Minutes-PC 1962/02/05~' .
City Hall
Maheim, California
Pebruary 5, 1962
RBGUTAR MBHTING OP TH& ANA~IAI CITY PUNNING C~IISSION
~. ~
' i~
y
4 ~
~~._~.
R~UTAR MBBTING - A Re~ular Mee~iag of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was calied
to order by Chairman Gau~r at 2;OU O'C1ock P.M., a quorum being present.
I+RBSBNT - QiAIRMAN: Gauer; Cqr4lIS3IONBItS: Allred, Camp~ Chavos, Hapgood,
•Mercoux, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry.
AHSBNT - C~L'•iYSSI0I~R3: N~ne.
PRBSHNT - pIANNII~G DIRBCTQt; Ricbard Reese.
SBNIOR PLANNffit: Martin_Yreidt.
A33I3TANT CITY ATTORNBY: Joe Geisler,
C~1MI3SION S8Qt8TqRY: Jean Page.
INVJCATI~I - Pather Schlemmer. 3t. Anthony Claret Church, gave the Invocation.
PLBDGB OP -
AI.LBGIAIiCB Commiasioner Mungall led the Piedge of Ailegiance to the F1ag.
APPRWAL OP - The Aliautes of the meeting of Jaauarq 220 1962 were approved as
MINUTES submitted.
R•'.'.OLUTION OP - Commisaioner Marcoux offered Resoiut3oa No,•217~ 8eri?s 1961-62,
APPRSCIATION aeconded by Commissioner Mungall and carried~to adopt said resolution
in appreciatioa aad recogaition of the services performed bq Com-
missioner Ralph 3. 3ummers in behaif of the citizens of the C3ty of
Aa~he~m durino his ter~*e se a sseebes of the P2saaiag Commission fraa
April 24~ 1944 until January 30, 1962.
RHCIASSIFICATION - C~ITINUED PUBLIC I~ARING. PPtitioa submitted by WILLIANI T, and,LSONA ~
N0. 61-62-59 GR~GGBR,, 605.paadora'Street, Aaaheim, California, Owners; Vandruff
Developments, Inc.~.2973.west Rome Aveaue, Anaheim, tialifornia, Agent;
requestiag that property described a"se A parcei 533 feet by 640 feet
with a froatage of 533 feet'located on the v~est-aide of Suakist Street
betweea Lincoln Avenue aad Sout3~ Street; its northeast corner being
approximately 255 feet.more or lesa south of the southweat corner of
Lincoln Avenue.and Sunkist 3treet~ be reclassified from the R A,
R
B
.S
IDHNTI/!~L qGRICULTIAtAL, ZONB to the R-3, -lULTIPLH PAMILY: RBSIDBNTIAL~
. . . . ,
' ~~
~f
/y
. .. ~ .
(iM~• .
3nb3ect petition ie fileQ"ia coa3unc*_ioa ~ith Petitien fc:.~~di:ioaal
Use Yezuit No. 189 request to coastruct a planned anit aeveiop~oent on
subject property. '
~ Subject. petition was continued from the meetings of Jaauasy 8. 1962 and
January 22~ 1962 in order that reviaed'plans for a mare suitable develop-
ment of.the sub,~ect propertq could ~e submitted by the petitioner and in
order that a Preciae Pian Study of the aub,~ect area mi~ht be prepared by
the Pianniag Department staff. ` -
Senior Pianner 1~lar~tin Rreidt diaplaqed Precise Piaa Study No. 33-11-4,
He described the preseat zoning aad iand uae in the aub3ect area and
outiined the possible use of.aubject:pr.operties,::the proposed street
pattern, and"the possibie`ezpaasioa of'the Fast Anaheim Shoppiag Center.
!ie indicated #hat singie storq:multiple faaily developmeat in certaia
, ~ -691-. ~
_ ~
~ : -
I
_.u ~ .. . . .~f '~_~ ~..r...t7'~. _,..tl......~. .... ..... ...~.. ..._.. k,'..._t~~l..'.r;•j.,:.......,~.... .. ' ' . . . II
~ i
y.
O
~ ~
~.
MINUIBB, CIT3f PIAAIIVING CODUdISSION~ Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued;
~ RBCL-93IFICATI~i- areas would be easential and that landscaping and the installation of
k. N0. 61-62-59 walls should be required.
~~. ~ ~~ ~ WNTINUSD ~ . -
~,. Mr. Norman•~mettegard, attor~ey represent3.ng the petitioaer, appeared
. before che Commissioa aad indicaied that the reciass~ficatioa of subject
property was requested ia ortler to'coastruht a high quality planned
~; • unit development, that it would be single story construction~ that
~ block walis and landscaping would be instalied, that the roof wouid be
of wood shake construction~ that rentals wouid range from $140 to $155
4'~~ a month which arouid re.quire a reatrictive lease~ that the development
would~be an asset to the City, aad that the development corresponds
ti73th the pro,jected develop,~zat,outlined in the Precise Plan Study.
He indicated furthe= that, if the subject deveiopment• were not approved,
it was pos~ibie that two story development or commercial developmeat
miEht be eatablished at a later date. In response to inqairy ~n re-
garQ to drainage problems, the pgtitioner*s attorneq indicated that
` the problems could be resolved aad ~aat draiuage would be installed in
e accordance with the requiremei,ts of the City Hngineer.
F Chairmah Gauer read a letter of protest, dated February 5, 1962, sub-
, mitted by B.-win L. ~o1l,ing, Preaideat Anaheim-Suntist Civic Assoication.
Mr. Pred Sorsabal, 2503 klestport Drive~ appeared before-the Commission,
. requested in~foraration in sPSpect to the Xocatioa and amount of off-street
~ parking. the provisiori of garages, the type of roof construction, aad
• the provision of facilities for the collectiun of trash. He expressed
' coacern in respect to the amount of R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential,
r development ia the area and indicated that he preferred that the sub-
ject.propertq aad the vacaht acreage in the area be developed for single
family.resideatiai purposes.
„ Mr. Lloyd Rob~ns, 2515 Virginia A~~pnue, appeared before the Commission
and indicated that a petition, coataining over 200 sigaatures, had
been,f'sied in opposition to ihe sub,ject petitioa at the meeting on
January 8, 1962. Ht! indicated that the signers of the petition of
proteat were•still opposed to the proposed development, and stated
that he did not conaider it wise to permit rezoning of properties on
the basis of the price the developers pay for the land.
Mr. 3mettegard, in rebuttal, stated that trash storage areas will be
provided and arrangements will be made for the collection of trash with-
in the development, and that parking facilities will be provided in
accordance with the minimum Code requirements of the City.
THB HBARING WAS CL06BD.
~The Commission discussed the matter of trash storage and collectioa~ ~
with Mr. VanDruff the deyeioper, and it was noted that the provision ',
of trash storage areas could be made accessible to trash truck pick-up.; ~
~
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos,' ~
to deny Petition for Reclassification No, 61-62-59 on the basis that the
proposed,R-3, Muitiple Pamily Residentiai, classification and develop-~~
ment would not be compatible with the existing zoaing and developmeat 1
in the sub3ect area. _ . ~~
The motion faiied on roll ca1T by the following vote: `
AYBS: C~lI3SIO~tS: Chavos~ Gauer~ H&pgood, Mgrcoux.
NQB$: COA9~lISSI~IDItS: nllred. Camp~ Mungall, Pebiey, Per;y. ..
ABSBNTe ` Cq~lMISSIOIVBRS: Nona.
a
-; i .,
_ ~ ~ . ,.
~ ,:-'-----~ ~ r
0
, ,.,._~
693
L, _ I
~
f
P ,.~,.
0.
r
~
1
i
MIN[iTB9, CITY PIANNIi1G CObIIdI3SIUN. February 5, 19b2, Continued:
RBCLAS~IPICATI~i- Commiasioaer Pebley noted that the sub3ect axea appeared to be suitable
N0. 61-62-59 for multiple family residential development, that additioaal multiple
CONTINUBD family resideatial facilities.would be aecessary in the area as the
Northeast Industrial 3ectioa develops, and that the sabject proposal
would provide a development that would be compatible with the existing
GpYelopment and would preveat dcvelopment with a less desirable type of
use.
The Comntisaion fouad aad determined the foil.owing facts regarding the
sub3ect petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above des-
cribed proper4y from the R-q, RSSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTifRAL, ZOA~ to the
R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RESIDRNTIAZ., ZONH.
2. That the proposed seclassificatioa of subject property is necessarq
and/or desfrable for the orderly and proper development of the com-
~uaitq.
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properiq
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in
close proximity to subjeet property and to the zones aad their per-
mitted uaes geaerally est~tiblished througho~t the comnunity.
. 4. That the proposed reclassification of sub,~ect property does require
dedication For and standard improvement of abuttiag streets because
said propertiy doea reiate to and'abut upoa streets and highways which
are proposed to carrq the tvpe and quantity of traffic~ which wiil'be
geaerated by the permi#~ed.~yses~ in accordance with the circuiation
element of the General Plan.
5. That verbal opposition. in addition to petitions of proteat coa-
taininq approximately 300 signatures, wss recorded against aubject
pe',•-i4ion.
Commiasioaer Pebley offered Resolution No. 218, Series 1961-62~ and ooved
for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioaer Alired~ to recom-
mend to the Ci~y Council that Petitioa for Reclassification No. 61-62-59
be approved; ;ubject So the foTlowing conditionss
1. Developmeat substantialiy in accordance with Sxhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3~ and
4.
2. 3ubject to the approvai of 'recitioa for Conditioaai Use Permit No. 189.
3. Provision of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the north, west, aad
so~rth boundaries of subjeci o_~rer+_p and the provisiou of a six (6)
£oot decorative masonry wali u'!tlie eaatesiy property except for
those areas r.eserved for i~:~ ~.af an~s! egr~no :~ Sunkipt Street and
with the installatiou of land~ •:ping ia the proposed planter area
abutting Sunkist Street.~plan5.~1'~or said landacapiag to be submitted
to aad sub;~•ct to the approval;ol' tlie Superiateadeat of Parkway
Maintenance and said landscap3;~g`,and walis to be iastalled prior to
Piaal Huilding,Inspection.
~ I
, .,. .t
~
l
i
4. Dedicatioa of 45 feet fr~m tYie :.onumented centerline of Sunkiat
Street (20 feet existing).
S. Prepasation of atreet inprovement plaas aad inatallation of all im-
provemeats for Sunkist Street, subject to the approval of the City ~
Bngineer and in accordance with the adopted,standard plaas oa file
in the.Office of the City Hngineer. ~
i;
I .
~ . . ' ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ . ~ , .. . ' .. . . T i'
. . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . ~ i
_ '. . . . . . . . . ~.., .~ . . . . .~ - ..:..,. .~...:' ~ . ' ~ ~ ~ ~..:
. . - ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ .. _......_...-...__~ _._... _.__-__`~__"_.'~ . ~ ..~. . .~~: ~f...i
. . T_ . .-..~...~-~~....~-~ . . ~
~ -~.. ~',~: .. ~ .. .
. 5
._.,_-: .-... _.,:.. „.?~.r.:,. c... .::'~~,~. . ...._..: ;:i~:. , ~"~~~: ~.^.~~'~'~ ...,,..Yy~{~.!'rrt i'S'-_H.!'r: ,riF'.f_•;:r:~'x . .,. , _ . .,. . . ,. .. .P~~~~.
~
~:
~
s:.
. .
~
:
S . -
MINU~S, CITY PLINNTNG Cq~AlISSION, February S, 1962, Continued:
~. RBCIASSIFICATION- 6. Payment of $2.00 per froat foot for street lighting purposes on
N0. 61-62-59 Sunkist Street.
`= . t~Z'INiTfiD
~'` ~ 7 provis~.on of a five (5) fdot utility easement aloqg the northeriy
i I
~ ~
~t
E
~
~
~ ''c ;
~ and southerly bouadaries of sub,ject property to adequately serve
the sub3ect propertq and other properties a# :he time of the install-
ation of service facilities.
8, payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25.00 per dwelling unit
to be collected as part of the Building Permit.
9. Provieion of trash storage areas ~s: determined by the Department of
Public Works, Sanitatioa Divisioa, which are adeyuate ia size, access-
ible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequa~tely enclosed by a solid fence
or wall, prior to Pinal Building Iaspectioa.
10. Provisions,for. the adequate drainage of subject property subject to
the approval of the City Bngiaeer~ prior to Pinal Building Inspection.
11. Provision of an eigh~ (8) f.ct utility easement along the westerly
boundary of subject property t.o adequately serve the subject property
and other properti~s at the +.ime of the installation of service faci-
lities.
12: Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accompiish-
ment of Item Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
The foregoing coaditions were recited at the meeting and were :ound to
~ be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to
preaerve the safety and weifare of the citizeas of the City of Anaheim.
On zoll cali the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote:
RL+*-S: C~lIS~EI4I~tS. Alxzed; Camo; Chavos= Mungall, Pebley~ Perrq.
NOffi: C~AlISSI01~ltS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux.
,ABSBNT; Cp~1ISSI0NffitS: None.
CONIDITI~IAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC I~AAING. Petitioa submitted by WII.~LIAM T, aad LBONA
PBRMIT N0. 189 GRBGffit, 605 Pandora Street, Anaheim~ California, Owners~ Vandruff
Developmeats, Inc., 2973 West Rome Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A PIANNSD UNIT DB~-ELppMBNT on pro-
perty described aso A parcei 533 feet by 640 feet with a frontage of
533 feet iocated oa the west side of S~ntist Street between Lincoin
Avenue and South Stseet; its aortheast cozaer beiag approximately 255
feet more or iess south of the southwesL corner of Liacoln Avenue and ~
Sunkiat Street. Property presentiq ciassified in the R A~ R&SIDffidTIAL
AQtICULTURAL, ZOi~. _
~
Sub3ect petition is filed in cun,~unction with Petition for Reclasaifica-
tioa No..61-62~59. ~ _
Sub,ject petition was continued from the meetiags of January 8~ 1962 and
January_22~ 19G2 ia order that revised•plane for a more sutiable develop-
ment of subject property could be submitted by the petitioner snd in order
that a Precise Pian Study of the subject area might be prepared by the
Plaaning Department 3taff.
The Commission reviewed developaient plans and noted that a decorative .
block wall wouid be provideci abutting Suakist Street.
-------- -- -
x _.. . _,. , ~s~~r.e' .i_,.. _~~ , .~ ~r'h," ._..~:':: . ,..:5; ,. . . _ . ., ~::.., __ ;.~~
S ir
r~. . ':=~ ?fi' _., c.+."'X, . _ ,~•~~'^ y . . _ . .._ . . . ._ _ _:`s t'L
~ . _.
~ /
~ ~ a.V .~.._ ;~f~t ..
1 ~ ~
~ -~ ~~
. ~.~
~. , ~ Q . , :;o~~
~ . ~ 695
MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~V~ Pebruary 5, 1962, Cor~inued: '
~ CONDITIONAL USS - The dommission found and determined the following facts regarding the
~~ PBRMIT N0. 189 aub~ect petition:
CONTYNi1ED
~ 1. That the proposed use is proper.ly one for which a Coadifional Use
~ Permit is authorized by this Cod~, to wit: a planned unit develop-
, ' ment.'
2. That the proposed use wil,l not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is pro-
posed to be located.
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is ade-
quate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner
not detrimental to the partiCular area nor to the peace, health,
safety, aad general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic geaerated bq the proposed iase will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and 4sighways designed and proposed to
carry the traffic in the area.
5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
and general weifare of the citizeas of the City of Anaheim.
6. That verbal opposition, ia addition to petitions of protest contain-
ing approximately 300 signatures, was recorded against subject
,petition, .
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 219, Series 1461-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to
grant Petitioa for Conditioaal Use Permit No. 189, subjec: to #he follow-
ing conditl~ns: ~
l. Development substantial?y in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
2. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-59.
3, provision of a six (6) foot masonry wali oa the north, west, and
south boundaries of subject property with the provision of a six (6)
foot decorative block wall on the easterly property line except for
those.areas reserved for ingress and egress to Sunkist Street aad
' with the inatallation of landscaping in the proposed planter area
abutting Sankist Street~ plans for said landscaping to be submitted
to and sub3ect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway
Maintenance aad said landscaping to be installed psior to Pinal Buiid-
ing Inspection. ~
. 4. De3lcation af ~S feet from the mon~en+ed center-ine of Sunkist
Street. (20 feet existing).
~.
~
5. Preparation of street improve.ment plans and installation of all im-
provementa for Sunkist:3treet, subject to tbe approval of the City
Bngiaeer and in accordance with the adopted staadard plans on file ~
in the Office of the City Bagineer.
6. Paqment of $2.00 per froat foot for.atreet 2ighting purposes on
SunEist Street.
7, provision of a five (5) foot utility easemeat aiong the aortherly
aad southeriy bouadaries of subject propesty to adequately serve
the su,b3ect prorerty and other properties at the time of the install-
ation of service facilities. ,
l. ~
' ~ ` ~ -_ .;r
_ ,. _
`;:
. .._ ----- --- - ~----~-~----~'". ., .: ~ ` , ;':i
~-~~....- ...--.----~-~~.'t~~~.. . ~... ,..~. . .. .,: - , .,, --.:a.~.i_~ . ,,,,.. ~ ._. _ _..~" s~fa. . .. . ~ . ~ ._ . . _. " _. . _,...
.i... . . . . .. ..~ .. . _ ... ., ~ ... . .., . .., 1 . r
~ ;i
i~
~ ~
F . _ . . . . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~
~. G
. ~~' .
, . . . . ~ ~ . . ..~.r~.+^"n ~ .. . ~ ~ ~
~ . ~
~
~~~: .. ~ ~ ~ .
~- MINUIBS, CITY PIANNING COMMIS3ION, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued:
~
~ CONDITI~iAL USB - 8. Payment o~ a Park and ~ecreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to
~ pHRMIT N0. 189 be collected as part of the Building PermiY.
~ CONTINUBD •
~,. g, p=ovision of trash stoxage areas as determined by the Department of
S~ ~ 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 Pinal Building Inspection. .
~: ,
10. Provisions for the adequate draiaage of subject property to be sub-
r`. ject to the approval of the City Bngineer.
~ .
il. Provision oi an eight C8) :oot u:ility easemeat elong the westerly
boundary of subject property to adequately serve the subject p=operty
` and oth~r properties at the time of the instaliation of service faci-
lities. .
i 12. Time limitation of one h~ndr.ed eighty (180) days for the accompiish-
~ ment of Item Nos. 4, 5, snd b.
~ The foregoing conditions were zecited at the meeting and were found to
• be a necessary prerequisite to'the use of the property :in order to pre-
;, serve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
~C~
On roll ~all t~e foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
, pyBS; COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Hapgood, Mungall,
!: Pebley, Perry.
S NOffi: COAfl`tI9SI0AffiRS: Marcous.
E AHSBNT: COMMISSI~IBRS: None.
TBNTATIVB MAF OP- A Tentative Map of Ttact No. 4551 was sGbmitted to the Commission. ~
TRACT NO. 4551 (xVNBR and SUBDIVIDBR: S. V. HUNSABBR and 30NS, 4405 Irwiadale Avenue,
Irwindale,'California. BNGINBIDt.: 1~iiLET, KING 8e ASSOCIATBS, 1518 Wes4
Commonwealth Avenue, Pullerton, :.l:ifo*nia. The tract is located on
the aor~heast corne= of Orangewoed a•'enue and Haster Street, aad con-
tains twenty-eight proposed R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, lots.
The'Commission reviewed the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4551 and the
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations in respect to said tract. •
It was noted that it would be necessary to obtain approval of a j~etition
for Reclassification to the R-3, Multipie Pamily Residential,Zonein order b
develop the tract for multipie family residential purposes. The Com-
mission also discussed a need for a variety of elevations in the event
the tract were developed for multiple family residential use.
No one was present ta represent the request. Assistant City Attorney
Joe Geisler advised the Commission to continue the mattet until later ~
in the evening ia ordex to p=ovide an~opportunity for the deveioper to
• appear before the Commisaion. ~
Chairmaa Gauer directed that the.Tentative Map of Trect No. 4551 be
continued untii iater on in the agenc~a.
VARIANCH N0. 1436- CON'TINUBD PUBLIC HHAItING. Petitbn submitted hq T!~ ANAHBIM COMPANY,
1613 Hampstead Street, Anaheim, California, Owaer; requesting per-
mission to WAIVB MINIMUM SIDBYARD SBTHACR RBQUIRBMSNTS ei1d~WAIVB SINGLE
~TORY'HBYGHT LIM~TATIONS oA ~iroperty descritied ass" Lots 24-27 and 30-35 . ~
ef Tract No, 3301, lotated on the easterly side'of Ninth Street between
Eerritos R.venue and Au3re Drive. Propeity"presentiy classified in the
R-3, MULTIPJ..B FAMILY RB~5IDHNTIAL, ZONId. ~
~
. '~' ,r'.'..n~e ?C.;~.:~11
. '~..~.~.--rr--r.-^. '_ . . .. ... ~ -: r ~.; ~~ r
..... . ........ ,..-'? , ?.,.i~S ,. ~1.:
. . .. .. .. .._. r_...,. ~.~Fh i. __..., r
.. . .. ._ . ,... ...,
I
( ..
_ ;:~.
~~
~.~
~
~;1. "- --
~
~
. i
.
~
~
697 ~
~. ~ MINUTSS, ~ITY PIANNING COhA~tIS3I0N, Pebruary 5, 1962, Contiaued:
a: : ~
g: ` i
:1
VARIANCS N0. 1436- Subject petition was continqed from the meetiag of Jaauasy 8, 1962
CONTINUBD in order that said petitioa could be re-advertised~ including the
waiver of Code, Section 18.32.060 to permit the establishmeat of two
story multiQle f8mily resideatial development within 150 feet of property
ciassified:in the R-A,IResideiifial'Agsicultural, Zone.
The Cormaiss:~on reviewed developmettt,plans, Assistant City Attorney
,]oe Geisler advised the Commission that Lots 28 and 29 had been ex~
cluded from ~he subject petition and that the City Council had re-
viewed the entire development under the Petition of Reclassification '
which reclassified the property to the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential,
Zone. The Councii had apgo±ated t~emselves as ~he Architectural Com-
mittee ia the review of said plans and had given their approval sub-
ject tn the condition that a Petitioa for Variance for waiver of
height limitatioas ilso be obtained bq the petitioner for Lot Nos. 28
and 29.
The petitioner appeared befare the Commission, stated th3t he had
applird for a Petition for Varianee on Lots 28 and 29, and discussed
the elevation plans for the dev~lopment and the necessity for the
approval of the subject petition.
Commissioner Pebl~p indicated that he did not approve of the waiver
of the side yard r~quirement because of the crowding of the buildings
and the lac~ of ai:r and light. Commissioner Alired indicated that
plans could be revised in order to provide the required 7~ foot side
yards~ thereby improvir.g the entire development. The netitiouer in-
Aicat~d that the proposed waiver of side yard requirements was nec-
essary becau'se of the nairow depth of the Iots, that if the waiver were
not granted he would be forced to construct a standard apartment develop-
ment, that he did not need a side yard waiver on Lots 28 and 29, that
there are a number of easemeats on the property, that all units would
face the atreet, that some of the units would contain approximateiy
~,J00 square feet of land per uait, and tnat he intended to have dif-
ferent elevations for th~~ buildings.
After fnrther discussion relative to the advisability of maintaining
7} side yards, Assistant City Attoraey Joe Geisler advised the Com-
mission that approval of the subject petition could be given~excluding
the waiver of the side yard requirement and requiring the modification
of plans to comply. .
It was poiated out that the petitioner had already paid $25.OO~Park
and Recreation Pee for the reclassification of subject property.
The Commission found aad determined the fnllowing facts regarding tY~e ~
sub,~ect petition:
l. That ihe petitioaer =equests a veriaace from the Anahei.m Municipal
Code, Section 18.32,080(2) to permit the development of subject
. property with side yards of 5 feet in width and 3ection 18.32,060
to permit the construction of two story multiple family residential
development on Lot Nos. 30 through 35 of subject property,
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi-
tions applicable to the propert~~ involqed that do not apply gener-
ally to the propertq in the same vicinity and zone,
3. That the var3ance, as approved, is aecessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substaAtial pr,operty right possessed by other
prop~rty in~the same vicinity and zone,,and denied•to the property :r
in',queation. _ _, ,„
~
:~
698
~ ~~
MINUTES, CITY PIAHIdING.Cq1~41IS3IQN, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued:
pARIpNCH N0: 1436- 4. That the variance, as appro~,:d, will not be materially detrimental
~p~i~gp to thR publiC welfare or injurious to the property or improvements
in such vicinity an~ aone in which the property is located.
5. That the variaace, as approved, will not adversely affect the Com-
pretie~sive General Plan. `
6, That it is hereby d~emed necessary to maintain the T~ foot side
yard requicement for the developmeat of subject property in
accordance with'the requirements of Code, Section 18.32.080(2) in
order to protect the health, safet~y, and welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim, thereby providing for adeqaate ventilation
and light be#ween the buildings to be estaoiished ca su~ject ~:e-
perty.
7, Tt-at no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Ailred offered Resolution No. 220, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoptzon, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to
graat Petition for Variance No. 1436, subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, and
3 with the moflification of plans in order to compiy with the re-
quirements of Code, Section 18.32.080(2) for the provision of 7~
foot side yards.
2, Provision of four (4) elevation plans to be submitted to and sub-
ject to the approval of the ~lanning Commission.
3. Provision of landseaping and tree welis in the parkway portion of
the subject property, plans for said.landscaping to be submitted ta
and subject to the approval of the Superintecdent of Parkway Main-
tenance and said landscaping to be installed prior to Pinal Building
Inspection.
4: Provision of trash storage areas as de?.ermined by the Department
of Public Works, 3ani~ation Division, which are adequate in size,
accessible to trash-trucl~ pick-up, and,adequately eaclosed by a
solid fence or wall prior tn Pinal Buiiding Inspection.
The for.going conditions were r~cited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in orde~ to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fdlowing vote:
AYBS: COt~IISSIOrffitS: A.ilred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
F7unga.ll,°Peb3~y. Persy.
NOBS: COhQlISSIOI~ffitS: None.
ABSBNT: C~Vr1ISSI0AIDRS: None.
7ARIANCB N0. 1440- CONTIN[jHD.PUBLIC I~ARING. Petition submitted by ROBHRT H. MILSS, P. 0.
Box 58~, Anaheim, California, Owner; requestiag permission to PF9NIT
EXISTING SIX POOT WALL IN PRONT YARD ARBA on property described as;
A parcel SO feet by 110 feet w~.th a f rontage.o! 50 feet located on
the west side of Citron Street between Broadway and Santa Ana_Streets;
its northeast corner being approximately 165 feet south of the southweat.
eorner of Broadway and Citron Street~,, and further described as 315 South
Citron Street. ~Property presently ciasaified in the R-2. 1W0 FAMILY
RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONS. . I -
.
, ..~ , ;,: ,;; ~
>^"' -~_~~ v:c.L~~G;..~.^, .,
699
MINqTB3, CIT3f PIANNING CdrIMISSION, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued:
VARIAN~ N0. 1440- 3ubject petitioa was continued from the meeting of January 22, 1962 at
~pNTINIlB~~ the request of the pebitioner.
A letter received from Mr. Rabert H. Miles, the petitioner, dated Peu-
ruary 4, 1962, was submitted to the Commission, said letter requesting
that the petition be granted an adflitional continuance because af the
petitioner's illness.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that Petition for Variance No. 1440 be continued untii the
meeting of March 5, 1962.
TENTATIVB MAP OF- Subject tract map continued from earlier in the meeting.
TRACT N0. 4551
A letter signed by S. V. Hunsaker, the owner and subdivider, dated
Pebruary 5,1962, was submitted to the Commission, said letter re-
p questing that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4551 be continued until
~ the meeting of February 19, 1962.
Commissioner Marcoux, offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Camp
and carried, that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 4551 be continued until
the meeting of Pebruary 19, 1962 ia accordance with the owner•s request.
PRBCISB pIAN - CONTINUHD PUBLIC t~ARING relative to fhat area bounded by those proper-
STIIDY N0. 33-28-3 ties located on the east and west side of Webster Avenue, by Orange Ave-
nue on the north, and by Bail Road on the south.
Subject Precise Plan Stludy was prepared for coasideration in conjunc-
tioa with Petitions for Reclassification No. 61-62-52 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 184.
Senior Planner Martia Areidt dispieyed the Pr2cise PSaa Study and des-
cribed the zoning and land use of the subject area. He indicated that
planned unit developmeats would be com~,~tible with the existing develop-
ment ia the area and that development in accordance with said Precise
Plan Study couid be accompiished by the approval of conditional use per-
mits~ provided a minimum of 6,000 square feet of land area we=e main-
tained.
~_
~: .'
'j
, ,: :
Mr. lohn Rothman~ the petitioner's agent, appeared before th2 Com-
mission arid stated that he was in Lhe process of developing a nev:
plan for ti:e subject property to conform with the Precise Plan Stud~.
He indicated further that the prtitioner was eadeavoring to obtain
additional property to the south of subject property, that they in--
teaded to propose a plan for a housing developmeat for elderly persons,
that the ~ir.iau~ 6,000 souare foot land area would be maintained, and
that new financing would be obtaiaed. He =e9uested that, ia view of
the necessity to revise plaas and the time necessary for obtaining new
financiag, a fcur weeks:continuance be granted for the subject petitions.
He indicated that he did not wish to withdraw the subject Petition for
Reclassification at the present time.
Mr. John Goriag, 917 Webster Avenue, appeared before the Commission and
inquired about the amount of parking area required fur a church develop-
ment.
A discussion ensued relative to the establiehmeut of the church and park-
ing area oa the southeast coraer of Webster and Orange Avenue and Rever-
end ~ieaps, the pastor of the subject church, indicated that the amount
of parking presently suppiied was not aecessary and was creating a hard-
ship.upon the cyurch. He indicated that the church was interested in
disposing of this parcel.
~~
, -
< -------~.
~ ;,:: . ';.,.:; .~_~,-' . . `::'. ,._:, , , i: t .:~ ... . .,-s ~'r-_-. ..._.... ._ ._. ..._._._.. ,.~._
(s ~ ~
r l:
. ;>",
_ V
~ ~.:
700
MINUTBS,~CITY PLANNING CdMMISSION, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued:
•' pggClSg pLAN - Mr, Perry Uburg, 723 Websfier AVeaue, appeared before the Commission
S1UDY N0. 33-~8-3 and expressed concern in respect to the parking facilities for the
CONTINUHD church if the parcel'inciu~~ed in the subject petiti,Qn were sold.
Assistant City Attorney Joe G°isler advised the Commission that the
church was established approxi~,~ately a year previously, that the amount
of parking requ~red a± the present time is based upon the number of seats
in the church auditorium, and that the church would not be permitted to
expand withont providi.ng the requ:.red amount of parking.
TFffi HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried,,that Precise Plaa Study No. 33-28-3 be coatinued in con-
junction with Petitions for Reclassification No. 61-62-52 and ^wnditionai
Use Permit No. 184 until the meeting of March 5, 1962 in accordance with
the petitioner~s request. ~
e 1
F.
~~
~~
t
~
a
~ ~ ,
RBCLpSSIPICATION- CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by CHURCH OP JBSUS CHRIST,
N0. 61-62-52 Eyo Reverend James Heaps, 2448 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California and
MICHABL B. PAMSON, 12311 Morrie Lane, Anaheim, California, ONaers;
Rothman-Steen and Assaciates, 223 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, ,
California, Agent; reguestiag that property described as: An "L"
shaped parcel with a frontage of 135 feet located on the south side of
Oraage Avenue; and a frontage of 118 feet located on ChA east side of
Webster.Avenue, and further described as Lots 20 and 22 of Tract 796,
be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDSNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONS to the R-3,
MULTIPLS FAMILY RBSIDSNTIAL, 20NS.
~ Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 189 and is being considered in conjunction with Precise
Plan Study No. 33-28-3.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of December 11, 1y61
and January 22, 1962 at the reqaest of th2 petitioner's agent.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-52 be continued
in'conjunction with Precise Plan Study No. 33-28-3 and Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 184 until the areeting of March 5, 1962 in
adcordance with the petitiones`s request.
CONDITIONAL U8H - CONTINU~ PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by CHURCH OP JBSUS CHItIST,
pBRMIT N0. 184 c% Reverend James Heaps, 2448 Orange Avenue, Auaheim, California~ and
MICHABL B. PAMSON, 12311 Morrie Lane, Anaheim, California, Owners;
;.othmau-~:2en ~ad.Associate_, 223 South Glaudina Street; Anaheim,
Califoraia, Agent; requ:s*+.ng permission to (1) CONSTRUCT A PIANNBD U13IT
DHVSLOPMBNT~ WIZH CARPORTS attd (21 WAIVS YARD RBQUIRBMBNTS ca property
dear,ribed as; An "L" shaped'parcel with a frontage of 135 feet located
on the south side of Orange Avenue~.and a frontage of 118 feet located
on the east side of Webster Ayenue, and further described as Lots 20
and 22 of Tract 796. Property presently classified in fhQ R-A, RBSIDBN-
TIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NB.
Sub3ect.petition is filed in conjunction with PAtition for Reclassifica-
tioe No. 61-62-52 and is being considered in conjunctioa with Prec3se
Ylan Study No.-33-28-3.
Subject petition was.continued from the meetings of December il, 1961 and
January 22, 1962 at the request oF the petitioner~s agent.
;
~eK°•-~-?-; ~_. „ „ ,- , °
- ~:"',a_u~_... _.....,. , .. .~...t ,. . 1_~-,.,'"^,-,"''~s~:~;tr~~t,e..t
~'
~
{: ~ . . . ' .. . .
~.. . ' . . . . . . . .
~r ~
~~
f
` y
~.i;
~
4 r
r ;:,'`.t . .
~
~
'
... . ~ ~.~5 _._
o e
,o~
MIIdUTBS, CITY PIANNING Ct1~ISSYON~ Pebruarq 5, 19G2~ Coatinyed:
CONDITIONAL U9B - Commissioner Mungall offered a motioa, secottded by Commissi.oner Marcoux
pBRMIT.NO. 184 and ca;ried, that Petition for Conditlonal Use Permit No. ].84 be continued
~p~i~gp in coa3unction with Preciae Plaa Study No.'~3-28-3 aad Pe•cition for Re-
classi~ication No, 01-6?..-52 nntil tkie meetin~ of March 5, 2962 in accord-
ance witih Lhe petitioner's request. ,
RHCIASSIPICATTON - CONTINUBII PUBLIC FIBARING. Petition submitted by PRANCIS W. and MARGARET
N0. 61-62-63 D. ffiLIOTT~ 542 South West Street, Anaheim, Califoraia, Owners; Leo J.
Priis,'Tait aad MacMahon, 403'California Bank Building, Anaheim, Cali-
foraia, Agents; requesting that proper~y described as A parcel 140 feet
by 207 feet with a frontage of 140 feet on Lincoiu Avenue and located
on the northeasterly corner of Lincoln Ayenue and La Plaza Street~ and
further described as 1400tBlock B. Limcoin Ave.;be ;eclassified from the
C-1, NBiGHBORH00A COI~IMBRCIAL, (Restricted access to Cemetery Road),
ZONB 4~ the C-1, NBIQiB0RH00D CObDdSRCIAL, (Uarestricted access to
, Cemetery~ Road)~ ZONB. ~
Subject petitioa was continued from the meeting of January 8, 1962 in
order thatinformation could be obtained from the Titie Insurance aad
Trust CoY4pany ia respect to the ownership of Cemetery Road, and in
order that a determination into the legai aspects of the matter aruid-
be resolved by the County Counsel.
Assistant City~llttorney Joe Ge~.sier reviewed the reasons requiring the
hearing of the subject petitioa by the Commission, indicatiag that the
matter of whether or not ingress and egres~? should be permitted on
Cemetery Road~aad whether or not the existina fence constitutes an
orname~ttal fence, are the matters that must be resolved at such time as
a determiaation of various legal matters has beeri defiried.
t, iztter from Leo J. Priis, attoraey for the petitioners, requesting
that the subject petitbn be continued until the meeting of Pebruary I9,
1962~.;because legal problems have yet to be resoived wi~h t;~z Coua~3
Connse~~was submitted to the Commission.
Commissione= Camp offered a motion, seconded bq Commissioner Alired
and carried, to coatinue Petitioa for Reclassification No. 61-62-63
until the meeting of Aebruary 19, 1962 in accordance with the petifiion-
er's request.
I~ VARIANCB N0. i4d3- PUBLIQ HIIABLNG: Petition submitted by IdR, and I~4tS. W. A. B~CKHAM.. 2420
Ramm Drive, Anaheim, California, Owners; requestiag permission to WAIVB
MINIMtA! RBAR 1G-RD SBTBACK RBQUIRSh~NTS on property described as: A
• parcel 80 feet by 100 feet with a frontage of 80 feet located on the
south side of Raam Drive af the knuckle of the street; its northwest
zornes *~ing approisimately 500 feet east of the southeast co=ner of
Ramm Drive , and further described aa 2420 West Ramm Drive. ~-roperty
preseatiy classified in the R-1, OI~ FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONH:. •
The petitioaer was preseat and indicated he had nothing to add to the
informution contained in the s ub3ect petition,
~17~i HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commiasioa found and determined the foilowing facta regarding the
subject petitioa:
1. That the petitioner requeats a variance from Lhe Anaheica Municipai
Code, Sectioa 18.24.030(3) to permit aa encrnachment of 17 feet iato
the re•auired rear yard in order to coastruct a single.familq room
addition to an exiating single famiiy residence.
. .r__...
~!:i~~: ~ ~' . ~ _. . . . . .. , . 1 . _ .lF-;.. , ~4 .. ~n. , ~..... ,r .!'..;,t"~~ . . ,
-- .._. . . . . . . . ~r'~ .._ . . _ .. __ .
~
~
~02
MINUT$$, CITY pIANNING COMMISSION~ Pebruarq 5, 1962~ Continued;
, VARIANCB N0. 1443- 2. That there are exceptioaal or extraordinary circumstances or condi-
' CONTINUSD tions applicabie to the properYy inwived or to the intended use of
tkie pioperty that do not apply~generally to the property or class
of' use ia the same vicinity and zone. .
~ 3. That the requested variance is neCessary for the preaervation and
,• enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other proper-
ty in the same vicinitq and zohe, attd detlied to the property in
question.
4. That the requested variance will not be materialiy detrimentai
to the Qublic weifare or injerious #o the nroperty 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 Generf.i Plan.
Q. That no oae appea;ed in opposition t~ subject petition,
Commissioaer Perry offered Resolution No. 221, Series 1961-62, and moved
, for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired, to grant
Petition for Variance No. i443~„ subject to the following condition:
1. Deveiopment substaatially in accordance with Bxhibit No. 1.
The foregoittg condition was recited at the meeting and was found to
be a necesyary prerequisite 4o the use of the property ia order to
preserve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote;
AYBS: COMMZSSIONSRS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley~ Perry.
~ NQH3: COhA1xSSI0NHRS: None,
I ABSBNT: COhAIISSTONBRS: None.
CONDITIONAL USB- PUBLIC FIDARING. Petition submitted by LUTHBRAN HQMH A380CIATION OP
P~tMIT N0. 200 CALIFORNIA~ Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH HaMH POR THE
AGSD and CONSTRUCT NHW BUILDINGS on property described as: A parcel
• 630 feet by 716 feet with a froatage of 630 feet on Walnut Street and
located on the aorthwest corner of Walnut Street and Sall Road, and
further described as 891 South Walnut Street. Property presently classi-
fied in the R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mayor A. J. Schutte, President of the Lvtheran Home Association of Cali-
fornia, appeared before the Commission and stated he was present to
answer aay questions relative to the contemplated plans for the expan-
sion of the existing home for the aged.
The Commission reviewed development plans. Mayor Schutte indicated ~
that wall const=uction may be achieved on a'SO-50 basis with the
abutting property owner and that ap adequate amount of parking would be
provided on the site to cover the occupant~s needs.
ZHB HBARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
: subject petition. .
1. That the propoaed use is properly one for which a Coaditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wite expansion of an existing
'° ^ home fox the aged.
~., ~~,Z~:S .
„~ ,:,,::.;,:
~:vJ~.
•'F' .~i~w
~
~~ _+ ti:~
~~~: a ~ _ .
,
' ~---n+~-e-^-^~-- .~:~. . L ~, r . ~ .,, ,. ~ . .
...~.t?~J -)''-..~.=, l~ t;':'~f :.~:~t( .r~.~s:.lr~ ~.! '.~~.'v . ..~1:.~: ~nl . ~':......~ ,..:.4:. ..~..~~.,. .v~...rv:r"- ~.,.~'Y'S:..~.~h_4~MV-~. . ...,, ......... _.__ ..
i
i
i
: . .~
~
::i
::i
~ ~.
.~
~
. ,~
~
. , ' ~ . - - _. ,
~
~ .
7'03
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNIPiG COi~41IS$IOd~T, Pebruarq 5~ 1962~ Cot~ti~lued:
~. " CONDITIONAL U38- 2. That the proposed uae wili not adversely affec~ '.ae adjoiuiag land
~ PBRMIT N0: 200 •uses and the growth aad developmenf of the area in which it is p;o-
t ~q~I~gD pb$eci to lie located.
' 3.. That the size and shape of the site.proposed for the use ia ade-
l
quate to allow the fuli developmeat of the proposed use in a manner
. ' ~iot detrimeatal to the'parti~ular area ~or to the peace, health,
i safety, and general weifare of the citizena of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose aa
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed aad prop~sed •
~ 1 to carry the traffic in tAe•area.
5. That the granting of the~Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, ii` any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
aad general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That it is hereby deemed necessary, in order to permit'the develop-
ment of subject property in accordance with the pians ~ubmitted,
that.the waiver of the following sectbns of the Anaheim Municipal
Code be granted as authorized by Code, Section 18.64.070:
a. Waivex of Code, Sectbn 18.16.020 to permit the construction of
a three (3) atory buildiag.
~ b. Waiver of Code. 3ection 18.16.030 (1 and 3) to permit tlz~
~ existing buildings to extend into the requi;ed front an,d rear
yards. ~
~ •
c. Waiver of Code~ Sectioa 18.16.030 (4-c) to permit a density of
' single dweliing~unit construcLioa ia excess of one family per
6,000 square feet of lot area.
~~ ~, 7. That no one .appeared in opposition to subject petition.
~ ~~ Commissiouer Marcoux aiiered Resolution Na. 222, 3eries 1961-62, aad
moved for its passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commiasioner Mungall, to .
gzaat Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 200 subject to the follow-
ing coaditioas:
1. Development subatantially in Accordance with Bxhibit No, l with
plans for the future development of an additional 75 units on the
weaterly portion of subject property to be submitted to the Pian-
ning Commissioh for approval prior to development.
2, Proviaion of parking facilities as required, said parking to be
~ rovided oa the site of aub3ect property.
~
~
:: ~
5
' . . . '....~
S
P • ~ -
3. Dedication of 53 feet froffi the monumeated cEnteriine a'f 'Bali Road ~
' westerl~~ 4~2•feet plus of mihus of subj~ct(p3rcel, (30 feet exist- +
ing).
4. Dedication ~f 36~ feet from~the monumented centeriine of ^r•~LR.s;,d
appr.oximately 160 to 200-feet west of the~easterly property line_.of
subject property (35 feet existing).
5. Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street.lighting purposea on Ball
Road. ~
6. Installation of sidewalks along the westeriy 368 feet.plus or minus
Sali Road.frontage of subject property.:in accordance with the adopt- <,;
ed standard plana on file,in the Office of ~he City Brrgineer.
_ ,.
';:
~ -~.. .~~~~.c..rl~µ~~f..,?u.~:.:_.. 1..::<'. ....:~....,ir.. .,~.~,..:..~. :~~;.~.,,,r!5.:_~y.r~..,lruwl;K.._~;.~~~.:.,.,i4.4:w-. . ..._. .... .. ..t3,'i
: 0
704
MINU1~3, CITY PIAIaiING Cq~lISSION, Pebruary S, 1942, Continued:
CONDITI~IAL USS - 7.. Installation of a 4 foot wide sidewalk along the easterly 274 feet
pBRMIT N0. 200 pius or minµs Ba11 Road'frontage of subject property subject to the
~p~I~gD approval of the City Bngineer.
8, provision of trash storage areas as determined by tkE Department of
Public Works, Sanitation Division, which,ar~ adequate in size, ac-
cessible to trash-truck pick-up and adequately enclosed by a solid
' fence or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection.
9. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
~. ment of Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
The foregoing coaditioas were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property ia order to
preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
pYBS: COihN4ISSI0NBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
, Mungall, Pebley, Perry. .
NOHS: COD4~lI3~I0NBRS: None.
pBSHNT;COhA4ISSI0NBRS: None.
CONDITIONAL ~3SH- PUBLIC FiBARING. Petition submitted by A. C. WILLIS, 1368 South Buciid
pffitMIT N0. 201 Avenue, Anaheim,' Califosnia and NORMAN L. SUTLBR, JR., 1408 South Suclid
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; W. C. Bryant, 12112 Brookhurst
Street, Suite 11, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission
to BSTABLISH A CHURCH on property described as: A parcei 60 feet by
220 feet with a frontage of 60 feet located on the east side of Buclid
Avenue between Ralais Road aad Buena Vista Avenue; its so~ihvrPSt corner
• being approximately 270 fept north of the northeast corner of Buclid
Avenue and Buena Vista Avenuz, a.-.~ iurt.e.- desc~ ~-~ zs 1368 South
Buclid Avenue. Property piesentiy classified in the R-A, RBSIDffiVTIAL
AGRICULTIJRAL, ZONB.
A report was submitted to the C.ommission that the subject petition had
not been properly advertised in arder to be considered by the Comr
mission at this time, consequently, a continuance was recommended until
the meeting of Pebruary 19, 1962 to allow for the proper re-advertise-
ment of subject petition: ~
. ;
::f
~ The petitioner was present and indicated agreement with the suggested ~ ;
' continuance of subject petiiion. •
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall
and carried, that Petiti~n for Conditionai Use Permit.No. 201 be con-
tinued untii the meeting of Pebruary 19, 1962.
CONDITIONAL USB- PUBLIC tffiARING. Petition submitted by ROBBRT L. CIARK, 222 West Whiting
_~BRtdIT NO. 205 Avenue, Fullerton, Caiiforaia, Owner; reqneating permission to &STAIILISH `
A yVpyg_Up RggTAURANT on property described as: A parcei 127 feet by 150 ;
.feet with a.frontage of 127 feet located on.the north side of La Palma j
Avenue between Srookh$rst and Columbine Streets; its eouth~aest corner
being approximately 150 feet east of tk~e northeas~ corner of Srookhurst ;
~Street and La Pa1ma Avenue,;and further.desciibed as 2165 West La Paima 7
Avenue. Property presently classified in the' G1, NBIGHBORHOOD COM- ;~
. ,_
MHRCIAL, 20NH. • ` ;~
:y
' ~ x~
. ! 4,
~ ~
.. _ . . : . . - ~ ~ . ~~. . : .. -... .,.:. . _ . .~~ . .. . _ . .?::` ;.',i
. . . , .. ~ . . . ' . .. . ~ . ~ .. " ~ . ~ . - . . ~ ~.~;~; ! ~'.
.~ . ' ~ ~ . . ~ . ' ~ . ~ . ~ ' . - . . ~ . . ~~~
' . ~ . .. ~ ~ .. . . . . . ~
~ ' ~ . . . IY .I
1 ~1
I . . .. ~~~ e.. . ,. .. . . .~ ~~~~ . ~.. ..~ . .. , _ . ~ . . 2a
: . ~....' .L',~~.-.'~n'7;N'n .~.F ., ± ~:: ..`4>'f.2i~ r.r _:.s, r ,/~"..7-1 ~.V _~{'t:%..x~.7L~d,•"c,:;t.~t,cxt<~.er~..Sw ..,~. ...~ ,,.,, ..:, ~.+., !?..
~r
~
~ _ ~
•
~'; :. .
F :...:~.. ..
. ~
.
.
~ '
~
~ .
;.
G'
ti
~.:
The location of the patio area and the amount of landscaping recom-
mended for the subject property was discussed with the petitioner.
The petitioner indicated that he preferzed the installation of tree
welis and trees at forty foot intervals in the parkway portion of the
subject property, that the building could be set back without a great
Soss, that a portion of the sign to be erected on the top of the build-
ing wouid extend approximately three feet.beyond the roof line, and that
trash receptacles would be provided.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
` subject petition:
~ 1. Th t tha g aposed use is pro~r3y oae for which a Condztionai Use
. Permit is ~uthorized by this Code, to wit: a walk-up restaurant,
~-
2, That the proposed use will nflt adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and thegrowth 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
to allow the full development of the proposzd.use in a manner not
detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use wili not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed to carry the
traffic in the area.
G
~' .
t:=,
i:
Q ~ ~..
705
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CONAIZSSION, February 5, 7~962,, Continued;
CONDITIONAL USB- Ms. Robert L. Clark, the petitior~er, appeared before the Commission and
'YBRMIT N0. 205 iadicated he had nothing to add to the subject petition:
CONTINUED
THS HBARING WAS CLOSSD..
The Commission reviewed development plans. Discussion was held rela-
tive to the proposed ten foot setback for the estabiishment of a Tastee-
Preez walk-up restaurant., It was noted that the setback did not con-
form with the existing setbacks for the medical center or the service
. station developments on the north side of La Palma Avenue and that
there was a sufficient amount of land at the rear of the proposed build-
ing to provide a more suitable building setback,
Parking requirements for the subject property were discussed.• The
petitioner distributed photographs of the proposed development and indi-
cated that he owned the commercial property to the north of subject
property and was required to maintain parking for the shops in the
coaunercial development. He aidicated further that for the type of
operation proposed for the subject property approximately 18 parking
spaces would be the maximum amount needed.
5, That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit und~er the conditions ~
imposed, if any, wili not be detrimental xo the peace, health, safe- { ~
ty, and general welfare of the citizens of the City af Anaheim. ~
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Camp ~ffered Resolution No. 223,•8eries 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux to
grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 205, subject to the follow-
ing co~ditions:
1. Development substantiaily in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, I
and,4, with'4he provisioa that pians be modified to provide a twenty-
five (25) foot building setback fr~m the property:line to the point _
_ of bvezhang.. ~ • (
... I
.
'~
_ ~
,
~
~
~ .
~
;,r,
~
~
~ . • : ~
, ,
~ ,
Q
706
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COIrV~lIS3ION, Pebruary S, 1962, Coniiaued:
• CONDITIONAL 098- 2. Installation of tree welis at forty (40) foot intervals in the
PBRMIT N0. 205 parkway portion of subject property with the installation of trees,
OONTINUBD plans fpr said landscaping to•be submitted to and subject to the
approval of the 3uperintendent of Parkwaq Maintenaace and to be in-
~ ' stalled prior to Fiaa1 Building Inspection,
~ 3, Provision and maintenance of adequate trash recepta ':es prior to
~` Pinal Building Inspection.
~ !
4. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented centerline of La Palma
G~
~`_~ Avenue, (50 feet existing),
?: _
~ - 5. Installation of sidewalks and driveways on La Palma Avenue in accor-
dance with the adopted standard plans on f ile in the office of the
City Bngineer.
f•
~
~ 6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
~ La Palma Avenue.
~ 7. Provision of a 5 foot utility easement along the east boundary of
;. subject property to adequately serve •the suoject property and other
F properties, at the time of the instailation of service facilities,
8. Proposed easterly driveway to be moved to west so top of apron is
'r.
~ one (1) foot clear of ~roperty line,
~ 9. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
~; ment of Item Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
F The foregoiag ccnditions 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 roal call the foregoing.resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ '
AYES: COM~lISSIONffitS: Alired, ~amp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
NC1BS: COMMI9SIO~NBRS: None.
' AHSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
i
RBCIASSIPICATION- PUBLIC HBARING, PEtition submitted by LYDIA DAVIS, 312 North Beach I
N0. 61-62-73 Boulbvard,-priaheim, Califoiaia, Owne=; requesting'that'~he property ~
described as; An 3rregularly shaped parcei with a frontage of 630 feet
, more or less located ou the east side of Beach Boulevard between Lincoln
Avenue and the Buena Park City Limits; its southwes~'coraer being approxi-
mately 720 feet north of the ttortheast-corner of Lincoln Aveaue and Beach
Soulevard, be reclassified from the R-A~ R~IDSNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB
to the C-2, GBNBRAL COhatBRCIAL, ZONH.
Mr. P. R. Manning appeared before the Commissioa, stated that he was
the petitioner~s agent, and indicated he had nothing to add to the in-
formation contained in the sulsject petition. ,
, THH HBARING WAS CLQSBD.
The Commission reviewed development plans. The petitioner's agent
indicated that the requested.classification was in,order to establish I
a drug store and a restaurant which may gell alcoholic beverages, He I
indicated further that they were familiar with the land fili probiems
on subject property, that engineering problems wouid be resolved, that
'the'exi5ting dwelling on'sub,~ect.property would remain ta serve as a
sesidence for the owner, Lydia Davis, and that walls~wouid be installed
on the northeriy boundary and on the easteriy boundarq except for the
area at the rear of the existing residence:
; . . ,.. ,:
_~.~}s.;~u .~^
, -.., ..._.-1 _ . ,',.: . .:.. ~.... ~.r:i:..'~'.,~34~r.4, t^ .,~T,,,d
~ ~. .1,; . . ~ ~ .,,,~.4.. ., ~ z: ~ :.~, ~:,,~:-
:*::
~A
~
e ~1
. ~~...~
~ ~ ..
~
~ - . '_._._'_ ..
~ .. ~
.
..
r :, ._
' ~
~
~. +~ :ri` tii'~,.C»~ =~4i'~".r,,-r , : (ro.::~ : v3 ~~r ~~ ?.~~'~x~...r~.: ~. ~ ... 'a~.i ~ ~' ~ r: ..
Y•
~~C:~ra .
w,.
. - ''"?e4,L..tt~!:~. .` b~ ,
e
. . . .. . . _ ~:
~ . ~ ~ ... ~~.: ~ ~ .
~
~ 70T
i
~ MINUTSS, CITY PL.4NNING CONAtIS3I0N, February 5, 1962, Continued:
~ - RBCIASSIPICATI~V- Mrs. Lydia Davis appeared before the Commission and atated that a::c
~,, N0. 61-62-73 preferred the existing fence~rather than a wail~ because a wali sur-
'1 t'
CpNTIpUBD rounding the residence would eliminate venti a ion,
The Commission discussed the possibility of posting a bond to insure
the construction of a wall at such'time as.the use of the residence
was terminated and to insure the renoval af the residence at that time.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the
posting of a bond wouJ.d be difficult because of an indefinite time
limit. The petitioner~s agent agreed to the stipulation that the
residence wouid be removed when its use Nas discontinued and that a
block wall would be constru~ted at that time along that portion of the
easterly boundary~ thereby providing a continuous block wall along the
entire easterly boundary.
The Commission discussed the advisability of limiting the classifi-
cation of subject property to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone,
indicating that the sale of liquor could be permitted by the approvai
of a Conditional~Use Permit. The petitioner's agent and the owner of
subject property indicated that C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, ?.oning
wouTd be satisfactory.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
sabject pe:iti.nn:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above des-
cribed property from the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB to th.
C-2, GBPIDRAL COMMSRCIAL, ZONH.
2. That the reclassification of subject property to the C-1, NSIQi-
BORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB,is necessary or desirable for the orderiy
and propex development of the comnunity.
3. That the reciassification of subject propzriy ~o the C-1, NSIGH-
BORHOOD COMMHRCIAL, ZONB, does properly relate to the zones and
their permitted uses localiy established in close proximity to
subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally
• established throughout the community.
4, That the reclassification of subject property does require standard
improvement of abutting streets because said property does relate
to and abut upon st=eets and highways which are proposed to carry
the type and quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the
permitted uses, in accordance witk: the circulation element of the
General Plan.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject pe:i~-ion.
_
~,= .
' Commissioner Mungali offered Resolution No. 224, Series 1961-62, and
~: moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley to
~ roval of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-73 re-
re'cammend a
~ pp
classifying subject property from the R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL,
ZO1~ to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD CaMMMBRCIAL, ZONB, subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1. Development substantially ;n a~cordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1 and 2,
2. Instal3ation of a six (6),fo.ot masonry wali on the northeriy boundary
and the easterly bouadary of subject property except for that area
~ ' occupied by the existing residence.
F `
;
:.
of the existing residence to residential pur-
the usP
Limitation of
3
~ ~
~4
~ ,
,
, .
with no combined~residential'and commercial use permitted.
oses onl
W
yr y
p
.
e .~;_
~~ £z=~
``"~'i'~5~
~ ~
,
, . .
,
~ ..
~{
..
._.:__:
- .
,.. :
_ -
~~ ~ ,
,
r
. ~
+< ~
rY't' 1 ~L •?4.~' ` . . . ~,.....:L"f`S.z~ a:: TM. . ... . ._ : . . ~ ~i: ~ . ,._ '~. . +fT ~.~ x4.±~f'.G .k ,~.... .,e ? i.r.;; @A,.~ 17;1J:ir. .. . . , . .. . . .
a
,
~<
~~
~ x +~~~
. ati
~
_~:.
~;:
. , ,.,
„~~ ::
~os
~ I MINUTBS, CITY PI/lNNI2~ COhAfISSION, February 5, 1962~ Continueds
~ ~
~.. R~IASSIPICATI(YV- 4. Removal of the existing residence on subject property at such
I ' N0. 61-62-73 time as-the resi¢ential use of said residence is discontinued at
~ CONTINUgD which time a six (6) foot+masonry wall shail be installed on the
easterly boundary thereby providing a continuous biock wall along
the enti;e easterly bou!xdary of subject property, '
. ;
~' ' S. Installation of a minimum six (6) foot landscaped strip along the
`` `. ~ entire frontage of subject property, plans foz said landscaping to
~' be.submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent
of Parkway Maintenance and said landscaping to be installed prior
~ to Pinal Building Inspection.
6. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements for Stanton Avenue and Beach Bouleward, subject to the
approval of the City Hngineer and in accordance with the adopted
standard plans on file in the office of the City fingineer.
7. Payment of $2.00 per froat foot for street lighting purposes on
Stanton Avenue and Seach Boulevard.
8, Provision of a ten foot utility easement along the westerly
boundary of subject property to adequately serve the subject pro-
perty and other properties, at the time of the installation of
setvice faci~ities.
9. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Department of
Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size,
,accessible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequgtely enclosed by a
soliil ~'ence or wail, prior to.Fi~n--.al,.,Building Inspection.
10. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item Nos. 6, 7, and 8.~
The faregoing conditxons were recited at the meetinR and wPxe found to
be z 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 ro~.l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred; Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COMMISSIONBAS: None,
ABSBNT: CO~A~IISSIONHRS: None,
RBCLAS3IPICATION- PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by PAUL PLBTZ, 3302 West.Ba11 Road,• I •
N0. b1-62-74 Anaheim, California,.0ivner; Rothman-Steen, 223 South Claudina Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent; =equesting that the proQerty desc=ihed as:
PARCHL N0. 1: A parcel r35 feet by 334 feet with a frontage of 135 feet
on South 3treet and located on the northeasterly corner of South and _
Bast Streets. PARCBL N0. 2: A parcel 334 feet by 605 feet with a front-
age of 334 feet on Bast Street aad lacated on the northeasterly corner
of.South.and Bast Streets; exceptiag;that property described as Parcei
No. 1, be reclassified from the'R-1, ONS>FAMILY AESIDHNTIAL'and R-0,
RHSID~iNTIAL SUBURBAN, ZONHS to the C-1; NBIGHBORHOOD COhIHRCIAL, GONE
(Parcel No. 1), and R-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RHSIDBNTIP.L, ZONB (Parcel No.2),
Senior Planner Martin Kreidt displayed Precise Plan No. 29-94-2 noting.
that.said plan had been adopted,;oy the Planning Commission and the City
Couacii for the projected,dev.elopment of subject properties for single
a~d multiple family residential purposes.
I -
_ (
I
. . ~. . ~~~i;,.~r~Saf . . :'~:~N1,~.F[. ct -. °v..?c~~~P in~Sc..a$.c, ....fiJ'{;; 1 _._J<,.:~ .~;...,~,..,. ~-.a ~ :-~:t<, ~1;.ts.t~:Pr~,trraic-st.r.F~.. . ~. ~ - . ..o- ;,_ u+~)
o ~ ~~~ ~~
709
~; ~ MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING CM41IS•SION, Pebsuary 5, 1962, Continued:
~ r.
i ~,. .' .
~
~
~'~
RBCIASSIPICATION- Gordon Steen, the Petitioaer's agent, appeared before the Commission ~
N0. 61-62-74 and stated that the petitioner proposed to establish a pianned unit
~p~I~gp developmei-t on a portion of subject property with commercial develop- .
ment fronting on Hast Street, that 51 parking spaces wonld be provided
for the commercial development, that landscaping strips•would be pro-
vided to serve as a buffer along Bast Street and South Street, that the
residential development wouid be iow .;e;,si., con*a+_ning 42 units; that
50 garages and 24 guest parking spaces will be provided, that the space ~
between units would be approximately 30 to 50 feet, and that there woihld
be an interior iecreation area. He indicated that a market analysis ~
had been prepared for the area and cited various factors and s~atistics
indicating a need for a small neighborhood Speedee Mart store.
Mr, Harold Hail, 1240 Crestbrook Place, appeared before the Commission,
~• presented a petit~on of protest containing 59 signatures, and stated
that the.y were ogposed to the proposed development on the bases that
it would depreciate property values in the surrounding area, that the
proposed development would constitute over-crowding of the land, that
there was no need for additional apartment development because of the
many vacancies in the area, and that the area should remain for resi-
dential purposes. ~
Duncan Vanderbilt, 705 Grove Avenue, appeared before the Commission and
read a list of objections to the proposed development indicating that it
would depreciate adjacent property values, that it would down-grade the
high quality neighborhood, that it violates the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, that the parcel could be developed for single family. resi-
dences without facing the front yards' on Bast Street, that the com-
mercial zoning across the street does not necessarily set a precedent
for commercial development of the east side of Bast Street, and~that
commercial development adjacent to residentiai homes wa~ detrimental
to the residential development. _
Mrs. Monroe, 1211 Crestbrook Avenue appeared before the Commission,
expressed concern that the vacant property in the area would be de-
velaped for commercial'purposes, suggested that the subject property be
developed for singie family homes or duplexes, stated that ~if the R-3
zoning were established~abutting properties could convert to R-2, 7~vo
pamily Residentiai, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, and requested
that the wishes of the neighborhood be considered.
Mrs. Peters, 2645 Carnivai, appeared before the Commission and expressed
concern that the proposed reclassificalimn of subject property would per- ;
mit abutting properties to convert to two fami'ly residential use.
Mr. Habener, 601 South Bast Street, appeared before the Commission and
recommended that the subject petition be denied on the basis that the
p~oblem of the development of the area had bee~ resolved after a consi-
derable amount of discussion and that to permit~itte proposed develop-
ment would be a breach of faith with the people in the area.
l~r. Steen, in rebuttai, stated that the oniy amount of commercial
development proposed was for a limited neighborhood commercial devel-
opment containing a Speedee Mart for which he stated there was a need.
in the area. and that the planned unit development would be compatible
with the development in the sur.rounding area.
THB HBARING WAS CIASBD. ~
The Commission discussed the adoption of Precise Plan No, 29-94-2,
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the
• precise Plan recommended a.:planned.unit low density type of develop-
• ment with a single story tier facing Bast Street, and that the~proposed
,: __ . ._-:
' I .: _.. .
.
_ _ ,.,'t
t::
~.. 9O ..~>a' a•C'r... ...;, ( -':- ! t~,..': ~',.. ;~...Y~. ~~ I t:L.....'~^'_' ,.~1 ~~.~„-.--..,---
. .... . . ~ J:.. . . ~ . ., .... „ ..~,.~~t ~ , .. ~' -' ._ .. . ,,. . . . ~ . .__.. __~ ~jl;~
1~
~ ~
~, : I
, ~
C~
~~o
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING Cd~B~ttI9SI0N, February 5,1962, Continued:~
RBCIASgIPICATION- development in the subject petition did not conform to the Precise Plan '
N0. 61-62-74 adopted~'by the Planning Commission and City Council. He indicated tt;at
CpNTINUgD approval of subject petition would make it difficult to sustain the
recommended Precise Pian for the ultimate de1velopment oi` subject pro-
~erty.
The Commission found and determ?ned the f.ollowing iacts cegarding ii~e
subject petition:
1, That the petitioner proposes a reciassification of the above des-
cribed property from the R-1, ON& FAMILY RESIDffiITIAL, and the R-0,
RHSIDBNTIAL SUBURBAN,ZONFS: to the C-1, N&IGHSORHOOD CO,tiL'~1HRCIAL ZON3
for Parcel No. 1 and to the R-3, MULTIPLfi FFi:'Ti.Y RfiSIDfiNTIAL, ZONB
for Parcel No. 2.
2, That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not
necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper development of
the community. • .
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not
properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally
~ established in close proximity to subject proper~y and to the
zones and their permitted uses ~enerally established throughout
the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not
conform to the intent of P ecise Pian Study No. 29-94-2 as recom-
mended by the Planning Cownission to the City Council for the
ultimate development of the sub,ject property~ and that the Planning
Commission does hereby re-affirm said recommendation, thereby
keeping faith in the matter of resolving the problems affecting
those properties located on the west side of Hast Street between
~later Strbet and 9outh Street.
5. That verbal opposition by five owners of property in subject area,
in addition to a petition of protest containing 59 signatures, was
recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Mungail offered Resolution No. 225, Series 1961-62, and
' moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Chavos,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 61-62-74 be denied on the bases oE the aforementioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
pYBS: COMMISSI~iBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mungall, Peblef, Perry,
NOBS: COD4r1ISSI0NBRS: None.
AHSBNT: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
WNDITIONAL USB- PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by PAUL PLBTZ, 3302 West Ball Road,
pBRMiT N0. 199 Anaheim, Califosnia, Owner; Rothman-Steen, 223 South Claudina Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A PLANNBD
UNI'~ DBVHIAPMBNT on property described as: A parcel 334 feet by 605
feet with a frontage of 334 feet on Hast Street and located on the
northeasteriy corner of South and Bast Streets; excepting a parcel 135
feet by 334 feet with a frontage of 135 feet on South Street anti located
on the northeasteriy corner of South and East Stree'ts. Property pre-
sently ~lassified in the R-1, ONS FAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL and R-0, RBSI-
DBNTIAL SUBURBAN, 20NBS. ~
~~
~
i
. '.;,;,.
~ `~
~
S _
.
r
:
r. _
~ O ---- -
~~~~~ ~ ~i
- !
~ ::~ --~
" ,;:,'::
s
~.
. p`
~::
~6
i ...
~ ,.
~
~ ,
~
~ .;: :
~ .
~
t'. :`.
€
.,...- ~ . :;%:..
\J
v`J
. 711
MINUTBS, CITY PI.AIddING CoMMISSiON, Pebruary 5, 1962, Coatinued:
CONDITI~iAL USH= Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for R.eclassi-
YBRMIT N0. 199 f3cation No. 61-62-74.
_.CONTIIQUBD
The Commission reviewed developmPnt pians in conjunction with said
Petition for Reclasaification, i
THB HBARING WAS CLO5~D.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding tli~
subjcct'petition:
1. .That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized,by this Code~ to wit: a planned unit develop-
ment.
2, That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses
and the growth and development ~f the area in which it is pro-
posed to be located.
~ 3. That the granting of the Conditbaal Use•Permit as proposed in
subject petition would not conform to the intent of Precise Plan
3tudy No. 29-94-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission to
, the City Council for the ultimate development of the subject
property~and that the Plaaaing Commission does hereby re-affirm
said recommendatioa~ thereby keeping faith in the matter of re-
soiving ~he problems affecting those properties located on the
west side of Hast Street between Water Street and Sbuth Street.
4. That verbal opposition by five owners of property in subjeet area
was recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 226, Series 1961-6'L, and
movad foi 3ts passage and ac+ogti~a~ seconded by Commissioner Chavos
to deny Yetition for Conditional Use Permit No. 199 on the bases of
the a€oremeationed findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution.was passed by the foilowing vote;
AYBS: CCY~9r1I33I0NBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
. Mungail, Pebley, ~erry.
. NO&S: COMMISSIONBRS: None..
AHSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None,
RBCIASSIPICATION- PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by JAMBS ALLBN BODINH, 124 South
N0. 61-62-75 Bush'St=eet, At~aheim~"California, Ownef; Charles-G. Hart, 12021 West-
minster Avenuc, Santa Ma. California, Agent;requesting that the pro-
perty described as: A par_ge1~50 feet by 155 feet with a frontage of
SQ feet located on the east side of Bush 3treet between Lincoln Avenue
and Broadway; its northwesterly corner being approximately 290 feet
south of the southeasterly corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bush Street,
~and further described as 124 South Bush Street, be reclassified from the
R-1, ON8 PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20i~ to the R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RESIDHN-
TIAL, ?.~18. . . ..
The pe*::i.tioner•appeaxed before the Commission and-indicated he had
nothing to add to the info'tmation contained in ttie subject petition:
Ti~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD. '
The Commission reviewed development plans, noted that single story
construction was proposed, a~d that 60 percent of the iand area
would be utiiized, .
C " : .~.~. .:. .~ . ..:. ,.
. ~ .:. .. •
_ . . . . .. .
~
712
,`~,;;~MINUTBq, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 5, 1962, Continued:
"~CIASSIPICATION- The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
Nn. 61-62-75 the subject petition;
CONTINUBD
~ 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above
descri5ed property from the R-1, ONE FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB to
the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDHNTIALT ZONB,
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary
and/or'desirable for the orderly and pxoper. developmerit of the com-
munity.
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does pro-
perly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally estab-
lished in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and
their permitted uses generally established throughout the com-
munity.
4. That the proposed reciassification of subject property does not
require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting
streets because said property does relate to a~d abut upon streets
and highways which are improved to carry the type and quantity of
traffic, which wili be generated by the permitted uses, in accor-
dance with the circulation element of the General Plan.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No..227, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
ATo. 61-62-75 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1, Development substantially in accordance with Hxhibit Nos. 1, 2, and
3.
2. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the northerly
boundary of subject property where subject property abuts property
classified in the R-1, ONH PAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONS.
3. Payment of $2,00 per front foot fur street lighting purposes on
Bush Street. .
4. Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee 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 1~orks, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size,
accessible to trash-t=uck pi.ck-up, and adequately enclosed by a
solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection.
6. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Item No. 3.
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-
scrve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
N08S: COhAlISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBIVT; 'CObAlISSIONBRS: None.
~
~
I
i
~•
~. - -
~ .
,` ;,
, , . V .,., ~ ~ ~
~
~ -
~, _
~
~
::~ :~
~
~~~ , _~
713
MINUTES~ CITY PIANNING CObAMISSION, February 5, 1962, ^~"atinued:
RHCLASSIPICATIUN- PUBLIC HHARING. Petition submitted by ARTHUR R. BUDD, 1019 North
NQ. 61-62-76 Perndale, Pullerton, California, Owr-er; requesting that the property
described as: A parcel 145 feet by 585 feet with a frontage of 585
feet on Buclid Avenue and•located on the northwest corner of Buclid
and Chalet Avenues, and further described as Lots 140-145 of Tract
;?~, ???o, fie *eclassi£ied from the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential,
. 2one to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one (Restricted to Busi-
ness and Professionai Offices). •
Mr. Arthur Budd,~the petitioner, appeared before the Commission,
stated that four of the six lots contained in subject petition were
included in the proposed development of a medicai center. The trr~
lots not inciuded in"the plan abutted neighborhood commerciai develop-
men~ northeriy of the proposed medicaY center. He indicated that he
had contacted the a6uttin~ property owners and had been assured of
their approval of the proposed development, inciuding Mr. Sam Preedman,
owner of property on Chalet Avenue,
The Commission reviewed development plans and a discussion was held
relative to ingress and egress to the property and the use of the
public ailey abutting subject property on the west. The petitioner
pointed out that the areas indicated as "entry" on the plans sub-
mitted were intended for pedestrian access~not vehicuiar access~ and
that a singie "in and out" $riveway would be provided from Chalet
Avenue. He indicated fnrther that the existing structure on subject
, property would be remodeled for use as a laboratory.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that
stipulation should be made dedicating vehicular access rights along'
Buclid and Chalet Avenues to continue to allow access rights.to the
public alley.
The Commission iound and de:ermined ±hp folliwing facts regarding the
subject petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reciassification of the above des-
cribed property from the R-3, MIILTIPLH PAMILY AHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB
to the C-1, NSIGHHORHOOD C~MIBRCIAL, ZONB Crestricted to Busi-
~ ness and Professionai Offices only).
2, That the proposed reclassification of subject property is nec-
essary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of
the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does pro- I
perly re2ate to the zones and their permitted uses localiy estab- •
lishec~ in close proximity to subject property and to the zones .
and their permitted uses general3y estabiished;throughout the
community.
4. That the proposed reciassification of subject property does re- ~
quire dedication for abutting streets because said property does
relate'to and abu~'upon streets and highways which.are proposed ~
to carry the.type and quantity of traff.ic, which wiii be generated
by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circulation element
';° of the General Plan.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Cammi§sioner'Allred offered Resolution No. 228, Series 1961=62,'and
mov,ed-for its passage'and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No.
~ 61-62-76 be approved, snbject to, the foliowing conditions:
~. ..~r~ _ I .
~:: ~' '
q - . ' ' . ~ . . . . . . ' . . . . •
. ~ .. . . . , ' _ .^t:
. ' .. ~ ~ ~ ~~~.
~ f .~ .~ . . . ... . ~ ,' '~~. ~ ~ f
t
~~ ~~ ~ ' RB~~-;"v4'6 ^~ t': F~il .,~ ~ ~'` i 3 a ,~ ,~t tl" d~i4 ~ /.. ryi : ~~;~ r~yt~ a~_.i'Aa, N~~r~ ~ . .~ r---, ~ • ~ ~~1
.,. ~.r~ ~'X . ,~.-v. .fna. ~t ,_f.. .,i~..' ,~.~..irMSkw.~k.,r.la:i35~'~N.~r.i:u :li.t ......,. ~ r„r.L.:t t~szr~t~~auk..~l,. d rr+i~.. ::n:~.. _,...i. •-a' .. .
~ 1 '
~ i}
U
S'S . .' ~..:~
.. ~ ~ ' . ~ . ~ .~ ~~
~
~ . . . _ '..,~
. . . . .. ~, - y
MINUT&S, CITY PIANNIi~ CQbMIS3I0N, February 5, 1962, Con4inued:
- RHCI++3~IPICATION-• 1. Develapment substantiaily in accordance with Bxhibit Nos, l and 2..
N0. 61-62-76
~p~i~gp 2. Instailation of a six (6) foot landscaped strip along the planned
highway right-of-way line of Euciid Avenue, pians for saicl lands-
caping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the 3uper-
intendent of Parkway Maintenance, prior to Final Building Inspec-
tion. ,
3, Recordation of standard C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone Deed
Restrictions limiting use of subject property to medical and den-
tal offices only and restricting maximum height to one story.
4. Dedication of vehicular access rights along Euclid and Chalet
Avenues with continuance of access rights to the public alley.
5. Use of existing structure on subject property to be subject to
the approval of the Chief Building Inspector. ~
6, DQdicati~n nf S~`FPP'I' fr~tn +,hP monumente~ rPntQrlifle of ~uCiid
Avenue (50 feet existing).
7, Provision of trash storage areas as dete*mi.ned by the Department
of Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size,
accessible 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 accom-
plishment of Item Nos. 3, 4, a~d 6.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the propert~ in order to
preserve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolntion was passed by the following vote:
AYSS: CONA~tISSIONBRSc Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcour.,
: Mung~il, Pebley, Perry.
NOES: COMMISSIONHRS; None. '
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
RBCLASSIPICATIOiJ- PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by DR. LB ROY 0. SCHULTZ, Golden
N0. 61-62-77 Queen Mine, Mojav.e, California, Owner;.Theodore B. Fearson, 1855 West
Blm Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that the property
described as; A parcel 155 feet by 230 feet wi't'h a frontage of 155
feet located on the south side of Orange Avenue between Bruce Street
and Webster Avenue, and also described as the southwest corner of
Oran~e Avenue and Bruce Street, and further described as 2426 Orange
Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB
to the R-1, ONB FAMILY.RSSIDBNTIAL, ZONB.
Subject petition is filed ia conjunction with.Petition for Variance
No. 1444.
Mr. Theodore Pearson, the petitioner*s agent appeared before the Com-
mission and stated he had nothing to add to the information contained
in the subject petition.
Mr. Lewis Harwell, 2421 West Random Drive, appeaaed before the Com-
mission,.stated that he,preferred that the.subject property:be de-
veloped with homes, but expressed concern•relative,to the grade of the
subject property and the effacf upon the.existing chain link fence
between his property and the subject•property.
~ ..i
~ ~
,
c~
~ ~
:":
4
r
F ~~ ~..' ' . .
~
~~5
o _-
~ MINUTBS, CITY PIAP'NING COMMISSION, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued~: •
RBCIASSIPICATION- The petitioner's agent indicated that the property would be ieveled
` N0. 61-62-77 and that• the grading would be graduated and conform with the grading
~~. CONTINUBD of other properties in the area, .
i
E, The necessity for obtaining a variance in order to permit the re- .
quested lot widths~as requested in Petition for Variance No. 1444~ .
~ was discussed, The matter of the type of roof elevation for the pro- ~
~` posed development was aiso discussed and the petitior.er indicated
;, ttlat he would agree to the installation of wood shingle or shake ,
roofs only.
THS HBARIAIG WAS CL0.SBD. ~
The Commission found,and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition: ~
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above des-
r cribed property from the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONfi to
` the n-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONH. ~
h~~ _ . . . ~ . .
2. That the proposed reciassification of subject property is neces- , •
sary and/or desirable for th e orderly and proper development of
~ the community.
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does pro-
perly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally estab-
~ lished in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and
~: their permitted uses generally established throughout the com-
munity.
4, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not
require dedication for and standard improvement.of abutting
: ~ streets because said property does reiate to and abut upon street~
and hignways wi-ich are improved to carry the type and quantity o£
traffic, which will be generated by the permitted uses, in ac- •
cordance with the circulation element of the General Plan.
5. Tl~at no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resoiution No. 229, Series 1961-62, and •
moved for its passage and•adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 61-62-77 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development substantialiy in accordance wi~th Hxhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 with the r•evision of Bievations of Plan A and
B to provide for wood shingle or shake roofs.
` 2. Recordation of Record of Survey Map in accordance with the Record
~~ of 3urvey submitted by the petitioner, prior to~issuance of the
~ Building Permit, ' '
3, Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25,00 per dwelling unit,
. \ to be coliected ~s part of the BUilding Permit.
4, Subject to the approval of Petition for Variance No.•1444.
The foregoing conditi~ns were recited at the meeting and were found to `
~ be a necessary~prerequisite to the use of the property in order to
preserve~the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of l4naheim.
~ ..F~~
~--~'--~---~•-~,z;:-,_r,,~ca~+..,.:._,. _ , ...~. i .. ,,~ £"": r:.. ~ ,.~
~
~,
E
.
O
~.,
~
F' -' MINU1ffi~ CITY PIANNING COI~4~1I$SION, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued:
~-; .
~
e `i
~ .~ . RBCLASSTPICATI0~1- On roll c~li the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
N0. 61-62-77 ~
~' CONTIAIUBD: AYHS: CONHotISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
~ .
Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NQSS: COMbIIS3I0AIDRS: None.
y ~ pBS$NT: COhAlISSION$RS: None.
~ ,
VARIANCB N0. 1444- pUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by DR. LB ROY 0. SCHULTZ, Golden
~Queen Mine, Mojave, California, Owner; Ttiedore B. Pearson, 1855 West
, Bim Avenue, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting permission to
(1) WAIVB MINIMUM I.OT WIDTH RBQUIRBMBNT ON PROFs;SBD LOTS 3 and 4.
~"V~;:;~;;;: (2) WAIVS MINIMUM.FRONT yARD SHTBACK REQUIRBMHNT ON ALL PROPOSIID LOTS.
'~;`" (3) WAIVH MINIMUM RBAR XARD SBTBACS RBQUIRBMHNT ON PROPOSBD LO~T 2, on
`~'' ' prope;ty described as: A parcel 155 feet by 230 feet with a frontage
~ of 155 feet located on the south side of Orange Ave rn~e between Bruce
' Street and Webster Aveaue; and also described as the southwest corner
~ of Orange Avenue and Bruce Street, and further described as 2426 ~
Oran~:° Avenue. Property preseatly classified in the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL
E;' AGRICULTURAL, 20NB.
Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 61-62-77.
The Commission reviewed development plans ancl noted that the subject
property was surrounded by R-1, One Pamily Residential, Zoning.
` . THB HBARIIvG WAS CLOSBD.
The Commissian found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Muni-
~" cipa2 Code, Section 18.24.030(1) to permit front yards of 20
feet and 22 feet in accordance with plot plan submitted; Section
' 18.24.030(4) to permit lot widths of 65 feet as indicat°d~on plot
• plan submitted and in a~cordance with the Record of Survey Map
•' submit~ed'by the petitioner; Section 18.24.030(3) to permit en-
croachment of an attactied garage into the required rear yard of
subject progerty.
~ 2, 'That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
! • cond3tions appiicabie to the property involved or to the intended
use: of the property that do not apply generally to the property ~
' or~class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for fhe preservation and ~
~;:•. enjoyment oi a substantial propesty right possessed by other pro-
F perty in the same vicinity and zoae, and denied to the property in
f` ~ question. •
~ • 4. That the requested variance wiil not be.materially detrimental to
~~ the puUlic welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
~ such vicinity and~¢one in which ~the property is located.
5'. That~the requested veriance will not adversely affett the~Compre-
~ hensive Generai Plan.
~ 6. That no oae appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Alired offered Resolution:No. 230, 3eries 1961-62, and
~ ~ moved for its passage~aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
` s,, to grant Petition.for Variance No. 1444, subject to the following
~~ conditions~ : `
~ ~ J~ l. Development substantiaily in sccordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3
`~~, .
~ k ~_ 4, 5, b, 7, 8 and 9 with the revision of Blevations of Piair A and
;~---c~~ B to provide ~'or wood shingle or shake roofs.
Bk~~,1tfJ~ . . . ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ .
5 .t ~-~:~N~yL.q. ! . . . . . . . ~ .. . . .
;i: Po!WGw7uTr~ . ' . . , . , ' . . . . ~ • ' ' ~ . .
~..~:. ~,~.....a~... , ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ' . . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
_ _ . .. . . . .. . ~ _ . . . . ~ . . ~ ..
jw r ~ ~ .. .. . ... _ . . ~ , .. ll~
~Y , _ . ~ ~ ' - . . . . ..
~
. .. .., . .~.
u : ,J . . .~~_._ .~.; ., ~:... .... , . . .'- ..~~~~, ~•,
4r\ ti~JJ . , y:
1~~J r~..w.v...• ,w.4. :.t." ,..~:~?F ~Yl} .R:.~.4r . ~-v { ....~~. . r.~r..l. i. 'ahfwtU,'~ . ~l ^m.'i:~ ~ .1 •. h•m~v: M..L rc~.~ 1. ~...../Y~...hIM"S1YLL11~~4~!f:t~~~ ~ ... . .'~. ...~i ~' ..:~.~'. .. , . ~ . . I. ~ .~. w!:
{,
. - .... ... . ....,. .- , - .~~ ~ :
. . .. ... iu ~'~
~ ~ V . , _ . '`• , ~~:.... . .
717
MIN[TfB9; CITY PL~-NNING COMMISSION, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued:
ypRIANCB N0. 1444- 2. Reto.rcatio'`n of Recor.d of Survey Map in accosdance with the Record•
CONTINI)EP o~ Suzvey submitted by the petitioner, prior to issuance of the
~' Suilding Permit.
3. Payment of a Park and Recreation Pee of $25.00 per dwelling unit,
to be co].lected as part of the Building Peimit.
• 4: Sub,ject to t~e approval of Petition for Reclassification N.o. 61-62-77•
Tt-e foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessaxy'prerequisite to the use of the proper.ty in order to
pXeserve the safety and wel~are of the citizens.of the City of Anaheim.
On Loll the fotegoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
,AYBS: COM,MISSIONHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux,
• Mungall, Pebley, Perry. '
~ ~ '±:--"~% NOBS: COhIIdISST0I~RS: None. '
pBSHNT: COMMIS3IONERS: None.
' t~ggCIgg pIAN - Senior Planner Martin Areidt displayed and described Precise Plan
STUDY NO~: 39-6-4 Study No, 39-6-4 relative tb the area locat~d on the north and south
j.' ~ sides of Ba11 Road from FSeachBouleaardt westerly to IC~iott Avenue. He
indicated that the study had been requested by the Planning~Commis-
sian as a resul~ of a.letter frem the Savanna School District?
maki~lg reference to a need for an over all plan for the ultimate
development of the subject area, and that it merely refLected ~re-
liminary consideration in respect to ~aid development. '
Mr, John Simpson appeared before the Commission, stated he was a
_ property owner in tihe area, and was advised by the Commission that
definite information conld not be dispensed until such time as.the
• City Coui:cil had reviewed and acted upon the information forwarded
to them for consideration. Mr. Simpson added that he had been
conducting a stUdy of-the subject area but that the information
was t.ot available at tlze present time. He indicated that he approved
of the preliminary proposai outlined in the Precise Plan Study of the
subject area.
The Commission discussed the necessity for prohibiting strip com-
mercial zoning and the suitability of providing R-3, Multiple Pamily
Residentiai, development.to serve as a buffer for existiag and pro-
posed commercial development and the singae family residentiai
development in the area. It was noted that the proposed multipie
family development would automatically be limited by the Zoning
Ordinance to single story in height withia 150 feet of property
classified for single famiiy residentiai use.
Mrs. Gladys Brunner, 3302 West Deerwood Drive, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the proposed developn~ent appeared to be
~snitable. She expressed cor.cern, however, in respect to the possi-
bility of the granting of variances to permit two story development
on i:he proposed multiple family residential properties where said
p~-operties abut the single family residential zone, and requested
that a permanent restriction be placed upon the subject properties
to prohibit such action'in the future.
Assistant City Attorney.Joe Geisler advised the.Commission that such
restrictions could not legaily be iMposed and that the 2oning Ordi-
nance itself was subject to change. It was noted that thegeneral
~ policy of the City had been to maintain single story construction
in most cases.
gg~ggg; Chairman Gauer requested that the discussion on Precise Plan Study
No. 39-6-4 be continued until the evening session and requested
that the meeting be adjourned at 6:00 0'C1ock P,M. to be reconvened
a$ 7:00 O:C1ock.Y.M. MOTION CARRIBD:
~
~
ti~
~ '
~ '~, . ::..
r
~' ..
l~~T
~
~is
MINU'TES, CITY PLAHIQING CC~•T4ISSION, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued:
APTBR RHCBSS: Chairman Gauer called the meeting to order at 7:15 0`Clock P,M.
PRBSBNT: CHAIRMANe Gauer; COMMISSIONBRS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos,
Marcoux. Mungall, Pebleq, Perry.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood,
pRBSBNT: PIANNING DIRBCTQR: Richard Reese
SHNIOR PIANNBR: Martin Kreidt
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNBY; Joe Geisler
CQbAlISSION SSCRBTARY: Jean Page
~
, ~
.~,.:
, ~..
~ ~
~
~
~
F ,,
~
~
~
r.f :.; ~ . .
RBCLASSIPICATION- PUBLIC FIDARING: Petition initiated'by CITY P7ANNING COhAMISSION, 204
N0. 61-62-69 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; requesting that the pru-
perty described as: A31 that property located within the City Limits
of the City of Anaheim bonnded on the south by the Riverside Freeway,
on the north by Piacentia-Yorba Boulevard; oa the west by State Col-
lege Boulevard and on the east b; Jefferson Street, be reclassified
from the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE io the M-1, LIGHT
MANUPACTURING and P-L, PARKING-IANDSCAPING, ZONBS,
Planning Director Richard Reese appeared before the Commiss.ion
and read the introduction and conclusions of a report, entitled
"Industrial Area Analysis", containing facts about present condi-
tions and projected development of the City of Anaheim. He indi-
cated that the Planning Commission was presently engaged in work
sessions in the effort to adopt a new Comprehensive Zoniag Ordinance
as rapidly as possible in order to facilit~te the proper development
of the City.
Chairman Gauer reviewed the history of the initiation of the study
of the subject area as outlined in Precise Plan No, 34-110-20 and
noted the need for the adontion of a Master Plan of dev~lonment for
the northeast industrial area.
The Commission discussed•the necessity for a coordinated study, plan,
and actiofy~in cooperation with abutting cities and other governmen-
tal bodies~in order to implement the adoption of a Master Plan for
the optimum development of the subject area, indicating that the
problem was a regional oae. ~
Mr. Charles A. Wolf, Vice President Autonetics Division cf North
American Aviation, appeared before the Commission and stated that the
Company had made a study of a similar nature before locating their
facilities in Anaheim, that they considered the location to be a na-
tural area because of the boundaries and other items, and that they
were in agreement with ~nd support the proposed ~doption of a plan
for the establishment of industrial activities in the northeast sec-
tion es delimited' in the Precise Plan Study.
Other parties who spoke in favor of the adoption of Precise Pian
Study No, 34-110-20 were as followe: Ben Prentiss, 6832 North Linda
Vista Street; Dan Holden, owner of Coloniai Properties; and L. R.
Herbst, 1036'Liberty Lane. The bases of their approval was that
industri~i development wouid improve the traffic circulation probiem
i~h the srea, that the area was conducive to industrial development,
that the freeways and the naturai boundaries were ideal for the estab-
lishment of industrial developments, that to develop the area for
other than industrial purposes would'down-grade the properties, that
the properties would be increased in value.because industrial devel- '
opment can support greater expenses, that to down-grade the area by
permitting other development wouid @liminat~-the existing industrial
, _
....~.:'t._ f•,.~•:.~...Y.'Y,4.,1:Ni:~i:??':y'S.F'.f.':.(7i~C=P~•?i/.~f%l.:d ~- ~ . ,.
~' -. ~~.~~(~~~F.MI~T~'~/.?~.~T~. r'.~'.f... L(e4 n~^::~:.f?. '.Y ; ~' . 5 V , ..
~ ....
;',
;
~
f . ~ ' • , . . . . ~
. ,''. ~~: . .
?19
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 5, 1962, Continued;
~ RBCIASSIFICA'PION- plants thereby creating uaemp.loyment, and that industrial development
N0. 61-62-69 provided a higher ta~ base tnan trailer parks on other de~:c~lopment,
CONTINUBD
Dr. John McBurney, 2230 Briarvale, appeared before the Commission,
stated he was the spokesman for the Briarvale Bstates, and indicated
that the residents of said area wished to retain the existing residen-
tial section located northerly of the Riverside Preeway. He intro-
duced!Mr. Riddlebarger, 5802 Sedalis Road, Yorba Linda, representa-
tive of the School District for subject area, who stated t hat the
School District was conducting a survey and was concerned that, al-
though the area might be classified for M-1, Light Manufacturing
~ purposes, residential development might be permitted in the future
without the provision of adequate school facilities. He cited in-
stances where such events had transpired.
I
Mr. Joseph Snider, 2234 Hast R~mneya Drive, and Mr. John Brickner
= appeared before the Commission and expressed concern in respect to
specific uses that are permitted in the M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zone
+ ~ : :~~ a.~fi:ort ~rp..
which they considered objeciionaoic uiiu ue~ri,-~~e.-.::.~ ..__ _ _
perties. Mr. Snider 3ndicated that he would not be opposed toJhigh _
quality, restrictive~industrial development for the subject area.
Mr. Victor Peltzer, 7002 South Richfiied, and Mr. Griffin, owner of
property located at Jcfferson and Walnut Streets, appeared before the
Commis~ion and expressed concern that the required amount of parking
and landscaping might be detrimental to smalier properties.
Planning Director Richard Reese indicated that the proposal made to the
Commission was that the entire area~ generally bounded as outlined in
the Precise Plan Study~ be reclassified to the M-1, Y.ight Manufac-
iuring, and the P-L~ Parking Isndscaping, Zones for light manufac-
turing purposes only~with appropriate iandscaping and restrictions, in
~ coniunction with and in cooperation with adjacent cities and the
~~ County for identicai zoning for those areas abutting the City limits,
for the establishment of a uniform and compatible zoning pattern.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the
New Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was presentiy being formulated and
that manufacturing activities would be clearly defined and stipulated
for specific zone classifications~ thereby eliminating problems of
proper usage in a particular area, .
Planning Director Reese read the present uses permitted under the •
existing M-1, Light Manufacturing,.Zone classification and indicated
that the Zoning and Planning Committee and the Pianning Staff were
also working on the new M-1 Zoning Ordinance which would include per- ~
formance standard, and requirements.
THB HEARING WAS CLOSBD. . ' ~
The Commission discussed the need for,further study of Precise Plan
Study No. 34••110-20 and the subject Petition for Reclassification~and
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisier advised ihe Commission that the
matter could be continued for 40 days~without being compelled to .
fofward the subject petition to the City Council without recommenda-
tion.
Commisaioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos -
and carried, that the hearing on Petition for Reclassification No~
61-62-69 and Precise Plan Study No. 34-110-20 be reopened and continued
until the meeting of March 5, 1962 at 7600 0'C1ock P.M. £or further
discussion and consideration.
~_ , . . .._,.. ~s:.+:;~,
~ ` A
~zo
MINUTBS, CITY P:Ar7NING C~4dISSION, February 5, 1962, Continued;
RHCLASSIPICATION- CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING, Petition submitted by MRS. PLORBNCE MBIANSON,
NQ. 61-62-58 MRS. MARY K, 1~BIS, I~RtS, MARY K, RBIS, h4tS. LUCY K, CONIGLIO, and MRS,
ANNA A. HATHAWAY, Owners; Georgia C. Manestar, c/o Roberts Real Bstate
and Investment, 9752 Batella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; re-
o':• questing that pro ert described as; PARCBL 1: A
P Y parcel 440 feet by
'~'`"` 650 feet with a fro ta of 440 f
E .:'
~:
n ge eet on Dowling Street and iocated
on th~ southwest corner of Dowling 3treet and Placentia-Yorba Road;
excepting a parcei 180 feet by 210 feet with a frontage of 180 feet
on Dowling Street and located on the southwest corner of Douiing.
Street and Pia~entia-Yorba Road; pARCBL 2: A parcel 180 feet by
210~feet with a frontage of 180 feet on Dowiing Street and located on
the southwest corner of Dowling Street and Placentia-yorba Road;
PARC3L 3: An irregularly shaped parcel with a frontage of 199 feet
on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and an average depth of 575
feet; its southeasterly corner being approximately 1, 272 feet west
of the ?.ntersection of Dowling 5treet and Orangethorpe Avenue; and
PARCB[, 4: An irregularly shaped parcel with its southerly boundary
abutting Parcel 3 on the north, and its easterly boundary abattiag
Parcel i on •'che west; its southeasterly corner being approximately
587 feet nurth of the cneterline of Orangethorpe Avenue and 665 feet
west of the centerline of Dowling Street, be reclassified from the
R-A, RBSII7ENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COM-
MBRCIAL (]'arcels 1 and 4) and C-3, HEAVy COMMffitCIAL, (Parceis 2 and 3),
ZONBS. I ~
Subject petiiion was continued from the meeting of December 27, 1961
in order that s:bject petition could be considered at such ti~ue as the
study of the proje:ted development of the northeast industrial section
of the City was avaiiable for discussion and review by the Commission.
Mrs. Georgia Maneatar, the petitioner~s agent appeared before the (',om-
mission, displayed maps indicating the actuai development of the sub-
ject and surrounding area, distributed brochures containing informa-
tion relative to the area and the,proposed develop[aent of subject
property,:cited information and figures to indicate a ueed and support
for a~hopping center on subject property, and indicated that a re-
gioc!-1 shopping center on subject property would draw support from a
large area.
The Commission discussed the extension of Dowling Street and the
possible development within the territorial limits of the City of
Placentia.
THS HBARING WAS CL0.SBD,
Chairman Gauer noted that the City of Placentia had filed a letter of
protest against'the subject petition and he indicated that Precise
Plan Study No. 34-110-20 ir.~lude3the subject property and projected
said property for industrial development. , .
The Commissiun discussed the location of the subject property within ~
that area proposed for M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONB development in
the Precise P1an Study and Petition for Reciassification No. 61-62-89
and noted that additional study was necessary in order to resolve the
matter of the highest and best use of_ the subject property,
Commissioner Camp offered a motion, seconded by ~ommissioner Pebley
and carried, that the h~aring on Petitio~l for Reclassification No,
61-62=58 be reopened and continued until the meeting of March 19, 1962
for further discussion and con~±c~e*ation.
t
,,~. . . . . . ~
~'•~e:r>~.~mt... ~~..~.z.~. ~,:. ~.':i',....~-s.i_~...~.:_.. -..s.~. ... [.~~',:~.. ., :..t_.:,.: d~.ti~. r,n:~.<,_~ti:~
,;
, , _
_ _
, ~,
,.
,
!. ~~
~
~ r~
u•_,:rM.~r r»:.x:r_.., ... ... ,.. . ... r~. ~. . , . . .. , .?rr:.`'
~ ~
~
Q ~
72]
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~Y, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued: ~
~
RBCIABSIPICATION- PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by ALBX L. PISHMAN and JBRRY
N0. 6_ 1-62-78 _ 1dF-1tBS, 2144 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners;
~~ requesting that the property described as: PARCBL N0, le A parcel
200 feet by 333 feet with a frontage of 200 eet Socated on the
.~ w~st side of Hmpire Street between L.incoln Avenue and Hiawatha
Avenue; its northeast corner being approximately 250 feet south of
the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bmpire Street. PARCSL NOy2:
s''`'' A parcel with an irregularly shaped frontage of 150'feet and an aver-
age depth of 339 feet located on the west side of Bmpire StrP~•~. be•-
- tween Lincoln and Hiawatha Avenues; its northeast corner beir approx- .
imately 450 feet south of the southwest corner of Lincoln Aven:tc and
Hmpire Street, be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDBNfIAL AGRICULTURAL,
~' ZONS to the C-2, GBNBRAL COMMBRCIAL, ZONB for Parcel No. 1, and P-1,
r PARKING, ZONB for Parcel No. 2. i
a ,
Commissioner Chavos submitted a statement to Chairman Gauer requesting I
that he be excused from the Commission Meeting during the Public Hear- ~
ing on Petitioa for Aecl~ssification No. 61-62-78 because of personal f
'" opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Chavos was excused from
the Hearing.
Mr. F.l Pishman, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and '
reviewed thp .apid growt~h of the Linbrook Hardware Company and the
resuiti:ng problems in respect to parking and outdoor storage. He
quoted i!gu_es on the amount of growth, the gross annual sales
amounting in excess of five miliion dollars, and the need for expan-
sion. He indicated that the pro~osed reclassif3catien ~:as necessaxy
in order to expand, that it was aansistent with the proposed General
Plan, that it was to the best interest of the Cit•y of Anaheim and
would contribute to the general welfare and tax revenue, that it
was compatible with the existing zonirig practices, and that there
~ was a genuine need for additional off-street parking in the area, He
,described the proposed improvement of subject property,sidicating
that a planter strip would be installed, thaL access to the parking
lot would be provided from Hmpire Street, and that he wished io pro- ~
vide an area for the storage of nursery and landscaping products and
~ garden tools.
Yersons a~pearing before the Commission in oppositioa to subject peti-
tion are as foliows: Dick Cevelin, 106 Bcho Place, Mrs. Virginia Welch,
. 204 Bmbassy Street, Plorence Scianni, 203 Primrose Street, and Richard .
P. Meyers~ 234 Hmpire Street, the bases of their opposition was as
followa: that extensive advertising had created the tremendous growth
oz~the petitioners' business for which adequate parking and indoor .
storage provisions have not been made, that the proposed expansion
wiil permit the establishment of subject property as a distribution
point for many smalier affiliated stores, that C-1, Neighborhood
Commericai, Zoning would be sufficient for the p^.titioners• request
rather than the proposed C-2. General Commescial, Zone; ~:hat the pro-
~ posed classification would create spot zoning; that it would increase
" traffic problems in the area; that the petitioners have not shown _
good faith in maintaining and de~~loping tr° ad3acent properties which
F they own; thet the proposeld use of subjec~ property wi11 not be com-
~ patible with the existing residentiai development in the area, that the
~ Lincoln Pz:rk Civic Association is viole>~tly opposed to the:subject
petition; tiiat the the use of Bmgire 3treet for acce§s purposes would
~s` be a traffic i?azard to the children in the asea and be a detriment to
~' the resident3al properties because Bmpire Street is a residential:
• stree#; that the petitionez has not maintained his property in an or-
G~' : derly a~~.a.- and its conditions is a detriment to the surrounding area;
~;~~ ` and that large trucks were presently using the residential streets in
~ r,4~,j,;~ the ,eariy morning hours in order to make deliveries,
~ k ~~st^ -
4.. __ n~,~~!s.•.;a:t~ . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . -
,
g z ~n Sd~
~ ~~
L~~{~ . .. . , . _ . .. . . . . ~ ~ . _
p h
P ' _
(~~
S""+F ti ~~ ~ , . . . . ~ . ~ ~ . .
~r i ~ ' . . ~ ... ~. . , _ ~.
,~~ ~~~ l ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ' e ;
Nt f :1 . ~ .'. ' ~.. . . . ' . . ~ . , ~ , ~ .
~'xt~ ~ ' . . ' . . .. ' .
a~' r . . . _ . . ' , . . . , . _ .
ir~` ro+
FL ~i"'~r~~~44i~"(I'y~' _ ~ . ,.. ~.~, i~ . _ xx4 . : W..~.4d.r ZfY ~.."!rt; ~~~"~'7'~ n~~> ~ _, .....~~~ : r .. ,;~ u:,~ ~rb! .~ . , f ih~ ', ~°..~nt,h"f."~L~~~~.. ? C;._'!.4.~ .~ .. , , . , . ~ . . ~_~, ~~i_l~~,i
, ;;.;:',
,
- :i
~
~ . ;t r;:..
V ~'
722
,:; ' MINUTBS, CITIf PIANNING COMMISSION, Pebruary 5, 1962, Continued;
~ RHCLASSIPICATION- The opposition suggested that zccess to Bmpire Street be prohibited
~ N0, 61-62-78 for the safety and welfare of the residentiai neighborhood and that a
~.; CONTIN[~D block wall be provided along 8mpire Street to provide a screen for the
, proposed parking facilities.
Mr. Pishman, in rebuttal, stated that the area involved would be cleaned
and maintained, that the trucks had been notified in respect to the pro-
per delivery hours, that financing had been obtained in order to permit
the remodeling and expansion of the existing business, that additional
parking area was necessary in order to accomodate the improvements needed
and to aileviate the existing proplems, that it was economically impossi-
ble to purchase the property abatting subject property on the west in
o~der to provide a more desirable parking facility, that the proposed
development would improve the traffic circulation in the area, and that
the trucks will be prohibited from utilizing the residential streets in
the future.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission discussed at great length the existing traffic problem
and the hazards that might be created by the use' of 8npire Street for
access purposes to the proposed parking area. The Commission discussed
the possibiiity of installing a wail along the easterly boundary of
subject property with the extension of a driveway northeriy to Lincoln
Avenue only. The petitioner agreed to the installation of wal].s to pro-
h3.b9.t access to 8mpire Street and the prodision of a driveway extending...
northeriy to Lincoln Avenue through property owned by the petitioner but
not inciuded in the subject petition, The Commission suggested that a
barrier or cuib be installed along said driveway to prohibit the use of
abutting properties for 'vehicular traffic.
The Commission discussed the proposed classification of subject property
to the C-2, General Coamercial, Zone and noted that said classification
would not be compatible with #he surroundir~g area, that the property
shouid be classified in the P-1, Parking and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial,
Zones and that the proposed nursery should be established by a condi-
tional use permit.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the peti-
tioners could be required to dedicate all•vehicular access rights from
Empire Street in order to prohibit use of Bmpire Street for access pur-
poses, that the southerly portion of subject property could be classi-
fied in the P-1, Parking, Zone, and that the northerly portion of sub-
ject property could be classified in the C-1, Neighborhood Commerciai,
Zone with the estabiishment.of the proposed nursery contingent upon the
approval of a Petition for Conditionai Use Permit.
Mr. Fishman indicated that the petitioners would probaoly sell a portion
of the psope=ty they own at the southwest`corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Hmpire Street~but that they would comply with the Commission's recom-
mendation that a driveway be installed and maintained extending from the
subject proper~tg through the afozementioned property in order to provide
~ access faciiities to I.incoln Avenue. Mr. Pishman also agreed 4o install
all standard improvements 6n Lincoln Avenue and Bmpire 3treet in :.ccor-
dance with City~reqairewents. ,
The Commission found and deterained the following facts regarding the
subyect petition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above des-
cribed property from the R-A, RASIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, Z01~ to the
P-1, PARKING, and C-2~ GENBRAL COD9dffitCIAL, ZONBS.
~
:..!:t. 7e:..Y ~ ~~:
.... ............. ,.._.,~ ..~.i..^~.~. ...~...... ..
_. - . /~.::;:'. ~~.., .,_..m...,.
i
• I
r~~~,aa .r ~ t;. •. ~.~.'~..
I .
~ .. ,, .. ~x,.
~
~ ~ 4J ,
723
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSI~i, February 5, 1962, Contiayed: .
RBCLASSIFICATION- 2. That 4he reciassification of subject property to the P-1, PARRING,
N0. 61-62-78 ZONH is necessary and;or~des~ruble for the orderly and property
CONTINUBD development of the community,
~ 3, That the reclassification of subject property to the P-1, PARICING,
20N8 is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and oroner
development of the community.
3, That the reclassification o.' subject property to the P-L, PARKING,
ZONH does pcoperly relate to the zones and their permitted uses
locally esi~blished in close proximity to subject property and to the
_j~;. i zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the
community,
4. That tY,e .:eciassification of subject property does require dedication
for and standard improvement of abuttin:g streets because said pro-
perty does relate to and abut upan streets and highways which are
proposed to carry the type and quantity of traffic, which will be
generated by the peraiitted uses, in accordance with the circulation
element of the Geaeral Plan.
I
5. That the petitioners agree to the dedication and installation of all
• improvements for that property owned by the petitioners but not in-
cluded in subject petition, said property being si~uated on the south-
west corner o.f Lincoln Avenue and Hmpire Street.
6. That verbai opposition by four owners of property in subject area
werc recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 231, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recom-
iaend to the City Council that petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-78
be approved, recxassify±no ss:3ject pzoperty to the P-1, PAR:ING, 20NB;
~. ~ ~ subject to the folxowin~ conditions:
~ 1. Development subctantiaily ir, accordance with Sxhibit No. 1 with appro-
priate modification for compliance with the conditions outlined here-
in.
2, Dedication to the City of Anaheim of all vehicuiar access rights from
the subject property to Bmpire Street.
i
3. Provision and maintenance of a twenty (20) foot wide access driveway
extending x~ortherly from subject property to Lincoln Avenue with the
instailation of suitable concrete barriers not less that one and one-
haif (1+~) feet in height abutting and parallel to both sides of said
• driveway, subject to the approval of the City Bngineer, prior to
Pinal Buiiding Inspection of the parking lot.
4. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall, where said walis do not
exist, along the southerly boundary oi ~subject property and the in-
stallation of a five (5) foot wide strip of landscaping including '
trees welis with tlie installatiori of trees therein at forty (40.) "foot
intervals, as indicated on 8xhibit No. 1, pians for said landscaping to
be sub'ject to the approval of the Superznteiident of Parkway Maintenance
and said walis and landscaping to be installed prior to Final Building
Inspection of the parking lot.
5. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall five (5) feet westeriy of
and para11e1 to the easterly boundary of subject property on Bmpire
Street with the provision of iandscaping in said.five (5) foot set-
back together with landsc.aping in the parkway portion o~' Hmpire
~A?; Street abutting sub,ject property, said_landscapir.g to include trees
!~r'.r . . , . . ~, ~ ~ . , ~ . . ~ . . .
. a....., ai~'r~ ~.--'~-1'.; ~i^ ~. . . . ~ .~ I
. :' ;
i;r.,
~!Y.:
t u'
~ ~ # ,;~
t
. ~~~ ~ . ~ ~ . . ~
~-
~
G: , . ~
p
c~
o ~
724
MINUTBS, CITY PIAHIVING CONA~IISSION, Pebruary 5~ 1962, Contiaued:
RBCIASSIFICATION- at forty C40) foot iatervals, and further provided that the plans for
N0. 61-62-78 all landscaping sha11 be submitted to and subject to the approval of the
CONTINUHD Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and said landscaping and walis to
be installed prior to Pinal Building Inspection of the parking lot.
~ 6.. Installation of reflective lights of a maximum height of six (6) feet,
S==Lj ?20°..~+_+.~^_e° t0 ~°_ L~?I~C!'~L~ ~.^.d ~~F,~.~~.@~ »W»j :~:~.^'~. .°.dj8.....^.`e Zc^SZuBia~iui
properties, in the P-1~ PARKING, Z~TB area of subject property, prior
to Final Building Inspection of the parking lot.
7. Dedication of 30 feet from the monumen#ed centerline of Empire Street
(22 feet and 30 feet existing).
8. Preparation of street improvement plans and the installation of all im-
provements on the Lincoln Avenue and Empire Street frontage of the par-
cel of.property located at the southwest corner of Lincola Avenue and
8mpire Street, subject to the approval of the City Hngineer and in
accordance with the ad~pted standard plans on fiie in the~Office of the
City Bngineer, as stipulated by the petitioners.
9, Instailation of sidewaiks on Bmpire Street abutting subjec' property in
accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the office of the
City Bngineer,
I
10. Provision of a five (5) foot utility easement on south property line and
eight (8) feet on west property line to adequately serve the subject pro-
perty and other property, at the time of the installation of service faci-
lities.
il. Relocation of existing irrigation line 9.f necessary prior to Pinal Build-
ing Inspection of the parking lot,
12, Dedication of Lot "A" along Empire Street.
13, Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment
of Item Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, and 12, ~
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a neeessary.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:
AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey,
Perry.
NOiHS: COhAfISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSiONBRS: Chavos, Hapgood.
Commissioner Chavos returned to ~he Council Chambers at 10;15 0*Clock P.M.
RBFQtTS AND - PR$CiSS PLAN STUDY N0. 39-6-4: (Continued);
RBCOD4dBNDATIONS
(Continued) Discussion on Precise Plan Study No, 39-6-4 was re-opened by Chairman Gauer,
Senior Pianner Martin Rreidt briefly reviewed the proposals outlined on the
Precise Plan Study on display in the Cound 1 Chambers,
;c.
~~^ ~ ~
~~. ., , ... ., . ~~n~'i.. x .tJf,~:,•... .A_.,.~t.. . ...... . ~1=:`_. t , .. .., ..t.r,_...Me ~.._.,e't . ..If~.~~7: t~.f._kKt.Y'1:'. ......_ , .... . .. _ e_..
' Mrs, Ann Torres, 3435 West Ball Road, appeared before the.Commission, indica-
ting `'that her property abutted on the east property projected for com- ~
mercial zbning~ivhereas for her property was proposed for R-3, h~nltiple Famiiy
~
, i~6. Frovision that should lighting be;,xn~tal~,led:, in, ,~k~,e` P}.,~ar~ipg_r...~~ ;,:4i -•,!.~
2one area o~ :~ubject property, ~13gHtr stand9xds.;§Y~'al], t~o.t1;'e~cSeedt. - `
a maximum height of six (6) feet,&.sha1L be di'rected and ~cted awap~from
adjacent-resident3aS propesties, and.shr,ll be subject to the approval and
inspection of the:Chief Building°Inspector.
~
~ '7' f A~ . ... _ ` ..~. '~ . . i. '~ ~ ~I It. . .-11: ~
~ ,. k f~ l,.r fi_+ti..kt ~ ~.INS.. ~ ~..7rrtr..r . , ~b{.. ~. ._ .1+~.:..
- ~
• ~ ~~
`. _ . . ...., ~
y F~l
~ .. . ; ~ .. .~ ~ : .. . ...:. . ~ ~. ~ • . _
.. . K'C-"!+ W } ..
. . 1~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
!Z~
MINUTIIS, CITY PIANNING COU9KIS3ION, February 5, 1962, Continued:
' R~atTS AND - PRBCISB PIAN STUDY N0. 39-6-4: (Continued):
RBC0~4~fffiVDATIONS
(Continued) Residential, development.although she preferred commercial use,
~ Mr. A. L. Wolford appeared before the Commission, indicated that he owned
~ property on the south side of Ball Road pro.jected for oossibie commercial
~ ;~ f 3
~•~ ~
~
r~ ~.--•a.:_~.. .. -.~
expansaon or or R- , Multiple Pamily Residential, development, and re-
quested information in respect to the alternate proposals.
Mr. J. Harold 3mith, 1245 West Hall Road, appeared before the Commission
and indicated that he preferred commerciai zoi;ing for properties fronting
on Ba11 Road.
Planning Director Richard Reese discussed the problems created by the,Fs-
tablishment of strip commercial zoning on major streets and indicated that
the'proposals outlined on the Precise Plan Study ~orrespond with the pro-
jected zoning on the Preliminary General Plan. He suggested that the Plan-
ning Staff arrange a meetiag with the owners of property in the area in an
eadeavor to resolve some of the problems concerning the subject properties
a~d to arrive at a suitabie eonclusion for the ultimate development of
these properties.
The Commission discussed the proposed de~elopment outlined in the study and
noted that the study could be referred to the City Council without definite
recommendations,
' Commisaioner Alired offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Chavos and
carried, with Commissioner Pebley abstaining, that Precise Plan Study No.
39-6-4 be forxarded to the City Council without recommendation for their
review and consideration at the Council Meeting to be held on Pebruary 6,
1962.
I1BM N0. 2: PRECISE PIAN STUD_Y N0. 36-63-1:
-• Senior Planner Martin I{reidt presented'Precise P1ar;.Study No. 36-63-1 to the
Commission. A discussion was held relative to the 1:i,story of requests for ~!
' reciassification of properties in the subject area an:- it was noted that ,
the proposed development for R-3, Multipie Pamily Residentiai, use could be
accompiished provided the following requirements were established: ',
1. Imnrovement of the alley abutting subject properties on the north to a '
width of twenty (20) feet subject to the approyal of the City Hngineer. ',
2, Dedication of all access rights to Broadway. ,
3, Development in accordance with the proeisions of ChaQter 18,32 of the '~
' Anaheim Municipal Code fa: the R-3, Multipie Famiiy Residential, Zone.
4. Requirement that use of any existing structure shall be subject to the
inspection and approval of the Fire Departaent.
Co~emissioner Mungail offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Perry and
carried, that Precise Plan No, 36-63-1 be adopted for the ultimate•devel-
opmeat of subject area, said development to be accomy!.ished in accordance
with the requirements sti.puiated. '
CatRHSPONDBNCB- ITBM N0. 1: atANGB COUNTY USB VARIANCB N0. ~913;
~. 8ubject petition,requested permission to establish an 81 unit 4railer '
~"~'~% park in the Al General Agricu2tural Dis4rict and indicated that the ~
~~;` trailez park would b2 arranged.snbstantially as iudicated on the plot plan II
+ >_, : ~
,~ ~~ _ : .
~
,
.
I
~, ~
~ ,:;.
r !>
d , , .;~ . af,• . ~ ~,,,~~ -----;•.
.S~,r~?Y~ ~4`t c"'.c..., ,'.,'::~., i.~',~, t..Y_~'~' :~l.~.:~;:,sy!N.f,~:.~i~"~.~,,,~.~x±."?.`Y~a~w~:~:?,~~ . . . ... ~
. . r~._.~ s~~.~.,~~ .. . . _...... ... .
'
i
;,'
+
~ ,.
~
_ _
_ _
~
~ ~ ~_ --
~
726
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CONAlISSION, February S, 1962, Continued:
CORRESPONDBNCB- submitted with the petition~ that a six foot chain link fence would be
(COPiTINUBD) constructed on the property lines, that the swimming pooi area would be
enclosed by a fence and gates in accordance with Ordinance 984, that access
wouid be via a 48 foot wide access road to be provided by the State High-
way Department in connection with Freeway development adjoining the subject
property, and that there would be no signs, SutiJect property is located
at the southwest corner of the Riverside Freeway and the Newport Fre~way
north of Olzve,
Subject petition was continued from the Anaheim City Planning Commission
meeting held on January 22,~1962 in order that it could be considered
after the Public Hearing, scheduled for said meeting, relative to the consi-
deration of the classification of properties located in the northeast in-
dustrial area.
Planning Director Richard Reese outlined the location of the proposed
trailer park on the Preliminary Genesal Plan, noting that it would be
isolated by the freeways and that the Orange County Master Plan indicates
single family residential development in close proximity. He indicated
that the trailer park appeared to be a suitable use for the location b e-
cause i$ appeared to be sufficiently isolated to be compatible with the
single family residential development. Mr. Reese reviewed the history of a
recent approval of another trailer park in the vicinity~noting that the
Commission had recommended denial but that the City Councii had recom-
mended approvai of the development.
Roderick Fraser, Box 656, Orange, appeared before the Commission aad stated
that he was the petitioner. He indicated ~hat the trailar park would be
located at the intersection of the Riversi~3e azd Newport Preeways, that it
would contain 81 trailer units, that there would be ten spaces per acre,
that each space would contain 2400 square ieet, and that a wall wouid be
instailed surrounding the property.
Planning Director Reese noted that the space area requirement for the City
of Anaheim was 2450 square feet and that, because of the close proximity of
the City of Anaheim to the subject property, it would be advisable to rec-
ommend. that the trailer park be developed in accordance with the proposed
trailer park requirements of the City of Anaheim.
Commissi~ner Camp offered a motion, seconded bp Commissioner Alired and
carried, that Orange County Use Variance No. 49.13 be recommended for ap-
proval by the Anaheim City Plaiming to th~ Orange County Planning Com-
mission subject to the provision of a wall as indicated by the petitioner,
that it be developed in accordance with the requirem~nts of the proposed
Trailer Park Ordinance of the City of Anaheim, and that said petition be
forwarded to the Anaheim City Council for review.
Commissioner Pebley l~:ft the Council Chambers at 11:00 O~Clock P.M.
ITBM N0. 2: STREBT NAMH CHANGS - TRAC~ N0. 1246:
A map of Tract No. 1246, dated January 26, 1962, was submitted to the
Commission together with a report from the Bngineering Department indi-
cating that 3outh Redwood Drive should be changed to South Redwood Piace
c'~• as indicated on said map and,that North Redwood Drive shouid be changed to
'r North Redwood Place as indicated on said map.
~ Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 232, and moved for its passage
~ - and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Alired to recommend fo the City
~ Council that change in designation of the aforementioned streets in accord-
ance with the revisions indicated on the r.p of Tract No. 1246.
~ .,
i t.
~ -t;, ~
~ ' '
~., _
F-.'`
f
~ ,
~¢
t. ?3i~, ; . + .... . . _ .. . .,~".: '~'-~,: ~ ."_. .~'~T",.~.
V "
~ .+ ., .;. _~; ~ : +r'~~ ~1~# Y a,. ~, rs< ~ o;~', c'.r.~r3~: ,A~ ~~ 7~~i
- ~'?N3, ~,.4'~'c. i ~ f ~:.Y av, . r. '.4~.~„~sY.i'., ;1
' Y~
,.~ w
I ~'' 7,
~
: ~ ~ ~
727
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CObA4ISSI0N, Pebruary 5, 1962, Cor~tinued:
CORRBSPONDffiTCB On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
(CONTINUBD)
AYBS: COMldISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, G8uer, Marcoux, Mungali,
' Perry.
NOBS: COMMIS3IONBRS: None.
AHSHNT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Pebley.
..-:. t
ITBM N0. 3: APPOINTMBNT OF PIANNING C01~4~IISSIONBRS:
~
Notice received from the City Council relative to the appointment of Mr.
James F. Chavos to serve as Pianning Coinmissioner in the vacancy created by
the resignation of Mr. Lee Morris was submitted to the Commission.
Notiae received from the City Council relative to the appointment of Mr,
Horace Camp to serve as Planning Comarissione~r in the position formerly
occupied by Mr. Ralph S. Summers was submitted to the Commission.
Chairman Gauer welcomed the new Commissioners and indicated that their
appointments would be of benefit to the City of Anaheim.
ITBM N0. 4: LHITBR PROh1 N~tTRONICS REGARDING HBLIPORT;
A letter received from Nortronics Corporation, relative to the relocation
of the heliport landing site to the roof top; of the Company~s new Bngi-
neering snd Administration Suilding, was submitted to the Commission.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
carried, that the letter be received and filed~thereby indicating approval
of the proposed relocation.
ITBM N0. 5; LfiTTER PROM SAVANNf~ SCHOOL DIS1RIi.T_RBLATIVH TO SCHOOL SITSS:
A Setter received from the Savr~:u-a School District, reiative to the approi•al
of site additions for school purposes, was submitted to the Commisc,-on, said
letter indicating the locatioas and the amount of acreage to be added to
existing school facilities.
Coromissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
carried, directing the Planning Commission Secr~tary to transmit notice to
the Savanna Schooi Dietrict indicating that the Planning Commission approved
the acquisition of the proposed acreage for the expansion of existing school
facilities in accordance with the information submitted.
RBPOitT AND - ITBM N0. 4: SIGNALIZATION OP BUCLID AVBNUA AND ROMNBYA DRIVH:
RHCObWIBNDATIONS _ .
A report submitted by the Traffic BnRxneer relative to the signalization
ef Buclid Avenue and Romneya Drive was presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that the report be received and filed, and that a recoaimenda-
tion be forwarded to the Traffic 8ngineer that a sim3,lar investigation and
report be made on the SIGNALI7.ATION AT Tf~ INTBRSHCTION OP BALL ROAD AND
DALS AVBNUB.
ADJOURAA4~VT- There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 0'Clock
P.M. _
Respectfully Submitted,
~ L
PAGB, Secretary
-. r. ., „ -.; +t,<_^r~.t.~a.,_.~+,! r
:~, ~ ~ t ... . .~~r . .., . , . _ ~.,, ~ _ _... ... . ~ . . , .
'
i
;
~
~
::: i
~
_;;~
_ ;,
~;<
: ~ `;
, , #vr~