Minutes-PC 1962/12/10,~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
December 10, 1962
RBGUTAR MBBTING OF 1i~IH ANAHEIM CITY pIANNING COhAlISSION
1tEGUw IAR I~L'TING - A Regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order~by Chairmaa G~.uer at 2;00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being
present.
~~~'1T ' CHl1IRMl1N: Gauer.
COh9~fISSIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley~
Perry,
~~T - COMMISSIONffitS: Hapgood.
PRHSHNr - ZONING CO~tDINATOR: Martin greidt.
D~UTY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNgy; purman Roberts,
YLAIQIVING COI~AlISSION SH(1tBTARy; pnn grebs.
INVOCATION - Reverettd Le Roy Miller~ pastor of Paith Zutheran Church, gave the
Invocation.
, p~ OF - Commissioner Pebley led the Pled¢e of Alleg:~ance to the Plag.
AI.I.BGIANCB
~~w~ ~F - The Minutes of the meeting of November 26, 1962, were approved as
MI~_ submitted.
RHCTA3SIFICAT3GN -- CONTINUBi- pUgLIC FffiARING. CLAR.BNCB CIARK~ 3410 Lincoin Avenue,
N0. 62-63-38 Anaheim, Califoraia, Owuer; KpLRRppT BUILD.ffitS, INC,. 254 South
Rosemead Boulevard, Pasadeaa, California~ Agent; requestiag that
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land a~proximafiely
3S0 feet by 330 feet, said property haviag aa approximate 220 foot frontage on the
- west side of Bella Viata Street, the northerly boundary being 560 feet south of the
centexliae of Lincoin Avenue and the wea~erly boundary being 660 feet east of the
centerline of Knott Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, RffiIDSNTIAL AQtICULTITRAL~ ZONE,
to the R~3, MULTIpLS PAMILY RBSIDENTINL, 20I~, to construct eight (8) 4-uait rental
apartmeat build3ags.
3ub,~ect petition was filed in coajunction with Coaditional Uae permit No. 317.
Sub3ect petition was coatinued from the meetiag of Nw ember 14~ 1862, in order to
a11ow the petitione= an opportunity to aubmit sevised plans incorporating the
Commisaion's auggestioas,
Mr. Clareace Clark, the owaer, appeared before the Commission and stated that he haQ
noth~.ng further to add for the Commiasion*s coasideration, but that he would be glad
to aaswer aAp questions the Commission might have.
The Commiasioa reaiewed the revised plans as submitted by the ag~ent for the petitioner,
and inquired of the petit3oner what he plaaned to do with the large opea apaces
between the structures.
- 1288 ~
0~ ..~ . ._._ , . , . ,(,,. . , .. , i- . _ ~ .,.,- . _
~
i
~
MINUTB3~ CITY PIANNING DOi~AlI3SION, December 10, 1962, Continued:
RHCIASSIPICATION - Mr. Clark replied that he inteaded to construct a swimming pool
N0. 62~-63-38 betweea two of the strueturea, and informed the Commission that he
(Continued) desired to change Lhe positioa cf the structures so that they
would give a wedge-shaped appearance aad distract from the normal
row appearance as presented on the plot plaina.
Mr. C1ark f:~rther atated that the space betweea the structures wou11 be landacaped and
a lawa placed betweea them, and tLat ali the buildinga wouid be fc .ced off ao that a
private appearsnce would be preaented.
Commieaioner Ailred offered Resolutioa No. 552, Serfes 1962-63~ sad moved for ita
passage and adoption~ aeconded by Commisaioner Camp, to reeommead 40 4he Citq Couacil
that Petition for Reclasaification Ido. 62-63-38 be approved~ sub,~ect to coaditioae.
(3ee Reaolutioa Book.)
The conditiona as atated in the Reeolutioa Book were recited at the meeting and were
fouad to be a necessary prerequiaite to the uae of the property in order to preaerve
the safety and welfare of the Citizene of the Citq of Anaheim.
On roii cali the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AY83: COF9~lISSION8R3: Ailred~ Camp~ Chevos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagail, Pebley~ Perry.
Cd~lISSIONffit3: None,
AH9BNT: COMMISSIO~NBRS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~lI',~~ING. CIARHNC8 CIARY~ 3410 Liaeoln Arrnue,
PBRMIT iv0. 317 Aaaheim, Csiifornia, Owner; RAI,RRAPT BUILDBRS, INC., 234 3outh
Roaemead Boulevard, Paeadena, California, Agent; requeatiag
permisaioa to CO~iS1RUCT A PIANNBD-U.1IT D8V8LOPIdBNT on property
deacribed as: A recteagular parcel of laad approximately 3~0 feet by 330 feet, aa~.d
property haviag aa approximate 220 foot frantage oa the weat aide of Bella Viata
3treet, the aortheriy portioa being 660 feet south of the eeaterline of Lineoln Avenue
aad the westeriy bouadary being 660 feet eset of the centeriine of RaoLt Avenue.
Proper~y preseatlq claeaified R-A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTIJRAL, 20N8.
Sub,~eet petitioa was fiied in con3unctioa with Reclasaificatioa No. 62-63-38,
3ub,~ect petition was continued from the meetiag of Novewber 14, 1962~ ia order to
allow the petitioaer an opportuniLy to submit reviaed plaas iacorporatiag the
Commiesion~a auggeationa~ snd also to be heard in eoa,~uaction with Reclaeaifieation
No. 62-63-38.
Mr. Clarence Claxk, the owuer, appeared before the Commiasion and atated that the
commeata he had made w1~en Reclasaification No. 62-63~38 w~a heard were applicable to
aub,ject petition.
Commisaioner Alired offered Reaoiution No. 553, Seriea 1962-63~ and moved for ita
pasasge and adoption, aeconded bq Commiasioaer Ailred, to graat Petitioa for
Conditionai Uae Permit No. 317, sub,~ect to coaditioas. (See Reaolutioa Book.)
On roii cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYBS: C~lMIS3IOI~R9: Alired, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley~ Perry.
COMMISSIOI~R3: None.
ABBHNT: COI~PIISSIONIDRS: Hapgood.
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC t1BA1tING. ROY LHB BURROUGHC, ec al, 213 &-ott
N0. 62-63-35 Avenae, Anaheim, California, Owners; RALRRAPT BiJILDHRS, INC.,
254 South Rosemead Boulevard; Pasadena, California, Agent;
requesting that property described as: A rectangular parcel of
land with a 132 foot frontage on the west side of Knott Aveaue, and a depth of 600
feet, the northeast coraer of said property being approximately 810 feet south of the . 1
southwest corner of Lincoln and I{nott Avenues, and further described as 149, 201, 2~3, {
209. and 213 Rnott Avenue (description includes two (2) parcels of land), be reclassified ~
from the R A, RBSIDBNTIAL ACdtICULTIJRAL, ZONH to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDHNT7AL, ~
2~IH to construct a planned-unit development.
Sub3ect petition was filed in conjunction with Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 313, .
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of October 29 and November 26, 1962, {
in order to allow the developer sufficient time to incorporate properties to the
north of subject property into the revised plons,
Mr. Clarence Ciark, appeared before the Commission and stated he was representing
the petitioners and the developer of subject properties, and that a letter had been
submitted in conjuaction with subject petition, said letter requested a continuance of
two (2) weeks for the submission of revised plans.
2oning Coordinator Martin Sreidt, read a letter si~ned by the developer, requesting
an additional two (2) weeks in order to compiete the revision of plot plana.
Chairmaa Gauer inquired if anyone apposed subject petition, and zeceived no respo::.-:. ~
Chairman Gauer advised Mr. Clark that the revised plot plans should be submitted ao
later than 9;00 O~Clock a.m., December 17, 1962, to the Pianning Department in order
that they might be reviewed by the Development Review function and the Interdepartr~?ntal
Ccmaiittee prior to the next Commisaion meeting, and to advise the developer of the
deadline.
Commisaioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for ~'
Reclassificsiwion No. 62-G3-35 to the meeting of 1Y-ursday, December 27, 1962, as
:r~quested by the developer for subject property. Commissioner Pebley seconded the
mo~tion. MOTION CARRIBD. I
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUBD PUSLIC HBARING. ROY LS8 BURRWQiS, et al, 213 Rnott
pBRMIT N0. 313 Avenue, Anaheim, California~ Ownere; RAT.KRAPT BUILDffitS, INC.,
254 South Rosemead Bouleward, Pasadena, California, Agent;
requesting permission to CON3TRUCT A PLANNBD-UNIT DBVBLOPMHNT,
AND WAIYB TWO-STORY FffiIGHT LIMITATION on property descsibed as: A rectangular parcel
of land with a 132 foot frontage on the west side of Rnott Avenue and a depth of 600
feet, the northeast corner of said property being approximately 810 feet south of the
southwest corner of Lincoln and Knott Avenues, and further described as 149, 201, 20?,
209, and 213 Rnott Avepue. ~roperty presently classified R-A, RHSIDHNfIAL AGRICUL- ~
TURAL, 20NH. ~
Sub.ject petition was filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-35.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of October 29, and November 26, 1962,
in order to aliow the developer sufficient time to incorporate other properties into
the revised plans, and that it might also be heard in conjunction with
Recla~aificatior. No. 62-63-35.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a letter from the developer in which a two
weeks extension of time was requested to submit the revised plaas.
.~__. __ . ---~ .
. ~i _ _ . - J_~ „~u:_..: _. _.. ... ... .._._.. _ .. ~
~
MINUT83, CITY PLANNING COAAlI3SION, December 10, 1962, Continued; 1291
CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petition for
PBRMIT N0. 313 Conditional Use Permit No. 313, to the meeting of Thursday,
(Continued) December 2T, 1962, in order to permit the developer sufficient
time to submit revised plot plans, and thafi it might be heard in
conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-35. Commissioner
Pebley seconded the motion. -!OTION CARRIED,
VARIANCB N0. 1532 - PUBLIC HBARING. MRS. HHRMAN GUST, 651 South Nutwood, Anaheim,
California, Owner; RICHARD LONG, 811 Nutwood, Anaheim, California,
Ageat; requesting permission to CRHATS 1W0 (L) R A PARCELS LHSS
THAN ONB ACRE, WAIVB 55 POOT WID1H RHQUIRHMHNT AND MINIMUM FLOOR ARBA on property
described as: An L-shaped parcel of• land with a frontage of 117 feet on the west side
of Nutwood Street, the northeastern most corner of said property being approximately
740 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 651 South
Nutwood Street, Property presently classified as R A, RBSIDBNTIAL A(~tICULTURAL, Z01~.
Mr. Ri:i`!ard Long, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
he had nothing to add for the Commission's consider.ation, but that he would be glad to
answer any questions the Corunission might have,
The Commission inquired of the petitioner what was proposed for the northerly 41 foot
strip of land abutting the property.
Mr. Long stated that evenlually the 41 foot strip of land would be incorporated with
the lot to ~he east of said strip.
Chairman Gauer inquired if anyone o~posed su.bject petition, and received no reply.
TFIB I~ffiAR,ING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission further discussed the disposition of the 41 by 75 foot stub parcel,
norther2y of the proposed division of the property into two parceis; that if any other
type of disposition was made of said stub parcel, the petitioner would be required to
file a variance for its disposition; and that it would seem reasonable to request the
petitioner to filc for a reclassification of the two parcels from its present R-A,
Residentisl Agricultural, Zone to the R-1, One Family Residential, Zone.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 554, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to grant Yetition for
Variance No. 1532 subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll ca11 ~:he foregoing resoiution was passed by fihe following vote:
AYBS: COMMI;,RIONSRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, A.IUngail, Pebiey, Perry.
NOBS: COA4+lI3SI0;IDRS: . None.
ABSBNT: COhA1ISSI0NffitS: Hapgood.
VARIANCB N0. 1535 - pUBLIC HBARING. G. L. WUNSCH and MAXINB WUNSCH, 2183 Niobe Avenue,
Anaheim~ California, Owners; STANLHY :.. ROSBN, 318 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California, pgent; requesting permission to
BSTABLISH A BBAUTY SALON on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land
having an approximate frontage of 85 feet on the north side of Niobe Avenue and an
approximate frontage of 106 feet on the eas# side of Brookhurst Street, and further
described as 2183 Niobe Avenue, Anaheim. Property presently classified as R-1, One
Pamily Residential, Zone.
,'~
1
;
Zoning Coordinator Martin Breidt, advised the Commission that the agent for the
petit?oners had submitted a written request for continuance of subject petition, said
request then being read by the Commission Secretary.
~ ~ ~
MINUTB3, CIT3f PIANNING COa9~iISSION, December 10, 1962, Continued:
1292
VARLINCS N0. 1535 - Chairman Gauer iaquired if the petitioners were preseut 3n the
(Coatinued) Council Q-amber.
Mr. G. Lester 1Vunsch, one of the petitioners, appeared before the
Commisaion aad stated he had nothiag further to add for the Com~eiasion's consideration,
bpt he would be glad tc+ aner!er a~q g~•eetions the Co~issioa ~ish: hsve.
Alr. Robert Roseawald, representing the Sherwood Porest Civic Asaociation, appeared
before the Commissioa in•opposition to subject petition aad atated that all the
oppoaeats of subject petitioa were present, aad asked that the petiiion aight be heard.
1he Commisaion then ruled to deny the request of the ageat for the petitioners and
informed the petitionera that sub,~ect petition rvould be heard immediately. .
The Commiaeion aeted Mr. Wunach fio expiaia what was being proposed for the sittgle
fami2y home.
Ate. Munsch atated thst the peti4ionera plaaned to uae aa exiating bedrooa froating on
Brookhurat 3treet; that a separate eatrance was propoaed for the room; that ao change
in the outward appearance of the atructure would be m~sde; snd that no aigae would be
diaplayed becauae Mra. Wanach had been a beautician for 20 yeare and had establiahed
a clieateie, thua did aot reqaire aa advertiaing aigA. • ~
~
~
~
i
i
The Commisaioa further iaquired if the petitioner wae aware there were deed reatrictioas
oa aub,~eet propertq which iimited the use of sab,~eet property to reais':eatiai uee oniq,
for 25 years; and that in order to permit the propoaed uae of a portion of the atructure
would xequire the consent of over 5096 of the resideate in the tract in order to accom-
pliah thia use by the waiver of the deed reatrictiona,
Mr. Robert Roaenxald appeared before the Commiasion and atated tha~ the preaideat of the
Sherxood Poreat Civie Asaociation was in the Couacii Chamber~ but rrould oAly epeaY if ~
the Commieaion Niahed to queation hiu; that he would be the apakeamaa for the ~
reaideata of the vract; aad that he had a petitioa aigned bq 92 seaideata of the tract ;
ia ~ich they oppoeed aub,~ect petit:ton becauae it xouid coaatitute a Auiesace, create i
parkiag aad traffic pro5lem, that the deed restrictiona expresaly forbade the uae of eub,~ect ~
property for other thaa residetttiai purposea; that two-thirda of the ownera in the ;
tract vrere either profesaionai or buain~samen and had their offices in a conmerciai 3
' area~ and to grant aub,~ect petitiott would be graating the peLitioaera a privilege not ;
graated to the other reaideata fr, ~~e c3mmuaity; aad that the propoaed uae xouid then '
be a detriment to the surrounding resideaces~ aince the 8herwood Tract wae deaigned ~
exclusively for aingle family developmeat.
i
Mr. David Gordoa, 2132 Minerva Street, appeared before the Commisaion aad atated~that j
1ie ~ras the presideat of the Sherxood Porest Civic Rsaociation~ that he had a petition ~
signed by reaideata within 500 feet of aub3ect property, that sevea of those reaidents i
we;e in the Council Chamber to oppose subject petitioa; and that only two persons
within.that area did aot sign said petitioa, i
I
alr. V. I. Ahera~ 835 Agate Street~ appeared before the Commisaion and stated that most I
of the reaideats of the tract were bueineas and profeasianal people, that each had made
the aecessarp effort to estiablish their offices in a commerciai area, aad.•that to gr.ant
sub,ject petitioa would open the tract to similar requeats for commerciai use in a
aiagle family residential development.
Mr. iVuasch in rebuttal, atated 2hat his wife had been in buainesa 20 yeare, and that
ahe did not have to adeertise her buainesa.
Mr. Prant Tierney, 2172-2182 Niobe~ appeared before the Commission and stated that he
was in favor of the petition; that sub,~ect property was not suitable for resideatial
uae becauae the heavy traffic on Brookhurst Street prevented the uae of a bedroos
enly 25 feet from 4he noiaea of the atreet; that he had tora down the masonrq wall on
the Brookhurst Street aide of his home, because of the number of accidents of suto-
mobiles colliding with the wall after beiag unable to negotiate the curve at the
corner of Niobe Avenue and Brookhurst.3treet.
~~'.
~ l~' ' `'~
AlINUTBB, CITY YIANNING CODNIISSI~i~ December 10, 1962~ Continued:
1293
VARIANCB N0. 1535 - 1Le Cosieiasion aiso iaqnired of Mr: Tieraey the length of time
(Contiaued) he occupied hia property. and Mr, Tierney repiied it haa beea
three yeara.
The Co~issica ~1so 3:.quired 4he pur~,aae os sne assonry wati~on Hroothurat 3treet~ aad
Fdr. 3'ierney atated that it aras a good advertisaeat for the poesible sale o£ hosea in
the tract a~ the tiae it had beea developed.
~ tIDARING MG1S CLOSBD.
The Cosmiaeion noted that sub,~ect uae ahould aot havE L~ten appiied for uader a variance~
as ao laad uae hardahip could be ahown aince the houae faced Niobe Aveaue, not
Brookhurat atreet; and that ainilar requesta had been heard bq t!~e Commiesioa four
timea previously ia the paat four yesra, and esch requeat had bees deaied becauae ao
laad uae hardsh3p could be proven.
Comaiaaioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 333~ 9eriea 1962-63, aad moveQ for its
pasasge And adoption~ aeconded by Coauaiaeioner Chavos~ to deay Petition for Varianee
No. 1333 b4aed on fiadinga. (See Reaolution Hook.)
On roil call the foregoiag reaolutioa was pesaed by the foiloxiag vote:
AYBS: CC~I88I01~lt8: Aiired~ Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebiey~ Perry.
NOBS: CO~AtI8SI01~tS.: Noae.
ABSBNT: C~hlISSIOI~RS: Hapgood.
VARIANCB N0. 1536 -• PUBLIC }~ARING. H[TGO sad DCROTHY H. NOTFffiI9~HN~ 300 8aat Miils
Drive~ Aaatieim~ Califoraia, Ownera; 3TANLEY NAITB, 10630 Beach
Boulevard~ Stanton~ Califoraia, Ageat; requestiag permiaaion to
CON3IRUCP A SINGLS PAMILY RBSIDBNCH on property described as; A rectaagular parcei of
iaad having a frontage of 60 feet on the aouth aide of Milis Drive~ sad a frontage of
140 feet on the east aide of Philadelphia Street, and further deacribed ae 300 Baat
Nille Drive. Property preaeatiq claeaified as R-2, 11~1p FAMILY RffiIDENTIAL~ 201~.
Mr. 8tanieq Nlaite, the ageat for the peti:ioner~ appeared before the Coseiasioa and
etsted he had aothing furtaer to add for the Camaisaioa~s conaideratioa.
Chairman Gauer iaquired whether there was anyone in the Couacii Chamber oppoaing
aub,~ect petitioa~ aad received ao zepiq.
TH8 }ffiARING NA3 CLA6HD.
The Coaaisaion reviexed the plot piaar, sad diacusaed the proposed etructure~s compat-
ability with the aurrounding area.
The Comr~i.eaion inquired of the agent for the p~titioner~ whether a r~ct roof was
proposed~ aiace t~e atructure ad3oining the propoaed atructure did not have a rock
roof~ and the ageat rep2ied that if the Conmissioa deaired it, a roof aimiiar to the
oae on the ad,~oining atructure rrould be aubetituted.
The Commieaioa further inquired what piaas were beit~g propoaed for a garage for the
propoaed atructure, aad 4he ageat replied that the exiating garage would aeparate
the present and the propoaed structure,. aad thas~a aew garage was propoaed to be
coabtructed off the aliey to the vrest of the proposed structure.
The agent for the petitioner further agreed to place a cedar shingle roof on the
proposed etrycture.
~ ~ V ; ~;::~/
~~.
i
i
IdINUTB3, CITY pIANNING CUhAlISSION, December 10~.1962, Continued;
""°~""18 N0. 1536
ued)
-~_
1294
- Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No, SS6~ 3eriea 1962-63,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Conmissiotter
Camp, that Petition for Variance ~lo. 1536 be granted sub3ect to
conditioas. (3ee Resolutioa Boot.)
call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followi~ yote;
CQA9~lI38IO~N&'tS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gaqer, Marcoux~ Muagall, Pebley, Ptrry,
~O~fdI3SI0NBR8: Noae.
COFAlIBSION~tS: Hapgood.
g~~ - PUBLIC FIDARING. DIBB I, MNTOUIC~ 123 South Bast Street~ Anaheim~
Caiiforaia~ Owaer; iVILLIAM gpitTpll~ 10650 Beach Boulevard~
Staatoa, California, Agent; requeating permisaioa to WAIVB
>f land$ havingDaYfront~age of~ip0~feetponpthe~weaterlqeaide~oF 8ast{3treetr and
of 79 feet, the aorthweaterly bouadary of said property beiag approxisately
: southiveat of Lhe centerliae of Lincola Avenue, and fusther deacribed aa
129 8outh Haet Street, Anaheim~ California, property preaeatly claeeified
1 PAMILY RBSIDBNTIL~ 201~ffi,
iam Bartoa, agent for the pet3.tioner, appeared before the Commieaion, ~nd
hat he had nothing further to saq for the Commieaioa'a coaeideration.
~ Gauer iaquired whether aaqone in the Couacil Chamber oppoaed sub,~ect
~~ and reee3ved no reply.
ING N1AS CL068D.
ieaion revie~ved the plot piane and noted fhat no garage rrae beiag provided
aew atructure; that ottiy a concrete pad was beiag provfded for bhe parkiag
obiles~ and inquired why the petitioner had aot provided a garage as
by Code,
on adviaed the Commissioa that aub3ect propertq was too ahallop, to provide a
ad that the apace between the !wo ho~es would be too aarrow to coastruct a
foot garage, because of the need for a 23 foot turning radiua as required by
~ted that the R-2 Code required oaly oae apace per dwellittg unit
les Hartman, repreaenting Guarantee Homea, the buildera of the propoaed
', appeared before the Commiasioa and atated that a garage was aot drawn on
plans because it would then be attached to the strueture as required by Code
space between the proposed structure and the existing structure was only
vhich would leave only a narrow four (4) foot space between the garage and the
structure.
>ordinator Martin $reidt, advised the Commission if they rvere considering the
favorabiq, that an encroachment from the standard rear yard requirement
incorporated into the granting of subject petition if a garage were desired
~mmiasiors, and that the petitioner could coasult with the Planniag Department
~ exact location of the proposed garage on subject property in order to
~ in the reaolution the desired encroachment.
.ssion also noted that the Traffic Diviaion was proposing "no parking"
~na to the aouth of subject property, attd that said regulation might be
to Lincoln Avenue, which would be an additional reason for requiting a garage,
. _ - _ . . ..
- ~
-.~,< __~.. _
. . ~~
, _ . ----
~
,~
~ ,
~ ~
~'ti
I
MINUTBS, CITY PL41V14ING COMMI3SION, December 10, 1962, Continued: 1295
VARIANCE N0. 1537 - Commissioner pilred offered Resolution No, 557, 3eries 1962-63,
(Continued) and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Mungall to grant Petition for Variance No. 1537 sub,ject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roil ca11 the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
AYE3: CO~hAlI3SIONBRS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry.
NOB3: COhAlI3SION~tS: None,
ABSBNT: COi~AlISSIOI~S: Hapgocd.
VARIANCS N0. Y538 - PUALIC HBpRING. ISHMABL aad SARA GIJZMAN, 9331 Cerritos Aveaue,
Aaaheim, California, Ownera; BD MANN~ g25 North Harbor Bonievard,
Aaaheim, California, Ageat; requestiag permieaion to IAT SPLIT ONB
PARCBL OP LAND TO CRBpTB TWO PARCSIS QP LAND LBSS TfiAN ONB ACRB IN ARBA on propertq
deacribed as: A rectangular parcel of laad haviag a froatage of 107 feet on the aorth
aide of Cerritos Avenue and having a frontage of 113 feet on the east aide of Gerza
Street, Property preac±:tiq clasaified as R A, RBSIDBNTIAL p(RtICULTURAL, ZONB,
Mr. Hdgar Mana, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commieaion, and etated
that'he had nothing further to add for the Commiasion~s considera*ion.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone ia the Council Chawber oppoaiag sub,~ect
petitioa, and received no replq,
77~ HBARING WA3 CI,pgHD,
The Commisaioa reviewed the piot pians and noted that the proposed atrqcture would have
a rock roof, that the eaiatiag struct~re had a compoaition ahiagie roof, and that it
xouid be more compatibie if the propoaed etructure would have the aame material For the
roof.
The Commisaion also noted that sub3ect propertq was ~a the Reaideatisl Agricultural,
Zoae~ that the aurrouading propertq was aii R-1~ One Pamilq Reeidentiai~ 2one; and that
as a eoadition of approval, the petitioaer shouid have aub,~ect propertq reciaeaified
from the R-A~ Reaidentiai Agricultural, Zoae to the R-1, Oae Pamily Reaidentisl~ 2one
prior to Pinal Buiiding Inapection of the new atructure.
Coumisaioner Marcoux offered Reaolutios No. 558, 3eriea 1962-63, aad moved far ita
passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commiasioner Allred, to grant Petition for
Variance No. 1538, sub,~ect to coaditiona. (See Resolutioa Book.)
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the foliowing vote:
AYB3: CdMhiISSIONffitS; Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COhM ISSION~tS: None,
ABSBNT: CObAlISSION~tS: Hapgood.
CONDITI~IAL USB - YUBLIC FffiARING. SIGNAL OIL COMPANY~ 1221 South Western, Los pngeles
PERMIT N0. 325 6, California, Owners; Requestinb permission to BSTABLISH A USHD ~
CAR LOT AND PARgING LOT on property described as; A rectangular ~
parcel of land having an approximate froatage of 102 feet on the,
north side of Cypress Street and having an approximate depth of 100 feet, the south-
eastern most corner of said propertq being approximately 122 feet west of the centerline
of Los Angeles Street, and further described as 301 North Los Angeles Street,
Psoperty presently classified as G2, GHNBRAL COA9NffitCIAL, ZONH. ~
I,
___..~ ' '. _
~ ~ ~
~. ....~..-
I
~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CObAiISSION, December 10, 1962, Continued:
1296
CONDITIONAL USB - Zoning Coordinator Martin $reidt, advised the Commission that
PERMIT N0. 325 subject p,etition would have to be readvertised, since the entire
(Continued) parcel of land iacluding the service station would have to be
stipulated in the legai description, and suggested that the
Comaission continue subjeci peiition untii. tne meeting oi
Dec~mber 27, i962.
Mr, Robert Paull, xepxesenting the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and
stated that he was aware ~`hat subject property had not been completely advertised in
the original legal descrip•;ion, and that it was necessary for the Planning Department
to readvertise subject petiLion.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 325, to the meeting of December 27, 1962, in order that the Planning
Department might readvertise t5a ~.^tare ;a:cel of subject property. Commissioaer
Allred seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRISD.
PUBLIC HBARING.
CONDITIONAL USH - THBODCytH J. and ,]OAN H. PBITROR, 905 South Lemon Street, Anaheim,
PBRMIT NJ. 326 Caiifornia, Owners; sequesting permission to construct a four-unit
apartment on property described as; An L-shaped parcel of land
with a frontage of 75 feet on the south side of Vermont Aveaue,
108 f~et plus or ~ai::rs west of Le~on Street, and 60 feet plus or minus on the west
side of Lemon Street, 95 feet south of Vermont Avenue, and further described as
208 West Vermont and 903 South Lemon Street. 3ubject property presently ciassified as
R~3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Kenneth Lae, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Commission and stated that subject property had recently been before the
Commission requesting the waiver of a single story construction, and at that time the
City Attorn,~,y~s Office advised the petitioner to file for a Conditional Use Permit,
because the proposed Levelopment was a multiple family planned unit development; that
the land could support 15 apartmeats and only 11 spartments were pianned; and that
each apartment would be 1;525 square feet.
17-e Coaamission inquired whether the proposed uaits wnuld be indentical to the existing
units, and received an affirmative reply.
The Commiasion further inquired whether the petitioner plaaned to make any changes in
the outward appearance from the present units.
Mr. Lae advised the Commission that no changes were indicated on the plot pians.
Mrs. Robert E. Perryman, 210 West Vermont Avenue, appeared before the Commission and
stated that she had submitted a letter opposing subject petition; that when Variance
No. 1497 was granted on Auguat 14, 1962, the plot plans indicated a four-unit apartment
with 6 garages with all the garages facing on Vermont Avenue; that the present plot
p~ans indicates 4he same four-unit apartment with 3 garages and 1 apartment below and
2 apartments above on the space where it fosmerly showed 6 garages, that if subject
property were sold as separate parcels, a split in the garage distribution wouid be
effected, which would then present a violation of the Code with insufficient garage
space being provided; that possibly that at a later date seven small apartments
could be built over the garages, which would then make 18 apartments and only 13
garages; and that the street intersection on which the proposed units were proposed
was heavily congested with traffic and the parking of automobiles from the apartment
development on the streets would then present a hazard.
,'',
~
Y
A ietter from Mr. and Mrs. Orlo Past, 907 South Lemon Street, was read to the
Comaission opposing subject petition because of the high density proposed for the
subject property, and that the area surrounding subject property was primarily for
single family homes and apartments which provided ample yard space.
~ ~ ~
~
k .
~
MINUTBB, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 10, 1962, Continued:
1297
CONDITIONAL USB - Ia rebuttal, Mr. Lae stated that the opposition did not understand
PffitMIT N0. 326 the reasona for the Pet:~~ion for Conditioaal Use Permit, that their
CCoatinued) only reason for filing said petition was because the City Attorney
interpreted the original Variaace as a Planned Unit Developemat,
and as such, the petitioner was required to file sub,ject petition.
The Commission further reviewed the plot plans aad noted that the plans did not
provide for any recreational area; that if elevations v+ere changed somewhat.sub,~ect
petition might be more compatible with projected plans for the City; that more detail
should be exhibited on the plot plana and elevatioas; and that if aubject petition
with the existing plaas were approved, it would be a detriment to the City of Anaheim.
Mr. lheodore Pietrock, the petitioaer~ appeared before the Commission and stated he
would have the plaas redrawu to fulfili all R-3 Code requirements, and what he
presented the Commission was the best he could offer,
THH FiBAItING WA3 CLOSHD.
The Commission further discussed the absence of a recieational area, the high density
proposed for subject property, and suggested that the petitioner obtaia professional
advise in order to present more compatible plot ,l~as and elevations.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to reopen the hearing and contiaue Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No, 326 to the meeting of January 21, 1963, and advised the
, petitioner that reviaed plans be in the Pisnning Department no later than 9:00 a.m.
January 14, Y963, Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD,
~ CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC I~ARING. LBO LIBERIO, 1622 West Rickey, Anaheim, Cali-
~ PBRMIT N0. 327 fornia, Owner; JAM83 LIBBRIO, 1720 West La Palma, Anaheim~ Cali-
fornia, Agent; requestiag permission to CONSIRUCT A RESTAURANT
~ AND COCKTATL BAR on property described as; A rectangular parcei
of land having a frontage of 136 feet on the south side of La Palma Aveaue and a depth
~' of 280 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximateiy 330 feet west
i' of the centerline of Euclid S+.reet, and further described as 1732 West La palma qvenue,
F-• Property presently classified C-1, NBIGHBCIRHOOD COMhffiRCIAL, ZONB.
~ Mr. James Liberio, agent for the petit ioner, appeared before the Commission aad atated
P he had nothing more to say for the Commission`s consideration, but that he would be
! glad to anawer their questions.
r.
k The Commission reviewed the plaas as preaented by the agent for the petitioner, who
'f indicated posaible changes to the pians.
Mra. M. L. Poxt, 1726 Prances Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
i subject petition, aa~. s"af.,ed tha~ she was pa•rt owner of the tri-plexes abutting the rear
•` of sub,~ect property, that the parkiag area was proposed to be to the rear of aub3ect
r property; that the late ciosing houra would create a disturbance in the area with
i motors starting and possible loud voices; that to grant subject petition would be a
&; detriment to the area as well as create a hazard to the posaible rentiag of apartments
she might have available; and that the alleq was not a dedicated alley but att easement.
Mrs. IV. T. Goodwin, 1743 Prances Drive, appeared before th~ Commission in opposition
to sub3ect petition and atated that she concurred with all the statements made by
Mrs. Port.
Ia rebuttal, Mr. Liberio stated that they had owned sub,ject property for six (6) years.
and the proposed use was the best they had been offered for sub3ect property; that the
propoaed atructuse wonld be at leas4 100 feet aortheriy of the rear property line, and
that a grapestake fence was proposed for the rear of snbject property so that no
iagress and egress could be made through the rear of subject property.
~ 17iB HHARING WAS CLOSBD.
,;
I.
~I'
~ ~
MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COI~MISSION, December 10, 1962, Continued:
~ -. ~
~
1298
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission noted that the agent for the petitioner stated the
PHRMIT N0. 327 posaibility of a two-story construction with offices an the
(Continued) second floor; that any changes to the platts as submit~~ed with
subject petition would have ta be presented to the Cos~mission,
that all indicated changes being proposed including ::levations for
the two-story construction and plans for the parking area be
shawn on the plot plans; that when the plot plans were presented, a six (6) foot strip
of landscaping should be aiso indicated as well as provision for treewells in the
parkway portion of the La Palma Street frontage of subject property; and that a
masonry wall be indicated on the southerly portion of subject property.
~ Commissioner pebley offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for ~
Conditional Use Permit No. 327~ to the meeting of December 27, 1962, in order to allow
~,, the petitioner time to submit revised plot plans incorporating all the saggestions the
a Commission made, and that plans be submitted to the Planning Department no later than
9:00 a,m „ Monday, December 17, 1962, Commissioner A11red seconded the motion. MOTION
~ CARRIBD.
RBCHSS Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes.
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meetiag recessed at 4:00 0'Clock P,M, I
~
~~ ~
RHCONV8N8 Commissioner Gauer reconvened the meeting at 4:10 0'Clock P.M. All
~. Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioner Hapgood. ~
€
CONDITIONAL U38 - PUBLIC F~ARING. RUBIH SITYMOUR, 5418 West Adams Boulevard,
PBRMET_N0. 328 Lou Angelea, California, Owner; H[1DSON DEVBLOPMHNT COI~ANY, ~
r 9009 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, qgent; request-
ing permission to CONSIRUCT A SPBCIAL H0.SPITAL P~t GBRIqTRICS pNp
s RHHABILITATION on property deacribed as; An L-shaped parcel of land having an
~ approximate frontage of 72 feet on the west side of Rnott Avenue, and a depth of 590
~ feet, the westernmos4 420 feet of said property having an approximate width of 132 feet,
j- the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 672 feet south of the
~ centeriine of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 141 3outh Snott Avenue. ~
~ Yro ert y ~ ~
~ p y presentl ciasaified as R A RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL ZOIJ~.
i
~ Mr. Howard Kaufmann the representative of the agent for the petitioner, appeared
~
~ before the Commission and stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission's
€ consideration,
{.
~ Mr. 3rving Mosk~ 5887 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, appeared before the Commission in
~ opposition to subject petition aad stated that he represented the Buena Park Hospital,
k which abn~s subj~_r.t property; that the Hospitai~s master plan proposed an identical
s service structure as being proposed for subject p=operty; that the Bureau of Hospitals
~ enc~uraged the integration of a conva.lescent hospital in conjunction with facilities ~
~ offered by a regular hospitai, so *..hat persoas convalesc.xng would not be occupying
beds that could be used for the se:iously 311 pessons, ~
1
A letter frcm the Orange Countq Hospital Planning Objectives Committee was read to ~
the Commisaion in which a qualified approval was given to subject petition, i
Commissioner Chavos stated tha•c the ~peration of hospital facilities was not to be I
compared with other commercial enterprizes; that more facilities would not encourage
better and lesa expensive opesation; that it would be quite the contrary because there ~
would be competition to obtain the best qualified help, thus reducing the effectiveness ~
of existing hospitals, and in the uiiimate end would increase costs and decrease the
quality of aervice; that it was the duty of the Commisaion to decide what was best for ~"
Anaheim as weli as the best land use for subject property, and that the Commission
should plan for the future of pnaheim by taking all factors into consideration.
~
;
i
~
i
~ . . . ' . ' ~ . . ~i . , .
i
y~'~~ *r { ~.' _ ` , ._ • , ,.. . . ~ '
,., ~,. .. .. ~ ~.... ,. ., .r .. ... . .. . . . . .. . _. . . .. . ~ . . _.
a
~
~~
r:
~.
MINUTE9~ CIT3[ YUNNING C~dI33I0N~ Deceuber 10~ 1962, Contiaued: 1299
CONDITIONAL U38 - Mr, Baufvaan inforned the Cosmissio~ that the proposed developmeat
PffitMIT N0. 328 would aot be in competition with any exiating hospital; that the
(Continued) propoaed hospital wouid be staffed wifch competeat persoanel and
would meet ali the requirements as atiprilated by the State; aad
thet it tso~ld se?;e~e the preaea# congeated co~aditioa at the
Buena ParY Hospital.
Tf~ FIBARING NIAS Q.OSBD.
The Commisaion further diecuased the Commisaion's duties as to subjec4 petition, and
felt that it was for the Commiaeion to decide oniy the iaad use~ and if anq other
£actor,auch as ecoaomica, this would be the prerogative of the City Councii.
h1r. Mosk 3nformed the Commission that the Buena Park Hospital Group was plaaning to
p=oceed with plans for a convalescent hoapital unit re~ardiess of the outcome of
anytlung the Commission might decide on subject petition, but that the letter received
from the Orange Countq ?iospi4al Planning Objectives Committee was unaware of plan.s
his group had, aad tb~s did not mention that fact in their letter to the Commission.
Commissioner Pebleq offered Reaoiutioa No. 559, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage snd adoption, seconded by Commiaeioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No, 328~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMAIS3YONBRS: Allred, Camp~ Gauer, Marcoux~ Mungall, Pebley~ Perry.
NOES: COi~MI83I01~RS: Chavos.
AB9HNT; COMMI3SIONffitS: Hapgood.
EONDITI~IAL U$H - PUBLIC fIDARING. CAPITOIA A. and HASRELL A. YBLLY~ 852 North Weat
PffitMIT N0. 329 Street, and M. PRANCI3 MBHIV, 900 North West Street, Anaheim~ Cali-
fornia, Owners; WILLIAM DITZHAZY~ 855 North EVest StreeL, Anaheim,
California, Agen4; requesting permission to C@iSTRUCT A.pIANI~D- ~
UNIT DHVHLOPMBNT on property described as; A rectangular parcei of land having a
frontage of 213 feet .,n the easteriy aide of West Street and a depth of 295 feet, the
southerly boundary oi said property being approximately 630 feet northwesterly of the
centerline of North Street, and further described as 852 and 860 North Weat Street.
Pzoper+q preseatly ciassified as R-0, ONB PAMILY SUBURBAN, ZOfffi.
Mr. Wiiliam Ditzhazy, agent for the petitioners; appeared before the Commisaion and
stated 4hat he had nothiag further to add for the Commisaion's conaideratioa,
Mr. Bernaid Greenbaum, 837 North West Street, appeared before the Commisaion and
stated that he represented th=ee other persons owning property in close proximity to
sub~ect property. and that the legal notice stated the proposed development was a
planned unit development to which he and his neighbors were opposed.
The Commisaion informed Mr. ~:reenbaum, that the proposed development would be single
family homes~ whereupon Mr. Greeabaum atated that he and hia neighbors would not
oppoae aub3ect petition.
The Commisaion further noted that the plot plan indicated a private.atreet which was
too narrow to provide ingreas and egress for at=eet cleaners, trash truck pickup, and
adequate fire protectioa because trucks would be unable to tura around this narrow
street; that the residents of the propc~sed homes would be forced to carry their trash
to Weat 3treet for pickup, and that in the Commissioa~a opinion aub3ect development
was not considered a planned-unit development.
Mr. Ditzhazy stated that he had been toid that the minimum requirement for a atsndard
street was 34 feet~ aad now it had been changed to 36 feet.
MINUTES, CIT7t PIANNING COMMISSION, Deceaber 10, 1962, Coatinued: 1300
CONDITIONAL II3H - Zoning Coordinator Martin Breidt advised the agent that during
PHRMIT N0. 329 the Interdepartmental Committee subject petition was reviewed, and
(Contiaued) it was determiaed that the Code provides for one dwelling unit per
10,000 aquare feet; that subject property could be developed by
the filing of a subdivision map and reclasssification of subject
pzoperty to R-1, 3ingle Pamily ~esidential~ Zone; that through said filing oi a sub-
diviaion map, dedication of streets could be ~one by considering possible development
of property to the na:#h for a similar development and provide a"T" shaped street to
provide adequate ingress and egress.
Mr. Ditzhazy stated in respoase to a Commission question that two smali green houses
would be removed from sub,ject property; that four (4) new homes were being proposed
with the option to build a fifth home; that if 60 feet were taken For street dedication
it would not be possible to build all the homes proposed, thus adding to the cost of
each home.
Mr. Kreidt stated that it would be necessary to have some form of public utility
easements~ and if no parkwaqa were provided, it wouid be impossibie•to iastall the
public utilities over private property, aad that oaly three homes would be aerviced by
the connector atreet as the other two homes would be serviced through the bPest Street
frontage.
T!~ FIDARING WAS CL0539D.
The Commiasion further discussed the uae of aubject property and the atreet treatment
as presented on the piot plans~ suggesting to the petitioners~ that a 54 foot atreet be
provid~d with ~he stree~ ~easu~eweut o: 38 €eet :.-ara curb to curb; 4ha* 3t !Ye,s poee±ble
to solve the 2~~out for six (6) parcels, with a str•r.rt down the center and a cul-de-sac
at the end and a 60 foot croas section; and suggeated that the petitioner present
another plot plan to the Commission incorporatittg all the proposed changes,
Commissioner Ailred offered a motion to reopen and continue Petition for Conditional
Use Yermit No. 329 to the meeting of January 7, 1963~ in order that the petitioners
might be permitted sufficient time to redesign the plot plans to incorporate the
required street width, said plans to be submitted to the Planning Department no later
than 9:00 0'Clock A.M.. December 28~ 1962. Commissioner Pebleq seconded the motion.
i;OTION CARRISD.
CONDITIONAL USB, -?UHLIC I~ARING. FRANR BASILIB, 829 3outh Rnott Avenue, pnaheim,
PffitMIT N0. 331 California, Owner; ROHSRT W. MacMAHQN, 1695 West Crescent,
California Pederal 3avings Building, Suite 560, Aaaheim, Cali-
fornia, Agent; requesting permission to SSTABLISH A RHSTAURANT-
HOPBRAU on propertq described as; p rectangular parcel of iand haviag a frontage of
225 feet on the west ~side of $nott Avenue, and a frontage of 160 feet on the south side
of Savanna Street, and further deacribed as 848 South Rnott Avenue. Property presently
classified as C-1, I~IGHBQRHOOD CQhU~ffiItCIAL, ZONB. ~
Mr. Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and
stated that the proposed facility did not require a large kitchen space since the _
petitioner planned to serve pizza which was be'ing baked just two doors away from the
proposed restaurant-hofbrau,
Chairman Gauer inquired whether anyoae opposed subject petition, and received no reply,
TfiB HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commiasion reviewed the plot pians as submitted with pictures of the front
elevations.
`i
,`, ,-~.a...~~
`.~
'~
l
4
~
v ~-
~
f~
~- ----
~ .\
~• i
i
1301 ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COA9dISSION, December 10, 1962, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 560~ Series 1962-63,
pffitMIT N0. 331 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner
~ (Continued) Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 331,
subject to coaditions. (See Resolution Book.)
p C
. On roll cali the foregoiag resolutioa was passed by the folio~aing vote:
AyB3: COi~lISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley. Perry.
Npgg: C~AUlI3SIONBR3: None.
Ag3gNT: COlMIISSIONHR3: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBA1tING. GEORGB and ALHBRT LARRASSB, 1568 West Lincoln
pBRMIT N0: 332 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; L. PRBDRICK PACK, P. 0. Box ~33,
Corona del Mar, Californ3a, Agent; requesting permission to
CONSTRUCT RBCRBATIONAL FACILITIBS AND WAIVH LOT DIMENSIONS AND
pRBA IN QtDffit TO B3TABLISH SAID L02 SPLIT on property described as: An irregular
parcel of land having a 60 foot frontage on the west side of Curtis Court, and a
depth of 102 feet, the west boundary of said property being approximately 230 feet
east of the centerline ~f State Coliege Boulevard, aad the southern boundary of said
property being approximately 800 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue,
and further described as 1105 Curtis Court. Property presently classified as R-3,
MULTIPLH FAMILY RBSIDSNTIAL, ZONS.
Mr. L. Predrick Pack, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that he proposed to provide recreational facilities on the northerly portion
of an irregular ahaped lot for the enjoyment of the resideats in the multiple family
deveiopment.
Chairman Gauer inquired if anyone in the Couneil Chamber opposed subject petition, and
recaived no response. '
TF~ HBARING WA5 CLOSBD.
The Commission reviewed the plot plan and noted that a short courtway was propoaed for
pedpstrian ingsesa'and egreas to the apartment building to the south of the propoaed
lot split.
Commissioner Camp of'fered Resolution No. 561, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Chavos, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Yermit No. 332, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On'roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowiag vote:
pY83: COhalI33IOI~R3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry.
NQH3: CONAtIS5I01VBR3: None .
pHSBNT: COhAtISSI~iffitS; Hapgood.
RBC,BSS Commiasioner Pebley offered a motion to recess for dinner to reconvene at
7:00 0•Ciock P.M. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Ttre meeting recessed at 5:00 0'Clock P.M.
RSCONVBNH Chairman Gauer reconvened the Regular Meeting at 7:00 0'Clock P.M., all
members being present except Commiasioner Hapgood.
~r!
~
I
I
i
j
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CahAlISSION, December 10, 1962, Continued: 130"a
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC fIDARING. 1~4t. and 1~4tS. FRANK DBL GICIRGIO, 5371 Grandview,
PffitMIT N0. 333 Yorba Linda, Califoraia, Owners; R. L. BALHN, 921 West 17th Street,
Santa Ana, California, Ageat; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT
A PIANNBD-UNIT DBVELOPMBNT oa pm perty described as: A r~ctangular
parcel of land having a frontage of 312 feet on the south side of Broadway, and a depth
of 622 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 350 feet to the
centerline of Buciid Street, and further described as 1650-1670 Broadway, Property
presently classified R A, RESIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONE, (R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSI-
DBNTIAL, ZONB, pending.)
Mr. Frant Del Giorgio, one of the petitiuners, appea.red before the Commission and
stated that he was only the petitioner and did not represent the builder, but that the
builder-engineer was in the Council Chamber if the Commission wished to question him
regarding any phase of the cons~ruction.
Mr. William Lambert, 453 Arden Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject petition and stated that a number of residents in close proximity to subject
property had signed a petition opposing any construction within 150 feet of single
family residences,
The Commission advised Mr. Lambert that two-story construction was more than 150 feet
as required from the single family development to the south of subject property; that
all two story construction was confined toward the center of the development, and were
studio type apartments; that although the Commission had denied the reclassification of
subject property,it •,ras oniy because plot plans as presented to the Commission did not
conform to the desires of th.e Commission; that the proposed plans incorporated all the
requirements for a presentable multiple family development; and that subject property
was bounded on the east and West with commercial development, and the developer desired
to develop subject property with garden-type multiple family development and surrounded
on three sides by a masonry wall.
Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt, read conditions from the Resolution of Inteat
a~proved by the City Counci! ia which it was stipulated that single story construction
must be maintained 150 feet from any single family development.
THB I~ARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 562, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, aeconded by Commisa3oner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No, 333, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoiag resnlution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COI~AlI3SIOI~IDIt3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, perry.
NO&S: COFASISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: CQhOlISSIOAIDRS: Hapgood.
RHCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC FIDARING. WII.LIAM BRHGDBR, 2135 West Ba11 Road, pnaheim,
N0. 62-63-48 California, Owner; LBAOY ROSB, 600 North Suclid Street, Anaheim,
Calif ornia, Agent; requesting that property described as; A
rectangular parcei of land having a frontage of 270 feet on the
west side of Bmpire Street, and an approximate depth of 188 feet, the northerly
boundary of said propertq being approximateiy 210 feet south of the centerline of
Bail Road, and further described as 1225 South Bmpire Street be reclassified from the
C-1, NHIGHBORHOOD CphAtIDtCIAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSID2SNTIAL, ZONB to
establish a two story muitiple family residential development,
Subject petition was a required condition of approval for Conditional Use permit No. 304,
~ ~ ~
\~
' / ,'
~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANhING CQ~9dI9SI0N, December 10, 1962, Continued:
1303
RHCIASSIPICATION - Zoning Coordinator Martia Kreidt, reviewed for the Commieaion the
N0. 62-63-48 fact that subject petition was advertised exluding the required
(Continued) northerly 10 feet which had been incorporated in the plot plans;
that the Resolution of Inteat for Coaditional Use Permit No. 304
had been heid in abeyar.ce unt?lthe correct legal description eres
submitted by the petitioner; that the northerly 10 feet were agaia omitted from the
legal description submitted by the petitioner for subject petition; aad that the agent
for the petitioner had been advised of this~ and the agent had agreed to submitting an
additional fiiing fee. '
Mr. $reidt further informed the Commission that the City Attorney's office had advised
the P1aAning Department that subject petition and Conditional Use Permit No. 304 would
have to be readvertised in order to include the northerly ten (10) feet.
Commissiones Allred offered a motion to contiaue Petition for Reclassification
No. 62-63-48 to the meeting of December 27, 1962, in order to aliow the planttiag Depart-
ment aufficient time to readvertise subject petition, Commissioaer Chavos secondea the
motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
RBCLA~.SIPYCATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. CARL and BRNA PR2lSSBL, 515 3outh Dickel, Aaaheim,
N0. 62-63-49 California, Owners; requestiag that property described as; A
rectangular parcel of land having a 215 foot frontage on the
south side of Santa pna Street, rand a depth of 203 feet, the
easterly boundary of said property being approximately 230 feet west of the centerline
of Lemon Street, and further described as 222 and 224 3anta Ana Street from the R-2,
1W0 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIQiT MANUPACTURING, ZONH to establish a
blacksmith and welding ahop.
Mr. Phillip McGraw, 914 West Lincola Avenue, attorney for the petiiioner, appeared
before the Commission and stated Lhat the peti.tioner requested the proposed rezoning to
enlarge aa existing welding shop located immediately adjacent to subject propertq; that
the proposed use wouid be compatible for the area because 3anta Ana Street to the east
of subject property was zoned for manufacturiag; and that to the petitioners kaowledge
nune of the surrounding property owners opposed sub3ect petition.
The Commission reviewed subject property as it pertaiaed to the Preliminary !'~aeral
Plan and noted that subject property was proposed for low-medium density; that approval
of subject petition would eliminate possible development of Clemeatine Street and an
alley as a through street to the north; and ~hat subject property abutting siagle
family residential development to which subject properLy could well be converted.
Chairman Gauer iaquired if anyone in the Council Chamber opposed aubject petitioa, and
received no reply.
A letter from Mrs. Vida Naffziger, 527 South Lemon Street, was received by the
Commisaion opposing subject reclassification.
THB HBARING WA3 CLOSBD.
Discuasion was held by the Commission of the proposed development predicating the
movement of manufacturing facilitiea weat of Lemon Street; that the City had projected
pasaible plans for a Civic Ceater in close proximity to aubject psoperty; aad that the
3anta Pe Railroad d3d not project any fuxther development for the raiiroad property as
far as anq tentative plans were concerned.
~
The Commission further stated that it was their opiaion t~at aay manufacturing
development be limi4ed to the east of Lemon 3treet.
, s
,~
~ •
~ ~
~ .
(~~ tl
~.j ~J
``` l
MINUTB9, CITY PLANNING COhQ1ISSI0N, December 10~ 1962, Continued; 1304
R8CLA3SIPICATION - Commissioner Aiired offered Resolution No. 563~ Series 1962-63,
N0. 62-63-49 aad moved for its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commisaioner
(Coatiaued) Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 62-63-49 be deaied based on findings,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote:
AYES: COFOfI93I0Nffit8: Allred, Canp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perrq.
NOB3: COi~lISSIONBR3: None.
AB3HNT: COFalI3SIOIVHR3: Hapgood,
RBCLASSIPIC~'c'~ON - PUBLIC FIDARING. IARAMORH BUILDBRS, INC., 831 South Manchester
N0. 62-63-SU Avenue~ Anaheim, California, Ownersp gpGi,g gpiTBRpRISES, INC.,
10332 Chapman Avenue, Gardea Grove, California, Agent; requesting
of land having a frontagc of~346tfeetson=the east sideBofNMagnolia Avenueguand aadepth
of 150 feet. PARCffi, N0, 2: pn irregular parcel of land ad,joining Parcel No. 1, and
having a frontage of 184 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, and a frontage of
449 feet on the north side of Winston Street, the aorthera boundaries of Parcel Nos. 1
and 2 beiag approximately 78g feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, and further
described as 1250-1332 3outh Magnolia Avenue, be reclassified from the R A, RESIDBNTTAI,
AQtICULTtTDtAL, ZONH, to the C-1, NSIGFIBaRH00D CQFAfffitCIAL, ZONH on Parcel No. 1, and
R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONE, on Parcel No. 2 to permit the construction of a
planned unit multiple family developmeat.
3ubject petitioa was ffled in conjunction with Conditional Uae Bermit I~a, 330.
1Kr. Lee Webb, 950 3outh 8uclid Street, a representative of the agent for the petitioner,
appeared before the Commission and stated, that Mr. R. S. Wilsey of the Bagle Bnter-
priser,would answer any questions the Commission might have.
Mr. Webb further stated that subject propertq was bounded on the north by Neighborhood
Commercial development, on the west by siagle family development, aad on the south by
multiple family development.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans as pc..sented aad inquired of Mr. Wilsey whether
the petitioner planned to dedicate the streets and alleys to the City, and reeeived an
affirmative reply.
Mr. Joseph Sahagen, 10680 Rona Lane, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission and
stated that he was the official owner of the R-3 development ~mmediately to the south
of sub,ject property; that at the time he applied for permission to construct a planned
unit development he was requested to limit his structures to aiagle story; that
although the price per acre was high, he has realized a good income from the singie
atory development and he was proposing to add an additional 44 units to the present
development; a~::~ :aat the petitioner should strive for single s4ory to present a'more
compatible development. '
Mr. Robert Mderson, 8972 Kenneliq Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subject petition and stated he opposed the waiver of siagle story height limitation,
and inquired what type of shops were proposed by the builder.
Mr. R. S. Wilsey, ia reply to Mr, Aaderson'. question stated Yhat office buildings
were proposed for doctors attd perhaps a pharmacy would be established in conjunction
with the medicai office center.
Idr. Wilaey further stated the reason tvro story conatruction was proposed, was becauae
of acting as a buffer zone to the co-ronercial property to the north.
,~1
~
... ~
dll4 ~~`, ~~ ~_ _ _ /-.
- - ... ~ '. . ..'' - t:~ E~ . .
' ~ ' ~ ~ • . j ~~~y~
. . . . . . d `i< . ~ .
. ~ ' \ ! . ~ . . ' . . ~~ .. .
..r w ~
- MINUTffi, CITY PIANNING C0(~4dI3SI0N, December 10, 1962, Coatinued: 1305
. RHCLIS3IPICATION - The Commission advised Mr. Wilsey that coa~ercial development would
- N0. 62-63-50 only depend upon what the person to whom the propertq was soid
_~ (Continued) would project for the property; tnat Magaolia Avenue was proposed
, to be a 106 foot wide street; that it was taown as a commercial
street;.and that anq detrimental effect on the loan value of aay
property in *.hat are~ would have taten effect because af this
• ~' traasitional factor.
f
1HB HBARING WA3 CL~~.
: .~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Lreidt, informed the Commission that the Bagineering Depgrfiment
had made a further analysis of subject property, and then read the memoradum regarding
subject property~s needed requirements.
The Commission reviewed the plot plaa,s aad noted that the proposed two stozy development
was less than 150 feet from R A, ~esidential Agricultural~ zoned property to the south
and east of subject property. .
Commiasioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 564, Series 1962-63~ and moved for its
passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-50 be approved subject to conditions.
CSee Reaolution Baok.)
~e coaditions as stated in the Resolutioa Book wer e recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessarp prerequisite to the use of the proper+y in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the Cit..'.zens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was pasaed bq the foliowing vote;
AYB3: Cc~lI3SIONBRS: Alired, yamp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Fer=y.
NOB3: COA~AfI3SI0NBRS: None.
ABSENT: C~AlISSIONHRS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC FIBARING. IARAMORH BUILDffitS, INC., 831 3outh Manchester Avenue,
PBRMIT N0. 330 Anaheim, California, Owners; BAGLB BNTBRPRISHS, INC., 10332 Chapman
Avenue, Garden Grove, California, Agent; reguesting permission to
CONSZRUCT A PIANNRD-UNIT DBVBLOPMffi~T AND V:AIVB ONB-S1YHtY HHIGHT
LIMITATION ON PARCBL N0. 2 on property described as; pARCSL N0. 2: An irregulrs parcel
• of land adjoining Parcel No. 1, and having a frontage of 184 feet on the east side of
Magnolia Avenue, and a frontage of 449 feet on the north side of Winston Street, the
northern bouadasies nf Parcel No 1 and 2 beiag approximately 788 feet south of the
ceaterline of Ball Road, and further described as 1250-1332 3outh Magnolia Avenue.
Property presently classified as R-A, RBSIDHNT7AL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB. ,
Subject petition was filed in conjunction with Reciassification No. 62-63-50.
Mr. Lee Webb, 950 South Euclid Straet, a represeatative of the agent for the petitioner,
appeared befnre the Commission and stated that ali remarks regarding subjec•` petition
were stated in Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-50.
TEID HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioaer Marcoux offered Resolution No. 565, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to gsant Petition for
Coaditioaal Use Permit No. 330~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the foliowiag vote:
AY83: CQMMI33IOPIDR3: ASired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley, Perry,
NC1H9: CODAlISSIONffit3: None,
. AB3BNT: COhPlI33IONAR3: Hapgood.
• .~
~
~
~
L
_
.
. .. .
_
_ -__~:,: : _ , , ~.= ~ , . . . .. ~. ..:s:
_~~ ~ ,
~
~__
r
------
~
E E
~I
~
,
i ~
? ~~
~;~;,
:..
, , .
.,._.,,_ . _ ,
~
'' ~
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, December 10, 1962~ Continued: 1306
qMHNDMffiIT TO CODB: - PUBLIC HBARING. xNITIATBD BY 1~ ANAHBIM PIANNING CQ~9~lISSION,
gBCTION 18.04.090 204 Hast Lincoln Aveaue, Anaheim, California; Amendment to
(2-h-1) Code: 3ectioa 18.04.090 (2-h-1) Reversed Corner Lot. "Reversed
Corner Lot: A six C6) foot fence, wqll or hedge maq be crected
. in tfie aormal inside side and rear yard, except that such fence,
wali or hedge may aot extend aloag the rear yard beyond the side
yard setbacY of the reversed coraer lot."
Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt, reviewed the present requirement under subject Section
for the Coamission, notiag that the proposed change would be minimal, but the chaAge was
needed for better clarification of the Planning Department.
The Conimission discussed the possibility of excluding aay wail construction into any
required front yard setback, if no proviaioa was made in another section of the Code.
Mr. Sreidt then advised the Com~aission that paragraph "2-g" o£ subject Section of the
Code would adequatelq serve the Planning Commission and Department in prohibiting any
six (6) foot wall construction into the front qard setback of a reversed corner lot.
Commissioner Allred offered Reaolutioa No. 566, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Mnngall, to recommend to the City Council
that an amendment be made to Code: Section 18.04.090 (2-h-1). (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
py83: CqdMI33I01~IDit3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NQE3: COh9~lI3SI0NIDRS: None.
ABSENT: C~hAtISSI01~ltS: Hapgocd.
RHPatT3 ADiD
ggCQI~MBNDATI~13 ITBM N0. 1: 3BCTIONAL DISIRICT MAP 6-4-9, Hxhibits C and D
Case Nos. 557 and 607, A-1, General Agricultural
and A1 (0) General Agricultural (Oil Production)
Diatricts to 100-M1-20,000 Light Induatrial aad 100-M1 (0) Light Industrial (Oil
production) Districta bounded on the north by Coronado Street. Red Gum Street on the
east, Riverside Preeway on the south and Biue Gum Street on the west.
Zoning f'~~rdinstor Martin Rreidt, reviewed the subject petition for the Commission and
noted :~s close proximity to the Anaheim Northeast Industrial Area.
Mr, JCreidt further noted for the Commisaion that the propoaed M-1, Light Manufacturing~
2one, Ordinance was being preseated to the City Council for adoption, aad inquired
wtsether the Commission might coasider transmitting a copy of said Ordinance for the use
of the Orange Countq Planning Commissioa.
Coiomissioner Camp offe=ed a motion to seeommend appsoval of AmenCment to Sectional
District Map 6-4-9,•Bxhibita C and D, to the proposed M-1, Light Industrisl~ 2one
as petitioned to the Orange ::aunty Piaaning Commissioa~ and that a copy of the City of
pnaheim proposed M-1, Light Manufacturing~ Zone Ordinance be forwarded to that
Commission. Commisaioner Ailred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIFD.
ITBM N0. 2: Use Variaace No. 5074. Socony Mobil Oil Compaaq,
612 South Plower Street, Los Angeles~ California,
Applicant; N. M. $chmidt, 3655 3oath Soto Street,
Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting a permit to construct a gasoline and diesel
oil tank cell, and the relocation of an existing boiler on property deacribed as the
weat side of Jeffersoa Road~ app=oximately 450 feet southeriy of Orangethorpe Avenue,
northeast of Anaheim.
~~
i
G . ..
~ ~ .5.~ ~~ ,. - .
a l "C
• ; •
~~~
. ~ '
~
~
. ,
~n
,•
~ . , . . . . . .. ~. . . .. . ,. ..}~, ~ ..
V
~
MINUIB9~ CITY PIANNING CaNAlIS3ION, December 10, 1962, Continued:
1307 '
RHP~tT3 AND ITBbt N0. 2; (Continued)
RBCOA9~N~ATSONS
CContiaued) Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt, reviewed the location of aubject
petition, and ite close proximitq to the northeast industrial area of
Anaheim~ and that subject use wa's the continuation of an existiag
use of sub,ject property, as well as a proposed addition.
Commissiane= Marcoux offered a motion to reco~mend to the Oran~e Countq Planning
Commisaion that Use Variance No. 5074 be approved subject to:
Dedication of 53 feet from the centeriine of Jeffersun Road, with the provision, if
possible, of a SO foot setback from the planned high~vaq right-of-way line of Jefferaon
Road, together with the iastaliatiatt of a 15 foot strip of landscaping abuttiag the
highwaq right-of-waq 13ne. ~
Commisaioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION C/WtIBD UNANIMOUSLY.
ITBM N0. 3; NOTICB OF PUBLIC F~ARING. PLACSNTIA PIANNING CObAlIS-
-~- 3ION, ZONB CFIANGB N0. 62-120 PM, nlanned Manufacturing,
Zoae to R-3, Multipie Pamily, 2one. '
Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt, revieweG for the Commission the location of the
proposed zone change~ noting its close proximity to the Anaheim Northeast Industrial
Area, and the proposed chaage was proposed for approximately 10 acres,
1t-e Commisaion discussed the procedures followed previously ia sisilar proposed changes
which were incompatible with the Northeast Industriai Area.
Commissioner Pebley offered Reaolution No. 567~ 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the 7`]acentia
Planning Commiasion, that P~tition for Zone Change No. 62-120 be denied b~sed on
fin3ings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COM~ISSIONBR3: A.lired~ Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMHISSIONffit8: None.
CO[~fI33I~RS: Rapgood.
ITBM N0. 4: S1ttHBT NAMS CHANGS - West Street north of Bali Road.
Zoniag Coordinator Martin greidt~ reviewed for the Commission the requeat of the City
Council to the Planning Department to make a study of the posaible renamiag of Weat
8treet north of Hall Road,
Mr. greidt further stated that after a complete field check, it was determined that
there was oniy five property owners iavoived in the proposed name chaage~ aad that
lettera had been forwarded to the property owaers.
A letter signed by all but one property owner was received ia !he Planning Department
ia which it was requested that after a careful study~ it would not benefit the propertq
owners or the mctoring public to change the aame of West Street to Manchester Avenue,
because:
l. That it would merely extend the cutoff point or point of confusiott to Ball Road.
2. That Manchester Avenue then wouid dea~-end at Bail Road and thea continue from
Midwaq Drive south to Haster Stzeet, and then dead=end agaia until gatella Avenue
attd the Santa Ana kreeway.
t"
~
I
,
I
~
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING CQ~9dIS3i0N, December 10, 1962, ~ontinued: 1308
RBPatT3 AND ITBM N0. 4: (Continued)
RBCOAYdHNUATIONS
(Continued) 3. That Manchester Avenue had many cutoff points of confusion
south of 3outh Street.
4. That since South West Street was located in the Disneyland area, an amusement
recreational zone, it should not be identified with Manchester Avenue, which was
known to the City as a hodge-podge of auto wrecking yards, junk, sand and gravel
yards~ lumber yards, etc.
5, That West Street was the original street name in the Citq and was weil-known to
everyone.
aad because af the above metioned reasons the property owners ~pposed the name change
from q~st Street to Manchester Avenue.
Another letter from the Richfield Oil Company was received in which no opposition was
made.
Commissioner Allre3 offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the street
name designation of West Street remain the same, and the recommended name change not
be adopted.
Commiesioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIxD.
ITBM N0. 5: Proposed addition to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code - Section 18.04.090 (2-j). Decorative Masonry
Wall front on an arterial street or highway for single
family residences.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, reviewed for the Commisaion an extensive study which
had been made by the Pianning Department to determine the best possible means of
discouraging "strip commercial" development aloag heavily traveled streets in tae City.
The stndy presented three poasible actions the City of Anaheim Pianaing Comsission
might puraue as follows:
1. Continued usc of the property for residential purposes.
2. Lim3ted reclasaification for commercial purposes.
\
;,
3, Adoption of a Code amendment to permit enclosare of front yards to provide a 1
buffer to traffic noise,and to increase the usability of the froat yard area in f
an attempt to preserve and enhance the residential integrity of these properties ~
as much as possible. ~
The Commission discussed the possible solution to many of the requests for reclasai- i
catiort of property fronting arteria]. highways; the poasibility of permitting a psoperty
owner the right to con'strnct a decorative masoary wall by filiag a Conditional Uae
Pera~it, and tiiat petitioners not be req~ired to aubmit pluna for Development Review of
a prooosed wall. ~
Commiasioner Pebley offered a motion to recommend to the Planniag Departmeat that a ~
proposed addition to Code: Section 18.04.090 (2-,i) be set for public heariag for the ~
meeting of January 21, 1963, as follows: '
"A decorative masonry wall~ a maximum af six (6) feet in heighth, may be constructed '
ia the front yard area of any lot frontiag oa aa arterial atreet or highway~ as i
designated on the circulatiott element of the General Plan, provided that all wall I
conatruction shall be located behind the planned highway right-of-waq line of the
abutting arterial highway, provided that on ali parcels having driveway accesa to an
abutting arterinl highway, adequate sight clearance shail be provided bq a ten (10)
foot wall aetback as measured from the intersection of asid driveway with the planned
( ~, t~ B
RffiqtT3 AI~ID ITBM Np, 5• (Continued) i
RHCOFA4SNDATION3 ~~~" ;
(Continued) highway right-of-way line, and further provided that on all corner ~
parcels, adequate sight clearance shali be provided by a twenty-five ~~
(25) foot wali setback as measured from the corner iatersection of
the front aad side property lines,"
Commisaioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIgD,
ITBM N0. 6: Recommended change to the Preliminary General Plan,
~- Romneya Drive, 3tate College Boulevard and La Palma
Avenue from Medium Density to Low-Medium Deasity.
Zoniag Coordinator Martin ~reidt~ preaented colored sketches of the proposed
revisions to the map of the Preliminary Generai Plan, said sketches denoted the areas
propoaed to be changed from Medinm Densitq to Low-Medium Density, as suggested by the
Commission in a previous requeat to the Planning Departm~nt.
Commisaioner Marcoux offered a motion to approve the readerings as presented by the
Planning Department amending the Preliminary General Plan from Medium Density to Low-
Medium Denaity certain areas on Romneya Drive, State College Hoalevard and La palma
Avenue. Commissioner Alired s?conded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
CatRBSPONDHNCB ~ ITBM N0. 1: Ling Blectronics, 1515 South Manchester Avenue,
'~ Anaheim, California; regarding traffic conditions
MIg~LIANBOUS at the corner of Haster Street and $atella Avenue.
A letter addressed to the Anaheim Planning Commission from the Ling 8lectronics
Division,1515 South Manchester Avenue, was read to the Commission, said letter
emphasizing the hazardous conditioa for predestrian crossing at'Haster Street aad
SRtella Avenue.
Zoniag Coordinator Martin greidt stated that the Traffic Engineer had made a study of
the area and had advised that said study had indicate6 the need for additioaal
"stop signs" along Haster Street for traffic north bound and aaother south bound
before entering Manchester Avenue, and that a new traffic signal would be in operation
at the corner of Katella Avenue and Haster Street within a week to ten days.
Chairman Gauer instructed the Commission 3ecretary to accept and file all correspondence
regarding subject matter.
ITBM N0. 2; Buena Park Comprehensive Geaeral Plan Report.
Zoniag Coordinator Maitin Kreidt informed the Commission that a copy of the Buena park
Comprehenaive Generai Plan Report had been received in the Planning Department, and
that it was availatle for the Commission~s perusai. -
ITBM N0. 3: Southern California Planniag Congress,
Chairman Gauer reminded the Commisaion that the Deceaber 14, 1962, Southern California
Pianniag Congress was to be held at the Disneyland Hotei, with the City of Anaheim
being the hosts, said meeting to be open for the wives and guests of the Commission,
Commissioners Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauex, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry requested the
Commission Secretary to make the necessary reservations for themselves and their wives.
Chairman Gauer also atated that Mrs. ]trein, wife of one of the Couacilmen would be in
attendence and requeated that she be seated with the Planning Commission.
-r- -
_ , .. .. . 7.: ; _.
~ - ~ f „+ :.
C~ fl ` ~
MINUTB9, CITY PIANNING COhMISSION, December 10, 1962, Continued: 1310
pDJOURNAffiNT - There being no further business to traasact, Commiasioner Camp offered
a motion to adjourn the Regular Meeting to 10:00 0'Clock A.M., Monday,
December 17, 1962, at which time City Attorney Preston Turner~ wouid
review for the Commission the amendments to the procedure aection of
the Zoning Code.
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
The meeting recessed at 8:30 0'Clock P.M.
RP,CONVSNB - The ad,~ourned meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission was reconvened
at 10:00 0'Clock A.M., in the Council Chamber oa December 17, 1962,
Chairmaa Gauer being preseat. Commissioners Camp, Chavos, Marcoux,
Mungall, and Perrq aiso beiag preseat.
Commissioner~ Ailred, Pebley~ and Hapgood being absent.
City Attorney Preston Turner, reviewed for the Commission all the
proposed amendments to the "procedures aection" of the Anaheim Munici-
pai Code as proposed under Code: Section 18.76.
pDJOURNMBNT - There being no further business to transact, Commissioner Perry offered
a motion to adjoura the meeLing. Commissioner Mungall seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 0'Clock Noon.
Respectfu].ly submitted,
ANN RRHHS, SecretarY
Anaheim Planning Commission
* * *
g 1
~ ~
~ /
~ - __-----~ . . . ~, .-T;..~,__' ,~.,~ . . . f . .,': ,'~__~ :`,,., ~ .M.~ .
:E~ . . . . ... , -°~~._.__.__".._ _'_