Minutes-PC 1962/10/01 AEGUTAR MBBTLNG OF T!~ ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING CQhQlISSION .
R~GULAR MHHTING - A Regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission w.xs
called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a~uorum
being present, i
pgggffilT I
- CHAIRMAN: Gauer. ~
COhAlISSI02~'BR:: Alired, Ca~p, Chavos, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley. 1
~
ABSHNT - COMMIISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Perry. ~
pRgSgNT - ZONING COORDINATOIt: Martin ~reidt.
DBPUTY ASSISTANT CITY ATTQtNHY: Purman Roberts. ;
COhAlISSION SHCRHTARY: Ann Srebs. ~
INVOCATION - Reverend John R. 9aville, pastor of St. Michaels Bpiscopal Church,
gave the invocation.
PLHDGB OF - Commissioner Mungall led the Pledge of Aliegiance to the Plag.
ALLHGIANCH
~ / '/
AYPROVAL OP - The Minutes of the meeting of , 1962, were approved with
MI~~ the following correction:
Page 1191, VARIANCB N0. 1523, Line No. 1, shouid read:
Mr. Clarence Meddock, one of the owners and agent for the petitioners.
Page 1194, on roli cali the following Commissioners names were
misspelled: Commissioner Marcoux, Commissioner Chavos,
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUHD PUBLIC tffiARING. 3TANDARD OIL of CALIPOttNIA, 605 West
PffitMIT N0. 266 Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles 54, California, Owners; P03THR and
RLBISHR, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 7, California,
Agent; requesting permission to build two SO feet by 25 feet steel
billboards on property described as: An irregular parcel of land at the southeast
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bea~:~ Boulevard, with a 200 foot frontage oa both streets,
and further described as 9012 Beach Boulevard. Propertq presentiy elassified es C-3,
HBAVY COhAtBRCIAL, ZONB. _
Subject ,etition was continued from the meetings of July 9, 1962, and September 5, 1962,
in order to allow the City Attorney's Office auff±Gient time to formulate the Bill-
board Ordinance.
2oning Coordinator, Martin Breidt. informed the Commission that the City Attorneq's
Office advised the Planning Department that the Sign Ordinance as requeated by the
C£ty Council would be completed in four weeks; and that it was recommended that
subjec~ petition be continued until the meeting of October 29, 1962. ~
Commisaioner Allred offered a motSon to coatiaue Petition for Conditional Uae Permit
No, 266, to the meeting of October 29, 1962, in order that the completed Sign
Osdinance could be received from the City Attorney~s Office. 'Commisaioner Marcoux
aeconded the motioa. MOTIG'N CARRIBD.
~ 1200 -
.~,-.1 W-:X ~k 7}~ liy.~ ' RH} ~1
:.. .. . ': " 1` .:y+~:.17~ fltR.._~:u;f%'s . 3~, ..t. ,.~ 1..+~v'E?-ti~.
J 0':
~[ ' ~ ~i~` , .
N . . `:~ ~, ' ' . .'y
'~
Ji,;.~..._...._.~~._ . - . . . t . F ~~picr : ' . . ~~ ~ ' .
~ ~~.. . . . ?. ~ $ ~.~ .
. ~. . . ~ . . . . . . ' ~ .
G '~.,~:.'~ . ~ ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . : . . . . .. . ~ . ' ,'
~ MINUTB3, CITY P7Ata1ING CONAlISSION~ Octotier l. 1962, Continued: 1201 •
.:` .
CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUHD PITBLIC HBARING, ROBBRT WASSHRMAN, 1123} Ba11e Vista,
PffitMIT N0. 293 Heverly Hills, Cal~fornia, Owner; LLOYD H. MWNT, 421 Bast Broadway,
, Aaaheim~ California, A~~g`eat; requeating permission to CONSTRUCT A
~IANNED UNIT DEVBLOPM$1$T, on propcrtp descr:bed as: A rectangular ~
~' par~el of land with a frontage of 971 feet, plus or ~ninus, oa the east side of 1Cnott •
` Avenue, and a depth of 612 feet, plus or minus~ the norlhwest coraer of said property
~• '~ beiag 378 feet, plus or minus, south of the southeast coraer of Lincoln and Bnott ~
~ Avenues. Property presentlq clasaified C-1, NHIQiBOdtH00D COU4!ffitCIAL~ ZONH. '
` 3ubject petition was continue3 from the meetings of Auguat 20, 1962, and September 5~ '
~
1962, ia order tc~ permit the petitioner an opportuaity to submit revised plot plans i ~
~ whieh would indicate street dedications through subject property. ~
i ~ ~
" . Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the audieace present to represent the
~'i' ` petitioner, and received no response. ~
~ The Commission viewed the plot plans as originally submitted and inquired of Zoning ' ~
! ~;
F Coordinatar Martin Kreidt, whether or not rerised plana had been submitted, and ~
~ Mr. Rreidt stated that none had been submitted bq the agent for the petitioner. ; ,
~ THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD. ' ;
~ _ ~ '
The Coamission discussed the possibility of sub,jeci petition beiag withdrawn if
~ revised plot plans met with the City Attorney~s Office approvai. ;
Commissioner Camp offered a motion ta reopea the hearing aad coatiaue Petition for ~
~ Conditional IIse Permit No. 293~ to the meetiag of October 29, 1962, in order to allow j
the petitioner time to present revised plans or to state his position ia subject
petition. Coom~issioner Muagall secoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD,
. ~
;
VARIANCH N0. 1523 - CONTINUHD PUSLIC HBARING. WILLIAM H. and AVARY C. DILI.qiY~ 1844
~ Haster.Street~ Anaheim, California, and CLARHNCB and RHBAL y
MHDDOCK, 1844 Haster Street~ Anaheim, Califoraia, Owners; CIARBNCS ;
MEDDOCIC, 1844 Haster Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permiseion to ; a
~. WAIVB PARRING 3TALL SIZB on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land at the ! ~~
~ southeast corner of Haster 8treet and $atella Avenue, with a 486 foot frontage on '
~ Ratella Avenue, and a 150 foot frontage on Haster Street, and further described.as ~
~ 100-220 Katella Avenue. Property preaently classified C-3, F~AVY COA9~lB1tCIAL~ ZONB, and
"r.. C-1, NBIGHBOitHO~ COhC~iffi4ICAL~ ZONS.
~ Subject petition was continued from the meetings of Septembe.r 17. 1962~ ~
f.
i n a r d er t o allow the petitioner an opportunity to confer with the traff3c
~ engineer on the optimum parking for the proposed devr.lopment, and to submit revised ~
x plot plans with a parking layout recommended.aad approved by the traffic engineer. ..
b~
~: ' Mr. Clareace Meddock, one of the owners and agent.for the petitioners~ appear.ed before ,
the Commiasion and atated that revised plot plaas had been submitted and had received
~ the approval of the traffic engineer; aad that he had nothing further to add for the
,,.. Commisaion's conaideration, but would be glad to aaswer questions..
Chairman Gauer inquired whether anyone in the audience opposed sub3ect petitioa~ and .
received ao replq.
1HH HBARING WAS CL0.3BD.
The Commisaion reviewed the revised plot plans.
C~mmisaioner Marcoux offered Resolutiop No. 500~ Seriea 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley to grant Petition for Variaace ,
No. 1523, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Hook).
; :o; ~:::':: i
i -': .
~ ,-... .~v..~ ..~.. _ ~,~-.
, . •.
~? ~._, , ,_ , , . ._~.t . . . ,..~. .. . . .. _ . . ......... . ........~
~ ~
~' :
.~( ~
~; 1
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COh4lISSION, October 1, 1962, Continued:
'.
.
1202
VARIANCB N0. 1523 - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
- (Continued) vote:
, . ,
AYE3: C~fISSI0N8RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NQBS: COD4~lI~SIONBRS: None.
AASHNT: CQMMISSIONSRS: Hapgood, Perry.
VARIANCS N0. 1524 - PUBLIC HBARING. HDWARD M. NHGRBTTB, 535 Revere Street, Anaheim, '
California, Owaer; DHB SCHAULIS, 1601 Sandalwood Aveaue, Costa '
Mesa, Califoraia, Agent; requesting permission to FIAIVE PRONT
YARD SHTBACK REQUIRBMENTS on property described as: A rectangniar parcel of land with ~
a 61 foot frontage on the west side of Revere Street, and a depth of 101 feet, the
northeast corner of said property being 1$5 feet south of the southwest coraer of
Charlestown Drive and 4evere Street~ and further described as 535 Revere Street, ~
Property presently classified R-1, ONB FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL~ ZONB,
i
Dee Schaulis, agent for the petitioner~ appeared before •'.~!e Commission and stated that several
other h~es in the immediate vieinity of subject property h:;l swimming pools in their
front yards, which had been granted under Variances; and that the petitioner~s lot was
too sma31 to construct the swimming pool in the rear of subject property,
The Commission noted that there would be a 10096 encroachment into the required rear yard
of subject property which would seem to be detrimental to ahulting properties to the
south and to the north.
1iiB HBARING WAS CI.0.4HD.
~
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 501, Seri~:s 1962-63, and moved for its ;•
passage and adoption, sec~aded by Commiasioner Camp, to deny petition for Variance No.
1524, based on findings, (See Resolution Book),
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; '
AYES: COhAfISSION~tS: Aiired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NaBS: COhafISSION~tS: None.
ABSBNT: COI~AlISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Perry. ;
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I~ffiARING. BILL BRBGDBR, 2135 West Ball Road, Aaaheim, Cali-
PffitMIT N0. 304 fornia, Owner; LH ROY ROSB, 1695 Crescent Street, pnaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A PIANNHD-UNIT DBYSLOpI~gN'p
on property deseribed as; p rectaagular parcel of land with a 270
foot frontage on the west side of Bmpire Street, and a depth of 188 feet, the northeast
corner of said property being 1S7 £eet south of the southwest corner of Ball Eoad and
Hmpire Stseet, and fuxther described as 1225 South Bmpire Street. Property presently
classified C-1~ NBIGHBQRHOOD C~IBRCIAL, ZOI~.
Chairman Gauer iaquired if there was aaqone in the audience to represent the petitioner,
aad received ao response.
The Commission reviewed t~te plot piaas and noted that the front elevation appeared to
have an attractive appearance; that type of materfals to be uaed were aot indicated;
that the propoaed location of the stairway would sequire a revisioa of floor plans ia
order to gaia access to the second floor of the atudio apartmenta; and that the propoaed
mul•tiple family development was to be constructed in a C-1, Neighborhood Commereial,
2one.
Chairman Gauer inquired if anyone iA the audience opposed subject petition, and
received no reaponse.
TH$ HHARING WPS ~rrOSBD. '
~: , . . _ . . . . _ : .~-~ , .,., .r.~ , ,.-~e
~
~
1 '
P. -
~.
~
MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING CO1~AtISSION; October 1, 1962, Continued: 1203
COPIDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 502~ Series 1962-63~
PSRMIT N0. 304 and moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner
(Continued) Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Petmit No. 304,
subject to coaditions: (See Resolution Boot).
On roll call_the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE5: COD4IISSIONBEtS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NQHS: CQhA~IISSIONHRS: None.
pS3BNT: CObA4ISSI0DffiR3: Hapgood, Perry.
CpNBITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. RICHARD and LUCY ANTliONY, 1200 West Ball Road,
pffitMIT N0. 305 Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permissioa to CONSTRUCT
STORB BUILDINGS on.propertq described as: A rectangular parcel of
laad with a 130 foot frontage on the south side of Ball Road~ and
a depth of 150 feet, the aorthwest corner of said propertq being 150 i::et east of the
southeast corner of Ball Road and West Street, and further described as 1050 West Bail
Road. Property presentiy classified R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULNRAL, ZONH.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, informed the Commission that through an oversite,
subject pe"tition had been received; that the proposed use would be in coaflict with
the Commission-Council Policy of the Disneyland Area; that the petitioner had
requested in writing permission to withdraw subject petition; and that the Planning
Director Richard Reese, had stated his intention of requesting a refund of the
filing fee from the Director of Pinance.
Chairman Gauer inquired if thexe was anyone in the audience to represent the
petitioner. and received no reply.
Chairman Gauer inquired if anyone opposed subject petition, and received no response.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
~~
~
~
~
I
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant the petitioner permission to withdraw Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 305, aad =ecommend to the City Council that the filing fee
be refunded to the petitioaer. Commissioner Marcoux seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONDITIONAI. U3B - PUBLIC HBARING. JAMBS W. NICHTBR, 1713 Popiar, Anaheim, Califoraia,
pERMIT N0. 308 Owner; JOI~IId D. VON DHR HEIDB~ 924 North Buciid Street, Anaheim,
Californiay Agent; requesting permission to HSTABLISH A CHILD
NURSBRY on property described as; A rectanguiar parcel of land at '
tfie northeast corner of Lincoltt AveAUe and Larch Street, with s 124 foot frontage on
Lincoin Aveaue and 65 feet on Larch Street, and further described as 102 Larch Street.
property presentiy classified R-1, ONB PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZOI~.
Mr. John 9on der Heide, agent for the pet3tioner appeared before the Commission aad
stated that he was aware of the practice of the Commission of reviewing properties being
heard by the Commisaion; that the neighbo=hood was no la~ger residential, but commerciai
development on three aides of, suSject propertq; that the proposed use would not
present a traffic or parking probiem; that he would be glad to answer any questions
the Commission might have.
Chairmaa Gauer inqu;red if there was any opposition to subject petitioa, and received
no reply.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
• J
~~ ~
~
f:' ~.
~ ~~ -
. . ... .
~
. . . ..
. ~ . . ~ - ..
' ,. ~ ......--:._....
/. ...._-~-------'--'---~--.-'-'..
~~~ . . .~ ' ~ ( 1 ~
V
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CQA4~tIS3I0N, OctoBer 1, 1962, Continued: 1204
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission inquired of the Secretary whethes or not the propertq
pBRMIT N0. 308 owner to the aorth.of s~b,ject property had been advised bq Legal
(Contiaued) Notice of the proposed uae, ahd was informed that they had been.
The Commission idquired of the agent for the petition, whether he
had received any opposition from the property ownera to the north, to which the agent
for the petitione; replied~ he had dot receit~ed or heard of any opposition.
Commiasioner Camp offered Resolutioa No. 503, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for it~5 passage
and adoption~ seconded bA Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for Conditionai Use
Permit No. 308, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book).
~n roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYB3: COt~PlISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NOB3: OOMMI3SIQI~iffitS: Chavos.
pBSENf; COh4fISSIONffitS: Hapgood, Perry.
Commissioner Chavos qualified his vote by stating that granting of subject petition
was in violation of good planning; and that the applicant was being given a privilege no
other homeowner in the area enjoyed.
RBCIASSIFIC,~lTION - PUBLIC F~AItING. PLORIHNH SANDBRSPBLD, 9621 Btookhurst Street,
N0. 62-63-27 Anaheim, California, Owner; ROEHRT W. MAC MAHON, 560 Crescent and
Euclid, California Pederal Savings Bank Bnilding, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia, Agent; =equesting that property described as: PARCffi. N0. l:
A rectangular pascel of land with a 56 foot frontage oa the south side of Orange Avenue,
and a depth of 325 feet, the northwest corner of said property being 180 feet east of
the southeast corner of Orange and Bnott Avenues. PARCHL N0+,2: A rectangular parcei
of land with a 92 foot frontage on the south side of Orange Avenue, and a depth of 325
feet, the northwest corner of said property being 236 feet east of the southeast
corner of Orange and Knott Aveaues, be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDENTIAL AQtICUL-
TURAL, 20NH, for Parcel No.l,to C 1,NBIGHBORHOOD COMN~RCIAI., ZONB; Farcel No. 2, to R-3,
MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, 20NH to expaad present commercial facilities and construct
a multiple family planaed-unit development.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditionai Use Pesmit No. 306.
Mr. Robert W. MacMahon, agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and
stated that his comments were for bo4h petitions, Reciassification No. 62-63-27 and
Conditional Use Permit No, 306; that he was sure the Commission was aware of e
reclassification approved sometime ago on the corner property; that the petitioaer now
requesta an approvai of revised plans for the deveiopment of the corner with an
additional S6 feet east of the east boundary of the commercial development; that it was
determ'Lned that a better and attractive development-could be obtaiaed with t~e
additioaal 56 feet; that a service station, cocktail lounge and restaurant were being
psopoaed as well as a multiple~family residential development; that the proposed C-1
uaes would be developed immedfa4ely, but that the muitiple family development would be
deferred for sometime; and that curbs aad gutters and improvements for the area had
already been installed; and that he was submitting revised plans for the propoaed
commercial develapment.
The Cormnission =eviewed and discussed the reviaed plans of the C-1 property submitted
by the agent for the petitioner.
The Commisaion noted that the elevation for the proposed apartmenta had not been
submitted; that the plot plans for t~e apartments Nere inadequate; that the petitioner
should submit side elevations and improve front elevations of the R-3 develflpment
sinee the elevatioae submitted seem incompiete; and that the elevations submitted on
the restaurant and cocktail lounge were identical to the origi.~xal plans submitted.
V
~
~; ~ MINUTBS~ CTiTY PIANNING CObAIISSION, OCtober 1, 1962, Continued:
C:
..~...`~....>.~..
~
~
1205 ~
~
RHCLAS3IPICATION - The agent for 4he petitioner admitted that the plans submit4ed were
N0. 62-63-27 not as completed as theq could have been; that the revised plans
(Continued) were identical to the proposed C-1 ,uildings to the west of subject
propertq; that it would tate considerable time to obtain the plans
for the R-3 developmeat; and that he did not anticipate that the
Commission would require a comglete layout of the proposed propertq.
including the corner propesty.
Mr. McMahos stated that the petitioner was desirous of obtaining the ;-1 reclassification
on the 56 feet adjoiniag previously rezoned proper#y adjacznt to sub~ect property.
The Commission statecl that a decision of any rezoning could not be made until precise
plot plans were submitted for the Commission's consideration. .
Chairman Gauez inquired if anyone in the audience opposed subject petition.
Mr. Charles Baumstark, 3427 West Orange Avenue, appeared before the Commission im
opposition to su~+ject petition and stated that in May of thi~ year, his ;.etition for
C-1 zoning for tht property on the north side of Orange Avenue, across the street from
subject property ~+as denied; that the proposed cocktaii lounge was not a proper use in
the area; and tha: to grant subject petition would discriminate against him.
blrs, Gwen Simpson, 3309 West Deerwood Drive, appeared befoxe the Commission in
opposition to subject petition and stated that as a representative of the Westridge
Homeowners Association, she opposed the proposed cocktail lounge as being an iacompatible
use; that with saany children having to pass the proposed cocktail lounge to and from
schooi every day wnuld not create u compatible enviroament fos the children; that oniq
two high schools, two churches and an apartment exis#ed in the area; and that the use
v~ould not be a compatible use in the area.
It waa noted by the Commission that the Junior High school to the west of Rnott Avenue
on Orange Avenue was less than 600 feet £rom the proposed cocktaii lounge on aubject
property; that by ~ranting subject petition for reclassification would reduce the R-3
area and could possiblq present a hardship case to the petitioner u~on possible
construction of the R-3 development; and that the Commission would like to see complete
revised plans which would show all elevations for R-3 and comp'~ete C-1 plot plans.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission stated that for clarificatian for Mr. Baumstark's statement that grant-
in;~ subject petition would be discriminating a~ainst him since his property on the
nn=theast corner of Knott and Orange Avenues had been dPaied, stated that a Commission
su=vey had been macle which indicated that the area could not serve any more commerciai
developmeat, therefore, his petition had been denied~ and that no discrimination
w as intended by this deaial. .
Commissioner Pebley offered a motiosi to reopen the hearing, and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 62-63-27 to the meeting of October 15, 1962, in order that the
petitione= might subait a compiete set of plans and elevations for both the R-3 and
C-1 =equc~st; and tbat if two-story eonstructioa were des3red on the R-3, that a
Variance would havc to be filed to waive said single story requirement within 150 feet
of lt-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone property. Commissioner Alixed seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITI4:7AL USB ^ PUBLIC }~ARING. PLORIHN,3 SANDHRSPHLA~ 9621 Srookhuzst Street~
pffitMIT N0. 306 Anaheim, California, Ownes; RODHRT b4.C MAHON, 360 Crescent and
Buclid, California Pederal Saviags Bank Huiid+n<;, Anaheim~ Cali-
forn.:.a, Agent; requeating permission to CQNST•::' '.: A RBSTAURANT~
COCgTAIL.LOUNGB, snd SBRVICE STATI~i oa property described as: , N0. 1: A rec-
,. OC ,
tangular parcel of land with a 56 foot frontage on the sou4h sid .:~.nBe Avrnue,
and a depth of 325 feet, the northwest cornes of saa.d property :. ~~ 18Q f.eet eagt of
'.3 ~ the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Rnatt.Avenue. P:~ltCBL ,..~. 3; A rectaaguiar
parcel of property at the southeast corner of Oraage and Rnott Av~nuea, with a 325
,.. • I foot frontage on ¬t Avenue, and 180 feet on Or~tnge Avenae.
s..
~ -
F
~ ,.
~
MYNUTBS, CITY PLANNING COAA4ISSION, October 1, 1962, Continued; 1206
CONDITIONAL USH - Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRTCULTURAL, 20NB.
PBRMIT N0. 306
(Continued) Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No.
62-63-27.
Mr. Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioner, anpeared before the Commissi~n and
stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission~s consideration, other than what
was said for Reclassification No, 62-63-27.
Mr. Charles Baumstark, 3427 West Orange Avenue, appeared before t:ie Commission and
stated that his previous statements on Reclassification No. 62-63-27 were applicable to
subject petition, in his opposition to subject petition,
Mrs. Gwen Simpson, 3309 West Deerwood Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated
that her statements of opposition to Reclassification No. 62-63-27 were applicable to
subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No.
306 to the meeting of October 15, 1962, in order that it might be heard with Reclassifi-
cation No. 62-63-27, at which time revised plot plans wouid be presented. Commissioner
Chavos seconded the moticn. MOTION CARRIHD.
RHCIASSIFECATION - PUBLIC HBARING. PSTITION INITIATHD BY THH ANAHBIM CITY COUNCIL,
N~. 62-63-28 ResoXution No. 62R-'775, proposing that pxoperty described as:
A, zer.tangular pascel of land with a 660 foot frontage on t~e south
side of Lincoln Avenue, and a depth of 600 feet, the northwest
corner of said property being 659 feet east of the southeast corner of Gilbert 3treet
and Lincoln AvenUe, arid further described as 2310 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified
from the R A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTIJRAL, ZONH, to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB~
to establish an existing nonconforming use as a conforming use.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 307.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was a representative of the Gemco property in the
Council Chamber and received no zesponse.
2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, reviewed subject petition and the property for the
Commission know'_ng that subject property was classified in tlxe County as C-1 zone before
annexation to the City of Anaheim,
Two letters of opposition, one from the Cornelia Connelly School, 2323 West Broadway,
was read to the Commission, and the other from Mrs. Blizabeth Ralston and Morris Carroll,
P. 0. Box 364.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission reviewed the pictures of the area of subject property and their
observation of subject ocaperty on the field trip in the morning,. and that according to
Che preliminar'y General plan, property located to the east of subject' property was
projected for low-density single family residential development.
Commi~sioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 504, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-28 be approved subject te conditions.
(See Resolution Book).
The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meetiag and were
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property i~,i order to preserve the
safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim,
~ . .... . :
i
_ . _ . ___ _.___ ~_--_._. ...
~
~ V
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 1, 1962, Continued: 1207
RHCLAS3IFICATION - On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
N0. 62-63-28 vote:
(Continued)
AYBS: COhA~IISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NQBS: COhAtISSI0N9RS: None,
ABSBNT: C01~lISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Perry.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. PBTIiION INITIATHD BY THB ANAHBIM CITY COUNCIL,
pBRMIT NO. 30? 204 8ast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, requesting that a
SSRVICE STATION AND USHD CAR LOT BS ESTABLISHSD as a conforming use
on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a 65C
foot frontage on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a depth of 600 feet, the north-
west corner of said property being 659 feet east of the southeast corner of Gilbert
Street and Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2310 West Lincoln Avenue. Froperty
presentiy classified R-A, RESIDHNTIAL AGRICULNRAL, ZONH.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-28.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, advised the Commission that subject petition had aot
bee~ cuwplately advertised, and that the on-sale of beer was not stated on the legal
noticesp and that it was suggested that the Commission continue hearing of subject
petition to the meet?ng of October 15, 1962, in order to allow the Planning Department
time to readvertise subject petition.
Two letters were received in opposition to subject petition. one from the Cornelia
ConnelYy School, 2323 West Broadway, and Mrs. Blizabeth Ralston and Morris Carroll,
P. 0. Box 364, Aaaheim, California,
Commisaioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use pennit Ne.
307 to the meeting of October 15, 1962, in order to allow the Planning Departm~nt time
to readvertise subject petition to include the on-sale of beer on subje.:t prop~erty.
Comarissionez Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
RHCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. PSTITION INITIATBD BY THB ANAHHIM PLANNING ~
N0. 62-63-29 COMMISSION, 204 Bast Lincoln .lvenue, Anaheim, California,
proposing reclassification ~f pxoperty described as: Lot N~~s. 95,
97, 98, 100, 101, 102 of Tract No. 1565, located on the southwest comer ~
of Lincoln Aveaue and State College Boulevard, and further described as 223, 227, 305,
315, 321, and 327 South State College Boulevard from the R-1, ONB PAMILY RSSIDHNTIAL, I
ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONS. ~
Chairman Gauer reviewed the Commission's in3tiation of subject petition covering six
lots on State College Boulevard between the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning for ,
dthes single family homes an!~ the psopesties adjacestt to aaid commercial properties.'
i
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposed or affected i
by subject petition and received n~ reply. .
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No.
62-63-29 to the meeting of November 26, 1462, and requested that the Planning Departmen*
prepare a study covering.the entire commercial frontage on the west side of State
Coliege Boulevard between Lincoln Avenue and Santa Ana Street to consider the proble~
of rezoning single i'amily residences into commesciai uses with the possibility of
removal of the structures, revamping them and the possibie amendment of the Ordinaace
covering the presently C-1 zoned properties to be inciuded in this study. Commissioner
Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 3;55 P.M.
rc a.~.' ~.~a~ ~
~ I
I
~
.
~ „_ ~_„ _ __._,..~.,~.~.._.,, -----•,-k
. .. ,~------
, . . . .. •
~ , , _ _,.._ . . . _.. . _.
~. . ~.. . .. . . . .
U
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 1, 1962, Continued: 1LUts
RHCLA3SIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. PHTITION INITIATSD BY THH ANAHBIM YIANNING ,
N0. 62-63-30 COhUlIS3ION, 204 Bast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, propes- ~I
ing reclassification of property described as; (1) Those
properties lying on the north and south sides and aloag Orangethorpe i
Avenue extending from Lemon Street to Bast Street; (2) Those p=operties iqing on the I
east side of and along Lemon Street extending from a point approximately 227 feet
northerly of the centerliae of Commercial Street to the aortherly City Limits; C3) Those
properties lying on the west side of and along Bast Street fzom La Palma Avenue to the
northerly City Limits; and (4) Those properties Zying on the north side of La Faima
Avenue extending f:rom Pauline Street to Bast Street from the P-L Pa=king-Landscaping,
Zone to the M-1, ?.ight Manufact~s ing and M-2~ Heavy Manufacturing, 2one.
2oning Coordinatur Martin Kreidt, reviewed the need for the change of subject properties
stating that a portion of the Code required a 60 foot setback for P-LBLesein theepgL~he
City was requiring a 50 foot setback area with a 20 foot landscaping
Parking Landscaping, Zone portion of the Code; that subject reclassification would
present a uniform requirement of the P-L, Pazking-Landscaping requirement in the manu-
facturing areas abutYing it; and that the pre-zoning of property without the require-
ment of street dedication to the ultimate width anl the installation of street improve-
ments prior to the development of the area created many problems which are evident ~
within the area of subject property. ~ ~
i
The Commission noted that the area north of the Riverside Preeway on the east side of
Lemon Street along Industry Avenue was entirely M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zone.
Chairman Gauer asked if there was any propertq owners adjacent to or a part of the
sub,~ect property proposed for reclassification in the Council Chamber who wouid like
to speak.
Mr. Lou Herbst, of Herbst Bros., 1730 North Lemon Street, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the P-L, Parking Landscaping Zone was very important; that
it was necessary for many reasons including the beautification of the indus4rial area;
that the setback reduction from 60 feet to 50 feet was not too important siace a11
plants were required to setback a certain distance, but he fe2t that the City was o•;er
emphasizing the landscaping requirement since the cost of industr..ial property presently
wss becoming a major factor in developing more in Anaheim; that more coasideration
should be given when the new Ordinance was adopted to compietely aad thoroughlq
investigate and evaluate the requirements of ±he landscaping zoi~; and that it was a
necessary thing but he felt that the City should be reasonable ii, its reqirements fo~
considerably more setback~ since many cars could be parked in the a=•ea if ~~2~ ten (10)
fee# were required, thus relieving the streets of an over abundance oi parked cars
surrounding an industrial facility, but still beautifying the industriai Facilit~.
Three letters were read to the Commission indicating no opposition to the proposed
change in the P-L, Parkiag Landscapiag, Zone.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolutioa No. 505, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to recommend to the City
Council that the area t,ounded on the no=th by U=angethorpe Avenue, on the east by
Hast 3treet. on the west by Pauline Street incorporated in the M-1 and M-2, Light and
Heavy Manufacturing, Zoaes; that the P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zone be reduced from a
60 fccot setback with 25 feet for landscaping to a 50 foot setback and 20 feet for
landscapiag, with the ten (10) feet remaining to be reverted to M-1, Light Manu-
facturing ~nd M-2, Heavy Manufacturing. 2ones whichever zone is in uae adjacent to it.
Oa roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bp the foilowing vote:
AYH3; COhU~lI33I01~ffiEtS: A?.lred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, MnaBail, Pebley.
ppgg; COh4~lISSIOI~BRS: None.
pggBNP: CfllrQ~IISSIONAItS: Chavos, Hapgood, Perry.
i ~~ ~
~
~ `~ ,..
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 1; 1962, Continued: 1209
RBCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC F~A1tING. M(RTHN M, and MAUDB A. DIZi~ffiY, c/o Harry M.
N0. 62-63-31 Halstead, Attorney at Law~ 617 3outh Olive, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, Owners; CHIP CHASIN, 1801 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa,
California, Agent; requesting that property described as; An
L-shaped parcel of land r~ith a frontage of 313 faet on the south side of C,L1 Road, and
a depth of 660 feet, the northeast corner of said property being 406 feet west of the
centerline of Dale Street be reclassified from the R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, 20NB
to the R-3, MULTIPLH FAMILY RESIDBNT7AL~ ZONH to construct Garden-type apartments.
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Petit3on for Conditional Use Permit No.
309.
Mr. C6ip Chasin, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the plot plans as submitted complied with all the zoning Code requirements;
that a one-story developmerrt was contemplated; and that he would be glad to answer any
questioas the Commission might have.
The Commission iaquired of the agent for the petitioners what he intended to do with
the "not a part", to which Mr. Chasin replied that he contemplated constructing a
convalescent hospital; and that he did not have plans for it available Lo submit to the
Commission.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone ia the Councii Chamber opposing
subjec4 petition, and received no response.
Tf~ F~ARING WAS CL0.SBD.
The Commis~ion noted on the preliminary General Plan that subject property was
projected for 1ow medium density residential development providing 18 units per net
residential acre.
The Commission discussed the definition of a net residential acre, whether it included
the streets in a development or whether streets svere omitted in the calculation of the
net acreage.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 306, Series 1962-63, aad moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-31 be approved subject to conditions.
(See Reaolution Book).
The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prerequiaite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim,
Commissioaer Chavos returned to ttsc Council Chamber at 3;00 P.M.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin•g vote:
AYffi: CObAfIS8I01VffitS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux~ Mnngall, Pebley.
NOHS: COhAlISSIONBRS: None.
ABSHiVT: CONAIISSIONSRS: Hapgood, Perry.
AH3TAIN: COhA4IS3I0N~tS: Chavos.
CONDITI~: ,L USE - PUBLIC F~ARING. MORTEN M. ar3 IdAUDS A. DIZNBY, c% Harry M, Halstead,
PffitMIT N0, 309 617 Sauth Olive, Los Angelea, California, Owners; CHIP CHASIN, 1801
Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, Califoraia, Agent; requesting per-
miasion to CONSTRUCT A PIAIaiBD-UNIT DBYBIAPMENT on property described
as: An L-ahaped parcel of land with a frontage of 313 feet oa the south side of Bail
Road, anfl a depth of 660 feet, the northeast corner of said property being 406 feet west
of the cen~erline of Dale Street. Property presently classified R A, RBSIDBNTIAL
AQtICULTUML, ZONR.
. _,
6 ~ _____,~~_____~ _
~, _ _ ...."' , ~ -"'_ _ . ~ ~....
~'
/
~ ~'~
~
€' -
~,
. . . ,.
~
,
~
~; .
~ _
~
F~ MINUTBS, CIT3f PLANNING COD4~lISSION, October 1, 1962, Continued:
:" ~'•
~, ~
~
1210
CONDITIONAL US8 - 3ubjec# petitioa tKas filed in conjunction with Reclassification
PBRMIT N0. 309 No. 62-63-31.
(Contittued)
Mr. ~hip Chasin, agent for the petitioners ~tppeared before the
Commission aad sfated that he had nothing €arther to add ior the
Commission's consideration than was recited in the Petition for Reclassificatioa No.
62-63-31.
C~mmissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 507, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commiss3.oner Mungall, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 309, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book).
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pusaed by t,~e following vote:
AYES: COAAlISSION~tS: Ailred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NQBS: COAAfI33I01VSRS: None.
AHSTAIN: CQI~AlISSIONBRS: Chavos.
AHSENT: COihH~lIS3IONBItS: Hapgood, Perry.
Cormnissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 3:09 P.M.
RBANALYSIS OF THB - Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to direct the
,g$BLIMINARY GHNERAL PLAN P1aAning Department to make a reanalysis of the preliminary
General Plan of the existiag proposed zones on the south
side of Bal.1 Road between Dale Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Commissioner Alired
seconded the motion: MOTION GIRRIHD.
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. JUFIId D. CIAUSSHN, 9912 South 3tate
N0. 61-62-123 College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owaer; FRBDRICB.S DBVBLdP-
M~VT CQMPANY, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Puilerton, California,
Agent; requesting that property described as: PARCSL N0. 1: An
L-shaped parcel of land, with a frontag~ of 374 feet on the east side of State College
Boulevard and 395 feet on the north side of Bal1 Road abuttiag Parcel No. 2 on the
north and east; attd PARCBL N0. 2; A rectangular parcel of land 872 feet plus or minus,
by 250 feet plus or minus~ at the northeast corner of State College Houlevard and
Hall Road, with a froatage of 872 feet on Hail Road, and further described as 9912
South State College Boulevard, be reclassified from the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL A(~tICULTURAL,
ZONB to the R-3, MUI ZPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ ZONH for Parcei No. 1, and C-1~ I~IGHBQR-
HOOD COI~AtBRCIAL, ZONls for Parcel No. 2 to permit the establishment of one-story muitiple
family residential development and commercial facilities.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of June 25, 1962 and July 23, 1962, in
order to permit the Petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans as auggested by
the Commission and for the P1a:ming Department to readvertise Parcel No. 2 from
Heavy Commereial, Zone to Neighborhood Commercial, 2one.
Mr. Henry A. Pxedricks, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission acd
stated that complete revised plans and elevations had been submitted to the Pianning
Department; that 81,000 square feet were proposed for commerciai use with a drug atore,
variety store, market and a hardware store being projLcted; that 450 parking spaces wese
provided in accordance with Code; that a six (6) foot masonry wall was proposed for con-
structioa separatiag the multiple family development from the commerciai de~elopment;
that the multiple family development would all be single story garden type apartmEnta;
that a six (6) foot masonry wall and a twenty (20) foot alley would separate the
multiple family development from the aingle family reaidential development to the north;
~
~~!
~:~'_.
~,
~
~ _
~ ;-
r ._i~r ~:
I
~
i.
, ' .
i
7
~
~. ~
~
~ .
~
~.,:
~.`
V
MINUTBS, CITY P111NNING COhAiISSION, October l, 1962~ Cont3nued: 1211
RHCIABSIFICATION - that the corner on which subject property wa.s located is a heavily ~
N0. 61-62-123 traveled major iatersection; that the proposed development would not ;
(Continued) conflict with the property within 300 feet of subject property; that i
the ar.ended plans were amended to coincide with the planning study
of the area; and that tHe proposed deveiopment would increase the
value of the adjacent homes siace there had been an increase in demand for homes in
close proximity to a shopping center.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subjeet
petition, and 20 persons stood up in opposition.
Mr. Hazry Hyman~ 1114 Groveland Place, representiag the persons opposing subject
petition, appeared before the Commission and stated that he represented almost 1,000
members of an Bast Anaheim homeowaer aseociation; that the organization wanted to
present a logical well-thought out argument which would not aeem like a pressure group;
t•hat the feelings of the homeowners was based on what they had read in the newspaper;
that another surve~ by a iocai firm indicated that the vacancy factor of apartmeats in
Orange Ccunty was rapidly increasiag; that the need for shopping facilities at the
proposed 2ocation was considered undesirable by the homeowners; and that the res3dents
of the Hast Anaheim area were sincereiq interested ia keeping Bast Anaheim a residential
area.
Mr. Fredricks, in rebuttal, stated that the shopping area would be easily accessible to
people in the Hast Anaheim area as well as thoae immediately adjacent to subject
property.
1HH HBARING WAS Q.QSHD.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans further and noted that shake roofs were propoaed
for the multiple family development; that the Commissioa had spent a great deal of time
in study sessions to resolve the problems that might arise for the East Anaheim area;
and that it was the consensus of opinion that the projected use for subject property
was the most reasonable and logical one.
The Commission inquired of the petitioner if the Commercial area would be developed
before or at the same time as the multiple family~~development; triat it was the desire
of the Commissian that the commercial facilities be rieveloped before the multiple family
development; and :hat deed restrictions should be filed which would limit tha use of
the commercial area for neighborhood commercail use ottly.
Commissionex Mungall offered Reso,lution No. 508~ Series 19b2-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-123 be approved snb3ect to conditions.
(See R~solution Book).
The conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were =ecited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve the
safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYHS: COhMI3SI0N~tS: Alired, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley.
NOBS: COI~AiIS3I0NBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COhAlISSIONBRS: Camp, Hapgood, Perry.
TBNTATIVS MAP OP - DBVBLOPBR: PRBDRICRS DHVBLOPME.'VT COMPANY, 525 West Commonwealth
1RACT NO. 4757 Avenue, Pullerton, California. HNGINSBR: DAN W. HBIL~ 120 South
Orange Avenue, Fullerton~ California. Subject tract is located on
the east side of State College Boulevard, aozth of Sall Road and
contains 40 proposed R-3,,Maitipie Pamily Resideatial,'Zona lots and one C-3, Heavq
Commercial, Zone lot.
~ ~
~. .
~ ~ ~
.
-
'_.
~
'- !
~
_
r
"--
,
~ ~ ,~ .
"~-.- .. _.. . _ . _ =~_
~
;
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CONA1Ia5ICN~ October l, 1962, Continued: 1212
TBNTATIVB MAP OP - Subject tract was filed in Conjunction with Reclassification No.
TRACT N0. 4757 61-62-123,
(Continued)
Subject tract was continued from the ineetings of June 25~ 1962,
and Julq 23, 1962, in order to permit the developer an oppor-
tunity to submit revised tentative map.
Mr, Henrq Predricks, agent for the developer appeared before the Commission and
stated that Revision No. 4 had been submitted for the Commission's consideration, which
indicated a reduction of 6 lots ~ich aze now px~oposed fa~ svbdivision into 33 R-3~
Multipie Pamily Residential~ Zone. lots and one C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, lot.
The Commission noted that two side streets sarrounding the L-shaped group of proposed
R-3 lots were to exit to "A" Street, which was the only change from ttte previous
Tentative Map submitted.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4757,
subject to the foilowing conditions:
1. Development substantiaily in accordance with Revision No. 4 of Tentative Map of
Tract No. 4757 as preseated October 1, 1962, for the•Planaing Commission's review.
2. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-123.
Commissioner Mazcoux seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
Chairman Gauer left the Couacil Chamber at 5:15 P.M.
Commissioner Mungall replaced Chairman Gauer as Cheirman Pro Tem.
Cormnissioner CamN returned to the Council Chamber at 5:20 P.M.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ZTI~N NOe 1
PLANNING 3TUDY - Assistant Planner Ronald J. Grudzinskl, nreseated Planning 3tudy
i~iJ. 54-50~2 No. 54-50-2 to the Planning Commission as follows:
BJ1CRQt0UND
On August 21, 1962, the Anaheim City Council direct°d the Planniag Department to
prepare Planning Study No. 54-SO-2. 'Ihe Study concerns a parcel of land located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of South Buclid Street and the Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way. App•roximately one-third (1/3) of the Studq Area is under a
3outhern California Hdison powerline easement. The area under the easemeat is,
consequently, unusable for physical structures.
9ecause of the fact that the land cannot be utilized completely for a homogenous type
of development, the proposals which have been made for development of the property have
been of a charactei which woulti cohYorm to the'existing Qhqaical deveiopment trends
evident in the area.
As a result of the numerous development•proposals for the property which have been
reviewed bq both ~he Planniag Commission and the City Couneil, the Council felt that
the Planning Department and Mr. John Wright, the owner of the subject property, should
cooperatively determine a development proposal which would allow Mr. Wright the higheat
and best use of his property and at the same time embody the goais and objectives of
the Anaheim ~eneral Plan.
TY,e tool which wouid aecomplish this is Planning Study No. 54-50-2. Said Planning
Study has beea prepared and the resui.ts are as follows:
~ ~
__.
_~.,..._. ~ _. _ _..._.__ ______ _ -- -- - --
-. .~__ ._
,, . . , . , -----*----
, , . . , r
~"
_
, . ~ . .~. ..._ : . . :.....::.._ . ,._:_
: , ,.. ~
_ ~
~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COi~AlI83ION, October 1, 1962, Cnntinued:
\
pLANNING 3TUDY - PINDINGS
. N0. 54-50-2
~Cc+ntinued) 1. The 3tudy Area is located at the northeast corner of t'ne inter-
section of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and
;,i
`' I
~
~`w
. , J-... ~~~
Euclid Street in the southern pa=t of the City.
2. The Study Area is approximately 19 acres in size a~ is flat, airaining ia a south-
westerly direction.
3, The Studq Area is bouaded on the west, narth, and east bq low-density single family
residential land.
4. The southern boundary of the Study Area is formed by the Southern Pacific Railr:~ad
right-of-way.
5. Directly south of the Studq Area, across the railroad right-of-way, is a larEte
orange grove. This orange grove is flanked on the east, south, and west by
primarily low densitq, single familq, r~sidential land.
6. The residential structures north, east, and west of the Study Area are ~f a hlgh
quality arad represent an area of good residential homes.
7. The Study Area is presently used for orange groves.
8. Property to the north, east and west of the Study Ar.ea is presently zoned R-1, low
density, Single Family Residential.
9, property directly south of the Study Area is zoned R A, Residential Agricultural.
10. At the intersection of Buclid Street and Katella Avenue, both the northeast and
northwest corners of the intersection are zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commerciai, Zone,
and are presently being used for retaii sales and services.
ll. 'Che 3tudy Area, as well as the land surrounding it, has been proiPcted for low
density~ single family, residential development as part of the Anaheim Ge~.era1 ~~:::~!.
12. Th2 pruperty within the Study Area has access to a primary highway, E~iclid Street.
This is the~only access available to the proper4y, because there are nc, stuo straets
in existence from adjacent properties.
13, Residential lots directly nor2h of the Study Area have been deveioped using a lot
depth of 80-85 feet.
14. The trend of developmeat aloag the powerline easement has beea to back residential
homes up to the easement without utilizing the laid withiu the easement for any
complementary purpose,
15. The eastern-most triangular part of the Bdison powerline easement at the southern
end of the Study Axea is owned in fee by the 3outhern California Bdison Company.
CONCLUSIONS•
Based on the above findiags, the following has been determined:
1. The Study Area is in a section of the Citq whicn ia of a Sow density, Single
Familq Residential character. The existing land use and development trends in the
area indicate that the Study prea ahould be pro3ected for Single Pamily Residential,
developmeat and developed at a density of 5.8 dwelling units per net residential
acre to insure compatibility.
. ~::+ ~ .. . _....,. , . , . .. i ' . . . _ , „ ~
I
. ... .:..._ . _.._._..'- _ ___"_
~
I
!
a
MINUTBS~ CITY PTANNING COM'KISSION, Jctotrr l, 1~6~, Continued: 1214
p~,7~'s ;;i;ipY -- CONCLU3ION3 (Coacin~aed;
N0. 54- .".'~'-%~ `
<Continued) 2. The v:.::ant lan'1 ~.r,vier the 8dison Company gtrrrerlinea shouid be
put Co sor.e use ~'aich wo~ld compliment the d~evelopment which has
taten place adjacr.ni to Ehe powerline ease~°,t.
RBCOt+A!ffi~DATIONS -
1. Thr Study Area shauld bE develope~l substantially ia.~3ccordance with Br~iibit 'Ia, 3;
i.e., as a low den.sity, Siagle Frtmily Resideatiai araa.
2. The property within the tr~u*idary of the Edison Co~mpany powerlice easement shc~'.d be
COII9i3E~~~ as the loc.:t~~.~ of a. private recreatian area, ~ompii~nentary to ariyerent
de.velopm:n:,, or'some typc of borticultural use.
3. Bue to the ownarsnip situati~n of the Hdison Company powerline, i! is felt tha# a
development recommeadation is unwarranted and that any developaent which does take
place should be initiated 'ny the Southern California Bdison Company.
The Commission further discussed the area and the Bdiso:n poweriiae easement on the
southerlq four acxes o£ s~:bject proper*~~ ef Reclaseific.ation No. 61-62-131 which
was denied by the Commistion; that t.~ v~oject property could be develoFzd io: low
deusity multiple family development; ':~iat subjeet pro~esty r.~as in r.lose proximity'to a
sinp,ie family residential ar.ea; and cn~t the Commiss3~r: proj~cted the subject prflaez*.y
for ~ingie familq de`;elopment ~~ntil plans for the deveiopn:ent for the easement a:~a
p~op~rty on the ae~th-of ai<nject pzoperty could be reso3:~Qd.
.Qa.e.~.rt.m~~,.~ ~ (IL ~-'t~t-6'~'v
Cammissionei Marcoux offe.red a macio,. to accept Planninti Study No. 54-50-2, F.,chib3t
N•. 3~.s p~ °sented te thr, Co~+~'~_u<,;;~on~ und to recommend Lo the City Council. that
p. •n~;: ,:':v u~nder Petition for Rccla;.siEication No. 61-62-IZ1 i~, r.ezontd fRr R-1, One
Pe,vally Residentia]., Zone unti:L the pe ioner re eni:s pian3 for the d~evelopment for
the easemer.t and ihe pr.uperty on the portiun of suhject property.
Commissioa:r Allred seconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIIID.
ITItM N0. 2- CONJITIONAL USS PBRMIT N0. ~99
I JOSHF~:i H. and ldARIB PACRBR, 1145 Narth We3t Street, .:.naheim~ Cali-
fornia, Ow~~rs; LYNN H. 'THOMSBN, 1658 M.~lk T_ac;e, A~aalaeim, California,
~ Agent; r.°~uesting persiasion #o coast~uct s two-story olanned-unit
developmeut at 1145 North West 3icreet.
Sub3ert pptiii~n ~vas granted by 4he Commisdion 3eptember 17. 19F2.
Zoaing Coor~inat~r Martiu Breid4, inforred the Co~nission th:: the ngent fcr th.~.
petitioners was i:a the C.ouncil t~-a!aber to exp]ain the rees^.s for sutmisaion of revised
plans in connectian witli sub3ect petition.
Mr. Ly~nn B. Thoms~n, ageat f~r :,`.~ petitionere, appeared before the Commission aad
stated tha± since the submissior. of the original p]ot plaa.s,wherein aubterrean garages
were proposed; bi.~'s had been received for th~ Gevelopm~n+c and it was determined that
the :ost of cc~s:~cructioa uf the originally propoaed ~3evelopment was economically
imprr~ctjcal; r_*!~ that h~ was also not satiafied wi;h the elevation of the building
because h~ felt tha4 it was not in Ire~ping with the type of structure he desired.
The Commir~sion :eviewed the reviaed plot plans noting the change in elevatiuna to the
iront of the proposad stractuses and the location of the garages.
Commi~;siar.er Alired ~~ffered a motion to approve seviaed plans for Petit3oa for
Conditionel Use Perrait No. ZS^ as~submitted. Commisaioner Camp seconded the motion.
MOTIOt: fJIRRIBD.
\
,\
~
~
~
.
_.
-. ..~
~
01'~'-
, i
y~~.'
:: ., ..
~.
. ..~.^...
. .
~
~.~ .` --~'~ , .
-
..:
- ,. ' . • , .
, e,
.
.
~, ~ .. ..~ , _
. . ~~:
,
.
_ . ;:~ ....
-
;.. ~. ~ - ~'.:
. . ., r.1
...
.~ -..~. ~.
. . , . , . .~r'
;
,
i~ ~ : .
. ,.
_ .. .
~...-~ .r.
.
.
~'.,
~' '
~~
~J
MINUTBS, CITY t~LANNING C01~AlISSION, October 1, 1962, Continued:
1~15
RBPatTS AND - ITBM N0. 3
RHCOD41&1DATIONS '
CContinued) Reclassification No. 62-63-14 and Condit3onal Use P~rmit No. 281,
Rayco Investment Companq. Multiple Pamily Planned-Uait Develment m
the south aide of Orangewood Avenue, 1030 feet east of Haster Street,
2oniLg Coordinator Martin Sreidt, reviewed fo'r the Cotomisaioa the request of the City
Coun~il for a recommendation from the Plartaing Comwissioa oa revised plaas submitted by
the petitioner of Reclassificatioa No. 62-b3-14 and Cattditionai Use Permit No. 281.
The Commission reviewed the reviaed plarts. It was,noted that the plans called for an
increase of 8 units to the original plot plaus in which 112 units were proposed; that
two-story conatruction was proposed within 150 feet of R A, ResiQential pgricultural,
Zone, and that the Commission had not denied subject petitiotts previ~usly because of the
plot pians which had be~n originally submitted.
Commissioner Camp offered a motiua to inform the City Councii that Petitions for
i2eclassification No. 62-63-14 r.•3 t;onditional Use Permit No. 281 found upon review of
the revised plot plans regarding aub,ject petitions the following:
1. That snbject property was projected on the Preliminary General Plan for low deasity~
single family deveiopment.
2. That, alt~:ough multip?c family residentiai development on the north and south sides
of i~iiken Way has taken place, and that said development abuts the west side of
subjec: property for an approximate distance of 325 feet, subject property abuts
siagle iamily residential development to the east, and that the properties on the
~ou~h side of Simmons Aveaue, itt cloae proximity to subject property, have been
entirely developed into single family residential purposes, approval of subject
petition would certainly set a precedent for additionai multiple family development
immediately to the south of subject pr~pert•~ to Simmons Avenue and extending
westerly to Haster Street. Existing muitiple family development should be confined
ta thP present extend ~f Wilkep Way east of Haster 3treet.
3, That while the re~vi~r~ plana provided for more open area thatt originally proposed,
the addixional uni:s~would compound the Uasic reason for which the petitions were
origir.all~ oenied by tiie Planning Commission, namely the encroachment of multiple
fam:ly residentiat deve7.o~ment ~~ an area projectnd for 1¢w densi:y, single family
resider.~tiai de•oelopment.
Ca~missioner ~Earco~ix seconded the mot:.on. M6TION CI/RRI$p.
CORRB3P~INDHN~P_ ;tiYT1 •• ,Tr',CBNI N0. 1
MISCBLIA~.'SOUS
M C~ND3TtONP.L USS PBRMTTt~O. 2_ q-~, and A4tS. PABLO V. Dd~dINGUB2 ~
1,523 IIast Santa Ana Stre~~t, Anaheim, California, Owners;
SHBLL GIL C~D~ANY, I.essee, Se~vice 3tation located at State
College Boulevard oad Ball Road.
Zoning Cuord~.nator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Co~nisaion sub,~ect petition which was
approved by tl~t Commission March 19, 1962, and reviewed by the Commiasion and approval
given for 4he substitution of a bond in lieu of a ~ix (6) foot masonrq wall xw?eh ,vas
o~;e of t.ie conditious of the app~ov91.
A letter from the Sheli Oil Company was rPad to the Commiasiou outiining the proposed
changes to th~ proposed atructure on sub,~ect property~namely~ the substitution of
redt~ood batts for exteriox plaster as the outaide building treatment 9.n order that the
atructure would have a more xuatic effect ia the "Ranch" stqle buiiding.
C:~mmissiomer Marcoux offered a motion to approve fihe revised plaas as submitted ia
Yetitioa for CoaEitional Use *ermit No. 214 dated geptember 19~ 1962~ Commissioner
Ch~avos secon~led tlie mot3oa. MG3'ION CARRIBD.
; ,,, .
,
~f __ _ _____
~
r.~
~~
;
~ ~~._ _,,
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C0~9~lISSION~ October 1, 1962, Continued;
CORRHSPONDBNCH AND - ITBM N0. 2
MISCBLiANBOUS
(Contiaued) CONDITIONAL USH P~tMIT NC. 227 - JOHN D. GdtAY, 4055 Wilshire
Boulavaxd, Los Angeles 5~ Califosnia, Owner; GEQRGH IARRABBB,
• 1568 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califarnia, Agent; requesting
permissinn to construct a Multiple Ylaaned-Unit Development.
Zoning Coordinator Martitt Rreidt, reviewed for the Commission subject petition which
was approved by the Commission May 14, 1962.
A letter from Larco Construction Company, requestiag that the Commission review and
approve revised plot plans marked Hxhibits "A"~through "P" was read.
Pindings and recommeadations from the Planning Department were reviewed for the
Commission.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to deny the request for approval of revised plot
plans marked Bxhibits "A" through F submitted under Coaditional Use Permit No. 227.
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD.
ITBM N0. 3- Southern California Planning Congress October meeting to be held
October 11~ 1962, in Burbank, California.
Commissioners A1lred, Chaves, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall indicated they planned to attend,
and requested the Secretary to make the necessary reservations.
ITBM N0. 4 -
CONIYITIONAL USE PBRMIT N0. 215 - MARION and BLAINH I~HItY, 1212 Westmont Drive, Anahcim,
California, Owners; TASTEE FREEZP, 2410 West Ball Road,
Acaheim~ California.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, informed the Commission that the Flanning Department
had contacted hlr. Henry t o remind him that the 180 days time limitation wouid expire
October 24, 1962, at which time the sidewalky shouid be installed.
Mr. Henry advised the Pianning Department that he fully intended to install the side-
waiks and would contact the contractor to see that tkte sidewalks were installed before
the end of the time limitation.
ITID~i N0. 5- City of Placeatia - Pianning Commission Zone Chaage No. 62-114 "M" 2one
to R-3, Block 8, Lot 5, Golden State Tract, ten acres on the southwesterly
corner of Blue Gum and La Jolla Road - September 25, 1962.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt, read a memo from Allan Shoff, of the Advance Planning
Division of the Planning Department reviewing the area as be~ng covered in the
Industriai Areas Aaalysis since sub,~ect property is located in an area ad3aceat to the
Northeast Industrial prea of Anaheim; and that ia previous•actions by the City of
Placentia on zone changes adjacent to the City's iadustrial area that Commission bad
recoaunended deniai of any zone ci~anges to residential use of the proparty in close
proxiinity to an industrial zone
Commissionez Mareoux offered Resolution No. 509, Series 1962-F~, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend Lo the Planning
Commisaion of the City of Placentia, that Zone Change No. 62-114 be deni~-d on the basea
that the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim reaffirms its positi~n that the
area known as the Northeast :ndustrial Area or property adjacent to lt be propo.:3ed for
industrial use oniy, and not to be rezoned for residential use.
~ ~ ~~. , t_ i ` , ~ ~''. ' ~-~..~.~..
~ +
I '
.. i
i
;
;
,.~
t
i
;
~ ,
~
~
~
Ftl.i~, .~..;-..~.: i. . _.. ~~.::.~.1__ , ..~;..:, .. ...~'S ~ . .,,.,.~~.~~ .......,~i;~.., ~i .. ~..~~.•:~°G.3D:h~F.<i'~e,'' _ ~:. ~="+- ..,: .:r..: N ut :.~...i~,r .:'~:.C",'?~~'r?~iK-n,,-`'~•T '. .. .
[, 1 1 r 6; _ ' . ~ .
[ ` ~...
. .. . ~ . . .-,~ ~~
1: ~
~.\
~ . .. ~.t~:. •iy.
} p. s, l.~
~ K''~ YMf i~1 ..
. ~ . . ~ . ~ . . . ^ ~S. . .
~ MINUTSS CI
, TX P7ANidING COhA~IISSION~ October 1, 1962~ Coatinued: 1217
1
CQRRBSPONDBNCB AND - ITBM N~. 5-(Continued)
MISCHLLANBOUS
t CContinued) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
~ . vote:
F: _
k• , , AYES: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred~ Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
. 4
~ NOBS: COhA4ISSI0NBRS: Nune.
~ ABSHNT: COLA~fISSIONHRS: Gauer, hapgood, Perrq.
~. I~
- • ADJ~URN-~lSNT -, There beiag no further busiaess to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered
a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIHD.
The meeting adjourned at the hour of 6:30 0'Clock P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~i'~i' ~ i~!r%C.~l/~J
ANN KRBBS~ Sec'retary
;`'s