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the subJect petition will
be voided.
THE HEARlNG WAS CLOSED.
The Commissior, found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petit"lon:
1. That the rroposed use is proparly one for which a Conditional Use
P.:rmit is authorized by this Code, to wit: cocktajl lounge in
conJunction with a restaurant on subJact property.
3., That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is pro-
pased to be located.
- 635 -
636
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISS_ION _Januarv 8. 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONA[ USE - 3• That the size and shape of the site proposed fcr the use is
PEltMIT N0. 18s adequate to aliow the full development of the proposed use in a
SContinued) manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City
of Anaheim,
4.. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and higtiways 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 cf Ar.aheim.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 189, Series 19b1-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
to grant Fetition for Conditional Use Permit No. 183, subject to the
following conditions:
1.. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
2. Subject to the reclassification of subject property rrom the K-A~
Residential Agricultural, Zone to the C-1, Ne~ghborhood ~ommercial,
Zone as approved under Petition for Reclassification No. 61-63-6.
3. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Harhor Boulevard.
4. Installation of sidewalks ar~i driveways in accordance with the
adopted standard plans on fiie in the Office of the City Engineer.
'i. Time limitation af one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 3 and 4.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
• be a r.ecessary 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 foregcing resolution was passed by the following votz:
, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers
NOES: COMMISSION~itS: None.
ABSENT: COMMI~SIONERS: None.
REClASSIFICATION -PUBLIC HFARING. Petition submitted by W1LLIAM T. and LEOAfA GREGEit,
N0. 61-62-59 605 Pandora Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; Vandruff Developments,
~ Inc., 2973 West Rome Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
that property described as: A parcel 533 feet by 640 feet with a
frontage of 533 feet located on the west side of Sunkist Street between
Lincol~n Aven~e and South Street; its northeast corner :,eing approxi-
mately 255 feet more or less south of the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Sunkist Street, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, "[ONE.
Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 189•
The petitioner's agent appeared before the Commission and stated that
he had discussad the subject petition with the Planning Director a~d
that the petitioner wished to submit revised plans for a more suit-
able development of the subJect property.
~ ~ ,
. . . . . r__, ."";~__..., . . . .. . :_~~_....: ,
C~ ~ S
~
637 ~
~
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 8, 1962, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION -Richard Scarnechia, 14531 Westport Orive, appeared before the Commission, ~
N0. 61-62-59 submitted a petition of protest containing approximately 300 signatures,
~
SContinued) and indicatad that the signers of the petition of protest were opposed
to the subJect petition on the bases that the proposed development of
~
jact property would bring more automobiles into the area, that it
~~~`~,. sub
,
would endanger the children in the neighborhood, that it would raise
the taxes of the residential properties in the subJect area, that it ~
would devaluate the residential properties, and that it would create an
over-population in the existing schools. ~
Commissionar Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood
~
and car'ried, that Petition for Reclassification No, 61-62-59 be con-
tinued until the meeting of January 22, 1962, in accordance with the i
petitioner's request;at whtch time revised development plans shall be
submitted for the Commission's consideration.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by WILLIAM T. and LEONA GREGER,
~
PERMlT N0. 18Q 605 Pandora Street, Anaheim, California, Onwers; Vandruff Developments,
Inc., 2973 West Rome Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
permission to.~ONSTRUCT A PLANNED UNIT OEVELOPMENT on property described g
as: A parcal 533 feet by 640 feet with a frontage of 533 feet located ~
on the west side of Sunkist Street between Lincoln Avenue and South 4
Straat; :ts ~~c~:"east cor^e.^ ~e3^; ap~reximately 2S5 feet more or less 1
south of the .southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street.
Property prese~tly classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
ject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassifi-
Sub
,
cation No. 61-62-59•
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood
and carried, that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 189 be con-
tinued until the meeting of .;~nuary 22, 1962, in accordance with a ~
request submitted by the petitioner's agent, at which time revised
development plarss shall be submitted for the Commission's consideration.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTiNUEO PUBLIC HEARING.. .P.etition submitted by CLYUE and HELEN HUNTER,
PERMIT N0. 185 40 Sierra Madre Boulevard, Arcadia, California, Owners; Albert C. Johnson,
Jr., 2628 Skywood Place, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission
to CONSTRUCT A MOTEL on prc~sr+_y described as: Parce~ A- A parcel 67
feet by 300 feet with a frontage of 67 feet located on the west side of
Brookhurst Street between Crescent and Woodley Avenues; its southeast
corner being approximately 108 feet north of the northwest corner of
Brookhurst Street and Woodley Avenue. Parcel S- A parcel 67 feet by
81 feet adjoining parcel "A" on the westarly 8i feet, and further de-
scribed as 409 North Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified
in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~
SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of December I1, 1961,
in order that the plans for the proposed development of a motel on
subject.property could be discussed with the petitioner.
The petitioner's agent appearPd befo~e the Commission and stated he had ~~
nothing to add to the information contained in the subject petition.
Tha Cortmission reviewed development plans submitted by the petitioners
on Novembar 8, 1961.
THE HEAR~NG WAS CLOSED. j
The Cortmission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subJect petition: .
; ~ ~ ~
~'
.
~
63S
E` 'i,
E ~
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, January 8, 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONAL ~JSE - l. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use ~
PERMIT N0. ~$S Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a motel.
(Continued; j
, 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land ~
~ses and the growth and development of the area in which it is pro- ~
posed to be located. ?
~
3• That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate j
to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not
detrlmental to the particular area nor to the peace, health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. '
1
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an {
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to j
carry the traffic in the area. i
5• That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions i
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 no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 190, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ailred, to
grant Petitlon for Conditional Use Permit No. 185, subject to the follow-
fng condition:.:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1 with the
stipulation that no windows shall be provided on the second story
of the building on the south and west sides of said structure
adjacent to the R-l, One Family Residential, Zone.
2. 'Maintenance of a twenty faot landscaped setback abutting the easterly
property line of subject property, plans for said landscaping to be
submitted to and subJect to the approval of the Superii~tendent of
Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping to be installed prior to
Final Building Inspectoon.
3• Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall along th~ south and west
b~undary lines of subJect property.
4. Dedication of sixty (60) feet from the monumented centerline of
Brookhurst Street (30 feet existing).
5. Preparation of street improvement plans a~d installati~n of all im-
provemants for Brookhurst Street, subJect to the approval of the
City Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on
file in the Off~ce of the City Engineer.
6. Payment of $2.00 per ~ront foot for street lighting purposes on
Bropkhurst Street.
7. Provision ef trash storage areas as datermined by the Depart^~ent of
Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in siza,
accassible t~ trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid
. f e n c e or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection.
8. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (1$0) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
. The'foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On.roll.call the foregoing resolution.wa's passed by the following vote:.
`~ ~
V
639
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 8, 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE - AYES:: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
PERMIT N0. 185 Pebley, Perry, Summers.
fContinued) 'NOESc COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION -CONTINUEO P.UBL'IC HEARING. .Petition s~bmitted by H. E. KRUEGER, P.O.
N0. 61-62-53 Box 202, Anaheim, California, Onwer; Betty Roberts-Oscar Schultz, 723
ii'vii.ii i.05 niiy2~2S .~..~0°.~ Afl2I?P!!!!~ ~2lifornia, Agent; reG~estinn that
property described as: A parcel 150 feet by 440 feet= with a frontage
of 150 feet located on the r,orth side of Broadway between East Street
and Fahrion Place, its southwest corner being approximately 530 feet
east of the northeast corner of East Street and Broadway, and further
described as 1249 East Broadway be reclassified fran the R-1, ONE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, and R-2, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES to the R-3.
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
Subject petitior, was continued from the meeting of December 11, 1961, in ~
order to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to submit revised
plans for the development ~f subject property that conform with Municipal ~
Code r.equirements.
Mr. H. E. Krueger, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission,and
stated that he had submitted revised plans that conform with Code re-
quirements.
Mrs. Jane Sanderson, 1248 East Broadway, appeared before the Commission
and expressed opposition to subject petition on the bases that cars
would be parked on Broadway at night, that the proposed development
would encourage trans:ents, the*_ ~h9C.^'• was no need for additional
apartment development in the subject area, that it would.devaluate the
~ property on Broadway, and that 45 home owners were opposed to the sub-
ject petition.
Mrs. A. L. Brown, 1239 East ~hestnut Street, appeared before the Commis-
sion, stated she was opposed to the R-3, Multiple Family Resic:.^ciai,
Zone request, and inquired about any guaranty that the subject property
would be developed in accordance with plans submitted and if two story
development would be possible in the future.
~ It was pointed out that if the subject petition were approved, the peti-
tioner would be required to develop in accordance with plans presented
before Final Building Inspection, and that any revision of plans would
require approval by the Cortmission, and that in addition a condition of
approval of subject petition could stipulate that a Public Hearing be
held on any revised plans for subject property. '
Mrs. Judith Livinston, 1252 East Broadway, appeared before the Commission
and indicated that she preferred R-1, One Family Residential, or R-2,
Two Family Residential, Zoning for the subJect prooerty.
~ Mrs. Lyle Diggins appea~ed before the Commission and stated that she
was in favor of subject petition.
Mr. Lloyd Mount, representative for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that if the subject property is not developed for
multiple family residential purposes it witi probably be developed for
commercial purposes in the future, that the proposed development would
improve the appearance of the subject property, that the development
would be deluxe type units, that it wouldhouse people of quality, that
it would increase tax revenue for the City, and that the nicely land-
scaped residential development would present a better view for the ad-
jacent properties.
Mr. Osc4~: Schulz, 723 North Los Angeles Street, appeared before the
Commissioa and indicated thgt the adjacent residential development had
~ ~
. ;:..
~
~a,.: . ~
~ ~
~~
~
MINUTES. CITY PLANN_ING CQMMISSION,_Jan~sarv 8. 1962, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATlON
N0. 61-62-53 been developed under previous Code requirements which could be consi-
(Continued) dered substandard at the present time, and that the petitioners would
not be opposed to a Public Hearing if revised plans were submitted or if
two story development was considered.
The Commission reviewed development plans and discussed the dimensions
of th~ esed ..~,;:s tc be ~ocat~~ o~ subject property.
Y~`~'Y
THE HEAfiING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following Facts regarding the ~
subject petitiort: '
;
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above de- ~
scribed property from the R-1, ONE FAMILY Ft~;IDENTIAL, and the R-2,
TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTlAL,~
ZONE. {
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary ~
or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
a
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly ~
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in ~
close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their per- 1
mitted uses generally established throughout the canmunity. ;
~
4. That the proposed reclassification of subJect property does require
, dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because ~
said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways
which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which '
will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the
circulation element of the General Plan.
5• 7hat verbal opposition by three owners of property in subject area,
in addition to a petition of protest containing 74 signatures, was
recorded against subject petition. Verbal support was recorded by
one owner of property in subjecY area.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 19l, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
recommend to the City Council that Petitlon for Reclassification No.
61-62-53 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
with any substantial revision of development plans to be subject to
review by the Planning Commission, and to be get for pubiic 8earing
and referral to the Clty Council.
2. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Broadway. ~
3. Installation of sidewalks and driveways on Broadway in accordance
with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of the Gity
Enginner.
4. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to
be collected as part of the Building Permit.
5• Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Department of
Public Works, Sanitation Division, which ar~ adequate in size, access
ible to trash-truck Pick-up and adequately enclosad by a solid fence
or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection.
641
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING"COMMISSION. January 8. 1962, Continued:
__ .._._~
4
1
~
~
RECIASSIFICATION - 5. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the westerly
N0. 61-62-53 boundary of sub,ject property prior to Final 8uilding lnspection.
(Cont i r.ued) ~
n 7. Dedication of access rights to the stub end of Oak Street and
Chestriui Street and the alley connecting said streets.
8. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- ~
iTiHTii. O~ i i.2~ii nv5. r~- ~ J~ u~i'~+ ~~ ;
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 'Marcoux.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Marcoux indicated that he was opposed to the subject petition'.
because he did not consider the proposed developm~nt to be compatible '
with the development in the surrounding area and because of the opposi-
tion expressed against the subject petition.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submit~ed by BALL-BROOKHURST CORRAL
N0. 61-62-57 COMPANY, 1214 South Brookhurst Street, R.~iaheim, California, Owners;
Gail Guthrie, 2235 Coronet, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that
property described as: A parcel 150 feet by 150 feet located on the
southeast corner of 6rookhurst Street and Ball Road be reclassified from
the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, 20NE
(limited to Service Station.use only).
SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of December 27, 1961 in
order that the lessees of the subject property couid be notified of the
proposed development of a service station on the southeast corner of
Brookhurst Street and Ball Road in the Corral Shopping Center.
Mr. John W. Brammer, owner of the Brammer Country Market, appeared before
tha Commission and stated that he was opposed to the service station
because it would be detrimental to the other businesses dae to the elimi-
nation of the fire pit which provided entertainment for the shopping
cantar. He submitted a letter of protest sighed by W.E. Alley, owner
of the business tnown as Hickory Farms.
Mrs. Bradley, owner of Bradley Fashions, appeared before the Commission
and stated that she was opposed to the establishment of a service
station on the subject property because it would block the view of the
sheps In the cen*_er.
Mr. Itobert Garson, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Com-
mission and stated that he did not understand that consideration of the
opposition by the lessees was necessary,.~an~' that the only pertinent
issue was the establishment of the service station by t~~e owners of the
subject property, not the elimination of the oval fire pit for parking
purposes. Ha submitted a signed statement by twelve tenants in the shop-
ping center in support of subJect petition and indicated that, if any
lessee considered their business harmed by any violation uf the lease
agreement by the actions of the property owners, the lessee would have
recourse by filing a court action.
Mr. Ralph Graham, 425 South Gilbert Street, appeared before the Commis-
'sion,.stated that he was one of the owners, and indicated that the peti-
tioners considered the estabiishment of'the service station to~be an
asset to the other businesses in the center, that three of the corners
.-_
~ ',' `. .
~ . '' '
~
~~~_...:~.-:~ ~
~ •
~; ..
Q 7. DEDICATION OF ACCE55 RIGHTS TO THE STUB END OF OAK STREET AND
CHESTNUT STREET AND,TBB ALLEY CONNECTING SAID STREETS IN ORDER
TO PROHIBIT ACCE55 TO OAK AND CHESTNUT STREETS AND THE ALLEY
CONNECTING~SAlD STREE75. . ~
~ ~ ~
`r'iNUTES CITY PCANNING COMMISSION Januarv 8 1962 Continued: '
RECLASSIFICATION - at the intersectian ,of Brookhurst Street and 8a11 Road presently con-
N0. 61-62-57 tain a service station, that the western style architecture.nf the pro-
ContinueaZ._ posed service statio~ would conform with that in the shopping center,
that the oval fire pit was only used by one tenantin the center, that an
area could be roped off for dances and other entertainment, and that
the diversionary rights of the owners, that permitted changes or alter-
ations of those portions of the subject property that do not affect the
leases, should be sustained.
The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that compliance with
Code requirements in respect to the amount of parking area ~aas only
possible by the utilization of the area presently containing the oval
• fire pit.
~; THE.HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Pebley indicate~' that he was opposed to the proposed service
station because he considered it to be detrimental to the shopping cEnter,
but that in view of the fact that twelve of the lessees were in favor of
the subject petition as opposed to three of the lessees in opposition
and in view of the statement by the petitioner's attorney that the
lessees would have recourse for damages, the Commission could approve
the subject petition subject to conditions.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petitpn:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above de•
scribed property from the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE to the
C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE (limited to Service Station use on!y).
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject proparty is necessary
and/or desirable for the orderlq and proper development bf the coin-
munity. ' '
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly
relate to the zones and their permitCed usas iocally established in
close proximity to subject property and to tt~e zones and their per-
mitted uses generally established throughaut the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification ~ subject property does not
require dedication for and standard improvement of ahutting streets
because said property does relate to and abut upon streets and high-
ways which are improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic,
which will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with
the circulation elertient of the General Plan.
5. That compliance with Code, Section 18.40.030 for the provision of
the required amount of parking area for the Ball-Brookhurst Corral
ShopFing Cente~ will require the revision of the present parking
araa ~ayout af said property. .
6. That verbal opposition by two tenants in the Ball-Brooktwrst Corral
Shopping Center, in addition to one letter of protest, was recorded
against subject petition. A statement of support signed by twelve
tenants was recorded in favor of subject petition.
Cortmissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 192, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-57 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1°and 2
with the architecture of the proposed service station conforming .
with the existing Bail-Brookhurst Corral Shopping Center. •
~
r
s .
4
~
's. ~..,, ~ : _ . ~ .
~`,~. ~ .,,,, ~___. -~ ~---
~~ ~ ~ ~
642
n,
e
:d
i
m
~g
~p-
60
sion
A
he
s
~7
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMM15Si0N Januarv 8~_1<162. Continue~,:
VARIANCE N0. 1437 -Mr. Guy Cooper, the petitioner, appeared 'uefore the Commission, described
Continued the proposed construction c~f exclusive ty~~e multiple family residential
buildings, and stated that the p~uposed twa story development would not
be detrimental to the single story development on the abutting property9
and that the distance between the buildings would be approximately
15 feet.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1, That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.32•060 to permit construction of two story multiple
family residential development 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 proper±y tha~ do not apply generally to the property or class
of use inthe same vicinity and zone.•.
3. That the requested variance is necassary for the praservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by. other property
in the same vicinity and zone ~nd denied:~to,the property in qdestion.
4. That the requested variance will not be materialiy detrimental to
the public v:elfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requssted var9ance will not adversely affect the Compre-
hensive General Plan.
I 6. That the owner of abutting property requested that the development
of the front portion of subject property be limited to one story
in height.
~ Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No• 193~ Serias 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungail, to
- grant Petition for Variance No. 1431, subject to the following conditions:
~ i. Development substantially in acco~dance with exhibit Nos. l, 2, 3,
and 4.
' 2. Payment of $25•a~ Park and Recreation Fee per dwelling unit to be ~
~ collected as part of Building Permit. ~
3. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the DeNartment of ~ ,
Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size,
accessible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a ;
~• soVid fence or wall, prtor to t~i~a•i Buiiding•inspactian.
The f^regoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to .
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in o~der to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens ef the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
I
AYES: COMFIISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
N0~5: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ p~SENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 1438 -PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submittad by C.G. VAUGHAN, 4521 Orri~gton
Road, Corona 0ei Mar, California, 8wnel, Sherwin Kellman, 1145 Pacific
~~ ~~ ~ ~
''-' 644
~ _. _ .. . _ .. . __ ._ _. ---------_ ..__ ... _...~_..---------
1 LJ `-~ ~
645
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON Januarv 8 1962 Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1438 -Avenue, Long Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission for ON-SALE
(Continued) LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH RESTAURANT on property described as: A parcel
100 feet by 220 feet with a frontage of 100 feet located on the south
side of Katella Aven!~e between Casa Vista Street and Ninth Street; its
northeast corner being approximately 290 feet west of the southwest
corner of Casa Vista Street and Katella Avenue, and further described as
119n Wes~: Katella Avenue. Property presently classified in the C-l,
N~eigtiborhood Commercial, Zone.
M°. Sherwin Kellman, the petitioner, appeare~ 5efore the Commission, end
described the proposed establishment of an Italian restaur•ant in con-
junction with the on-sale of beer and wine.
Mr. Milton I. Johnson, Jr., appeared before the Commission and expressed
opposition to the proposed use.of subject property on the bases that he
wa~ not certain that the use would be predominantly for a family res-
taurant rather than the sale of beer and wine, that a cocktail bar
would create a traffic hazard, that less desirable elements would be
attracted to the neighborhood, chat because of the increased traffic
sidewalks would be necessary along Katella Avenue in order to provide
accass for the chi~dren going to Katella School, and that the res-
taurant would not be conducive to the safety of the children in the area.
He suggested that the subject property be deed restricted prohibiting
the advertisement of ifie saie o` 5azr and :vine, znd requested that no
juke boxes be permitted on the premises. Mr. Johnston submitted a
letter of protest signed by Mrs. Ben D. Caughey.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that, if the
subject petition were approved,the petitioner would be in violation if
he did not serve food in conJunction with the on-sale of beer and wine.
Chairman Gauer noted that the issuance of the liquor license was under
the jurisdiction of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and that the
Commission's responsibility was to consider the proper usa9e of the sub-
ject proparty.
Mrs. Milton Johnston, Jr., appeared before the Commission and expressed
concern that the proposed use would be dangerous to the children in the
area and requested that guarantees be established to control the type
of operation and clientele.
THE HEARING WA~, CLOSED.
The Commission reviewed development plans and the petitioner informed the I
Commission that they had a similar type re~taurant in Long Beach, that
they would be occupying one of the seven units in the shopping center,
and that a wall would be installed.
Commissioner Marcoux offer~d a motion that the sUbject petition be deRiad i
on the basis that the proposed Lse would be adjace~t to R°l, One Family
R,esidential; development and that.•he did not.consider it suitable for the ~
sale of liquor. The motion failed for lack of a ~er~nd.
The Commission discussed the location of the building to be utilized fior ~
the proposed use, the location of walls and amount of se*.back, and the i
pussibility of attaching a time limitation for the use of subject pro-
perty subject to review at the termination of said one year period of ',
tima, in order to determine that the operation was ;.n accordance with the
requirements of approvsl. The petitioner assured the Commission that
tha proposed use was for a family restaurant, that tha on-sale of baer
and wine would be incidental to the ope~•ation of the restaurant, that it
would ba to his benefit to operate the r.~staurant in accordance with the
approval of the subject petition, and that he would be subject to control
by tha Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
--r._._-_,._._ - - ----
~ ' ' ~---,--
~ . . -.. . _.~_~. _. __
~ .
~'~
`:1
646
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.40.010 to permit the on-sale of beer and wine in
conjunction with a family restaurant 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.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre-
hensive General Plan.
6. That verbal opposition by two owners of property in subject area was
recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 194, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant
Petition for Variance No. 1438, subject to the foliowing conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. I, 2, and 3
2. That the on-sale of beer and wine be permitted only in conjunction
with the operation of a bonafide family restaurant.
The foregoing condiCions 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: COMMISSIdNERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Mungall, Peble:y,
Perry, Summers.
~ NOES: GOMMlSSIONERS: Marcoux. •
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ~ .. :{
~
~.. -
~:,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Januarv 8, 1962. Continued:
VARIA4CE N0. 1438 -Assistant City Attorney Jae Geisler advised the Commission that a condi-
(Continued) tion of approval of the subject petition could stipulate that the on-
sale of beer and wine liquor be in conjunction with the operation of a
family restaurant.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by JOHN S. WRIGHT, 1620 South Euclid
N0. 61-62-62 Avanue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described
as: A parcel 240 feet by 471 feet with a frontage of 471 feet located
on the east side of Euclid Avenue between Cris Avenue and Sumac Lane;
its northwest corner being approximately 82 feet south of the southeast
corner of Euclid Avanue and Criss Avenue, and further described as 1620
South Euclid Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUR-
AL, ZONE to the C-l, NEIGMBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
Subject petition is filed,in conjunction with Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 190.
Mr. John Wright, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and des-
cribed the proposed development of subject property for a medical center
to ba aperated in conjunction with the development of a trailer park on
a
~
{
_.: ;
•:~
i~ ~1 ~
t..~ ~-
\/
~ ~
~~
<~;~
Z, ' .
~,
vf
647
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. January 8, 1962. Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - abutting property, He presented a rendering of the proposed three story
N0. 61-62-62 medical building, totaling 35 feet in '~eight and costing approximately
(Continued) $400,000.00, and indicated that an eight unit one story medical and pro-
fassional offices building would be located on the northerly portion of
subject property costing approximately $100,000.00. He stated further
• that financing would determine the rate of development, that the existing
residence on the southerly portion of subject property would be removed.
' at a later date for additional medical center facilities, that the pro-~
posed project was not for speculation and would be a family operation,
that there was a five acre strip abutting subject property on the south
for which there was an easement for the maintenance of the power lines,
that this ~trip couid not be utilized for any purpose other than
recreational facilities for the trailer park development, that because
of the heavy traffic on Euclid Avenue the propertv would not be suitable
for residential development, and that the proposed development would be
an assat to the area. He stated further that there was a previous
petition for a trailer park fited for the development of subject property.
Mr. John Rothman, 1630 Cris Avenue, appeared before the Commission,
stated he was spokesman for the residents in the area, submitted a
petition of protest containing 265 signatures, and displayed a land use
map of the subject area indicating that the subject property was sur-
rounded by single family residential developme~t except for a parcel of
land presently containing agricultural uses tocated weste~ly and north-
erly of subject property. He read the petition of protest outiining the•
basis for the opposition to subject petition.
~/~c~[.•/~F
Mr. Robert Ceherr; 1601 South Euclid Avenue, appeared before the Commis-
sion, indicated that he was in favor of subject petition, and stated
that he operated a beauty shop adjacent to the subject property, and
that the proposed development wouid be of benefit to the area.
Mr. Ben Shroeder, 1659 Cris Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and
stated that most of the residents in the area had signed the petition of
protest and l•hat he had seen the plans for the development.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ .,
The Canmission discussed the possibility of creating strip commercial
zoning because of the surrounding R-l, One Family Residential, develop-
ment. It was noted that a high rise building would ba averlooking
residential development. Commissioner Mungall indicated that he would
not be opposed to the development of a suitable medical center provided
it were limited to one story in height. Commissioner Allred indicated
the he considered single family residential development the best use of
subJect property.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
•sub3ect petition:
1. That the peti4iotter proposes a recyassification of the above des-
- cribed property from the R-A, RBSIDflNTIAL AGRICULIVRAL, ZOIVH to the
C-i, vEIGHBORH00D Cq~lMBRCIAL, Z~NB.
2•, That the proposed reclassification~of subject property is not~nec-
essary or.desira6le for the. orderly and property d~velopment oF the
commnnity. ~' ' ,
3. That the propossd reclessiiication of subject property does not
properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally
established in close proximity to subject property and to the
zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the
community.'
4, That tha proposed.high rise development would permit an invasion of
' privacy fo~ the surrounding R-1, One Family Residential, developmant
•and that a suitable medice•1 centar facility could be developed on
subject property provided it were deed restricted limiting use of
subJect property to a medical centar and limiting the height of said
center to one story,
,. . . :
~ _. _ ._ - _ ___ ~_
~ 1 ~: ~
~~ .. . ~ :f \lj .
MINUTES. C_ITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 8 1 62 Continued:
648
RECLASSIFICATION - 5• That verbal oppositlon by two owners of property in subject area,
N0. 61-62-62 in addition to a petition of protest containing 265 signatures, was
_(Continued) recorded against subject petition. Verbal support by one owner of
property in subject area was recorded in favor of subject petition.
Commissioner A11red offered Resolution No. 195, Sertes 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-62 be denied on the bases of the aforementioned findings.
On.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSlONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CONiMISSIONERS: None.
.~
~
~
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by JOHN S. WRIGHT, 1620 South Euclid
PERMIT N0. 190 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A TRAILER PARK on property described as: A parcel 646 feet by 1,266
feet with a fro~tage of 646 feet located on the east side of Euclid
Avenue between Cris Avenue and Sumac Lane; its northwest corner being
approximately 82 feet south of the southeast corner of Euclid and Cris
Avenues; excepting a parcel 240 feet by 471 feet with a frontage of
~i7i ieet iocated on tne east side of Euciid %ivenue between Cris Avenue
and Sumac Lane; its northwest corner being approximately 82 feet south
of the southeast corner ,:F Euclid and Cris Avenues, and further described
~ as 1620 South Euclid Avenue. Property presently classified in the
R-A, Residential Agriculturai, 2one.
Mr. John Wright, the petitio~ier, appeared before the Commission and des-
cribed the proposed developrt~ent of subject property. He indicated that
the trailer park would be built in accordance with State requirements,
thet it would be limited to aduits only, that it would not create a
burden upon the schools or City services #hat th'e ;medical center planned
in conjunction with the trailer park would be the most up-to-date, that
the construction would be of the best, that the development would be a
defin'•~e asset to the area and the community, that there would be a wall
comp'f~ ely surrounding the park, thatthe development would be completely
landscaped and as many trees as possible would remain, that it would be
a self-sustaining community, that it would not be visibte from adjacent
properties, that the petittoners had dedicated the street right-of-way
and installed improvements at their expense, that it wouid not be a
speculative venture and would be operated as a family enterprise, that
high ttaxe~ and quick decline warrant the proposed development, that in
the fiuture it could be converted to another use more easily than any
other type of development, that there were approximately 21 lots that
could be utilized,that it would contain a pitch and putt golf course,
bowling green, and other recreatianal facilities, that it will beautify
the area, tliat it would not be iike the old type trailer park in respect
to transit clientele and other problems, and that the property values in
the subject area~will not be devaluated. He distributed exhibits of other
trailer parks for comparlson and quoted sources he considered reliab.le
for consideration. He stated: that the subject property was difficult to
develop because of the easement containing the power lines and itie ad-
jacent railroad track with the resulting noise factor, and that denial
of the use would create a hardship because of high taxes and quick decline.
Mr. John Rothman, IF,30 Cris Avenue, appeared before the Commission,
stated he represented L•he residents in the subjeet area, submitted a
petition of protest against the subject petition containing 265 signa-
turas, cited other denials for trailer park developments, enumerated
reasons for objections to the subJect development as outllned on the ~~
petition of protest, and indicated that a previous request for a trailer j
park on subject property had baen denied. ~
. +:.
~~~ r-,
~..i ~,j
~ ., .
_. _ _
1 .__._..------._ __ __~
,-.
~ 1 ~
~~
~
6w9
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COPIMISSION Januarv 8 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Wright indicated that the previous request for a trailer park had
PERMIT N0. 190 been withdrawnin 1958 because of difficulties in respect to land drainage.
(Continued)
The Commission discussed the problems involved in•developing the subject
property because of the power lines and the railroad track, the possibil-
ity of a future request for a planned unit development on subject property
and the fact that the development in the subject area had changed con-
siderably since l958•
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. .
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a trailer park.
2. That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land use
and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed ,
to be located.
3. 7hat the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
and genera~ welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the deve)opment of subject property is more suited for R-l, One
Family Residential, development because of the single family residen-
tial development in the surroundiny area.
5. That verbal opposition by one owner of property in subject area, in
addition to a petition of protest containing 265 signatures, was
recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 196, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
dany Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 190, on the bases of the
aforementioned findings.
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Perry, Summe~s, Marcoux, Mungall,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECESS - Chairman Gauer decla ed a recess at 4:45 0'Clock P.M.
AFTER RECESS - Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting at 4:55 0'Clock P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by REAL ES7ATE DISPOSAL CORPGRATiOy,
PERMIT N0. 191 935 South La Brea, Inglewood, California, Owner; Moro G. Welch, 14400
East Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada, California, Agent; requesting per-
mission to ERECT A DOUBLE FACEO 1R FEET BY 48 FEET •OUTDOOR ADVER7151NG
STRUCTURE 25 FEET ABOVE GRADE on property described as: A triangular
shapad parcel with a frontage of 94 feet located on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue and located on the northwest corner of Lincoln•Avenue and
the Santa Ana Freaway, and further described as 1455 West Lincoln.Avenue.
Property presently classified in the C-2, General Commercial, Zone.
No one appeared before the Commission to represent or in opposition to
the subJect petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Marcoux noted that upon investigation by the Commission on
R~,
,
r;...... -`:" j
j
F~
!
i
.__ ~ 'S
~
~.
~
~
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the i
, subject petition: i
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use ~
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: Establishment of a double-j
faced 14 by 28 foot outdoor ac+vertising structure twenty-five (25j i
feet above grade. ~
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 granting of the Conditional Use Permit, under the 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 use would be in violation of Section 4.08.020 of
th~e Anaheim Municipal Code, said section prohibiting the erection of
an outdoor advertising structure that is visibte from a major road-
way or freeway.
Commissioner Marcoux offered kasolution No. 197, Series i961-b2, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summers, to
deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 191 on the bases of the
aforementioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ •
.. 650
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 8, 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE - tlieirfield inspection trip, it was determined that the sign would be
PERMIT N0. 191 visible from the freeway which would be in violation of the Anaheim
(Continued~ Municipal Code.
RECLASSIFICATION ~ rVV~~V HEARING. Petition submitted by FRANCIS W, and MARGARET D. ELLIOTT,~
N0. 61-62-63 542 South West Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; Leo J. Friis, Talt S
and MacMahon, 403 California Bank Building, Anaheim, California, Agents; j
requesting that properky described as: A parcel 140 feet by 207 feet with~
, a frontage of 140 feet on Lincoln Avenue'and located on the northeasterly ~
corner of Lincoln Avenue and La Plaza Street, and further described as ;
1400 East Lincoln Avenue be reclassified from the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD ~
COMMERCIAL, (Restricted access to Cemetery Road), ZONE to the C-1,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, (Unrestricted access to Cemetery Road), 20NE. ,
Mr. Leo Friis, attorney for the petitioners, appearad before the Commis- '
sion and reviewed the past history of the subject property and the
restrictions imposed upon the property by Conoitions 1 and 3.of Ordinance
No. 963~adopted by the City Council on January 5, 1960. He indicated
that Cemetery Road was not a public road, that it had never be°n dedicated
to the Clty of Anaheim or the County of Orange, that it belnngs to the
Cemetery Extension District, and that Mr. Elliott believed he had given
a 15 foot dedication alth~ough no record could be found. Ne reviewed the
establishment of the residential subdivision abutting the alley, and
requested that the alley be closed if the use of the Ceme~ery Road were
not permitted. Hr. F~tis requasted that the Commission recommend to the
City Council that Condition Nos. 1 and 3 be aliminated.
Chairman Gauer read a statement in support of the subJect petition sub-
' mitted by the petitioners.
The Commission discussed the necessity for compliance with Code require-
-v ----~ - ~ - ..
~..>
~
~
651
MINUTES. CITY PWNNING COMMISSION, Januarv 8, 1962, Continued;
~ `'
~..
RECLASSIFICATION - ments in respect to the provision of parking area and the installation of
N0. 61-62-63 fences for commercial properties, and the conditions tied to the granting
(Continued) of the C-l, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning of subject property.
v
Chairman Gauer read a telegram containing six aignatures requesting '•
enforcement of Ordinaace No,•963 and the continqance of the subject
petition.
Mrs. Howard Stanton, 14g8 East Birch Street, appeared before the Commis-
sion, stated her objections to the subject petition, and read a petition
of protest, containing 21 signatures and outlining tha reasons for the
opposition, and submitted the petitions of protest for filing with the
subject petition.
A letter of protest from thie Odd Fellows Lodge~and one from Marshall and
Augusta Victor~ were read and filed with subject petition.
Mr. Friis, in rebuttal to the opposition, stated that it was the peti.tion-f
er's contention that the road was a part of privatety owned property,
therefore, the City was without jurisdiction in respect to the use of the j
road. • ~
Mayor Schutte appeared before the Commission and stated that the subject
petition had been discussed with the attorneys representing the County
Board of Supervisors and the attorneys representing the petitionersiand
that it was their conciusion that the matter was.a highly technical~ iegai
question which could not be decided by the City or the City Council. As
a consequence of the discussion, a letter was forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors requesting that they consider and settle the problem.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
~ommissioner Marcoux indicated that in view of Mayor Schutte's comments
in respect to the discussion held on the subject petition, the matter
should be continued until the County has reviewed the problem.
Senior Planner Martin KreidY informed the Commission that the Right-of-
way Department of the City had indi~ated that the results of a thorough
search of records by the Title Insurance and Trust Company would
deftnitely determine the ownership of the road and that this information
woutd be available within two weeks. '
Commissioner Perry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
carried, that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-63 be continued
until the meeting of February 5, 1;162, at which time the Public Heari~g
shall be re-opened and any addit~on~l information shall be presented to
the Commission for consideraticn.
REGlASSiF1CATlUN - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by N1TZ AND MUELLER, a partnership,
N0. 61-62-64 918 West Center Street, Anaheim, California,'Owners; requesting that
property described as: A parcel 56 feet by110 feet with a frontage of
56 feet located on the westerly side of Harbor Boulevard between Water
and South Streets; its northeasterly corner bei'ng appraximately 273 feet
south of the southwesterly corner of Harbor Boulevard and Water Street,
and further described as 625 South Harbor Boulevard be reclassified r"rom
the R-l, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,
(Business and Professional use only),.ZONE.
Mr. Robert Meuller, the petitioner; appeared before the Commission and
stated that the proposed reclassification was in order to establish an
attorney's office for himself and his partnar in.ar existing residence.
He stated that the existing residence was presently vacant, that the use
~is ronsistent with the proposed general plan and land use of the devalop-
ment of the neighborhood, that the amount of traffic on Harbor Boulevard,
the noise, and the danger to the children made the subJact property un-
_~
,:-_~
; ~
; (i
~
:` i
~
,
1
~
~ ~
~.~..~ , '~'~
~ ~ .
~
V ~~
~
. ~ f
MINUTES, CITY PfANNING COMMISSION, Januarv 8, 1962, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - desirable for residential purposes, that the yard frontage will be
N0. 61-62-64 limited when Harbor Boulevard is widened, that adequate parking would be
,~Continued) provided at the rear, that signs would be limited in size for tHe pro-
tection of the abutting propertie5, and that a palos verde stone front
would be added~to the residence in order to present a dignified appearance,
thereby eliminating the necessity for the removal and replacement of the
~
.buildtng which he considered suitable for the proposed use.
Mrs. Sylvia Hoppe, 620 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commis-~
sion and complained about the appearance of one lot in subject area,
which contained a residence converted to commercial use, indicating a ~
lack of compliance in respect to the size of the sign or the remodeling ~
. of the building. j
I
Mr. Cook, 724 South Pine Street, appeared before'the Commission and ~,
submitted a petition, s,igned by twenty-five residents in the area, re-
questing that the subject petition be considered in conjunction with
Precise Plan Study No: 30=73-2j and making recommendations which they
' considereil desirable. Mr. Cook requested that the subject petition be
continued until such time as the City Council made a determination upon
the Precise Plan Study which was preparedin conjunction with petitions
for reclessification of property in the subject area.
The Commission discussed the poor condition of the alley abuLting subject
property on the west and the degree of responsibility by the City for its
improvement and maintenance, in addiiion to discussion on the need for ,
-detailed elevation plans for the remodeling of the front of the building. i
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissio~er Perry and
carried, to continue Petition for Reclassification until the Meeting of
January 22, 1962, by which time the City Council shall have acted upon
the request for reclassification of other properties in the subject area,
and in order to provide an opportunity for the pe'itio~er to submit front
elevation plane indicating the proposed appearance of the existing resi-
~, dence on subject property.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by EDWARU N. and MARY ROSE, 2016
N0. 61-62-65 Flippen Orive, Anaheim, California,Ormers; requesting that property
~• described as: A parcel 65~feet by 134 feet with a frontage of 134 feet
on Katella Avenue and located on the northeast corner of Carnelian
Street and Katella Avenue, and further described as 10972 Carnelian
Street be reclassified from the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the
C- , NEIGHBO~HOOD COMMERCIAL, ZQATE'(limited to Business and Professional.
Of~sces only ,
Mr. Carl Harris, 1786 South Carnelian Street, appeared before the Commis=
sion, submitted a petition of protest containing 39 signatures and in-
dicated that their opposition was based upon the desire of the residents
that the area remain for residential use oniy. _
Mr. Edward Rose, the petitioner, appeared befure the Commission, describec
the development in the surrounding area and indicated that there was a
heavy volume of traffic on Katella Avenue, that the property was not
suitable for anything other than commercial use, and that they would
canply with any commercial zone requirements.
The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that the required
dedicatiun of Katella Avenue would:renove the southerly. third of the
existing rasidence. The Commission pointed out to Mr. Rose that there
was no alternative to the use of subject property for other than resi-
dantial use at present time. .
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. _.
The Commission .found and determined the following facts regarding the
:
,,:: ;;: ,:. ,. ~ . .. , .,. _,
, . It
, ; ;!: . ,:~.
~ .. . , . , , ~-.~_ .. _
; . :~
~
.- . -:•~
~
a
~
(.' .
1 _.__
r
~ f
~ ~
~_
~
~ .. .
G.
E:;r~: '. !
~.; , ,.:
~
~
E
F
.
t~'c~~s
,._. _
~
653
MIkLi,~l:,w,•,,,,,"c:_,,,iT1~;r~.{,._3tilNG COMMISSION, Januarv 8, 1962, Continued:
REC:.~';~~=rii:;;;!f;;•~ - subject petition: I
N0. ~ s •:°:.2-:;,~;.
Cor.;,~i~a~-,,i~ 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the abuve described~~
.~.__ ...,. ,.~..... _....., i
property from'the R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIOENTIAL, ZONE to the C-l,
NEIGHBORH000 COMMERCIAL, ZONE. (limited to business and professional
offices only).
2. That the p~oposed reclassification of subject property is not neces- ~
sary or ~esirable ror tne orderly a~~ prc~ar dcvela;.me^L cf th_
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 community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does r~.;uire
dedicationfor and standard imp~ovement of abutting streets because
said property does relate to and abut upon streets and highways which ~
ere proposed to carr~y the type and quantity of traffic, which will be ~
ge~,~rated by the pe~mitted uses, in accordance with the circulation 1
e~~.~ent of the General Plan, and that said dedication will encroach
~.aan and require the removal of a portion c~ the existing residence
on subject property.
5. That verbal opposition by one owner of propertyin subject area, in
addition to a petition of protest containing 39 si9natures, was
recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 198, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to recom-
mend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No, 61-62-65
be denied on the bases of the aforem~er~tioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vo~e:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgdod, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by STELLA E. TURNER, 654 Loara,
N0. 61-62-66 Anaheim, California, Owner; James P. Utterback Realty, Inc., S00 South
Srookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property
described as: A parcel 276 feet by 670 feet with a frontage of 276 feet
located on the south side of Lincoin Avenue between Dale Avenue and
Beach Boulevard; its northeast corner being approximately 700 feet west
of the southwest corner of Dale Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, and its
southerly boundary ab~tting the Orange County Flood Control Channel be
' reclassi•fied from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAI, ZONE to the R-3,
MULTIPLE FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Conditionat
Use Permit No. 192.
Mr. Jim Utterback, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission,
presented a rendering of the proposed planned unit development, and in-
dicated that the multiple family residential development would consist
of single story garden type apartment units, that a block wall would
separate the abutting properties, that block walls would be utilized in
the rear of the garage buildings, that the drainage from the buildings
would be into the F1ood Control Channel, and that a 35 foot setback
would be provided.
~ ~
~ _..~._.._ ,-----
!
~..
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januarv 8 1962, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Albert Urbigkeit, 2884 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the
N0. 61-62-66 Commission, reviewed development plans, and was assured by the petitioner
~ (Continued) drainageewouldr ot,beWOnto herPproperty the property line and that
'TiiE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Gottxnissioner Hapaood left the Council Chambers at 6:15 0'Clock P.M.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above des-
scribed property from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the
R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary
~nd/or desirable for-the orderly and proper development of• the com-
munity: .
i
3. Thaf the proposed reclassification of the subject property does
properiy relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally
established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones
and their permitted uses generally established throughout the
community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require
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 ofthe
General Plan.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 19:~~ Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by~ Commissioner Alired, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
61-62-66 be approved, subJect to the following conditions:
1. Oevelopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 ~
with the provision of a 35 foot setback from Lincoln Avenue, said ~
setback area to be provided with landscaping of all areas not
reserved for access drives or walks.
2. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall or equivalent construc-
tion along the east, south, and west boundary line of subject property.
3. Subject to the approva{ of Petition for Co~ditional Use Permit No.192•
4. Preparation of street improvement plans and insta~oval~o,f the,City
provements for Lincoln Avenuo, subject to the app
Engineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file
in the office of the City Engineer.
5, Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Lincoln Avenue.
6. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.OO.per dwelling unit to
be collected as part of the Building Permit.
7. Pravision of trash storage areas as deCormined by the.Department ~f
~Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adaquate in size, access
ible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequatety enr,losed by a solid fence
or wall, prior to Pinal Building Inspection.
~
~~
-- ~,,. . . . r..: , . , , , - . , , ._ , .. ~: .~_.._ •
I '~
~
-; ' il
'.~
: ~
,:: V
i
.. .. i
~ `.' 65~+
r ; . :.. .;..; .. ' ...;: .i:_. ...~.ti:: :..f{~ . .
_ F~ y
.. ~ .. . r:~; ' .. .
. . , .. ~..~ ~~~~ .. . .
. ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ..
. ' 4 ~ Ef . .~ ~~
~ • ~ ~ 655
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. January 8, 1962, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - 8. Time limitation of onP hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
N0. 61-62-66 ment of Item Nos. 4 and 5.
- ' (Continued)
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order ta pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vo.e:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall., Rebley,,
• f Perr,y, Summers.
-; ~ NflES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSGONERS: Hapgood.
CON[{ITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by STELLA E. TURNER, 654 Loara,
PERMIT N0. 192 Anaheim, California, Owner; ,lames P. Utterback Realty,lnc., 800 South
Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to
CONSTRUCT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT on property described as: A parcel
276 feet by 670 feet with a frontage of 276 feet located on the south
side of Lincoln Avenue between Da1e Avenue and Beach Boulevard; its
northeast corner being approximately 700 feet west af the southwest
corner of Dale Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, and its southerly boundary
ahutting the Orange County Flood Control Channel. Property presently
classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Subject petition is submitted in conjunction with Petition for Reciass-
ification No. 61-62-66.
Mr. Jim Utterback, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commission
and raviewed development plans for the planned unit development.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commissian found ar+d determined the following facts regarding the
subJect petition:
l. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a planned unit develop-
ment.
2. That the proposed use Wi.ll not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and developmenE 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
detrtmental to the particular area no~ to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of•Anaheim.
4. That the traffic gene'rated by the proposad 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 generat welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 200, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 192, subject to the.follow•
ing conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2,
with the provision of a 35 foot setback from Lincoln Avenue, said
setback area to be provided with landscaping of all areas not
reserved for access drives or walks. .
j ~ 4 ~ 1kJ'~.r.a~"l~..k7nn.. ~' S..W ,N.'~C+~{YNt~~ ~-.~c~,..C~i .1D~~~ } i i
~~'~ . . . .
~
~ .. ' .
.
~. ~ ~ry
~W '. . - .
. .. _ ,
.
~_ . .'~ .
. " . ..~ . ~'1 . . .. .
. . . .. ...~-:: ~ -
. . . •. ~ !.Y . _ .
';
~...i.~ ~`~~~ ' . .. ~
~ . .. ~ , 65b . '
~. .
MINUTES..CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januarv 8, 1962, Continued:
CONDITIOWIL USE - 2. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall or equivalent construc-
PERMIT N0. 192 ` tion along the east, south, and west boundary line of subject pro-
(Continued) perty.
3. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-66..
4.` Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
~ provements for Lincoln.Avenue, subject to the approval of the City
' engineer and in accoYudfiCC Wiin ihe adopied ~~8~udi~', N~o~S :+~~ r~~~
~ in the Office of the City Engineer.
. .
~`~~
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
t '` ' Lincoin.Avenue. ~
~
~ °~'~~~
~~_':'::~: 6. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dweiling unit
.
to be collected as part of the Building Permit.
f
,
7. Provision of trash.storage areas as determined by the -0epartment of
t Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size, access-
~ ible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence
~ or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection.
~.
~ ~
8. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish- ~
ment of Item Nos. 4 and 5. ~
i
~
The foregoing cor.ditions were recited at the meeting and were found to ,
~ be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
sarve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ;
i., .
,.
!' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Maraoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
's. Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
„ _ ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood..
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HF~ARING. Petition submitted by 5111-5 W. LEHMER, 1554.Cris Avenue,
N0. 61-62-67 Anaheim, California, Owner; Rothman-Steen and Associates, 223 South
Claudina, Anaheim, Californ~ia, Agents; requesting that property described
as: A parcel 480 feet by 1,285 feet with a frontage of 480 feet located
on the north side of Katella Avenue between Dallas Drive and Nutwood
Street; its southwest corner being approximately 186 feet east of the
northeast corner of Dallas Drive and Katella Avenue be reclassified from
the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-l, ONE FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAI:, ZONE.
SubJect petition is filed in conJunction with Petition for Conditional ~
Use Permtt No. 193.
No one appearad before the Commission in respect to the subject petition.
A letter from the petitionar's agent, requesting continuance of subject
petition untTl the meeting of January 22, 1962, and indicating that new
evidence was available, was submitted to the Commission.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred ~
and carriad,to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-67 in
accocdance with the petitioner's request.
~,
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. -Petition submitted by SIIAS.W. LEHMER, 1554 Cris Avenue,
PERMIT N0. 193 Anaheim, California, Owner; Rothmen-Steen and Associates, 223 South f
Claudina, Anaheim, California,.Agents; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT I
ONE-~~HlCY °l~NNJE4.RESlDENTlAL OEVELQPMENT on--property.describad as: A
pa~cel 480 feet by 1,285 feet wiih a frontage of 480 feet located on the
_ . `~
~ :
I.
_ ,. ,,.;
,
, ~.;
,
~~Y+4_. ~.,,._:J,_ ...:^r::. -... . _.i::t .~ .... t _ .... r_/~,,... o~. ....,.A = ~d...6'L%OsS....z)~:a. ... . . _. _. . .. . ~ f .~,
.. ,». .~4
s' . 4.r~ . _ i~ S , .
.+..Y•;.~:.~ T.Nrv ~ :,I~.~~.,..1 ~:~ ~l.n~~~~4.~:~ .ft2.,i..',kr.a`:i ~:.~ ~'~
..jj(( - ~~
~ ~~5
. ... . . - ~K( ...
,
. .. , .. ;:. .:. , ,, .: ,S '~
... . . . ~.-• j
.. '.. ..~, . . ..~ ~~ ~ . _ .~ . ' _ ' _~
- A. "`__.L _ ___...__ _ ._ . . .~~
~ ~ . . r~~ ~ . . ~ , ~ ~ ... ' ..' ~, . .
657
MINUTES CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSiON Januarv 8, 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USE ° north side of Katella Avenue between Dallas Drive and Nutwood Street;
h the st
~: ~
PERMIT N0. 1~`3
~(Continued) its southwest corner being approximately 186 feet east of t e nor a
cornar of Dallas Drive ynd Katella.Avenue. Property presently classified
in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone.
SubJect petition is filad in conjunction with Petition for Reclassifica-
tion No. 61-62-67.
No one appeared before the Commission in respect to the subject petition.
A letter from the petitioner's agent, requesting continuance of subject
petition until the meeting of January 22, 1962, and indicating that new
evidence was available, was submitted to th~ Gommission.
Canmissioner Marcoux offered a motion,seconded by Commissioner Allred and
carried, to continue Petition for Conditional Use Parmit No. 193, ~~
accordance with the petitioner's requsst.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBl.IC HEARING. ~Petition submitted by J. HAROLD SMITH, 3405 West Ball
described
N0. 61-62-68 Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property
f152 feet located
f
rontage o
as: A parcel 140 feet by 152 feet with a
' on the norxh side of Ball Road batween Western and Knott Avenue; its
southeast corner being approximately 835 feet west of the northwest corner
of Ball Road and Westorn Avenue, and further de~cribed as 3311 West Ball
Road be reclassified from the R-A, RES{DENTIAL AGRICULTIlRAL, ~(~NE to the
C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,.ZONE. ~
Mr. J. Harold Smith, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and ~
dascribed the proposed construction of a small neighborhood commercial
development to contain small shops, one of which he would retain for
uso as an office. He indicated.that he would install a six foot concrete
block wall on the rear of the property, that he would provide storage
area, that it would be a nicer type commercial venture, and that a sign
on the front of the property would accomodate all the advertising that
would ba permitted for the shops in the center.
Mrs. R. A: Brunner•, 3302 West Deerwood Drive, appeared before the Commis-
sion and submitted and read a petition, containing eleven signatures,
stating they were opposad to R-3, Multiple Family Residential, develop-
ment and requesting that the use of subject property not be permitted for
r9sidential purposes unless`it were rezoned. She inquirad about the in- ~.
stallation of the wall on the rear of subject property, because of the
low grade of abutting properties, and about trash removal services.
p discussion was held relative to the drainage ditch in the area and Mrs.
Brunner sugyested that drainage be providod underground to the Ball Road
drainage facility because of the health problem in the area. ~t was
also noted that two story R-3. Mulfiple Family Rasidential, development
would not be permttted on sub~ect property unlass a variance were ~
approved.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
The Commission sc•-"~:"•] past action on subJect property.in respect to a
previous denial of a request for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, class-
ification of subJect property. •
The Cortunission discussad the location of subJact pruperty in a residen-
tiel area.. Commissioner Pebley noted that commercial davalopment did not
appear to be suitable in the middle of the block and that one story mul-
tiple family residential derelopment would provide the best use of sub-
Ject property.
Assistant City AtCO~-ney .~ae 6eisler advised the Commission that it was ~
within tha Jurisdic,tion of"the Commission to recommend to the Gity
~r ~l; _~~'::.;
~,. ~ .._ _ _ . _ .,_.~ . _.__ _ + ~'^
~ j i.',t.~~'..~~~:h~'i~^n.'~•ht~;ac,~ s.,~s:. .,kwd'J r:~i rr.h~3',~..,4?::s.i r~ ~~
~
c
~
~~
~ ~ ~;.
~
. .
' " _ ` ~''.
;
:
~
.. ... .., .
~.~..
~ _ .. . ..
. .... ': ... :71•,
, .
...~; , ,
:..
~
._ y
.:;., . ~~(i.;
.. . ~?v~ -;,
~ _
. ~ . ~ ~. . ' .
~. . .
~ .
MINUTES. CITY PLA
RECIASSIFICATION
N0. 61-62-68
(Continued)
l
E: '
~:~..;,~~
~:
~
~ i.
F,
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property to the R-3.
Multiple Family Residential, Zone does properly relate to the zones
and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to
subject property and Y.o the zones and their permitted uses generally
established throughout the community. i
I
4. That a petition of protest containing eleven signatures was recorded
against the subject pet?±ie~,
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 201, Series 1961-62,~seconded
by Commissioner Summers, to recanmend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 61-62-68 be approved reclassifying subject pro-
perty to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESlDENTIAL, ZONE (limited to one story
in height), subJect to the following conditions:
1. Recordation of standard R-3, Multiple Family Residential, 2one deed
restrictions limiting to one story the maximum height of structures
erected on subject property.
2, Subject to the submission of development plans, for multiple family
residential development of subject property, to the Planning Commis-
sion for review.
3 Installation of a s3x (6} fooC masonry wall on the northerly boundary .
, of subject property, said wall to correspond in height to ±he grade
rior to Pinal Building Inspection.
ties
p
level of the abutting proper
4 Posting of a bond for a period of one (1) year to insure the ins±alla- _
. tion of a six (6) foot masonry wall on tha easterly and wesr.erly
boundaries of subject property at time of devetopment.
5. Preparation oi street improvament plans and installation of all im-
roval of the City Engineer'
the a
t
b
pp
o
ject
provemants for Ball Road, su
and in accordance with,tha adopted standard plans m file in the
Office of the City Engineer.
6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Ball Road.
7, Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee,of $25•00 par dwelling unit to
be collected as pert of the Building-Permit.
8 Provision of trash storage areas as,determined by the Department of
. Senitation Division, which are adequate in size,
Public Works
,
accessible to trash-truck piok-up, and adequetely enclosed by a
~ solid fence or wall, prior'.to Final Building lnspection.
g, Time limitation of.one hundred eighty (180) ;deys for the accomplish-
. ment'of ltem Nos. 1,,5 and 6. „ ,
. . . < :...---
-'~: ' r' ~ ~~_.".i'A~a~t~ i:,.-~~ k ~~^ r~r : ~~a t w,~~~.~:..~. ~~+~~.~. , „v .. 1~^ .J;*r.~r~ 3;;'~. ~ .,~;+~ at1~ ~y;tV~r°`•-~r .;,~ : .-~^
.
~ ~ ~~.' ~ -i:
j
• 658
NNING COMMISSION Januarv 8 1962, Continued:
- Council that the property not be classified in the C-1, Neighborhood
Correnercial, 2one but that it be classified in the R-3, Multiple Family
Residential, 2one subject to the submission of plans for one story
development.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subJect petition:
l. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of subject property
from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
2. That it is hereby deemed necessary or desirable for the orderly and !
proper development of the community that the subjec+. property be t
raclassified to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone (limited ~
to one story in height).
~
~
~ ------
~
~ -
~
• ~
~ ~
.~
~~;
°
.
;;;
---~... :
`
~~ i
I
659
.
MINUTE:..CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januarv 8, 1962, Continued:
RECI.';SSIFICATION - The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to '
N0. ~51-62-68 be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order' to pre-
Comtinued) serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anahaim. ~
~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the f:llowing vote- 4
y ,
~
r
i ~:
, i . .
~: `, ,
~ ..
c :. . .:.. : . ~'. . . ~ 4•,.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, I
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
7'ENTATIVE MAP~OF - SUBDIVIDER: STANLEY BELL, 9776 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California.
TRACT N0. 4187 ENGINEER: HAROLD L. RAAB, 1731 South Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, California.
Tentative Tract located on the north side of Houston Street, 627.46 feet
west of Gilbert Street, and contains l7 proposed R-1, One Family Resi-
dential, lots.
A report was submitted to the Commission, requesting that the $25.00
filing fee collected for the processing of Tentative Map af Tract No.
4187 be refunded to the petitioners because the map had already been
reviewed and had baen processed by the County in November, 1961.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that the plans be withdrawn and that the Planning Director
transr~~it a request to the Finance Director that the $25.00 filing fee
ba ra`und~~ Ca ine sucdivider.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: WILLIAM ROGERS, 20211 Amapola, Orange, California.
TRACT N0. 4533 ENGINEER: McDANiEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoin, Anaheim.
Tentative tract is located on the nor~th stde of Wagner Avenue, 935 feet
west of Sunkist Street, and contains twenty-one R-A, Residential Agri-
cultural, lots.
Mr. Jacobson, representative of the McDaniel Engi~ear:~g ~arp~ry, appear-
~
ed befora the Commission, made reference to the two parcels not included
inthe tentative tract, and indicated that the existing residences on j
Wagner Avenue would remain. j
I
The CU;nmission discussed Interdepartmentai Committee Recommendations ;
relative to problems conce!-ning Lot "A" and Lot "B". Mr. Jacobson ,
requested that a margin for adjustment, of the recommended provision of '
the 30 foot wide Lot "A", be permitted because the width was indefinite
at present time. The Commission indicated agreement with the Inter-
dapartmental Committee recommendations with the exception that Lot "A"
be designated "approximately" 30 feet in width.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Perry
and carried, that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4533 be approved, sub-
ject to the foll'owing conditions:
1. The developer shall provide an approximate'ly 30 foot wide Lot "A~'
along the northerly line of the "Not A Part"; also Lot "B" shali be
provided along the easterly line of "Not A ParE" and Lot "A", and
shall extend to Street "A". An agreement as to the cost of Lots "A"
and "B" shall be entered into between the developers and the Gity of
Anahaim.
2. Requirement that should this subd~viston be developed as more than
one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tent-
ative form for approval.
3• Sub,ject to the approval of plot and building plans by the Planning
and Building Departments.
4. Dadication of vehicular access rights on Wagner Avenue, except at
s~treet openings.
. Commissioner Summers left•tha Council Chember.s at 6':45 0'C1ock P.M.
_
. .. ..DYeI J.ll;..r ... ..
;~
,_ . ~ t r ._ ,.y:,.,.,.., .+,.,. , ~:r.~.T c,..:.ar •, _, ,. _.
~ ----~_. _-____ ~
~ ~ ~
F~ . ,:
~ .
~
,;
. >. ~: ' ,
~~
660 i
~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 8, 1962, Continued:
TENTATIVE M11P OF - SUBOIVIDER: R. A. KAROS, et. al, 315.West Eighth Street, Santa Ana, Cal.
TRACT N0. 4545 EN6INEER: HALL,.HAYNES 8 ASSOC.IATES, 315 West Eighth Street, Santa Ana, ~
F~' ~~ . . 9P .
California. Tentative tract is located 507.68 feet north of Simmons ~
Avenue and 527.86 feet west of Lewis Street ai~d contains fifteen pro-
posed R-1, O~e Family Residential, lots.
Mr. Jack Hall appeared befcre the Commission and stated he represented
the owner and was the engineer for the tentative tract. ~
The Commission discussed the dimensions of a parcel not included in sub-
ject tract and containing less than the minimum one acre lot size require-~
• ment. It was noted that a request for variance could be filed for said
parcel.
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations were submitted to the Commis-
sion and Mr. Hall took exception to Recommendation No. 3 in respect to
the provision of utility easements to Orangewood Avenue for d reulation
of the water system. It was pointed out that the recommendation had been
made after review by the Interdepartmental Committee and that it was con-
sidered nesessary in order to provide sufficie~t water pressnre for the
psoposed development.
The Commission found and determ~ned the following fact regarding the s~~b- ~
jact tentative tract map: ~,
l. That the establishment c~ tha R-A, Residentiai Agricultural, parcel
omitted from subject tract and containing less than one acre in size,
may be provided for by the filing of a Petition for Variance.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner Mungall ~,
and carried,.that Tentative Map of Tract No. 4545 be approved, subject 9
to the following conditions: ~
9
I. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than ~
one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shali be submitted in ~
tentative form for approval. • ;
2. SubJect to the approval of plot and building plans by the Planning i
and the Building Oe~artments. i
1
3. Provisien for utility ~asements to Orangewood Avenue for circulation ~
of the water system.
i
~CORRESPONDENCE ITEM N0. 1: LETTER FROM ORANGE.COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION relative to
, NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL SECTION: '
A lettar received from the Orange County P1anning Commission and contain-
ing an axcerpt from the minutes of the Orange County Planning Commission
Meet3ng held on December 27, {9G~, was submittad .to tha Commission. r
The excerpt mada reference to notification from the pnaheim Planning Com-'
mission in respect to the Northeast Industrial Section and contained in-
formation ralative to.a conference attended by tha Orange County Planning ,
Director, Anaheim City Officials, and County Officials at which time it
was indicated that a study of the general area would be prepared for pre-
santation and discussion with the Orange County Planning Commission and
the Anahaim City Planning Commisston.
~Chairman Gauer directad the Commission Secretary to receive and file the
notification fran the Orange Cuunty Planning Comm3ssion.
ITEM N0. 2: C!TY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. 7~+48:
- City Council Resolution No. 7448 was submitted to the Commission. Said
resolution refarred to all emendments,'prepared~;b.ytfie City-~Attoroey, of
Tit1e 18 of the Anahaim Municipal;Code to the Planning Commission for a
661
5 ......... .........
~~ report and recommendation thereon and directing that the Planning Commis-
thereafeer initiate and propose the adoption of such amendments. ~
It was noted that tha resotution referred to the first section for the
revision of the Coda and that each section would be presented directly ~
~;:. ' to the Commission for consideration and hearing before referral to the ;
~ :' ,City Council. ~
~~ Canmissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 202, Series 1961-62, seconded !
; by Commissioner Mungall to initiate a Public Hearing for the consideratior.~
of the proposed amendment to Chapter 18.08 "Definitions" of the Anaheim
Municipal.Code and that said Public Hearing be set for February 19,19b2•
s
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passad by the following vote:
'AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Per'ry.
5 NOES: COMc•;ISSIONERS: None.
~ ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Summers. ~
ITEM N0. 3: LETTER FROM WILLlAM F. JAMES: ~
~
A ietter received from William F. James, in respect to the granting of
variances, and the letter in reply from the Pianning 6epartment~were read ~
to the Commisslon.
Chairman Gauer directed the Commission Secretary to receive and file
said letters. ~~
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1: REVIEW OF VARIANCE N0. 1422:
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Al1en Campbell, the patitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that he had requested the review of subJect petition because the
terminoiagy onihe pctition was misleading and in order to present an
additiona)•plan showing the interior layout of the building, said plan
indicating the kitchen, dining area, and bar area. He indicated that
the restaurant would be a hofbrau type and that the sale of beer would
be incidental to the sale.of food.
The City Council Minutas of the meeting held on December 26, 1961, were
read to the Commission.
The Commission reviewed the plan submitted by the petitioner and the
petitioner indicated that multi-colorad windows would be installad to
provide more light in the interior of the building, and that the interior
woul.d ba made presentable and wouldtave red brick and planters installed.
The Commission expressed concern in respect to the exterior appearance
of the building and a tangthy discussion was held tn respect to the type
of remodeling necassery to achieve a more desirable appearance. Tfie
petitioner agreed to the removal of Ehe redwood on the front of the
building, to the provision of an appearance that would ba presentable,
and to tha submission of a sketch`of tha front elevation for review by
the Planning 0epartment and referral to the Commission if considered
necessary.
Commiesioner Allred offered Resolution No. 203, Series 1961-62, and
..,....e.l f.,.- 7*~ ..~cennP and adoetion. seconded bY Commissioner Pebley, t0
662
MINUTES. CITY PlANNING COMMISSION. Januarv 8, 1962, Continued:
REPORTS AND .. - ITEM N0. 1 Continued:
RECOMMENDA710NS
~(Continued) l. Development substantially in accordance wixh Exhabit Nos. 1, 2,
and 3.
2: Submission of elevation plans of the front of the buidding to the
Planning Department for review and approval.
3• Installation of sidewalks in accordance with the adopted standard
plane on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
4. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Brookhurst Street.
___.. ~
~
~
!
~
I
5• Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 3 and 4.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed.by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, ilungall, Pebley, Perry.
N4ES: C~.MM!SSlONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Summere.
ITEM N0. 2: PRECISE PIAN N0. 31-70-4:
Precise P1an Study No. 31-70-4 was submitted to the Comm3ssion, said
study containing ownership, tand use and zoning infornation.
A report submitted by the Urban Rendwal Assistant on the Planning Depart-
ment Staff was read to the Commission.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pe~ry and
carried, that the study be referred to the Urban Renewal Committee and
that the Commission re-affirms the denial of Petition for Variance No.
1407 and recommends to the City Council that said petition be denied on
the bases of the finiiings made in respect to said petition and the
analysis prepared by the Planning Department Staff
ITEM N0. 3: LIGHT SIGNAL AT INTERSECTION OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND
HIGHWAY 39:
F
The Commission discussed the dangerous situation that exists in respect
to the necessity for a left hand signal system at the intersection of
Lincoln.Avenue and Highway 39•
p.ssistan*_ City P.ttorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the in-
stallation of signals is under the Jurisdiction of the State and that
the Commission could ma~te a recommendation tothe City ~Council that the
matter be invastigated.
Commissioner Pebiey offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Aiired and
carried, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that
the Traffic Engin~er of the City of Anaheim be instructed to conduct a
study of the light signal system at the intersection of Lincoln.Avenue
and Highway 39 and that action be based upon the recommendations of the
Traffic Department.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the Meeting was adjourned at 7:20
0'Clock P.M.
• Respectfully submitted,
~
JEA GE, Commission 5 etary
~ ' ~ . . ~