Minutes-PC 1964/02/17~_.__".'."___.____________.____.".._.___._."L____ '~. ~._`__.""."'..'~."
\ f ~ `J
\J
City Hall
Anaheim, California
February 17, 1964
A REGULAR Iu~ETING OF TI-fE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the A~:aheim City Planning Commission was called
' " to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock p.m., a quorum being
presente
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo
- COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Cauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
ABSENf - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Sidesa
FRESENI' - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt
° Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer and Art Daw and
Representative: Wallace Crenshaw
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
INVOC'ATION - Reverend A. Me Engle, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, gave
' the Invocation.
PI:EDGE OF'
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to.the.Flag._.
APPAOVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of February 3, 1964, were approved with the
" TF~'NfiPUTES following correction:
Pages 1972-73 - All references to Pohatan Street or Pohaten Street
should be changed to Powhatan or Pcwhaten Streeta
'"RECLASSIFICATION - CONfINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT TIKKER; 2914 West Lincoln Avenue,
" N0. 63-64-36 and Anaheim, California, Owner; BILLY J. KIICHR, 725'Kenmore Street,, Anaheim,
California, Agent; property described as: An irregular par.cel of land
CONDITIONAL USE approximately 185 feet by 600 feet, the westerly boundar, ~f ~aid property
PERMIT NOo 479 being 110 feet east of Ridgeway Street, and the norther:r boundary being
396 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described
as 2914 West Lincoln Avenuee Property presently classified as R-A,
RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONt R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDHMIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL
DEVHLOPN~Nf - WAIVE ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN
150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of September 16, October 28, November 13, ~
and December 9, 1963, and January 20, 1964, in order that the petitioner might have sufficient
time to submit revised plans and file a tract inap.~ ~ • ' j'
I
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the petitioners had been contacted~
and had then submitted a request for a four-week extension of time in order to relocate the !
existing residence on subject property, whereupon revised plans would be submitted for consid- ~
eration by the Commissiono ;
Com~nissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue °etitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-36
and Conditional Use Permit No. 479 to the meeting of March 16, 1964, to allow the petitioner ;
sufficient time to relocatr L?~~ existing residence and for the submission of revised plans.
Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
i
- 1975 -
. ,. _._ --~--- -- ------ -
----
~-- - _._ _ _,~:
~ ` , i~-- ----- - -- _ ---- -- = .
~._;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, Fet~ruary 17, 1964 1976
RECI:ASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HGARING. PAUL Eo BEATTY, RALPH W. BEATTY~ AND RUTH
N0. 63-64-65 and Ao HARRTS, c,/o Donn Kemble, Attorney at Law, P. 0. Box 1495, Santa Ana,
California, Owners; ORCANA, INCORPORATED, c~o Eckhoff 8, Beam,.B, 0.
CONDITIONAL USE Box 267, Orange, California, Agent; prop?rty described as: An.irregular
PERMI7 N0. 519 parcel of land covering approximately 9.2 acres and. haviac.a frontage of
885 feet on the south side of Anaheim Road., and a f.rontage_.of..855 feet
on the northerly side of the Riverside Fseeway., the easterly hountiary
of said property being approximately 2,020 feet west of the center.l3ne af Hlue Gum.Stree+.s
and furth:~r described as 2610 Anaheim Road. Property classified as R-A, RESIDENfIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEMIAL~ ZONEe
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENfIAL
~ DEVELOPMENf - WAIVE ONE-STORY f~IGHT LIMITATION WITHIN
150 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONED.PROPERTY.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetir,gs of December 23, 1963, and January 20,
I964, to allow the designer of subject property sut:~cient time to consult with the Planning
Department regarding a proposed change in access to Anaheim Aoad.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that three revised elevation plans
had been submitted and presented said plans to the Commission.
The•Commission, upon reviewing the plans, inquired whether any record of easementsfor water,
sewer and power was recordedo
Mr. Wallace Crenshaw, representing the City Engineer, indicated to the Corunission on the ;
plans the location of the water, power, and sewer facilities, and advised the Commission
these mi~ht be relocated, but the City might have some ob3ection t6 it, and that consider-
able cost was involved in this relocationo i
Mr. Kreidt in response to Commission questioning stated the plans reflected the future
right-of-way line and took into account the widening of the freeway and the Anaheim Road
and Sunkist overpass.
Commissioner Pebley entered the Council Chamber at 2s16 p.m.
Mr, Phil Hove, representing the ~designer, appeared before the Commission and presented the
three-dimensional rendering of the proposed development, and stated he was available to
answer any questions the Commission might have9 and advised the Commission it was proposed
to have garages instead of carports for the multiple-family development.
No one appeared in opposition to subiect petitions.
TFIE FIEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noa 1054, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage !
and adopi;ion, seconded l~y Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition i
for Reclassification Noe 63-64-65 be approved, subject to conditions and appr~val of Revision ~
.. Ho. 2,.Exhibit No. 1, and Rev.isiou No.,l, ~xhibits Nos. 2, 3~ and 4. (See Resolution Dooke) ~
1 '
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: j
AYES: CONWIISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee
ABSEATI's COMMISSIONERS~ Camp, Sides.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERSs Pebley.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1055~ Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoptioi,, seconded by Commissioner Rowiand, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit '
No. 519, subject to conditions and that the reclassification was contingent up~~ submission
of a legal description which included only that portion of the property on whi:h development
plans had been considered by the Commission. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follcwing votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEt1fs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Sides.
ABS'tAINs COMMISSIONERS: Pebley.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:r5 ~.me
___
- ----- ----- -
-3s~ ~ ^__-- - ------------- -- . ~
~ ~
<_: ~ ~ •
MII~M'ES, CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION, February 17, ,1464 1977
E~L'ASSIFICATION - CObf:INUED PUBLIC HEARING. MARGUERITH FERAUD, ET AL (deceased), Owner~
DIO'.`ti3-64-69 A..B S..INVESTMENTS~ c~o.Ro GD Kelder~ 13571 Harbor.-BouLeuard,.Sarden
Groue, California, Agent; requesting that propart~.des~T~h~d.ass....An
L-shaped parael...of. land covexing appr-0ximately 7.7 acrasr. L.ocate~l...at •
the southeast corner of . Pa1m .Lane. and. Euclid Street, -and descr•ibed• as: .. PO&TI~1.."6"_ - .
being rectangular in.shape.and having..frontages.of 39~..feet on..the. east.side...af. Euclid ..
Stssat and 283 feet on the.south.side of Palm Lane be reclassi£ied..to..the.C-1,. NEIGEIDOEHOOD
COTuWIERCIAL, ZONH and PORTION "B" - being adjacent to Portion "A': on the.east, rectangular...
in:~stiape and having a frontage of 345 feet o~.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, h.~ULTIPLE- .
FI-MILY RHSIDEtJi'IAL, ZONEo Property presently classified in the R-A,.RESIDEMIAL AGRI-
CULTURAL~ ZONE. . -
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of January 6 and FebruanK.3, 1964,. in
~rder to provide the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans.which were to be
reviewed by the Interdepartmental Committee.
Mr. Aga~anian, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
arsd reviewed the revised plans s~•'~mitted for Commission consideratione
Mr. Robert Jackson, 1684 Palais Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subj~ect petition and stated it was his recommendation that subject property be developed .
foF R-1, single-family subdivision exclusively; that the a~jacent.single-family subdiv.isioR •
developRent had homes valued between $30,000 and $36,000, and the proposed apartment d~evel•-
opment ~uould have occupants whose interests were not similar to the single-family homeowners;
that the Commission should consider the fact that single-family homeowners were in the area
before any apartment dwellings to which the agent for the petitioner had alluded; that the
homeowners were attorneys, doctors, airline pilots, etce, who were not desirous of moving
from Anaheim, but might be forced to if apartment development were approved for subject
property;thattheir children walked to school, which was adjacent to the public park to the
east of subject property; that a vacancy factor considerably higher than average was indicat-
ed in a survey he and the other opposition had made on Ball Road and Palm Lane; tihat no evi-
dence was presented which indicated subject property could not be developed for single-family
subdivision; and that at the time he moved into the subdivision, he had been assured the
property to the north would remain as R-lo
Mr, Agajanian, in rebuttal, stated he owned subject property; that the escrow had been
closed in January; that the en+-y for the pxoposed multiple-family development would be on
Pdlm Lane, across the street from the other apartments; that, in his opinior,, the only other
way subject property could be developed would be for multiple-family development, since it
was not suited for single-family resid~ntial use because it was adjacent to the school play-
ground and commercial frontage on Euclid Street; and in response to Commiseion questioning
stated adiacent to the north of subject property was R-3 development; that he owned other
multiple-family development on Loara Street which he had maintained and of which he was proud;
that with th~: population increase in the City, it was necessary to construct more apartments~
and one-sto~,~y development was proposed for the southerly portion of subject property in order
not to encxoach upon the single-family subdivision to the south; that the revised plans had
been submitted to the property owners, some of whom indicated they wauld not oppose multiple-
family development, but would oppose two-story construction adjacent to the R-1; that he had
assured them one-story construction would be provided for the southerly portion of subject
pnoperty and two-story for the Paim Lane portion; that single-fan.,:y suUdivision did not exist
to the north of subject propertyj and that the pioposed developinent would~be an asset to the'
City.
Mr. Jackson again appeared before the Commission and stated any new construction within the
City would be an asset to the City; that the Commission should consider the property rights
of the property owners to the south and west of subject property; that the Anawood Tract
extended westerly of Euclid Street; that single-family sub~ivision could back up to the
Euclid frontage and northerly tu Palm Lane~ and that all homes located south of subject
property would be affected by the proposed development; that a road could be considered a
sufficient buffer between the existing apartments on Palm Lane and the suggested single-
family subdivislon of sub3ect property; that a shortage of singl~2-family homes was more
indicative than a shortaye of apartments; that none of the property owners ad~acent to the
school grounds ob3ected to being located adjacent to its that the increase in traffic on
Palm Lane would be a jeopardy to the children who would use it to go to the school; and
that it was his opinion no one would object to the existing fire station and the noises
from the school.
In response to Commission question;ng whether Mro J~~kson would purchase a home backing
up to a fire station or Euclid S'..reet~ Mr. Jackson stated there r~as similar development.
across the street on Euclid Street, and no one seemed to be moving from that single-family
development, and inquired whether the Commission was desirous of destroying the entire area
of single-family development because of the proposed development.
i
;
,
I ~
/
- --- _.__ _..._.._....
_ --
__.. _..,-~.. _-•- -------- ---._._ _~._ ~ „r
._. .--~ ~ ~. .....__. ... ..._ ___.__.
j 7 •
l ' __._..~....
.
~~ ~~ ~
MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 179 1964
1978
RE~'LASSIFICATION - The Commission then discussed what would be more appropriate for a
NQ:.~ti3-64-69 buffer to the fire station in the C-7., whether apartments were more
(Continued) appxopxiate.oz single-family developmeut~- •• •- --•
Comnissioner Chavos stated he would not favorably consider commeraial deuelopment.£or the
Enclid Street frontage because this would be a spot commercial devel.opment..adjacent to the
13braTy and fire station. •~ •
Mr. Billy Runkle, 1683 Palais Road, appeared before the Commissian_.and_stated that.although
his property was located approximately 300 feet from the fire.s.tatinn,.he would.much.pref.er
the fire station because of its limited activity~ to multiple-family development,which would
be utilizing their facilities at all hours of the day and night; that two-story construction
wou3d invade his privacy, since his swimming pool was located immediately adjacent to subject
pxoperty; that even if commercial development were approved for the Euclid Street frontage,
the.activity there would not extend into all hours of the night since normal business hours
would be observed; and t::1t he was opposed to the proposed multiple-family development be-
cause of the reduction in the nroperty value of the single-£amily homes~and the additional
noisE with many more families and automobiles utilizing the facilities to the northo
Dr. Richard Katz, I655 Palais Roa4, appeared befoze the Commission in opposition and stated
he concurred with the other opposition, and wished io further state that witY~ the proposed
140 apartments, considerably more automobiles and people would occupy them than the twenty-
fiVe single-family homesf that it was a well-known fact that when apartments were built in
an area, after a few years the neighborhood became deteriorated, thus reducing the property
valuation of any adjacent property; that the City of Anaheim was considerably below the cities
of Orange and Santa Ana and in the Gount.y in the construction of single-family homes, but was
considerably higher than all other Or4nge County cities in the construction of apartments. .
htr. Agajanian further stated progress of the City of Anaheim was indicated because of the
construction of many more apartments; that if apartment buildings had the proper upkeep,
these would be a definite asset; that he was proud of the apartment development he presently ,
owned on Loara Street; and that he proposed to have a very attractive development for subject
propertye
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to Commission questioning, Mro Jackson stated the majority of the children used
the gate at tha southerly end of the playground to go to school, and the only onES using
the Euclid frontage were those who had to go down Palm Lane to reach the schoole
Mre Kreidt, in response to ComEnission questioning, stated the proposed development for sub-
ject property was 26 units per net r,esidential acre; that the circulation as proposed could
be substantially improved with the extension of the cul-de-sac or alley around the periphe•ry
of the property for adequate fire protection; that it was difficult to calculate the net
acreage, but that it should be less than that shown on the plano
The Commission then discussed the possibility of proposing single-story construction for the
entire parcei, and if this were done, the single-family residents on Palais Road would not
be quite as aware of multiple-family development existing to the north of a six-foot masonry
wall,w'.~ich was a requirement; that the Commission should consider continuance of subject ,
petit~.nn in ordes to..have revised plans with lower density submittedo '
t
In response to Commission questioning, the petitioner stated thirty units had been eliminated ~
by submission of the revised plansf that he would be willing to reduce th~ number of units, '~
if tiie Commission so desired; that he would work with the City and the property own~rs in
order to develop :he property compatible to all; and that it was his desire the Commission ~
consider the plans as submitted for approval for multiple-family subdivision reclassii°ica- I
tion with the stipulation that plans be submitted later for approval.
Commissioner Chavos offerecl a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification Noe 63-64-69 be disapproved. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. The
motion failed for a want of a majorityq the voting being three for the motion and four against ;
the motion, with three absenteesa
Further discussion by the Cornmission for clarification from the City Attorney's representa- ~.
tive regarding a motion to cuntinue the petition until the petitioner submitted revised plans=
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised ,the Commission that the Commission might do this,
but the petitioner might be entitled to consideration and could not determine on such short
notice whether or not he would abide by th~ Commission's request for revised plans; that al-
though the petitioner might indicate his desire to reduce the proposed development to single
story, revised plans could not be submitted for the next meeting; therefore, it would be in i
.-~ _ - - ~ _ _ ~_-, ~
~
MiNCiTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, February 17, 1964
1979
E2&CI:ASSIFICATION - order that the Commission continue the consideration of the petition to
N0.« 63-64-69 the next meeting in order that more Commissioners might be present and a
(Continued) review taken of the previous action, and a motion then wauld he..in order
for approval or denial, and at that time, the petitioner migl~t be able to
state whether . or not he was desixous- of submitting. r.e~rised..r n~" .. -.-
Crnmnissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3:15 p.me
GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC 1-1EARINGo PABLO V. AND LAURA K. DOMINGUEZ, 1523.East
AMENDMENf N0. 9 Santa Ana Street, Anahe3m, California, Owners; S. V. HUNSAKE!? 8 SONS,
15855 East Edna Place, Trwindale, California, Agent; requesting-that.
RECLASSIFICATION property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner
N0: 63-64-83 of State College Boulevard and Ball Road, adjacent to the service station
property, with frontages of 510 feet on State College Boulevarc! and..Ball
TENTATIVE MAP OF Road be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.to•the
TRACT D?0, 5471 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE in order to subdivide subject
property into 17 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lotse
Subject Gsneral Plan Amendment may be necessary in order to reflect the land use policies
of ~the Planning Commission and the City Council in conjunction with the action taken on
Reclassiiication Noa 63-64-83e
Subject tract, located on the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road, and
covering approximately 8.2 acres is proposed for subdivision into 17 R-3, Multiple-Family
Residential, Zoned lotso
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting o: February 3, 1964, in order that the .
petitioner might submit a revised tentative tract mapo
Mr. Wally Nickel, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
"and asked that the reclassification be considered before the amendment to the General Plan.
~'The'Commission reviewed the location of subject property in conjUnction with the General
" Plan'amendment and the revised tentative tract map and inquired what the density for the
pibposed development was.
Zoning Coord3nator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that because of lack of tirt~e and
sufficient help, the density vias not calculated at this time. Mr. Kreidt further reviewed
the location of subject property, noting its proximity to the southeast industrial area, ,
and further stated a lettgr irom an adjoining property owner indicated if subject petition
were approved for multiple-family development, he would, in turn, request muitiple-family
development reclassification for his propertye
N~r. Nickel then stated the plan as developed did not anticipate any further multiple-family
development adjacent to sub;ect property; that R-3 development existed to the north of sub-
ject property, across Ball Road; that the proposed development would compliment t}:e property
to the north, as weil as create an adequate buffer for the industrial property to the sou.th;.
that carports were being preposed which would help in separating the living environment fxom
the M-1 to the south; and that in his opinion, the entire Ball Road frontage would be ideal
for multiple-family c'~velopmenta
Mrs~ Dominguez, one of the owners, appeared nefore the Commission and stated~subject property
was being leased for multiple-~Family devetopment, and was not being sold; that some of the
property to the east was in ihe County; that alr.hough at one time M-1 zoning was initiated,
subject property was still R-A, with a gas station at the southeast corner of Ball Road and
State College Boulevard; and, in her opinion, the proposed development was idealfor sub~ect
property. -
Mr,. Henry A. Fredricks, developer of the property to the north of Ball Road, consisting of
mti1tiple-family development and commercial development, appeared before the Commission and
s~atRd the commercial shopping center was almost finished; that they had some'difficulty in
o taining a supermarket similar tc, Alpha Beta or Ralphs Market because it was the opinion of
~...,
these proposed lessees the apartme~~ts presently existing were inadequat~ to warrant a large
supermarket; that if the proposed m.iltiple-family development were construc~ed, this would
rtjqre than adequately suppiy additional customers for a Triple-A supermarket, and 'ne felt, in
kiis opinion, the proposed development would enhance and improve his development.
In response to Commission questioning regarding the previous statement made to the Commission
by Mr. Fredricks regardi.~g the economics of the proposed commercial development of~the
northeast corner of State College and Ball Road, Mr. Fredricks stated that at one time it was
assumed ti.~ cammercial development being proposed would be adequa:tely suppor.ted~.by.-~he adja-
cent single-ramily development and the multiple-family development approvep ny the Council.
I
~
_ __ .....
-------_--~- ---- ,----._-------- . ~
. _ - ,t ~
i ~
'
---- --- -_ _ __ _ _. _. . - -
- ----~ ,
, _ __-
~ .' ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1980
GEI~tERAL PLAN - Mr. Albert.TtlUssau, owner of a parcel.of land ad~acent to subject property
AUIENDIV~NT N0. 9 to the east, appeared before the Commission and stated the property he
owned was under .the jurisdiction of the County; that, in his opinion, the
RECLASSIFICATION proposed development should be considered favorably; and that he hacF lived
N0. 63-64-83 in the area since 1916e
TEM'ATIVE MAP OF Discussion held by the Commission indicated if subject petition.were
TRACT N0. 5471 approved, this would set the pattern of development for the. entire Ball
(Continued) Road frontage to the east, consisting of approximately_.LQO.acxes, f.or.
multiple-family development; that this would ttien reduce the available
industrial properties in the City; that the Commission..and the CnunciL.must.decide ~hether
or n~t the City was oversupplied with industrial property designated on the General Plan for
industrial development; that if a breakdown in the proposed industrial properties was made,
the Commission wou::l have to consider the property on the northwest corner of Ball Road and
State College Boulevard, as well as that to the west of subject property; that at the time
the Commission considered sub~ect and adjoining properties f.or industrial purposes in con-
sideration of the Generzl Plan, many of the property owners had come in and talked with the
Cortmiission, and at that tiime were favorably inclined toward industrial development; that at
the.time the Commission had public hearings on the General Plan, no opposition was expressed
ret•ative to proposing subject and abutting properties in the southeast industrial area for
industrial puiposes; that the Ball Road frontage was contiguous to the railroad and the Santa
Ana Freeway and the proposed Orange Freeway to the east, and when this Orange Freeway was
completed, this would open the request for industrial development in that areas and it would
be the Commission's duty to decide whether or not the M-1 area should be broken down to per-
mit R-3 development, since many of the industrial developments had been established there on
the assumption that residential development would not locate adjacent to them.
Commissioner Chavos then stated he would like to refresh the Commission's memory regarding
the northeast industrial area breakdown; that it was up to the Commission to maintain a firm
policy on the industrial deveYopment for the C3ty of Anaheim in order to assure any industrial
developers the City would maintain thefr industrial properties for that purpose.
Commissioner Perry expressed the opinion that in April of 1962, the Commission had proposed
the industrial area's anaiysis, which was upheld by the City Council, and this, again, was
re-analyzed ir~ July of 1963, and was further upheld by the City Council; that the City had
committed themselves to industrial purposes for subject property, and this must be maintained; ~:
and that the subject property and abutting properties were an indication of a good line of
demarcation of residential and industrial development, with a 106-foot wide street as the
separationo
Mrs. Dominguez again appeared before the Commission and stated several of the property owners,
including herself, were present at the hearings regarding the proposal of industrial develop-
ment for the south side of Ball Road, and at that time she had asked ~shether or not this
would be a flexibie proposal on the General Plan and had been advised it would be her right
to ask for any type of develapment of her property, and no industrial development had been
approved ior her property; that the Southern Pacific Railroad had many acres of proposed
industrial land which had not been dev2lopedg and that the Commission should consider their
action on subject property at this timeo
Commissioner Gauer then stated he was on the Commission at the time the hearings for the
southeast industrial arPa-~evelopm~nt was discussed with tk-e property owners;..that everyone.,
seemed to be in agreement for industrial development; that a number of industrial develop-
~aents preseatly existed in the vicinity of subject property; and that if subject petition
were granted, there was no reason why the property owner to the south could not request
multiple-family deve:opmente
Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 3s45 peme
Mrso Dominguez then stated, in her opinion, the industrial development should have its line
of demarcation south of Winston Road and then buffering R-3 to the north.
Commissioner Gauer then stated industrial land was a long time in developing, whereas there
presently seemed to be a great demand for multiple-family developmente
THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offared Resolution No. 1056, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, te recommend to the City Council that General
plan Amendment Noe 9 be disapprovedy based on findingse (See Resolution Book.)
Ori roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs C06~MISSIONERSs Allred~ Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley,.Perry, Rowlando
NOESs COMMISSIONERSi None.
ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: C:,mp, Chavos, Sidese
_..- -. . ___ _ _ _ ....
~ _~.. _~~.-----._...___~._____ _._.__~ _ .._ _ _._.-
_ _~ ,
^ - ~ ~ - _~_ _ _ ... . . . ..... .. : .
I ~
.l .. .~~
t._~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 179 19b4
1981
GFNERAL PLAN - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1057, Series 1963-64, and
pM6~NDMENT N0, 9 moved.#ar its passage and adoption,•seconded by-.Commissinner.Perx.y.r~to
recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi£icaticn-I1~o
RECLASSIFICATION 63-64-83 be disapproved, based.on the.faat that the-industria.L.aseas
N0. 63-64-83 analysis.and .the re-analysis recommended by resolution ta.the..~ity..Council
and upheld by the City Council, pro~ected subject pxopext~e....fna._industrial
TENfATIVE MAP OF purposes; that an adequate buffer area was.being.provided.with..the.106-foot
'TRACT N0. 5~471 wide Ball Road from any residential. uses to. the north .o£..Ha1l..Bnad;... that
Continued) with the completion of the Orange Freeway, industr.ial.development._for the
southeast industrial area would progress•considerablK.frzstar~ .and.that i£
the line on industsial.development of properties within the City of Anahaim..was nn~ held,.
there would be no assurances by the County of Orange the noxtheast industrial area would not
also be broken down, (See Resolution Booko) •
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following.votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland~.. .
NOESe COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEPII': COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Sidese
Comnissioner Allred offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 5471, Revision No. 1,
based on the fact that the property should be developed for industrial purposeso Commissioner
Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARINGa INITIATED BY THfl ANAki~IM PLANNING COMMISSION~ 204 East
N0. 16 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposes a variance from ~ode:
Section 18e38o020, to permit the use of a residential structure for an
escrow office.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONfINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GORDON HANEY AND WILLIAM FERDI, 2630 Coronado
N0. 63-64-51 Drive, Fullerton, California, Owrers; requesting that property described
ass A rectangular parcel of land at the northeast corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Larch Street with frontages of 124 feet on Lincoln Avenue and
65 feet on Larch Street, and further described as 102 North Larch Street, be reclassified
from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL, ZONE to the C-1~ iVEIGFIBORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONEo
Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-81 was continued from the meeting of February 3,
1964, in order that the Petition for Variance Noo 1622 might be advertised.
Zoning Coordinator Mart}n Kreidt reviewed the Report to the Commission relative to the filing
of the vaxiance~ noting it was recommended that the variance be terminated; that Area Develop-
ment Plan No. 1 indicated on the east wall of the Gouncil Chamber incorporated subject and
abutting property to the north and five properties to the west, to pro~ect C-0, Commerc9.a1
Office, use for these properties, and if the Commission was desirous of pro3ecting subject
property for commercial office use, subject petitions be continued for four weeks in order
to allow the Pianning Aepartment sufficient time to advertise these six parcels under con-
sideration in Area Development Plan No. 1 for reclassification from R-1~ One-Family Residen-
tial,Zone to C-0, Commercial Office, Zone. _
Mr. Gordon Haney, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and was concerned
the Commission originally continued subject reclassification to this meeting in order that
the vaxiance be filed, and because of the fact that subject property was a part of a single-
family subdivision, although commercial development existed to the east~ and now it had been
suggested a further continuance of four weeks be considered for commercial office zoning of
subject property.
Mr. Kreidt then state~l tF~e problem presented by the petitioner had grown considerably since
the last meeting, and the Commission felt it was more desirable to project C-0 Zoning for the
Lincoln Avenue frontage of which sub3ect property was a portion, and to develop an Area
Development Plan in conjunction with any reclassification of the residences fronting on
Lincoln A~enue.
Mr. Haney then stated he proposed to improve subject property,with approximately $6,200000
I being spent on the exterior; that although he was in agreement with what the Commission was
doing~ it was hard to conceive an additional four weeks extension of time in order to permit
advertising for the C-0 Zone of the properties involved.
~~ Mr. Kreidt then stated that the City Council would hold up any action on subject petitions,
pending subsequent action by the Commission relative to the C-0 Zone so that it would be to
~ the petitioners' advantage to have the four-week delay rather than a possible six to eight-
week delay~ if subject petition were considered by the Council.
~ ~~ ', ~
;~
i •
.
' - ~ -- --. _
~__~ ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1982
i
VARIANCE N0. 1622 - The Commission then indicated they had decided no extensive remodeling
should be projected for the exterior of sub3ect pro~erty; that.the
REC3.ASSIFICATION residential characteristics of the home should be maintained_in_order.
N0..63-64-81 to harmonize with the aesthetic development of,all.residential_ homes to
(Continued) the north of subject propertya
...~ Commissione•r PerrK offered a motion to continue Petitions_fns..Rerlassi-
fication No. 63-64-81 and Variance No. 1622, to the meeting of.Mar.ch 16,__19b4,..in.oxder to
allow the P~.anning Department sufficient time to advertise the subject property and the
property abutting to the north, and the five parcels westerly of subject property presently
used for residential purposes, to the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone, and to complete the Area
Development Plan Noo 1 which encompasses these parcels of propertyo Commissioner Pebley
seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
GENERAL PLAN AIu~NDMEM NOo 10 !
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC i-LFARING. HUBERT D.DRUMMOND, ET AL, 927 South Webster '
N0.~3-64-62 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; LEONARD SMITH REAL ESTATt, 125-D
South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that
property described as: Those properties along the east and west side
of Webster Street, between Orange Avenue and Ball Road, and being further described as: !
"PORTION A" - those properties along the east and west side of Webster Street with the i
exception of (1) Several prdpertias having a frontage of 270 feet on the south side of ~
Orange Avenue and frontage o~~700 feet on the east side of Webster Street; (2) A 75-foot ~
by 270-foot parcel of land on the west side of Webster Street, approximately 1,000 feet ~
south of the centerline of Orange Avenue; (3) A 128-foot by 301-foot pzrcel of land on the ;
west side of Webster Street, approximately 400 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road; ;
and "PORTION B" being a 135-foot by 241-foot parcel of land located on the northwest corner ':
of Webster Street and Ball Road, and a 301-foot by 218-foot parcel of land located on the ~
northeast corner of Ball Road and Webster Street, be reclassified from the R-A, RtSIDEMIAL j
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE on "Portion A" and C-1, ;
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE on "Portion B". l
Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of December 23, 1963, in order to prepare !
planning Study Noo 67-28-1 which :n;~icated development of subject properties based on alter- ~
natives presented to the Commission at said meeting,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission their previous action and sub- '
mitted graphic portrayals of subject properties with the four basic alternatives, namely,
5.8 dwelling units per net residential acre~ 7 units per net residential acre, 14 units per
net residential acre, and 27 units per net residential acreo
Mre Kreidt further stated the City Council had continued consideration of the Ball Road '
portion of subject property in order to receive recommendations from the Cor;a~ission regard- i
ing their decision on the Webster Street properties~ and that he would present a verbal ~
report to the Council at their meeting on Tuesdaya j
1
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 4:11 pem. ;
i
Mr. Leonard Smith, agent for the petitioner, appeared 'aefore the Commission and stated at ~
~he City Council meeting on January 28, 1964, a revisec3 plot pla~ had been submitted to the ~
Commission covering Lots 20 ar.d 23 on Reclassification No. 63-64-62; that these revised
plans were in conjunction with Reclassification No. 63-64-42, and proposed single-story, (
multiple-family development, and a request was submitted to withdraw the request for waiver ;
of the single-story heigh•I: limitation; and at the January 28, 1964, meeting the Council again
continued the previous reclassification in order to receive recommendations from the Planning
Commissicn regarding the Webster Street propertiese ii
Commissioner Allred lefi, the Council Chamber at 4:20 p.m. i
i
Mr. Smith then reiterated his statements regarding the submission of plot plans, noting there
were 39 parcels and 69 owners involved in subject petition; that to request development plans ;
for all these parcels would be imposing a considerable financial burden on the property owners ;
if they were not assured they could utilize their properties for the proposed reclassification; I
that the Commission could attach a condition that any development plans be submitted to the ~
Commission and Council prior to the reading of an ordinance or reclassification of each indi- ~'~
vidual parcel; and the property owners should be given an opportunity to develop their own
properties for multiple-famil.y use under the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone require- ;
ments; and that there was no ordinance requirement which stated plans would have to be sub- ,
mitted, and since there was no ordinance requirement, it was his opinion the Commission could ,
not require a plan. ~ '
~ . ^ _
• i '
I __._... _.
~ ~
~
r~
L
MIANTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1.7, 1964 1983
GENERAL PLAN AW~NDMENf N0. 10
RECLASSIFICATIQN - The Commission expressed the opinion that by requiring piot plans, this
NO<. 3- ~ reduced the elemsnt of speculation, and did not make the Commission a
Continued part of the speculation.
Mr..Smith then stated he was not in agreement with the Commission; that ratt.ex_.than require
individual plans with possible "spot zoning" in the area, the property owners desired to
ha.ve a uniform zoning development of the areao
Commissioner Allred returned to the Council Chamber at 4s28 p.mo
Fu~ther discussion was held by the Commission relative to the desired number of units per
residential acrej that if the property owners of subject properties were informed of the
maximum method of development9 this might be a means for upgrading the area by redevelopment
of t~e land, and this might be a tool whereby these property owners might negotiate for
devalopment of their properties; and that it was the Commissioners' duty to assist in the
redevelopment of subject properties, if at all possible.
Commissioner Gauar then stated his fEel?ng regarding the requiring 'bf development plans was
that a better controi wauld be afforded the City in preventing a hodge-podge type of develop- ~,
ment for the subject propertiesj that the R-3 code density was too heavy for sub~ect properties~
since single-family development abutted to the east and west and a portion of the north; that
the Commission had tried to minimize development of properties for straight R-3 development
with approval of garden-type apartmentso
In response to Commission questioning regarding development of subject properties for single- `
family use, Mro Smith stated it was economically unfeasible to attempt to sell subject proper- ;
ties for single-family use since it might be more difficult to combine parcels of land for
subdivision purposes, and the property owners had indicated their desire to•redevelop sub3ect ~~
properties for multiple-family useo j
Further discussion by the Commission relative to approval for multiple-family development
with the zoning for each individ~al parcel being granted after all conditions of the resolu- i
tion of intent had been met; that it was physically impossible to construct 27 units per net
residential acre, since a portion of the properties within 150 feet of the R-1 developments ',
to the east and west would have to be single-story; that the narrow, deep lots would have to ;
be, i~ turn, combined in order to conform with Code requirements of adequate side and front
yard setbackse i.
Mr. Homer Kirk, owner. of 567 South Webster 5treet, appeared,before the Commission and stated
he had originally sold his property for subdivision, but this venture had not materialized,
and he was forced to assume ownership of this property; that he had renters on his property,
and, in his opinion, his property was the worst looking in the neighborhood because he was
unable to insist upon maintenance ~f the property by the rentersj that if he were able to
sell his land to a good developer, this would greatly improve the area and enhance the other ;
properties adjacent to his; that, in his opinion, his case was a hardship case since he was !
unable to have anyone purchase this property after it had been with real estate offices for '
a number of months, and the real estate people had told him no one would buy until the Com-
mission made a decision relative to development of the properties on Webster Street; that
the only people who contacted him were those who were desirous of raising horses and dogs ~
in the area, and the prices offered for the property were in keeping with that type of use, ~
and were not acceptable to him for possible saleg that it was his suggestion~the Commissiori ~
ask for development plans at the time each parcei requested reclassification; and he~
would like to see his property developed for multiple-family use>
The Commission inquired as to the intent of the property owners relative to adequate fire
protection, if heavier density were proposed for the properties on Webster Street, and Mro t
Smith replied it was their intent to use the City water facilities only when all the property j
owners had signed up for watero '
Mr. Dale Drummond, 927 South Webster Street, appeared before the Commission and stated one
of the first things that Mre Smith had informed the property owners was they were in no way
obligated to him to develop their properties; that the property owners could do with their
Properties what they saw fit; that he had been remodeling his home, but had stopped because
he felt he would be unable to live on the street because of the manner in which the street
was deteriorating; that assessments for sewer and water were being made on the properties,
and he had no intenti'on of any further improvement of his property until the Commission had
expressed their ideas for development of the Webster Street properties; and that single-family
subdivision was impossible, since all the developers who had contacted him were in favor of
multiple-family development>
Mrs. Albert Gudes, 652 South Velere Street, a,ppeared before the Commission and stated she
was in favor of the garden-type, multiple-family development which could be a more adequate
type of development because of the jurisdiction the Commission would have over any formal
development.
i
i
__.
_ .. __._.._. ___
- -- ~----. ____--------- _ _~--
,.. - ----:_~ . ~i.
~__ > .:~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1984
GE~RAL PLAN AMENDMHNT N0~ 10
REG~{CSSIFICATION - Mre William Simmons, 639 South Webster Street, appeared before the
NOe:: 3- 4- Commission and stated the City of Anaheim had spent a great deal of
Carttinued money to improve the area; that the properties on Webster Street were
- rapidly bordering on a slum.axea;.that a.nice schooL was located.on the
south side of the subject properties; that it was~impET3tive..the..area be
improved; that he owned two and one-half acres on Webster Street, and..evexy month.he..was
contacted by developers proposing multiple-family development; that as the situation pxesently
stood, he had no intentions of improving his property.until•some• decision was made by..the
Commission; and that if the City approved multiple-family deve].cpmeat,.this would improve tt;e
area•.and wouid create additional revenue for the ~ity.~through.a..£orm_of..taxes. IVIz, Simmans~
further replied, in response to Comnission questianing.,. that.the.pioper.ty.ownexs.wexe..not_
losing interest in the maintenance of their.properties,.but.many of.ttie properties were.form-
erly•chicken ranches, and the homes were maintained in good ordar, but.sinice the chicken.xanch-
es:#~ad left, the homes were in absentee ownership and wexe run down because of this fact, and
the homes.were.not painted or the lawns were not cute . •
T!~ IiARING WAS CLOSED,
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to any heavy density being proposed for subject
properties being adverse to their thinking for the area as previously indicated by proposing
seven units per.net residential acre~ that consideration should.he.given to...the R-1, single-
family residen':ial subdivisions adjacent t~ the east and west of subject property; that single-
story,multiple-family development might be considered; that the existing seven units per net
residential acre was insufficient to permit the property owners to realize an adequate retur~
for•~tlieir properties; that some discretion should be used in proposing higher density:so that
adequate protection could be afforded the single-family subdivision homeowners adjacent to
suhject propertieso
Mre Kreidt, in response to a question by the agent for the petitioner, stated that side yard.
setbacks, drives, and turn-aro~and areas might permit a possible 15 units on a parcel of land.
163 by 218 feet, but this figure might change, depending on the sizes of parcels of land,
and whether or not a guarantee could be made several individual homeowners would combine
their properties to develop a worthwhile garden-type apartmento Mro Kreidt then suggested
to the Gommission a compromise of 18 units per net residential acre might be considered by
them, provided one-story development was main~ained within 150 feet of single-family divi~ on
developments, as required by Code; that condition of approval might be a resolution of intent
requiring that before any parcel received the R-3 zoning, development plans be submitted in
order to verify the plans were compatible, as well as within the intent of the Commission's
approval of the sub3ect petition, and that by so doing, it would be possible to require a
conditional use permit if a planned residential development were requested, and afford the
Commission a chance for adequate review of any development plans for the Webster Street
propertye
Commissioner Rowland then stated that if any recommendation were made for approval of subject
petition, this be considered an urban renewal d2velopment, rather than a new development,
since the property under consideration had different aspects than raw land; that the suggested
18 dwelling units per net residential acre was a realistic compromise, and the Cemmission in
granting this would be assisting the property owners in developing preperties now deteriorat-
ing.
Chairman Mungall asked that Commissioner Gauer replace him as chairman at 5:12 p.m. Commis-
sioner Mungall left the Council Chambere •
The Commission continued discussion on the possibilities for adequate controls on any develop-
ment plans for the 39 parcels of land being considered under subject reclassification, and
asked that:Mre Kreidt read all of the Interdepartmental Committee recommendatibns. It was
notecl Condition No. 10 should be revised to include "provided that said plans shall indicate
a density of not more than 18 units per net residential ~cre and further that the one-story
height limitation be maintained within 150 feet of R-1 subdivided property to the east and
west".
Chai'rman Mungall returned to the Council Chamber at 5s22 p.mo and Commissioner Gauer returned i
the chairman§hip to Mre Mungall. ~
I
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1058, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and ;
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan i
Amendment No. 10 be approvede (See Resolution Booke) ;,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the ~ollowing vote: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENf: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Sidese
\
-- .~.--- _---_r~- --r-----_._._._.----._._...._______~-_
I
Pebley, PerrY, Rowland. , ~
-------~ '~
- --- .. . ' ~ . i .---- -_ . . ._ _ . _
,
. ~ '
:. .~
cJ ~ ~ '0 ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1985 ,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEM' N0~ 10 .. ..
'RE~L'RSSTFICATION - Comdissioner Allred offered Resnlution Noa 1059, Series 1963-64, and
NOa • 3= 4- moved fox its.passage_and_adoptior~, seconded by CommissionPr Gauer,
~dn'tinued to recommend to the City Council that Petition•for Reclassif.icatinn
' No. 63-64-62 be approved for C-0, Commercial Office, .Zor~a.,. £nr...P.oxtion..B,
and-:in accordance with provisions of said section of the.Code.•.acul..that,.Por.ticn A he.xeclassi-
fied to R-3 as a resolution of intent, with a maximum of.18 dwelling.:.un.i#s:_per_net.sesidential
acxey and further provided that single-story construction being maintained wfthin''•'150 f.eet of
R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone to the east, west, and'nortli of subject property; and plans
for•development shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council, which
indica.te a resolution qf intent has been met and rezoning shall be contingent upon.approval
of the development plans~ (See Resolution Book,) ,
On..roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
NUES'i . COMMISSIQNERS: Noneo
A9SENT: COMMISSTONERS: Camp, Sideso
Commissioner Rowland stated that in voting "AYE", he wished it understood his approval,was
based on the fact the reclassification would be in the nature. of redevelopment, rather than
development as raw land.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to develop a policy regarding the submission of plans
as followss (1) Raw land to be developed under lease agreement - plans requirede
{l) Raw land to be developed as a planned residential development -
POLICY plans to be required and the filing of a conditionai use permit.
REGARDING ~3) Raw land to be subdivided and sold as lots - no plans.
SUBMISSION t4) Property presently developed to be used for C:ommercial-Office~ Zone or
OF PLANS any other zone deemed compatible to the area - Area Development Plan to
• be compiled by the Planning Department - the filing of a conditional
use permit, and/or compliance with the provisions of the C-0 or other
appropriate zoneo
Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLIC FIEARING. MARION C. HENRY, 1212 Westmont Drive, Anaheim, California,i
N0. 63-64-87 ' Owner; requesting that property described ass A rectai~gular parcel of ~
land at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Gilbert Street with frontages ~
of 615 feet on Ball Road and 225 feet on Gilbert Street, and further des-
cribed as 2410 West Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDHNfIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ';
to the C-1, NHIGF~ORHOOD COA~A~IERCTAL, ZONE to construct a commercial building on subject property~
Zonir.~ Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission the condition of approval on a previousi
pe'..ition filed by the petitioner required subject property be reclassified to the C-1, Neigh- '
borhood Commercial, Zone. ;
Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 5:30 p.m.
ldr. Marion C. Henry, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available
to answer any questionso
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE FIEARING WAS CLOSF.De
In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Henry stated the commercial development was already
established, and if any additional trash storage areas were required, he would comply with this,
Mr. Henry stated he was somewhat concerned with the recommended condition requiring a three-
foot strip of landscaping; that if this were done, the required parking space would be inade-
qu~te.
Mr. Kreidt then stated that under the present interpretation of the parking requirements in
the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, the area to be provided for parking spaces would be
more than adequate, and it was desirable the three-foot strip uf landscaping be a requirement
for separation of the parking from the sidewalk which would be on the front of subject property
and that only eleven parking spaces would be eliminated by the proposed landscaping requirement
Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the six-foot masonry wall ~
along the west property line, to which the petitioner also ob~ected. j
~ .~
I .
1 _ . . - ,~
~_~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1986
~_ -
RECLASSIFICATION - Mro Henry, after considerable discussion, asked that the Commission
NOo 63-64-87 consider the stepping down of the six-foot masonry wall to three and
Continued one-half feet in the front portion of the Tastee-;~reeze to the edge
of the Tastee-Freeze structureo
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1060, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-87 be approved, subject to conditions, and the requirement
that the six-foot masonry wall along the west boundary line be stepped down to 42 inches in
the front 44~ feet. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was rassed by the following votes
AYESa COMMISSIONERSa Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande
AAESs OOMMISSIONERSa Nonee
ABSEIvZ'= OOMMISSIONERSa Camp, Pebley, Sidesa
RECLASSIFICATION - ODNTINUID PUBI.IC HEARINGo HCIWARD Mo LANG, 700 Ocean View Drive, Fullert~n,
NOo 63-64-70 California, O,~mer; ALEX FISI~NAN9 991 North Tustin, Orange, Californiae
Agent; property described asa M irregularly shaped parcel of land covering;
VARIANCE I~DD 1617 approximately 1207 acres and having frontages of 1,248 feet on the south
side of Crowther Avenue and 1~178 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe ~
TENTATIVE MAP bF Avenue, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately 1,575
TRAGT UAe 5482 feet east of the centerline of Dowling Street. Property presently classified;
as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ Z~NEo i
REQUESTID CLASSIFICATIONa R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMTLY RESIDENTTAL9 ZONEo
REQUESTID VARIANCEa WAIVE ONF STORY HEIGHT LIFAITATI01~ WITHIN 150 FEEf
. OF R-A9 RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAJ.9 ZONID PROP.ERT.Yo
Sub~ect tract, located between Crowther Avenue on the north and Orangethorpe Avenue or. the
south, approximately 1,600 feet easterly of Dowling Street, and covering 12a5 acres is proposed '
for subdivision into 29 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~._~NID.lotso
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of January 6 and February 3, 1964 to allow
sufficient time for the petitioner to file a subdivision tract mapa •
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that at the previous meeting it was
indicated subject property would be subdivided apo lots sold individually, possibly for
multiple-family devel.opmente
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to requiring plans, and it was noted that under
the recently adopted policy by the Commission raw acreage for subdivision of lots only would
not require planso
Mr. Kreidt then stated density would be in accordance with the R-3 Codee
Commissioner Gauer inquired of the agen•t for the petitioner how many units could be developed
_per lot as indicated on.the subdivision mapo
•• - - . ~ ~
Mre John Jacobson, representing the subdivider, appeared before the Commission and stated, in
his opinion, only eight units per lot could be developed, and these would be in accordance with ;
the standard subdivisien developmente
Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 5:45 pemo
Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5s45 pom..
THE HEARING WAS. GZOSIDo
Commissioner Chavos expressed concern regarding the Commission's previous action in requesting
that development plans for an R-3, Multiple Family Residential Development on raw land be
submitted~ that said plans were not presented for Commission consideration and the petition was '
subsequently denied, and that he was concerned that the raw land might be subdivided with
standard lots, and no plans for development would be submitted in accordance with any R-3
subdivision standardso
The Commission then stated a parcel of land easterly of the Riverside Freeway presently zoned ~
R-3 had been approved for R-3, subdivision without building plans, and said buildings were now
being constructede , !
Commissioner Gauer returned to the Council Chamber at 5i52 p.me
- ------ ;----- - ---------- _~__ ___ ..___ __._ _..... ----...__._ _-----
- ---- ---__...: ~
_ --- ~.M,
, ~ .
i '
_..~~
- - • .. :x
~~ ~ ~
MINU'PES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1.964 1987
REGLASSIFICA'I'ION - Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution Noo 1061, Series 1963-64, and
N0::63-64-70 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noe
VARIANCE N0. 7~(17 63-64-70 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
TENTATIVE MAP OF On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ~~i•.e f~~llcwing vote:
THAG7 N0. 48
(Continued AYES: COnAMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Sides.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 1062, Series 1963-64, and mav~d..for its passage
arad-adoption, ~econded by Commissior.er Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1617
whicfir required the waiver of the one-story height limitation to develop subject property
wi•t~h two-story, multiple-family residen#ial. development, and conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs A21red, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, perry, Rowland.
NOESr COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSEM : COMMISSIO~aERSs Camp, Sides.
Comm3ssioner Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5482, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvale
;
2. That the approval of Tentatfve Map of Tract No. 5482 is granted subject to the '
approval of Reclassification Noa 63-64-70 and Variance No. 1617.
9. Tlnat the vehicular access rightsn except at street and/or alley openings, to
Orangethorpe Avenue and Crowthes Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ~
4. That the alley access to Crowther Avenue shall be eliminated by relocating the
alley between Lot Nos. 19 an¢ 22o A drive-vay from the alley will be permitted
to serve Lot Noso 18 and 19. !
5. That Lot Noso 20 and 21 shall be served by a common driveway with irrevocable ~
easements for ingress and egress to be approved by the City Attorney prior '
to the final tract map being approved. ',
6. That a12 alley intersections shall conform to the City of Anaheim Standard
Plan No, 130e
7. That "A" Street shall be named Bedford Wayj that "B" Street shall be named
Cameron Street; and that "C" Street shall be named Bates Streete
Commi'ssioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED._
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVtLOPER: R. Lo FARROW, 8550 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, ~
TRACT N0. 5489 Californiaa ENGINEERs R. L. Stuckey Company, 9636 Garden Grove
Boulevard, Garden Grove, California. Subject tract, located on the
east side of Euclid Street, a roximately 660 feet southerly of Katella
Avenue, and covering 9.6 acr is proposed for subdivision into 32
R-3, MUL'fIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEPTf , ZONED lots. ~
I
i
No one appeared to represent the developer.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the recommended conditions on sub~ect tract and '
further stated that said tract was filed as a condition of approval in the reclassification ;
of subject property.
Coaunissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5489, suhject i
to the following conditions: ~ ~
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~
I
2. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings, to ;
Euclid Street shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
~
-.__._- _ _ ___._.-•--.-- -.. _ .---- -- __.. ..___-._-. -
.. .
~-- -__ ~_.------. _ --- -----_____..
-~i ~ i~- .
TENTAT :VE MAP OF
TRAC"~ NO~a 5Q8~,
Continued)
3. That a modified cul-de-sac be provided at the terminus of Fostoria Street, Lida Lane,
Lindaloa Lane, and Loara Street subj~ct to the approval of the City Engineer and the
City of Garden Grove.
4. That the alley intersections shall conform to the City of Anaheim Standard Plan
No. 130. ~-•
5. That Lots 2A through 15A, along the north boundary, and Lots 16A._thxough 30A,
along the south boundary, shall be provided for the construction of a masonry
wall and "shall be one foot widee -
6e That Lots 15A and 16A, one foot wide, and a 20-foot alley shall be provided
along the east boundaryo
7o That Gum Road shall be abandoned by the City of Anaheim prior to the approval
of the final tract map<
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
T~NTA1'I~VE MAF OF - DEi/E,L'OPER: LUSK CORPORATION, 10522 Santa Gertrudes Avenue, Whittier,
TRACT N(T.'5494 Californiae ENGIt~ER: Boyle Engineering, 412 South Lyon Street, Santa
' Ana, Californiao Subject tract, located on the northerly side.of.
Lincoln Avenue and westerly of Nohl Canyon R'oad, covering approximately
12 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 36 R~1;''ONE-FAMILY RESIDENIIAL,
ZONED lotsa
Mre William J.usk, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated it
was necessa~, that revised tentative map be submitted to the Commission, since it was found
a revision was necesSary due to the topography of the land, and two weeks' continuance was
all that was necessary since the revised tentai.ive map was already available to be delivered
to the Planning Department the following daye
Commissioner'Chavos offered a motion to continue T~ntative Map of Tract No. 54S9 to the
meeting of March 2, 1964, in order that a revise~ tentative map might be submitted as stated
by the agent for the developer> Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 1619 - PUBLIC ElEARING. ALBERT V. GASTELUM~ 1019 Liberty Lane~ Anaheim~
California, Ownerf FRED VIILI.tR, 20th Century Homes Development, Inc.,
2432 Newport Boulevard, C~osta Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permis-
s3on to WAIi/H R-1 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND AREA c~ ~roperty described ass A rectangular parcel
of land with frontages of 60 feet on the wea•'c side of Liberty Lane and 60 feet on the east
side of Rosemont Street and a depth of 278 :'e~:t, the southeily boundary of said property
being 240 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1019
Liberty Lane.. Property presently classified as R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that single-family residential develop-
ment in the general area of subjsct property had lots of similar size as being proposed by the
petitioner, and if subject petition were granted, this would permit the petiticner to divide
his property in accordance with th~ existing 60 by 100-foot lots in the areao
No one appeared to represent the petitionero
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED.
Coimnissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1063, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1619,
subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Sides.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1989
VARIANCE-N0. 1620 - PUBLIC HEARINGo LUSK CORPORATION,.Box 1217, Perry Annex, Whittier,
California,.Owner; WILLIAM D. LUSK, Box 1217, Perry Annex,.Whittiex,
California, Agent; requesting.permiss3an•to WALVE..THF_~1~~TRFn FgpNf.
YAi~: SEfBtiCK on property described. as:. An . irregularly shapad..parcel..n£.. ].and. a^^-,.,-*^~ -'"'~tely
16~: acie's 'in area, bounded on the west by the State Highway F.x~^*°;s a~~,~ whieh r~~ns.~aaxa11e1
to ard on th2 east side of the Newport Freewa.y, and-bounded on••tha.no~th..~and_.east.-hy_the
Nohd:Canyon Rqad, and further described as Tract. Noe.46S9. .P~operty presently classified
as R-1, ONE-FqMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~
Mr,:~3%lliam Lusk, representing the petitioi~er, appeared befare. the.Commi=si~n,.and.s~ated the
tvpogsaphy of the single-family residential zoned Tract No. 4689 required a reduction be
made'~in'the front yard setbacko
Zotxing Coordinator Martin Kxeidt advised the Commission the request for reduction in t:7e
~front yard setback was in accordance with the proposed R-H, Residential.Hills~~~- ~.-=^°e•-•
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Gommissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1064, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
aad~adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1620,
subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booka) ~
Oa soll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, perry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Sidese
VARIAI~E NOo 1621_ - PUBLIC HEARING. ARION, INCORPORATED, 300 North Wi1~..lire Avenue, Anaheim, '
• California, Owner; LYNN THOMSEN, 300 North Wilshire Avenue, Anaheim, i
California,"Agent; requesting permission to WAI11E THE REQUIRED NUNBER
OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage
of 98.feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 234.feet, the westerly boundary
of said property being approximately 700 feet east of the centerline of Broadview Street, and
further described as 1808 West Lincoln Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, RESIDEN-
TIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (C-1, NEIGHBOFHOOD COMN~RCIAL~ ZONE pending).
No one appeared to represent the petitionero
zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed development as it had been approved by
the Commission~ and noted that under the original petition, no request was made for waiver of
the parking requirement; that the proposed office building was located in an area that was
reflected on the General Plan for commercial, professional office use; that under the parking
standards applicable given the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone, would require a maximum of 56
off-street parking spaces, and the petitioner proposad 50 parking spaces.
Mr. Kreidt further stated the question before the Commission was whether or not a reduction
in the building plan should be made and adherence to the minimum requirement of 56 parking
spaces. ~ ' `
The Commission expressed some concern subject property was proposed for reclassification to
the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial~ Zone and parking requirements were considerably short of
that zone, as well as under the C-O, Commercial Office~ Zone, and if C-0 Zone was appr.oued~.... .
through initiation by the Planning Commission, parking requirements shnuld be the minimum as
required under that particular zone.
Mr. Charles Hillman, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated that at the time the petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-53 was considered by
the City Council, the City Council requested the office building be relocated northerly, and
they expressed the opinion they were willing to have a shortage of parking space to present
a bztter appearing structure; and that the general office building would not be a medical
building; and 28 spaces were being provided for patrons, and the balance of 22 spaces was
for employees; and they proposed to have architects, engineers, etc., with approximately three
persons per office.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
__ ......... ._.. ._._ .
~, a -~- _~.~____ : __. ~
i
I
I
4
~
~
~ ~
I •
....___._. _..._... _... _.._.'_ "'_.,.._"_"..._ ' - _'""__.._... ... . _ . .,__'__..':_I~ ~"'_". .... . .
~.! ~ ~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1990
~ .
VARTANCE N0. 1 - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Gcntinued)
" Commissioner Rowiand offered Resolution Noo 1065, Series.1963.-64, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley., to grant Petition for
Var,iance No. 1621, permitting 50 parking spaces~and subject..to.conditions. (See Resolution
Book.) ..
On.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawiug.vnte.a-
pYES: COMMISSIONHRSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Peh1~y,..Pear.y,.R^wta"~t-
NOES'i' COMMISSIONERSs None.
pB5£Nf: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Sides.
RECE55 - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recess the meeting for dinner.
:~' ' Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION ~ARRIED.
The meeting recessed at 6:05 p.m.
R~CDIWENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:28 p.m., all Commissioners
'-' being present except Commissioners Camp and Sides.
(
t~
~
~. ___ _ ._...~ ._.._. . -~ .....
_ _...~~ .
__ _ _ _.-. --.
_ T. ~ ._
~ . I .. ~ . .. ~~ . ' , " ~ _ ~ -
f ~
.
....~~
' ~ .
(,;~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~MMISSION, fiebruary 17, 1964. 1991
pMFNpMENT TO - PUBLIC HEARINGe Amendment to the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone Section
SF.CTION 18.36 18.3~30020 and 18e38o040 to permit the use of a residentiai structure for
office purposes, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
pREA DEVII.OPMEPR' Area Development Plan Noo 2 incorporates those properties located on the west :.
PLAN NOe 2 side of Harbor Boulevard between Santa M a and Water Streets.
RECLASSIFICATION Initiated by the Planning Commission, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
NOo 63-64-90 California, proposed the reclassification of property described as: An L ,
shaped parcel of land with frontages of 163 feet on the south side of Santa
Ana Street, 762 feet on ttie west side of Harbor Boulevard, and 110 feet on the north side of
Water Street, and further described as 503-561 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently
classi£ied as R-1, One Family Residential and R-39 Multiple Family Residential, Zones.
RECLASSIFICATION VICT~R BALDERHAUSEN, 531 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owrer;
NOo 63-64-82 CEDRIC A WHITE JRo, 125 South Claudina, Street, Maheim, California, Agent;
requesting that property described ass A rectangular parcel of land with a j
CC,~VDITIONAL USE frontage of 57 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 110 i
PERMIT NOo 540 feet, the northerly boundary being approximately 400 .'eet south of the center-'
line of Santa Ana Street, and further described as 531 South Harbor Boulevardi
be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, Z~'NE, to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,~
ZANEo
PAOPOSID ODNDITIONAL USEa PERMIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCfURE TO BE UTILIZID FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSESo;
Subject amendment to the Codes Title 18, Area Development Plan Noo 2, Petitions for Reclass-
ification Noo 63-64-90 and 63-64-82 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 540 were considered in con- ~
3unction with each other at the public hearinge (
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt discussed the purpose and intent of the amendment to the C-0, ',
Commercial Office9 Zone, the Area Development Plan9 ~he two petitions for Reclassification, and;
the Conditiunal Usc~ Permito i
Discussion then followed by the Commission relative to the proposed Code amendment, in which ~
suggested changes for the requirement of residential structures proposed to be used for office '
use beinq subject to Fire Zone Noo 2~ that a time limitation to January 1, 1969 for said use, ;
that an area development plan be proposed at the time any reclassification petition was being
considered by the Commission for C-0, Zone, and that access right should be dedicated te the
City of Anaheim where.said structures front on an arterial street or highway.
Mr, Kreidt, in response tc Commission questioning regarding the possibility of the residentiai :
structure having .dead restrictions prohib3ting their use for other than residential purposes,
stated that on previous reclassification proceedings of properties on Harbor Boulevard, south ;
of Water Street, where residences were utilized or were removed, no evidence had been presented:
to indicate that deed restrictions existed. ~i
Mr, Thomas Podilla, 537 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared in opposition and stated that although~
the proposed use ~f existing homes for commercial purposes might be considered progress, the
City's two new structures to the north were worth of a better use, since this use would permit ~
the encroachment of signs and unsightliness which would be a blight to ~he area, that the ~
proposed extension of an alley to Santa Ana Street would be hazardous to the existing apartmente;
no•rtherly of.subject property, since children used.the existing dead and alley in which to play~
in, and that if all the dedication.being required was made, this would greatly reduce the size ~
of the lots to 45 feet and reduce the valiae of the properties. i
Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the widening of ~
Harbor Boulevard was.not scheduled in the..f.oreseeablo future, but if sufficient dedication was ;
reoeived, the streat widening might take place sooner. ;
The Commission then discussed the possibility that the only way properties could be developed '
would be throuqh land assembly, that other homes had been approved for commercial use, but were.
required to remoael to the existing structures to present a more commercial appearance, and
thon inquired whether the school authorities had been contacted relative to the granting of an ;
easement to permit the extensian.of the alley through the school property to Santa Ana Street. i
Planning Director Richard Reese advised the Commission that he had contacted Robert Shanks, l;
Superintendent of the Anaheim Elementary Schoo.l District, and had been advised that easements
had been granted in the past~ and that there was no reason subject easement could not be grantei
provided, however, that any improvement of the alley would not be made at the School District's~
expense. ,
___ .__._ _.__._ -- ~ .
.. . . .
---~.. -.___._.~_-- ---._ _ _. _ _._ __ ._ _.._ ~..~.._--~..._.,.~ ~
,
_..._ _..
--- _~ i ....._ .. . _ ___--~
~, ~ ~ ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CA4IMISSION9 February 17, 19640 1992
AMENDMENT TO The Commission discussed the proposed use of existing residential structures,
SEGTION 18e38 and its possible effect in the ultimate of the area with adequate structures
for commercial office use, and expressed the hope that when the proposed
AREA DEVIIAPMENT 3-story office building on the northwest corner of Santa Ana Street and
PLAN NOo 2 Harbor Boulevard was completed, this then would reduce the requests for use
of said homes for commercial purposes considerably, .and that the proposed alley would be a
RECLASSIFICATION farther incentive to develop the properties for commercial us2s.
No. 63-64-90
Mro Cedric White, the petitioner in Reclassification No. 63-64-82, appeared
RECLASSIFICATION before the Commission, and advised them that he was still attempting to
N0. 63-64-82 assemble several parcels of land, that sub~ect property was not being purchas-
ed at R-1, prices, and to assemble enough property to meet the required 20,OOC
CONDITIONAL USE square feety would cost over $100,000 that he was agreeable to a time limit-
PERMIT NDo 540 ation being imposed for the use of the existing residence, and that at the ,
Continued time of its ~xpiration, the Commission then could determine whether the exist-
'
ing use was apropos, or whether the structure should thea be reverted to its
original use as a residence9 and that he felt that the time limit for property for other than
its use as a residence might be three years, depending on development of the area.
In the Commission's consideration of the petitions for ~the Harbor Boulevard frontage, the
Commission expressed concern that the area might not be developed in a.manner which would be an:
asset to the area and the City, that this might change any urban renewal plans for the center
city area for high rise development if residencas would be permitted to be utilized for office
purposes, and that there was always the possibility that the remainder of the homes might not
be utilized for anything but residential purposes.
Mr. Reese stated that there was some information from various planning studies which could be
used to establish a framework upon which the Commission might base action on subject petitions;',
that a recent study by the Planning Staff regarding lots fronting and siding on arterial street~
and highways indicated 2700 such lots9 or an acreage covering ten Broadway shopping centers, ;
that by.narxowing this down to the more criti.cal main areas, this figure was reduced to 1200
lots; that the first phase of the study had been.presented to the Commission at a work session;;
that in the next phase the Staff was documenting and studying the 2700 to define which
areas will have a long term use of the homes for single family residential uses; and that other
areas~ due to problems of the area, age of the structure might logically be transitional to
multiple family development; that a few areas showed indications that residential uses would be.
imprac•tial and might lend themselves for some type of office use, and a few areas would be
primarily practical for r.e.ta3i type use; that the Harbor Houlevard area was indicated on the
General Plan for cormnercial office type use; that the question facing •the Commission was whethei
or not to permit commercial uses of a residential structure; and that in the ERA report urban
renewal was not considered for the Harbor Boulevard area because the area was not deteriorated
and did not warrant that type of revitalizing.
Mrs. Audrey Warnoff, realtor, advised the Commiss3on that her company was attemptinq to combine!
parcels for property development9 that one of her clients on Harbor Boulevard, because of ill- '
ness, had to have a quiet area and air-conditioning, and that he wanted to.sell his property
in order that he would.be able to purchase another in a c{uieter area, and still have a little
left for emergency purposeso
i
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo _ . . - •- • • • _ ~-
Commissioner Rowland offfered Resolution No, 1066, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage '
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner GauEr to recommend to the City Council that Codet j
Section i8.38 of the Maheim Municipal Code be amended to permit the use of existing residences;
for C-0, Commercial Off ice, Zone use with a time limitation of January 1, 1969, for said use,
and further provided that the use be approvad in an Area Development Plan, that fire regulation~~
under Fire Zone Noo 2 be applied to said use, and.that access rights to properties proposed
for said use-be dedicated to the City of Anaheim prior to the reclassification of any residence:l
to the C-0, Zone. (See Resolution Book). i
On Roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes ~
~
AYBS: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland. ~
NOFS OOMMISSIONERSa Chavos. ~
ABSENTs OOMMISSIONERSs. Camp~ Sides.
Commissioner Chavos qualified his "no" vote by stating that Harbor Boulevard in the vicinity ~
of aubject property was the Center City Area, that to aPprove the use of existing residences
for commercial uses would not upgrade the area, but would be detrimental to its future develop-'
ment, and would be contrary to the principles of good planning. '
i
. _
._ . .... ........_. _ _ _..
---~ --. __ -- , ._.___._
.__ _ ._. _ ._
_. -~td , 1l- _ _ __----
~~ ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~MMISSION, February 17, 1964. 1993
AMENLIMENT TO Discussion between the Commission ar~d Planning Director Richaid Reese followed
SEGTION 18.38 the voting regarding the interpsetation of Section 18e38.040(3)(b), 3ust
adopted.
AREA DEVII.OPMENT
PLAN N0. 2 Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to amend said Section as follows:
"Section 18o38e040(3)(b) - T:~e residential appearance of the structure shall
R~LASSIFICATION be maintained and no exterior alteratio~ shall be allowed except such as
NOe 63-64-90 are.deemed necessary for normal and nomir.al maintEnancs, which shall be sub-
ject to the approval of the Development Review Committee of the Building and
RECLASSIFICATION Planning Departments, a~ provided for in Se~ction 18.38v050(9)." The motion
I~o 63-64-82 lost for want of a secondo
OONDITIONAL USE Mr~ Kreidt then read the recommended conditions for approval of Area Develop-
PEAMIT NDo 5i40 ment Plan Noo 2, and further advised the Commission that said conditions
Continued would be a requirement before any parcel within said Plan could be reclass-
ified„ and referred the Cormnission's attention to the Area Development Plan
on the east wall of the Council Chambero ,
Commissioner Chavos again voiced opposition to approving the use of existing residences for
commercial uses, because the Commission in the past had frowned on such action, and if it were
approved, required the removal or remodeling of the residences to give a more commercial appear-
ance than a residential appearanceo
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1067, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley to recommend to the City Council that Area
Development Plan Noo 2 be adopted, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)~
On roll call •the foregoing reso'lutiori was passed by the following vote:
pYES: OOMMISSIONERSs Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlando
NOESa OOMMISSIONERSs Chavosa
ABSENTs C~DMMISSIONERSa Camp, Sideso
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1068y Series 1963-649 and moved for its passage
and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-90 be approved, sub3ect to all properties being developed in
accordance with Area Development Plan Noo 2 and all provisions of the C-0, Commercial Office,
Zone< (Ses Resolution Book)o
On roll call the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESe OOMMISSIONERSa Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlando
NOESa COMMISSIONERSs Chavoso
ABSENTt COMMISSIONERSs Camp~ Sideso
Camnissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1069, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo
540, subject to development of the property in accordance with all provisions of Area Develop- .
ment Plan Noa 2, and all provisions of the C-0, i.ommercial Office, Zone as amended, that the '
p8titiqper be grant.ed ~temporary access to Harbor Bou].evaTd, said access to be discontinued_when ~
the alley is improved, and that all accessory buildings shall be removed from the rear of the ,
property and said area improved for parking purposes. (See Resolution Book). ;
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet
AYESe COMMISSIONHRSi Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland<
IV~ES ODNVr1ISSI0NER5: Chavoso
ABSENTs OOMMISSIONERSa Camp, Sides.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that some acti.on should be taken on ~
Reclassif ication No~ 63-64-820 ~
lAr. Reese stated that since the previous resolutions by the Commission covered an area, and the ';
petitioner was requesting C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone for subject property~ that a
recommendation for C-0, Commercial Off~ce, Zone be made to the Qity Council. ,
1
_.... .._._._ . .._....-
__._-__---- -_ _-----..... ._._._..-- __._..
~;~ara ' - . . ~ _
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING WMMISSION~ February 17, 19640 1994
AMENDMENT TO Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1070, Series 1963-64, and moved
SECfIOtd 18.38 for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to recommend to
the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 63-64-82 be approved
AREA DEVEIAPMEM' for C-0, Commercial Off ice, Zone subject to development in accordance with
PLAN N0. 2 Area Development Plan Noo 2. all provisions of the C-0, Commercial Office,
Zone. (See Resalution Book1~
RECLASSIFICATIpN
NDo 63-64-90 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
RECLASSIFICATION AYF,Ss ODMMISSIONERSs A11red, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
IdO. 63-64-82 NOESe COMMISSIONERSt Chavos.
ABSENTs ~MMISSIONERSt Camp9 Sides.
OONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 540 Commissioner Chavos qualified his "no" vote by stating that although he was
Continued in favor of C-0, 2oning for the area, the petitioner proposed to utilize an
existing residence for office purposeso
~
~
_. _ .. _ _ .
_. ---... _ ___ ._
~ ~ --i----- -.
-~ , ~ .. __ .~_.
~...~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February.l7, 196A 1995
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEP,RINGo JAN~S S. AND ANNA L. MORRIS, 135_West_Commonwealth,
PFRIdIT N0. 537 _.Fu11es~0A~.-~•a7ifnrnia.~ Qyypp,rg~, WILLIAM FINDLEY.r 4A21`Z23atle. Road,. Anaheim,
CdlifOxA~B~-A92n.t~sB4ueS#iclq.pBl'mi°°inn ~0.FSTART:TSFR'Q;wj~j,K,:UP RFSTAURANl~ ,
WIiH WAiIlER OF TtiE..AEQUlEED. PARK7N~.orL~s.opex.ty.~lesc~ii~e'si_as: A rectangular
paxceL..af_l.and._with...a...fxontage..uf_.186 feet. bn• the. south side_A~n~~.Alcenue and a.depth of
15D feat, the .westexl.y.lwundar_y -Af -said .proper•t.y being..2Q0._feet ea.s3~' '+-+~ centesline of
Bxookhurst S.txeate Property.{~resentl~~ classi£ied as.R-A, .RESIDENf'IAL"AGRICl1LT.URAL and C-1, .
NEIGEIDORI300D..CO~M~BCIALs. ZL)NESo .
IVIr. William Findley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisainn.and.reu.iewed.
tk~e proposed development,'noting that the waiver for-parking requitements for the„propased
30 by 40-foot ice cream restaurant development was exceSsive; that £rom.thei.~.experienee the
maximum parking spaces required would be 15, and the present parking requirements of'•the
City was based on C-1 Zone.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that under the new proposed Code
:ay,,;::omo.,±~ fnr walk-up restaurants, the proposed development would.need..14 spaces.
In.response to•~Commission questioning, Mr. Findley stated a 20-foot easement existed on.the
eas•t, west, and southerly sides of subject property; that the property was presently zoned
C-1, and that the proposed use would permit the development with the subject petition on
tlie cdnditional use permito
Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 9s30 pomo
In.response to Commission questioning relative to screening the air conditioning, the agent
stated the plans did not indicate air conditioning equipment; the protrusion might only be
couler equipment, as these were standard for an ice cream ~ending establishmentt and that
the plans preserited were a standard set of plans which had teen approved in other areas and j
were subject tc, modification, as the Commission requirede '
;
Mr. C. E. 5mith, 607 South Archer Street, appe~.red ~efore the Commission in opposition to ~
subject petition and stated his rear yard abutted subject property; that it was an imcompatible;
t,ise to the R-1 developmerrt surrounding subject property; that the proposed commercial type
.walk-up restaurant would be a detriment to the property valuation because of its undesirabil-
ity; that odors and noises from the area would be offensive to residents of the area; and
that similar developments existed on Ball Road, and noises from juke boxes were most ob3ec-
tionablee ~
In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Kreidt stated subject property had a small portion '
reclassified to C-1 Zone by the City Council on February 9, 1960; that deed restrictions were ;
assessed to this to construct the building as plans were submitted; that the proposed develop- ,
ment was not consistent with plans as submitted; and that although a portion of sub~ect propert~
was C-1, the majority of the property was R~A,
Commissioner Pebley returned to the Council Chamber at 9s40 pom.
Mr. Ernie Kay, 611 South Archer, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject
petition and stated the proposed use would create an additional traffic problem for Orange
Avenue which already seemed to be overburdened with traffic; the propoc.~d use would turn the
adjacent street into•s drag strip; that children used Archer Street as a play area, and thus
the children would be in constant jeopardy from cars usin9 the propbsed develdpmen't. ~ ~~
Mr. R. A. Dibrell, 621 South Archer, appeared in opposition and stated that although he was
not immediately adjacent to subject property, he was in close proximity to a taco stand, and
the noises and odors from cars and juke boxes was most objectionable-tn him; that"ffie pioposed
restaurant, according tc plans, indicated the 35 seats inside and tha proposed parking area of
12 cars was insufficient to handle the parking situation, and, therefore, the street would be
used for parking purposes; that the general area in which subject property was located was
sufficiently saturated with similar types of uses from Ball Road to Broadway; that many two-
story homes existed in close proximity to subject property, and the fire hazards from any
commercial development would similarly affect all these homes.
Mr. W. D. Young, 617 South Archer, appeared in opposition to the proposed developnent, stating
that in addition to the parking, odors, and flies, he was most concerned with the children
being sub3ected to heavy traffic conditions, and considered this a most detrimental effect to
the area.
~eputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed thedeed restrictions on the original reclassi-
fication of a portion of sub~ect property for the Commission and stated the original.plans
submitted for Council consideration indicated an office building, and the proposed use was
entirely different thaq that originaliy approved under the reclassification with the deed
restriction stipulat~.gq~
__ ._._ __ ..... _ __.
__ ... . _ .~ _-~ -~- ------ --------- - ---:
~.._. -_.Li~ T__._..._ ~. .
~ ~.
^ ~
i `~ '
.
,
_ ___. _ _ . _ _ _ _. _- ---------____ __ __ -,~
r'~
~ C~ ~ •
~ MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1996
i
i .
~ "CON0ITIONAL USE - Mr~ Ae W, Brader, 5~0 South Archer, appeared before the Commission and
P~'["i~10: 7 asked whether it.had been determined what other type of structures would be
i 6pntinued used..in cun3unctina with_the pxnposed..ice.cr.eam.Stoxe.and,restauxaat__... .
Mr. Lienbur,g, representing the agent for the petitioner, stated-commercial store buildings •~
'were being proposedo
Mr. Brader further con.tinued.his.primary concern was..ttie number of aacesses to 4range Avenue
ar~:~vras in#ormed..there._wexe•#.hxae..£rom..the comiaerc3al propertyo Mr. Brader then stated
Orange Avenue was u'sed pr3marily_for school.children and many families in the area had ten
children, .and an.y additioual traf.fic on Orange Avenue. would. be a. considerah].e. saf~ty..hazarde .
TE~.•I~ARING WAS CLOSED.. .
Coianissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1071, Series 1963-64, and moved.fos,its.passags.. ...
acid..adbptiqn, Beconded .by. Ccmroissioner. Chavos,. .to deny Petition..fox. Coad,i.tianaL.Us~Farmit... .. ..
Nn;r.~3~Zy:'besed on the fact .it was_not .in keep3ng with the intent -of gran•ti.ng,.khe Gl,
N~ror.~ood Commercial, Zone, and the proposed usa was-incc,mpatible with the`~area. (Ses
Reeaiution Booko ) ~ . _ . . .. . ........ ,
Oa. roll call the foregoing resolution was passed h~~ . the following uo.ta:• • .-•.- •. ,
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer,•.Mungall, Pebley, Parry, RowLand. .
N~St.' COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT,t..." .GaMMISSI0NER5~• Sides. ...
Commissi'on~r Allred left the Council Chamber at 9i55 p.m.
CONDITIONlLL fJSE'.
PERNIIT"t~0:"'~3ff" -'pUBLIC f~ARINGo FOREST LAWN CtMETERY ASSOCIATION, P. 0, Bax..115L>.
'" "' ''" Glendale 5, California, Owner; requesting••paxmissi+on. •t4 ES.T~T_TSH THF ~
ON-SALE OF BEER IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT .W.ITH WAI1(~R QF .Tl~... _... .
'REQUIR~D.b-FpOT"SOLID FENCE OR WALL on property describad as:, Ac~_irregula~ly..shapa~.pazcel.
o'f 'laYid"Wit'h`'a~°fiont'age of 204 feet on the south.s3de• af. LincoLn-A~:arwe,...w3#h..an.a~exaga .
~t~ptk: ef= 247"fee't~ tifie w~s~erly bounctaiy .of satd .psoper.~y,bsSng•.app~oz3~ua~al..y.,1,;3A1Q~.;~as~, '
~ eas~` o~':~u:can~eritrie of 9tate C612ege Boulevarde ..Pruper~y.pr.esently-cl.asa.i•fied•'as-.~:=1,• .
NEIGFIDORiidOD C(3bfN~RCIAL, ZONE, `... . , ,:;: . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. .. ..... .i
Mr, Au'stin Ed'dy; agent for the petit~oner, appeared• before the Cwami.ssioa_and.;x~~ri~¢~xat~ the•
proposed development~ noting tha East.:Anraheim. shopping.area. did. not.have..adequa~e'!:fa~:tlities. ,
for'the serving bf inealsj that the proposed conditional use permit was requested to permit ;
the serving of aicoholic bQverages,in the C-1 Zone; that the proposed development woulii seat
between 140 and 150 people, and would not be a Hofbrau-type, but a restaurant serving Italian i
foodj that the proposed tenanta of the restaurant presently operated in the West Anaheim area~~
that previously they had been unable to obtain a high quality restaurant becauee of not having:
an ideal corner lccetion~ that thaxe would ba a conaiderable setback from Lincoln Avenue, and !
landscaping would be provided i~ accordance with the requirementsf that the proposed restau-
rant was not a walk-up type, but would be serving food entirely inside; and adequate parking '
facilities were being providedo
i
Mrs. Homer Shapiro, 123 Sunkist Street, appeared before the Commission and read a letter of ;
opposition f~om the Sunkist Civic.Associat~on, opposing the proposed sale of alcoholic i
beverages, noting the City proposed a branch library~immediate~y ad3acen~ to subject property, ~
and the proposed use•wouid be a detriment to children using the library and going to the ~
shopping area when unaccompanied by adults; and if the proposed development were approved, ?
in all likelihood the plans for a branch library would be dropped by the Library Boarde ;
Mrs. Barbara Cram, President of the Sunk3st Parent-Teacher Association, appeared before the
Commission and expressed opposition to the proposed on-sale of alcoholic beverages in close
proximity to the proposed East Anaheim Branch Librarya
Mr. Robert Wilson, 2312 Paradise R~ad, appeared before the Commission in opposition to sub-
ject petition and stated his property backed-up to the proposed development, and that there
were more than adequate Italian eating establishments in the area, and that the proposed on-
sale of beer would be detrimental to the East Anaheim shopping areao
Dr. Howard Garber, 2000 East Lincoln Avenue, appeared in opposition to subject petition, and
reviewed the previous action of the Alcoholic Beverage Control in denying a petition for the
on-sale of liquor in the East Anaheim 'shopping area, stating the proposed on-sale of beer in
the shopping area would be de+,rimental because children used the parking when unaccompanied;
that the traffic from the proposed use would be detrimental to the children using the branch
library; that at the time the previous petition was submitted, over 400 people had signed a
petition opposing :he sale of any elcoholic beverages in the East Anaheim shopping center;
and the uwners of the Ghopping area ~ad previously opposed the establishment which proposed
the sale of liquor an~ beer in the areao ,•
, ~
. _ .__ ___ _._._:
--------------- ~
__ _.~ . , ~°t .. _.
~ ~
~,
1
~
I
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1997
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Art Je Hart,..Chairman of the 2oning Committee of the East Anaheim
pERMIT N0: 38 Civic Associati~-,.•appeaxed•before-the Commission.in:opposi.tion tn.subject
Cot~tinued . petition and ~:.•n.ced.if the proposed beer.~license whr~eTiA uedh..yi~~iauld
almost autoi..~tically eliminate the future..Has.t_Ana Yi ••
tka~a,-the Commissi'on':should uphold the Planning Dspaxtment.'asecom~mnda~ian-£nx-a,.branch.
library in that area,; that no other property was nAder conside~aticn•.f.6~-a.-la.rat-ch-li.braxy;
and that at the time the proposed library site was selected,..it. was. indir.a.ted._the. library ,
would act as a buffer between the coirnnercial deuelopment to the west.and.the're~idential
deue•lopment to the easto • - - ~ ~ "
Mrs. Ann Mealy, representing the Rio Vista Homeowners' Association, appeared_in_oppositiorL...
to the proposed on-sale of beer~ stating if this would jeopardize the library site~ the
Ho~eowners' Association would go an record as being,opposed•to the.ow-sale.o£.}aeaa........ .
Mr. Eddy, in rebuttal, stated a number of statements had been inaccurately made;that the
present status of the condemnation proceedings were not as stated; that any action.on the
proposed library was in~abeyance because tha bond issue for the proposed library was not
passed by the citizens; that the library site would occupy the easterly portion of the 360
feet; that parking facilities would be proposed on the westerly portion of the property being ;
considered for the library; that if the Commission favorably considered subject petition, there:
wou~ld be at least 200 feet separating the residential development and the library and the com- ;
mercial development, although the library property being proposed was immediately adjacent to ;
the easterly bounda"ry of the shopping centei; that his clients would not have considered the :,
proposed de~~e.lopment if it were just a beer parlorf that surveys had been made of similar ~
establishments in the surrounding area, and it was the feeling this would be an acceptable
development; that Dr. Garber opposed a cocktail bar and not a development that served food ,
in conjunction with the sale of alcoholic beverages, and the cocktail bar was located adja-
cent to the physician°s vffice~ that a survey of the Fullerton operation indicated 69~ of
the operation would be in the form of iood and 31~ in the form of beer= that the Qroposed
development would have an adequate setback from Lincoln Avenue, and this would be unobtrusive~
that if the proposed development were not principally for the serving of food, his clients
would~not have considered proposing it; and they were as concerned about the success of the
shoppin~ center as the residents of the area, and had, therefore, carefully considered the
proposed Italian-style restaurant very carefully before requesting the useo
Mrs. Shapiro then stated the proposed library site was the only one under consideration; that
if this site were lost, a considerably longer time would elapse before the East Anaheim are~
would get another library site; that all the initial steps had been taken to acquire this
site; and that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board did not permit the on-sale of alcoholic
beverages within 600 feet of the librarye
Fii:teen people in the Council Chamber were present to represent 350 families in the East
Anaheim area opposing subject petition. ..
In response to Commission questioning, Mrs. Shapiro stated the Rio Vista Homeowners' Associa-
tion had a membership of 400 people, the East Anaheim Civic Association had a membership of
350 people, and the Sunkist Civic Association had a membership of 350 peopleo
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Gommissioner Rowland expressed concern the proposed restaurant was on the east side of the
proposed grocery store, and from the circulation standpoint, the parkin9 was not located in
an easily accessible area to handle overflow parking from the restaurante
Commissioner Pebley cffered Resolution Noo 1072, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noa 538, based on the fact that the library was proposed and negotiations had been started
for the site immediatsly adjacent to the proposed on-sale of beer~ and that the proposed
use would then be incompatible to the areae (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs CON4~AISSIONHRS: Allredy Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley~ Perry, Rowlande
NOES: COMMISSIONEP,S: None.
ABSENTs CONN~IISSIONERS: Camp, Sides.
~
I
{
i'
~ ~ ~ ,,
_ I
i
__ ~)
_. __._.
'~ .. _.
~ ~ •
~ . ~
1
I ~
.
_.____ ._ .....' _.'.. ~ .. . . ... ~'."."" , ..__ .. .._
~
._"__ _'___-__. __"_'_ _. _..... ~_"'- _. _ . ..__.._.~--..____'.~_"'_.~.~____._. ... .._ _. .. . + _'"...._ .
~,
~ t.~ ~ !~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 1998
~
CONUITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I-~ARINGo Wo He JEWETT, 1141 Eas~ Ash Avenue, Fullerton, California,
PERMxT N0. 539 Owner; R. L. CURRY, 12413 Suagrove, Garden Grove~ Cali£oxnia, Agen~;
'- requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SWIMMING POOL DISP.LAY.I~EEA•WITH
RETAIL SALES TO TF~ GENERAL PUBLIC.AND WITH A HUILDIDIG_MATFRTArs_~TOEAGH
YARD on property descrihed . as s An "L" shaped parcel of land•.with•.a..fron#aga_af..BLf.e.et
on the east side of State College Boulevard and an auerage depth..of 382.fee.t,..the.snutherly
boundary of said property being 353 feet south of the centerline of..Katell.a Av.enue.and.fnrttier
described as 1822 South State College Boulevarde Property presently.classified as M-1,. LIGHI'
INDUSTRIAL and P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONESe • ••••- •.
Mro R, La Curry., ayent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the ~
proposed development, noting that in actuality the building materials ya~d was the basic use
of the property and was permitted in the M-1 Zone, whereas the retail sales would be an inci-
dental useo ~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a building materials storage
yard was permitted in the C-3 Zone; that the proposed retail sales of swimming.pools was
not considered a compatible use in the area since sales were permitted as an incidental use
to._service the M-1 useo •
Mr. Curry then stated, in his opinion, the proposed display area of swimming pools would
greatiy enhance the building materials storage yard with landscaping to shield the area.
The Commission upon reviewiny the plans expressed ideas as to the compatibility of the pro- ~
posed uses that the display area would be within the entire P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zonef i
that the proposed development would be in the center of the southeast industrial area; and '
that if the Commission approved this, there was a possibility this might establish a precedent ~
for permitting retail uses in the M-1 Zonee
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
The Commission then discussed whether or not the building materials storage yard was in
accordance with M-1 Zoneo It was noted the petitioner stated he was desixous of serving
homeowners in the area with a disptay of swimming pools and the retail sales of same; that
similar sales of products to the public was permitted within ciose proximity to subject
property, namely, a surplus yoods bakery and trash receptaclese
Mro Curry then advised the Commission further problems presently existed since the owner of
the property was desirous of using the subject property and requested the agent to relocate
southerly 130 feet, since the owner was planning on establishing commercial development on
subject property.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission th~ M-~ Zc~~ p~rmitted wholesale ;
sales, retail distribution of products produced on the premises, and certain retail usese ;
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to der.y Pe~±ition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 539,
based on the fact that the inteniied use was not.'a permissible use in the M-1 Zone. Commis-
sioner Rowland seconded the motiono
Consid'erable discussion •then occurred~among the Commissioners relative to the use and its'
compatibility~ whereupon Commissioner Chavos withdrew his motion of denialo
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Pe+.ition for Conditionai
Use Permit No. 539 to the meeting of April 13, in order that the petitioner might submit revisec'
plans. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. ~
I
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS 8 LOAN ASSOCIATION OF ALHA-u1BRA~ ~
N0. 63-64-88 529 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners MARVIN F. j
ESSENBACI~R, 529 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; ~
requesting that property descrihed as: A rectangular parcel of land at the i
northeast corner of Center S~treet and Evelyn Drive with frontages of 210 feet on Center Street ~
and 117 feet on Evelyn Drive be reclassified from the R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to
the C-0, COIufluIHRCIAL OFFICE, ZONE to establish a savings and loan association and office ,
buildinq on subject property. i
Mr. Marvin Essenbacher, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed development, noting adequate space was being provided for expansion,
as well as parking facilities to take care of any expansione
No one appeared in oppOsi,t~on to subject petitiono
----:-.:-=~{" ----'-----r---- ---
I
/
._.. __ ___~._ _._..----~v _-.. ----------_.~._. ~
_ _ _. _ .._. . .~
, ~- ~
~
. i :~ .
,
, .
,..~
_ . _' -- ----- -- ---- ---- = ._~~~ _ .
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 17, 1g64
~
1999
RECLASSIFICATION - THE HHARING WAS CLOSED.
IVa.: 3- 4-88
Continued Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission the parking
proposed was in.accordance with the requirements of the.C-0, Cammercial
Office, Zone, and that the plans of development indicated a park-like
area to the east where any future expansion.might.take~~placeo .
Comnissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1073, Series 1963-64, and moved.far its passage
aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-88 be approved, subject to conditions~. (.Sae Eesolution..Bnok..)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by.the following.~catac_ .,.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, pebley, P.erry~.Rowlando.. .. .
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABS~NTs COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Sidese
R6CLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC E~ARINGo MoC.P. WAREHOUSE CORPORATION~ 424 South Atchison Street,
NOo"63-fi4=89 ' ~Anaheim, California, Ownersj CLARENCE C. TAYLOR,~424 5outh Atchison Stree~t,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A
rectangular parcel of land with a f:ontage of 120 feet on the east side
of Kroeger Street and a depth of 125 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being
].67 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Street be reclassified from the R-3~ MULTIPLE-
1~AM1T! RESTDENTIAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE to permit the establishment of
a",-parking~lot on subject propertyo
Mre Charles Taylor, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
they had b=en using subject property £or parking purposes for some time and did not realize
they were in violation of any Code regulationo
Mr. Arthur Surber, 331 Kroeger Street, appeare~i before the Commission in opposition to
sunject petition and stated subject property had been used for storage purposes of palettes,
supplies, trucks and equipment; that only in the past six weeks had it been used for the
parking of cars; that the storage of sugar had attracted rats, mice, flies, and beetles;
that he had contacted the Fire Department in an effort to have combustible materials removed
so that a fire hazard was reduced; that presently it was cleaner than it had been in twenty
years; and that if P-1 Zoning were approved for subject property, this might be a more accept-
able method of using subject property, and be maiotained that way,
Mrso R, Ro Reyes, 402 South Kroeger, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
that subject property had been used for the parking ef trucks which were torn down for repair;
that palettes were stored at the rear of her property to a height of fifteen feet and were
stacked so precariously that she was afraid to allow her children to play in the yard; that
she had contacted the petitioner requesting that something be done, and to this date the
palettes remain; that she was not opposed to the property being used for the parking of employ-
ees` cars, but was opposed to the land being used for the rebuilding and storage of broken
down trucks; that i£ subject petition was approved, that a masonry wall be constructed to
eliminate any danger to her property and children; that trucks were parked and repaired in
the streets that orange peels, refuse, paper, etco, were strewn all over the area creating
a hazard which was dangerous ~o children playing 3n the area;, and.that the petitioners, had
made no effort to rectify any complaints the residents made to theme
Mra Taylor, in rebuttal, stated that a portion of the company's property was next to the
railroad track and was zone~ M-1; that the property adjacent to Mrso Reyes was owned by MoCoP,,
but that the person who formerly owned it still resided there, even though MoCaP, was the
owner; that the lot was needed for parking of employees' cars, and that trucks would not be
utilizing the lot and no repair work would be doneo
In response to Commission questioning, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commis-
sion that subject property should be readvertised for P-1, Automobile Parking, Zone since M-1,
Light Industrial, Zone was being requested in subject reclassification.
The Commission expressed concern that if subject prcperty was reclassified for M-1, this would '~
mean an industrial encroachment within a residential area; that regardless of the classification;
of the property, a masonry wall should separate the industrial use from the residential area. ',
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-89
to the meeting of March 16, 1964, and requested that P-1, Automobile Parking~ 2one reclassifi-
cation proceedings be initiated to be considered in conjunction with sub3ect petition; further,
that the Planning Department make a field inspection trip to determine whether the petitioner
was in vi.olation of any Code, and to determine the condition of the property abutting the
residential propertye Commissioner A11red seconded the motiono MOiION CARRIED.
__ __ . _. _. . .
_._._..___. _. ___.
~ ~ .. _.~
i
;
i •
~
] .. ~'
~~~
~
~~ ~
2000
~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 19b4
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARINtie CARL J. KYMI.f+, P, 0. Box 429, Fullerton, California,
AIV~NDMENT NO< 11 Owner;._t3ARYEY HES.IINGA,-6392.Orangewand, Cypress,.California, Agent;
~" property described ass_ A r.ectangular parcel of land with a frontage of
RECLASSIFICATION 122 feet on the.snuth side•of Crescent Avenue~and.a depth nf 150 feet,
NOo 63-64-86 the easterly bonndary...of said.property being 142 feet west of.the center-
line of Dale Avenuea Psoperty presently classified as R-A, .RESIDEM'IAL
CONDITIONAL USE AGRICULTURAL,.ZONEo ~
PERMTT N0. 536_ _
Requested Classification: .C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONE.
Requested Conditional Use: ESTABLISH A DRIVE-IN DAIRY PRODUCTS STOREe
Mr: Harvey Hettinga, agent for the petitioner, appeared befoxe the Commission and reviewed
the proposed development, and stated he was available to answer questions<..
Mr. Jan D. Romanoff, 8424 Planetary Drive, Buena Park, appeared in opposition to subject
,.~_~_., ~L ,. ~,,;..,.,,~ „e,,,.o~o„+t~n twelve_other families, many. of whom were ill, _ ~.
~ (J2L'ILlOf1 ~~aY1G -5 ~a ~au ~ ~uu ~ ..~ ....,. ...,.' ___.--- . _ _ _ .. .
who:opposed the location of a commercial project within an area surrounded by single-family
de~elopmente
Mr< R. Arthur Tartaglia, 8498 Planetary Drive, appeared in opposition and.stated that the
single-family homes would have to face a commercial development with.lights.and traf-ic,
and..=that 50% of the homeowners opposed the proposed commercial encroachment into the resi-
dential environment of the abutting properties as being totally in~~mpa.t3bleo.
Five other persons indicated they were present to oppose subject.petitionse...
Mro Hettinga, in rebuttai, stated that he did not wish to create.any animosity among the_. .
property owners because he would be depending upon their patronizing his establishmentj that
he.had operated a similar.establishment in Garden Grove with no complaints, and that the
store would not be open on Sunday and would be closed by.9:30 poma each evening.o
THE HEARING WP.S CLOSEDo
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1074, Series 1963-64, and moved for its,passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan Amendmer.t Noa 11 be disapproved, based on findings. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONHRS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Sideso
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1075, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassification No. 63-64-86 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed classifi-
cation would be incompatible to the residential environment of the surrounding property. (See
Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was Qassed~tiy ihe following vote:
AY~Se COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlande
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSENTa COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Sideso
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1076, Ser3~~ 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer9 to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 536, based on findingso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Rowland.
NOESs CO.MMISSIONERSs Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Sideso
~
. ~
i
~
_..._ , .
. ------- - _.... _.----• - - - - - •-•----.... . - ------.. ~._
_ ----------- '
_ ._ _ ... ..
,1~ . ~. . _ ..
i
.
~ ~
,,:;;
:
:. ~~ •
, `. ~ ~ ~
MINUTtS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 17, 1964 2001 ~
i
i
AMENDM~NT TO TITLE 18 - PUBLIC HEARING. Initiated by the Anaheim Planning Commission,
SECTION'I8D04s030 ~_,204..East Lincoln Avenus,.Anaheim,• Califnxnia.;.:proposing..the amendment
~~ ta.SECtion._18o04o030~by the.addition:of "(12) WALK-UP RESTAURAIJLSs
~0 spaces per the first.l000 square £eet and.l additional space for
each additiAna1.50 feet"o• •
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt revfewed for the Commission the...peti.tions..in which the
required parking spaces were waived on walk-up.restaurants; that a study..had.been made.hy .
the Department in which a minimum of 20 spaces plus an additional space £or.each 50 square
feet in excess of 1000 square feet of 9ross floor area was considared a reasonable compromise ;
and was in conformance with ~other Orange County citieso •
Discussion was then held by the Commission, and it was concluded that establishments under
1000 square feet should not be required to pz•ovide 20 spaces, and that perhaps the gross
floor area should be reduced, but retain a comparable number of spacesa .
No.:.one appeared in oppositiono
TI~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Co~.issioner Perry ofered Resolution Noo 1077, Series 1963-64, and.maved for...its_passage and.
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland to recommend to the City Council that Title 18,.
Section 18o04s030 be amended to include (12) WALK-UP RESTAURANIS - l0.parking spaces for the
first 500 square feet, plus 1 space per each additional 50 square feet of gro'ss floor area.
(See Resolution Booko) • •
On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following.votes ~
AY~: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Peblsy, Perry, Ro.wlanda
NOHS's '`COMMISS'IDNERSs Noneo -
A9SEM': COMh4SSI0NERSs Camp, Sideso •.
REPORTS AND = ITEM~NO. 1
RECOMtu~NDATIONS. Wagner-Rio Vista Annexationo ;
Zoning Coordinator Maitin Kreidt presented a map covering the Wagner-Rio Vista Annexation
to the Commission, noting that a Report and Recommendation was 3n order to be transmitted i
'to the City Councilo ,
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to the City Council thai: the Wagner-Rio
Vista Annexation be considered favorablyo Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono
MOTION CARRIED.
AOJOURNh1EPT1' - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Pebley offered ~
a motion to adjourn the meetinga Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono i
MOTION CARRIEDa ! '
The meeting adjourned at 11:57 o'clock p.m. j
~ -- . , . . .. . , . • ~
1
Respectfully submitted, "
L~~~/9~l'ZL/Ti~l/ ~
ANN KREBS, Secretary '
Anaheim Planning Commission
Ili
;~
__ _- _____.._------..__._...-.____._..._,~.._....- _ __ _ .
~ r-- . ~. .. . ..- ---