Minutes-PC 1963/02/18V
~
`. ~
City Hall
~ Anaheim, Cal3fornia
Februarq 18, 1963
RHG[TLAR MBSTING OP 1t~ffi ANAHBIM CITY PIANNING COi~Q~lISSION
RBGUTAR MBBTING - k Regular AfeeLing of the Anaheim City Plsaaing Commission uras
called to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock B.M., a quorum
being present.
pRHgHNT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer.
C0I~9dI3SI0I~RS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungall, Peble~y,
Ferry.
ABSHNT - COhQdISSI0IVBRS: Iiapgood.
pRB3SNT - ZONING COatDINATOR: Martin SreidL. '
DSPUTY A3SISTANT CITY ATl'atNBY: Purman Roberts.
PIANNING COA4lISSION SBCRHTARY: Ann ~rebs.
INVOCATION - Reverend A1 Casebeer, pastor of Pirat Christian Church, gave the
Invocation.
pLSDGB OP - Commissioner Chavos led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag,
AI.LBGIANCE
APPROVAL OP - The Minutes of the meeting of Pebruary 4, 1963, were approved with
Tf~ MINV1~.4 the following exception. Page 1369, Present Co~emissioners: Alired,
Camp, Chavos, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley, Perry. . '
RBCLASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD PUBLIC F~ARING. DALB PCIWLBR~ 1417 Norta Ross, Santa Ana,
N0. 62-63-62 Califoraia, Owner; requeating that property described as:
A rectangular parcel of laAd haviag a frontage of 135 feet on the
north side of Ba11 Road~ aad a frontage of 242 feet on the east side
of Webster Aveaue, be reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL, AGRICULTIJRAL,-20N8 to
R-3~ MULTIPLB PAMILY RffiIDSNTIAL, ZONH to~develop subject property with a two-story
planned-uait maitiple family resideatial development.
Subject petition was filed in coajunction with Variance No. 1544.
3ub3ect petition was continued from the meeting of January 21, 1963, in order to provide
the petitioner sufficieat time to submit reviaed plot plans indicating siagle story
construction.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt read a letter to the Commisaion, in which the
petitioner requeated that all proceedinga on sub3ect petition be curtailed, and that
the petitioner due to circumatances not prev3ously fozeseen requested that his
petition be withdraxn.
Commissioner Yebley offered a motion to recommend to the City Couacii that the
withdrawal of Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-62 be approved as requeated by
the petitioner. Commisaioner Camp aecoaded the motion. MOrfION CARRIHD.
- 1392 -
,~~y
`
i
~:.--=-- ~. .. , _- ~ . ~-- - - '
,
`\
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CO.~AtI3SI0N, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued: 1393
RHCLA33IFICATION NO 62-63-63 AND CONDITIONAL U3B PffithIIT N0. 354.
PUBZIC HBhRING. C. 3. BAUMSTARK, 3427 West Orange Avenae aad MANCIL F. ffiLL, 3424 West
Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM BBNZ, 12117 Gneise~
Downey, California, Agent; property described as: 1W0 PORTIONS: "A"
and "B", Yortion "A" being an L-shaped parcel of land haviag a frontage of 314 feet,
plus or minus, on the east side of Snott Avenue~ and a froatage of 469 feet, plua or
minus, on the aozth side of Orange Aaeaue, except the southwesterlq 203 feet by 195 feet.
Portion "A" is made of a part of Parcel No. 1 and all of Parcel No. 2. Yortion "B" is
a rectangular parcei of land having a frontage of 195 feet on the east side of Lnott
Avenue aad a frontage of 203 feet oa the north side of Orange Avenue. Portion "S" being
contained in Parcei No. 2~ and further described as 3423-3427 West Orange Avenue.
RHCIA33IPICATION N0. 62-63-63.
CLf-~SZP3Ci-lId"ri t~r t~ic~n~e ii: ic-i-, !(HSILEIYl1NL Atiltll'~,{~L1Uli~fL~ 7.~iin.
RHQUffiTSD CIASSIPICATION: R-3~ MUI,TIPLB PAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZOI~, P~t PORTION "A", and
C-1~ NBIGHBORHOOD COM~lBItCIAL, 20NS POR PC~tTION "~".
CONDITIONAL USB PffitMIT N0, 354.
RBQUBSTED CONDITIONAL USB: CON3IRUCT A 1W0-STCitY PIANI~D-UNIT MULTIPLB PAMILY
RHSIDHNTIAL DBVHLOPMHNT ON PORTION "A".
Subject petition was filed in conunction with Coaditioaai Use Permit No. 354.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of Pebruary 4, 1963, to allow the
petitioaer sufficieat time to submit revised plans.
2oning Coordinator Martin greidt advised the Commission that after a conference with the
Planning Department Staff relative to submission of revised plot plans, the agent for
the petitioner submitted a writtea requeat asking that the Commissioa continue sub3ect
petition untii the meet:tng of Marcb. 4, 1963. '
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification
No. 62-63-63 and Conditionai Use Permit No. 354 to the meeting of March 4~ 1963, as
requested by the petitioner in order to allow the petitioner aufficient time to present
revised plot plans. Commiasioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
$BCIA3SIPICATION N0. 62-63-64, CONDITIONAL USH PffitMIT N0. 357 AND
TBNTATIVS MAP OP 11tACT N0. 4230.
PUBLIC I~ARING, BMPIRE FINANCIAL CCYtPQRATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuqs,
Cali.iornia, Owners; requestiag that property described as: Two
rectangular portions of land. Portion "A" haviag a frontage of 33?
feet on the south side of Lincoltt Avenue, aad a depth of 255 feet. Portion "B" hav:•lg
a width of 333 feet and a depth of 1,019 feet. The northern boundary of Portion "B"
being adjacent to the southern boundary of Portion "A". The eastern boundary of
Portio~"A" and "B" being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Beach
Boulevard.
RECIJI3SIPICATION N0. 62-63-64,
CIA331PICATION;OP PROPARTY:: R A, RHSIDHNTIAL AGRICULT[TRAL, ZONB.
RBQUBSTBD CIA3SIPICATION: C-1, I~IGHB~tH00D CQN4fffitCIAI., ZONS POit P~tTION "A", AND
R-3, MiTLTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL~ ZONB POit PQtTI~J "B".
CONDITIONAL USE PffitMIT N0. 337.
RSQUB9TBD CONDITIONAL USB: TO CON3IRUCT A 1W0 STatY PIANNBD-UNIT MULTIPLS PAMILY
RBSIDBNTIAL DHVBLAPMSNT AND WAIVBR OP Tf~ 3INGL8 STQRY HBIGHT
LIMITATIaN POit PQRTION "B".
TBNTATIVB MAP OP TRACE N0. 4230.
Subject tract contains 33, proposed R-3, MULTIPL9 PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, and one propoaed
C-1, NHIGH$OitH00D COMMBRC7AL~ ZONffiD, lots.
,..
~ . \~ a' -;.. . „ T ~ . ~ ~ .
<, _. .. . . ~.:. ~~c:
~
.•
. . , , , .' . ~ ' , ~'
- ,. ,' ' i;, - _ - ..~..
1 '
~ ~ ' ,~'..
~ ~ '.;~;
MINUTBS, CITY PIANKlNG COh~lI35I0N, February 18, 1963, Coatinued: 1394
RBC~ASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-64, CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0. 357, AND TBNTATIVE MAP OP
TRACT NO. 4230. Continued:
Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt, advised the Commissioa that upon meeting with the
Pianniag Department Staff relative to the submission of revised plot plans, the peti-
tioner submitted a written request asking that the Commission continue Petitioas for
Reclassification No. 62-63-64, Conditional Use Permit No, 357 and Tentative Map of
Tract No. 4230 to the meetiag of March 18, 1963, in order that subject petitions might
be heard in conjunction with each other and that revised plot plans would be in the
Planning Department on February 21, 1963, for a complete analysis by the Department.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petitionsfor Reclassification No. 62-63-64. ,
Conditional Use ~e*mit No. 357 aad Tentat?ee Map o€ mract No. 423p to #fie meet?ae cf
March 18, 1963 in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plot '
plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIBD. ':~',~.;:r'~€`',
~. - !
TSNTATIVB MAp OP - OWNER AND SUBDNIDHR: MIT-MQR DHVHLOPAffiNT CO., 300 North Wilshire
TRACT N0. 5021 Boulevard, Suite No. 5, Anaheim. California. BNGINffit: MC DANIffi
BNGII~ffitING CO., 222 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California.
3ubject tract is located on the north side of Wagner Aveaue, on the
east aad west side of Peregrine Place, and contains 16 proposed R-?~ Qne Pamily Resi-
dential, Zone, lots.
Mr. John R. Jacobson, representing the engiaeer appaared before the Commission and
stated he had nothing to add for the Commission's consideration, but that he would be
glad to answer any questions the Commiesion might ha~e,
Commissioner Mungall iaquired whether the developer proposed to install ali utilities
underground, to which Mr. Jacobson answered that it was not anticipated unless this
wouid be a requirement.
Zoniag Coordinator Martin Hreidt, informed the Commission that in the land development
and resources Section of the Anaheim Muaicipai Code: Section 17.08.240 (1) it states
that a chain link fence six (6) feet in height shall be constructed when the sub-
division abuts real property which ia being used for agricultcral purposes, aad a solid
fence or wail if the abutting property is used for raising poultry.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5021, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivisian,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in teatative form for approval.
2. Dedicatioa of access rights to Wggner Avenue.
3. Cons~ruction of a six (6) foot masonry wall aloag the planned highway right-of-way
line of Wagner Avenue separating Lot Nos. 1 and 16 from Wagner Avenue, provided that
said wail shall be stepped down to twenty-fonr (24) inches in the front one-half of
the front yard setback, and a height of forty-two (42) inches in the back one-half
of the front yard setbact, aad said mall to be constructed prior to Pinal Building
Inspection,
4. InQtallatioa of reasonabie landscaping, iacluding irrigation facilities, in the
uncemented portion of the Wagner Avenue partway, the fuli distance of said ~lls.
plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the
Superiatendent of Parkway Maiatenance aad said landscaping to be instailed prior to
Pinal Building Inspection of the aubject tract.
Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION GIRRIED.
~ ~ . • . . ~. . . , ' J ~, _
"__""""___.~.,_._'_. _.. . .r+ .-_"_ ~ . . ..:..::...: .. '!
"_ ~
cJ ~ ~ • ~
,
i
MINUTH3, CITY PIANNING COI~Il~fIS8I0N, Pebruary 18, 1963, Coatinued; 1395 ~
TBNTATIVB MAP OP - OWNSR AND SUBDNIDffit: HQh~ IAND OOMPANY, 887 South Los Angeles ~
7RpCT Np, 5024 Street, Anaheim, California. ENGII~BR: MC DiANIBL BNGINHHRING j
COi~ANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Aaaheim, California. Subject i
tract is located on the north side of Orange Avenue approximately i
9S3 fee# west of the ceaterline of Huclid Street and covering approximately 3,1 acres,
is proposed for subdivision into 12 R-1, One Pamily Resideatial, Zoae, lots.
Mr. John R. Jacobson, representing the engiaeer appeared before the Commission and
stated he had aothing to add foz the Commission's consideration, but that he wouid be
glad to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt~ advised the Coamission that due to the fact that only ;
~ . ~__~ ,._ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ c ~
~hir~y ~3~? acco iiu$ ue2u d~dicated OII ~i12 b"2o.. :..Zu 2~«S. S~t~~ Q. 8:1~,j9Ct tlBCt~
with curbs at ~wenty (20) feet would be acceptable to the 8ngineering Department to ~
a11ow additioaal width for lot frontages. ;
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No, 5024, subject i
to the following conditions: ' ~
1, Requirement that should this subdivision be develaped as more than one subdivision, ~
, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in teatative forw for approval.
i
2. Provision of a five (5) foot draiaage easemeat on Lot No. 6 aad Lot No, 7. ~
~
3, provision of a thirty (30) foot dedication with the iastailation of curbs twenty $
(20) feet from the centerline of Orange Avenue. ~
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
VARIANCB N0. 1549 - PUBLIC HBARING. BYRL P, aad MARY P. BROCK, 717 North Pine Street, j
Anaheim, California, Owaers; requesting permission to WAIVB SIDH ~
YARD RBQUIRBMBNT TO PBRMIT THB CONSIRUGTION OP A PAMILY ROOM i
CONNBCTING THB HXISTING HOUSH AND GARAGS on property described as: A rectangular parcel I
of land having a frontage of 65 feet on the east side of Pine Street and a depth of 108
feet, the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 222 feet north of the •
centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further described as 717 North Pine Street. '
Property presently classified as R-1, ON8 PAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NB.
Mr. Byri P. Brock, oae of the owners, appeared before the Commission aad stated that he
had aothing to add for the Commission's consideration, but that he would be glad to
answer any questions. '
The Commission reviewed the proposed plans for development.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject ~
petition, and received no reply. {
TtID FII~H1tING WA3 CLOSBD. ~
~ -It was noted by the Commission'that one of the conditions recommended the repair of the I
sidewaiks, curbs and gutters oa Piae Street, but that the petitioner wouid have to
contact the City about the removai of the tree before any sidewalk repair could be
accompiished.
~
'i Commissioner Alired offered Resolutioa No. 634, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 1549,
~bject to conditions. (See Resolutioa Book,)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYBS: COM~fISSIONffitS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: CObA4I3SI0NBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COI~AlISSIOIVHRS: Hapgood. ~
,. ~... -
,.._ . , 1` , , .
:,~~•'~
AI~ffiNDMHNT TO CONDITIOh'~L - PUBLIC HHARING. ~ILLIAM BHHIQBE, 2156 Harbor Boulevard,
USH PBRMIT N0. 121 Anaheim, California, OMmer; CAkL ARTHOPffit. 2184 Harbor
Boulevard, Anaheim, California~ Agent; requesting permis-'
sion to WAIVB Tf1H THRBB (3) YBAR TIMB LIMITATION SET HY
THB CITY COUNCIL IN RESOLUTION N0. 7006, POR USH OP THB PROPffitTY AS AN OVBRNIQiT
TRAILffit PARgING PACILITY on property described as: A rectaagular parcel of land having
a frontage of 200 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 140 feet,
the northerly bouadarq of said property being approximately 660 feet south of the center-
line of Orangewood Avenete, and further described as 2156 Harbor:Boulevard. Property
presently classified R A~ RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, Z~iH.
Mr. Carl Arthofer, ageat for the petitioner, appeared.before the Coamission, and stated
he was present to aa~er any questioas the Commission might have.
The Co~ission inquared why the petitioner desired to have an additional extensioa of
time siace the time limitation had another year and one-half to run.
Mr. Arthofer stated that the petitioner was desirous of obtaining additionai financing
on~subject property, but was unable to do so because the time limitation for the
present use would only be for another 18•months; that upon requesting the removal of the
three (3) year time limitation imposed by the City Council, the Council was of the
opinion that this time limitation could be removed~ but that any extension of time for
the present use should be held at a public hearing before the P~anning Commission to
avoid any legal technicality.
Commissioner Perry stated that the aubject property was too small to contiaue the use
for an iadefinite or permanent time, since the Commission was unable to determine at
the present time whether or not the parking of trailers wouid be a compatible use in a
few years.
The Commission also noted that upon mating a field inspection of subject property, it
was noted that sub,ject propertq wa:a in need of a general cleaa up;• that some trailers
aeemed to have been parked there saore thaa the seven days stated by Couacil reaolution;
that at the time subject petition was originally approved by the City Council, the
trailera rrere required to be parked to the rear of the property; that there had been a
great deal of opposition to the trailer park at that time; that it be required that
standard trash storage areas be provided which a;e approved bq the Sanitation Div38iom~'
of the Citq; and that the Deputy Citq Attorney advise the Commisaioa if it were
possible to enfozce the statements made by the agent for the petitioner.
Deputy City Attoraeq Purman Roberts advised the Commission that conditions could be
attached which could be field chected to determine whether or not~ the petitioaer was
complqing with all coaditions stipulated.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone ia the Council Chamber opposing
subject petition~ and received no repiy.
TfiB HBARING WAS CLOBED.
1he Commission further discusaed stipulating a definite limitation rather than grantiag
a continuous use of the property foa tra~ler parking; that trailer parking was necessary
but that property ehould be maintained so that it would not be a detriment to the
Disaeyland area.
Commissioner Pebley inquired whether it was possible to direct the ataff to make a
periodic check tu see whether trailers were being parked in violation to the Council
resolution.
Mr. Roberta stated that the Commission in approving any extension of time couid
stipulate that the petitioner complq with aay conditions formerly imposed ia granting
the use of the property.
e: ,. .
F
.: .
: ,
_> ,. .
~ _
._ .
_ _ . . ~. . . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ .
~ . .
- _ ,..., .. . , ~.
~J ~ ~
MINUTB4, CITY PIANNING IX~A9`(ISSION, February 18. :.~';.:a, ~il:is:inryed: 1397
AMBNDMSNT TO CONDITIONAL
USB PffitMI~` ;d0. 121
(Cont3nqed)
On roll call the foregoi~
AYE3: '.COI~lI3SI0NBRS:
NOffi: COMMIS3IONBRS:
:E3~iJT: CC.~.;ISSIai~nitS:
ABSTAIN; COl9dISSI0IVffitS:
- Commissioner Ma=c•:~:.~~ o€;~r-:~:' e:~,-Kalution No. 635, Series
1962-63, and move+.f i? z~ ::: ,s~;y,,r::ag,~ and adoption, seconded
by Commissioner Pesz; kc R~~::cr~i an additional two years
' time for the use of su?s,~e~t property, and the compl3ance
to coaditions. (See Resolution Book.)
~g resolution was passed by the following vote::
Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Chavos.
Hapgood.
Camp.
Com~ssioner Ch.avos in ~~oting against subject petitioa, stated that the petitioner had
not complied wi4h the original conditions imposed by the Council, that there was n~
evidence that he would compiq with aaq coaditions imposed by the Commission, and that
the extension of time was not for the purpoae of improving subject r.;.erty but for
other investment purposes.
Commissioner Camp abstained from voting because he had not made an inspection of the
property, and felt he was not qualified to yote because of it.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC I~ARING. I~SSRS. IARAMORB, DE MST, AND CIARg~ 930 West
PffitMIT N0. 364 Lincoln Aveaue, Orange~ California, Owners; IRVIN L. HBS~ffit,
1902 North Maia Street, Santa Ana, California~ Agent; requesting
permission to C~iS1RUCT A 40-UNIT MOTEL on propertq described as;
7Wo parcels of land: PARCBL N0. 1 is a rectangular parcel of land 90 feet by 300 feet;
PARC9L N0. 2 is an easement providing ingress and egress to Parcel No. 1, and has a •
frontage of 21 feet oa the east side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 301 feet, the
northern bouadazy of said Parcel Nos. 1 and 2 beiag approximately 714 feet south of the
intersection of the centerline of Cerritoa Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, and further
described as 1610 South Harbor Boulevard. Property preaently classified as R-A,
RBSIDSNTIAL AQtYCULTIJRAL, ZONB.
Mr. Irvia L. $eener, ageat for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that he had nothiag further to add for the Commisaion's coasideration~ but would
be glad to aaswer any questioas.
Mr. Arthur Horman, represeating the Visitor and Convention Buresu, appeared before the
Cowmiasion and iaquired whether the proposed pians provided kitchen faciiities, The
Commission invited Mr. Horman to view the plot plana, and stated that from their
observatioa, no ki*chen facilities were being provided.
THB I~ARING WA3 CLOSHD.
Commisaioner Perrq offe~ced Resalu#ion Aio. 636, Series 1962-53, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commiesioaer Mungall, to approve Petition for
Coaditional Uae permit No. 364, subject to conditions, (5ee Reaolution Book.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYB3: COFaNISSI0I~R8: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
NOBS: CQbAlIS3IaNffitS: None.
AHSHNT: COhMI33I01~tS: Hapgood.
.. 1 . -~' . . . . J .-..__~ . . . ' . ~~ i
. ~ , . ._. a.~....._~ ~r.' . . . ..1 . . ', . ~ . . .. . , ... ~.~.'~""'°! _ .. ..._... ~~.i
r ~~
M3NUTES, CITY PIANNING CON4~lISSION, February 18, 1963, Continued: 1398
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HHARING. 1HB RBCT(Yt, WARDENS, AND VBSIRYMHN OF SAINT
PBRMIT N0. 366 MICHAHL~S PARISH, 311 West ~~uth Street, Anaheim, California~ Owners;
LSO J. PRIIS, 403 California Bank Building, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to P~tMIT THS EI~ANSION OP Tl~
BXISTII~ QiURCH, OFPICBS, AND SUNDAY SCHOOL ROOMS on p=operty described as: An
irregular parcel of land haviag a frontage of 527 feet on the north side of South Street,
and a frontage of 216 feet on the east side of Dickel Street, and a frontage of 120 feet
on the west side of Lemon Street, and further described as 311 West South Street. .
property presently classified as R-2, 1W0 FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, 20NB.
Mr. Leo Priis~ agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission, and stated
that the long term plans made by the parishioners of the church had been f3nalized, and
a new church was to be constructed; that the present church would be utilized for
related activities; that the church was aegotiating with the property owners to the east
and north of subject property which was also zoned for R-2, 1Wo Pamily Residential,Zone for
its purchase, and if the negotiations were successful, the church planned to extend the
wall to Lemon Street, in order that the chnrch property would be completely separated
from the xesidential development to the north, and that aithough a fence presently
separated the property, the master plan of the church proposed a masonry wall.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition, and received no reply.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, whether the Commission
could attach a condition, if the possible future church boundaries wese extended as
the agent commented, and Mr. Roberts replied that there might be a legal technicality
if conditions were attached to property which had not been previously advertised for
public heariag.
Mr. Friis stated that none of the property owners adjacent to the church property would
oppose the construction of the masonry wall if the additional land were acquired, and
that the additional property would only be used for parking facilities, which in itself
would relieve aay parking problem on either Lemoa or South St-eets.
Commissioaer Pebley offered Resolution No. 637, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, secoaded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No, 366, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AY83: CQNMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, perry.
NOH3: C~lISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: CQA4dISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
In offering the resolutioa approv.ing subject petition, Commissioner Pebley stated that
the conatruction of the masonry wall shouid be along the north boundary of the present
or future p=ope=ty lines of the church prope=ty which might be acquired.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC I~4ItING. DO~4~iICK BASTIONHLL, 1140 West ICatella Avenue,
pffitMIT N0. 368 Anaheim, California~ C~wner; requesting permisstion to CONSTRUCT
30 ADDITIONAL UNITS AND A GUBST HOUSB TO AN BXISTING MOTEL on
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage
of 200 feet on the south side of Sateila Avenue aad a depth of 250 feet, the eastern
boundary of said property being approximately 468 feet west of the centerline of West
Street, and further described as 1140 West gatella AveRUe. Property presentiy
clasaified as R A, RBSIDHNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB.
Mr. Bastionell, the owner, appeared before the Commisaion, and stated that he had
nothing further to add for the Commission's.consideration, but would be glad to answer
any questions,
t: _) ~ ~
MINUTBS, CI7°i PLANNING C(k9~lISSION, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued: 1399
CONDIT£~NAL USB - The Commission reviewed the plot pians presented and noted that the
.~ ..,s±_ Wo~a ~~rge family tyoe apartments.
Y2SKM1~1 PIV. JOO k/£^v~^v..~°.u ....
(Continued) eared before the
Mr. Arthur Horman, 1760 West Lincoln Avenue, app
Commissian, and inquired whether the Commission considered the
proposed addition as apartments or as motei units.
Chairman Gauer stated that the plot plans were available, and that he was welcome to
review the plans.
:Ihe Commission discussed the compatibility of the proposed apartments with the uses
oronosed for the Disaeyland area, that the apartments would be divided by locking off a
room, and thus creatiag a substandard apartment, and snen inquired oi ~he patitioner
where he proposed to consiruct the guest honse.
Mr. Bastionell stated that the petition had been erroneouslytyped and that the wording
should have been a guest room, iastead of a guest house. He further stated that from
past experience, there was a great demand for apartments for families visiting the
Disneyland area, and he was attemgting to satisfy this particular demand for families.
TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Zuning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the Disneyland Policy
adopted by the Commission and Council; that if it were the intent of the Commission to
consider subject development as being compatibie to the Disaeyiand area, it should be
so stated ia the resolution, if the Commission approved subject petition.
Commissioner (~avos stated that a multiple family development would not be a compatible
use in the Disneyland area, that this would be diametrically in opposition to the intent
of the Disneyland Policy.
Mr. Herman Pidler, architect for the petitioner, advised the Commission that if the
plans were submitted as just motel units of one room each, there would be an additioc-ai
80 to 90 individual units; that the apartment facilities were in demand for families
who could not afford a lengthy stay in matels and purchasing iheir meals, that less
parkiag facilities were needed since an apartment unit did not mean more than one
automobile, so that the same parking requirements should apply to the proposed
development.
Commzssioner Camp stated that the Commission required elevations from every petitioner,
and the Commission should not make any exceptions; that in the pas4 the Commission has
approved petitions which were not complete in plans as presented and thea the structures
constructed were not the type the Commission would have approved if plans had been
presented originally; and that the Developmeat Review function should not be required to
approve plans which had not been submitted to the Commission at the time the petition
was heard.
Upon inquiry by Comm.issioner Chavos as to the interpretation of apartments within a
motel facility, Mr. Roberts stated it was a matter of wordage in describing the proposed
deveiopment; that many cities had apartment-hoteis which combined both single rooms as
well as apartment units with compiete facilities; and that this could be interpreted as
an apartment-motel or motel apartments catering to families visiting the Disneyland area.
Commissioner Pebiey stated that maay families coming from the eastern part of the
country wouid welcome the proposed type of facilities, and that it would bring more
revenue to Anaheim if such facilities could be provided for these many vacatioaing
families.
C) (.-) ~ ~
~.. ;~.
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING OObAiISSICN, Pebruary 18, 19b3, Continued;
1400
CONDITIONAL USB - Further discussion was held relative to the definition of the
PBRMIT N0. 368 subject development, that if subject petition were approved this
(Continuea') should not be considered an opening wedge for any multiple family
development in the Disneyland area; that the plot plans for the
proposed structure should be architecturaily compatibie wi4h the
existing motel; that ihe normal 20 foot setback on ~atella Avenue
be maintained on subject property with the six (6) foot landscaping strip; and that
subject petition had been advertised properl_y and all property owners withia 300 feet
of suhject property had been notified, buS ::iat no opposition had been received,
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 638, Series 1962-63, and mov~d for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 368, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Pebley in offering his motion stated that a finding should read that the
proposed development should not b.: considered a multiple family residential development,
but should be considered a commercial-recreation residential use as a family type motel
facility, and that it shauld not be considered as setting a precedent by approval of
subject petition for multiple familq development in the Disaeyland area.
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COD41I3SIOI~BRS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley, Perry.
NOffi: COMAtI3SI0NffitS: None,
ABSffiVT: COihR~IIS~'.`::[tS: Hapgood.
CONDITIONAL U'S - PUHLIC HBARING. BI1~R A. PRBS:'ON, 3619 Lewis Avenue, Long Beach 7,
PffitMIT N0. 37J California, Owner; requesting permission to PBRMIT T!~ffi B7~ANSION OF
AN SXISTING CAR IAT on property described as: A rectangular parcei
of laad having a frontage of 100 feet on the west side of Harbor
Boulevard and a depth of 150 feet, the southerly boundary of said propert; being approxi
mately 238 feet north of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described as
1221 North Harbor Boulevard, Property presently classified as C-2~ Gffi~ffiRAL COMt~ffiRCIAL,
ZONB. ~
Mr. Bimer A. Preston, the petitioner, appaared before the Commission and stated that
he had nothing to add for the Commission's consideration, but that he would be glad to
answer any questions.
The Commission noted that the proposed use would be compatible to the area since the
petitioner was presently operating a used car lot to the south of subject property.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition, and received no reply,
THB }IBARING WAS CLASED.
Commissioaer Marcoux offered Resolution No. 639, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage an3 adoptiun, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 370, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYSS: CObAlI3SI0Nffit3: Allred, Caznp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NQH3: COf~U~lISSIOIVBRS: None.
ABSENT: CODAlISSIOI~RS: Hapgood.
~ . 1
- r~~.-~:+.«w+.a.~~~.--y- .
, ~_.: ._. .... _.__... .._
V v •
MINUTB3, CIT7t PIANNING COhUlISSION, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued: 1401
CONDITION,4L USB - PUBLIC I~ARING. J. V. MAI.BR, PRANK and SLBfiNOR SI~IDA, 215 South
PBRMIT N0. 372 Giibert 3treet, Anaheim, California, Owners; Donal D. Hngen, .
4ob8 Oak park Avenue, Encino, California, Agent; requesting
permission to CONSIRUCT A SPGRTS RECRBATION CBNTBR WHICH INCLUDBS
B(~VLING, 3WIl~lING, ARCFffitY, SSBBT, BILLIARD3, ICS 3RNTING AND MINIAIURB GOLP, COiV31RUCT
A HOTBL (5-STatY), SffitVICS SHOp AND gTqRBS, NURSffitY, HBAL~i CLUB~ RBSTAURANT, COCKTAIL
IAUNGB (INCLUDING DANCING), BANQUBT PllCILITIB3, BAN1C AND SffitVICB STATION on property
described as: pn irregular portion of land having an appror3mate frontage of 1,202
feet on the west side of Dowliag Road, haviag an approximate frontage of 1,272 feet on
the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue~ and having an approximate frontage of 665 feet
on the south side of Placentia-Xorba Boulevard; said property consisting of six (6)
parcels of land. Property presently classified as C-l, NBIQiB0RH00D CQA4~RCIAL~
C-3, HBAVY COU4~tCIAL, AND R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTIhtAL, ZONBS.
Mr. Donal D. Bngea, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
stated that he was the owner of the Pickwick Recrer.~tion Center in Burbank; that the
pro~osed development would be patterned in a manner s3milar to this recreation cenier;
that the Burbank center had proven very successful and it also was located in an
induetrial area; and that the private recreational facilities would compliment aad
relieve any of the recreatioa facilities the City of Anaheim proposed for Lhe Bast
Anaheim area.
The Commission inquired whether the proposed recreation center would be constructed in
varying stages over a number of years. Mr. 8ugen stated that this ceater was an
iategrated unit which would be eatirely constructed in about a year.
Mr. Michaei Black, Burbaat, appeared before the Commi:r='.-,n and stated that the pickwick
Recreation Ceater was started in 1953; that the Centez tronted on Griffith Park and all
activities were confined to one area, thus iess parkiag was required, since each type
o; activity xrould aot be held concurrently; that parking facilities as proposed were
similar to the Surbank facility, aad ao parking problem had been experienced ia all the
years of operation; that there had been a special need for in the proposed location;
that the length of stay in a hotel would not be the same as a motel; that a hotel was
necessary to serve the needs of guests of the recreation center when speicai contests
were being held; and that the hotel would be an ideal service for the many iadustrial
conceras in the Bast Anaheim area to accommodate the many persons on special assignmeat
for several daqs to these industries. He further atated that the recreation
facilities couid be used b y the schoola for many extra curricular activities as weii
as the annual proms.
Chairman Gauer stated that the recreation facilitiea offered the Citizens of Anaheim
had been financed through taxation and were considered about the best type that could
be offered.
Mr. Black stated that the proposed recreatioaal facility was aot intended to compete ~!
with any facilities offered by the City; that a private facility could never compete ~
with a public facility, but that the proposed facility would complement rather than
compete with the recreationai facilities offered to the Citizens of Anaheim. ~
Commissioaer Perry inquired whether the propoaed hotei would be aimilar to the one
opened ia Chicago, to which Mr. Biack replied, that just a few uaits would be set up .
with kitchen facilities, and that other eating facilities,auch as the reataurant,would
serve the balance of the patrons. ~
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council (~amber oppoaiag sub,ject
petitioa, and received no reply, although nine (9) persons were in favor of the proposed
facility. ;
Tf~ HBARING WAS CL(~SBD.
~ I I .
~.
~
~" --~"i ,~~.~.~,.- . .
r , . _.. ~... _.: . i ~-:._ . _. .. .. ____
(-) ~' ~,
O ~~ •
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COA4~SISSION, February 18, 1963, Continued: 1402
CONDITIONAL USH - Zoning Coordinator Martin Areidt, reviewed pervious action on
PBRMIT N0. 372 subject property noting that Reclassification No. 60-61-85 approved
(Continued) by the City Couacil on Parcel No. 1 included the service station
for the northwest corner of Dowling and Orangethorpe; and that a
portion of Parcel Nos. 2, 3, and S were aiso covered by said
reclassific:ation approving neighborhood commercial use; that the northeriy portions of
Parcel Nos. 2, 3, and 5, as well as,Parcel No. 6 were incorporated in a neighborhood com-
mercial ander Rec]assificiation No. 61-62-58, denied by both the Commission and the City
Council; and that Yarcel No. 4 had been approved for heavy commercial zoning in
Reclassification No. 60-61-109. ~~
Mr. greidt further stated that all parcels having approved zoning would have to be ~I
developed in their entirety, otheswise the approved zoning wouid not be efieciive; 4hat j
the Planning Department in its interpretation noted that the proposed development
incorporated the types of industrial selated uses which the City had encouraged the '.
owners of subject property to establish; that although it would be undesirable to ~
permit the type of use to be developed on small parcels of land 2hroughout the
industrial area; the integration of all the uses into one single industrially reiated
recreation complex could result in a desirable facility to sesve the Northeast
Industrial Area; and that bonds had already been posted to insure the installation of
street improvements for Orangethorpe Avenue and Dowling Street, except for the northerly
440 feet, plus or minus.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 640, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No.372, subject to coaditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Ia secondiag Commissioner Perry's resolution offered, Commissioner Mungall stated that
the entire development should be constructed concurrently, and that if any new
deveicpment which might deviate from the approved plans would require the filing of a
new conditional use permit.
pn roll cail the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote:
AXBS: COMMISSIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COHPlI3SIONffitS: None.
A133HNT: CQA4lISSIONffitS: Hapgood.
REtCH3S: Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner until
7:00 0'Clock P.M. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
The Com~aission recessed at 5;15 0'Clock P.M.
RB~ONVBNB: Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting at 7:00 0'Clock P.M. All
Commissioners being present, except Commissioner Hapgood.
RIiCL-S9IPICATION N0. 62-63-69 AND CONDITIONAL USB PffitMIT N0. 367
Piled in con~uact on w t each other.
PUHLIC HBARING. RUSSELL MO~tB, 11752 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California,
Owner; BUILD~t SBRVICS UNLIMITBD, 11752 Garden Grove Boulevard,
California, Agent; requesting that property described as; A rectangu-
lar parcel of Innd having a frontage of 140 feet on the west side of
Beach Boulevard, and a depth of 620 feet, the southeriy boundary of said property
being approximately 1,290 feet north of Ba11 ltoad, and further described as 727 South
Beach Houlevard with a ciassification of R A, RBSIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB~ be
reclasaif3ed uader
RBCIASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-69 - tc R-3, MULTI~4L8 PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, 20NB.
C_~~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CQhAfIS3I0N, Pebruary 18, 1963, Coatinued: 1403
RHCLA33IPICATION N0. 62-63-69 AND CONDITIONAL USB P~tMIT N0. 367 (Continued)
CONDITIONAL U3B PffitMIT N0. 367: CONSIRUCTION OP A ZWO-STORY 44 PIANNBD-UNIT MULTIPLS
PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL DHVELOPMHNT - WAIVB ONE-STORY
HHIGHT LIMITATION. •
Mr. 8dward Cronan, represer..ting the agent, appeared before the Commission aad stated
that he would like to have subject petitions continued to the meeting of March 18, 1963,
in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to revise the plot plans.
Commissioner Pebley offered a mot~on to continue Petitions for Reclassification
No, 62-63-69 and Conditionai Use Permit No. 367 to the meeting of March 18, 1963, at
the reguest of the agent for the petitioner, to permit the petitic;ner sufficient time
to revise and present improved Qlot nlans. Commissioner A11red seconded the mo*_ion
requesting that a letter of confirmation be submitted to the petitioner coniirming said
continuance. MOTION CARRIHD.
RHCLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC HBARING. ISHMAEL GUZMAN, 9331 Cerritos Avenue, Aaaheim,
NO-•62-63-70 California, Owner; BDGAIt A. MANN, 925 North Harbor Boulevard,
Anaheim, Caiifornia; Agent; requesting that property described .
as: A rectangular parcel of land having a 107 foot frontage on the
north side of Cerritos Avenue, and having a frontage of 113 feet
on the east side of Garza Street, and further described as 9331 Cerritos Avenue be
reclassified from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtIi,ULTURAL, ZONB to the R-1, ONB PpMILy
RB5IDHNTIAL, ZONB in order to comply with Condition No. 4 of the Planning Commission
Resolutioa Ho. 558, Series 1962-63.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone presPnt to represent the petitioner, and
received no replq,
Chairman Gauer then inquired if there was any opposition to subject petition, and again
received to reply.
THH tIBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt informed the Commission that Variance No. 1538, was
approved by the Commission December 10, 1962~ and that subject petition was fiied to
comply with one of the conditions of the approval of the variance, and that the lot
spiit would create two R-1, One Pamily Residential lots of approximately 7,50C square
feet.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 641, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Comm.issioner Camp, to recommend to the City Couacil
that Petition for Reclassification No, 62-63~70 be approved subject to a condition.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COMMI3SIONffitS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley, perry.
NQBS: CObAlISSION~tS: None. • • -
ABSBNT; COMMISSIOIVHR: Hapgood.
RHCIASSIPICATION NO. 62-63-71 AND CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT NO 369
(Piled in con~unction with each other.)
PUBLIC F~ARING. EDWARD and BDITH MILLS, 1007 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim,
California, Owners; N~tMAN LOMBARD, 918 South Huclid Street', Pullerton,
California, Agent; requesting that p:operty described as; p rectangu-
lar parcel of land haviag a frontage of 274 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue
and having a frontage of 150 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, and
further described as 1007 North State College Boalevard.
~ ~
~
~ ^.
. 1
I
i
i
~J ~ ` ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COi~4dI33I0N, February 18, 1963, Continued: 1404
un~r~eSIPICATION NO 62-63-71 AND CONDITIONAL USE PHRNIIT N0. 369 CContinued)
RBCIASSIPIGTION NO. 62-63-71.
CLASSIFICATION OP PROPffitTY: R A, RSSIDHNT7AL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
RBQUSSTBD CLASSIFICATION: C-1, NSIQiBQRH00D COA~AIBRCIAI., ZONH.
CONDITIONAL USH PHRMIT N0. 369.
RBQUBSTBD CONDITIONAL USB: CONSTRUCT A SBRVICB STATION AND PAMILY TYPB RBSTAURANT.
Mr. Norman Lombard, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and
stated that IIO C12a8t10AS IOL ine propo3eG Y~'3i8i1L"aAi w2I2 Siit3mi~~Eu~ 8.ZC2 ~:8: ~L:TC10~.^
ment was pending untal the high school adjacent to subject property was established;
that the requested reclassification was requested so that the proper zoning would be
estabiished if and whea the proposed restaurant was constructed.
The Commission inquired whether the petitioner was aware that a service station could
be constructed in an agricultural residential zone by the filing of a conditional use
permit; that the Commission was reluctant to consider reclassification of any property
which did not have complete plot plans submitted upon it~which would assist the
Commission in rendering a decision on the reclassification, and if said reclassification
were given, was there any aasurance that the surrounding area would be developed in a
similar manner. ~
Mr. Lombard stated that coastruction of the commercial property would be completed in
a few qears, and that subject property was being purchased by an oil company who
planned to construct the service station immediately.
Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was any opposition to subject petition and
received no reply.
1HB }IBARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commissioa continued discussion as to the feasiblity of recommending approval to
reclassify property for which complete plans for the development of the property had
not been received; that the service station could be approved under the conditional
use permit; and that possibly any future development plans for the smailer parcel
proposed for a restauraat or drive-in could be sub3ect to Developmeat Review ap:proval.
Zoning Coordinator Martin ~reidt, advised the Commission that if a drivein was
pioposed instead of a family type restauaant, a conditional use permit would be
required.
Chairman Gauer stated that in his opinioa it was important that the Commission view
a,ny developmeat plans for subjec~ property before approvai could be recommended, and
he was not in favor of attaching deed reatrictions limiting the use to a drivein only.
Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts, advised the Commission that since the petitioner
was undecided as~to the type of development fos the semaindes of the psoperty, the
Commission could either approve the reclassification with special conditioas requiring
the submission of any development plans for Commission approvai and that the school
which was being proposed abutting subject property would not be built untii the new
boad issue was passed.
The Cammission thea decided that they wouid like to have some control in the deveiop-
ment, landscaping, and use of the proposed commercial facility, and since these plbas
were not available the petition for reclassification should be recommended for denial.
,~
i
~
~
,
~_~'
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Pebruary 18, 1963, Contiaued: 1405
RBCLASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-71 AND CONDITIONAL USE P~tMIT N0. 369 (Continued)
E'
Commiasioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 642, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage aad adoptioa, seconded by Commissiouer Marcoux, to recommend to the City
Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-71, be denied based on findings.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CObAiIS3I0NffitS: Alired, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry.
N~8: COMr1IS3I0NSRS: None,
AH3ffi1T: C~iISSIOi~RS: Hapgood.
In further reviewiag Conditional Use Permit No. 369, the Commission noted that the
service station plot plaas were compiete, but that some landscaping should be included
to eahance the appearance of the station.
Mr. Hd Mills, the petitioaer, stated that at the time La Palma Avenue was proposed for
street widening, he had deeded to the City of Anaheim the easterly 165 feet of the
La Palma Avenue frontage of subject property, and inquired whether any additional
frontage was proposed for dedication.
Mr. Kreidt advised that the requirement of street dedication only applied to that portion
of La Palma Avenue which had not been dedicated.
The Commission discussed the requirement of a six (6) foot masonry wall on the extrem~
westerly portion of subject property, whethex this could be required, since only the
easterly 150 feet would be used for the service station, and since the parcel of land
westerly of the service station might ultimately become commercial, waiver of the
required wall could be made until the westerly portion of subject property were
developed.
The Commission also discussed the possibiiity of requiring the Planning Department to
render the uses applicabie for different zones whenever an application was preseated,
but then decided there were too many variables, to warrant the preparation of any
recommendations by the 5taff for use in every petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 643, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 369, subject to conditions. (See Resolutioa Book.)
In offering and seconding the motion for the approval, Commissioners Marcoux and
Pebley stipulated that the approval was for the service station only~ that a findiag
indicate that the masonry wali normally required to separate the service station from
other commercial property could be waived and a bond posted, until the proposed
commercial property was developed, and that the ma~onry wali to separate the entire
parcel of subject property from the proposed 3chool should be one of the conditions.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AY83: COMMI33IOI~ffiEt3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcowc, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COA9~[I3SIOI~IDEtB: None.
ABSBNT: COhMISSI0NBR3: Hapgood.
~ - ~ .~ .. ~ . ~ . . .~:, _ _
, . c . ~ . ~~ .. . ... . ~ ~. ~ . . .- . ~. . ...
V ~.
~ . _..._
~
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 18, 1963, Continued:
1406
RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PRED~tIQCS DHVELOPMENT CQRPORATION, 524 West
N0. 62-63~-72 Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; LBONAItD SMI1H,
125 South Claudina, Anaheim, California, AgQnt; requesting that
property described as: Three parcels of land having a frontage of
474 feet, plus or minus, on the east side of State College Boulevard, and having a
frontage of 1,064 feet, plus or minus, on the north side of Ball Road, said property
being incorporated in Tentative Map of Tract No. 4757. PARCBL N0. 1 being described as
Lot No, 41, and having a frontage of 297 feet on the east side of State College Boule-
vard, and having a frontage of 493 feet on the north side of Ball Road. Said Parcel
No. 1 being adjacent to the existing service station at the northeast corner of Ball
Road and State College Boulevard. Parcel No. 2 being described as Lot Nos. 17 through
40, and having a frontage of 177 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, and
an approximate frontage of 354 feet on the north side of Ball Road. Said property
t+e±^g contiguoss to Parcel Nc. 1, Farcel No. 3 beiag described as Lot i1os. 1 tiirough I6,
and having an approxiamte fr~:itage of 270 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a
3epth of 624 feet, said property being easterly coatiguous to Parcel No. 1 be reciassi-
fied from the R A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the C~1, Neighborhood Commercial,
2one for Parcel No, 1; R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone for Parcel No, 2; and
R-1, One Family Residential, Zone for Parcel No. 3,
Mr. Leonard Smith, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the Commission was quite familiar with subject property; that the six (6) months
normally required between the £iling of petitions on the same property had been
waived by the City Council ~ecause the petitioner decl2red he had drastically changed
the concept of the propos~d development; that 16 single family homes were proposed for
the easterly portion of subject property, and single story muitiple family development
would act as a buffer betweea the commercial development and the single family
deveiopment in existence to the north and the proposed single family development to the
east; that alleys, masonry walls~nd landscaping was proposed to £urther eliminate the
noises from the commercial development; and that the proposed General Plan, through
surveys and stadies projected a neighborhood commercial development for the inter-
section of Ball Road and State College Boulevard.
Mr. Hazold Hyman, 1114 Groveland Place, appeared before the Commission, and requested
that a special study which the Planning Department had prepared be presented, before
he wouid present any opposition to subject petition.
Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff, presented a special planning study which indicated
the possible ways in which the cor~er of State College Boulevard and Ball Road c~uld be
developed, that whenever a primary street was bounded on on~: side by single family zone
and on the other side by light manufacturing, a considerab:ie buffering distance
through setbacks would minimize any noises.
Mr. Hyman, then complimented the Planning Department in rendering the several possi-
bilities for development of dissimilar uses, and stated that he represented the property
owners in the tract to the north of subject property; that the shopping center was
still being opposed because they felt that it wouid be an unnecessary strip type
commercial development, which would not be patzonized by the residents in the immediate
vicinity of ihe center; that the proposed General Plan extended the present.park
almost to Ball Road; and that the proposed multiple family development would be an
invi~ation for additional apa=tment units in the immediate vicinity of all the Bast
f.naheim ~ingln iamiiy su'odivisions.
Mr. William Silverman, president of the Rio Vista Home Owners Association, appeared
before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that the entire
matter of development of subject property had been before the Commission some time ago;
that the waiver of the required six (6) month waiting period was unjustified because
the petitioner did not present plans which would warrent this waiver; that multiple
family development, and neighborhood commercial facilities was still being proposed,
and the difference was a small parcel to the east of the subject property which would
contain 16 singie family homes; that the shopping center would not be economically
advisable without its deterioration due to the inability of maintaining shops; and that
the petitioner had been given every opportunity to present pia~ls which would have been
more compatible to the area, in fact, more than was afforded the Citizens of the East
Anaheim area who vrere trying to defend their rights.
:~
~: :-."~_ - _ -.r._. .
c._j ~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COAMISSION, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued:
1407
RBCIASSIFICATI~i - Mrs. Paul Dominigues, 1523 Hast Santa Ana Street, appeared before
N0. 62-63-72 the Commission, and stated that she owned ten (10) acres on the
(Contiaued) south side of the street, and the proposed development would be an
asset to the community.
Mr. Smith, in rebuttal, stated that there had been a considerabie change from the
~riginal pla.ns presented; that the Planning Department had presented studies which would
isolate the shopping area which its studies indicated would be needed for that
intersection; that the proposed multiple family development would only consist of four
apartment units per building which Nould not increase the density of the area, with
single family homes having more children than residents of apartments; that by placing
16 single family homes to the east of the multiple family development would act as a
deterrant for multiple familq development for the eastern 80 acres; and that in all
pianning projections, it was desirable to have a transition zone between the single
family developments and the commercial developments, by the inclusion of multiple family
homes of low-medium density.
Commissioner Pebley inquired whether the petitioner had a market which would be ready
to establish busiaess in the neighborhood commercial, and Mr. Smith replied that none
had been signed, but had voiced their willingness for such a development.
THS H&VtING WAS CLOSBD.
The Cummission noted on the proposect General Plan that five shopping centers were
within a mile of each other, and that if Bast Anaheim grew at the rate the west side
d+_Q, it would need these shopping centers; that the Commission reserved the economic
problems of commercial facilities to the persons with experience to control and operate
them, and that the proposed General Plan indicated a shopping center was needed at the
corner of subject property.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed for the Commission the action which had
transpired on the previous petition for reclassification of subject property.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 644, Series ip62-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Pebley, to recommend to the City
Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62~63-72 be approved, subject to
coaditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYB3: C(ahAfIS3I0NBRS: A llred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, pebley, Perry.
NQB3z CObQYIISSI0NBR3: None.
ABSHNT: COhAlISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
RHVISSD TBNTATIVB - DHVBLOPBR: PRBDBRICKS DBVBLOPMSNT CO., S24 West Commonwealth
TRACT N0. 4757 Avenue, Fullerton, California. SNGINSHR: Dan W. Heil, 120 South
Orange Avenue, Fullerton, California. Subject tract is located
at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball
Road, and contains 16 proposed R-1, One Family Residential, 24 proposed R-3, Multiple
Family Residential, ar.d 1 paoposed C-1, Neighborhood Comme*cial, 2oned, lots,
Subject tract is filed in conjunctioa with Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-72.
Mr. Leonard Smith appeared before tha Commission and stated that all discussion held
under Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63--72, and the approval of said reciassifir
cation were a pertinent part of the consideration of subject tract, and that the
revised tract should be considered at the same time as the reclassification.
~
,\
~ •- -r---- ~ e~,~.~,~
. , +~~emuc.uroxsc
\,~ ~ ,
. . ..
,
~
~._ ~:. . , . . .. . ' ~ , . . . . .._. .. .... _..._~
; ~ .. :. ~ .. .. . . .
, _ . , 1 ~ :..__,._..
~ ~~ .~~
L~ v ` ~
RHVISBD THNATIVE - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Revised
TRACT N0. 4757 Tentative Map of Tract No. 4757, subject to the following
(Continued) conditions:
1. Requirement that shouZd this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenative form for approval.
2. Dedication of access rights to Ball Road and State College Boulevard from Lot Nos. 1,
16, 17, 40, and 35.
3, Subject to the approval of the reclassification of subject property to the R-3,
Multiple Family Residential, R-1, One Pamily R:siden;.i~~l, and C-1, Neighborhood Cam~rdal
Zoaes ss appzaved under °eti:iaa :c: Reclas~ifi~ation No. i,2-b3-72,
4. Provision that all knuckles and return radii conform tn ihe City of Anaheim
standards.
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RBCIASSIFICATI4N - PUBLIC fffiARING. MASAMI OG~TA, 3030 West Bail Road, Anaheim,
N0. 62-63-73 California, pwner; requesting that property described as: A
rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 145 feet on the
south side of Ball Road and a depth of 280 feet, the eastern
boundary of said property being approximately 265 feet west of the centerline of
Beach Boulevard be reclassified from the R A, RHSIDHNTIAL AGRICULIURAL, ZONS to the
C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COhV~fHRCIAL, ZONH to permit the expansion of inedical,dental, and
general professional buildings on subject pxoperty.
Mr. Wesley Shoffner, 633 Lido Park Drive, Newport Beach, architect for the petitiioner,
appeared before the Commission and stated he was availabie to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was any one ia the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition, and received no reply.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSfiD.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans, and requested that the architect explain what
was proposed.
Mr.Shoffner stated that the proposed development would be immediately adjacent to the
west of the existing professional offices of Dr. Ogato; that because of an increase in
patients, it was necessary to enlarge the present facilities; that the proposed
structure would be a high quality type of professional building with attorneys, and real
estatE offices fronting the building and the extension of Dr. Ogato's offices for the
rear of the building.
The Commission noted that a'neighborhood commercial deve.lopment iras proposed on the
Generai Plaa, but that subject property was not large enough to accommodate a five to
se~en ac:2 s:~appiag cer,ter a~ this COYi1~i~ but fhati inere was adequate acreage to the
west of subject property, and that the proposed structure would be consistent with the
type of development now existing,
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 645, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ASlred, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-73 be approved, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYB3: COhAtIS9I0Nffii3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry.
NQE3: COt~tISSIOI~tS: None.
ABSBNT: COIMfI3SI0NffitS: Hapgood.
~.
p . .
" ~ ~~ -~, . " ~er~w'°sn'° , • . .
~ . ... .. , .. .... .
,
.. . .
_: , ... ., .,.,~ .
. .. .: .. ,...
- -_. ~, . .:-~ ,, ~~ . :..~ . . ._ . ._.. .. .._
F- .~.. ,~.. , .~..~~_~,. ..., _ . . . ~ . .~ . .. . ~ . . . ,. ..:-...-. . .,.-
~ MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING CO~AfISSION, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued: 1408
~~} ~ ~
MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING COU9rtISSION, Pebruary 18. 1963, Continued; 1409
RBCLRSSIPICATION and CONDITIONAL USE
N0..62-63-74 PffitMIT N0. 371
PUBLIC HBARING. ROSHRT L'OWHLL OISON~ 2210 Loara St,~ Anaheim, California., Owner; OSCAR
AIBSN~ 8572 Garden Gsove Houlevard, Gar~.len Grove, California, Agent; Property described
as: A rectangular parcel of land haviseg a frontage of 120 €eet on the east side of Loara
Street and a depth of 300 feet~ the narthern boundary of said property being approximately
752 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2210 Loara
Street, and property beiag classified in the R A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL~ ZONH.
RSCIASSIPICATION N0..62-63-74 be reclassifed to the R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSID~TTIAL, ZONH.
CONDITIONAL USE FffitMIT N0. - permit the CONSIRUCTION OP A SINGLB STORY PLAAIIlVBD UNIT,
M[1x.TIPLH PAMILY RffiIDBNTIAL DSVffiOPMBNT WI1H CARPORIS.
Mr. Oscar Aiken~ agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated that
two breezeways separated the fous-unit structures~ although the plot plans indicated a
continuous roof line, and that a multiple family development was on either side of sub-
ject property.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Couacil Chamber oppos~ing subject peti-
tions~ and received no repiy,
1IiB F18ARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed the possibility of requiring that revised plans be submitted
which would receive Development Review approval before being heard before the City Council.
Commissioner Allred offered Resol~~tion No. 646~ Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that
Yetition for Reclassification No. 62-63-T4 be approved subject to conditions. iSee
Resolution)
Commissioner Alired in offering his resolution, stated that one of the conditions be the
=equirement that revised piot plans be submitted after the petitioner had contacted the
Development Review function as to the type of plans which might be acceptable, and that
the revised plans be subautted prior to being heard by the City Council.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYHS: CObMIS8I0NB1tS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, ~Aungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOB3: COhQ~lISSIONBR3: None.
ABSHNT: COhAlISSIONBRS; Hapgood.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 647, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 371, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote:
AYB3: CCY~9dI3SI01~EtS: A11red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS o C~4IISSIOI+ffii3: None .
ABSENT: COI~41I3SIONBRS: Hapgood.
BHQABSIPICATION N0. 62-63-75 AND CONDITIONAL USH PHRMIT N0. 3'73 filed in conjunction
with each other.
PUffi.IC HBARING. ARTHUR HORMAN, et al, 2139-C West Ball Road, Anaheim, California,
Owners; J. RICHARD HUPPMAN, 2139-C West Ball Road, Anaheim~ Californis~
Agent; property described as; A J-shaped division of laad consisting
of two parcels. Said iand having a frontage of 141 feet on the aouth
side of Lincoln Aveaue with an approximate depth of 630 feet, the eastern boundary of
said property being approximatelq 660 feet west of the centerline of Buclid Avenue, said
property consisting of two parcels being divided iato Portion "A" and Portion "B"
portion "B" of subject property having a frontage of 141 feet on the south side of
Lincoin Avenue and a depth of 186 feet: Portioa "A" being adjacent to Portion "H" on
the south and consisting of the remainder of subject property. Present classification
of subject property is R A, RBSIDffi~iTIAL AGRICULTfIlWL, 20NB,
_ __._........____~~.~,.,,~..~,~,~.,~,~,~;~...~..~.,.V,
, ., ~. .. • _, :. .
; ,:' . .. : ._ ...._.....~.. ,
_.:~-.----_--_. __
__~_-_ ----- -- _._....--~- - -M--------- " `~
~) ~ ~ ~ i
~~
MINUTE3, CITY PIANNING CCIMMISSION, Pebruary,l8, 1963, Continued: 1410
RBCIASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-75 AND CONDITIONAL USS PHRMIT N0. 373 (Continued)
RHCIAS3IPICATION N0. 62-63-75: Requesting reclassification to: Portion "A" - R-3, ,
MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONS and Portion "B" - ,
C-1, NEIGHBOitHOQD CQM~ERCTAL, ZONB.
CONDITIONAL USH PffitMIT N0. 373: Requesting permission to CONS4RUCT A SWO-STORY PIANNBD
UNIT MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL DBVBLOPI~ffiNT WITH CAR-
PQRTS - WAIVB ONB-STOitY HBIGHT LIMITATION.
Mr, J. Richard Huffman, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission, and
stated that he had thoroughly analyzed subject property to develop the property to its
nigfiest and best potential, that the proposed General Plan projects commercial zoning for
the Lincoln Avenue frontage and the rear portion for single family residential use;
that the single family residentiai developme~ would be incompatible with the present
uses since a medicai center was approved for the westerly boaadarq and motel projected
into the center of the balance of subject ~roperty; that the motel was two story
construction, and by constructing a buffer of multiple family uni.ts against the motel i
with single story units within 150 feet of the single family development to the south of ~
subject property, the proposed plot plans as presented offered the beat possible ~
solution to a rather peculiar parcel of lund, and that it was found impractical to ~
"wrap arouad" ancther motel agaiast the existing motel. a
Mr. Leonard Smith, at the request of the agent, explained in detal the reason for the
peculiar shape of the property, and that propertq to the west was being developed for a
professional and business office was leased property, since the Preese properiry was in
life estate, and that subject property could not be developed in the same manner as the
Preese property because of the inability of obtaining additional land.
Mr. Huffman then stated he would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might
have as well as any sugge3tions, since he was trying to develop sub3ect property in
accordance with all Code require~ents.
Commissioner Pebiey stated that since single familq development was on the west and the
south of subject property, a"high quality" one story multiple family developmeat might
be practicai.
Mr. Huffman stated that his firm and had beea developers of apartments for some time
and they retained the ownership of anh prcp ertq they developed, that elevafiioas might
not be as complete as was required, but it was the developers intention tc build the
proposed apartments similar to the ones which theq owned on Magnolia Avenue~ and that
th construct single story for the entire parcel would not be practical since the motel
was two story and the investment return would lP greatly reduced, but plans had been
reduced from the original 50 to 43 units with single story adjacent to the single family
development.
Mr. Huffman further stated that the first name on the petiticn was in erro= this being
made by the escrow department of the Bank of America, and if the Commisaion wished to
have this~ciarified, a representative from the bank was in ~he Council Chamber to e~cplain.
Mr, Thomas 0`BriAn, 1789 Bren~twood P1ace, appeared 'oefore the Commi~sion, and read a
letter of oppostion to the waiver of two story height, said letter beiag accompanied by
a petition of opposition signed by 34 persons in the single family development adjacent
to subject property,•thafi upon listening to evidence presented by the agent for the
petitioner, he was quite confused as to the reason for requesting the wa3.~~er of the height
limitation.
Cheirman Gauer advised Mr. 0'Brien that the waiver was required because of the vacant
residential agricultural 20 acres to the east of subject propes4y, that the Code requred
ti-at two story construction be prohibited within 150 feet of any single family rPSidence;
and that shake roofs should be required for the single story units.
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CQhA~ISSION,•February 18, 196~3, Continued: 1411
RSCIASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-75 - Mr. Richard Yenterelli, 1793 Brentwood Place,
AND appeared before the ~Commission in oppostion to the
CONDITIONAL.USB PffitMIT N0. 373 proposed multiple famiiy development on subject
- (Continued) property; that the plans as presented did aot qualify
as a deluxe development, and suggested that the agent
for the petitioners consnlt with the residents of the
area to formulate aa amicalbe type of development for
subject property.
Commissiones Chavos aoted that the proposed development did not have sufficieat space
for ingress and egress to the multiple family development; and that revisions should be
submitted for the Commission's approval in order that the proposed development might not
be detrimental to the siagle family residences to the south. ~
Tf~ FIBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner 'perry offered Resolution No, 648, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoptioa, secoaded by Commiasioner Mungali, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-75 be approved sub,~ect to conditions. (3ee
Resolution Book.)
In offering his resolution, Commissioner Perry requested that shake roofs be required
for all structures proposed; that revised plans be submitted for Development Review
approval which indicate that two-story construction was not within 150 feet of a single
£amily development; that a 35 foot setback be required, and that C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial deed restrictions be filed limiting the use of the proposed commercial
structure to business and professional uses oniy.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COM~4ISSION~tS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOBS: COMMISSIOI~RS: None.
AB3BNT: COMMIS5IONHRS: Hapgood.
Commissioner Perrq offered Resoiution No. 649; Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to approve Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 373, subject to a conditioa. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYBS: CQMMISSIONffitS: A1].red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOS3: COhQ~lISSIONBR3: None.
ABSBNT: COUAlISSIONffit3: Hupgood.
"°^°°S: Commissione= Pebley moved for a ten minute recess, Commissioaer P.llred seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. The meeting recessed at 9:30 P.M.
y$~]$,: Chairman Gauer recoavened the meeting at 9:40 P.M., all members of the
Commission being preaent ercept Commissioner Hapgood.
~, . . ~ ~ . -----~--_
~ > . .
U C~ ' ~
~ ' ~ ~
I ~; •
1
~
y,. .
r._._ - -- - ,.
~ - ~o c~ ~a
,,
. MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CObAlISSION, Pebruary 18. 19b3, Coti'~iaued; 1412 'i '
RBCIASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-76 - Sub'ect ~
~ ~ petitians filed in coajunction with each other. I
• CONDITIONAL USE PBRMIT N0, 374 PUBLIC HBM1RING. QtIPPI1H W, and MARGARITB g, JffiiU, j
1641 Monterey Road, 3ea1 Heach~ California~ Owners; '
RUSSHLL JAY, 2966 West Lincoia Avenue, Anaheim~ Caii- !'
foraia, Agent; requestiag that property described as: A rectaagular ~arcel of land '
~. having a froatage of 198 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue and a depth of 661 feet, ~;
the southern boundary of said property being approximately 467 feet north of the center-
line of Cerritos Avenue. Property presently classified R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL,
~~ ~ 201~.
RBCLASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-76 - requested classification: R-3, MULTIPLE PAMILY RBSIDSN-
TIAL~ 20AID.
- CONDITIONAL USH PERMIT N0. 374 - reuqested use: CONSIRUCT A SINGLB STORY PIANNBD UNIT
MULTIPLS PAMILY RBSIABNTIAL DSVffiOPMENT,
ONH S1'OitY, 40 UNITS.
Mr. Russell Jay, agent for the petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated tHat
he had talked to the Citq of Stanton planning director who stated, that Stanton planned ~
to 3evelop the property adjacent to the present ball part, but that no definite plana ,
had been formulated which might be of benefit to the Commissioa; that the proposed ~
- development would be self-coatained~ since there was nu plan for development of the ~
property to the south.
Mr. Lewis Jav3sabich, 2274 West Polk, appeared before the Commission and atated that the
dnly entrance to his property was from Cerritos; that he had understood that the
surrounding area was to be developed for neighborhood and general commercial uses; that
if multiple family were to be deveioped, a street the length of the sub,~ect property
would be an improvcment to the property to the south; and that he was not in opposition
to siib'ect eti ion b
,I p t , ut was curious as to the possible development of his property if
another exit were to the aorth of his property.
Mr. Donald Janz, 3416 Brady Avenue, appeared in conditional ~pposition to subject ~
petition, stating that his rear property line abutting a northerly portion of subject I
property, and that if subject petition were approved, a six (6) foot masonry wall~and
the height limitation be one story, be two coaditions of ayproval.
TFIB HEARING WA3 CLOSBD. ;
The Commission discussed the plot plans and decided the devel opmezt should be self- ~
contained.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Reaolution No. 650, Series 1962-63, and moved for it.,
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner perxy, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-76 be approved subject to conditioas.
(See Resolution Book.)
'~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed 3y.Lhe foilowing vote:
Q A~~ COI+HSISSIONHAS. Alired, Camp, ~havos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungail, Pebley, Perry,
t' NOB3: COA9dISSIONffit3: None, i
~ ABSBNT: CQ~AtIS9I0NBR3: Hapgood. ~
~
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 651, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to graa~ F~etition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 374, subject to conditions. (See Resolatioa Book.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CODAlISSIOI~1tS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall, Pebley, Perry.
NOB3: CQMMIS3IONffitS: None.
ABSHNT: CQM~IISSI01~IDitS: Hapgood.
i
I
i.
~ ~
( .
P. ~
~ _ '.^ _
f . - ~_
, . : , ,;:
> ;_ _.
. ~ ~ , ,,
r,~ . . _ ,.. .,~ . .__--~ . . ~ ~.:
MINU~B3, CITY PLANNNING COI~AlISSION, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued: 1413
i RBCtASSIFlCATION - PUBLIC HBARING. JAhffiS L. SLQAN, et al, 1015 North Acacia Street,
~ N0. 62-63-77 Anaheim, California, Owner; RAY MSRCADO, 13016 Euc13d Street,
I Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as:
A rectangular parcel of land having a froatage of 195 feet on the
west side of Acacia Street, and having a frontage of i25 feet on the north side of
, La Palma Avenue, said property is made up of Parcel Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and further
j described as 5001 North Acacia Street, be reciassified from the R A, RESIDBNTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONB to the C-1, NBIQiB0RH00D C0~4~RCIAL, Z~VB to permit the construction
of a pharmacy and medicai offices.
~ ~ Mr. Ray Mercado, agent for the petitioners appeared before the Commission in opposition
to sujbect petition, and stated that he had contacted a number of the neighbors who
were opposed to the proposed development of a commercial strucutre; that it was
undesirable for the neightorhood because it would iacrease the traffic in the area;.and
that an encroachment of commercial facilities would set a precedeat for further requests
for commercial uses on La Palma Avenue as well as tead to deterioriate Lhe residential
environment of the area.
Mr. Mercado, in rebuttal stated that the proposed commercial facility would only have
four small suites and a pharmacy to accommodate fil.ling of prescriptions as well as
other medications necessary, and that he had a petition signed by 24 persons favoring
subject petition, and that the proposed facilities would be valuable in case of an
emergency where treatment would be alsmost immediately available.
The Commission discussed the possibility of the proposed development creatiag "strip
c~mmercial" zoning in the center of a block between Bast Stre~: an3 State Co~.lege
Boulevard; that granting s~~bject petition would set a precedent and encourage similar
zoning requests; and that subject property can be proposed for a higher and. better usage
than was being proposed.
17~IB FIBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Allred offered Resointion No. 652, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by CommiPSioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Counci:l
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-77 be disapproved based on f?ndings.
(See Resolution Boot.)
Commissioners Alired and Chevos in offering and seconding subject resolution stated
that the proposed commercial developmeut would be an encroachment into a singie family
development and would generaily breatdowa the living environment of the area, aad that
the proposed General Plaa projected subject property for single family development.
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COI~MiISSIOPIDRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Marcowc, Mungall, Pebley, Aerry.
NOBS: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
AB3HNT: COt~9~lI3SIONffit3: Hapgood. " "
RBCIA3SIPICATION N0. 62-63-78 - 3u~ject petitions filed in conjuaction with each
AND other.
CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT N0. 375
PUBLIC HBARING. g. NABAWA$I, 640~Suuth gnott Avenue,
Aaaheim, California~ and W. HURZIAPP, 38298 Vineland,
Beaumont, California, Owners; VILLAGB (~tHENB CO.,
600 North Buclid Street, Suite 645, Anaheim, California, Aeent; property deacribed as;
A rectangular parcel of land with a 338 foot frontage on the east side of Rnott Avenue
and a depth of 756 Eeet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately
340 feet south of Orange Avetiue, said property contains,three parceis, and further
described as 626 and 640 South Knott Avenue. Property preaeatly clussified R-A,
RE97DSNTIAL AGRICULIVRAL, ZONB.
. ~ t~ ~
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COI~tIS3I0N, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued:
1414
~ RBCI.ILSSIPICATION N0. 52-63-78 - RHQASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-78 - Requested
~ ppD classificatioa - R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL,
j CONDITIONAL USE PffitMIT N0. 375 ZONB.
~ (Continued)
CONDITIQNAL USH PBRMIT N0. 3T5 - Requested Use:
CONSTRUCT A O~TB AND 1W0 5T(3RY P7AHIVSD UNIT TdITLTIPL,&
FAMILY RBSIDSNTIAL DHVHLOPI~ffiNT - WAIVS O~IB STORY
HBIGHT LINIITATION AND MIN£MUM NUMSBR OP GARAGBS.
. Mr, Jack Joily, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the proposed developmeat would be similar to the Village
Green development at Buclid aad Ball Road; that multip]e family developmeats were to the
north and to the west of subject propertq, and that the Plood Control Channei separated
the proposed multiple family development from the single family development to the south
of subject property.
Mr, Broderick Jones, 3352 West Orange Avenne, appeared before the Commission, and
stated that he opposed two story construction immediately to hi~ propertq which was the
northeastern most nazcel aoutting sutject property; and then requested that the plot
plans be showa and explained to him in relation to the two story construction as it
might be projected in close proximity to his property. Upon beiag shown the plot plans
and explaining that the two story structures would be approximately 60 feet from his
southerly property line, Mr. Jones stated that the proposed plans were vezy nice, but he
stili opposed two-story construction, as well as the peripherial drive aud the parking
of cars adjacent to hZs property line.
THS }~ARING {~AS CLOSED.
The Commiasion inquired of Mr. Daw, representing the City Bngineer what acreage was
conside~_ed the minimum for dedicated sxreets and alieys to be required in a planned
unit development. Mr. Daw replied that the proposed development was less than six (6) -
acres and that normally developments of 10 acres o= more were required to have,
dedicated stree~ts, aad the 25 foot drive as p=oposed would not then require street
cleaning and curb upkeep.
Commisaioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 653, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption~ aecoaded by Commissioner Marcoux, to recommend to the City
Councii that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-78 be approved subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Boot.)
Commissioner Mungall in offering the foregoing resolution stated that the multiple
family development shail be self-contained with six (6) foot masonry wails on the nnrth~
east and south bouadaries of subject property.
On soli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AY83: COhNlIS3IONHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Muagall~ Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: CO~UdISSIONBRS: None.
AHSHNT: COMMIS:SIONHRS: Hapgood. ~ ~
Commissioner Mungail offered Resolution No. 654, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, sPCOnded by Commiasioner Camp, to approve Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 375, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the followiag vote:
pYB3: CCWAfI3SI0NBR3: A_lred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebleq, Perry.
NOH3: CQbA[ISSIONBR3: None.
,.~
~`,
;
~
i
i
I
ABSBNT: COU9~lISSIOI~tS: Hapgood. •
;~: - ~ ,
Commissioner A11red left the Councii Chamber at 10:20 P.M. and returned at 10:27 P.M.. ~
~~~
~ ' I
E''
i
i., ~: ~,'.. ~ ' ~
~,
L.,.'~...~:~rs,'~:
~
~ ~,
C_)
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CUMMISSION, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued: 1415
RfiCU1SSIFICATION N0. 62-63-79 - Sub,ject petitions filed in conjunction with each i
AND other. ~ ~
VARIANCS N0. 1550
PUBLIC HBARING. DR, G. R. RAMAGB and PRBD C, MSLLO, ~
9260 Raviller, Downey, California, Owners; BBN HBAUgIHN, ~
3648 Pernwood L nrtood California A eat• !
. y , , g , prop~acy described as: An irregular parcel
of land having a frontage of 68 feet on the west side of Nfest Street, and an approximate
depth of 174 feet, the 'southerly boundary of said property being approximately 675 feet
north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and fur#her described as approximately
1161 West Street. Property presentiy classified as R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, 20NH.
RSCLASSiFICATION N0. 62-63-79 - Requested classification - R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RESIDBN-
T7AL, ZONB.
VARIANCIi N0, 1550 - Requested variance - WAIVB ON STORY FffiIGHT LIMITATION to permit the
establishment of a two-story seven unit
apartment building.
Mr. Kea Besubien, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission aad stated
that since plans had l:eea submitted for the proposed structure he had been advised that
West Street was proposed for a 64 foot street; that the plans had not taken into
consideration the additional 12 feet of dedicatioa for street wideaing purposes; that
subject property had multiple development to the south and a church being constructed to
the north with other multiple family development in close proximity to subject proper~y,
and that the shape and size of the subject property made it rather difficult to
construct siagle story apartments on the property.
The Commission noted that the trash storage areas would be inaccessible to the ten,aii~ts, ~
that inadequate provisions for iagress and egress to subject structures were propni,~'C~;:•- ;
and that the architectural design was substandard to other multiple family deve~o~faeais !
in the area.
Chairman Gauer inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber ~pposing aubject
petition, and received no reply,
THB HEARING WA3 CIASHD.
The Commission continued review of the ito lans noti the su g '
p P ng ggested chan es •~o the ~
plans, and in~uired of the agent for the petitioaer if plans could not be improved.
Mr. Beaubien stated that he would be glad to work with the Plaaning Department to
improve the ~~lot plans so that the plans would be available for review by the City
Councii at the time subject petition was again heard.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 655, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Councii
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-79 be approved subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Pebely in offering the foregoing resolution, requested that there be a
provision of shak.roofs, elimination of the overhang, and incorporation of revisions of
the plot plans to indicate dedication for street widening sts well as working with the
Planning Department to improve the architecture of the proposed deveiopment.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS; COt~MIS5I0NHRS; Camp, Chavos, Gaues, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
i
NOBS: COMMISSIOI~ffiRS: None. ;
I
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBR3: Hapgood.
ABSTAIN: C01~9NISSIONffitS: Aiired. 'i
C.} `` ~' .
~' ... ; ' .
~ .
~'
~~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Pebruary 18, 1963, Continued:
1416
RBQASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-79 - Commissioner Perrq offered Resolution No. 656, 3eries
~~~AND 1962-63, and moved for its passage aad adoption,
VARIANCB N0. 1550 seconded by Commissioner Camp, to graat Petition for
(Continued) _ Variance No. 1550, subject to conditions. (See Reso-
lution Book.)
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYffi: COFAlI3SIONffit3: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Rerry.
NQffi: COhUlI33IONffit3: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSION~t3: Hapgood.
RHCIASSIPICATION N0. 62-63-80 - Sub,ject petitions filed in con,junction with each other.
AND
CONDITI(~VSL USE PBRMIT N0. 377 PUBLIC HBARING. GIACOMA LUGARO, 532 North tAagnolia
Avenue, Anaheim, Califoraia, Owner; VILLAGB (~tEBNB
COh~ANY, 600 North Buclid Street, Suite 654, Anaheim,
California, Agent; property described as: An irregular parcel vi land having a frontage
of 271 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue and an approximate depth of 850 feet,
the westerly boundary of said pr.operly being approximately 277 feet east of the center-
line of Magnoiia Avenue, and further described as 2490 Crescent Avenue. Property
classified R~1, RBSID9NTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
RHCLAS.SIFICATION N0. 62-63-80 -:equested classificatioa - R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RBSI-
DBNTIAL, ZONB.
CONDITIONAL USE PEEtMIT N0. 379 - requested use: CONSTRUCT A ONB AND TWO STORY PIANNHD
UNIT MULTIPI.B PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL
DBVBLOPMBNT WI1H CARPORTS - WAIVB ONH
STORY HHIGHT LIMITATION.
Mr. ,Jack Jolly, repreaent3ng the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated that inasmuch as a strip of commercial property fronted on Magnolia, it was
felt that the constructioa of a muitiple family development to act as a buffer between
the commercial development and the single family development to the norsh and east of
subject property; and that the type of construction proposed would be similar to the
Village Green Green at Huclid Avenue and Ba11 Raad.
Afs. Bugene Lingheimer, 131 West W3lshire, appeared before the Commission and stated that
he represented all the singlefamily home owners adjacent and in close proximity to sub-
ject property; that the history of the development of subject property w as well known,
since the~re had been considerable protest by the home owners when a previous request for.
m~ltiple iamily and commerciai zoaing was requested by the petitio~ for sub,ject progerty;
that for the protection of the home owners in the area~ it was hoped that the Commiasion
would xequire that subject property be developed for siagle family homes; that all the
property owners had not changed their position ia opposing multiple family developmeat;
that the views of sil were many and varied, but that a high density type of development
would only aggravate the tzaffic probiems oa Crescent Avenue as weli as set a preced"eat
of injecting multiple family development in an area primarily suited and developed~fus
single family use.
Commissioner Marcoux stated ~that he recalled when subject property aad the adjoinir~g
property fronting Magnolia Avenue were before the City Council in 1960 ia heavy ~
commercial petition was withdrawn and the request for Neighborhood Commercial develop-
ment along Magnolia Aveaue was granted with the stipulation that sub,ject property would
be developed for aiagie family homes; and that the City Council at that time was
tryiag to protect the single fam3ly home ownera and maiatain the integrity of the area.
~
V ~ S
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COAM4ISSION, February 18, 1963, Contiaued: 1417
RHCLASSIPICATI~N N0. 62-63-80 - Mr. Pred Dorsch, 539 Harcourt Street, appeared before
AND the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and
CONDITIONAL USS PBRMIT N0. 377 stated that the proposed General Plan projected '
subject property for single family development; and
• that the petitioner was aiso the owner of the
commercial property abutting subject property; and
was fully aware of previous City decisions for sub-
ject property.
Mr. Joliy in rebuttal, stated that it was logical that multiple family development be
proposed adjoining the strip of commercial property; and that property had increased
in price to the point that subject property could only be developed as proposed, since
division of the land for single family homes would make the price of the homes
prohibitive. '
Commissioner Camp stated, that subject property was ideaily suited for a subdivision
for single family homes; and that the Commission should consider parcels of land which
were not easily developed into single family homes by dimension, for other types of
residential uses.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 657, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoptioa, seconded by Commissioner Camp to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-80 be denied trased on findings.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marconx, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COhM ISSIONffitS: None.
AHSBNT: CONaIISSIOATBRS: Hapgood,
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 658, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to deny Petitioa for Conditional
Use Permit No. 377, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COMMISSIOI~iffitS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOHS: COhMISSIONffitS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISS]ONffitS: Hapgood.
~ ~~~t -._' - . - .,. _ _ . . . ... . _...... , .. _._
~ :a ~_. L~ , .
. V ,`~
~
MINUiES, CTTY PLANNING COMN.iSSION, February 18, 1963, Continueds 1418
REPORTS Alm - TTEM N0. 1'
RECOINA~PIDATIONS CON.DTfIONAL USE PERMTT N0, 328 -- 141 South Knott Avenue
Frcposed hospital for geriatrics and rehabilitation.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the conditions imposed in
approving subject petition, and stated that the architects had submitted revised plans
for the Commission's consideration, as well as request3ng the deletion of two of the
conditions under Resolution No. 559, Series 1962-63, namely Condition No. 6y which
requires an adequate turn around radius for the westerly portion of subject property,
since said condition no longer applied with the approval of the revised plans; and that
the masonry wall required in Condition Noo 9 be modified to require the masonry wall on
the south property line a•t the perking lot, and on the north and east property line
ad3acent to the service court.
The Commission reviewed the ~ilot plans and nated that Condition No. 6 could be elimin-
ated, but that •the entire requirement of the six foot masonry wall remain as stipulated
in Ehe original resolutiono '
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution Noo 659, Series No. 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to rescind Resolution Noo 559, Series
1962-63, and delete Condition Noo 6 as originally stipulated9 and to approve the revised
plot plans as submitted, by the approval of Petit3on for Conditional Use Permit Noo 328,
(See Resolutior, Rook)o
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOESa COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSEM s CONaAISSIONERSs Hapgoodo
ITEM N0. 2
Riverview Annexation
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kxeidt, reviewed for the Commission the proposed Riverview
Annexation covering approximately 641 acres in East Anaheim, and briefly reviewed the
land use proJections in sub~ect area by the Planning Commission as reflected upon past
planning studies and the present designations of the proposed General Plano
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to recommend to the CityCouncil that the Riverview
Annexation be approved, and that if sub3ect annexation is successful, that the area be
developed substantially in accordance with the land use propoeals contained on the pro-
posed Ge~eral Plano Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe
ITEM N0. 3
Orange County•Use Variance Noo 5108 - construct a 64-unit apartment
development in the R-4 Suburban Residential and A-1 General Commer-
cial Districts; property located at the northeast corner of Blue
Gum Street, north of Anaheimo
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidty presented subject use variance to the Commission, and
noted that tfie proposed multiple family developnent is located within the Northeast
Industrial Area as delimited on the proposed General Plan.
Mro Kreidt further stated that upon an analysis presented for the Northeast Industrial
Area, the City Council in Resolution Noo 62R-335, adopted the proposed industrial zoning
for the area designated as the Northeast Industrial Area~ and noted that Finding Noe 5
of said resolution stateds ' "
"5.
That the County of Orange should ba requested to establish induatrial ::oninga
which prohibits all residential uses, on all areas lying within theix '---'-
diction in the above described areas, and to establish standards of ~
development similar to those of 'he P-L~ PARKING-LAI~IDSCAPII~~ ZOI~."
r~ c~ P~
~, ~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING CONOuIISSION, February 16; 1963, Continueds 1419
REPORTS APID - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County
RECONQu~PIDATIONS Planning Commission tha~ Orange County Use Variance No. 5108 be denied
(Continued) on the basis that i•i ~ould be a residential encroachment in the North-
east Industrial krea as proposed on the proposed General Plan~ and that
a copy of the r,ity Council Resolution No. 62R-335 be.submitted with the
transmittal. Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
ITFM tQJ. 4
REVISID TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT AA. 4427 - SUHDIVIDERt MERVIN B. JOHN90N,
15012 Starboard Street, Garden Gxove, California. FIVGINEERe VOORHEIS-
TRINDLE-NII.SON INC., 13794 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, California;
subject tract is located south of the Santa Ana River and north of the
Riverside Freeway, ~nd contains 339 One Family Residential, lots,
44 Multiple Family Residential, lots, and one six-acre neighborhood
commercial, lot.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed past Commission and Council appro~~al of
Tentative Map of Tract No. 4427 as submitted to the City of Anaheim in December, 1962;
that the original proposa:. of the subdivider was for 402 single family residential lots
developed to City of Anaheim standards; and that, although County approval of subject
tract would only apply to single family development, the petitioner proposed and will
later petition the County for approval of 44 multiple family residential, lots, and one
six-acre neighborhood commercial lot, in addition to the 339 single family residential lots.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion that the following findings of the Anaheim City
Flanning Commission be transmitted to the Orange County Planning Commissions
1. That the reseratian of the six-acre, Lot No. 384, for ultimate neighborhood
commercial development constitutes "spot zoning" in an area undergoing single
family residential development.
2. That the shape of Lot 384 encourages "strip commercial" development.
3. That the need for neighbornood conmarcial faciiities in that area bounded on
the north by the Santa Ana River, on the west and south by the Riverside Free-
way, and on the east by the Imperial Highway, should be based on general and
precise plan studies.
4. That the proposed multiple family residential development constitutes "spot
zoning" in a manner parallel to the proposed commercial development.
5. That the street pattern of the proposed multiple family residential develop-
ment does not properly relate to the proposed single family residential or
neighborhood commercial development.
6. That the following recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee for
Public Safety and General Ih~lfare be referred for incorporation in any approval
" of subject tract: - '
a. That all lots shall conform to the minimum subdivision and zoning require-
ments of the City of Anaheim.
b. That this subdivision shall be developed in accordance with the four units
shown on the face of the map in consecutive order, with the provision that
each unit be responsible for proper handling of its own drainage.
c. That the drainage structUre within the 36-foot easement shall be underground
or a concrete-lined channel shall be installed which shall be fenced and be
provided with access gates; and further provided that the discharge into the
Santa Ana River shall meet the approval of the Orange County Water District
and the Orange County Flood Control District.
d. That all drainage across Batavia Street, a secondary highway, shall be by
means of ar undergro nd system with discharge into the Santa Ana River, sub-
~ect to the approval of the Orange County Water District and the Orange
ounty Flood Control District.
,~
~
~
~
_. _...______.......:.:::.~>~,;z-w~,~«~-,..,.~...'~.."
_ ~.::__- _.. . _.. ..__.
~_~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, February 18, 1963, Continued 1420
e. That all access rights shall be dedicated to the County of Orange for Batavia
Street. I
f. That the temporary access road south of Addington Drive through Lot No. 27,
shown as connecting to old Santa Ana Canhon Road, shall be used as a tem-
proary access until permanent access is available.
g. That the off-site access road, the old Santa Ana Canyon Road, shall be
widened to provide a twenty-four (24) foot travelway; with the approvan of
the Orange County Road Department.
h. That all knuckles shall conform to the standards of the City of Anaheim.
i. That Batavia Street shall be a 90 foot right-of-way with a 36-foot right-
of-way for a service road, where shown.
j. That the following streets shall be a 40-foot roadway within a 64-foot
right-of-way. '
Alderdale Avenue Brooklawn Street
Bainbridge Avenue Barrington Street
Addington Drive Blueridge Street
k. That the following streets shall be a 36-foot roadway within a 60-foot
right-of-way, and that the cul-de-sacs shall be provided with a 50-foot
radius:
Barryknoll Street Alicia Street
Mark Circle Bainbridge Avenue `
1. That all other streets not mention in "3 and k" shall be a 30 foot }
roadway within a 60 foot right-of-way. j
i
m. That a median landscaping strip for Batavia Street and the service road i
shall be installed with adequate watering facilities, and further pro- ~
vided that said landscaping shall be installed prior to acceptance of '
the tract improvements.
n. That a six (6) foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the propexty line
separating all lots siding on or backing up to Bata:ia Street, except that
on corner lots, all walls shall be stepped down to 24 inches in the front
one-half of the front setbac!c, and a height of 42 inches in the back one-
half of said setback, and further provided that landscaping, including
irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the
Batavia Street parkway, the full distance of said wall, and said Zand- .
scapino si~all be installed prior to acceptance of the tract improvements.
o. That a six (6) foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the rear property
line separating all those lots backing up to the Santa Ana Valley Irriga-
tion Company Canal. ,
~i
p. That the alignment of Hatavia Street shall be sub3ect to the approval of ~
the County of Orange. I
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. NDTION CARRIID.
,. .
- ~ .~-..,~.,~..,~.~-~---
,
i -
~ ) ~~ ~
~')
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION, February 18, 1963, Continuedi
OORRESPOAIDENCE - ITFM NJ. 1
pND ~2•:DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 292, First Presbyterian Church granted under
MISCII.LANBDUS Resolution No. 468, Series 1962-63.
Respectfully submitted, ~
;
~ %~~~ `'u'i _~ ;
/~-
pNN KREBS, Secretary ;
ANAHEIM PLANNINC OOMMISSION i
~ ~' '
Mr. John M. Kent, agent for the petitioner submitted a written request to the Commission
which was read by Zoning Coordinator hiartin Kreidt, in which an extension of six months
was requested to complete all the conditions under which the conditional use permit was
granted.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to grant a six months' extension of time after the
expiration of the original six months' time limitation td the Petitioners of Conditional
Use Permit No. 292, granted by the Planning Commission August 20, 1962, to com~ly with
all conditions attached in Resolution No. 468, Series 1962-63. Commissioner Mungall
seconded the motion. NDTION CARRIID.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a
motion to adjourn the meetin to 7:00 0'C}.ock P.M., Monday, February
25, 1963, at which time the second public hearin- for consideration of
the General Plan would be held. Commissioner C1~a~~os seconded the motion.
NqTION CARRIID.
Meeting ad3ourned at 11s00 0'Clock P.M.
;,