Minutes-PC 1963/03/04. _ v
City Ha11
Anaheim, Califoxnia
March 4, 1g63
RBGULAR MSSTING OP 1HS ANAHHIM CITY PIANNING CQhAlISSION
RHGULAR MSBTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
cailed to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0•Clock P,M., a quorum
being present.
PRBSffiVT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. (newly elected)
CObAlISSIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, pebley, Sides.
A~T - COMMISSIONBRS: Perry.
p~~ - ZONING CWRDINAT~t: Martin Kreidt.
DBPUTY CITY ATTdtNEY: Furman Roberts.
YLANNING COhAlISSION SHCRHTARY: Ann Rrebs.
INVOCATI~I - Chairman pro tem Melbourne A. Gauer, gave the Invocation.
PLBDGB OF - Commissioner Pebley led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag.
ALLBGIANCB
APPROVAL OP - Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to approve the minutes of the
TF~ MINUTBS ~eeting of January 28, 1963, as submitted. Commissioner Camp
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
BLBCTION OF - Commissioner Chavos requested permission to speak, and stated that
A CHAIRMAN it was in order to elect a Chairman of the Commission for the
forthcoming year; he further enumerated on the many years
Commissioner Mungall had served the Commission as a member, as well
as having been Planning Director and Secretary to thF Commission for a number of years,
Cummissioner Chavos further enumerated the many years of faithful and dedicated service
Commiasioner Gauer had given the Commission, and then nominated Commissiouer
Melbourne Gauer to serv again as Chairman of the Commission for the coming year,
Coamiissioner Gauer then relinquished the chairmanship to a temporary chairman, and
asked Coamissioner Camp to perform these duties.
Commissioner Pebley nominated Commissioner Mungall for the office of chairman for the
forthcoming year.
1~emporary Chairman Camp asked if there were any additional nominations, and then
declared the nominations for the office o£ chaizman ciosed, upon a motion made by
Commissioner Allred. Commissioner Camp then requested that the vote of the Commission
for the chgirmanship be made by ballot.
Upon tallying the ballots of the voting, the Commission Secretnry declared thai
Commissioner Robert W. Mungall had been elected Chairman of the Commission for the
coming year by a vote of 5 to 3.
Comnissioner Ailred then nominated Commissioner Gauer as Chairman pro tem to the
Commission. There being no more nominations made, ltemporary ~hairmaa Camp requested a
voice vote. Commissioner Gauer then was elected Chairman pro tem unanimously.
- 1422 -
~
i
R
`
....r..,.~~. ~_._._...______ -----________._._.._. , .~V..~,....,..-.~.. ...............r~...•- ..
- i E• -
~ ~
,~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CObNlISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued:
1423
BLHCTION OF - 1Y-e newly elected Chairmaa Mungall stated that it had been his persoaal
A CHAIRMAN opinion for many years that every member of the Commission should serve
(Continued) as chairman, and this being his last year on the Commis:,~on, since he
~~ would be finished next year, he expressed his thanks to the ether
Commissioners far giving him the opportunity of serving as their
Chairman.
Commissioner Camp stated that du~ing the time he had served as a Commissioner, the
performance as chairman by Commissioner Gauer had been outstanding, and it had been a
pleasure to serve on the Commission with him.
AP'POIA'T7~ffiNT OP A- Commissioner Pebley inquired whether it was in order to appoint
SHCRBTARY TO 1IiB the Commission Secretary for the forthcaming year, and upon being
COhAlI3SION advised he was in order, nominated Commissioner Perry as Commission
Secretary for the forthcoming year. In making this motion,
Commissioner Pebley stated that he feit that a member o£ the
Commission should have the responsibility for the final acceptance of the resolutions
and the minutes of the Commission meetings; that it might be in order to have a dis-
interested clerical staff compile the minutes, such as a member of the City Clerk's
office, rather than a member of the Planning Department; and that perhaps a more
accurate, complete, and impartial rendering of the minutes would be made by the City
Clerk's office. Commissioner Sides concurred with Commissioner Pebley's statement and
seconded the~motion.
CoeLmissioner Gauer stated that the Commission already had a secretary, that he was
satisfied with the past performance of the secretary, and nominated Ann Itrebs as
Commission Secretary for the coming year.
The Commission then discussed the legality of the appointment of a Commission Secretary,
and inquired whether this position was covered in the City Ordinance.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the City Ordinance did
not mention the appointment of a Commission Secretary, and that the Chairmanship only
was mentioned.
Upon inquiry by Coaimissioner Gauer whether this position was covered in the State
Plasming Act, Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that with so short a notice, he would
be unable to render a legal opinion relative tu this question.
Commissioners Pebley and Sides then withdrew their motion and second, and requested
that the appointment of a Comaission Secretary be tabled for two weeks until the meetiAg
of March ]~, 1963, in order to receive a iegal opinion for such an appointment.
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTia~UHD PUBLIC HBARING. C. S. BAUMSTARK, 3427 West Orange
N0. 62-63-63 and Avenue, and Mancil F. Bell, 3424 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Owners; WIIL7AM S3VSZ,12117 Gneiss, Downey, Caliioraia,
CO~mITIONAL USB Agent; property described as: 1W0 PQtTIONS: "A" and "B".
PBRMIT 1~0. 354 Postion "A" being an L-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of
. 314 feet, plus or minus, on the eaat siee of Fsiott Avenue, and a
frontage of 469 feet, plus or minus, on the north side of Orange
Aveaue, except the southwesterly 203 f^.et by 195 feet. Portion "A" is made up of a
part of Pazcel No. 1 and all of Parcel No. 2. Portion "B" is a rer.tangular parcel of
land having a frontage of 195 feet on the east side of Rnott Aveaue and a frontage of
203 feet on the aorth side of Orange Avenue. Portion "B" being contaiaed in Parcel
No. 1, and further described as 3423-3427 West Orange Avenue.
3ubject petitions were filed in coajunction with each other.
~
~
~~
i \`~ - -------- ---r----- __-~ - -._~.._..------~ ___,~ ..~:.,_...~.~~~,....~.1._.......
. . --~• - ~ ~ . ~- ~.,._ . _.. . . . _._
(.._) ~~ ~ .
«
MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING CObAlISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued:
1424
RHCLA3SIPICATION - CLASSIPICATION OP PROPERTY: R A, RSSIDBNTIAL AQiICULT[TRAL, ZONB.
N0. 62-63-63 and
RBQUESTED CIASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE PAMILY RIiSIDHNTIAL, ZONH,
CONDITIONAL U~B for POitTION "A", and C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD
pBRMIT N0. 354 COMMffitCIAL, ZONH for PORTION "B".
(Continued)
RBQUBSTHD CONDT.TIONAL USB: CON3IRUCT A TWO-ST(lRY PIANAffiD MUi.TIPLB
PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL DHVffiOPMENT ddV
PORTION "A".
Sub,ject petitions were continued from the mee~ings of Pebruary 4, and 18, 1963, to aliow
the petitioners sufficient time to submit revised plans.
Chairman Mungali inquired whether the=e was anyone in the Council Chamber representing
the petitioaer, and received no reply.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether the Commission wished #o review the revised plans
submitted and take action without the petitioner being present.
The Commission discussed the changes made in the revised plot plans, and the advisability
of taking action at the meeting.
Chairman Mungail inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing
subject petition, and received no reply.
~IB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No, 660, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, secoaded by Commissioaer Gauer, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Recla3sification No. 62-63-63 be approved, subject tu conditions.
(See Resolution Book.) '
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMI33IOIVBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley, Sides.
NQSS: CONAII33IONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COMPfISSIONffitS: Perry.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 661, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
Fassage and adoption, secoaded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 354, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
pYg.S: C0~4MI3SIONBRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Craig~ Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides.
NUB3: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSENT: COtM1ISSI0N8RS: Perry. '
R$VISBD TENTATIVB MAP - OWI~ffiR: HAWCAL INC., Box 2128, Oxnard, California. ffiIGINBBR:
~F TRA.CT N0. 4643 JOHN TOUPS, 1561 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, Cali-
fornia. Subject tract is located on the aorth side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road~on the west side of Jefferson Street,
and contains 63 proposed R-1, ONB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONS,lots.
2oning Coordinator Martin Breidt read a Setter from the developer in which a request for
continuunce to the meeting of March i8. 1963.was made; becr.use a petiti~n for reelassi-
fication of subject property was scheduied at that time, aad that anbject tract map
could then be heard in con3unction with the petitioa for reclassification.
f
i
~` _ ~.-___._._
. __ _ _~ ,
'
f~
,-- - -.- ---- - - -:- ~~ ~,~. . r.~
, ...~..._..~
.
~ ~
MIN[T1B3~ CITY PLANNING COA9Y(ISSION, March 4,.1963, Continued: 1425
RHVISBD TSNTATI,vs'J MAP - Commissioaer Camp offered a motion to continue Revised
OP TRACT N0. 4643 Teutative Map of Tract No. 4643 to the meetiag of March iS, 1963,
(Continued) in order that it might be heard in conjunction with a
petition for reclassification filed oa subject property.
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CAR1tISD.
TfiNTATIVB MAP OP - C~fIVBR: C~1R-L0, INC., 921 West Beverly Boulevard, Montebello,
7RACT N0. 4958 California. BNGINHffit: Remmerer Hngineering Company, Inc.,
145 North Painter Avenue, i9hittier, California. Subject '
tract is located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road,
on the west side of Imperial Highway, and contains 199 pr3posed R-1, OI~ffi ?AMILY
RHSIDffidTIAL, ZONB, lots.
2oning Coordinator Maztin.Kreidt reviewed the location of the proposed tract. and
noted that after the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting had been held~ a letter was
received from the State California Division of Highways stating that the proposed t
Riverside Preeway, as shown on subject tract map was incorrect, that Street "A" could
not be extended to Santa Ana Canyon Road•because access rights had been acquired by the
State, The developer had been contacted and appraised of these two items and he had
submitted a letter requesting that the Commission continue consideration of subject
tract map for two weeks.
Commissioner 3ides offered a motion to contiaue Tentative Map of Tract No. 4958 until
the meeting of March 18, 1963, tc grant the request of the developer for additional tine
to prepare a revised tract map. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOrfION CARRIHA.
TSNTATIVB MAP OP - DBVBLOPBR: ARDMORS DBVSLOPI~NT COMIPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard,
1RACT N0. 5038 Los Aageles 24, California. BNGII~It: Bogineering Service Corpo-
ratioa, 1127 West Washington Boulevard. Los Angeles 15, California,
Subject tract is located on the south aide of Glenoaks Avenpe~
approximately 1,260 feet west of the centerline of Huclid Street and covering an area of
72 feet by 108 feet, is proposed for subdivisioa into sixteen (16) units. Said units
being a subdivi.sion of air space for a condominium development.
Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt reviewd the location of the propo~ed tract, and noted
that subject property was already zoned for multiple family development.
Mr. Sol Berman, representiag the engineer of subject tract map, appeared before the
Commission and requested tc submit a model for demoastration purposes in order to
clarify the proposed subdivisioa of subject property. He stated that title to,sir space
would be through a special title report; that financing and refinancing could be made
under this method; that an iaterest in the common area was givea; that a title to air
space meant that the resident would actually own the apartment space with an easement
and restricted ownership of private patios for apartments, and that the commou area was
used in order to make the management af a cooperative responsible for the eaclusive
right o£ said use.
Mr. Allen Aosa, repsesentiag the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the basic right aad obligation was recorded, and an attempt would be made to
prnvide, at ail times, a per.on who would be in charge of and responsible for '
assessments, upkeep, paymeat of bills, etc.,for sub3ect property.
Commissioner Pebley inquired whether the developer.s were the same people who had PHA
financing on aaother develcpment to the west. Mr. Ross thea stated that they were the
same firm, that the previous petition was for PHA co-op Apartments, and that the
financing of subject tract was through a saviags and loaa a.asociatioa.
I
~
~
~) ~~ ~ll
~,}
MINUTBS, CITY PI.ANNING C~AlISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued: 1426
TENTATIVB MAP OP - Mr. Ross further stated that the conceptFhich was being proposed
TRACT N0. 5038 was comparatively new, that there were no developments which his
(Contiaued) firm had in the immediate viciaity which the Commissioa could
view, but that there were two developments, oae in Burbank and the
other at Malibu, which incorporated the same concept of development.
17ie Commission discussed the model preseated by the developers, the manner in which the
development would be maintained over the long sun, and the fact that the proposed
davelopment was a pilot project of the developer and, if successful, that it would be
repeated, by record of survey, on a number of other lots in the same area.
Commission~er Yebley offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5038, as
submitted. Commissioner Alired seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD.
VARIANCH N0. 1551 ~ PUBLIC HBARING. AN2HONY P. PARRA, 735 South Heach Boulevard,
Anaheim~ California, Owner; reqnesting permission to BSTAHLISH A!ID
MAINTAIN A 3BPARATS RBAL HSTATH OPPICH ON 1HB SAMB PROPffitTY ON
WHICH A SINGLB PAMILY RHSIDSNCE BRISTS; Property described as; A rectaagular parcei
of land having a frontage of 96 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, and a dc;~th
of 298 feet, the southerly boundary of sr_id property being approximately 1,105 feet north
of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 735 3outh Beach B,ouleva.rd.
Property presently classified as C-1, NBIGFIDORHOOD COi~1hC8RCIAL, ZONB.
Mr. Anthony P. Parra, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
had purchased the structure in which he proposed to operate his real estate office, that
upon applying for a moving permit he was advised that a variance would be required, and
that use of the present residence on aubject property for a real estate office had 'ueen
granted sometime ago.
Commissianer pebley inquired of the petitioner whether he planned to use the present
structure for residential purposes only, and if the building which he planned to move
onto subject property would be used for the real estate office, which the petitioners
answesed in Lhe affirmative.
Chairman Mungall inquired if anyone in the Council Chamber opposed subject pei•asian~ as•d
received no reply.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans, notiag that the pians were acceptable, buic that
upon the field inspection trip it was felt that the property shouid be cleaned up and
improved somewhat. The petitioner, in repiy to a question by the Commission, replied
that he planned to clean up and improve the property, but that he had heid off until the
Commission approved the variance.
Commissioner Allred offered Reaolution No. 662~ Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Craig~ to grant Petition for Variance
No. 1551, subject to conditions. (3ee Resolution Book.)
On r.oll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote;
AYB3: CQAAtISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Sides.
NQBS: COAlMISSION~tS: Chavos.
AB3BNT: COIYAfISSIONffitS: Perry.
Commissioner Chavos in noting "no" stated that in approving a var~ance, the petitioner
must prove hardship when asking for relief through a variance, that in his opinion, thia
hardship had not been established, and that if the area in ~vhich subject pr~perty is
located is to be improved so as to be aa aeset to the City, the Commiasion should
require the removal of any resideace on the property, whenever a Neighborhood
^ommercial Zoniag was approved.
' ~ , ,_.._.. . . . _ .. _.
~~ ~
(}
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CONA4ISSION, March 4, 1963, Cont::aued:
1 d27
VARIANCB N0. 1552 - PUBLIC HH~~:iYG. I'A1tK VILT.l,.l;k HJd7b<,, P. 0. Box 602 (2763 Weat
Lincoir. Avenue), Ana~ei;n, ~~al.3fos:nia, Owners; requesting
permission to CONS'~tU~.f CA.a~'QA'fS IN LIHU OP GARAGBS on propertq
described as: A, axregular parcel of land hav:i~~~; w frontage of 616 feet oa the ~orth
side of Yale AWenue, and a frontage ~i 109 fes~ c~~. the east side of. Colgate Street.
Property presentiq classified as R-:+, MULTIPLB FIJdILY RBSIAENTIAI., 20NS.
Mz, ?aul L. pierce, representing the petitione:~, appeared before the Commissica and
stated that the structnres that are being ~r<+o~asFld was a three sided structure similar
to a garaga but without the oveii-ea~ aoors, a.r~~ that the f.irewal?:: ::-~re to r? plastered.
not the entire carport.
The Commission inquired of the petitioner wMether he proposed +:o .install enclosed
storage cabine•::, and bumpers tu protect the ~~alls.
Mr, Pierce replied tt.:: he planned t:: equip each carport with r. iockable stozage cabinet,
but that he ha:1 not plamted to sturr.o the entire inside of the caW~.arts.
Chairmsa Muugail inquired whether #here was anyone in the Council Chamber orlPo;ing
sub,ject peti•t.ion, and received no re;.ly.
THB HBARING WAS CIASHD.
1l~e Commission noted that through agreemant wid~, Gevelcper.s in the past, the Comm~ssion
had es~iablished a policy which ~rsrmitted carpor:;s, but that th~ ~:arports wer.e to be
stuccoed on the inside, aad if chis waiver we . to be granted;, L!~is would upen the door
for fnrther ~leviations from thz requirement ~~f adequate enclos.cl parking facilities £oi
a mult~p:.e f:~mily development, and that since the policy had bee:a established, that upan
the remnval o!: doors, the pef:itione must stucco the inside of the walls, as well as,
provi.~ie enclo3ed cabinets and b~±muer g~azds for the carports.
Commi.sion~ r r:~ ~red ~ffered Res~~lu•t~on Ao, 663, Series 1962-63, a-?d. mov°d for its
passage a:~: :.~o~;tion, ~econ.ded Sy Comm::ssioner Camp, to grant Petitiun i or
Var.iance Na. 1552, sub,ject to cor.3itions. ~See Resolution Bo~>k.)
On roll catl :he ¢cregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMTSSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pcbley, Side~.
NOH~: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: GOMMYSS2iW~tS: Perry.
P.BCIA3SIPICATIOt~'. - CONTINURD PUHLIC FIBARING. CHARLBS V. AMAD~t, 2628 Weat ?iS~th S:.ree~i,
N0. 62~-b3-~3~ anC Ingl°wood, California, and MR. and iNRS. B. L. OVIBBO, 1F~7 Bast
v Sycamore Street, Anaheim, Califo~nia, Owners; BIAS MARRON, 741 Nor:h
y~.^,IAN(:B N0. 1553 Paulir.e Streett Anaheim, Ca.~?.€ornia, Agent; PropPrt~ de~cr.ibed xs;
e*^::tangular parcel oi land with a 124 foot frontage on the nortih
si3e of Sycamore Street, and a depth of 175 feet, the southwest
corner of said property being 320 feet east of tlie.northeast corner of 8a~# Century Drive
and Sycamore Street, and further described as 1627 Bast Sycamore 9treet.
CIA"•SIPTCATICIN OP PROPbr.1'Y: R A, AASIDHNTYA7• 4GRIC"3LTURAL, ZONB.
RHQUHSTED CIA3STNICATIUiV: R- i MULTIPLH FAMILY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONS.
REQUBSTBD VARIANI'.8: WAIVP. RHAR YARD R13QUIRSMHNT, WAI'/'i? GARAGE RBQUZRSMHNT AND CONSTRUCT
~~9 ;PCRTS tiVAIVB MINIMUM LOT SIZH.
Subject petit~uus were filed in con,ju~~ction with each other.
F'etition for Reclassification No. 62-E:;•-32 was continued from the meetings of
~ctober 15 and 2~i, Novemb^r 26, 1~)62, and January 7, 1963, to provide the petitioner
sufficient ti~e to preser.t a sulut3on t~ the development probiems for subject property.
_ .~~_ _ - --~.'~--- --•----- --r-*.--,~..
,i
,,,
. -
,._....,_,.,,, ..,,, ,..,,,.
R~.. . . ..
_. . ___ __...
~ ~
%,
~ ~•~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CObMISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued: 1428
RBCIA5SIPxCATION - Mr. Blas Marron, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
N0. 62•-63-32 and Commission and stated that the variance was projected for Parcel
No. 1, o,r •the L-shaped easterly parcel of land, that the property
VAR7ANCH N0. 1553 with the old house, originally proposed for reclassification, was
(Contiaued) not to be considered in the appreval of the Variance.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission, that
upon the recommendation of the Commission, the petitioners under the reclassification
and the agent met with the Planning Department to resolve development problems, that
revised plans had been submitted, which would develop the easterly portioa of subject
property, :hat the agent had speat considerable time in attempting to incorporate the
weaterly portion of the propert}•, but had not met wi.th any success, because the owners
of the property~Nere financ:ially unable to particinate ia any development plans, that
after considerable study the Planniag Department had recommended that the petitioner
file a variance to create a lot split, permit the encroachment into the required rear
yard and permit the construction of carports in lieu of garages, aad that the plans as
submitted were the only solution to a rather complex development probiem.
Chairnaa Muagall inquired if there was anyane in the Councii Chamber opposing subject
peti~ions, and received no reply.
THH I~AItING WAS CLOSHD.
Cortimissioner Allred stated that if the oid home were allowed to remain on the property
being re^lassified, thia would not be upgrading the City by having new units constructed 1
along siC~E c.: ar, older structure.
Mr. MaLron ad~ise3 the Commission that the old home did not belong to the petitioner. ~
The Commi,sion iaqu3red whether a receat lot split had been permitted on the property, i
~
Mr. Areidt advised the Commission that according to the title report, no lot spiit had ;
been effected, that the o:ribi.nal petition covered both parcels of land, that upon a
meeting with the Planniag Departa.ant, zt was discovered t'riat no lot split had been P
fiied although the home was be3rig used,it was considered a~ illegal use, because the ?
property had been divided witb a recusded lot split. '
~
Commis~io4er Pebley aoted that Pa~cel No. 1 was large enough to develop for multiple i
fac.ily ~s.se, although it woui~: be praferable if the other parcel were to be included, and ~
that t',-,e Commission if, or Nhen,it ~aproved ~he reclassification should specify only the 1
parcei for which sevelopment ,r,ians were submi•, ~d~ ?
Commisai.oner Allred affered r~ mution to recomme~id disapproral of the reclassification, !
Commissicaer Sidea seconded th2 motion.
The Commission fu.rther ~tisc~ssseci th~ possibility of developmer:t for the easterly parcei
of land, on which olan~ :az~•~ su~mitted and for which a wariance was being hear.d.
Commissioners Alired and Sides '.b~ri w:thdrew their motian ana second of the motion.
Commissioacr A11red ~ffered Re~olution No. 664, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and ado.ption. seconded by Commissioner 3ides, to recommend to the City Council that
Petition for Reclassifi~ation No. 62-63-32 be approved for Purcel No. 1 only~ sub,ject to
cond3_iions. ;See kesolntion Book.)
On roll c.:11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
f
AYBS: COhPrtISSI0N13R3: ~ilred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides.
NOBS: CQ~fNISSIONBRS: Noae. ~i
ABSHNT: COI~ulISSIONFFtS: Perry.
'
~
. ~. ,
` ...
-- _ _ T:.~ --r--- --- - •- --- - . ~ . . ~~.,,,~»,.»aro ..................,. -~
~ ' .. _ _._...~
~ •
, - . - .• t
i
'~1, .
, `•~
~
i '~ •
_ '
MINUTB3, CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION, March 4, 1963, ,;ontinued: 1429
RBCIA93IPICR.TION - Commissioner Allred offesed Resolution No. 665, Series 1962-63,
N0. 62-63-32 and and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Sides to grant Petition for Variance No. 1553, subject to
VARIANCS N0. 1553 coa3itions. (See Resolution Book.)
(Continued)
Oa roZl call the foragoing resolution was passed by the fol:~owing
wote:
AY83: COMMISSIONIHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mupgall, Pebley, Sides,
NOB3: COI~AfISSIONffitS: None.
AB3BNT: COMMI3SIONffitS: Perry.
CONDITIONAL USE ~ PUBLIC HBARING. !~t. AND 1~4tS. WAYNB K. MAUZBY, Hacienda Motel,
P~tMTT No. 376 2176 South Hazbor Bou7.evard, Anaheim, Calif ornia, Owners; requesting
permission to BXPAND AN HXISTING MOTBL on property de3cribed as:
A rectangular pazcel of land haviab a frontage of 100 t'eet on the
east side of Harbor Boulevaxd and a depth of 240 feet, the northerly boundary of said
property be3ng approximately 880 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and
further described as 2176 3oiith Harbor Soulevard. Property presently classified as
R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT~TcAL, ZONB.
Mr. Wayne K. Mauzey, one of t:'~e petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated
he was desirous of increasing the value of vacant property adjacent to the existing motel
by adding more units which would improve the appeasance of subject property.
Zoning Coordinator Maxtin Kreidt, informed the Cammission that the new plans indicated
15 !'`.~.s> aad s~•~~:i~i story units, and that Bxhibit No. 2 of the plot plans was not to be
considered when the Commission viewed th! ~',t plans.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether the•:> : nnycne in the Council Chamber opposing
subject petition, and received no reply.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Mr. Sreidt reviewed for the Commissioa their findings on the field trip vrhich indicated
that subject property was too narrow foi other than curb side pi~kup of trash; that tY,e
petitioner proposed to leave the rear wall of the proposed car stalls unfinished, and
that in the past the Commission had required these walls to be stuccoed to improve and
enhance the appearance of a motel development.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 666, 3eries 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 376, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Gauer in offering his resolution requested that the interior of the
proposed car stalls be stuccoed.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYSS: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, C:aig, Gauer, Murrgall~ Pebley, Sides.
NOBS: COhafISSIONIDtS: None.
ABSHNT: CONAII3SIONffit3: Perry.
f ~j
MINUTB3, CITY PL-NNING CMUtISSION, March 4, 1963, Cont.inued: 1430
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. ROLI.O W. and BLANCtffi McCLBLIAN, 56 Balboa Coves,
P~tMIT N0. 378 Newport Beach, California, Owners; VBSPBR B. WHITB, 12912 Ninth
Street, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission~to
C ONSTRUCT A CHURCH AND PBRMIT AN BXISTING HOUSB TO BB MOVSD TO THB
RBAR POItTION OP SAID PROPffitTY WI1H INC~tESS AND H(~tHS3 PROM OiWNGH AVBNUB on property
described as; A rectangular parcel of land having a irontage of 98 feet on the north
side of Orange Avenue and a depth of 424 feet, the eastera boundary of said property
being approximately 224 feet west of the centerline of Fann Street, and further
described as 1759 Orange Avenue. Property presently ciassi£ied as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL
AQtICUL7URIlL, ZONB.
Mrs. Vesper White, agent for the petitioners appeared before the Commission, and stated
she proposed to use the existiag resideece to be close to the church, aad that she would
be glad to answer Q-lestions the Commission might have.
'Ihe Commission determined through questioning Mrs. White, that the proposed church is
the same affiliation as the church located at Helena and B=oadway, and that the pians
submitted were to be the architectural design and exterior of the proposed church.
Mr. L. H. Humphrey,.1772 West Orange Avenue, appeared before the Commission in
opposition to subject petition~ and stated that a similar use was proposed sometime ago
by another church; that it had been denied because the Code tequirement designated the
land uae be on at least one acre; that the proposed use would be incompatible to the
area; that the proposed structure would be architecturally incompatible; tha:• the
traffic from the use of the church would be considerably increased; and that the size
of subject property would aot permit off-street parking, thus presentiag a psrking
problem on the street.
Upon being questioned by Commissioner Pebley v~riere Mr. Hunphre~~ thought a church should
be located, Mr. Humphrey replied that a church shouid be constructed in a transitional
area, but not in a predominately single famiiy area, and he was not ia favor of having
a church constructed on such a small parcel of land with an er•isting structure being
proposed for use as a home on the rear of said parcel of land.
Mrs. iVhite stated that ±he belief of the church was that the congregation would not be
over 170, since any larger number would iessea the personal contact of inembers of the
church.
Zoning Coordiaator Martin Hreidt informed the Commission that the Code no longer
required that a church be constructed on at least aa acre of land.
The Commission upon reviewiag the plot plans noted that the subject property was too
amall to accommoaate a church together with parking facilities, and to allow an existiag
st=ucture to remain~ aad that the architectural design would be incompatible to the area
which had many well-desibned homes.
Mr. Henrq 3chafer, 1780 West Orange Avenue, appeared before the Ccamission in oppositian
to subject petition, and stated that at ~whe time a previous church was proposed for the
area, it was determined that the church would have to expend $250,000 in order to be
architecturally compatible with the re~;.dentiai development in the immediate area of
_ subject property, and that there war cc~siderable opposition at that Lime by the adjacent
propertq owners.
Mra, irhite stated that the church would be iaw-abiding, that there wouid be no plans for
future ealargement of the proposed facilities, and that as she had previously stated,
the congregation would never exceed the 170 membership,
Mr. Joseph Pritz~ 602 South Clara ~treet, appeared before the Commission, aad asked that
the proposed plans be viewed by interested persons ia the Council Chamber, whereupon
the plans were shown to a number of persons, who voiced opposition to the proposed
pians.
A petition signed by 22 persons opposing sub,ject petition was read to the Commission.
THS HHARING.WA9 CLOSBD.
. ~ .. ..... ......__"._._"_._....... .._,_.._:>:.A'.XVtL~53~~,r~
- T . ., ,. . . .
. 1 , . . ~..~-~. . . ,_.. _
(~ •
. ~
~ ~ • ~
R: . r ' '_ . . . ~ ~ . n . ~ .
~~! ~ . . . ' ~ . .. •. ~ _
~~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COI~4YlISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued;
1431
CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Chavos stated that in ap~::~:ing a conditional use permit,
PffitMIT N0. 378 the petitioner must prove that the use :rould no adversely affect
(Continued) the adjacent properties which consist of single family homes, and
that ~the plans as presented would adversely affect the traffic in
;he. area, and that the petitioaer did not present any evidence
that the propos~~ use would not adversely affect the property in close proximity to
subject property.
Commissioner Chaaros offered Resolution No. 367, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, se:ondeci by Comniss:oner Craig, to deny Petition for Conditionai
Use Permit No. 378, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
Commi~sioner Cha'vos in offering the foregoing resolutio:i stated that two of the
findings should be that the proposed u~e would adversely affect the adjacent properties;
that the plans as presented would adversely affect the flow of traffic in the area, and
that these two findings had not been disapproved by evidence presented.
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COhAlISSIONffitS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley, Sides.
NOB3: COHAlESSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT; CQD4~lIS~IONBRS: Perry.
CONDITIONAL USB ~ PUBLIC H8A1tING. CHIP CHASIN, 1801 Newport Boulevard, Suite 221,
PffitMIT N0. 379 Costa Mesa, California, Owner; NHWBLL LITTLH, 1425 Bast Lincoln
Aven~e, Ansheim, California, Agent; requesting persmission to
CONSIRUCT A SHRVICE STATION on property described as: A rectangular
parcel of land having a frontage of 110 feet on the east t;ide of Beach Boulevard and a
3epth of 192 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 1,240
feet sonth of the ceaterline of Orange Avenue. Property presently claesified as R-A,
RHSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
Zoning Coordiaator Martin %reidt informed the Commission, that the Planning Department
had received a telephoae cali at 3:20 P.M. from Mr Newell L3ttle, agent for the
petitioner, requesting a Zwo week continuance because he would be unable to appear for
the hearing of subject petition, due to the sudden illness of his wife.
The Commission inquired whetLer the agenda for the March 18, 1963 meeting would permit
scheduling subject petition, and upon being informed it was exceptionally heavy with
new petitioas, decided to continue it for a later date.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to coatinue Petition for Coaditional Use Permit
No. 379, to the meeting of April 1, 1963, and to advise the agent for the petitioner
the date upon which subject petition would be consi~dered. Commissioner Pebley
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
SS -• Commissioner Pebley moved for a ten minute recess, Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion. MOTION GARRIBD,
The meeting recessed at 3:48 P.M.
iNVHNH - Chairman Mungall reconveaed the regular meeting of the Planning
Commission at ::AO 0'Clock P,M., all Commissioners being present except
Commissioner Perrv.
~
i
~
i
i
. . , ~--- -- .._ . . . _._ _ . ._.
C~
~~ ~~` ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~AlISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued: • 1432
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC I~ARING. S. J. PISHBR, 2802 West DeVoy Drive, Anaheim,
PffitMIT N0. 380 California, Owner; YASUGI RUBO, 1371 Baker, Apt. B, Costa Mesa,
California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A CHURCH on
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a
frontage of 264 feet on the west side of Dale Street, and having a depth of 308 feet,
the southerly boundary of said property being approximately 385 feet north of the
centerline of Ball Road, Property presently classified as R A, R~SIDBNTIAL AGRICUL-
1URAL, ZONB.
Mr. Yasugi Subo, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated,
that subject property was 1.78 acres which would be sufficiently large enough to permit the
expnnsion of facilities if the need arose; that subject property was selected because the
location would be ideal for the Buddist residents in the vicinity; that subjecC property
abutted a stub street to the west which couid be used to ease tsaffic conditions if
necessary; that the proposed church would be sufficiently near to the Santa Ana Preeway
for out-of-town visitors to use; and that the Commission recent2y approved multiple
family development to the south of subject property which would make the proposed use
of subject property as a form of a buffer between the single family development to
the north and the multiple family development to the south.
Commissioner Pebley asked Mr. Rubo whether it was necessary to utilize the stub street
to the west, since this street had been inaccessible to other than residents of the
street. Mr. Rubo replied that it would not be necessary, but if the Commission~felt
that the church would add an additional ~iraffic problem to Dale Street, Blmlawn Dri;~e
might then be used to elleviate this prablem.
The Commission noted that the proposed utilization of Hlmlawn Drive would be an
undesirable use; that said street had been a dead-end street for four (4) years;~and
any additional traffic might be a hazard to the children; and that there should be a
masonry wali along the westerly boundary of subject property without any gate to
Blmlawn Drive.
Chairman Mungall asked if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition, and received no reply.
THB HHARiNG WAS CL0.SHD.
Commissioaer Pebley offered Resoiution No, 668, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and qdoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 380, subject to conditions. (See Resolutioa Book.)
On roll call. the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COt~AlISSIONERS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
AB3HNT: COhAIISS~ONBRS: Perry.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC FIDARING. CHARLBS N, and MAB P. BROCK, 3133 Orange Avenue,
PBRMIT N0. 381 Anaheim, California, and MINORU and M3TSUB SHIOTA, 3139 Orange
- Aveaue, Anaheim, California, Owners; CARL BBLVBDHRS, BBMA INVBST-
:~~YT COMPANY, INC., 2101 West Bdinger. Santa Ana, California,
Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A SINGLB STORY PLANNBD MULTIPLH FAMILY
'RHSIDHNTIAL DHVBLOPI~ffiNT WITH CARPORTS AND OPBN PRR~ING - WA7VB PRONT YARD AND PARRING
RBQUIRHMBNTS on property described as: ltvo irregular parcels of laad located on the
northeast corner of Orange and Western Avenues. PARCBL N0. 1 having a frontage of
240 feet on the east side of Western Avenue, and 320 feet on the north side o~ the
Carbon Creek Flood Control Channel. PARCBL N0. 2 having a froutage of 500 feet on the
north side of the Carbon Creek Flood Control Channel, and an approximate depth of 300
feet, the westerly boundary of Parcel No. 2 being adjacent to the easterly bo~indary of
Parcel No. 1, and further described as 3133 and 3139 Orange Avenue. Property
presently classified as R-A, RESIDSNT7AL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
~ '~
~ ~
`. ,..
--- -- __..._ __ _ __ --_--- - --- - ~,::,~ -:
---- - .-~ ------ ---,'. _._~_. . ~ _, ._ . , . . ._ .
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 4, 1963, Contineud: 1433
CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Carl Belvedere, agent for the petitioners, appeared before
PBRMIT N0. 381 the Commission, and stated that he had nothing further to add for
(Continued) the Commission•s consideration, but that he would be glad to i
answer any questions the Commission might have. `
Chairman Mungall noted that upon the Commission's field inspection trip it was felt
that a street having access to Western Avenue should be at least the minimum of a city
strPet or thirty (30) feet.
Mr. Belvedere stated that the proposed plan projected 46 dwelling units; that when the
plan was first proposed, he and the architect had met with members of the Planning
Department to ascertain its feasibility; that a 28 foot street was suggested to
accommodate fire and trash truck equipment; that they proposed to have ingress and
egress to Western Avenue because Orange Avenue was projected as a 90 foot street, and
the traffic on that type of street would be prohibitive to project ingress and egress
to the proposed development; that the proposed private street would be widened to a
point on the elbow of the circle to 36 feet; and that the proposed developmen4 could
be considered a single family development and it was possible that the units would be
sold individually.
2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, informed the Commission that a number of planned-unit
developments had been approved by the City, but that the provision of the Code was
that said planned-unit developmeats should remain under one ownership, and that cite
proposed use would be in variance with the State Subdivision Map Act if the ~:nits
would be sold, and thus be under separate ownership; and that it should be ~ require-
ment that the petitioner file a subdivision map for subject property.
Mr. Manuel Mendez, architect of the agent for the petitioners, appeared before the
Commission and requested that the Commission indicate on the plot plans the exact
chsnges required by them, and then conferred with the Commission to asr.ertain all the
changes which were suggested by the Commission.
Mr. Kreidt then stated that if a subdivision map were to be consider~:d, every lot must
face on a public sireet if said property were to be sold, and if under one ownership,
subject property must be a planned-unit development.
Mrs. Mary Scott, 3157 Lindacita Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject petition and stated that her home wcv ld abut the proposed development; that ~.
petition signed by 52 persons was being presented opposing subject petition; that th~re
were more than enough apartments in the immediate vicinity of sabject property; that
with the projection of more apartments; the schools which were presently overcrowdeU
would again be forced to half-day sessions; and that at a previous hearing, the state-
ment was made, that subject property should only be projected for single family
development.
Commissioner Pebley stated that the area in which subject property was located was
receiving the same amount of state funds for school development, whether single family
homes or whether multiple family homes were being built; that the school officials did
not allocate the money in a manner to pzope~ly handle and buiid additional facilities,
aithough the money was made available to thea; and that apartments were proven to
have less children per apartment than single r'amily homes. -
Mrs. Scott, stated she spoke only as a homeovmer, that the element of persons in
apartments did not present a stabilizing effect and interest in the community which
homeowners seemed to have, as to civic pride, and there must be something better for
which the land could be developed than was being proposed.
Deputy City Attoraey Furman Roberts, stated that there m.ight be more complications if
individuai units were sold when the subdivision map was filed; and that he would have
to check the plans together with the State Subdivision Map Act befoze he could render
any legal opinion.
f
I
~.____.__ __ _ .. _ .
-__ ~": ~ ~
.
_ _ _ __ __
, _ _ ,-~~
~.,>,.z~.-
: .
_
~
,
. . _ _ .__ _~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CONAfISSION, March 4, 1963~ ~ontinued: 1434
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Kreidt stated that the density of the proposed development was
PffitMIT N0. 381 not comparable to the densi•ty of the existing fsingle family
CContiaued) subdivision development to •~he north, because the total land area
for each dwelliag unit in the case of the proposed development was
slightly over 6,000 square feet, while the single family sub-
divisioa to the north reflected a total land area of approximately 9,300 square feet.
This is because of the fact that approximately 25~ of the land area of a subdivision
is used for street purposes, and that the re~aining land was considered as the net
building area on the basis of 7,200 square feet per dwelling unit. The density of the
proposed development did not exclude any area for streets and was calculated on the
basis of 6~000 ~quare feet per dwelling unit.
Mr. Don Dodge, 809 South Oakhaven Dxive, real estate agent for subject property
appeared before the Comwission and stated that when the Shiota property was proposed
for multiple family development, he was somewhat embarrassed by the number of units
proposed for the pr~perty; :hat subject development did represent what he wanted or
planned; and that he was holding the density to seven units per acre, so that a low
density residential development could be projected on property which he had held for
16 months, and that the proposed development was a considersble improvement over any- ;
:~ing ~reviously prupcaed, and that if theShiota property were developed separately, this '
wouid ~hen landlock the B*ock property.
Mr. Rreidt advised the Commission that the land use was what the Commission desired
for subject property, that the Commission reqnired the developer to submit revised ~
plans together with the filing of a tentative tract map indicating the location of the i
units which are projected to be sold, that such a subdivision map would be the second
map filed in Anaheim, and if the subdivision map is then filed then the development
would be legally approved in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act. ;
i
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~
No. 381, to the meeting of April 1, 1963, and requested that the petitioners meet with j
the Legal Department and the Planniag Department as to the legality of the deveiopment, j
as well as, any suggested chaages made by the Co~nzssion. Commissioner Allred seconded ;
the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. • i
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBA1tING. WILSON NARAMURA, et al, 20760 West Orange Avenue,
PHRMIT N0. 382 Anaheim, California, Owners; LLOYD B. MOUNT, P. 0. Box 3430,
Pullerton, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A
PIANN,BD RBSIDHNTIAL DBVELOPMBNT WITH 98 SINGLB FAMILY HOMHS ON ONS
(1) PARCBL on property described as: An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of
640 feet on the east side of Dale Street, and having a frontage of 954 feet on tbe
south side of Orange Avenue, and further described as 2700 West Orange Avenue.
Yroperty presently classified as R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
Mr. Jack Jolley, representing the ageat for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission, and stated that the developer proposed single story condiminium type homes;
each home to have garage space and open parking for the additional
parking spaces required by Code totaling to several hundred feet~ that recreatior-al
facilities were being provided; that two tra~•elways were being provided to the rear of
the proposed homes whith included four C4) foot sidewalks and curb.a and will be
separated from the ~ain street; and that a block wall and landscaping would complete
the development.
Commissioner Camp noted that the power line easements could only be located on the
twentq-four (24) foot right-of-way. ~
Mr. Jolley further stated that it was presently proposed to reat the homes, and ~
possibly later seli, if a subdivision map could legally be approved. ~
~
a
~
~~
« ~ •
MINUTBS, CI:'Y PLANNING COI~VdISSION, Maich 4, 1963, Continued:
143 5
CONDITIONAL USS -• Mr. Harry Norman, 714 South McDuff Street, appeared before the
PffitMIT N0. 382 Commission in opposition to subject petition, and stated that the
(Continued) plot plans indicated ~hat the block wall was proposed to cut
across McDuff Street which presently dead end~ at subject property
line; that subject property was surrounded on the north, south and
west by single family development of 7,500 square feet or more,
and th~ proposed homes would only cc*-sist of approximately 6,000 squaxe feet, thus
allowing stsbstandard deve~op~~. at for subject property which would be detrimental to
the entire single family deve2opment surrounding it, He further stated that there
wexe no two-•story homes in the area, and the proposed development would have two-story
homes architecturally imcompatible to the ares; and that he spoke for four (4) other
property ovmexs on McDuff Street, namely Messrs. Art Weisz, Ray Kelly, Robert Flagg,
and Jack Marten.
Mrs. Gera2aine Moran, sppeared befo:e the Commission in opposition to sub,;^ct petition,
and stated that she ~esided across the street from subject property on Orange Avenue,
and although she w.as onl•~ representing herself, it was her understanding that a.ll the
property owners were 100°,6 in c;~position to subject petition, maintaining that they
wished to keep the s:ea for single family development.
Mr. Lloyd Mouni, developer o£ subject property, appeared before the Commission and
stated the plans were a=evision of previons plans for subject property; that the
proposed development was designed to comply with the present zoning of the property
which requires one unit r:er 6,000 square feet; that the designer had originally
started with nar~ow dxives snd 311eys; th::.± after a conference with the Planning
Department, the tsa~ve2 laaes were incorporated, and the sidewalks were included :~fter
additional suggestioas we:e taken into conside:ation: and tnat the proposed homes~ were
considered single fa.mzl•~ homes to be sold on a condiminium contract after the fil?.ng
of a tract map.
Mr, Mount furthe: stated that cond?minium laws did require dedication of private
streets to sezve each home; t:~~.t this would be sold 3s part of the separate dwelling
unit, and that there wcttld De cooperative maintenance of the development as well as
the landscaping, which would be similar to a condiminium development in Huntington
Beach.
M~. Jolley stated that there was a possibility that the proposed development would be
rented at Eirst, with a higher than average rental being asked, that this alone would
tend to b:ing ±n 3 better element of people to take pride in the residences by proper
maintenance, and that the proposed development Hould enhance the neighborhood.
THB HHARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commiasion noted that there was some ccnflict oi opinion between the developer and
the agent as to whether subject development was a single family development or a
multiple family develo~ment, aad that the Commission would be unable to render a
decision until this conflict was clarified.
Mr. Mount stated that subject development was designed to incorporate the requirements
as stipulated under the present zoning of the property which meant 6,000 square feet
per dwelling nnit.
1he Commission considered the compatibility of the proposed development with the
existing single fami2y subdivisions surrounding subject property, and felt that it was
incompatible to the area, and that if a subdivision map were filed to formalize the
proposed development into single family homes, the property would automatically become
R-1, One Family Residential,Zone,after the final tract map had been filed, but all
regulatioa3 governing a subdivision containing singie family homes would apply to the
property in question.
Commissioner Cha~vos offered Resolution No. 669, Series 1962-63, and moved for it~
passage and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Sides, to deny Petition for Conditinnal
Use Permit No. 382, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
~} `~ ~
MINUTHS~ CITY YLANNING CO~Af139I0N, March 4, 1963, Continned: 1436
CC~IDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Chavos in offeriag the foregoing resolution, asked
P~2MIT N0. 382 that the findings contain, that the proposed development was
(Continued) incompat~~ie with the siagle family development surrounding subject
property; that the propo;el 3evelopment would mean the introduction
of mlitiple family development into a primarily single family
eavironment: andl that the area was large enough to develop for siagle family subdivision,
whereos the City had smaller and odd shaped parcels of land which could better bP
utilized for multiple family use.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
pYBS; COih01ISSI0I~RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides.
NOBS: COhPfI3SI0NBRS: None.
pBSBNT: COMMI3SIONHR3: Perry.
R~CIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. INITIATBD BY Tf~ ANAHBIM pIANNING COMMI33ION,
N0. 62-63-82 204 Hast Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ California; to rezone property
described as; An irregul&r parcel of iand having a frontage of
115 feet on the south side ~f Center Street, and having a
frontage of 152 feet on the west side of Cherry Street from the C-2, GBNBRAL COD9dHRCIAL~
ZONS to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB~
3ubject petition was initiated by the Anaheim Planning Commission after the Commission
had approved Petition for Variaace No. 1547, for R-3 use ia a commerciel zone :or a
portion of sub3ect property.
Mr. Bmii H. Mazaa::c~ one of the owners of subject property, appeared before the
Commission and atated he had nothing to add, but would like to see subject property
rezoned.
Chairmaa Mungail iaquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition, and received no reply.
TF~ HBARING WA3 CLOSBD.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 670, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend tc the Citq
Council that Petition for Reclassificatiott No. 52-63-82 be approved, suu,ject to
conditions. (See Resolution Sook.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY83: Ctl~lI33IOI~R9: Alired, G~mp~ Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungali, pebley, Side:s.,
NOH3: COAAlISSIONIDR3: None.
AHSHNT: C0~41ISSIONBR3: Perry.
Commisaioner Camp left the Co~ncil Chamb~r at 4;55 P.M.
itHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. SANTANA IN'VBSIMSNTS~ INC., 1731 South Huclid
A'O, 62-63-83 Street, Suite P, Aaaheim~ Califom ia, Owncr; BBTKBR CONSTRUCTION
C~tPORATiON, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Puliertoa~ Califoraia~
Agent; requeatiag that property deacribed as: A rectangular
parcel of land having a frontage of 168 feet on the aorth side of Liacoln Avenue and a
depth of 430 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximatelq 950 feet
east of the centerline of Hast 3treet ~e reclasaified.from the C-1, I~IGHHORHOOD
CON9~RCIAL aad R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTIJRAL, ZOI~,S to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RBSI-
DSNTIAI., ZOI~ to permit the coastruction of a two (2) atory apartment building on
sub3ect property.
I '
~ .. .~
.. .___.. . . _...
( 1 ~~ ~
MINUTBS, CIT% PLANNING COhAiESSION, March 4, 1963, Continued: ~ 1437
RBCIASSIFICATIOH ~ Mr. M. Douglas, representing the agent for the petitioners,
N0. 62-63-83 appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing further
(Continued)__ _ to add for the Commission's consideration, except that in spite
~ of the lack of an alley on the proposed plans, the traffic
outlet foz the apartment building would be good, 3ue to an ease-
ment gran#ed th*ough the shopping center ta the west; and that
the construction would be in conformance with al~ Code requirements, which the •
b;:ilder ha~ maintained in the past and which he would continue to do on the proposed
development.
M•r. Frank Wisberg, 147 La Plaza, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject petition and stated that #he present zoning ha~d been in effect for some time,
that commercial development was on either si3e of subject property; Yhat the plot
plans did not project a 150 feet setbaGk on Lincoln Aven:~e; that the rear of subject
property, i€ approved, should be enclosed with a masanry w~ll; that he was one of the
owners of the t:iplex Wpa*tments on La Rlaza which were all singie story, and to have
the two story apax~ment construction would be an encroachment into the p=ivacy of the
individually owned apaxtments which abutted m the northeasterly portion of subject
proper4y; and that the private easement which the peti#ioner proposes to use was a
reqnirement by the City of the developer of the shopping center.
Mr. S. M. Miller, 122 La Plaza, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject pe~ition, and stated that to approve the propnsed two-story construction of a
rather long buil~isng •rrould be an encroachment into the ~~rivacy of the single story
privately owned apartments; that the space upon which the structure was proposed was
too small for the type oi deveiopmen4 propos2d; that :he :e~~be= of units being orobosed
would create a considerable amount of noise with cars starting and stopping at all
hoars; and that the owners of the triplex apartmeats were all aduZ.ts who pref2rr.ed a
quiete* atmospheze than the propos2d development would be.
Mr. Douglas, in rebu#tal, stated that the petitioner proposed to meet all the legal
requirements the City imposed, that the type of clientele :hey proposed to cater to
would be primarily adults; and that the proposed structure would be approximately
200 feet from the rear of the triplex apartments.
Mrs. Ho*xardl St:=nton, 1498 Hast Birch, appeare~ before the Conamission in opposition to ;
subject petitian, and s4ated that the proposed development showed 63 parking spaces ;
for 50 a~artment units; that the Code required 1~ garages per dwelling unit or 67
parking spacea; that sufficient parking fo= the units should be required in osder that
no parking wonld be required on Lincoln Avenue or adjoining streets; that although the 1
plans wexe architecturaily acceptable, two-story construction was not at all desirable r
since it overiocked the single story construction on La Plaza; that parking facilities ;
for the restaurant on Lincoln Avenue ad,jacent to Cemetery Road evidently were insuf- ;
ficient because people had been opening the gate to her property and parking on her ;
property which is in the single family development to the east of subject property; s
that it would be imprac~ical to keep the gate locked, since it was used by six members
of her family, ~:~.y and evening; and that if adequate parking were not required on
subject pro;oerty, an increase in the numbes of persons parking on public streets could
be expected. ,
Commissioner Pebley stated that the petitioners are requesting a lesser zone., that the
shopping center could stand additional patronage; and that the propos,:d plans were
acceptable and would afford more privacy to the residential environment than a
commercial development.
THB FIHARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 671, Series 1962-63, and moved for it.s
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-83 be approved subject to conditioas.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the fa~_~going resolution was passed by the following vote:
pYH3: COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides.
NQ&;: COhAlISSIONSRS: None.
ABSHNT: CONA~IISSIONSltS: Camp, Perry.
' .
~
.....__ _..______._..----__._______
----___- --- --._.__ --
--~ .T.~....,._...._....__..,..._,........__.
_ . _ _
t ~ ~~ ~
MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued: 1438
RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HHARING. PBTffit 2:ILTSCI~R, 918 Romneya Drive, Anaheim,
N0. 62-63~84 and California, MIRIAM H. RONSKO, 1170 North West St=eet, Anaheim,
Califosnia, and MYRTLfi N. PROSHLICH, 1160 North West Street,
CONDdTIONAL USB Anaheim, California, Owners; LSROY ROSB, A.I.A., 600 North
pffitMIT N0. 383 Buclid Street, Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent; property
desc:3bed as: A sPCtaagular portion of land consisting of three
(3) parcels. Subject property ha•~ing a frontage of 420 feet on
the east side of West Street, and a depth of 517 feet, the northern bounclary of said
property being approximately 235 feet °~uth of the cente:line of Romneya Drive, and
further described 3s 1170 North West Street. Property presently classified as R-A,
RBSIDffi1TIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
PROPOSEID CLASSIFICATION - R-3, tAULTIPLH FAN:ILY kBSFDHNTIAL, ZONB.
RHQUHSTBD CONDITIONAL USB ' RRCr BNTIAL DHVSL PMENT WITHDCARPQRTS PAMILY
Subject petitions are filed in conjnnction with each other.
Mr. LeRoy Rose, 3gent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated,
that subject property was almost completely surrounded by multip.le family development,
that the proposed development would be under one ownership, not to be sold
individualiy.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans noting that the trash collection a=eas were
inadequaic i:, ~ize; =h~= =h°-'-* 1Q~atxon was not readily accessible to all units; that
the proposed caxpezts did not indicate the architectural design an the plot plans; and
that the relocation of the Anaheim Union Water Company irrigation line would have to
be effected before any construction on the proposed development could begin.
Chairman Mungall inquired if there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petitions, and received no reply,
; HH HHARING WAS CLI~BD.
Commissioner Camp retuxned to the Council Chamber at 5:20 P.M.
Commissioner G~:uer offez•ed Resolution No. 672, Se=ies 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council
that Petition fo: Reclassification No. 62-63-84 be approved a•.bject to conditions.
(See Resclution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing zesolution was passed by the following vote:
pyg8; COMMISSIONHRS: Allred, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
AHSTAINs COMMISSIONHRS: Camp.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Perry.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 673, Series 1462-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Cormnissioner Chavos, to grant Petztion for
Conditional Use Permit No. 373, subject to conditions. tSee Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYSS: COt~VdISSIONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Sides.
NOSS: COMVdISSIONBRS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONBRS: Gamp.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONBRS: Perry.
~
~ 1
l~
~
i ,
i
~
~
....._ _-_ ____ _ --------=---------..-- --- -
• -- _ ~.......~,~,... _.,...V....._... . .._ ...
. ~ ,
i .
, ..~_......._ __--
~~,1
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued:
~
~
1439
RHPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1- ORANGH COUNTY USB VARIANCH N0. 5120
RBCObAiHNDATIONS Southwest corner oi Brookhurst and Stoaybrook Streets~
west of Anaheim - construct a two-story law aad pro-
fessional off~ce building in the R-1, SINGLB PAMILY
RESIDBNCH DIS7RICT.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, reviewed subject Use Variance for the Commission,
indicated on the Quarter Section Maps the location of subject property, noted its close
proximity to neighborhood commercial development in the City of Anaheim, and indicated
that the propose6 structure would be a two-story law and professional office building,
with off~street parking facilities for 25 cars, and that the only sign to be shown
would be cut-out letters on the structure, Further, it was noted that interested
persons in the Council Chamber were present to review subject petition for the
Commission.
Mr. James W. Thomason, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the commercial devalopment surrounding the proposed structure, and stated that
the structure would be developed in accordance with the plot plans referred from the
County.
Commissioner Chavos stated that he was opposed to any two-story construction over-
looking the single family homes adjacent to and across from the proposed structure.
Mr. Thomason stated that the two-story structure would be approximately 60 feet away
from ihe single family residences; that the property owner adjacent to the west of the
subjact property voiced his approval of subject petition, and that fully draped windows
aad special screening to insure the privacy of the single family homes would be
pro~ided.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning
Commission that Use Variance No. 5120 be approved, and suggested that the Orange County
Planning Commission consider some means, such as the provision of opaque glass, special
screening or other appur4enances, to shield the single family homes. Commissioner
Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
ITHM N0. 2- CITY OF FULLSRTON PAECISE PIAN N0. 215, for the
reclassi~ication from the R-1, Single Family
Residential, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Resi-
dential, Zone in conjunction with Tentative Map of
Tract No. 5071.
2oning Coordinator Martin Rreidt presented a notice of public hearing, letter of
referral from the City of Fullerton, an ar.~a map, s~,d a tract map which were received
regarding suSject propcrty. It was no!ed that the proposed access into subject
property vras by way of an existing single family subdivision to the east, because
access rights to Buckingham Road have been acquired by the State in conjunction with
the development of the Riverside Freeway.
The Commission found and determine,; the fo!.lowing facts and findings;
1. That in previous situations where acr,ess to multipl~ family development
was gaiaed through single family subdivisions, that deterioration had
taken place in the single family living environment.
?. That the proposed multiple family developmen4 was in direct conflict witii
the present and proposed policies of the Anaheim Planning Commission as
they are reflected on the proposed General Plan.
3, That the subject property was ideally suited for sing].e family
subdivision as indicated on Tentative Map of Tract No. 5071.
.~
~ i
,
~s ;
- ~>.,...- ~+ ---- ---___ _r_ _ _ .. ___ ' ~ ' .~, ~.,...._. _ . ._ ..
_ ._ _ . -~ 1 .- i
i f .
' I '~ s
~ i ~~~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhMISSION, March 4, 1963, Continued; iaan
RHP~t15 AND - ITHM N0. 2(Continued)
RHCOMh~NDATIONS
(Continued) Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the Pullerton
Planning Commission that the proposed reclassification of subject
Property, »s presentad 3r~ Precise Plan No. 215, to the R-3, Multiple
Family Residential, Zone be denied on the bases of the afore-
mentioned findings. Commissioner Gauer seeonded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
ADJOURNMHNT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Camp
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
Meeting adjourned at 5:53 0'Clock P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ANN RRBBS, Secretary
Anaheim Plannirig Commission
* * *
~, ~,,~ ~ - --,--
r- . . . . ---~ , ~.
}
~ ~.._r_._____.... _ -~