Minutes-PC 1964/03/30. ~' i.~.1.:. ~S ~... ~..Y.,^~ii1~F,:
~ `.:_.
s' ~
~
~ ... ~
City Hdll
Anaheim, California
March 30,'1964
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o`clock P.Mo, a quorum being present.
PRESENf - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Pebley, Rowland, Perry, Sideso
ABSEIJI' - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavosa
PRESENi' - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
' Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Sides led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flage
APPROVAL OF
TI~ MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of March 16 were approved with the following
correction: page 2026, paragraphs 11 and 12, the name should read
"McArthur" instead of "McGrath"o
RECLASSIFICA'IION - CONTINUED PUBLIC I-IEARING. FANN~' SHOWALTERy c~o DECON CORPORATION,
N0. 63-64-8 and 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, Galifornia, Owner; DECON CORPORATION,
1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California9 Agent; property described
CONDITIONAL USE as: An irregular portion of land having a frontage of 1,266 feet on
PERMIT N0, 450 the westerly side of the Riverside Freeway, the westernmost boundary of
subject property being 550 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson
Street, said Froperty being further described as PORTION NOa 1 and
PORTION NOa 2; PORTION NOa 1 being located in the City of Anaheim, PORTION NOo 2 being
located in the County of Orangeo Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
RF[~UESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEIJfIAL~ ZONEe
kEQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A O~E AND TWO•STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED
RESIDEM'IAL DEVELOPMEM' WITH CARPORTS - WAIVE ONE-
STORY E~IGHT LIMITATIONo
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of July 22, August 19, September 16,
October 26, December 23, 1963, and January 20, 1964, in order that the petitioner might
have sufficient time to submit revised plans incorporating suggestions made by the Commissiona
ZOning Coordinator Martin.Kreidt read a letter from_the agent for the petitioner indicating
that revised plans would be needed to meet both the specification's of the Ctty of Anaheim
and the County of Orange, and that a 60-day extension of time was requestedo
Commi~sioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification Noe 63-64-8
and Conditional Use Permit Noo 450 to the meeting of May 25, 1964, to allow the petitioner
sufficient time to submit revised planse Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
AREA LEVELOPMENf - CON'IIivUED PUBLIC HEARING. DONNA Aa BOWEN, 2648 West Ball Road, MASAMI
PI.RN N0. 5 OGATA, 2656 West Ball Road, and JOHN G. WEBER, 2664 West Ball Road,• '
Anaheim, California, Owners; JOFL^! Go DUGAN, 1416 West Whittier Bou}.evard, ~
RECLASSIFICATION Whittier, California, Agent~ property desCribed ass A rectangular parcel ~
N0. 63-64-91 of land with a frontage of 396 feet on the south side of Ball Road and 'a j
depth of 607 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being 666 feet ;
CONDITIONAL USB west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as
PERMIT.NO. 541 2648, 2656, and 2664 West Ball Roade Property presently classified as +
R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE, ~
GENERAL PLAN
AMHNDMEM N0. 4
Subject area development plan incorporates site development considerations, ~
such as circulation patterns, necessary for •the highest and best develop- ~
TEIJTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT NG. 5521 ment of said propertiesa • ~
REVISION NO;,_1 - 2035 -
r
_.. .. ---~---^- -_.__-
~_ -.. . .
'~ .
. ~ . . ..
°-----~--... --'------..._ _. . ...,,,-,_.,.~.,..,,~..,- ,•-.....~
1 ~ . . it•~. -- ..... . . ' .
. . __.~_..;
~
~
~
f ~ ~~
MlNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964
~
2036
AREA DEVELOPh¢NT - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOMB~
PLAN N0. 5
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A ONI: AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RECLASSIFICATION PLANNED RESIDEM'IAL DEVELOPNI~M' WITH CARPORTS
IJO. 63-64-91 AND WAIVER OF (1) ONE-STORY I~IGi{f LIMITATION
WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL-
CONDITIONAL USE TURAL, ZOIVED PROPERTY; (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
PERMIT T!Oo 541 AND ARHA; (3) REQUIRED FRONTAGE OF ALL LOTS
ON A DEDICATED STREET OR ALLEY; (4) REQUIRED
GENERAL PLAN SIDE YARDS.
AMENDb~tJI' N0. 4
SUBJHCT TRACT CONTAINS 505 ACRES, PROPOSED FOR SUBDIVISION IM'0 A 71-LOT
TENTATIVE MAP OF CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPN~M o DEVELOPER: D~ 8 M~ DEVELOPIufENT COMF".NY,
TRACT N0. 5521 1416 West Whittier Boulevard, Whi+.tier, Californiae ENGINEER: MCDANIEL
REVISION N0. 1 ENGINEERII:G COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiao
(Continued) Subject petitions, Tentative Tract and General Plan Amendment were con-
tinued from the meeting of March 2, 1964, in order to allow the petitioners
time to submit revised plans, and for the Planning Department to prepare
Area Development Plan No~ 5 to illustrate the proposed circ~lation for
subject and abutting propertieso
Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski presented Area Development Plan Noo 5 to the Commission,
in conjunction with Reclassification Noo 63-64-91, Conditional Use Permit Noo 541, and
Revision Noo 1 of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5521, further stating the Planning Department
had contacted property owners considered in the study area, and upon consultation with the
interested property owners, prepared the plan as submittedo A circulation pattern was indi-
cated on the proposed plan, noting that the City of Stanton requested that the City of Anaheim
extend Sherrill Street northerly to Ball Road to provide additional access from the single-
family subdivision southerly of the study area,
Mr. Grudzinski further stated the study made of the properties considered in the Area Develop-
ment Plan determined the following findings:
1. That the Area Development Plan was bounded by Ball Road on the north, Magnolia
Avenue on the east, single-family subdivision on the south, and the Hdison
power line easement on the westo
2> That the properties to the north and south of the study area had been established
witn low-density, single-family residential development~
3o That the land was flat and drained in a southwest direction and was presently
being used for orange groveso
4. That all the parcels had direct acce~s to an arterial highway~
9o That a majority of the parceis of property were 500 feet to 600 feet in depth,
but were generally less than 15Q feet in width~
6o That an automobile service station existed at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Bell Road and Magnolia Avenue~
7o That the City of Stanton had requested that Sherrill Street, which'pre'sently
stubbed into the south side of the study area, be extended northerly to provide
adequate access for the single-family properties southerly of the study area to
Ball Roade
It was the Planning Department's recommenda'tion that if Area Development Plan No> 5 was
recommended for adoption to the City Council, it be subject to the following conditionss
1. That the circulation system should be developed in accordance with the intent of
the circulation system depicted on the exhibit dennted as Area Development Plan
No. 5.
2. That Sherrill StreAt be extendad northerly in order to provide adequate circulation
for stib~ect property and to provide adequate access from the exist•ing single-family
subdivision southerly of the study area to Ball Road.
3. That all development proposals within the bounds of the Area Development Plan No. 5
oe subject to review by the Development Review Committee~
Mr. Grudzinski further reviewed for the Commission the exhibit on the wall indicating
suggested changes to the General Plan Amendment No. 4 under consideration by the Commission,
said exhibit indicating low-medium density for sub~ect property permitting development up to
„-. --_....._____... _ _ . . _ _ _..__ _. _ _
_.. _,~q ~, . .
~
__.,........~...~.,...,._w.. ,.....,... ~. . ,,,.y.~~---..r..
(".~ ~.~.
t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964
i
~
2037
AREA DEVELOPMENf - 18 multiple-family re~idential units per net acreo
PLAN N0. 5
Mro John Dugan, 624 Anthony Street, appeared before the Commission and
RECLASSIFICATION stated the proposed developmsnt was the only logical or poss.ible means
N~. 63-64-91 of developing the deep lots southerly of Ball Road since indi~idualparcels
could not be developed for single-family subdivision and C-1, Neighborhood
CONDITIONAL USE Commercial, Zone in the area was more than adequate, and access roads would
PERMIT N0. 541 not be available for commercial development.
GENERAL PLAN No other opposition appeared.
AMENDMHNT N0. 4
TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 5521 The Commission reviewed the propvsed plan in conjunction with the Area
REVISION NOo ~ Development Plan exhibit and noted the adjacent property directly to the
west of subject property would have additional ingress to and egress from
(Continued) the property with an alley to the oroposed extension of Sherrill Street
and would prove to be a feasible means of developmento
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1106, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Area
Development Plan Noo 5 be adoptedo (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBSs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
N~ES: COMMISSIONER&s Noneo
ABSENf: COMMISSIONHRSs Camp, Chavoso
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1107, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recomanend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-91 be approved, su»ject to canditionso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSEtJI: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavose
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No> 1108, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 541, subject to condition:~o (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call t~e fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sidesa
NO.~Ss COI~PAISSIOPJERSs Nonea
ABSEM : CON~MISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1109, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner hllred, to recommend to the City Council that Generat
{'lan Amer~dment Noo 4.be approved in accordance with Bxhibit "A"o ,(See,Resolution Book.).
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESs COMMISSIOIJERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOESs COAMOISSIONERS: Nonea
ABSENTo COMMISSIOIVERSs Camp, Chavoso
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to approve Revision No. 1 of Tentative Map of Tract
No. 5521, subject to the following conditionss
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form €or approval.
2. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to
Ball Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
3. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5521, Revision Noa 1, 3s granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 63-64-91 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 541.
4. That "A" Street shall be 64 feet wide with a 40-foot roadway.
_.---.___._ .....__. _ ... _ _ __--.-~_...._r..~._._.__.__._...._.__._~.
--,i~ -, . _ _ _ _ ~
' -
t~
r~
~
~.
,
i
~,...a~..~..,~,,,,e.,~..~M~.~,.~ ~ ~ ~.~--._..... ~...
?~
~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964 2038 ~
AREA.DEVELOPMEM1*f - 5e That the following stipulations be noted on the finai tract maps ~
PLAN N0. 5 ~
a. Lettered lots (1-a through 85-a) to be used for carports with i
RECLASSIFICATION no residential uses permittedo `
NOo 63-64-91 . bo Lot No. 69 to be used for recreati.onal uses witti no reside:~tial
uses permittedo i
CONDITIONAL USE ce Use and occupancy of all lots shown hereon, are si:aject to '
PERMIT N0. 541 conditions and restrictions of Conditional Use Permit No. 541. '
GENERAL PLAN 6e That the drainage shall be provided to Ball Road, or through ease- !
Ah~NDMENf N0. 4 ments and facilities as approved by the City Engineero
T'ENfATIVE.MAP OF 7o That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted j
TRACT N0. 5521 to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council ;
REVISION N0. 1: approval of the Finai Tract Map, and further, that the approved
. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded concur-
(Continued) rently with the Final Tract Mapo '~
+•
8o That Lot Noa 70 along the east and west boundaries shall be designated '
as Lot "A" on the east boundary and Lot "B" on the west boundaryo ~
;
9o That a predetermined price for Lots "A" and "B" shall be calculated ~
and an agreement for dedication entered into between the Developer
and the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract mape ~
The cost of Lots "A" and "B" shall include land and a proportionate ~
share of the undergr.ound utilities and street improvementse .~
l0e That Street "A" shall be recor3ed as Sylvan Streete ~
.~
Commissioner Perry seconded the moi3one FMJTION CARRIEDo '~
~ONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC i~P.RING. W. Ho JEWETT, 1141 East Ash Avenue, Fullerton,
PERMIT N0. 546 California, Owner; Re Le CURRY, 12413 Sunqrove, Garden Grove~ California,
Agentf requesting permissior, to ESTABLISH A BUILDING MATERIAL STORAGE YARD
G'E1~RAL PLAN WITH INCIDENTAL SAiES AND DISPLAY YARL ~,n property described ass An L-
AMENDlAEM N0. li shaped parcel of land r~.ith s frc~~tage ef aoproximately 81 feet an th2 east
side of State College 3uulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 382
feet, the northerly boundary of sa;.d property being ap~~~oximately 375 feet
south of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1832 ~nuth State College
Boulevard. Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and P-L, PARKING LANDSCAP-
ING, 20NES,
Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of March 16~ 1964, in ~~sder that the peti-
tioner might be present to answer the Commission's questions, and for the Planning Department
to advertise for a General Plan amendmento
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter to the Commission from the petitioner, indicat-
ing he would be unable to attend the Commission meeting due to being out of the State, and
requested that subject conditional use permit be continued to the meeting of April 13, 19640
Mr, Kreidt fuxtfier advi'sed the Commission that General Plan Ametrdment Noa 15 was t~ ame-5d
the Circulatiun Element of the General Plan, and that sub3ect conditional use permit would
be affected if Generai Plan Amendment Noo 15 were cunsidered at this time by the Commission
because of its peripheral development.
Conunissioner Pebley offered a:~otion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 546
and General Plan Amendment Noe 15 to the meeting of ANri1 13, 1965, at the request of the
petitioner in order that he might be ~tile to appear in person at the Commission hearing.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe
__~_.._.-- -,._...____._.__._.._...._--.-__..__ _.~.._--~_.,. ...___..,_._........_........~,,,.
_ ____..- __.. _ __.u_.,.--.._ _ .. .
:......_...,. :~:;~ ,, _.._. .,,~- ..
,
i •
' :; .',
:.~~
,..._ - ~._..~_____..__-~_ _ _-----____.---~.~._ _.....__-___- - -- ~` --~_._.,.. ,. , ..
_;a
~., ~ ~..~ ~.~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964. 2039 f
R&GLASSIFTCATION - PUBLIC EIEARING, SHUTCHI KUSAKA 8 T. SATO, 3047 West Ball Road, Anaheim,
N0. 63-64-94 California, and MILLARD JOUL, 3065 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California,
Owners; JACK R0~'~OWAY 8 FRANK HORPEL, 2200 SoUth Loara, Anaheim, California,
VARIANCE N0. 1628 Agents; property;,described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage ;
of 818 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of 1,290 j
TENTATIVE MAP OF feet, the easteriy boundary of said property being approximately 338 feet
TRACT NOa 3823 west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, the tottal area of said property f
being approximately 26 acres, and further described as Portions "A", "B", ~
IEM'ATIVE MAP OF and "C". PORTION "C", to be zoned C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COt~M~RCIAL, ZONE,
TRACT_N0._ g519 having a frontage of 818 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a depth
of 198 feet, the easterly boundary of said Portion "C" lying approximately
GENERAL PLAN 338 feet west of the centeriine of Beach Boulevarda PORTION "A", to be
AMENDMENT N0, 13 zoned R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOIVE, lying directly north of and '
adjacent to Portion "C", having a southerly boundany of approximately 714
feet, and coinciding with the northerly boundary of Porti~n "G", the depth~
of said Portion "A" being approximately 1,092 feet from the northerly boundary of Portion "C",
and the easterly boundary of said Portion "A" being approximately 338 feet west of the oenter- (
line of Beach'Boulevard. PORTION "B", to be zoned R-1~ OIVH-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ lying
directly ad~acent to and to the east of the stub ends of Rome Avenue and Gien Holiy Drive, '
with a width of approximately 270 feet, the easterly boundary of said Portion "S" meeting
and.coinciding with the westerly boundary of the aforementioned Portion "A", the northerly +
boundary line of said Portion "S" being a continuation of the northerly boundary line of i
Portion "A"; Portion "B" extending therefrom in a southerly direction to a distance of approxf- i
matgly 1,092 feeto Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. j
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION "A" - R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. ~
PORT'ION "9" - R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, ZONEo
PORTION "C" ~ C-1, NBIG~ORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEo `
REQUESTED VAR7ANCE: WAIVER OF SINGLE-STORY FIEIGHT LIMITATION FOR R-3 DEVELOPMENf i
WITHIN 150 FEET OF ANY R-A 20NE BOUNDARY ON PORTION "A" ONLYo ~
DEVHLOPERs BEAR STATE BUILDERS INCORPORATED~ 440 "B" East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, Californiae
ENGIfVEERs Golden Engineering, 110 West First Street, Santa Ana, Californiae Tract No< 3823, ~
loc~ted on the north side of Ball Road approximately 900 feet west of Beach Boulevard, and a
containing approximately 606 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 26 R-1, ONE-FAMILY 9
RESIDEPTI'IAL, ZONED lotso Tract No~ 551 , located on the north side of Ball Road approxi- ;~
mately 338 feet west of Beach Boulevard, immediately adjacent to the east of Tract Noe 3823
and containing approximately 2201 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 49 R-3, MULTIPLE- ~
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND 2 C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONED lotso .
Subject petitions and Tentative Tract Maps were continued from the meeting of March 16,1964 ~
to allow the petitioner time to submit revised tract maps incorporating suggested changes,
and for the Planning Department to advertise for a General Plan amendmente ~
Associatt P~anner Ronald Grudzinski
presented to the Commission three alternate plans the '
Commissioa might consider for approval for General T'lan amendment, noting its proximity to ~
the existing uses on the Generai Plano
Mr. Grudzinski further stated that the physical land cuts affected if subject petition were ~
approved would extend northerly to Orange Avenue, this being the reason for the extension of y
the low-medium symbol designation north of the Flood Control Channel; that property to the
'~south of Ball 3oad was ioned C-~, tleed restricted to business and professional'office use; ~'
that the C-0 designation on one of the exhibits was an alternative to heavier commercial use
on subject property; that the third exhibit indicated how strip commercial would be extended ~
along Hall Road if sub,ject petition were approved for C-1 use; and that this would necessitate
the Commission giving consideration to all properties fronting on Ball Road from Beach Boule- ~
vard to Western Avenueo ~
In response to Commission questioning r~lative to discussion and pro~ections of properties ~
on t4ie south side of Ball Road, Mro Gru~zinski stated the implication of low-medium density ~
on the south side of Bali Road was discussed with Advanced Planning who did not feel any
otl.~er consideration should be given with the stub street endinq at the single-family subdi- ~
vfsion developmente ~ie /~ , / ,r//
~p--vYvrru~U~t-~.6-r~GL ut.a-~..e~J..C'..-~e~f.~uc..-l.fi.~- e:d-~viL~.C ~GLA~L~-e.aY ~;~~~'n~,
Mr. Jack Rogoway, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the ~
proposed development, noting the commercial use af the Ball Road frontage would be for a
small commercial facility and should, in no way, effect strip commercial use along Sall Road;
that the single-family subdivision would be developed concurrently with the multiple-family
subdivision, with single-story multiple-family developmen+. on the westerly portion of the
multiple-family tract and two-story, studio-type to screen the westerly development from the
Beach Boulevard motel compl~xes; and that the neighborhood commercial shopping area would
provide the minimum needs ~f l•he residents of the praposed development because Beach Boule- '
vard provided for the divided highway, and this would prevent people from going through any ~
commercial facilities on the west side of Beach Boulevard.
_____._._-..__.~_..._...,_.._..__._._ _•-.. --..__._. _.._--....--•-,-•-.
. . __.._..___...___._.. .._.... ~
0
i •
1 ,-' _.,. _ ,. ,
(~;~t ~J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 14~4
~
2040
RECLASSIFICATION - In response to Commission questioning, Mre Roc;oway stated the drainage
N0. 63-64-94 problem would be resolved by the developer of Che pro3ect, and he would
refer any questions relative to that to hime
VARIANCE NO.~
C
i
-
omm
s
Mr. Frank Horpel, developer of the property, appeared before the
TENTATIVH MAP OF sion and stated that in response to the Commission's questioning regarding
hi
h
TRACT NOa 3823 c
the drainage facilities, the original single-family subdivision map w
had been approved by the Commission pro~osed all of the drainage to be
TENTATIVE MAP OF through the single-family tract to the west; that the proposed develop-
TRACT NOe 5519 _ ment would have only the drainage of the proposed 26 R-1 lots, and ti~e
To
ad
ll R
B
.
o
a
multiple•-family lots would have their own drainage on to
GENERAL PLAN clarify further for the Commission the drainage of the origi.nai trac;:
t
d
t
ANIENDMENI N0. 13 a
e
approved, together with the propused tract dxainage, Mro Hqrpel s
ro~osed
ts we
l l
e
ti
i
p
r
a
o
den
on the original tract 118 single-family res
(Continued) to drain from east to west into the existing R-1 developmeni, and that
the proposed development had only 6.6 acres draining from east ~o west
and 22 acres draining from north to south; and that although it v+as
ori9inally proposed to develop subject properties for single-family subdivision development
because of the drainage problems and the nearness of Highway 39, no financing was obtainable
for single-family subdivision development because the property vias adjacent to commercial
recreation on Beach Boulevard, primarily consisting of two-story motels,
In response to Commission questioning, Mra Horpel stated the developers planned to construct
four fourplex buildings which were to be sold; that the single-family homes would sell in
the vicinity of $33,000, and the cost of the land determined the sale price of any unit
which also included a single-family subdivisione
Mrs. June Lenz, 3312 West Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject
petitions, stating she represented a Mro Gordon Walker of 3100 West Rome Avenue, and reosinis
letter of opposition as District Chairman of the LUestridge Homeowners` Association, opp g
multiple-family development for the entize easterly 22 acres of subject property, and pre-
sented an aiternative method of development, namely, a tier of two-story multiple-family
development abutting the two-story motels on Beach Boulevard, one tier of single-story,
multiple-family development, and the remainder. to be developed as R-1, single-family sub-
divisiono It was further noted in Mro Walker°s letter that subject property was not an odd-
shaped parcel of land; that there was a demand for good, single-family residential homes in
the area, and that the homeowners recognize the need for a buffer zone between the two-story
motels on Beach Boulevard and the single-family x•esidential development, but that two tiers
of multiple-family developmenL• would be sufficient for a buffer~
Mrso Lenz further stated she, too, opposed the proposed multiple--family development for 22
acres, since this was entirely unnecessary, with the exception of a strip of multiple-family
development immediately adjacent to the two-story motels, and that the value of the existing
homes would be greatly enhanced if a larger portion of subject property were developed for
single-family subdivision, and to prevent additional traffic from utilizing a11 the streetse
Mrs. Gwen Simpson, 3309 West Deerwood Drive, appeared before the Commission in oppositiun
to sub3ect petitions, stating the entire area would be affected by the proposed development;
that sha represented 30 people who had signed a petition of opposition to multiple-family
development for the 22~acre portion of subject property; that 4096 of the dwellings west of
Bea~h Boulevard were mu3tipl-e~fanily dev2lopment; that the•traGt in which she lived would _
be an island of single-family homes among all the apartments, if subject petitions were ap-
proved; that in her opinion, tiie General Plan indic:ated low-density residential development
for subject property, and this should be adhered ta as much as possible; L•hat to the north
a 20-acre parcel was not developed, and this acreage bein9 considered by the Commission.was
larger, and if approved for multiple-family residential use, would set the pattern of devel'-
opment for 60 acres of land for multiple-family development, whereas the General Plan indicated
all of this property for low-density residential development; that the original tract was
approved by the City Council for single-family subdivision development; that if land use was
the main consideration, the proposed plan could easily be developed for single-family subdi-
vision use since it was a considerably larger parcel than the small, deep lots tl~e Commission
and Council had considered previously for multiple-family development; and that the Commission
should consider upgrading the area by maintaining the low-denwity residential u~fe for subject
property, with the exception of a small strip of multiple-family development immediately
ad~acent to the two-story motels fronting on Beach Boulevard~
The Commission reviewed the al•ternate plan submitted by the opposition, expressing opposition
to C-1 use for the Ball Road frontage since chis would create a pattern of development for
the Ball Road frontage for strip commercial useso
In rebuttai, Mr. Rogoway stated that :he develope;s vrare not attempting to se:t a pattern of
strip commercial development for Ball kaad, but were proposing only neighborl~ood shopping
facilitiesy that he had met with the prop~:ty owners in the area and reviewed the revised
~ __._.._.__._---~~1 _------__._. _..__ --~- -------...._ _____.~_ - --.. . _.._,. ~ . . ._. _ _,
_~~_~_.~~+~+.~.....~.Y...rrrrir~.o.w+~nWnr . .~..~- _. _!~-~_.__...,_~.....a...~....... ~
~ ~ ~ '
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964 2041
RECLASSIFICATION - tract and plans with all the in~terested residents; that Mr. Walker wa:
NO. b3~-64-94 in attendance, and many of the people opposed the overcrowding of sc;.c>a~~~,
. but the apartments would not be more overcrowding than the single-fam:.t
VARIANCE N0. 1628 homes which presently existed with four or five bedrooms, which woula
. indicate at least four children to a home; that he had talked with Mr.
TENfATIVE MAP OF Simpson, and at that time Mro Simpson had not expressed any opposition
TRACT N0. 3829 to the tract map; that the opposition had presented a number..of problems
- which surprised both he and the developer since they had attempted to
TENTATIVE MAP OF resolve problems through contact with the property owners by proposing
TRACT N0. 5519 that no multiple-family vehicul~: access would be permitted through the
single-family residential subdivisions; and that if it were economically
GEl~RAL PLAN possible, they would have developed sub~ect tract for single-family sub-
Ah~NDA~NT N0. 13 division, but because of the land values in the area, it became increasingly
difficult to construct homes for less than $30,000, thus limiting the
(Continued) purchases to the executive classa
Co;nmissioner Chaves er.pr=ssed the o~+?nien that ±h? Cnmmission was not to consider the cost
of land; that the petitioner was using the cost of land as a currency exchange, and it was
the Commission's duty to determine whethe: or not the proposed reclassification was a proper
land use for subject property,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that Planning Study 39-6-4, Exhibit
No. 3, was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission and was referred by the City
Council for General Plan consideration at the time the Commission x•ecommended its adoption.
The Commission reviewed Exhibit Noo 3 of Planning Study 39-6-4, which indicated a land use
study for subject and abutting propertieso
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDD
The Commission discussed the possible development of subject property, neting that the ~
developer proposed similar buffer zones as the Commission generally adopts; that the traffic
element was resolved by not proposing cross streets into the single•-family subdivision to ~
the west, but that the only problem left was the possibility of the reduction of the C-1
portion to C-0, the possible relocation of the north-south street through the multiple-family ~
development easterly to reduce the commercial frontage on Ball Road, or a possibility of ;
requesting the proposed developmeni; be in accordance with Planning Study 39-6-4, and inquired ~
of the developer whether or not the suggestions of the Commission might be incorporated in a
revisedtentative mapyr-~melytherelocation of the north-south street easterly so that the east- ~'
erly portion of the street would coincide with the easterl.y boundary of the large 15-acre ~
parcel of land on the south side of Ball Road, having the commercial frontage on Ball Road i
end at this easterly boundary of the street, and propose multiple-family for the westerly
portione
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to re-open the hearing and continue the Petitions for ~
Reclassification Noa 63-64-94, Variance Noo 1628, Revision No~ 2 of Tentative Map of Tract ~
No. 3823, and Revised Tentative Map of Tx•act Noo 5519,and General Plan Amendment No. 13 to i
the meeting of April 13, 1964, in order that the developer might revise Tentative Map of ~
T'ract No. 55?9 to show a stub street to Ball Road, realignis~g the commercial frontage on ~
Ball Road easterly and indicating the balance of the property on Ball Road for multiple- ~
family subdivisionf for the Planning.Department to prepare an additional General Plan exhibiic ~
~incorporating the property on the south side of Dall Road east of the R-1; that tlie revisefl ' ~
tract map be submitted for InL•erdepartmental Committee recommendations prior to npril 6;
and to amend the legal description of Portions "A" and "C". Commissioner Rowla:~d seconded ~
the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo i
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: AVALON SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCiATION, P, Oo Box 668, Wilmington,
TRACT N0. „,~_ Californiao ENGINEER: McDaniel Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the north side
of Orange Avenue, approximately 896 feet easterly of Magnolia Street and
covering approximately 4.6 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 18
R-1, One~•Family Residential, Zoned lots.
The Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5556, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submi.tted in tentative form ior approval.
2. That the developer shall imprc•:e the Orange Avenue frontage of the "Not a Part"
if the City of Anaheim can obtain the dedicationo
---------.-----•-- ... _ .. __._____ ...___._._._._._.,_._ _. _ _ _ _.
--r ._
- _ __~ ~ ~
~.
(~ ~ ~7
(Continued)
• 4o That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noa 5556 is granted
subject to the approval of Variance Noo 16310
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, PAarch 30, 1964 2042
TENTATIVE MAP OF - 3. That Lot "A" shall be landscaped and maintained. A landscaping
TRACT NOe 5556 maintenance agreemert for Lot "A" shall be submitted to and approved
by the City Attorney prior to approval of the final tract mape
5. That Street "A" shall be recorded as Hampton Street.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~
Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 3:00 pomo
VARIANCE NOo 1029 - PUBLIC HEARING~ PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 610 South Main Street,
Los Angeles, California, SUNSHINE BISCUITS, INCORPORATED, 29-10 Thomson
Avenue, Long Island City 1, New York, Ownersq E~ W~ ICERWIN, 29-10 Thomson
Avenus, Long Island City 1, New York Agent; requsstinc permission to
:~!IVE TFIE REQUIRED PARKING-LANDSCAPING ZONE in the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZONE to pexmit an adequate movement area for tractor-trailer units on
property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frr,ntage of 225 feet on
the south si.de of Cerritos Avenue and a maximum depth of 263 feet9 the easterly boundary of
said property being approximately 985 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard,
and further described as 1500 East Cerritos Avenueo Property presently classified P-L, PARK-
I:vci-LANDSCAPING, ZONE and M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE~
Mr, Eo W. Kerv~in, agent for the petitioner, appear~d before the Commission and reviewed the
proposed development within the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone, and presented to the Commission
an alternate drawing of the ingress to and egress from subject ~roperty and sta~ed that the
proposed 40-foot drive and drive approaches were necessary becaus:e of the length of the
trailer~trucks which would be delivei•ing goods to the warehouse b~,ilding; that he had read
the Interdepartmental Committee re~ommendations and had no objectf.ons to them, but he did
not know what changes had been ~ecommended to the Commissi~~i on +.he plot plano
The Commission then asked Mra Kerwin to review the plan with the rncommended notations and
compare it with the new plan he was submittingo
Mra Arthur Daw, Office Engineer, advised the Commission that it was suggested the new plan
be reviewed immediately by che Traffic Engineer to gain his comments relative to any possible
utilization of Cerritos Avenue for a maneuvering areao
The Commission then requested that Mro Daw t-ske the revised plan to the Traffic Engineer for
his comments and report back to thema
The Commission continued discussion relative to the method of utilization of subject property
without using Cerritos Avenue for a maneuvering area; that the Commission was desirous of
maintaining the 25-foot Parking••Landscaping Zone as much as possiole; and that the Traffic
Engineer's concern was that the trucks would back 3nto sub~ect property from Cerritos Avenuee
Mre Kerwin then stated all trucks would enter subject property from the west and depart from
the easterly drive, thereby eliminating any maneuvering of the trucks on ~srritos Avenueo
b1r. Kerwin further asked~for clarificatiorr of Co~dition Nao 2 regaxding strp~t improvern~nt
planso The Commission informed Mre Kerwin that for all proposed develo~ment within the City
of Anaheim it was a recommended condition that the petitioner provide street improvements
such as curbs and gutters and sidewalks, if necessary, and this was not a part of a spec3al
assessment; and the Commission was not empowered to waive any recommended street improvementse
Mro A. Te Freeman, District Agent of the Southern Pacific Railroad, owner of the property to
the east, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in favor of the proposed develop-
ment since this would act as a stimulus to development of their propertyo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
7F1E HEARING WAS CLOSEDa
Mr, Daw then advised the Commission the Traffic Engineer had no objection to the revfsed plan.
Mre Kreidt advised the Commission the 25-foot Parking-Landsca~ing Zone could be exi:erded for
the easterly and westerly portions of the psoperty, with a 15-~oot Landscaping Zone neing
proposed for the center portion of the frontage on Cerritos Avenueo
„ .._~.~__ .~_----__.._.. ----_ .
_. ~ ~
1
.~
~
.,.~..:...-- ---------__-_. ~
.
._.__,:~
;,- .
~.~ ~ ~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C6MMISSION, March 30, 1964 2043
VARIANCE NOo 1629 - Commis~ioner Chavos offered Resolution Noa 1110, Series 1963-64, and
Continued moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland,
to grant Petition for Variance Noa 1629, based on Revision Noe 1 as
submitted by the petitione~, provided that the Parking-Landscap3ng Zone for the easterly
and westerly portions as indicated be maintained at the 25-foot wide Parking-Landscaping
Zone established, and the ce~:+er portion of the landscaping to be 15 feeta (See Resolution
Book>)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Pebleyo
CONDITIGNAL USE - PUBLIC [-IEARING. ORANGETHORPE INDUSTRIAL PARK, 420 Beverly Drive, Beverly
PERMIT NOe 549 Hills, California, Owners; SIEMONSMA DEVELOPN~IJI' CORPORATION, 1905 East
17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to
ESTAELISH A RESTAURAtJI' AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE TOGETHER WITH AN OFF?CE BUILD-
ING PRIMARILY SERVING GOMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, AND WAIVER OF TFIE MINIMUM
FIVE ACRE SITE SIZE RfiQUIREMENf on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 219 feet on the north side of .Orangethorpe Avenue,
and a depth of 365 feet, the east boundary of said property being approximately 1,065 feet
west of the centerline of Raymond Avenuea Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONESo
Mr~Wright, representing the developer of subject property, appeared before the Commission
and reviewed the proposed development, and in response to Commission questioning, stated
that the structure would be b~ailt and leased as offices and would be constructed altogether
with the restaurant being proposed For the front portion~
The Commission reviewed the proposed developmento
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo iZll, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to grant Conditional Use Permit Noo 549 with
the finding that the proposed offices and commercial uses would be for industrial oriented
type of businesses only, and conditionso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Pebleyo
(A letter of opposition was received from the Santa Fe Railroad too late to be considered
at the Commission Hearingo)
CONDITIONAL USE -?UBLIC Ii:ARINGa VICTOR 8 CORA BUTCHY, 125 South Ohio, Anaheim, California,
PERMIT N0. 550 Owners; JENNIE KIRBY 8 TRUDY C. MALOY, c~o Trudy Maloy, 1937 South Man-
chester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting permission to
ESTABLISH A REST HOME FOR AMBULATORY PATIEM'S on property described as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 50 feet ort the
east side of Melrose Street and a depth of 127 feet, the northern boundary
of said property being approximately 330 fee+. south of the centerline of Broadway, and further
described as 326 South Melrose Streeto Proprrty presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo
Mrs. Jennie Kirby, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that ~
the owners of sub~ect property were also present if the Commission wa~ desirous of asking any ~
questions, and further reviewed the proposed use of sub~ect propertyo ~
The Commission inquired how many persons would be housed on subject property, to which the ~
petitioner replied that presenL•ly there were six ambulatory persons, and a maximum of twelve ~
was proposed; that the number of people would be controlled by requirements of the State for ~
rest homes; that the six persons were presently in her establishment in Los Angeles and would ~
be transferred to Anaheim; and that because the patients were able to walk, they could leave ~
the premises by the stairs at the front or the rear of the home in the event of a fireo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona
, _.r__._~._.__.~ _... ___.._..-----..._.._..._.__._.....
_~ ,
._.__..__. .---------~..__.______.. ~
~--__ ..._.._.._._.........__.
~ ~ ~ <J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964 2044
CONDITIONAL USE - THE E~ARING WAS CLOSED~
PERMIT N0, 550
Continued ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to requiring the rear
portion of subject property to be blacktopped in order to provide for
additional parking~ the possibility of limiting the size of the sign,
and inquired of the petitioner what sign was proposedo
Mrse Kirby replied a sion would not be necessary because they were already established, and
it was not necessary to a~~:ertise, and that on7.y one additionaY person would be employed
when the number of people reached twelve, since Mrs~ Kirby presently took care of the six
patients she hada
Conmiissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1112, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant 1'etition for Conditional Use Permit
Noe 550, subject to conditions and as stipulated by the Commission and as stipulated by the
petitioner, no signs would be permittedo (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSc Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sidese
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Pebleyo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC F]EARING. TONY 8 MILDRED JULIAN, 2780 West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim,
N0. 63-64-100 California, Owners; IRA L. POMEROY, 771~ "B" Fillmore, Buena Park, Cali-
fornia, Agent; reque,ting that proper•. .scribed ase A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land with a frontage ~r 100 feet on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 222 fset; the westerly boundary of said
property being approximately 245 fe-t east of the canterline of Dale
Street, and further ^:escribed as 2780 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A,
RESIDEMIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COhM~RCIAL, ZONE to utilize an exist-
ing residence for professional offices for two physicians.
Mr. Ira Pomeroy, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
proposed use of an existing residence, noting he planned to construct later to the rear of
subject prooerty, and in response to Commission questioning, stated that with the exception
of a littie window dressing on the front, no other altPration was proposed for the outsideo
Discussion was held by the Commissior? :o:ative to whether or not the petitioner should have
requested C-0, Commercial Office, Zone rather than C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, or
whether C-1 should be granted, restricted to business and professional use oniys that the
C-0 Zone applied to the utilization of an existing residence provided the property was less
than 20,000 square feet, whereas the subject property covered more than 20,000 square fsete
The Commission further expressed concern that if sub,~ect property were to be utilized for
any length of time for its proposed use, a more commercial appearance should be presented
for the front of the buildingo
Commissioner Sides~left the Council Chamber at 4:40 p,me
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commiscion that if the two properties to the
east and west had not been given permission to utilize the existing homes for businesses,
this petition would not Y~ave been recommended for C-1 use, and then further reviawed R~clas-
sification Noa 59-60-53e
Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possible C-1 and C-0 Zones
being applied to sub,~ect property; that if C-1 were proposed, the restrictions the Commission
had previously established for the utilization of exisi:ing homes, namely the conversion to a
co~mnercial facia, specific deed restrictions, and the li~nitation of signs, wou]d apply.
In response to Commission questioning, the petitioner stated th~t although he had planRed
to provide parking at the front of the structure, there was adequate room at the rear to
provide the parking, although later, when he was more financially able, he would add to the
structure and present a more commercial f*ontage for the existing buildinge
Commissioner Rowland expressed concern thzt the petitioner planned to utilize the structure
for an indefinite period; that C-0 should be approved, subject to the filing of a conditional
use ?ermit and permission for the utilization of the existing structure for five years, after
which time a substantial alteration would have to be made to utilize the structure for commer-
cial purposes; and that the purpose of the amendment to the C-0 Code was to provide utiliza-
tion of these residences for a specific number of years.
_ . _ __ - -- _ --
. . _ _~ -
- `+ ~ ------ -- --~
4~ ~ '~,'p
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964
~
2045
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassi-
N0. 63-64=1'00~ fication Noo 63-64-100 to the meeting of April 27, 1964, in order to
provide the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans, indicat-
(C~ntinued) ing a commercial front, a substantial increase in the landscaping for
the front, and provisions for parking on the rear portion of subject
propertyo Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
Commissioner Sides returned to the Council Chamber at 4:45 pam.
a~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. IGNACIO ESTRADA, 3173 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
F N0.'63`-b4'-98 and California, Owner; GEORGE L. ARGYROS, ]521 iast 17th Street, Suite I, ,
Y Santa Ana, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly
~ CONDITIONAZ USE shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 63 feet on the north side of
PERMIT NO". 55 Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 147 feety the westerly boundary of said
property being approximately 160 feet east of the centerline of Western
Avenue, and further described as 317 West Lincoln Avenueo property
presently classified as R-1, OIVH-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONH.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ NEIG(-BORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT TF~ EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION
SITE RECENTLY APPROVED.
Mr. A1 Fishman, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that the Standard Oil Company had the property to the west and was desirous of expanding
their proposed facilities because of the heavy traffic along Lincoln Avenue, and that there
was no intention to utilize the sub~ect property for other than the expansion of this service
station.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso
I TF1E HEARING WAS CLOSED.
i
; Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noe 1113, Series 19.63~-64, and moved for its passage
, and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Peti-
~ tion for Reclassification Noa 63~-64-98 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution
Book.)
_ ~
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee
I
i pYESs COMMISS?ONERS: All:ed, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sidesa
i NOHS: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Pebleyo
' Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1114, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
' and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 552, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko)
~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ AY£S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perxy, Rowland~ Sideso
NOES: COI~M~IISSIONERSs ' Noneo • - • • - • - • • ' • •
ABSHIJT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Pebley.
Commissioner Chavos le:i the Council Chamber at 5:07 p~mo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUB?~IC HEA:?INGe JOHN r~ KRAMER, 1141 East Ash Avenue, Fullerton, Califomia,
N0. 63-64-99 and Ownex; JOE LANE, 212 Ash, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
VARIANCE N0. 1630 168 feet on the south si.r_e of Picadilly Way and a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 190 feet, the eas1.erty boundary of said property being approximately
480 feet east of the centerlin? of Magnolia Avenueo Property presently
classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONH,
~ REQUESTED RECLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
~
~ REQUESTED VARIANCEa WAIVE STRUCTURAL f~IGKf LIMITATION TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A
~ TWO-STORY APARTMEk7 BUILDING WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-1 ZOIVED PROPERTY~
AND PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORTS IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED GARAGESe
~ Mr. Joe Lane, representing the petitioner, appeared before •Che Commission and reviewed the
~ proposed development of subject propertyo
~
~
(
i ,.__r.. _ _ _ _
! ..~___.__------- ._ _._....... _.._-._. ..__ _._.. ___. . _..,__.... ._._..~_
~9 ~- _.. . a
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY+PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964 2046
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 5:10 pom.
RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
N0. 63-64-99 and
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
VARIANCE N0. 1630 ~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that all single-,
(Continued) family property owners within 300 feet of subject property had been
notified of the subject petitions; that a precedent had been established
when the City of Fullerton had approved two-story construction of multiple-
family units across the street from subject property; and that the Santa Ana Freeway bounded
sub~ect property on the weste
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 1115, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Rer,lassification No. 63•-64-99 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonno
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camt, pebleya
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1116, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to grant Petition for Va:iance No. 1630, based
on the fact that two-story construction would reduce the noise from the freeway; that a
precedent had been established by the Cii:y of Fullerton approving two-story construction
across the street from subject property; and that no one appeared in opposition, and further
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was ~assed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sid2s~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavoso
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Pebl~yo
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HGARING. EVELYN Ba WOELFEL, 8417 La Palma Avenve, Buena Park,
NOa 63-64-101 California, Owner; LYTEL INVESTMENT, 9776 Katella Avenue, Suite J,
Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectan9ularly
CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 265 feet on the west side of
PERMIT N0. 551 Knott P.venue and a depth of 412 feet, the southerly boundary of said
property being appro~cimately 39°_~ feet north o£ the centerline of Cerritos
GENERAL PLAN Avenue~ Property presently classified as C~1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,
pMENAN~Nf NOe 14 ZONEo ~
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZOIJE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY
PLANIJED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEPiI' AND WAIIIER OF
(1) ~::AGE RHQUIREMEM' TO CONSTPUCT CARPORTS;
(2) ONE-5i0RY HEIGHi •'..IMITATION WITHIN 150
FEE'f OF R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONED
-- " . ' `. - PROPERTY, _ .
Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Commission the proposed General Plan
Amendment as it pertained to the General Plan on the wall, and in response to Commission
~uestioning, stated that single•-story multiple-family development existed across the street.
Commissioner Pebley returned to the ~ouncil Chamber at 5:15 p.mo
Mr. Joe Borges, developer for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations met with their approval; that he was not aware
that a new junior high school was bein~ proposed so near to sub3ect property; that over 10,000
square feet was being provided for a recreation2l area which would be considerably more than
a single-family subdivision could provide; and that he was proposing 36 dwelling units on 2~
acres.
Mrs. I'atrick Ochoa, 1330 Oriole Street, appeared before the Commission in conditional opposi-
tion to sub~ect petitions, stating she was speaking for the homeowners of the single-family
subdivision to the west qf subject property~ that the property owners -;9re concerned with the
appearance of the carports, since the single-fam3ly subdivision was an attractive developmont;
that she opposed the waiver of the single-story height limitation because it abutted the
chicken farms and a:ould oventually develop into two-story R-3 for those areasj and that it
s
. __ .
~ ` _._-•---- ---,-.._. _ _..._. .__ _. .... ___.____ ._.. . __. ..,._.__ ._ ..__~_ __.._._..__
-' ' ~ i ~i~. _ _ ~.
:...____-_-~
, ~ - ~ ~
i •
1 _
.
_. _ __ .__. _ __.. . ~...,.._._.__...._,......~~ .,...~.~.,~.__~_... _... _.._.~._. ~.._..._,_.. _ ._.._.
,~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 3Q, 1964 2~4~ ~
RECIJISSIFICATION - was hoped the Commission would re~tain the residentfal integrity of the ~
~
N0. 63-64-101 area, i
COPDTTIONAL USE The Commission informed the opposition that single-story construction
PERMIT"N0. 551 was proposed for the east side of the proposed development, with two-
story studio apartments on the west side of the proposed development.
GENFRAL PLAN
HIY@NDMEYf'N0. 14 TF1E F1EAf~ING WAS CLOSEDa
(Continuad) The Commission inqufred as to the disposition of Conditional Use Permit
Noo 145, and was informed this was a request for a trailer park which
had been deniedo
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 1117, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 63-64-101 be approved, sub~ect to conditionso (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allrsd, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, perry, Rowland, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERSi Noneo
ABSHNTs COMMISSIONERS: Camp.
Commissioner Mungall left the Council Chamber at 5s30 pome, Chairman Protem Gauer taking
the chair. ~
Co~nissioner Sides offered Resolution Noo 1118, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noe 551, and further granting the request for waiver of the single-story height limitation
and the construction of carports in lieu of garages. (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~
AYESs COh4~fISSIONERSe Allred~ Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland~ Sides.
NOESt COAM~IISSIONERS~ Chavoso
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSi Camp, Mungalle
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1119, Series 1963-6A, aqd moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to ttje City Council that
General Plan Amendment Noe 14s Exhibit "A" be approvede (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~
AYESt COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOESs COAMAISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSEM: COIu4~AISSIONERS~ Camp, Mungallo
AREA DEVELOP(u¢NP - CONTINUED PUBLIC F~ARING. INITIATED BY TE~ CITY COUNCIL, 204 East
PLAN N0. 6 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California~ propoeing the WAIVER OF T1~ REQk1IRHD
LAND6CAPING of proper±y described.ass .A 50-foot.strip of land on the
~VARIANCE N0. ~627 eaet side af Anaheim Boulevard (Lcs Angeles Street) betwee~ Ball Road and
Cerritos Avenue, and on ~he south side of Ball Road from Anaheim Bo~levard
eastward a distance of approximately 418 feet from the centerline of
Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified P-L~ PARKING-LAND6CAAING,
ZONEe
Subject Area Development Plan, initiated by the City Plannin Commission
pxoposes a master plan of landscaping for Anaheim Boulevard ~Los Angeles
Street) between Ball Road and Cerritoa Avenueo
Sub,~ect variance r~as continued from the meeting of March 16, 1964, in order to allow the
P1annSng Department to prepare the Area Development Plan. ,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Co~mnission the reasons for requesting
additional continuance for the completion of Area Development Plan No. 6.
Mr. W. R. Baker, 7668 Talegraph Road~ Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission end etated ~ ~
he reprasented all the property owners between Ball Road and Cerritos Avenue interested irt ~ ;
eliminating the landscaping behind the sidewalk~ that elthough they wore primarily interested i ,
in complete removal of #.t~e .landscaping, ..t~uy .would acnf.orm wi.th the existing landscaping on ~ ~
the front property of tihe United California Bank; that his company was interested in reeolving
the landscape setback because they were ready to pour the sidewalka for both Hardin Oldsmobile
j
.___._._ _.. _.. ~ __ _ _ . _ _ _ ~
__ ___ _ o
~.. ... ;~I ~ ~t _ .. ___ J
_ S
(
.. _
. _ . ._ ....__ . .. _. . . .. _ ... _._ ...~
.:...,~ '
`.. ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964 2048
ABEA DE;TELOPMEPTf - and the Chrysler Companys and in response to questions by Mr. Kreidt,
PiAN 1~0. 6' stated he had not measured the existing number of square feet fronting
the United California Bank; that the Hardin Oldsmobile landscaping pian
VARTRt4C'E NOo 1627 was more than they would agree with, since they were primarily interested
in just tree wells and trees in the curb portion of the properties on the
(Contfnued) east side of Anaheim Boulevard between Ball Road and Cerritos Avenuea
Mro Kreidt advised the Commission the Public Works Director was more
3nterested in having the curb.side of the properties fronting on Anaheim Boulevard completely '
cemented with the ~vxception of the tree wells in the parkway because of"th'e pedestrian traffic
across the planting areas if cars parked along the curb; that in answer to Mro Baker's concern
regarding resolving the landscape area for the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, this would
normaliy be resolved through the Engineering Department, but ~~cause the Commission had re-
quested a plan of landscaping for the remaining prbperties be:ing developed, or to be developed,
between Ball Road and Cerritos Avenue on Anaheim Boulevard, and since this was a possible
amendment to the P-L Zone for said property, adequate studies should be made by the Planning
Department prior to being presented to the Commission for their consideration; and that repre-
sentatives of Buzza-Cardozo, Kilroy, and other interested people had been advised a request ;
for a continuance would be made to the Commissiono
In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Kreidt stated the zone for the property on the
east side of Anaheim Boulevard had not been changed, but various deviations from the P-L
Zonp had been requested at the time the conditional use permits approving the automobile
agencies had been requested and granted by e3.ther the Commission or the City Council.
To clarffy a point, Commissioner Chavos..stated Mre Owen, owner of the property being developed
far the Chrysler Corporation and the property of the United California Bank, stated any
requirements the City had stipulated would be conformed with, and that the Planning Department
should submit to him the requirements, and he would abide by them; and that presently there
exists a 50-foot P~-L Zone which other property owners had been required to adhere to~ and it
shnuld reroain at the present level of the Code requirementso
Mr. Baker stated the McClure Mercury dealership agreed to put in sidewalks in the front with
tree wells and would abide by whatever landscaping was to be required, and that the nature
of the automobile business was different from the existing businesses southerly of Cerritos
Avenue,and it wouid be necFSSary not to require the same amount of landscapingo
Commissioner Gauer requested that if additional time were granted the Planning Department,
one exhibit indicate the various types of landscaping approved for the east side of Anaheim
Boulevard, with the va•rious petitions noted, together as it would appear if only a 10-foot
landscaping strip was approved~
Commissioner Sides then stated that when the Hardin Oldsmobile conditional use permit was
considered by the C±ty Council, the landscaping was not approved or considered, pending the
study the Commission had requested the Planning Department to do, and that a bond had been
posted to insure the landscapinyo
Mr. Kreidt also stated the Chrysler Corporation had also posted a bond to insure any land-
scaping requirementso
Mre Weber appeared before the Commission and stated Mro Owens had not agreed to a 50-foot
landscaped setback, but had agreed if any change were made, he would agree with the proposed
changes.• . . . . • • • . . ~
Chairman Mu~gall returned to the Council Chamber at 5s36 pomo, Chairman Protem Gauer yield-
ing the Chairmanship to himo
Commissioner Rowland offerad a motion to continue Area Development Plan Noo 6 and Variance
Noo 1627 to the meeting of April 13, 1964, in order that the Planning Department mj.ght have
sufficient time to prepare Area Development Plan No. 6, indicating a plan of landscaping
development for the properties on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard between Ball Road and
Cerritos Avenuej that it be scheduled as the first item of the afternoon agenda; and that
the study indicate the existing landscaping, the landscaping approved under various
petitions, and how this landscaping compared with the existing 50-foot I.andscaping Zone,
together with any proposed revision to the 50-foot 1,andecaping Zone. Commissioner Chavos
seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
_......_.___.....__.__...~.~_..._~.. ,w .. .
...._.,.~,.,.._.__-r-------_~_..._.._.__---........_- --...._.___ _
... -.(IMCA ~ ^
• . ' !
~ ~
~~ r
( '~ ~ ~
I
i M.'iM!TCS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964 2049
HEPORTS` AND' - Item Noo 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Reclassification Noo 63-64-36 and Conditional Use Permit No. 479
""" ' proposing reclassification from the R-A, Residential Agricultural,
Zone to the R-3t Multiple-Family Residential, Zone to establish a
two-story multiple-family planned residential'development on pzoperty
located at 2914 West Lincoln Avenuea
Zg Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the action taken by the Commission at the March 16,
meeti"ng, further advising the Commission that a letter from the new agent had been
Lved requesting that the Commission consider subject petitions on April 13, 1964, instead
eptember 14, 19640
useion was held to determine the Commission's position relative to an earlier.considera-
of subject petitfonsa The Commission was advised by Deputy City Attorney I'urman.Raberts
in•order that an earlier hearing for sub~ect petitions could be granted, it would be
ssai~y'to readvertise subjeci: property, and that a special fee determined by the City
rn9y would have to be paid by the peti~tioncr for all expenses incurred for the readver-
ment of sub~ect propertieso ~ .
issioner Pebley offered a motion to advise the petitioner and developers that Petitions
Reclassification Noo 63-64-36 and Conditional Use Permit No. 479 would be considered by
Commission at an ear.l;er date, provided +hat the petitioner bore the cost of readvertis-
said petitions, the cost tu be determined by the City Attorney's office, that the earliest
this might be considereu ~vould be April 27, 1964, if the petitioner refiled by April 3,
, and that the scheduled date would be determined upon payment of the necessary costs by
petitionero Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED.
Item_No~ _2
Variance No. 1599 - property located west of Beacon Avenue,
Nutwood and Agate Streete
ng.Coordinator Martin Kreidt advi~ed the Coumdssion that a.t.the time subject petition
been advertised, the entire parcel under consideration in Tract Noe 5260, but at the
the resolution was prepared,the legal description was inaccurate because only a
ion of t:~e property was submitted, and that tu clarify all records, a resolution to
d the legal description for Variance Noo 1599 was in ordero
iissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1120, Series 1~b3-64, and moved for its passage
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to amend Resolution No. 881, Series 1963-64,
ncor~orate all properties under consideration in Tentative Map of Tract No. 5250, for
h sub,ject petition was considerede (See Resolution Book,)
~oll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
Ie COMMTSSIONERSs Allred~ Chavos, Gauer~ Mungall, Pebley, Perry~ Rowland~ Sides.
Is COMMISSIONERS: None~
it1l's COMMISSIOIVERS: Campo
It m Noo
Conditional Use Permit Noo 484 - Service Station at the southwest
,,, corner of Euclid_and.La Pa1ma,Avenu~. .. _ _ , .,
ing Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter to the Commission in which a request for a
•months' continuance of time for the completion of dedication for street widening purposes
>roperty fronting on La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street„ as required in Commission Resolu-
i No. 922, Series 1963-64, approved October 10, 1963a
niasioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a six-months' extension of time for the
~letion of conditions of Resolution No. 922, Series 1963-64, approving Conditional Use
nit No, 484. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
Item No~ 4
Sign Ordinance.
~ussion was held by the Commission relative to obtaining a quorum for the evening
~ion to discuss and consider the implications of the Sign Ordinanceo Inquiry was made
~ _----_ . ._ _ ~ __ _ _._.. ... . . _ _._.. .. . . _ _ _ _._ _. ..._.._ . ~
i (,~ ~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 30, 1964
i
; •R£f~OR15:'AND- - Item Noe 4 - Continued
~ RECOMMENDATIONS Sign Ordinanceo
~ ',
2050 ~
of`Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts as to the :ength of the meeting and the possib.le
topics of discussion.
Mr: Roberts stated it had been the request of the Commission that consideration should be
he'ld'by their Sody prior to the advertising for a public hearing of said Sign Ordinance;
that all facts had been thoroughly covered in the nine-page cover letter submitted for the
Commission's consideration; and that if there were any items not clear, he would be glad
to answer themo
Chairm,~n Mungall determined a quorum would not be present, and the Cor.r,ission then decided
to cor~tinue discussion relative to the Sign Ordinanceo
After considerable discussion by the Commission relative to the possiblc~ implications the
Coimnission~might have to consider at a Work Session, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion
to direct the~Planning Commission Secretary to set for public hearing th~ Sign Qrdinance
to be heard at the 7:00 o'clock session on April 27, 1964o Commissioner Chavos seconded
the motiono MOTION CARRIED.
Item Noo 5
Work Session on the PRD, R-2, R•~3, R-A, C-1, and any R Zones.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to holding a Work Session to consider all
the zones availeble for the Commission's consideration since a quorum was not available
for the evening se::sion of today°s meetingo It wa~ determined that a possible quorum~
would be present for the meeting if it was continued to ~pril 6, 1964.
ADJOURNN~Nf - TherE being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland
offered a motion to ad~ourn to 7:00 o'clock P,Mo, on April 6, 1964,
for a Work Sessiono Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion>
MOTION CARRIED~
The meeting adjourned at 6s25 o`clock PoM.
Respectfully submitted,
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
---------......._~_ _.__...___ _._._. __..____ . . ............ .--
~ _..._ --- .._...__.~..., ~