Minutes-PC 1962/09/17, ,
6'...: - . . . . . _ . . . .
~ ~.;f~. .i ~- ~ ~ ~ r ~~~.:
~ . ~ ~4~~~"~' ~.~.
7 L' - - ~,. ~`3 ' ~'~ ~
-- ~. p~. ~ ~!.~
City Ha1T
Anaheim, California
- September 17, 1962
..- :''•i'_
~. .
RBGULAR I~STING OF THH ANAFIHIM CITY PIANNING COI~UdISSION
RBGIILAR MBSTING - A Aegular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum
being.present.
pRB3ENT - CHAIRMANe Gauer.
COl~9`lISSIOI~itS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mancoux, Mungall, pebiey,
Perry.
ABSHNT - COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
PRE9BNT - ZONING C00!?DINAT~t: Martin Rreidt,
. DHPUTY ASSISTANT CITY ATTO~tNHY: Furman Robe=ts.
COhAlISSION SHCRBTARY: Ann Brebs.
INVOCATION '- Revesend Francis Cook, pasbor of the Pirst Methodist Church, gave
' the imdocation.
~
E.
~.
_ ~.>,
3~:`,, ~~[~ ~ i~
' ' ~K~~a~ 'F~ r~R«~N
~ . ~ . .. ' ~ ~ . ~ i~' KS.7~„1~4
~ ~ ~
MINUTH.3, CITY PIANNING CO~AiISSION, September 17, 1962, Continued:, 1190
1 VARIANCB N0. 1513 - CONTINUBD PUBLIC FffiARING. '1BD BV&1BTT BAR%HR; 1832 South
1 Mountain View`Aveaue,,Anaheim, Calhlfornia, Owaer; STANLBY L.
' FOSffiI, 318 West ;Lipcoln Avenue, Av~eim, Califoraia, Agent;
requesting permisstion to (1)..CONSTRUCT.CONA~IHRCIAL AND INDUS'ZRIAL BiTILDING: (2) WAIVB '
MINL~[[IM LOT ARBA .RBQUIRBMENT: (3) WAIYS 'PROIVT. RBAR ANID;,SIDE: XARD SBTBACiC RBQUIRHMBNTS~
on'propertq deacribed as: A rectaagular parcel of land 62 feet, plus or minus, bq
35T feet,, plus or minus, with a frontage of 62 feet, pius or minus~ of the east aide
of Mountain.View Aveape, the northwest coraer of said property being 372 feet, plus or
~minus, south of. the southeast corner of Mountain View Avenue aad Katella Aveaue, and
• 'further described as 1832 3outh Mountain View Avenue. Propeztq presently classified
R-A, RBSIDSNTIAL'AQ~tICULTURAL, 20NB.
5ub3ecf petition was continued fYOm the meetinge of August 6, 1962 and September 5,
1962, 3n order'to allow the petitiorier an opportunity to aubmi.t revised plot plans.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt~ read.a let.ter to #he Commission received f=om the
agent for the petitioner, Mr. Stani`dy L'Roaeri~ requestiag that.the applicant be
permitted to~withdraw sub,ject `petition in which he stated that the applicant~s
propo§ed tenaat had canceled his iease~ therefore, the need for-construction of the
proposed waretiouse was eliminated. `
Commissioner Perry offered a motion t:o grant the request of the petitioner to with-
draw Petition:for Variance No. 1513, Commissioner Camp aeconded the motion.
urn~i(~N f`ARR7R~_
~ ," . a ~,,: y .. .r. f~'~.. yt:;; n~:~ ~..
.. ,, . :. ., . . . .
~
Y Y +ti~ ~~~ . . ~ ~ ~
i ~ ,4 r.
h{~r ~
~ . i ~~ •~
. . . ._ ` ~~r~`~ ~ d
~ ~;
~ ° ^
i_..:,.. ._ . . - . .. ~ .
` : . • , - . . . -- ~. .
~ . .nri~~~. .
. ~ ~
~ : . _ ~ . . . . . ~ .. ~ . . . . - ~) c~~£ ~ 6 ~sJ4 ~~.
i {~',.i' y
~ ~ . - . ~, . ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ .
L . ., . ~ ~ ' . ' . . .. , .. ~ :. ... ' : ,; . .'. . ~~ ~ ,.' ~ ' . . . ~ :
~,,'. MINfJTES,. CIT7t PIANNING CQAAtISSION, September 17, 1962, Continued:, , 1192 '
„; : ' _
C01!IDITIONAL''tia'B - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution N~. 493, Series 1962-63~
~~ PBRMIT N0:.299 and moved for ita?paB6age anfl adoption,.seConded by Commissioner ~
(Contiaued) Pebley,'to grant petitiod for`Condit~oqal Use Permit No. 299,
~ . s;z~3cc~ .^ ~.-,~itio~s. (Spe -Resoivtioz soak3.
~; •
On.roll call the foregoing resolution was pass8d b~ the`following vote:
AYBS: CO[~AlISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebiey, Perrq-. ~
, _ _. ,...
,
~... .
" NOBS: COMMISSIONffiCS: Noae.
AHSSNP: COhAiIS3I0PffiRS: Hapgood.
~" ~`'. Commissioner Perry left the Couacil Chamber at 2:35 P.M. ~
~--~.....,... . .
COAIDITIONlLZ;;U3B -:PUSLIC HBARING, PACIP,IC:TELBPHONH and THLEQtApH COMPANY, 1475
I
;".;;;:.
~ y
~ .... ~ ~ _ ~,~~ . . - .
~ , • : . ; , r y
:~^I i ~ 4~~.... ~'S ~,~ ~ ~c4~~ ..S-..~~1.4.~ :~.:44A i~u
. t tLr,-~ . a ~ F,+ ~
. • ' - , ~~ ~ . ~;i
~ 7e't
~ ~ ~
~ T: JJ 5
. ~~ ~",=~n~y .
X. - . . ' . ~ _ ~ ~~ ` . .
. . . . ~ - ~ . . . . . . ~ . ' . .
~ MINUTBS,.CITY PLINNING COI~4dIS310N, September 1T, 19~2, Coatinued: 1194
E~ _
~: , -
} COPIDITIONAL USS - Mr. P. R. Masterson, repreaeating the agent for the petitioner~
~ . FBRMIT N0.' 303 ap,peared before the Commissioa aad 9tated that he ,had nothing
i.'~ CContinued) further to add for the Commission~s considesation, but was
~` : availabie to a.~swer. aay quest#on.
The Commisaion reviewed #he piot.plans.
r Chairman Gauer' ask~d if there was any one ia the Co,uacil Chamber opposed to subject
~ • petition~ and.xeceived no response.
~~ z~^
~!6 '
. .
. . __
. , :. , . ..
~ . t
f
. .
~ ._.
a~ ',
, ,
.
• ~
~
'~ ~
.
. . . ~ . ';..,
.. .... ~ ~. ' , . ....
~. , ~_~ _ .
- MINUT93, CITY pIANNING COhAfISSION,.September 17, 1962, Continued: 1195
~ _
_ ~RHCIA,SSIPICATION - The Commisaioa inquired of the petitioner whether he planned to
N0. 62-63-26
' CContiaued•) . extend the alley to the
pro
ert service station to the aorth of subJect
p
y; aad the petiti oner:replietl ttiat be did not iatend to
~ extend ~aid a11eq to the service station. .
~, ~ The Commission further discussed the possibil
, ity of the petitioners obtaining per-
',~
,_~ .
z'
1 '
(
• ~ miasioa to built a six (6) foot masonry wail oa the property o£ the.single family ~
i homes to the west of aubject propertq to protect the single family envirowuent abutting
the commercial development to fihe east; that if said permission was not obtained, the
; wall should be constructed'oa subject property; and that, a forty-two (42) inch
•~, masonry wall should be requi;ed oa the north of subject property as interpreted in the ~
Council-Commission Po13cy on service stations, and said masonry wall would extend to 3
the alley to the west of subject properfy. j
i
` Chairman Gauer inquired if there was any oae in the Council Chamber oppoaing aubject ~'
-petition, and received no response, ;
4 . . . . ~ . . ."" '
~ . . . ' ~ ~ . ~ t . ~ ' I
THB HBARING:WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Pebiey offered Resolutioa No. 49T,.Series 1962-63, aad moved for its '
passage'aad adoption,. seconded by Commiasioner.Chayos, to,.recommend'to:the City
Council that Petition for Reclassification No. b2-63-26'',be approved aubjecL to condi-
tions. (See Resolution Book). ~',
The conditions as stated in the Resolation Book were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a aeceasary prerequisite to the use of the property.in order to preserye
the safetq and welfare of the citizeas of the Citq of Anaheim,
On roll call the foregoiag reaolution was pasaed by the following vcte:
A7~S: C(~MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
' NOH3: COI~AfIS5I0NBRS: None.
AHSBNTd CObAlI5S30NRRS: Hapgood.
AMHNDMENT TO CODH - PUBLIC HBARING. INITIATBD BY TFID:ANAFiBIM CITY PLANNING f
SHGTION 18.80 CQh9~lISSION~'204 Ea.st:Lincoln.Avenue,'pnaheim~ California:; said
, ' -:.Amendment covess; Sectioa 18.80.090, State College Bo~~levard to
East City Limi4s~ piesent and future City Limits.
~ Amending said Section to 13mit the miaimum livabie floor apace of single'family
dwellings to 1;525 square feet; and that Sectioa 18,80.100 be deleted from.the Code.
Zoni 1
ng C.oordinator~ Martin greidt, reviewed for the Commiasion the ar,ea be3ag proposed '
for said amendmeat which was in aareement with the discuaainn wn~i ra..:.on+ ..e +~.e ,
r
E :
,:~
i~;~,
~ ~
y:T.
. ~ .~ . ~~~~ `~,4~~.
~ /}
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, September 17~ 1962, Continued: 1196
pMBNDhffiNT TO C~B - Commiasioner Periy offered Resolutioa No. 498, Series 1962-63,
SBCTION 18.80 and moved for ita passage and adoption, seconded by Commiasioner
(Continued) Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Atnendment to
Section 18.80.090 t2 ~u~aded to 23m3t the miaimum livable floor
apace to 1~525 square feet ia the area bounded bq State College
Soulevard and to the east Ciicy limita, present and future City li-aits. (See Reso-
lution Book).
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS; COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, perry.
NOBS: COMh1IS3I0NSRS: Noae.
AB3HNT: COhAiISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
~ ': ~
RBp~tTS pND - ITBM N0. 1- Policy lteqasding Requirements Por Installation Of
RECOh9~iBNDATIONS Block Walis.
2oning Coordinator Martin Sreidt, reviewed for the Commission
the discussion and policy setup by the Commission on March 5, 1962, regarding Block
Walls, and stated that aithough the Commi.ssioa had adopted said policq it did not
seem apparent that the City Couacii had adopted said policy as a star-dard requirement.
The Coawission discussed the necessity for eatablishing a policy by aot only the
Commission, but the City Council in respect to requiremeats for the installation of
walls and landscapiag wherever tracts were beiag developed adjacent to an existing
or proposed freewaq or arterial highway.
The Commission noted that a policy ahould be established on the bases of the follow-
ing findings:
1. That freeways are one of the most intenaive uses of land and that were freeway
right-of-ways have been projected for freewaq ~se and subdividers.or developera
elect to develop abuttiag properties for residential purposes, that protection
ahould be afforded the homes eona~tructed along said right-of-waq for the benefit
of the future R-1, One Pamily ResidentiaY, property owners.
2. That bloc~ wall conatruction would best insure the protection of abutting
residential properties because of its greater resistance to weather and deterio- ~
r.ation than would redwood feacing or other materials.
3. That in the past it has been the policy of the Commission to require the instal-
lation of walls where properties are being developed for single £amily develop-
ment adjacent to a proposed free~vay or where freeways are in existence.
4. That the requirement.of the iastaliation of walls and landscaping along arterial
highways has been endorsed by the County and is a coadition of approvai for the
development of residential properties. ,
5. That the Commission has made numerous field obserestiona and is satisfied that
the requirement of the instaliation of walis and landscaping is a fair and just
requiremeat and is necessary f.or the future benefit and protection of the
reaidential properties.
Commiseioner Chavos offered a motioa~ seconded by Commisaioaer Camp and carried, that
the followiag policq be adopted by the Commission`and that it be forwarded to the
City Councii for adoption as a standard requirement; •
-------------i---
` - .,.
...._._._..~
,. . ~: _ ... .
~.:~ . , '..;' . ~-.~~.___ . . . . , ,.
, ~ ~ • • a ~
MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING C0~9dISSION,-September 17, 1962, Contiaued: 1197
. ~
REPCRTS AND -"whe=e a11 single or multiple family residential tracts are ~
~ ~
RHCOF9dBNDATIONS proposed with lots abuttiag a freeway and siding or backing upon ,
(Cont'inued). any arteriai highway, a six (6) foot masonrq wall shall be ~
~
~
constructed on the property line separatiag these lots aad the ~
•
freeway and arterial highwaq~ eiccept that on corner lots ~
' created where resideatial streets intersect arteriai highways~ such walis shall be '
~
stepped down to a height of twenty-faur (24) inches in the front, one-half (1/2) of' .
i :,
the front yard setback inln a heighth of forty-two (42) inches in the baek, one-haif ~
(1/2) of said setback, and except that pedestriaa openiags shali be provided in said ~ ~
~ walis where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highwaqs right-of-way line of an arterial ~
Aighway, Reasonabie landscaping shall,be installed in the uncemeated portioa of the
' arterial highway parkway the fuli distance of said wall. plans for said laadscaping ;
to Le submitted to and subject to the approval of the auperintendent of Parkway
Maintenance. Foxlowing installation and acceptaace, the City of Anaheim shall i
a~yume the responsibility for maitttenance of sai~d landscaping."
On roli cali the foregoing wotion was passed by the foilowiag vote:
;
pYHS: COhAlISSIONHR3: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungail~ Pebley, Yerry.
NOBS: COA9~lISSIONBRS: None.
ABSHNT: CaiNMISSIONBRS: Hapgood. •
ITBM N0. 2- Reclassification No..F-59-60-4, Assembly of God of Anaheim, P. 0. Box
148, Anaheim~ California. `
,
Zoning Coordinator, Martin Rseidt, advised the Commission that the above reclassi-
fication had origiaaliy been heard on 3eptember 8~ 1959, and was deferred for a
I review of plot plans; that subsequently, Tract No. 3562 was filed oa subjeet
~roperty,and was developed into a single family development; and that subject
1 petition for reciassification had never been acted upon or termiaated; and that he
necommended that the Commission take some action regardiag subject oetition. ~
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to recomaead ta the City Counc3l that
Reclassification No. P-59-60-4 be terminated due to use of property being developed in-
to single family homes instead of the requeated reciassificatio.n from R.A, Residential
pgricultural, Zone, to C-1, Neighbazhood Commercial, Zone. Commissioner Mungall
~
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD.
ITBM NO. 3- Anaheim Union High School District Proposed High School Site No. 5,
located at the aorthwest corner of La Paima and S~ate College Boulevard.
Zoning Coordinator~ Martin Breidt~ reviewed the area for the Comniasion and stated
that the Advanced Planning group of the Plaaning nepartment reviewed sub;ect area ~
sad noted that it ~id not conflict.with the proposals of the.Preliminary General
Pian; that an exis,ting dedicatioa oa that corner appeared to iudicate a service
station,although there apparently:was no iequest pending for such a permit; as.d that
the service station in close proximitq to a high school should be carefuily ,
considered 'since it was:not compatible with the use ia the asea.
,
Commissioaer Alired offered Resolution No. 499, Series 1962-63, and moved for ita ~
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to iafosm.the Anaheim Union
High School District.that the proposed addition to High School Site No. 5, would be
in accordance with the preliminaiy Geaeral Pian.
:;,~
4-.. ,, .. . . . .. . . . . . . .
~ , ' .
I~~y t
F . . ~ . , ' .
.~ . ~ ~ . ~ . . . .. ~ , .. . .
. .
.
-~
~
. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' .
P'.~i -~='
t~..l-1
:.. :rnT_?.T!tY ,
. ,
. . .
. . .
. . . - .. . ~ . . : . .~. . . .
~ . ~.~
-.-,.~ ~ ,
.,5' M :r.:~~~.. - " . ~ 1 ~ .. . . ~ ,
, , ~~ ~ ,-~~-~~, ., ,... .-:•:: / ~ ~"~'~~~ ^..~.y . ~. ,. . ~
..
. r,~:' r . ~..~. . `.r.., , ~._. ~. ,1 ; ... , r..il'~ . .. . ..;?~~; il~ .~..i': , ~~"'.~...,.~^^.`-. . ..
...:
_..~"'..~~...~-
~
. . . F.. . Ai .
. . ' .. ~ . /:~" , .
~ . ~ ~ •
k°
F~:
i ~~
~.'~
::,~
... . . ( -------~
. ~ ~ ~ • . ~ , ~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COI~II3SIO,Y, Septemtier 17, 1962, Continued: 1198
°~
RBPQtTS AND - On roll call the foregoing resolution wa$ passed bq the following vote:
RHCOMMENDATION3
• (Continued) AYES: COt~IISSI0N8RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall,
Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: CODMlISSIONBRS: None.
~ I ABSBNT: COMNII3SIONBR3: Hapgood.
f
j CORRBSPOPIDffiVCS - ITEM N0. 1- Letter from S. C. 11ine, 632 8outh Placentia Avenue~
~ AND MISCBLIANHOUS regarding zoning of State College Boulevard, south of
Santa Aria Street.
A letter from Mr. B. C. TY~ne tvas submitted to the Commission wherein a request for C-1
zoning of South State College Bouleqard ;elative to rezoning from the R-1, One Pamily
Residentiai, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, Simited to business and
professional office use oniq~ was requeated for all siagle family homes fronting State
College Boulevard south of Lincoln Avenue.
The Commisaion directed that a letter be submitted to the author iaforming him that
reclassificationa must be submitted by interested parties; and that if anq such
petitioning is contemplated, aerious conaideratioa be givea to the existence of private
deed restrictions limiting the use of the single famiYq homes to residentiai purposes
~ onlq; and that it would be desirable aad the deairability of reaoval of existiag
resideatial structures aad replacing them with commercial facilitiesj so that the highest
and best possible type of commercial development would be substituted for the existing
residential deveiopment.
Commiasioner Perry offered a motion to direct the Cotomission Secretary to advise
Mr. lhne of the above mentioned findiags of the Commission. Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITBM NO_ 2 ~'Conditional Use Permit No. 216. Sidewalks required on sub,ject permit for
Tastee Preeze on Ball Road.
Zoning Coordinator, Martin Breidt, advised the Commission that petitioner of Conditional
Use permit No. 216 had until Octuber 24, 1962, to instail sidewalks as a condition
under Conditional Use Permit No. 216; that a~3200 bond,f~r sidewalks was mailed to
Mz. Henrq, the petitioner, from the Right-of-Way Department oa May 8, 1962, which was
the standard practice; that the bond had not been returaed as of this date; and that a
close check should be kept on subject proper4y to inaure installation of sidewalks
which was adjacent to achool propertq on'Ball Road,
Commissioaer pebley informed the Commissioa that he would observe sub,ject property until
the date stated in order to insurp inatallation of subjec# sidewalks, and would inform
the Commission ~if aay progress was made toward iastallation of said sidewalks.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to hoid in abeqance any action oa Conditional Use
Permit No. 216 aatil the expiration of the 180 days. Commiasioner Alired seconded the
motion.- MOTION CARRIHD. ~ ~
ITBM NO. 3- Plaaning Commisaion Work Seasion, September 24~ 1962,
Planning Director, Richard Reese, suggested to:the Commission that they meet for a
work sesaioa at 5:00 A'Cloek P.M. on the evening of September 24, 1962. Ali Commissioners
were in agreement to said work seasion and asked the Commisaion Secretary to advise
.them the day of the work session.
i
~
`-~ , . , ?;'i ~+ .. . ,... : ; . ~_ ., r'.." ~ ; . .. . . ~r ~, ,. . " e a~ ., ..,~~ -
. ;: , .;~
~:: ; ~
..,
. ._.
. : . . _ _ _
. . ~ . , . yd~ . ... .
. ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ , • j '.~ ' ~ ~ •
~ r
1 ~'
~'". '
.._ . : :..
~ , F`~
. . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :
~
'; MINUTHS~ CITY PLANNING COi~lISSION. Septep~ber 17, 1962, Continued: 1194 ~~
,
I
.~ ADJpURNMSNT - There being no further business to transact, Commissioner Allred ~
offered a motion to adjourn the meetin~, seconded by Commission Pebley.
MOTION CARRIED.
• The meeting was adjourned at 4003 0'Ciock P.M.
- • Respectfully submitted,
. . C~~~' ~. ., " "
pNN KRHBS;`Secre ry
Anaheim Planning Commiasion