Minutes-PC 1962/10/15E
~Y
F
~ .
F
L
~
~-~
F<
~
R~CULAR MBBTING OP TH8 ANpHgIM CITy pIpNNING COMMTSSION
~ RHGt1IAR MBFTTNG - A Regular meeting of the Anahei.^~ r,~ity Planning Commission was
= cailed To order by Chairman Gaue~~ at z:00 O~Clock P,M„ a quorum
~ . ; ~ • being present,
~~~T ' ~I~N: Gauer,
COMMISSIONSRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux~ Mungall, Pebley,
Perry.
A~~T - CONAfIS3I0NHRS: Hapgood,
~ - ZONING COORDIDIFiTOit:
DSPUTY ASSISTANT CI Y ATTCRNgy;
PIANNING DffiARIMHNT SEQtBTARY:
INYO~-~IQN - Reverend Randall Hand, pastor o
the Invocation.
+:4:h . ~~:~}~~ .. . . . .
CC0.
~~ •
f rY~ .
~
~
~ j~Y~ S ,'_. ~ ._
A ' Y , ~ `\ 1
~' 1
City Hall ~
Anaheim, C2lifornia ~
~ October 15, 1962 ~
~
Martin Kreidt.
Purman Roberts.
Lee Burgess.
F St. Mark's Methodist Church, gave
p~8 ~' - Commissioner Mungall led the Pledge of Aliegiance to the Flag,
A~~
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of October 1, 1962, were approved with
MI~ _ the following corrections;
Page 1200, APPROVAL OF MINUTSS, should read: 2Y~e Minutes of the
meeting of September 17, 1962,. ,
Page 1209, RECIASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-31, Paragraph 9, resolution
_ number should read 506,
Page 12~1,:Planniag 8tudy No. 54-50-2, Paragraph 5, Line 6~ at the
end shouid readt for the development for the easement and the
eastern-most portion of subject property cculd be resolved;
, Paragraph 6,,:Line 5, the easement and the eastern-most portion of
subject property.
RBCLASSIFICATION - CQNTINUBB PUBLIC HBARII3G. PLORIBNB SANDBRSP.BLD, 9621 Brookhurst
N0.~62=63-27 Street, Anaheim~ California~, Owner; ROBBRT W. MAC MAHON,`
560 California Federai Saving~ Bank Building, Crescent at Buclid,
Anaheim, California, ~gent; requesting that property described as:
paR_~_1: A rectangular parcel of J.and with a 56 foot frontage on the south side
of Oiange~qvenue, and a depth of 325 feet, the northwest corner of said proper#y being
180 feet ~ast'of the southeast corner of Orange and ICnott Avenues. PARCBL N0, 2; A
rectangulai:.pa=cel of land with a 92 foot frontage on the south side of Orange Avenue,
and a deptih of 325 feet, the northwest corner of said property being 236 feet east of
the southeast'corner of Orange and Rnott Avenues, be seclassified from the R-A~ RBSI-
DENTIAL,'``AQtICULT(iRAL, 20NA~ to Gl, NBI(3iBQt2H00D COMMBRCIAL, 20NH, for Parcel No. 1;
and"lt 3, INtJLTI~B'FAMILY:RSSIDHNTIAL ZONB~ for parcel No. 2, to expand present coe-
merciel~facilities arid construct a multiple family planned-unit development. '
. .. ` _
- _ 1218.-
` ~
~n t
~
-~F * ` ~ ~ • ~~,6<'n:xy~!t, v`'.1~'^7~'-u,.;t t r 1 ~.~, 1 ' f f °ti r 1 r:. -*,i ~ ~ ~ ~ ,T .:~, `^ ~ ~~` ~ __...~.. ,,... _.. . a. . .._._». '
. ~ . ._„_, .. .., . ... .,t,-,. , , ., . /~r „ x n . ~. ..f.t.,d~~ ,tx.,,,.
~.
E
~ _
~E
~;;
V ~ •,.
MINUTH3, CITY PLANNING COA9rfISSION, October 15, 1962, Continued: 1219
RBCLASSIFICATION - Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use
N0. 62-63-27 Permit No, 306.
CContinued)
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 1, 1962,
in order to allow the pe2itioner time to submit a complete set of
plans and elevations fnr both the R-3 and C-1 request.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission that the petitioner had
requested a two-week continuation of subject petition in order that more complete
revisc'd plans might be submitted for consideration; and if the Commission desised to
grant this consideration, said subject petition be referred to the Planning Department
for ieview by the Urban Renewal Advisory Committee, relative to subject property being
a portion of the deep lot area which would be considered by the Urban Renewal Committee.
Chairman Gauer asked if any one was in the Council Chamber to represent the petitioner
and received no reply.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Reclassification
No. 62-63-27 to the meeting of November 14, 1962,in order to allow the petitioner
sufficient time to submit revised plans, and for the petition to be referred to the
Urban Renewal Committee for consideration. Commissioner Perfy seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIHD, -
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARING. FLORIENH SANABRSFBLD~ 9621 Brookhurst
PBRMIT N0. 306 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERT MAC MAHON, 560 Cali-
fornia Pederal Savings Bank Suilding, Crescent at Buclid, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A RHSTAURANT,
COCKTAIL LOUNGB, and SBRVICH STA7?flN on property described as: PARCEL N0. 1; A rec-
tangular parcel of land with a 56 foot frontage on the south side of Orange Avenue, and
a depth of 325 feet, the northwest corne.r of said property being 180 feet east of the
southeast corner of Orang;e Avenue and Knott Avenue. PARCHL N0. 3: A rectanguiar
parcel of property at the southeast corner of Orange and Rnott Avenues, with a 325 foot
frontage on pnott Avenue, and 180 feet on Orange Avenue. Property presently ciassified
R A, RSS:DBNTIAL AGRICIJLTITRAL, ZONB.
8ubject petitiori was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-27.
8ubject petition was continued from the meeting of October 1, 1962 in order that it
might be heard with Reclassification No, 62-63-27.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was any one in the Council Chamber to represent the
petitioner, and received no reply.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Chavos offered a moLion *o continue Petition for Conditioaal Use Permit
No. 306 to the meeting of November i~, 19ti?, in order that the petition might be heard
in conjunction with Reclassificatiar ~'e„ 62-63-27. Commissionex Perry seconded the
motiort. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USB ~• CONTINUBD PUBLIC !~ARING. PHTITIGii 3NITIATSD BY 1TiH ANAHHIM CITY
PHRMIT N0. 307 COUNCIL, 204 Hr.rit Li.ncoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, requesting
~ tY.at a SffitVI~'".d ;i7.71TTON AND USBL~ CAR LOT HB HSTASLISHBD as a
conforming use, and to PBRMIT Tr1H S.~,TA*lLISHMHNT OP AN ON-SALB BBHR OPBRATION on property
described as: A rectangular pa~rcel of land with a 650 foot frontage on the south side
of Lincoln Avenue, and a depth of 600 feet, the northwest corner of said property being
6S9 feet east of the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue, and further
described as 2310 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified ~t A, RBSIDBNTIAL
~ AC~[tICULTU2AL, ZONB. .
~
~ ~
~
`-
--W-- ~1.,.. ' _ _ .
.~.
-
~ ,`.
,,, i: , . _ .
_~
~.
~
~
1
~,`,. ~ . . r ~-~.. .~L: ~h-
. : i
,
. ,
o ~.
MINUTffi, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 15, 1962, Continued:
~`: '!
~.,
~`
~ .
~~
1220
CONDITIONAL USB - Snbject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification
YERMIT N0. 307 No. 62-63-28.
(Continued)
3ubject petition was continued from the meeting of October 1, 1962,
in order to all~w the Planning Department time to readvertise
subject p~tition ±o inclec~e the "on-sale" of beer on subject property,
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was any one i: ~:,e Council Chamber to represent the
owners of subject property, and received eo reply.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was any one in the Council Chamber apposing subject
petition. •
Mother Mary Bustace~ Superior of Cornelia Conneily School, 2323 West Broadway, appeared
before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated that she had been
advised by her attorney that the present nearness of a school made selling of liquor
very ques£ioaabie; that she did not understand the terminology "on-sale" of beer,
whereupon, Chairman Gauer clarified its terminology,
Mother Mary Hustace then stated she strongly objected to the "on-sale" of beer for
consumption on subject property.
1HH HBARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission inquired of Deputy Assistant City Attorney, Furman Roberts, the
interpretation of a distance from a school that•liquor sale would be permitted.
Deputy Assistant City Attorney Purman Roberts, advised the Commission that the
AlcoholiC Beverage Control Commission did have a specified distance from a school or
church ia which the sale of aicoholic beverages would not be permitted, but that the
City Couneil had the authority to protest any appiication if they so desired; and that
the A.B.C, application far subject petition had been before the Councii and they had
decided not to protest said application as long as the Conditional Use Permit compiied
with the use,
The Commission inquired if any plans had been submitted to which Zoning Coordinator,
Martin Rreidt, answered in the negative.
The Commission inquired why Gemco would be given the special privilege and special
authority.
Mr. Rreidt informed the Conunission that Gemco was given this authority when they were
approached to come into the City for annexation. At that time, they were in the County
and had commerciai zoning and suthority for said use.
The Commission discussed the compatibility of the "on-sale" of beer in conjunction with
the used car lot and service station; that if the Commission permitted the "on-sale"
of beer on subject property this would be a blanket approval for other similar estab-
lishments; that if Gemco had been in the City and requested a similar zoning,, the •
Commis-~ion would have denied said request for "on-saie° of beer; that the Commission
did not feel that a use of this type would be permissibie within 100 feet of a school;
tlfat many children patronized the establishment,which would be conducive to t2enagers
using these facilities without their parents knowledge or consent; and that if a beer
garden was to be rstablished, the owners of subject property should apply for said use
rather than the proposed "on-sale" of beer.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 511, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for CondiLional
Use Permit No. 307 for the used car lot and service station only~ based on conditions.
CSee Resolution Book).
r~7~ ,
~~rq 1~U~
. .
. . . ,
:
r
~ .~'°~~' `
.< ;r',. ~ ..? .~,?.
. . ~ ~ ~~a
i
.. , ~ .
.. . . . . .. .. .
. . °r~~ . . , . ~c ~r~-~.-
,.... :.r .. ~'i.....,
P.~ ~.....~. . . . .. .. .. ~. ........_ ~ ....~ . ~ ~:: ..._ -'",i ..i"''l,M _ : ,11 _
d ~l.V1VU11'lU1VAL USB - OII ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
' PBRMIT N0. 307 vote:
(Continued)
F , AYBS: CODAfISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley; Perry.
NOffi: COMhfISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT; COMIrIIS3I01VBRS: Hapgood,
RB~.:LASSIFICATION - CONTINUgD PUBLIC HBARING, hIlt, and MRS. JAMBS A. ALI,gN, 9562
N0, 61-62-124 Iiarvest Lane, Anaheim, Califo=nia, Owners; FRAI~IC TURi,gy or gItd,
KISGBN, 9662 Harvest Lane, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting
that property described as; p rectangular parcel of land 100 feet
plus or minus by 300 feet plus or minus, with a frontage of 100 feet plus or minus on
the south side of Ball Road, the northwest corner of which is 477 feet plus or minus
east of the southeast corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard, and further described
as 2944 West Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONH to
th~ R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH to permit the construction of two story
multiple family residential apartments. ~
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of June 25, July 9, August 6, and
September 17, Z962, in order to permit the petitioners time to submit revised plans and
to file for a variance.
Mr. Frank Turley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission aad stated
he had nothing further to add for the Commission*s consideration,
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was any one in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition, and received no reply. ~
ZHB HBAItING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission reviewed the revised plans and inquired of Zoning Coordinator Martin
Kreidt~ whether the petitioner had been informed of the discrepancies in the plot
plans as submitted,
Mr. iCreidt advised the Commission that on a11 previous plans submitted, the petitioner
had been.advised of the inadequacies,
The Commission inquired of Mr, T1~rley~ agent for the petitioner, whether he was aware
of the inadequacies of the,plot,plans as submitted, and Mr. Turley replied, that he
had been informed by the Planning Department of the inadequacies of the plans,
Chairman Gauer asked Mr. Kreidt to read the Planning Department findings and
recommenda*~oas on subje~t petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition fo.c
Reclassification 61-62-124 to the meeting,of November 14, 1962, in order to allow the
titionertime to prepare revised plot plans indicating the detaii of material on the peti-
front of the building, the type of roofing material~ revision of Pian "B", to increase
the minimum floor space to 700 square feet, and to iadicate the garage location on the
piot plan with the proposed driveway for subject property, Commissioner Mungall
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD,
VARIANCH N0. 1525 - PUBLIC HBARING. JAMHS ALLEN, 9562 Harvest Lane, Anaheim,
California, Owner; PRANR TURI,gy, 9662 Harvest Laae, qnaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permis§ion to WAIVB SINGLE STOltY .
HHI(~IT.LIMITATION on property described as; A rectangular parcel of land with a 100
foot frontage on the south side of Ball Road, and a depth of 310 feet, the northwest
corner of said property being 473 feet east of the sontheast corner of Beach Boulevard
and Ba11 Raad, and furiher.described_as 2944 1~est-Ball Road. Property presen~ly
classified R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL;:ZONS.
..:c.~.+--.-,.-,-~ 7re` is G ~ i, - :?' }i ~. ,' ~ ..., ~. ~ ... ., j .. . . .. . ~'~;,kr.-e:...T,... , W._* `,..0 - ~ ~ .
.. ,_ , .,., . e ~....... ~,..,3' 1_ a.._. . . . .. , , . _ . .., _
I _
,
,..
:.;~~
.. _` ' -
~
~.- .:~~: -
' ,~..,, O ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 15~ 1962~ Continued:
~
VARIANCB N0, 1525 -: Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassificstion
(Continued) No, 61-62-124.
' Mr. Prank Turley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration
since xevised nlans were reouested on the Reciassification.
' Commissioner Alired offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1525 to the
meeting of November 34, 1962~ in order that it might be heard with Reclassification
No. 61-62-124. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARAIBD,
RHCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIC I~ARING. CHARLHS V. AMADQR, 2628 West 78th Street,
N0. 62-63-32 Ingiewood, California, and MR, and l~4tS. B. L. OVIBDO, 1627 Hast
Syc~more Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; BLAS MARRON, 741
North Pauline, Anaheim, California, ABent; requestin~ that
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a 124 foot frontage on tUe
north side of Sycamore Street, and a depth of 175 feet, the southwest corner of said
property being 320 feet east of the northeast corner of Bast Century Drive and Sycamore
Street, and further described as 1627 Sycamore 3treet be reclassified from the R-A,
RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT[enAL, ZO1VH, to the R-3, MULTIPLS FAMILY RSSIDBNTIAL, ZON&, to
cor~struct a four-plex one-story apartment.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a letter to the Commission from Blas Marron,
agent for the petitioner, requesting that subject petition be continued for two weeks
in order that a complete set of plans might be submitted.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Councii Chamber representing
the petitioner, and received no reply,
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Zc:ition for Reclassification
No. 62-63-32 to the meeting of October 29, 1962~ in order to aliow the petitioner time
to submit complete plot plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING.: HUENt1 VISTA CONVALBSCBNT HOSPITAL, 1682 Suena
N0. 62-63-33 Vista Avenue~ »~ah~im, California, Owners; INA WALKBR, 1670 West
Buena Vista p•;er~sQ, Anaheim, California,'Agent; requesting tk:at
property describe~ as: a rectangular parcel of land with an
approximate frontage of 150 feet on the south side of Buena Vista Avenue, a depth of
approximately 150 feet~ the northwest corner of said proparty being 141 feet east of
the southeast corner of Huclid Street and Buena Vista Avenue, and further described as
1682 Buena Vista~Avenue be reclassified from the R-1, ONH PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ ZONS, to
the C-1, NHIQ~IBORHOOD COMI~.RCIAL, 20N8, (limited to business and professionaT use only)
to permit the expansion of a non-conforming rest home, •
ConditionaL Use Permit No. 303, which covers subject propery, was approved by the
Commission on September 17, 1962, at which time the Commission askeG that the
petitioner submit a reclassification for the subject property.
.Chairman Ganer inquired whether anyone in the_Council Chamber opposed subject
petition, and received no reply. ~ ~
THS HBAR?NG WAS CIASBD:
Commissioner Chavos stated that to zone subject property as requested would be a
privilege not given to others; that to grant said zoning would~be contrary to the
single family r~sidential environment in the area; that subject property was adjacent
to four new above average quality homes recently built which would be greatly
affected by subject development; and that this privilege would jeopardize the owners
across the street from subject property.
- -.r
~~
. . ~
FZ~` :.~ t1`!.; ',
-_~... . .
1
~ -
.
. ~ . ~ ~
.
~ . ~~
~ ,
Ci>~•'S• .
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION, October 15, 1962, Continued: 1223
~
:~' RBCIASSIPICATION - The agent for the petitioners stated that they were planning to
N0. 62-63-33 change the entrance to open onto Huclid Avenue, but that this
(Continued) change would not occur for another two or three years; and that
the owners of subject property own the home immediately adjacent
~ 'th th ei hbors the
to sub~ect property, and had discussed wi e n g
proposed addition and did not receive any opposition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 512• ~°ries 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption,'seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City
Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-33 be approved subject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book).
11ie conditions as stated in the Resolution Book were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prerequisite.to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote;
pyBS: COhAfISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COhAfISSION~tS: Chavos.
AHSHNT: COhAlISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
RBCIASSIPICATIODI - PUBLIC HBARING. JAMBS L, and CONSTANCB SLQAN, SO15 North Acacia
~ N0. 62-63-34 Avenue, Anaheim, California, and HBNRY R, and CARMSN HOGG, 1603
Briarvale Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a
frontage of 66 feet on tre~south side of Romneya Drive~ and a depth of 310 feet, the
northeast corner of said property being 326 feet west o'.' the centerline of State
Coliege Boulevard, and furtrier described as 1910 Romneya Drive be rec].assified from
the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONH
to construct an eleven unit apartment building.
Mz. James Sloan, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated that
subject property had.been purchaseC,for multiple family development; that said
development would be.an asset to the neighborhood by increasing the valuation of land
adjoining subject property; and that he would be glad to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
Chaixman Gauer inquired if anyone in the Council Chamber was present to oppose
" subject petition, and received no reply.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt. informed th^ Commission that a petition of
opposition signed by 17 persons had been rece:ved by the Planning Department, and one
signed by eight (8) persons favoring subject petition was also received.
THE HBARING WAS CL03BD,
The Commission noted that the Genersl Plan ma~ wa3 not in accordance with the City
Council directive projecting subject property and adjacent property for low-density
development; that a 66 foot frontage for development of"multiple dweJ.lings"wouid ~
deteriorate to a slum asea in a few years and would be a detriment to the City; that
if the petitioners were interested in developing a project which would be an asset to
the Ci+ty, the Commission recommended that they combine with owners of abutting properties
to develop something mose worthwhile,
The G~mmission further discussed property to the westi of subject property which con-
tained a 220 foot frontage; said proposed development having also been denied by the
City Council bn the bases of the proposed development of the area; that previous
plans submitted in other~petitions indicated a much more desirable plot plan'than was
!~ presented for the proposed developmeat; and that the Commission recommer.tded that the
`: * Planning`Department refer tq the Urban Renewal`Committee ~for a„study of ,Fhe pro~erty west
y`iY ~ - of State College Bouieyar3 on Romneya Drive, which contains a number of aewp lots
~•'^°~^'~ ranging ;from, 310 feet to 330 feet in depth.
~ .
.r,•~
Y.~,
~ R1`'l,C~ilY"~ ~ . . ~. ~ . .. ' ' ' . ' . .. . .. .
r. . . . - . . ~ . . .. . .. ~
. _ . ''. . . . . , . . . . ~ .
..,. .:, . ~. - ~ ~ . ~ . . , .. , - _ . .. .
-::. ~ .. _,. ~ . .. . .
i
t ~ ~ ~ . . . ~. . _ . , .
. ~.
r. "~i4` ` ° 1 ~ ~. _.` S ?L5. -,..:: v 5{a i r~.~. ~._ . `` * . . ~.;, . i. . , .... .. . .,. l:,..:s r_u . .. ,,.1i~ ~ as~.], r` ~ > ...~i.~~~ ~ ~.w; _ .. .. ..y n-..::i
~
. ~
: =~
~:.-
~~~ .:'
ti
r, . ...':a: .. ;'
RBCTASSIPICATION - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 513, Series 1962-63,
N0. 62-63-34 and moved fc,r i•ts passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioaer
(Continued) Alired to recommend to the City Council :hat Petition for ~
Reclassification No, 62-63-34 be denied based cz findings.
(Spe Resolution Book).
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYHS: COhAiISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, kerry.
N~HS: CQhAlISSIONffitS: None,
AB3HNT: C(N~IMISSIONHRS: Hapgood,
The Commission discussed the part the Urban Renewal Committee was proposed to have
in the City, and felt that a fuller and more concise explanation of said duties
should be rresented to the Commission by the Urban Renewal Coordinator of the
Planning nepartment at a future work session.
AMHNDMBNf - PUBLIC FIBAItING. AMBNDING CHAPTBR 18.40, "G1," NSIGH$QRHOOD COD4dHRCIAL
TO CODB 20N&~ by deleting Section 18.40.010 (1) "Any use permitted in the R-3,
MULTIPLB FAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, ZONA.tO
2oning.Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewP~! for the Commission the basic reasons for
recommenda#ior of this deletion.
The Commission noted that little was accomplished by permission of R-3, Multiple
Pamily Residential~ 2oae in a Neighborhood Commercial, Zone.
Chairman Gauer asked if theze was anyone in the Councii Chamber opposing subject
petition, and receivad no reply.
T1~ HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resoiution No. 514, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Cummissioner Marcoux to recommend to the City
Council~attheAnaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.40.010 (1) be deleted from the Code.
On roll call the foregoing resolut~on was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CJ~4IIS5IONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry.
NQffi: CObMIS8I0NffitS: None,
ABSffidT: COMMI3SIOTIBRS: Hapgood.
RffiORTS AD(D - ITBM N0. 1 Conditional Use permit No. 227 - John D. Grey, 4055
RBC:QhAlBNDATIONS ~• - Wilshire Boulevard, Los AngeIes 5, California, Owner;•
George Larrabee, 1568 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~
California, Agent; requesting permission to co~struct
a muitiple planned-unit de•relopment. '
Subject Conditionai Use Permit had been reviewed by ~e Commission at the meeting of
October 1, 1962,
Mr. Milt McCoy re~re,Benting the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission.and stated
that he~;understo.od`;$he review of the revised plans would be before the
Com~'ssion on October.l5, 1962,~ but thatthe Commission had heard or re~iewed the revised
plot ~plans prQ~iously:
MINUTES~ CITY PIANNING CONMIS31ON, October 15, 1962, Coatinued: 1224
(~
~
~
:: :
~' :
~ ' 1
~. i
MINUTBS~~~ Y PLANNING COD4fI8SfON, October 15, 196?., Continued:
1225
.RH'pC1tTS AND - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed the findings anu
gBCOAA~~IDATIONS recommendations of the Planning Department se presented. to th~m
CContinued) previously.
The Commission inquired why the agent for the petitioner was before the Coamission
since they had already ruled on plot pians.
Mr. McCoy stated that since the petitioner did not have a:~ opportunity to present
verbal reasons for the strucutral change of the plans as originaliq approved, he felt
that he should be given this opportunity.
The Commission inquired of Mr. McCoy his reasons for submitting new plans, =rd what
was wrong with the original plans that the Commission had approved,
Mr. McCoy replied tha~ nothing was wrong with the original plans, but that the o*.ner
had changed his mind as far as construction was concerned.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission that if the elevations were
not changed, the plans would be "deVelopment substantially in accordance with F~lans"
as oue of the conditions of the approval; that upon application at the Buildinr
Department for a building permit,any changes that were being proposed would ~e
reviewed by the development reviewer; that the petitioner would then be advised of
any radical changes to the original plans as proposed, and then the revised plans would
be again reviewed; and that no action then rvould be required by the Commission.
COMMISSION POLICY - ITBM N0. 2
RHSUBMISSION• OF
PBTITIONS Zoning Coordinator Martin Areidt, reviewed for the Commission,
the CommiBSion and City Council verbai policy in reference to the
refiling of a petition on the identical property previously
denied by either or both the Commission and City Council; thc+t it was the recommendation
at the Commission-Council meeting held recently, that this verbal policy be made a
written policy by both #he Commission and the City Council.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 510, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
_~'.`,passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, that it be recommended to the
'City Councii`that it be the written policy of the Planning Commission and the City
' Councii of the City of Anaheim that the receipt of identical petitions for Reclassi-
fication, Conditional Use Permit, and/or Variance not be accepted less than six (6)
months foZlowing,the denial ~f an original petition.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYBS: COMMISSIONffitS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NQBS: COMMISSION~tS: None.
pBBBNT: COb4~lISSIONBRSe Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL U38 - IT1dM N0: 3; Service 3tation located at the corner of•Da1e Avenue -
p.BRMIT N0: 288 aad Ball Road.
~
~~ .
~
~
. . ~. . ~ :. .~ 'I • t~f IY ~"4'i .) " .; ~, o ~,' G 4~ ti ~i FS i
°~ .,,_. _. v ~ S~k.~~..`'-~t~[ +:~li:~,F' ~ _. 1,:..:` ...~.,:: ~.~i,fa .i~~,.;~~ .(1 l,~.s, q~ a~,ts~{}r,7:.~.';+~_.:~i~_~.~,.,,.; ,~:.~..,~._.,....
. _ . . . . .. . ,. _ ~..._..i.. _. . ...
Zoning Coordinator Martin ICreidt, reviewed for the Commission the subject petition
which was granted by the Coamissi4n August 20, 1962, and tl~e request of the petitioner
in reference to Condition Nos. 5 and 6 of Resolution No. 464, in which a 42 inch masonry
wall and landscaping requirements separating the station site from the adjacent com-
mercial property was required; and that the Pianniisg Depar#ment tiad reviewed said
conditions and recommended to the Commission thaL this be:;reconsidered.
The Commission reviewed"the revised plot plans as submitted with the recommended
revisions=requested for approvai.
Commissioaer Pebley.offered a motion to apprQVe revised plot pians as presented:
Commissioner Camp seconded`the motion.' MOTION CARRIBD. .
,
~
~
~_
~
:~
~:f
r'~
~kj
. .~ . a~ '~".n
~.. . - -
_. ___ __......_,: __..---__ _---- --- ---
/
c-~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CObAlISSION, October 15, 1962, Continued:
1226
p~g CpUIVTy ITBM N0, 4- Hxhibit "M" - P.-1, 3ingle Family Residential to RP,
RECLABSIPICATTON Residential-Professioaai District on the west side of
SBCTIONAL DISTRICT Brookhurst SYreat between Cerritos Avenue and Pacific
MAP 19-4-10 Avenue.
Zoning Coordinator Martin 1Creidt, reviewed for the Commission the location of subject
property which was projected as part of th~ 3oathvrest Annexation; and that if the
Commission favored the proposed reclassification that the Interdepartmental Committee for
Public 3afety and General Welfare and the Planning Department recomn:ended that the
Commission consider the following: ~
1. That ail parking for the proposed development of subject property be lo~ated at the
rear of sabject property.
2. That access to subject property be from the rear.
3, That there be a lim3tation of the size of ali signs and banners so as not to detract
from the subject property and abuttiag properties,
~}, That deed restrictions be reguired to be filed limiting the use of the subject
property to business and professional use only.
S. That ail landscaping be maintained so that it will give a residential appearance.
6. Provision of staadard trash storage areas at the rear of subje:ct property prior to
Ninal Building Inspection,
7, That a six C6) foot masonry wall be provided at the rear of subject property on the oppo-
site side of t:~e alley in order to protect the abutting property to the rear of
, subject property.
8, That the building be inspected by the Building Departmen~ and the Fire Marshall in
order that it meet all :ne Code requiremeats of a restricted commercial zone.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to advise the Orange County Planning Commission that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission recommends the foregoing findings be considered as
conditions if approval of subject petition is granted. Commissioner Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
~ CORRBSPONDBNCB ITBM N0. 1- Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Croft, 638 South
p~ State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CaYifornia. ,
MI3C8LtANHOUS , ~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a Setter received from Mr. and Mrs. Croft
relative to the problems invoived in the disposal of their property for ressdential use
on the highiy traveled street on which their home is located; and that th~y urge the
~ Commission to consider rezoning ali the property along State College Boulevard to Bali
Road to commercial use.
Mr. ;*eidt also advised the Commission that he had acknowledged the letter with th.:
statement that he would present : to the Commission for their comments; and that he
woul~ Advise Mr. Croft of any substantial information.if it were available.
Mr. Kreidt ferther stated that what was proposed by the writer was sput zoning or,strip
zoning; that subject property wonid be inciuded in a study.of the area. He then
inquired of Commissioner Camp whether homes that backed on arterial highways resulted in a
loss when being sold, to which Commissioner Camp repiied that the praperty might be
slower in moving off the market, but that the property did not seil for.substantially
less than the otner single family homes in the area ~.' comparable value.
ITBM N0. 2- Linbrook Hardwar~ located on West Lincoln Avenue.
Zoning Coordinator Martin ICreidt, informed the Commission that the unsightly appearance
of the.Linbrook Hardware property was'investigated.by the Planning Department; and it
was noted that the owners of subject property had not been giveian official copg of the
Council Resolution of Int.ent and, therefore, did not know any o£ the conditions to which
they must comply. The Pianaing Department then•deTivered a copy of said resolution for
the ovmers of Linbrook Hardware's perusal.
~. ..3 5 ,{7 : vx::7~ ~~~._:~..._.~.~-e
y _ .:f~i .L ].Y.... :~ .. r~._~ '. . t .. _ .. ~ . ~,.., x ,_ /?... ~ ~ ~ ~. , , , . . .: . ~.'E.. ._ L:..r, . ~....-.w w '..L~:....
~, .j
..~
:~,w
's.
:.,
,i
` a:'.
~ ~
• ~,.
MINUT88, CITY PLANNING COI~fISSION, October 15, 1962, Continued;
RECBSS Commissioner Cat~p offered a motion to recess for ten (10) minutes.
Colomissioner pebley seconded the motion. 1!-e Commission recessed at
4:00 0*Clock P,M.
'-:t
RBCONVBNB - Chairman Gauer reconeeaed the mee:ing at 4;10 0'C1ock P.~f„ ws.th the
following being present: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry,
CORRBSPONDBNCS - ITBM N0. 3- CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0. 94, West Anaheim Methodist
AND Church, 2027 West Juno Place - use of building for
MISCBI.TANHOII3 church purposes.
(Continued)
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, read a letter to the Commission from the subject
petitioners in which they requested a renewal of the use of subject property.
Coa¢nissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant an,extension to January 31, 1963, to
the petitioners of Conditional Use Permit No. 94. Commissioner Perry seconded the
motion, MOTION CARRIBD.
Commissioner Alired returned to the Council Chamber at 4;15 0'Clock P.M.
ITBM N0. 4- CONDITIONAL U3B PffitMIT N0. 114, putt-Putt Miniature
Goif Course~ located at Beach Boulevard and Lincoln
Avenue.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt~ reviewed subject Conditional Use Permit and stated
that street lights were stiil not paid on the property; and that a verbal reqaest. had
been received from Mr, Dominic Primo, operator of the Go1f Course, in which he
requested an extension of time in order to comply with this condition of the Petition
•as granted by the Commission on May 2, 1961.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant a time extension of three (3) months
until.January 17, 1963, in order that the pa:itioner of Conditional Use Permit No. 114
might have sufficient time to comply with Condition No. 2 of Lhe City Council
Resolution, and also request that the owners of the Golf Course Ue instructed ta clean
up the property before the end of the time granted for payment of street lights.
Commissioner Mungail seconded the motion, idOTION CARRIBD.
ITEM N0. 5- VARIANCB N0. i110, Mss. Helen A. Corriveau; Operate a
one person beauty shop.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed subject Variance and stated that a letter
had been received from the petitioner in which she requested an extension of time to
operate said besuty shop in her home.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to extettd the time limitation on Variance
No, 1110 for a period of f3.ve (5) years to expire June 16, 1965. Coamissioner Mungall
seconded the motion. MOTI~JN CARRIBD. .
RBCHSS - Commissioner Ca~p offered a motion to recess the meeting until Ss00 0'Clock
P.M., October 16, 1962, to reconvene ia the Council Chamber at that time.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. I~OTION CAczRIBD.
The Pianning Commission mee#ing was recessed at 4:20 0*Clock P,M.
~ ~ `::: ; `;
E
x
E
MINUTBS, 3TY PIANNING COMMISSION, October 15, 1962, Contiaued: 122$
gg~ppygNg - ggCBSSHD MBETING OP 1HH CITY PLANNING COha[ISSIOId
From October 15, 1962 4o October 16, 1962.
Chairman Gauer reconvened the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting in the
Council Chamber at 5:15 0'C1ock P.M.
pRHSffiVT: C'vhAlISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry.
ABSHNT: COMMISSIONffitS: Hapgood, Narcoux.
pssistanr City Attorney Joe Geisler, appeared before the Commission and stated that the
City of Anaheim City Council had received a request for annexation by representatives
of Yorba Linda; that said request was referred to the Plann:ng Commission for a report
and recommendation; that the Yorba Linda Annexation covered approximately 7,590 acres~
encompassing 11.8 miies with ari estimated population of 6,000 persons; and that a
number of civic groups and organizations had requested said annexation to the City of
pnaheim.
Mr. Geisler further stated that before proceedings could be started, requests for said
annexation must be on hand, that a petition might be circulated; that said request
would require the permission of the Anaheim City Council upon receipt of a report from
the Anaheim Planning Commission to proceed; and that 2596 of the registered voters must
sign petitions to order to institute the proceedings for said annexation.
Commissioner Pebley moved that the Yorba Linda Annexation be recommended to the City
Council for approval, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, and carried.
ADJOURNh~NT - Thexe being na further business to discuss, Comroissioner Mungall
-"--" o£fered a motion ta adjourn the meeting o€ the City Plaaaning Commission.
Commissioner Allred seconded.the motion. MOTION CARRISD.
The meeting adjourned at the hour of 5;25 0'Clock P.M., October 16, 1962.
Respectfuily 3ubmitted,
Lee Burgess, Planning Department Secretary
By:
PLANNING CObAlISSI N QtHTARY
* * *