Minutes-PC 1964/02/03 .
~_~ ~ ~J
' .Ci~y Hall
Anaheim, Califarnia~
February 3, 1964
A REGULAR MEETING OF T1~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeti.ng of the Anaheim City Planning Commissinn.was
called to oxder by Chairman Mungall at 2s00 o'clock p.m., a
quorum.being presente
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perxy, Rowland.
ABSENf - COMMISSIONERSt Sides. _
PRESENf - Zoning Coordinators Martin Kreidt
City Aitorney: 3oe Geisler
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
City Engineer Representative: Wallace Crenshaw
Planning Commission Secretarys Ann Krebs
PLEDGE'OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the regular meeting of January 20, and the ad3ourned
THE MINUTES meeting of January 27, 1964, were approved as submitted.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC F~ARINGe MARGUERITE FERAUD, ET AL (deceased), Owner;
N0. 63-64-69 A. 8 S. INVESTMENTS~ c~o Re C. Kelder, 13571 Harbor Boulevard, Garden
Grove, California, Agent; requesting that property described as:. An
L-shaped parcel of land covering approximately 7.7 acres, located at
the southeast corner of Palm Lane and Euclid Street, and described as: PORTION "A" -
being rectangular in shape and havin9 frontages of 390 feet on the east side of Euclid
Street and 283 feet on the south side of Palm Lane be reclassified to the C-1, NEIGIiBORH00D
COMMERCIAL, 20NE and PORTION "B" - being adjacent to Portion "A" on the east, rectangular
in shape and having a frontage of 345 feet on the south side of Palm Lane and a depth of
640 feet, and further described as 1672 Palm Lane be reclassified to the R-3, MULTIPLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Property presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTUR-
AL, ZONE.
SLbject petition was continued from the meeting of January 6, 1964, in order to provide
the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt informed the Commission that revised plans had been sub-
mitted too late for review by the Interdepartmental Committee, but if the Commission desired,
plans could be reviewed by the Commission i:oday.
Discussion was held l~y the Commission relative to.consideration of the plans .without their
having been reviewed, ancl it~was the consensus of opinion that subject petition should be
continued in order that the InterdepartmE,~tal Committee and the Planning Department might
make recommendations to the Commission.
Mr. Art Aga3anian, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated.he had done some research work in regard to the statement made by the opposition
that people interested in purchasing homes would not purchase a home in, or in close prox-
imity to, a multiple-family development; that this research had indicated the statement had
no basis, and the only evidence he had found was the fact that older multiple-family units
wer~ ~r. only objection prospective property owners for single-family development had; and
that the revised plans had been submitted to the property owners for their review.
Mr. Robert Jackson, 1684 Palais Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject
petition and stated he had been contacted relative to the revised plans, but many of the home
owners had not seen the revised plans which had been submitted to the Commission for their
consideration, and he was still opposed to any myltiple-family development adjacent to the
single~family subdivision to the south of sub3ect property.
- 1951 -
_____.._.~._ ____............._..__.__,_..._.._.__~_._______...---
~ , . ~.T..
--. --------~ _. ._._.
.
~"
~
~
~
~
i
a'~,~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI8SION, February 3, 1A64
1952
RECLASSIFICATIGN - Comraissinner-.PehLe~•-n.ffered-a-m°.ti°n ,to..cnntinue 4'et3~tian fnr
NQ. 63-64-69 Reclassi£ication No. 63-64-69•ta.the meeting o.f Feb~uary..l."J.,_].~bA,
~Qontinued) _.., for the..af.tarncon agenda, in .exder that tl.a .+.nterdepar+.s,uental••Ccmr
.mittee.and Planning Depar,tment might review the sevised.plans•and_
submit rec~mmendations. Commissioner Pexr•y seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. •
REC11f1SSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC I~ARINGe HOYVARD Mo LANG, 700 Ocean•View Dnive,
N0.'b3-64-70 and Fullerton, California, Owner; ALEX FISHMAN, 991 North Tustin.,.Orange,
California, Agent; property de.scribed as.s An..irregular].~.shaped..parcel
VARTANCE N0. 1617 of land covering approximately 12.7 acres.and havring fsontages.-of•-Lr246
fee't on the south side of Crowthex Auenue..and .Lr1.7.3..feei.on._the-nart.~
side of Orangethorpe Avenue, the wester~ly,•boundaxy..•o£..sa:d,..p~opeatY .
being approximately 1,575 feet east of the centerline of~Dowling Street. ..Property.presently
classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe
CONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AIu~NDMENTo
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE...
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET
np R_q; RF.SIDENI'Ii+L AGRICULTURAL~ ZONED PROPERTY.
Sub~ect petitions were contznued from the meeting of January 6, 1964, to allow sufficient
time for the petitioner to ffle a subdivision tract map.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission a tentative tract map had been
filed on subject property, said tract map to be considered at the Interdepartmental Committee
Meeting on February.lOth, and scheduled for the Commission Meeting on February 17th, and
that he recommended continuance of subject petitions until that meeting so that all three
items could be considered at one time.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petitione for Reclassification No. 63-64-70
and Variance No. 1617 to the meeting of February 17~ 1964, in order that subject petitions
might be considered in conjunction with the tentative tract map. Commissioner Cha•~os
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission ttiat the consideration of the
General Plan Amendment could be taken up later when the Commission considered Reclassifi-
cation No. 63-64-75.
RECLASSIFICATION - COMINUED PUBLIC HEARINGn ROBERT B. BURROWS~ ET AI.~ 9821 Theresa
N0. 63-64-56 and Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; property described ase A
rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 98 feet on the no;th
VARIANCE N0. 1610 side of Orange Avenue, and a depth of 412 feet, the easterly boundary
of said property being 660 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street
and further described as 1749 West Orange Avenue. Property presently
classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEa
REQUESTL•D Ct,ASSIFIC•ATIONt .R-1,••ONE=FAMILY RBSIDEN'IIAL, ZONE. _. .
REQUESTED VARIANCEt WAIVE Tf~ REQIJIRED LOT FRONfAGE ON A DEDICATED
STREET OR ALLEYe
Sub3ect petitions were continued from the meetings of November 13 and December 9, 1963, to
allow the petitioner time to meet with adjacent property owners and the Planning Department
for possible development of adjoining parcels for a standard subdivision, single-family
tract.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission the petitioner had not communicated
with the Planning Department, although several letters requesting his presence at a confer-
ence regarding the development of sub~ect property had been mailed to him. It was further
stated that the adjoining property owner to the west still proposed to use her property for
church puxposes.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-56
and Variance No. 1610 to the meeting of April 27, 1964, and to advise the petitioner of
this continuance. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOT~ON CARRIED.
~. .
_
•---.__- -- -- ------ - -::: -.-_____.....__.____--..
_. _ .
-----~-- -
_._,._._...:_~t ~, c~-
. t
I
.
- ~
t`'
'..i '
_ ,
~ ~, ..
~
~~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964
1953
REVISED TENTATIVE MAP - DEVELOPERs LINDA GRANADA INCORPORATED, 1811 West Katella Avenue,
OF TRACT N0. 4230 Suite 103,.Anaheira, Californiae ENGINEERs Stephen Bradford.,
~Revisi,on No. 6) 125 South Claudina Street,.Anaheim, California. .Sub3ect tract
located on the south side•of Lincoln Avenue, approximate.ly.b60 ..
~ feet west of the centerline of.Beach Boulevard.,.is proposed for
subdivision into 27 R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEPTLIAL,.and 2.C-i, NHIGHBORH00D COMMERCIAL,
ZONHD lots. ..
Zon-ing Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Revision No. 6 of Tentative Map.of Tx.act No. 423Q
to••the Commission, aqd reviewed the location of subject property.together with the proposed
revi's3ons to the tract map. . .. .
Mr. Stephen Bradford, engineer of subject tract, indicated his presence if the Commission
desiied~to ask any questionso
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Revision No. 6 of Tentative Map of Tract
No. 4230, sub3ect to the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdfvision thereof shall be submitted in 9.entative fo•rm for approval. ~
-- __ .
-- ---_
2. That an easement shall be dedicated and an underground off-site storm drain
system shall be constructed to the Orange County Flood Control Channel. j
3. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noe 4230, Revision No. 6, is ~
granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 62-63-64.
4. That a predetermined price for Lots A~ B and C shall be calculated and an
agreement for dedication entered into between the Developer and the City
of Anaheim prior to approval of the Final Tract Map. The cost of Lots A,
B and C shall include land and a proportionate share of the underground
utilities and street improvementso
5. That Street "B" be relocated southerly to a location which is to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. ~
~
~ 6. That Street "A" shail be recorded as Delano Street and Street "B" shall j
be recorded as Graciosa Laneo !
Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. i
TEPTfATIVE MAP OF - DEIIELOPERe RUSSELL JAY, 2366 West Lincoln, Anaheim, California~
TRACT N0. 5141 ENGINEER: Hal Raab, 10568 Magnolia, Suite 110, Anaheim, California.
(Revision Noe 2) Sub3ect tract located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, 327 feet
south oi Lincoln Avenue, is proposed for subdivision into 4 R-3,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NED lotse
Zoning Coordinator~Martin Kreidt.presented Revision Noa 2 of Tenta.tive Map of Tract No.
5141 to the Commission~ and reviewed the location of subject property together with the
proposed revisions to the tract mape
No one was present to represent the developer or engineer.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve Revision Noa 2 of Tentative Map of Tract
No. 5141, subject to the following conditionss
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Nc. 5141, Revision No. 2, is
granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 62-63-108.
3. That an easement shall be dediceted and an underground off-site storm
drain shall be constructed to the Orange County Flood Contr~l Channel.
4. That Lo•t C, ~=act Noo 4230, be acquired or a dedicated alley be provided
along the westarly tract boundarya
5. That Street "A" be 64 feet in widtho
--__.._._____ _....______...______.___.,. ~
,
. .. ~
~J
, ~ ~
, '
~_~ ~ ~ ;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Febivary 3, 19b4 1954 i
TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT ~0. 5141
(Revision Noe 2 )
(Continued)
6. That Beach Boulevard in front of the three "Not a Part" parcels be
fully improvedo
7. That Street "A" shall be recorded as Adobe Drive and Street "B'• shall
be recorded as Graciosa Laneo
Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I-IEARINGa FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF STAIdfON, P. 0. Box 584,
PFRMIT N0. 531 Stanton, California, Owner; BILL J. WHITE, Pastor, P, Oo Box 584,
Stanton, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND EXISTING
CHURCH FACILITIES on property described ass q rectangular parcel of
land with a frontage of 264 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a depth of 310 feet,
±I,a.gae+grlv_hrnin~l~ry of said proaerty being approximately 410 feet west of the centerline
of Western Avenue, and further described as 3233 West Ball Road. Property presently clas-
sified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe
Reverend Bill White, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, representing the petitioner,
appeared before the Commission and reviewed the long-range plans the church had for devel-
opment of sub,ject propertye In response to Commission questioning, Reverend White stated
the new structure would be for a new sanctuary and an education building, and that although
no specific plans for improvement of the existing building were available, it was the church's
intention to improve said existing structure at some future datee
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts left the Council Chamber~and City Attorney Joe Geisler
took his place.
No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitiono
TE~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the Interdepartmental Committee and Planning Department recom-
mendations, noting a masonry wall was proposed for the easterly property line, and that it
was the Commission's recollection the masonry wall was one of the conditions of approval of
the multiple-family development to the easta
For ciarification purposes, Reverend White stated the property owner abutting the subject
property to the east had contacted him relative to placing the masonry wall on the church
property because the multiple-family development owner did not want to remove the trees,
and inquired whether the church was obligated to build the masonry wall. The Commission
advised the agent for the petitioner that it was a requirement that the multiple-family
development p~operty owner coTnstxuct the masonry wall prior to_final building inspectiona ,
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noe 1034, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 531, sub3ect to conditions and directed that if the masonry wall abutting the easterly
property line was not required as a condition of the approval of the multiple-family develop-
ment to the east, this be a part of the Commission's resolution that a six-foot masonry wall
be constructed on the easterly property line, as weil as the northerly and westerly property
lines. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None.
ASSENf: COMMISSIONERSs Sides.
..~_~_._T._.~..._----_.___._~_._~._..---~------- - ---_----._..._, . ,
- - .
, --- ____.~-._.
~ __
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1954 1955
CORBITIONAL USE - PUBLIC F~ARING. JOSEPH J. GUZAK, ET AL, 823 North Harbor Boulevard,
PERMIT N0. 533 Fullexton, California, Owners; CARL KARCHER, 1200 North Harbor Boulevard,
. . Anaheim,. California, Agent; requesting permission..to..ESTABLISii..A.DELVE-IN,
. WALK-UP.RESTAURANf.WITH WAIVER.OF...REQUIRED PaatcTnir, n~y~ppgr~y„,~]pacri•he~j ,
ass A rectangular_parcel of land a~i~h a frontage of 87 feet on the..east.side.nf...Evc.Lid.
Street and a depth of 150 feet, the.southerly.boundary of said property~kie3ng•.2A0.#eatnoxth.
of the centerline of La Palma Avenue~ and further described as.1112~Nor.th.Eualid-Street<_
Property presently classified . as R-A, RESIDENfIAI~AGR.ICllLTURAI.,. ZONE.,. .
It was noted by the Commission that subject property was part of a reclassification proceed- I
ings for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial use in which deed restzictions had..been required for
office use only for subject propertyo ~
City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission the zoning of subject pxopeTty.was only ,
in force when all conditions of the resolution of intent had.been met, and if any oi these
conditions had not been met, the zoning was not in effecto.
Mr. Carl Karcher, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed ~
the proposed developmento The Commission inquired how he propnsed to provide access ta ~
subject propertyo Mro Karcher etated they had an agreement with the service station opera- ~
tors to permit access through the rear portion of the service station, and this was only an .
oral commitment and nothing was in writ3ng~ '
In response to Commission questioning, Mra Geisler stated that under the new service station !
standards, a masonry wall would not be required on commercial property since this was only a ~
requirement of abutting residential property nr to separate trailer rentalso
Mr. Karcher then stated that a masonry wall did exist between the mortuary on La Palma Avenue !
and the service st•ation, and that he had a letter from the Anaheim Union Water Company per- ,
mitting an easement over the property, provided the water line was constructed under grounde '
Mr. Raymond Kirk, representing the Backs, Troutman and Kaulbars Mortuary, 1617 West La Palma
Avenue, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated the proposed type of develop-
ment was~ob3ectionable because of the amount of trash and noise which might be created by
the youngsters during services being held at the mortuarys that the mortuary had been located
in its present place for three yearss that the proposed development would increase the amount
of traffic; that many traffic hazards would occur if subject petition was permittedi that
the mortuary had landscaped their propertyy and they would expect any business ad~acent to
theirs to be developed with a similar type of landscaping which would be a compliment to the
City.
In response to Commission questioning, Mro Kirk stated that at the time the reclassifica-
tion of subject property had been proposed, they were in favor of the development because
ic w.;s proposed for office use only; that the petitioner at that time had consulted with
,.~° ~.,ortuary and presented ideas of the development plans with which they had been in com-
p2 .e agreemente
Mrs. Helen Porter, 600 Cliff Drive~ Newport Beach, appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition
and stated she was one of the owners of the property adjacent to subject property; that she
was opposed to a drive-in-becaUSe of the traffic hazard-at'the 7:oca~'~on, being onty ~50 f~@t
from La Palma Avenue; that drive-ins were mainly supported by young people who would be
crossing the street against traffic; that she had made observation of similar types of
development in Orange County and had noted they offered little to enhance the appearance
of property, and thus be complimentary to adjacent property with landscapingf that the
buildings were inferior in construction~ and that the litter and untidiness created by the
papers and cups discarded by people utilizing the proposed facility would greatly detract
from her property, and, iherefore, would be a factor in reducing the value of her property~
that she was in hopes that subject and abutting properties would develop into a commercial
affice use whicly would be much more compatible to the area; and that on previous occasions
the Planning Cottunission and City Council had approved development plans for the area for
commercial office uses.
Discussion was held between the Commission members regarding the method of considering
subject petition and the oppositions that the traff3.c should never be a consideration since
similar problems and hazards were p.revalent in other shopping centers in the area, but one
of the shoNings of the conditional use permit noted that traffic was one of the considera-
tions the Commission would be required to note in approval or disapproval of any petitione
Mr. Karcher stated he would be very glad to take the opposition i:o see other structures
within Orange County which he had built and operated, noting many times these installations
would cost upwards of $40,000; that he had never constructed any inferior type of structure
since he had been in the business, since 1941.
_ - --- . -____...._.-~
~ _._ , . - ~ ~.
~:.~ ~ ~
, " 1
~ ~
~ i
~ ':~
/
~ l._.~ ~..~ ~ 1
~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, i964 1956 1
~
CON'JITIONAL liSE - Mrs. Porter then stated the pe•citioner was requesting waiver of the
'E~~MIT N0. 533 parking requixementsf.that thaxe_did_not seem to be any parking provisions
C,±r~tinued) on sab~ect property; that the oil company did not own their property., but
leased it, and she was the ownar; that the existing six-fon.t.masonr.y wall
, pre'sently existing was a portion of the lease agreement, and could not be
removed. The Commission explained the proposed new requirementsfor drive-ins and walk-ups
would be substantially met by the subject petition, but the waiver was requested of the
existing requirementso
Mr. Karcher then stated he had discussed the proposed development with a number of the oil
company representatives~ and they ha~ assured him ingress and egress through the oil company
property would be granted since a gas station and a food dispensing operation were compatible
with each other, and to have the fence down would be to both of their advantageo
D~scussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed four-foot setback from the
property line, and the requirements the Commission had formerly proposed for other structures
on Euclid Street< It was further noted that the City Council had stated the Commission had
no prerogative to impose a setback for any area.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission the existing setback for most parcels
o: land on tuclid Street was a minimum of 15 feet, and that sub3ect property was south ef the
study area on which the Commission had recommended a definite setbacko
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to their previously approving an office
building for subject property; that at that time it was required C-1 deed restrictions be
filed to permit the use of subject property for office building only, and that everyone
`seemed to be satisfiedo
Continued discusslon was held by the Commission relative to approval of theproposed use adjacent
to a service station, with the feeling of some of the Commissioners being this would be an
appropriate use if a masonry wall wer.e constructed on the easterly property line.
Mrs. Porter again asked to be considered by the Commission and was granted permission by
Chairman Mungallo Mrso Porter then stated that for several years they had been offered
any number of opportunities to sell their property adjacent to sub~ect property for similar
uses as a drive-in or ice cream stand; that although these offers were numerous, they had
field out for a business building of which the City of Anaheim could be proud, and that if
the proposed use were approved by the ~ommission, this would set a pattern of development
for the ad~acent propertiesa
Some of the Commissioners expressed concern that the proposed office building would not
be a compatible use for the area; that although the restaurant was not the only use for
subject property, an office building was not suitable; and that if a three-acre parcel were
available, this would create a much more desirable area in which to construct an office
buildinga
Commissioner Pebley offer.ed Resolution Noa 1035, Series 1.963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition fo: Gonditional Use Permit
No. 533~ subject to conditions and waiver of the required parking, since it conformed with
the pending amendment to the parking requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Codeo (See
Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS~ Allred, Camp, Chavos, Pebley, Perryo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Rowlando
ABSENTt COMMISSIONERSs Sides>
Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 3s05 pom.
----------~ ~------~----.._._.._---__.__~__._.__-_..._._..___........_---•-_-_____..
~', , ~ --:, _ ___...-•:-~--- - =.
~ ~
~_ ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 3, 1964
I • RECI:ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ ROSE SERCOT, ET AL, 12822 Gilbert Street, Garden Grove~
~ 1~A7: 63-64-75 and California, Owners; LESLIE ROUSE, 12822 Gilbert Street, Garden Grove,
~ California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
~ COND1TFflNAL USE of land with frontages.of 211.feet on the north side.af .Qrangethvrpe
j "'PER)dIT.'NQ'.`530 .. Avenue and 210.feet on tne south side of Crowther Avenue,.the..westerly ~
i "" ~~~ ~ boundary of.said property being approximately 1380 feet.east~af...the
~ GENERAL PLAN centerline of Dowling Streeto Property presently classified as.R-A~
AA~NDMEM N0. 5~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE. . '
REqUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL~.ZONE..
REQUESTED CONDZTIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENT.IA~L
DEVELOPMENT WITH CARPORTSa WAI~IIE ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION
WITHIN.150 FEET OF R-A, RESIDENTI.AL AGRI.CIILTU&AL~..ZONED_PRQP.ERTY
Mr. George Almaraz, Chief Designer for the development9 appeared before the Commission to f
answer any questions the Commission might have and further reviewed the proposed develop-
mertt, ;
The representative for the petitioner submitted for Commission consideration colored render- ~
ings similar to the type of buildings being proposed, and it was noted said buildings would j
be two story in height and have an early Califor.nian, Spanish motifo !
The~Commission revieMied the plot plan, noting that further clarification should be made hy I
the petitioner regarding the guest parkingo ~
., !
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission it would be preferable to have the
guest parking relocated easterly to provide two driveway approaches and sidewalks and give
additional space for landscapingo ,
The agent for the petitioner then agreed by stipulation to the relocation of the guest
parking areaa
No one appeared ~~~ opposition to sub~ect petitionso
THH HEARING WAS CLOSEDa
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1036, Series 1963-64, and moved for Its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissionex Allred, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan Amendment Noe 5 be approved as indicated on Exhibit Noo lo (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMNIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sidesa
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 1037, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and ac}option, seconded by Commissioner Allred, ~o re~ommeid to the City Council ~~hat. •
Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-75 be approved, sub3ect to conditions. (See
Resolution Book.)
On roll ca12 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONIERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rowland.
NOESs COMMISSIONHRS: Noneo
ABSENf: COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sides.
Cortunissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1036, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 530, waiving the required garages to construct carports, and one-story height limitatione
(See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~ESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, hlungall, Perry, Ruwland.
NOES: COMMISSIOtdERSs None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSe Pebley, Sideso
___.....__..__.._....... _.. . _......_._._.... _... _. ___.....,_--._....- -.__.. ...._.__ ~____
_._--~---_ _ ___.~
i
~ ~
I ::.i
~ --------____....._... . .._ ..____~...~ _._-.___........
\~.f
MINUTES, CITY PLANNINu COMMISSION, February 3, 1.96~4~~•
~ ~
\~4
~J
1958
R&~ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. VILLA FONTAINE ENTERPRISES, INCOHPORATED~ 3261..Alorth
N0._:fi3~64 7(~, Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, California, Owner~ requesting.that.pr.operty ~
described..as s A rectangulan parcel_. of_.land with: a_frnni;age. nf:,272-feet
' on the_south side of Lincoln A~enue and a depth uf 16Ll.feet,_the._eastexl.y
houndery of said property beir.g 707 feet west of the•cent~rline..of Dale.S.TpQ}_.~nd.fuathez .
der.cribed as 2856 West Lincoln Avenue be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMII.Y RESIDHN-
TIqd., ZONE ,o the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. .. ',
N1r:- Gene Durand, owner-developer of the proposed reclassification,.appeaxad..be£ax,e the.
Cocnrission and reviewed .the proposed cormnercial.development.af.subjec.t.propexty,..aoting
t!-e~~maltiple-family development abutting to the south had been developed by .them, and he
stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission,might..,hav.e,. ..
Coirsiderable discussion was held between the petitioner and the Commission regardinQ„con-
version of the existing private drive to a fully dedicated city street, the.petitioneF
haying stated that all requirements uf the fire and trash.depar.tments were complied with
whe~n the multiple-family development had been approved, and curbs and gntters and a 40-foot
wide roadbed were aiso constructed.
It-.was further noted by the Commission that if the existin7 private drive remained adfacent
to..cemmercial property, the petitioner must post'a sign on the private street at its access
from L3n^oln Avenue to indicate this was a private street; that the trash storage areas
should be ~o located to have easy access; that the plante=• area betheen the roadway and
ine sidewalk could be relocated to the inner area of the sidewalk in order that people
leaving their cars at the curbside would not have to step into the planter areas.
Mre. A. Urbigkeit, 2884 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared befoxe the Commission and requested
that the Commission require a masonry wall on the west side of the property extending to
Lincoln Avenue since commercial intrusion would occur adjacent to the orange groves'to the
west. .
The Commission advised Mrs. Urbigkeit one of the conditions of approval would be the•require,• :
ment of a six-foot masoniy wall. '
TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1039, Saries 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred to recommend to the City Council that Peti-
tion for~Reclassification Noo 63-64-76 be approved, subject to conditions and the require-
ment that a sign be posted at the 2ccess to Lincoln Avenue, indicating the street separat-
ing the proposed commercial area be designatr;d as "this is a private street". (See
Resolutian Book.)
On roll call the fnregoing resolution was passed by the following votee
AYESs COMM35SIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Ga~er, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos.
ABSEM s~ COMMISSIONERSs Pebley, Sid~s.
~
Commissioner Chavos qualified his "no" vote by stating that the.praposecF-use of s~bject
property was an afterthought after the property had been approved for multiple-family
development, and as a result, the commercial develo;.iment will increase the traffic, and
a fully dedicated street should be one of the conditions of approval.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. BEULAH B. WATSON and SARA AND EVERET DEAN, 1709'South
N0. 63-64-80 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owners~ JIM HODGES, 1709 South
Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent~ requesting that property
described ass A rectangular par~el of land at the southwest corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Dale Street, with frontages of 271 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 255 feet
on Dale Street bs reclas_ified from the R-A, RESIDEMr1L AGRI~ULTURAL, ZONE to the C-2,
GENF.RAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE.
~
Mr. Jim Hodges, agent for the petitionar, appeared before the Commission and clarified the
dimenai~o of the property, noting it was 255 feot; that the corner of Dale Street and Lir•nln
was baing r.~served for a futu..a development of a service station; that the 35-fuot s~tb~c~;
for Lincoln Avenue would be adhered to if he were assured adjacent property owners would
also be required to maintain ~he 35-foot setback; that the nearest commercial property was
approximately one-ha]f mile away, and that setback was 20 feet~ that it was the petitioner's
desire to construct to the property line on the Dale Avanue frontage, and under C-2 zoning
this was permissible.
----._.. _ --- _ __._._.-~---..._._ ___..._... _...__.~. ~---- . -- ~
-----~------- -,, -. _._
~
!
i
{
~
. • -~- - ~.
~
I '
. i
:''
-------- ._._._ __ I
;. , ~, ~
~~ u
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION, February 3, 1964 1959
RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated that if, in accordance with
NQ:.'63-64-BO the recent amendment to the Code regarding service stations, subject
,~ontinued) property were zoned for C-1 uses, it would be necessary for the petitinner
to file.a conditional use.pexmit_at a later. time to permit the.construction
of a service station; that the 15-foot setback for Dale Avenue was recom-
mended on the basis that property to the south might deve?op for multiple-family use as others
dfd to the west; and that the restaurant located on Dale Street was also required to have a
15-foot setback.
The Commission inquired of t~e agent for the petitioner whether the needs of the petitioner
would be cove:~d if the Commission approved C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, to which the
agent for the petitioner replied the C-2 Zone was desired or needed for possible other uses
in the development of the commercial shopping areao
Mr. Kreidt then stated that a liquor store or Hofbrau would be subject to a conditional use '
permit in a C-1 Zone, and under G2 Zone, a Hofbrau was permitted by right, but that a
school was located less than 600 feet from the subject propertyo :
The Commission iuriher noted the City had an ordinancs requirement of a 35-foot setback on
Lincoln Avenue for all property being developed, and this was the basic reason far requesting ~
the 35-foot setbacks; that subject property had no alley to the rear for service trucks and
trash'pick-up, and this would create an untidy appearance on the frontage street.
_ _ __--- -- ----=---- ' '
Mr. Hodges stated all deliveries would still be from the front raiher inar~ fro~~~ a~~ a212r, i.'
it were there; that the rear @oor was used only to remove trashe
Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 3:40 pome
In response to Commission questioning, Mro Hodges stated they had constructed other neigh- !
borhood shopping centers at South and Manchester, in Cypress, Covina, and La Habra, and did
not have an alley at the rear, and that deliveries were alKays from the front for security
purposes, and the rear door was used only for trash removal and was kept locked otherwise.
Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that at the discussion in the Interdepartmental Committee
the comment was made that if the trash areas were properly placed, it would not be necessary
to require an alley, since sufficient parking area for a t*uck would permit access to the
trash areao
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 3:45 p.m.
The Commission then asked that two trash storage areas be indicated and located in at~ area
designated by the Public Wo.rk~ Directoro
Mr. Hodges then stated final development plans could not bR submitted until the reaction of
the Commission and Council was ascertained, but that he would be willing to resolve any
problems which came up through submission of revised plans.
Mr, Robert Martin, authorized agent for h1rs. Watson, one of the petitioners, stated although
the statement might have been made there were no tenants for the property, they had definite
commitments for a U-Tot-Em grocery store and a Hofbrau; that the proFerty adjacent for the
drive-in restaurant was set back 15 feet which was ideal for that typa of development, but
it was important for'the petit3oners to receive C-2, GeneraZ Commexcial, Zoni~~g because of
the commitment of a Hofbrau for the proposed neighborhood shopping area.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
I'I~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
l
i
~
~
i
i
i
i~
i
~
i
,
i
~
The Commission again expressed concern in the proposal of a Hofbrau to a small, neighborhood ~
shopping center; that the area was 3dea1 for'e small shopping area, but that a Hofbrau was i
an incompatible use for the area; that research evidenco had bsen submitted at a previous
meeting by Alpha Beta which indicatod a Ho'fbrau was an undesiiable conunercial use in small ~
shopping centers, and that the Commission should consider this opinion in their considera- ;
tion of sub3ect petition. ;
Mr. Martin then stated the only reason Aipha Beta presen:ad evidence against the sale ofalcoholic ~
beverages was ba~ause of religious principles, to which the Cnmmission replied that Alpha ~
Beta had carry-out liquor sales in some of their stores; therefore,.this statement could ~
not be considera~i accura~e. ~
~
Commissioner Chavos o:fered Resolution No. 1040, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage j
~ and adoption, seconded by Commissic~:er Rowland to recommend to the City Council that Peti- ~
j tion for Reclassification No. 63-64-80 be approved for C-1 uses oniy, and that two trash ~
~ sto:~^e areas be provided in locations approved by the Director of Public Works. (See ~
~ f;
~l _ ._ _ ,
~ ______ .............. ...._._.____._........._..__~.._..
•, _~_-------...__...~....~_...~.....: _._,
_.._ _. ~ ~ ~
_ ,
i '
1 . .. .
~
MINU'fES, CITY.PLANIVING COMMISSION, Febxuary 3, 1964
1960
RECLASSIFICATION - Resolution Book.) '
NO.: 63-64-80
~Cdntinued) On roll call, the f.or.egning resolution was passed_hy the_fnllnwing votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry! Rowland..
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIOIVERS: Pebley, Sides.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-IEARING. GORDON HANEY AND WILLIAM FERDI, 2630 Coronado Drive,
N0. 63-64-81 Fullerton, California, Owners~ requesting that property describe.d as::
A rectangular parcel of land at the northeast carnez.af_.Lincoln Avenue
and Larch Street with frontages of 124 feet on Lincoln.Auenue and 65 ,
feet on Larch Street, and further described as 102 North Larch Street, be reclassified
from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the G1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMiu~RCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Gordon Haney, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewe~# the ;
proposed development~ further noting previous approval had been granted for a nursery on
subject propertyj that by approving subject petition, he wou7.d.be able to improve the
prdperty for use as an escrow company; that he would follow any suggestions the Planning
Depar.'~.ment would have regarding parking; aiid that he would be willing to answer any ques-
tfcns~i,i~e Commission might haveo
p 4 9r Y ''~~ prGp~zty p:C3e.^.t~y fro•;±e~ ~±n ~
In res onse to Gommiss].on uestionin ivire nane S1,O4CU t.
Larc~h Street; that the plans indicated the property would front on Lincoln Avenuej thak
to~his recollection the Planning Department did ~ot recommend bleck-topping should be
prugosed for the front for parking.
The Commission expressed concern that if any change were made to the Larch Street frontage,
this would set the possible pattern of development for the homes in the tract ad~acent to
sub3ect-property for C-1 commercial uses also, and this, in turn, would create a strip
commercial development or spot zoning.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that at the time the nursery was
approved~ there was no outward change with the exception of a masonry wall on the Lincoin
Avenue frontage, but that the proposed development was a considerable change. i
~
Mr. Haney stated the type of business he proposed would never draw customers from the street, ;
but would be customers,from a reforral basis only; that the size of the sign was immaterial, ~
and used only as a method of directing prospective customers to the property. ~
.
The Commission then discussed the possibility of reclassifying subject property with deed ;
restrictions limitinq it to the proposed use, to which Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts
replied that specific use could not be designatede i
Further'discussion by the Commission relat3ve to the possibility of proposing a variance
for subject property, since the Commission wouid be unable to restrict C-1 uses, that a
variance could most likely be justified because of the location of the property siding on
Lincoln~Avenue and surrounded on the east by commercial, across the street by commercial,
and in alose proximity on the west by cortunercial, and only single-fam?=y development to the
north.
i
Mr. Roberts then stated if the Commission decided to consider a variance for subject property,i
it would be necessary to readvertise the propeitye ;
I
Commissioner Chavos was concerr~ed that to 9rant the proposed reclassification would open the j
door for similar strip commercial uses in the area; that the General Plan did indicate com- !
mercial uses for the Lincoln Avenue frontage, and that some study should be given for com- ~
mercial uses of the areao j
A letter of opposition was received from Mr. Kenneth Mosholder, 106 North Larch Street, '
opposing the proposed use of subject property. I
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-81, ~.
to the meeting of February 17, 1964, and directed the Planning Department to initiate pro- ;
ceedings for a petition for varianc2 for sub3ect property. Commissioner Allred seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRI°D.
Commissioner Chavos left tlie Council Chamber at 4:35 p.me
i
!
.~
:
~_^_.--.. _~...___. . _.._ -- -.._._. _ .. .. ___..__
_.__._. __.._.__ . . .--- ._....
~'~; . ~4 .
\/
~
~
I
~
i ~
. ;
~ ~W,
.
- --- ------------- _-r------ ______-__ _ ___ __ ----- --_. _
~~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964
1961
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. VTCTOR BALDERHAUSEN, 531 South Harbor Boulevard,
N0: 63-64»82 Anaheim, California, Owner; CEDRIC A. WHITE, JRa, 125 South Claudina
Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that..prnper.ty described
as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 57 feet on the
west side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 110 feet, the northerly bo.undary being approxi-
mately 400 fe~t south of the centerline of Santa Ana Street, and further described as 531
South Harbor Boulevard be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, to the
C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COM17h~RCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Cedric White, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed use c subject property, noting he intended to utilize the existing home for
an appraisal offi , and that he had attempted to assemble two additional properties to
construct an office building in the future, but was unable to negotiate for the third parcel,
but the real estate operator, Mr. Warnoff, was still contacting the third property ownero
Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 4:35 peme
The Commission discussed the possibility of rezor~ing subject property and adjacent properties '
to the C-0, Commercial Office u~e since this wuuld be in accordance with the Commission's
thinking in projecting properties adjacent to the proposed Civic Center for commercial office
development. '
pa~l~tv ~; #y c,t±~~.,oy FLrman [~ehcrtc afl~~i enr~] tho Conunission 'tt:°T° ;uo~o ~yFfi~_cr~t i~ene 31 7 ewn~
under the C-0 section of the Code so that restrictions would not be necessary to be placed
on the proposed developmenta ;
Mr. White then stated the C-0 Zone was the highest and best use of the lanc9, in his Qstima-
tion, but he was concerned about several items on the Report to the Commission regarding ~
access to alleys and dedication of access rights to Ha•rbor Boulevard; namely, use of the '
alley would be almost prohibitive because of the location of the existing property at the ~
end of the ailey; that there was no indication the alley would extend on to Ssnta Ana Street; ;
thus he would be deprived of adequate access to his property if he dedicated access iights to ~
Harbor Boulevard.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt indicated where the alley might be possibly extended through !
to Santa~Ana Street, provided an easement could be obtained from the school district. ';
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 4a42 pom.
~
The Commi;~sion noted that when Harbor Boulevard was widened, the existing drive on sub~ect ~
property rrould be a detriment in that r,~,king for cars would not be available in the existing
drivee ~
f
Mr. White then stated that until the City was ready to widen the street, he would prefer ~
having acces5 to Harbor Boulevarde j
Commissioner Gauer stated he did not feel the school district would have the right to grant ?
any easement or sell land since the school property belonged to the public, and this would ;
• be the only means of extending the alley"to~Santa~Ana"StrEet. ' " ~
Planning Director Richard Reese advised the Commission he would contact the school authori- i
ties to determine whether it would be possible to obtain an easement through the school ~
property to the west of sub~ect propertya r
1
The Commission asked the petitioner and the real estate operator~ Mso Warnoff, to work ~
diligently to contact the third property owner in an attempt to develop three properties
:or a commercial office building. '
i
Discussion was held by the Couunission relative to approving C-0 Zone for subject property~ ~
for an amendment to thP C-0 Zone to permit the use of existing residences for commercial
uses~through a petition for conditional use permit~ that reclassification should be initiated ;
for the entire block fronting on the west side of Harbor Boulevard from Santa Ana Street to ~
Water Street. ~
Mr. Reese further statec~ an Area Development Plan would be available at the next meeting if ~
the Commission desired to postpone subject petiticn.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion tn continue Petitton for Reclassification No. 63-64-82
to the meeting of Febru~y 17, 1964, in ordtr that the Planning ~epartmenr might initiate ~
a consideration of an ~~nandment to the C-0 Zone which permitted the use of residences for i
commercial office use b~ the filing of a conditional use permi~, and directad the Planning ~
Department to initiate s petition for cc~nditional uae permit for st~.Ject proE~rty and to
init3ate reclassification proceedings for C-0, Comme•rcial Offico; 2one for the -vest side of ~
• ~
~. . ..... ;..._.____..._............ /
_~..-------,._ ... . -- ---- __._ ..__ .___ __...- ---.._..._.
_~ ~ . , ~ . _... ~ /
~~
r~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964 1962
RECLASSIFICATION - Harbor Boulevard between Santa Ana Street and Water Streete
NOe.63-64-82 Commissiorn~r Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
(Continued)
RECESS - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recess the meeting for
• dinner. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting recessed at 4s55 pema
REGONVF.NE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting ai 7:05 p.mo, ail Commissioners
being present except Commissioner Sidese
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK C. AND NORA ~fio BECKETT, 2147 South
N0. 63-64-61 and Lewis Street, Anaheim, California; RUSS AND NATALIE BOOREY, 2501 Harbor
View Drive, Corona Del Mar, California; and DOROTHY ROHAN, 430 South
CONDITIONAL USE Sycamore, Santa Ana, California, Ownersj S. V. HUNSAKER 8 SONS, P. 0,
PERMIT N0. 509 Box 1216~ Fleetwood Annex, Covina, California, Agent; property described
as: A rectangular parcel of land having fromtages of 1,279 feet on the
GENERAL PLAN west side of Lewis Street, 309 feet on the north side of Simmons Street,
ANfENDMENi NOo 3 and 309 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, and further described
as 2147 South Lewis Street. Property presently classified as R-A, RESI-
DENfIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONEa
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs CONSTRUCT A 98-UNIT SINGLE-STURY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEPTf WITH CARPORTS - WAIVER OF THE
BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of November 27 and December 23, 1963,
and January 20, 1964, in order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to discuss develop-
ment plans for subject property with the Planning Department and to readvertise subject
petitions as being a proposed amendment to the General Plan.
Mr. Dale Heinley, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated,
in his opinion, the developers and proposed owners of subject property had presented an
acceptable plan for development of subject property, and reclassification of sub~ect pro,~erty
ur,der previous petitions had been denied because proposed plans were unacceptable to the City
and the developer; that the plans had been submitted to the property owners on Spinnaker
Street, but it was his understanding it was their feeling tye property should remain for
single-family subdivision development; that Hunsaker 8 Sons were the proposed owners and
developers of subject property; that the density of the proposed development was consider-
ably lower than had been approved on other multiple-family developments; that the proposed
developers stated the/ received a higher return from their investment by proposing a lower
density than the average multiple-family development; that the plan incorporated almost all
the suggested revisions made by the Planning Department relative to multiple-family planned
residential developments; and that the waiver of building separation was necessary because
of the difficulty in developing subject property as proposed. __
Mr. William Zable, 4132 Simmons Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject petition and stated a number of the property owners adjacent to sub3ect property
had been unable to review the plans and asked whether this was possible at this time.
Chairman Mungall then advised the property owners he would permit them ten minutes to re-
view the plans and ask the developers any questions they might havee
On reviswing the plans, Mra Zable stated a numbe~ of parking spaces were being proposed
across the street from his front doors that the trash storage areas were also being located
there; that although the plan was considerably better than he had expected, in his opinion,
he felt subject property could well be developed into single-family subdivision development
which would be more compatible to the surrounding area.
Mrs. Be-tram Velten, 2141 South Spinnaker Street, appeared before the Co~~ission and asked
whether ^ot she could ask some questions of Zoning Coordirator Martin Kreidt. The Chair-
man int ~•ed she had a right to ask questions of Mr. Kreidt. Mrs. Velten asked whether or
not suba^^~ ~roperty could be developed for single-family use,and whether the lots would be
similar ii.h to those of Spinnaker Street. Mr. Kreidt replied that, given the size and
shape, e ;.:t property could b~ developed for single-family subdivision similar to that on
Spinnake: 5treet, but the minimum lot requirement under the presEnt Code ~~as 72 by lOQ feet,
or 7200 square feet.
_ _ . ._ . ._._... _.
_ ~~:sa< ____-._- -i-------._..._~_._~~ -_ _ `~., _
i •
. ;.~ .
,
_ (. :3 ~ ~
MIINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964 1963
RECLASSIFICATION - Mrse 1/elten then sta.ted that subject property had been before the
N0. 63-64-61 and Commission and the City Council twice before and had been denied by
• both bodies on the basis that subject property could be developed for
CONDITIONAL USE sing~e-family subdivision; that since the last denial, the Commission
PE~RMIT NOe 5J9 and Council had adopted the General Plan which indicated singl.e-family
. development for subject property; that there had been no chaage in the
GENERAL PLAN general area east of Haster Street to warrant a~y change in the General
ANIE~NDMEM N0. 3 Plan; that a great deal of time and money had been spent to formulate
,~Gontinued) the General Plan for a guide line for the City, and the Commission shouid
• adhere to said recommendation; that traffic from any development of multi-
ple-family portions would tend to increase in a residential area; and, in
conclusio~, there had not been any cb3nge in the area since October, 1962, to warrant the
petitioner indicating a hardship in the development of subject property for single-family
sabdivision use.
Mr. Charles Costello, 2208 South Spinnaker Street, appeared before the Commission•io- opposi-
tion and stated he was in general agreement w'..th Mrso Velten, but she had not added that the
Commission had indicated their desire to maintain the northerly side of Orangewood Avenue as
the boundary line for multiple-family development, and he wanted to indicate to the Commission~,
that a number of persons were in the Council Chamber,opposing subject petitions. A showing of ~
hands indicated thirty persons were.present, apposing subject petitions.
Tn ~gh~,±±al~ ~, Nqinley stated the sinale-family property owners had an interest in their
properties peculiar to themselves alone; that tne sub3ect property owners should have an
equal 3nterest in developing their property~ that he was representing the developer in having `.
his plans approved and also xepresenting the pe:itioners for the zone change; that the pro-
posed development was what the developer thought was a satisfactory plan to the purchaser
and the Planning Department; that only one deviation had been made, in that a cul-de-sac was
proposed rather than having a street going through to Spinnaker; that the developer felt they ;
would be able to abide with the recommendations in the Report to the Commission; and that the
problem of subject property was that economics prevented the development for single-family
use since there were no buyers for the property as single-family subdivision development;
and the proposed development was equivalent to R-2 density~ and the proposed set-up was ac- '
ceptable for financing for R-3 development, rather than R-2e
In response to Commission questioning relative to why it could not be developed for single-
family use, Mre Heinley replied because of the depth of the property, which was less than the
depth of the property on Spinnaker Street, a cul-de-sac street would be required, therefore
reducing the width and making any proposed R-1 lots substandard in sizeo
Mr, Heinley further stated the previous:plans which had been denied by the Commission and
Council proposed a density of 15 to 18 units per residential acre, and adjacent property to
the north and east would warrant multiple-family use of subject property, and he had attempted ,
to meet with the property owners relative to the proposed dev~~opment, but wa~. unable to get
any form of agreement from any of the peopleo
Mrs. Velten again appeared and stated the statement made by the agent for the petitioner
relative to subjec~ property be~ng undesirable or undevelopable for. R-1 was doubtful, since ;
in ~the past 12 to 15 months~ many single-famiry homes had been sold'to the west'of S~sinnai~er •
Street for $25~000 and up; that subject property had been held by the same property owners ;
for a perind of time, and although multiple-family development had been denied for the past i
five years, there was no change in their financial position to require th's salable land for ~
multiple-family use, and that the line for multiple-famil,y development should be held northerly;
of Orangewood Avenue. i
i
Mr, Edward Nicholson, 4114 Simmons Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he had
spoken to the property owners relative to the plans, and they indicated they intended ta I.
maintain their home which presently ex:sted on the corner; that the agent stated they had !
problems because of the size and shape of the property, and if such problems existed, perhaps i
the removal of the residence would solve these problems for development for R-1 purposess
that although he had not talked with the prospective develop~r regarding garden-type apart- ~
ments, if the one home remained~ this would leave approximat~+ly nine acres far the proposod
development, and it would not create a desirable residential development with Ane acre being
retained for its present use, and the balance for gar~len-type apartments; and the plan he had
seen was unsatisf~ctory to him at that •iime, and the present plan was also unsatisfactory.
Mr. Bob Shields, 2065 Spinnaker Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he had just '
purchased his home and was opposed to development of sub3ect proper+.y for multiple-family use;
he had formerly lived in apartments, and it was noted a transic+nt-type oi resident lived in
the apari:mehts; that 80A6 Of the pe0ple in tha apdrtments would ;oark on the street rather than
in the sp2ces provided for '~hem w~thin the development~ and that if he had known multiple-
family development was being considered adjacent to his property, he would not kave purchased
his home. ~)
/
_.__---..~--~-.__. __..._...____._.._ ___.~.._..__......._. .___._. ,.___.._... _..___., :
. _ _._..--..~
~'' , ~i,__ _. . .
l_)
~
1964 ~
~
MINUTES, CI'IY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Heinley then stated the original plans had indicated a portion of
'
N0. 63-64-61 and s
iect property would be retained for the Beckett's and Booxey
sub
- ,
residences; that after consultatioa with the Planning Department,who
CONDITIONAL USE advised this would not be an acceptable method of developmen~., the
PElBalIT N0. 509 Becketts and Booreys agreed to vacate.the land so that the..entire.parcel
could be developed as was being proposedf and that based.nr,.-his exPerience,
GENERAL PLAN
O subject property could not.be.deuelnped.fax single-.faiai.ly•suhd~.vision
cAuse of the narrow depth; that approzimately•45~ of the
t b
l
d
o 3
ANfENDMENT N
~Continued) opmen
e
eve
property would be used for dedication of streets and a cul-de-sac street;
- and that up to the present time9 no developer had approached the peti,tion-
ers relati~ve to daveloping subject property for single-family;useo
TF1E HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiesioner Camp offered Resolution No> 1041, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and• '.
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan I
Amendment No. 3 be disapproved, based on findings. (See ResolU.tion Book.) ~
,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESi CO~M9ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ~.
NOESt COMMISSIONERSs None. ~
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Sidese ~
t
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1042, Series 1963-64, and moved fer its passage and~
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that 1'etit'_en for i
Reclassification Noo G3-64-61 be disapprovedy based on the fact no evidence had been presentedj
to warrant the change in the area; that subject property could be developed for single-family ;
subdivision development; and it was the Commission°s desire ~that multiple-family development i
be located northerly of Orangewood Avenue onlyo (See Resolution Booke) !
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Nungall, pebley, Perry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo I
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sideso '
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1043, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage andi
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 509,'
based on findingsa (See Resolution Booko~ ;
On roll call the foregoing resoluti~n was passed by the following vote: i
. i
AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. i
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ~
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sideso I
RECLASSIFICATION - GQNTIPIUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALMA C. MALER, 2411 West Lincoln Avenue, _!
N0. 63-64-66 and Anaheim, California, Owner; LEROY ROSE, 600 Nortii Euclid Street~'Suite ~
686~ Anaheim~ California~ Agent; property described ass A rectangular ~
CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and ~
PERMIT N0. 5~_ Crescent Avenue, and having frontages of 315 feet on Gilbert Street and i
518 feet on Cres:.ent Avenueo Property presently classified as R-A, ~
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZOIVH. ~
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-39 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. I
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNflD RESIDEPTfIAL I
DEVELOPMEM'~ P~AIVER OF TIiE ONE-STORY ~IGHT LIMITATION
WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL zONED PROPERTY.
Sub3ect petitions were continued from the meeting of December 23, 1963, at the request of !
the petitioners in order to allow sufficient time to submit revised planso
Mr. LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
revised plans of deve~opment, further illustrating the proposed development with colored
renderings, and nnting the proposed development had single-story units up to 15C feet from
the R-1 proper.ty ta the westa
The Commission noted the distance between the living units and carports was undesirable ,
eince it was their feelin~a the residents would not utilize the carports to park their cars.
Mr. Rose t~:en stated that with a dedicated all~y, the clan as presentGJ would not allow ~`
coverage for the last 259b of the property line; that he had previously presented plans which I
'` . _~._-"___'_"'t...._.._ _
~
i
_ ._ - ,
. __ _ -- -----^T-~---~- .._... ..... ~ ~ . _ _ _ __ __
- x - • ~ - t
I 3
~
~ ~
.
__ __ ~
_ _ _ _.. - -
',
_ _._ .. ~.
._------ --- --_ _ _ _. ._
-- ~
i
' ~
_ __ .
~_ , ~ ~..~ ~ ~, ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964
1965
RECLASSIFICATION - indicated the carports between the units, hut since the proposed develop-
N0. 63-64-66 and ment was not a true R-3, he was unable to encroach within the 25% of a
redr property.
CONDITIONAL USE
FERMIT NOo 520 In response to Commissioner Rowland's questioning regarding the diffi-
(Continued) culty in architecturally designing to meet the City's ordinance for R-3,
Mr, Rose stated it was difficult to orient the carports to a dedicated
alley, taking in consideration the minimum lot depth..far..each_structure..
No one appeared in oppasition to subject petitionso
TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possible use of the carports in their
present position; that one of the problems of the proposed development was the size of the '
R-3 lots; that possibly the plans should be redesigned to locate the carports nearer the
residential units; that a number of the units would be farther away than 150 feet; and in-
quired of the petitioner the reason for waiver of the 10-foot separatione.
Mr> Rose stated the plan originally presented had the accessory building within ten feet of
the main building,and a passageway between the carports was'the only thing now being request-
ed in the waivero
The Commission was of the opinion that in order to make the c~r;:orts mcre accessible to the '.
units and remove the possibility of parking on a public street, that an encroachment within
the 30`,K of the rear property line might be in order, and asked that the petitioner relocate
the carports southerly ten feet, and for each R-3 lot, the carports £ace each othero
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 1046, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 63-64~-66 be approved, subject to the relocation of the carports
southe.rly and to face each other within each R-3 lot, and cor.di.tions. (See Resolution Booko) !
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate:
AYESi COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chav:.s, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ~•
NOHSe COMMISSIONHRS: Noneo j
ABSENT: COMMISSIOI~RSs Sidesa
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1047, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage ~
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 520~ subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS= Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Rowlando i
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ;
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Sidese .. ., i
_ __ _ - . . . -. .. - • •• ~ . .. ..
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIEARING. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE 8 TRUST COMPANY, P. Oa
N0. 63-64-77 and Box 267~ Santa Ana, California, Owner; STAPTTON T. STAVRUM, S. H. HEDRICK
COMPANY, 900 South San Gabriel Boulevard> San Gabriel, California, Agents
CONDITIONAL USE property described ass A rectangular parce' of land at the southwest
PERMIT N0. corner of Crescent Avenue and Gilbert Street with frontages of 1,300 feet
on Crescent Avenue and 615 feet on Gilbert Street. Property presently
GENERAL PLAN classified as R•-A, RESIDENi'IAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH.
AN~NDN~NT N0.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDE::iIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENf WITH CARPORTS~ WAIVER OF ONE-STORY
E~IGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDEPTI'IAL AGRICULTURAL
ZONED PROPERTY.
Mr. Harry Knisaly, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the propos~d dsvelopment, noting the .;outherly boundary was ad,~acent to the Flood Control
Channel, fram which the waiver of the one-story height limitation was being requested3 that
the proposed developme~ii: was compatible to the residential character3stics of the neighbor-
hood. ;
1
_._---.---___._--------- - - ---..._ _ _._ ...__.._..__.._.__..._.....
...._._...--- __._m~........_.._.---.. ..
, ~ - -- .
MINUTES, CITY PLAYNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964
1966
RECLASSIFICATION - Mra Ao Jo Radnccia,..2441 Glencxest, appeared before the Commission in
N0. 63-64-77 and opposition to sub3ect petitions and stated he was speaking on behalf of
the.residen~s of the areay 35 persons indicating their presence in opposi-
COAIDITIONAL USE tion, who were of the 139 persons who had signed the petition oppo~ing
PEAMIT N0. 53~ subject petition; that Gilbert and Crescent Streets were not wide enough
to handle any ma~or traffic problems; that four schools were.now being
GENERAL PLAN used by the children in the neighborhood, and the proposed development ~~
AN~NDMHNf N0. 6 would greatly increase the use of the school facilities; that the increase ;
SContinued) in traffic could not be taken care of by widening the streets, as this
would be impossible because of the Flood Control Channel; that single-
family residences existed to the north and west of subject property, the
Flood Control District and the high schools to the east and south of e~b~ect property;and that!
the residents of the area.wished the Commission to consider the property owners who interests i
woqld be infringed upon with increased taxes for the schools in the area.
Mre Jerry Dunham, 530 Hampton Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject ;
petitions, stating his property backed up to the west of subject property; that requests for !
a multiple-family development on property at Crescent and Magnolia had been disapproved for
the reason it could be developed for single-family usef that subject property was more com- '~
patible for development for single-family use rather than two-story apartmerrCs. ~
l
Mr. Don Braun, 514 North Hampton Street, appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitions, and
stated as a home owner, the area was strictly for recreatioLnal puxposes;with single-family
YtOd1BS adjac~~~7t~ WOUId b~ an ideal meth'vu 'vi l1CVC1U(7111CTIl.S i{.IIO1. i.{i'a aTcu S@E7@u ii.v uc ii5u~lue~ct~ j
with apartments~ that although the plans presented were desirable as far as apartments were ~
concerned, tho area in which the apartments were proposed to be located wnuld be undesirable; !
and that subject property shouid be developed for single-family useso
In rebuttal, Mr. Knisely stated the plans indicated the streets could be widened,and the
recreational area would be just as ideal for the apartment dwellers as the single-family
home ownerso
T1iE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commfssion noted that subject ;~roperty was located across the Flood Control Channel from
the golf course, and that sub3ect property could be ideally developed for hieher-priced homes, i..
facing or, a golf course, and could easily be developed into single-family subdivision usese
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noa 1048, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and I
adoption, sgconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan `i
Amendment No. 6 be disapproved, based on findingsa (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonea
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sidese
Cnmmi.~sioner Chavos otifered Resol~tiop Noe 1049+ Se~ies 1963-64, and moved for its passage ~_
ard adoption, secor.ded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Co~Sncil that Peti~tion ~'
for Reclassification No. 63-64-77 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed develop- j
ment was incompatible to the existing R-1 development to the west and north, and subject '
property couTd be ideal.ly ~eveloped for single-family subdivision usea (See Resolution Booke) ~
On roll call the foregoino resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONHRSs r111red, Camp~ Chavos, Gauer~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ~
NOES: COMMIS5IONERS: None. ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= Sides. ~
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1050, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Com~~issioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noe 532, based on f:ndingso (S:e Reyolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing reso:ution was passed by the foll~wing vote:
AXES~ CON4I~ISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlando
tJOES s COMh'iSSIONERS s None.
HHSENY: COMMISSIONERSt Side:.~
Coi~~ani.~;sior.er Gaue•r left the Counail ~namb~r at 8e00 pom.
~
,., -..__r_._~_._._~ ._ _...._ _ ._.._. _.._ _ -- ...~__.._ ..
. _ ..___......,_._._ _..:
_.r.: . - i~ _ _ . _.. _. ..
. .. . t
i '
1 _ _
;~ :_> t~ "~
~
; .
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANI~ING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964 %'`~"~'
I
~ RECLASSIFICATIUAI - EP.R:~ AND CECELIA K. BROOKS, 652~ Ssvenna Street~ Anaheim; Ca;ifra~ni~~,
N0. 63-64-5C Owners;, JOE Ea LONG, LOMAR DEVELOF~R,, l~IC., 9776 Katella Avenve, '~lraheim,
1 Califoy~nia, Agent; property described as: An irregul.:rly shape~ E~rcel of
land having a frontage of 153 feet on the south side of Sa•vanna ~~~~eet and
a iror.;.age of 470 feet adjacent to the Par.,ific Electric Railway right-of`rway, the..~ves'cerly
~ boundary of said pranerty being approxi.matety .L,020 feet west of the cen.ter1i.ne o.f Kn.ott
Avenue, and furthe~ d~sc:ribed as 362~ ;~avanna Street. Property presently classifi~ed as
~ R-A, RESIDED*1'I.AL AGRIC,Ut:!'URAL, ZONEo Requesting R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMII:' E:5IDENFi~.,, ZONE.
CONSIDERATION OF TFlE i~i.:;1Fi A! PLAN AMENDIVIFM'e
~ Subject petition was r;~ferr~yd bark to th2 Planning i,ommission b~ tlie City Counci.l. in order
that revised ~tans prop•~sin~~ R-2, Two~-Family Residential,Zone development m?yht be reviewed
and recommendations riade, ~+~gr;ther with Planning Studr Dlo: .54-1-4 whic'~ ~r~jectr:d a ~ew street
~;
~ through subject property so•ltherly and ea5terly to :Cnott A~~~mue.
Mr~ Joe Long, representing the developers, appeared before the C~~~~~~ission and reviewed the
actior. taken at 'he Council hearing ef subject petition9 noting the Commission.had denied
~;:~ltiple-family development, and the plans now before the Commission propose R-2, two-
fi.~mily developme~t, these being singie-story, duplex units to one lo.to.
Mr. Long further stated the City Counci~ had continued subject petitior~ in or.der thac the
Commission might r~v~~w ±he revisa~ ~lans and consider them in conjur.ction with a~l~:iiing
I Study, and ttie new pet;tion for commercial deve:opment for the cornF•r of Knott Av~•rae and
Ball Roado
On noting the Commission ha~ reviewed the proE~used ~.:lans, Mr~ Long statc+d the cul-de-sac j
street was proposed upon the recommendatior. of the ~'lanning and 'c'ngineeri,-:,? Departments; i
that said street would terminate at the easterly boundary of suk,jact proper`.y9 pending
development of adjacent properties southerly o` S:3•r~nna St:eet to Knu'.. A~~er~ur:s that the
prorased lots were aBo~•e the 7,200 square ;eet m:°:••.:um, mo~~ of them being one•~ihi*d of an
acre ~ar lot; that the water service would b! ~u•cviued L•y the C.ity fx~~m Knntt Avenue; that
the develooers proposed io install sewerage facilii:i.es down Savanna Street which would be !
availab]? i:o any of the adjacent property owners upon t:~e payme~nt of a fee for th= connec- '
tion of the service; tha: the~ street as being p.roposed would not be a dedicated street until ~
after th~ str:^~t was ?stended easterly to Knott Rvenue; that Savanna Street would be widened
for thei 153-foot frori.age of subject propert~; that the Eucalyptus trees would remain at the
rear of tl;s ~roperty~ that the oppositior, seemed to oppose the higher density, and the pro-
posea devela~ment ~vas reduced from the 37 ox•iginally proposed to th~ 22 units presently ~
proposedo
~ In respor.se to Con:miseion questioning x•elative to the m~thod of developinent of the sewer
i projecti Mro Long s~;ated that in contacting the repres~t~tatives of the Clty, it was ai first
~ indicated the sewerage facilities would extend on1;~ throu,;~ S~vanna Street, but since a
severe drainage problem exis±ed because ~f t`~e hallownes:, of ths pipes located on Knott
Avenue, there was a possibili~y that if th~ sewerage facilities were ~co serve e.ubjecL. property
only, the~ would come in from Knet+ Avanue and Ball Road to the Paci"ic ti.lectri~ riyht;of-w.ay
line, o:,pr.~sibly if the proposed street was extended to Knott Avenua, through Knott Avenue
to.subject property. „ „ .
The Con~mi.ssion then stated it w,~s possi.ble that•five yea~s from now the other property owners
might wish ~~ develop thei.r properties and provicle sewerage fa~.ilities, and if thi:: were tu
go through 3•~vanna Street, this would b.; to the p;operty owT~~rs~advant~ge, if sewexage faci-
litie~ were availableo
Mre Lonq siated the developers were not forcing the ,oroperty or+ners to im~rove their proper- ~
ties; th:,t '~ese fac;il?ties would be available to thei~. if tF.zy desired to utilize them•at a j
fee set up by the City; an~l that the City Water i~epartmen•c indir.ated they were desirous of ~
placing a wate~ line on S~vanna Street based on exlsting needs,regardles:, of the needs of
the petitionera ;
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commiss;on no ~tudy had been made when other
petitions for the dog kennels and lot split had been reques±ed.
I
Mrs. Ann Logan, 3603 "aavanna Street, advised the Commissio that when their d~g kennel was ~
approved; a time limit of t•wo years was given themt that Mrs~ Shielc!s ~.atez came in for a ;
dog kennel, but no time limitation had been raquired of her; that more ;.raffic and children
would be.using Savanna Street if subject property were devel.oped for the 22 units being pro- 1
posed; that although statements might have been mad? that the property va'.ue would not decrease,;
this was nat so, since Savanna Street was one of ~he faw remaining areas r~~ral in character `
which appealed to many people; that a number of ir.yuiries i;ad been :•^~ceived; that the street i
was isolated; that nothing had changed from the iast i:ime tC~e ~ommis~ion had con~i~ered the ~
petltion to warrant a_change in the CortGnissii~t~'s considera`,i.on :,f suoject ~rop~••cys that ~
~ '. ~ ~
d
Y
:
~
~
~
b
~
i
( 1
~
MINL'TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964
~
1968
RF~LAS.°,IFICATION - widening Savanna Street would create additional expenses for the
N0. 63-64-60 residents of the area; and that her personal opposition was based
Continued on ''e fact i:hat the City had issued a use permit to her to utilize
he °operty for a dog kennel which was an expensive hobby, and she
and her husLand had gone to considerable expense to develop the property..
In *esp~~nse to Commission questioning, Mrs. Long stated they could not oppose single-family
developm~~~; that they did not d2sire to have the proposed street have access to Savanna
Stree " tilthough slle realized a dedicated right-of-way was needed for water and sewerage
facilit:es; that :he existing rell served all the property owners on Savanna Street, as well
as some residenis ~n Ball Road; that if the street were widenE~d to the 32-foot half-width,
this would cu: in:~ pump in half, said pump existing on Mrs. Middleton's property, Mrs. Shields,.
3603 Savanna Stre~~t, stated that 90% of the persons residin9 on Savanna Street ~ere opposed
to the develc;.~aent; that they had atten:jQd a number of the Commission and Coun~=l meetings
and noted the City of Anaheim was opposed to spot zoning; and that the proposed aevelopment
was, in hcr opinion, considered spot ~oning, and the Commission should plan for the C3ty as
a whole.
Mr. Long stat~d the street would not be widened except in front of subject o~~perty; that
street widening would occur only when all the peo~le in the area planned to abandon the well;
tY,at a~ a compromise, t;e existing home could be left facing on Savanna Street with develop-
m?nt t~ ~he r?ar f~s the two-family use, but by so doing, the Savanna Street lot would not be
one acre in size.
The Comm;ssion noted for the benefit of the audience that the agent for che petitioner had
been attempting to cooperate in developing s~+t'ect property to be acceptable to the City,
the residents of the area, and to his client; that it wculd be a matter of time before the
existing septic tanks would break down; and the property owr.ers present:y desired to keep
their area for R-A, bi~t in a short time of from two to tiuee years, this might not be the
cas~.
Mr. Wiebalk, 3629 Savanna Street, appeared before the Commission and. stated the Commission
ciiscussion regarding three to four years from now wt~en the property owners might wish to
dEVelop for other th:~.n rural use, that presently they were being arn,iyed constantly by real-
tors wanting their praperty for the rural ~:se of raising do9s and 'nor.ess that the realtors
indica,.ed they could ask almost any pricE~ iv~ their property, and ha rould not see why t~e
property•owners would wani to change the present uses; that if R-2 wa~e approved for subject
pranerty, this would jeopardize the man io tY~s west w:io had recentl,~ paid $31,000 for his
property, nu` cuite an acre in size, on wnich he had a barn and was u~ing it to .'~~e his
horses.
;d•r. Earle Brooks, one of the owners, appeared and st~ted that aithough thE neighbo::s`ha.d
said many people were interested in bu;ring property on Savanna 5treet, he had not xeceived
a~~ interested offer to buy his property.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to recommend to tiie City Council that if th~ Council.
consi.dered a lesser zoning desirable for subject property, tli~ p~~~.:~ed plans of devel~p-
ment fc.r•R-2, Two-Family, Zone development wou?3 be considerer~ a~ca,r.table to the Commission~
provided the exi.sting residence rema:n facing on Savannu Streei, and the rear portian of
the ~roperty be developed in accordance with ~f~e plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the
motion. MOT:[ON CARRIED.
RECESS - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recess for ten minutss. ;
Commissioner Allred secor~ded the ..^.otiona MOTION CARRIED. The
meeting recessed at 9s35 p.mo
RECONI/ENE~ - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m., Commissioners
Gauer and Sides being absente
RECLASSIFTCATION - PUBLTC HEAR?NG. DAVID ROPFR~ 716 South K~,.imor.e, Anaheim, California,
N0. 3- 4-78 Ownex•; MAX PROVISOR, 1232 Gasiano Road, I.os A~geles 49~ California, Agent;
requesting that proaerty described ass l,r. irreyular p:r.cel of land adjac-
GENER.IL PLAN ent i:o the service station at the northwest :ornsr of Knott Avenue and
A(u~NDtdENi'~ N0. 2 Ball Foaid, .~ith frontages of 2~0 feet on Knott Avenue and 100 feet on Ball
Road be re~lassified from 'che R-A. R'iSIDEM'2AL AGRICUL7URAL, ZONF. to the
C-1 ~ NE iGE.i.: ::HOQD COMMERCIAL, ZONE? .
Mr. D~vid Ro~er, the peti~ioner, .+ppe~red before thP C~..:~ni•a~iu*~ and s+at~~d the proposed ~
devvlopment ~vas a continuance ~f the development ^'."F !-xc;crCy stari:ed about two years a~o;
th~t althou~h he had heen ap~~roachec'. to de~~elop SUb}~~:i: H':C'~%'9;ty ;or a~ultiple-family use, it ii
was his d~ s3re to d~.velop f'or comrt~ercit~l purposes so ?::~i: u~e City might derive banefits from ~
1
the s~les t~x. ,
i
f
i
~
- ~.
~.~ _~. __.. ._.. __... ._ .. . -- - __. ._ _.. _...
~. _. _.. .-- --_ ___. _.._--- ----
,.` ---.., . _ .
~ -._... .-
. ' i
I
i
_ _ .~ '
\ ~
._ ~ o '~
i
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3~ 1964 1969
RECI:ASSIFICATION - In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Roper stated the type oi
N0..63-64-'B stores would be better than the average in the neighborhood; that the
architeci:ure had been considerably improved; that the plan of develop-
GE:VERAL PLAN ment had been reviewed v~ith the Planning Department, and suggested
AMHNDMENt N0. 2 changes had been made in order to meet Code requirements.
~ontinued
_ The Commission noted the plan of development was orderly, but there
were toa man~ openings from the small comm~rcial facility to a major street and a second-
ary streeto
h1r. Roper state~ they would have access through the service station, if necesssry. Commis-
sioner Rowland then stated the development of sub~ect property would be greatly enhanced
if the two access drives on Ball Road and Knott Avenue were combined to a 30-foot width,
single drive for each streeto
Mrs. Campbell, the property owner to the north, appeared and asked what form nf develop-
ment was planned adjacent to her property line, and the Commission informed her a 21-foot
wide alley between the northerly property and subject property was being proposed, and that
a six-foot masonry wall would already be constructed in the event she proposed multiple-
family development for her property. '
THE FIEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noe 1044, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissior~er Allred, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan F~mendment P~oe 2, Exhibit No. 2, be approved, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONEFiS: Ailred, Ca~~~p, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERa: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Sides.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolutinn No. 1045, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage !
and adoption, seconde~3 by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Peti-
tion for Reclassification No~ 63-64-78 be ~pproved, subject to reduction of the two access
drives on Ball Road and Knott Avenue to one 30-foot drive for each street, and conditions.
(See Resolution Booka) '
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERSa Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo '
ABSENTs CG~~v~AISSIONERS: Gauer, Sideso
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HOME RENfAL CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 3430, Fullerton, ~
N0. 63-64-84 California, Owner; DONALD E. STEWART, 12801 Village Road, Garden~Grove, j
California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangular I
GENERAL PLAN parcel of land at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Cerritos i
AMENDMEM' N0. 7 Avenue, with frontages of 117 feet on Euclid Street and 157 feet on ~
' ' Cerritos~Avenue, and further described as 1500'South Euclid S~reet, be' ~ -
reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL, ZONE to the C-3, !
HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE. I
Mr.Llr~yd Mount, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was ;
the intent of the property owner to sell subject property to the Gulf Oil Company; that the ~
inte~~sc~ction of Cerritos and Euclid was leavily travelled and was unacceptable for use as ;
sing:le-family purposes; that the present home would be eliminated to give visibility around i
the co~^er; that ihe nearest service station was one-half mile from subject location, where- ~
as other areas indicated service stations within one-yuarter of a mile of each other; and ~
that he was available to answer questions, as well as the representative from the Gulf Oil
Cort~pany. . ~
It was noted by the Commission that a recent request for a Jack-in-the-Box drive-in, walk-up
restaurant was recently denied.
Mr. John Florner, 1587 Mells Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject
petit7on and stated that ali:hough they did not solicit the signatures of all the property
oavners in the area who had opposed the drive-in restaurant, a number of property owners were
I Present to voice their oppositior. to the proposed use of subject property; that notonly were ~
f they previously oppased to the sign and restaurant for the property, but it was the type of ~
~ commercial development, beiny spot zoning; that the service station would be highiy detrimental,
~ I ~
~ -
..
_._ . .- -. .
_ _ . . _. .._ ._ _
--------..._____ _--- ---------..._ _.._. ,.._.~....___..~._._: . -- - _ .. _ . .._
--~ ~ ~ ~i . . .
~_)
MINUfES, CITY PLANNINu COMMISSION, February 3, 1964 1970
RECLASSIFICATION - to the property vr~'ues and the residential characteristics of the area,
N0. 63-64-84 which, in his opinion, was one of the most desirable in the City; that
the residents of the area were very'desirable of naving some form of
GENERAL PLAN protection for their $40,000 homes; and to permit a C-3 use for the
pME~DMEP~ N0. 7 area would permit any type of heavy commercial use for the corner, if
Continued subject service station were not developed. He had received a letter
from the real estate operator who had indicated the area.should remain ;
residential, since any cortunercial use of the property would be detrimental to the property ,
value; that the proposed service station would be across the street from a high school, and
many of the children would be using the station for servicing their cars, but this would
add to the hazardous traffic conditions to pedestrisn traffic on Euclid ar.d Cerritos Streets;
and to approve the propos~~d development would open the door for complece commercial develop-
manL• along Euclid Street for the other parcels fronting on Euclid Street to Mells Lane.
Mr, J. Lawler, representing the Wilshire Oil Company, appeared befors the Commission and
stated that northerly of Cerritos Street on Euclid Street, a real estate office, a doctor's
off~ce, and a beauty shop were located; that a service station could go in C-1 zoned
property under the recently adopted Service Station St2ndards~ and the standards also re-
quired a six-foot masonry wall to buffer a~~y sound from the service station, and if the
Commission wc:e to consider subject petitioner favorably, he would accede to closing the
service station at 1Os00 o'clock p.mo
Mr. Mount then stated every person was entitled to develop ~;is property to its best ultimate
use, so long as it was not detrimental to the neighbors, and subject property was a desir-
able corner for the proposed use. Mr. Mount further requested that the opposition express
to him the most desi•rable use for the corner, since the view ror traffic from Cerritos Stre~i,
was blocked by the existing home, and the existing home was not a$40,000 home, and because
of the traffic, no one would want to live on that type of corner.
Nir. Earl Greer, 1681 Mells Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated he lived quite
close to the corner, within 110 feet; they had heard and seen many accidents, but the cause
was not the lack of vi5ibility from Cerritos Street; the area was residential in character,
and they would like to see an improvement for the property by keeping it residential.
Mr. Robert Croft, 1670 West Cerritos Street, appeared before the Commission and stated his
home was the second one east of the corner, and refutPd the comments made by Mr. Mount re-
garding`the number of service stations, by quoting the number of stations on Euclid'and
Katella, Euclid and Ball, and Euclid and Broadway; in his opinion, although it was difficult
to figure out the means of development for the property, it might be developed for profes-
sior~al offices of a doctor, or for multipie-family usee
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resol~tion No. 1051, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner .Camp, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan Amendment No. 7 be disapproved, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESc COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp,•ehavos, Mungall~•pebley, Perr.y, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. '
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Sides.
Cortenissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1052, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 63-6~-84 be disapproved, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll~call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote=
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pebley~ Perry, Rowland.
NOESs •. COMMISSIONERS: Norpo
ABSENTe COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Sides.
--- ----._..._......,._. .
_ .-._ -- ----_____ _ ---.______._.~..--------~r---- _._ _ ...__ _ _---
-_~ r_' ~ __. __ . .__. . _._ . _.__._
~
~ ~ ~
~~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964
~
. ,~
~
i
1971 !
i
RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLIC HEARING. RAWLINS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Box 2382, Terminal Annex,
N0. 63-64-79 and Los Angeles 54, California, and ROBERT AND MARY D. NEWTON, 411 East 20th
Street, Santa Ana, California, Owners; property described ass An irregu-
CONDITIONAL USE lar parcel of land at the southeast corner of Mountain View Avenue and
PERMIT N0. 534 Katella Avenue, with frontages of 198 feet on Mountain View Avenue,
27 feet on Katella Avenue, and 163 feet on the west side of Manchester
GENERAL PLAN Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENLIAL AGRICULTURAL,ZOP;~.
AMENDMENT N0. 8
REQUESTEr CLASSIFICATION: M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONEa
REQUHSTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH AN AUTO PAINT SHOP WITH INCIDENTAL BODY WORK.
Mr. Raymond Utin, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the ;
proposed development, noting the auto paint shop would be similar in construction to the
other Earl Scheib auto painting developments;that the proposed development was consistent ;
with the type of coR,mercial and industrial development on the frontage road and along Katella :
Avenue. '
The Commission noted the proposed owner of the property could present a better plan of devel- ;
opment for the frontage property; that access to the site should be the first rule in the
planning of the proposed developmente j
~
Mc. Utin replied they had •tried to keep the cars away from the line of sight of the freeway ~
and would attempt to incorporate any suggestions the Commission might have.
Tha Commission then stated more should be done to upgrade the appearance of the buiiding,
providing more adequatp circulation to the existing street.
Mr. Corrili, representing Earl Scheib, stated if the corner were cut off for c9.rcula~:on,
this would be more convenient for the development of the property by cutting out 75% o•F the
access to the street; that the upkeep of the building would be in the tradition of•Ear1
Scheib in cleanliness and outward appearance; and in response to Commission questioning,
stated the proposed development would not be similar to the one on Olympic Boulevarii in
Los Angeles since this was the first structure of its kind built by Earl Scheib, and that
within 200 yards of subject property industrial development did exist, and there wc+uld not
be any Saturday, Sunday, or evening work on the premises.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-79
to the meeting of March 2, 1964, to allow the petitioners time to revise plans to be submit-
ted to the Commission for their consideration~ and these revised plans must be in the Plan-
ning Department by February 18, 1964, at 5:00 o'clock pomo Commi.FSioner Chavos seconded
the motione MOTION CARRIEDo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC [-IEARING. PABLO V. AND LAURA K. DOMINGUEZ, 1523 East Santa Ana
N0. 63-64-63 and Street, Anahei.m, California, Owners; S. V. HUNSAKER & SONS, 15855 East
Edna Place~ Irwindale, California, Agent; requesting that property
TENTATIVE MAP OF described ass An L-shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of
TRACT N0. 5471 State College Boulevard and Ball Road, adjacent to the service station
-• - propertyf wi~th frIIntages of 510 feet on Stat2 College Boulevard and -
GENERAL PLAN Ball Road be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL~iURAL, 20NE,
AMENDMENf N0. 9 to the R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE in order to subdivide sub-
ject property into 20 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RGSIDEPT!'IAL, ZONED lots.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a letter had been received
from the developers of subject property requesting a continuance of two weeks be granted
in order to submit a revised tentative map of Tract No. 5471, since the Planning Department
had adv3sed the developers the proposed lots did not meet Code requ3rementse .
Commissioner Camp offered a m~tion to continue Petitionsfor Reclassification No. 63-64-83
and Tentative Map of Tract No. 5471 to the meeting of February ?7, 1964, in order that a
revised~tentative tract map might be submitted. Commissioner Ror:.land seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
_... -..~.------- --- ....._ __
--~ ~, ' . ' ~ ----- _-- ----- _ .
_ ~
i ~
i
~..~
~
MINU.fES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMN~NDATIONS Variance No, 1551 - Ira A. and Etta Keesee, 1922 South Los Angeles
Street, Anaheim, California; property located at 1942 South Los
kngeles Street, Anaheim, California, Clarification of Conditions
in Resolution No. 837, Series 1963-64.
1972
i.'r. Keesee appeared before the Commission and asked for clarification of the required
dedication of 50 feet from the centerline of Los Angeles Street which Right-of-Way was
requesting since it was his understanding only 42 feet was required by the Commission at
the time of the public hearing on Variance No. 1581, but that the setback of the building
would be 60 feet in accordance with the Edison Building to the north.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that Commissioner Camp offered a
motion when subject petition was approved and asked whether it was his recollection that
a 42-foot dedication be required, or a 50-foot dedication; that if the 42 ieet was the
record set-back dedication the Commission desired, this would require an amendment to the
circulat;.on elemer.t of the General Plan which presently indicated a 50-foot half-street
dedication from the centerline of South Los Angeles Street.
Discussion held by the Commission indicated the 42 feet from the centerline of the street
!RdS tY?Bir re~,nmmen~ation f?T Condition NQa ~ Qf ±ho amonriman±~ g_~rn }hn F~{;~en Ruildi.^.f~'
property had already bepn developed, and they showed a 42-foot dedication from the center-
line of Los Angeles Stre4t.
Co~mni~sioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 1053, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adaption~ seconded by Commissioner Perry, to clarify the intent of the Commission in
Resolution No. 837, granted 3uly 22, 1963; that it was the intent of the Commission that
42 feet be required for dedication from the centerline cF Los Angeles Street. (See Reso-
lution 3dok.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos} Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Sides.
ITEN.: N0. 2
Proposed Revision to ParYing Requirements for Walk-up Restaurants.
Commissioner Allre~ offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary io set for public
hearing for February 17, 1904, the oroposed revision to Section 18.04 of tt~e General Provi-
sions for Parki~g Requirements for a Walk-up Restaurant. Commissioner Chavos s~conded thc
motion. MOTION ChRRIED.
ITEM N0. 3
City of Placentia Use Perrt:it No. 63-152 - Permit to es+..~~~l:.sh a~
asphalt plant in an M district on property loc~ted on tl~:- east
side of Placentia Avenue approximately 250 feet northerl ,>,t'
- La Jolla Road., , ._ .. . . . -• - • -
Zoning Coordinator Martin F:reidt presented the notice of public hearing of i:l~a City of
Placentia Use Permit No. 63-152 requesting permission t' establish an asphalt plant on
Placentia Avenue northerly of La Jolla Road, to the Comrt~ission.
It was noted by the Commission that aithough an asphalt plant was a perr.aittt:d use in an
M distric~t, subject property was surrounded by other than industrial uses, namely multiple-
family de.~elopment. '
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to refer subject notice of public hearing to the City
Council if favorable action was'taken on sub3e~ct petition by the Placentia Planning Commis-
sion for their review if they wished to comment to the City of Placentia on the existing
residential uses to the nor•th and south of subject property and the compatibility of'the
proposed use to said residenti:~ uses. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (The Placentia Planning Cammission denied subject petition on January 28, 1964.)
ITEM N0. 4
Correction in spelling of Pohatan Street.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the request by an interested citizen noting that
Pohatan Street was incor•rectly spelled~ that the depertment had made inquiries at the City
Library and the dictionary, and it was noted Pohatan should be spelled "Pohatan" rather
~
~ =t
3
~
f
~..
i
i
I
~
~~
_.. _. .
_ -. .
~.i ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3, 1964 1973
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 4~C,ontinued)_
RECOMMENDATIONS
than "Pohaten".
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the street name
correction be made, designating Pohatan Street presently spelled "Pohaten" to "Pohatan".
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 5.
Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 4427, Revision No. 4-
Sub3ect tract covering approximately 101.4 acres is proposed for
subdivision into 384 R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lots.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Revision No. 4 of Orange County Tentative Tract
No. 4427 to the Commission and reviewed the proposed single-family subdivision location of
said tract. The oevelopment of propertiss adjoining subject property was also reviewed for
the Commission.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Orange County
Tentati~~e Map of Tract Noe 4427, Revision Noo 4 be recommended for approval to the Orange
County Planning Commission. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 6
Orange County Case No. 710 (Sectional District iNap 2-4-9, Exhibit J)
proposing a change from the A~1, Agricultural Distzict to i:he
100-C1-10,000, Local Business District, property located on the
east and west sides of the Yorba Linda Freeway between the Santa
Ana Canyon Road and the Santa Ana River in the Santa Ana Canyon area.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the location of Orange County Case No. 710 for
the Commi~ssion and read the Planning Department's observ~tions to the Commission. '
Commissidner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the following be '
transmitted to the Orange County Planning Commission as the Commission's observations:
"From a joint Commission meeting held between the Orange County Planning Commission and the
Anaheim Planning Commission on November 4, 1963, it was noted that the City was in the
process of developing a Hill and Canyon Area General Plan. The commercial element of this
Generai Plan is being prepared, utilizing the concept of planned unified shopping centers
as opposed to strip comG~ercial.development. In.observing the location, size and shape of
the parcels depicted on ]:xhibit J, the City of Anaheim doe~ not feel that these parcels lend
themselves to the planned unified shopping center concept.
Prior to~approving commercial zoning of this type within the City, we have~ as policy,
required the developer to submit plans of development. plans of this type enable both the
deve~oper and us to_fully unaerstand the ~ro}~osals of development. Due to the lack of plans
and a proposal for a unified ::hopping center~ we can only assume that tl~e devela~enent pro-
posed will be of a strip commFrcial naturee
The Santa Ana Canyon area is relatively untouched by development and provides both the
County of Orange and the City of Anaheim the opportunity to apply sound planning principles
and techniques which wiil discourage concepts of development, such as strip commercial, which
haue created land use problems in the past. We request that you strongly consider the impli-
cations on the precedent set by allowing strip commercial development to take place within
the Hi1l-and Canyon area."
Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ,
ITEM N0. 7
~ Conditional Use Permit No. 411 - Revised Plans.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented the revised plans for the multiple-family develop-
ment on Romneya Drive, noting that an abandonment of an alley 12.62 feet gave sub3ect peti-
tioner a chance to increase his parking area and the green areaf that the present plans
indicated the reduction in the green area to 19 feet to provide additional gae'st parking;
and that it was the intent of the Commission the abandonment of the alley would adequately
serve the sub3ect property, and a reduction in the green area would reduce the livability
of the area as proposed.
_^ ._,__..,_-~_-----..__-~.___~
s~ ~ _. .----- -
, ...- . - - ,
i '
, ;
, - - ~. ...
_ ... .. .
.._-------- -~ __ _ . .. _ _ _ _. :~`~__. __ _
~\.} ~ ~
MINUT'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 3~ 1964 1974
E2ERORTS AND - ITEM N0. 7~Continued)_
RSCAMMENDATIO?7S •
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny the approval of Revision No. 2 of plans
submitted on Conditional Use Permit No. 411. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 8
Conditional Use Permit No. 356 - Request for extension of time.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the subject petition, noting the extension of
time had expired, and the petitioner was still desirous of developing the property as
proposed, namely, for a motel, and recommended a six-months' extension to March 18, 1964,
be granter.l.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time, retroactive,
and expiring March 18, 1964, for Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 356, to complete
time limitation of conditions granting subject petition. Commissioner Allred seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 9 '
Southern California Planning Congress. ~
Commissioners Pebley, Camp, Chavos, Mungall, and Perry indicated they would attend the
Flanning Congress and directed that Public Works Director Thornton Piersall be invited
as a guest of the Commission.
AA70URNMENf - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Pebley
• seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
The meeting adjourned at 11a25 o'clock p.m.
~..
Respectfully submitted, 1~:
~
~i~~~L~//~~/~~~'~PJ '
ANN KREBS~ Secxetary
Anaheim Planning Commission
~ i
• I
i
. • .. . . _ . . . - ~ -~ ' i
~
1
i
. i
~
~l !
~
- _~'__.,"_"~___.'__""'__'-'._'._._.__'...._..___._._..__'_.__""_~__'.___...____'_________.'...., .
~ . . . . . . . ~.~_._._...._..._~_'.""'._--..,