Minutes-PC 1964/04/13~.
V ~~ ~ .,I,1
~
i
Oity Hell
9naheim, CaliYornia
April 13. 1y64
A Ri~IILAA ~INa OF Tfffi ANAI~IM OITY PLANNII~ CO~IS3ION
R~QULAR ~INf~ - A regular maeting of the Anaheim Oity Planning Commiasion wa.s oalled
to order by Ohaix~meui Mungal.l at 2:00 0'olook P.M.~ a quorum being present.
~ms~rr - axni~ex: e~n~eai.
- C029QS920NERS: Allred~ Oamp, Chavos, Qauer,.Aowland, Perry.
ABBBIN7.' - OO~I3STONIDR3: Pebley, 8ides.
pp~~F - 2oning Ooordinator: b'.artin Kreidt
Deputy Oity AttorneP: Furman Roberts ~
DPPioe IDngineer: 9rthur Dew ~
Pleatning Co~isalan 59ot'y. Ann Srebs ~
IINOOATION - Rev. Paul Qroakett, paetor oP the Orengethorpe ~[ethodist Ohuroh gsve .i
the invoostion.
,(
~ ~ t
ATT,~A~r~ - Oo~iseioner Oamp led the Pledge oY Allegianoe to the Fle,g. !
1
App$OITAL OF - The Minutea of tha moeting o~ lde,rah 30~ 1964 were approved ~ri.*•h the ;~
T~ E~iQIPPID3 following oorreotion: page 2039, nezt to the last parsgraph s2:orld ~
read "Qoam~iasioner Ohavos entered the Oounoil Chember at 2:40 p.m." ;
I
. ;
AEtIDA DIDITHILOP- - CON'FII~IIJIDiJ PUBLIO E~IARIl~. INITIAT~D BY Tf~ OIR7 COUNOIL, 204 ~ast Linooln i
~ PL9tJ P?0_ 5 Avenue, Anaheim, OaliYornia; proposing ~the WAIVffii OF TF~ FtIDpU~ LAN~- ~~
3CAP~ oP property deeoribed as: A 50-Poot strip of lend on the east
yARIAN(7~ N0.1627 side of Anaheim Boulevard(Los Angelee Street) between Ball Road and
Cerritoa Avenue, and on tha sauth side of Ba11 Roed from Anaheim Soule-
vard eastward a distanoe of approzimately 418 Peet ~rom the centorline i
oP Ansheim Bo~:levard. Property presently olsaeified P-L, Parking- !
Iandsoeping~ Zone. ;
3ub~eot brea Development Plan, initiated by the ~ity Planning Oo~i.asion '
propoaea e ma~ster plan oY ].~ndsoaping for Aneheim Boulevard (Los Angeles {
Streat) between Ball Road and Oerritoa Avenue.
j
8ubleot veu~ianoe ~vas aoatiaued Yrom the meetings of Marah 16 sad 30,.1964. in order ta
a11o+r the Planning Department aufYioient time to prepesa the Area Developmant Plen.
Aasooiate Planner Ronald Qrudzina'si preaentad 6rea llevelopment Plan No. 6 to the Ooo~iesion !
, indioat~ing.~t-at~zh~kit "A" illustrated the ezisting landsoaping together wit22 the propoaed ;
landsoaping for thoae properties 's~ill "ia the etage oY developmen~, siid that B1.~shibit 'B" •; -
propoeed the master plen of lsndaoaping Por the properties aovered in the Plan. 1
1[r. arudziaeki Yurther atated that atl struoturea vtould be required to ms,intain tha 50-foot
building setbsok alreedq establiehe,d, that it was reoommended that sidewalks qhioh had
praviouely baen rrsived be required to be inetalled~ the.t trees in the parkway where none
eziated on either eide oY 6outh Anahoi.m Houlevard would be inetalled~ and thet the ezisting
landsoeping oP mora th~ 10 Yeet Aould remdin~ but thet sidewa].ks snd treee ia tha perkway
would nov ba roquirad.
Disousaioa ~rse hald by the Oommiasion relative to requlring a minimum oP 10 Reet oP land-
sosping Yor sll properties fronting on South.Aneheim aoulevard provided that the heigh~
be limited to peraait the displey oP merohe,ndiee oY the ooc~eroial estsbliehments, thet
the originsl requirement was a 20-~oot etrip oY landeodping within the 50-foot aetbaok~
ttiat a nalkway be inetslled ao that the landeoeping rrould not be we,lked soross, that
eomn Yorm oP uniYormity in the landeoeping be me.inteined for the proparties under oonsid-
erntion, and thet walk~ys 30 inohes wide ehould be providad betreen the landsoaped setbe,ak
at a minimua~ distanoa bataeon oasoh veelL~srr,y oP 20 Y9et.
-2051-
6
~~ _~.____._----_ ~ _ __ .._.----.- - -..___. ---_. _ _ _ __ _ _ ..
____ . ~_....
.. . ~ ~ . ~_ -- -- -
v
~'
~[INUTIDS , CITY PLADIl~TIN(i OOM~I3SIOH, April 13 ~ 1964
ARIDg D~IVIDLOP'- - Zoning Coordinstor Martin Kreidt advised the Commisaion t2-st the ezisting
1~NT PLAA1 N0.6 P-L, Parking Laadaoaping, Zone prwided for 10 feet plus 2$ of land~oaping
in the aetbaak area~ vhereas the Ple,n Fshibit "B" propoaed 6 Peet of land-
YAHIADIOE ~t0. soaping fronting the o~~eralal development.
1627(oont.)
Co~issioner Ro~vland eapressed opposition to the landsaaping being propoaed
noting that the amount ~vss too inYlexible,. thet•the 10-foot landsoaping
ahould be msintained but one-third of this should be wi~li.n the Pront setbaok, and the ba1-
anoe should be distributed throughout the the balanoe of the 50-foot setbe.ak, thet the park-
vays should have trees and in additioa 20,K landsoe,ping should be required in the park~y to
oontinue the beauti3loation of the area, and that any landsoaping ara'titeot oould preaent
a woricabie piwz~wiaio~ would be aooeptebl~ t~ +?+e !~?~f~obile dealers,utillzing thQ neroentaaes
stipulated ao that no deviation would be neaeasary from the preaent lsndsoaping requirements.
Mr. Sreidt statsd that the department had attempted to apply Co~isaioner Rowland's theory
but had been unsuooessful, and the propoaed plan was the only fessible solution.
Mr. Thomas Zak~ represesenting the Ohrysler Oorporation, eppeared beYore the Oott~iasion and
stated that his Pirm pould prefer e minimum emount oP landsaaping with ~uat the sidewalk anci
street trees~ that the sele of automobiles vras a more unique type of oommeroiel endeavor~
Rhioh re9uired th~ir diaplay with a minimum of distreating fe,otors to the reotoring alient,
and in responae to Commisaion questioning stated that landsaaping Was proposed to be ad~aoent
to the struotures and the one-foot high aonorete vrall, and that Prom eaperienoe it ~as pre-
fersble to displa~ the automobiles as olosely as possible to the street to operate e more
suooeasful business.
Mr. Breidt reminded the Cortm~i.ssion that light poles pere permitted on the property line 1
regardless oY the required landsoaped setbaok, ead in response to Commission questioning
1
regarding an9 opFosition to the laudsospe rnquiremen~s at the time the Conditional Use ;
Permit gx~anted thefhzysler Corporation was made, str~ted that to his ]aiowledge there had
been no oppasition voioed to the required. landaoaping in the esisting M-1 Zone.
Mr. Zak stated theat no ob~eation svas voiaed sinae it was tYieir poliay to oonform with the
reoom~endations to Pormalize the Yranohias, ~at that st a later dste a request vrsa mede to
permit some wsiver from theae landaosping requirement, and that his oompany Wae not the
only one who requested this oonsideration.
Mr. YP. ~. MoClure, operator of the Linaoln-Meroury dealership, appeexed before the Co~ission
and stated that he had started landeoaping of his property whioh would .;;:a': R3000~ that 3-Poot
landsoeping Was proposed between the sideWalk and the oars being disple,yed approximstely
15 feet from the aurb, that lsndsoaped beauty might be nioe but it was no proof that this
attraotiveness would inorease the eales of oars, and thst sinoe the trees to the south of
his property had been removed his businesa had inoreased '20$.
Mr. Anaon MoArthur, represen-ting Buzza Cardozo Compn,ny, appeared beYore the Commission and
voioed his opposition to a 3-foot strip of landsoaping, that he was sure it vPe,s not the
intent o~ the Co~isaion to reduoe the potential beauty oY Ansheim Boulevesd, and thet he
~wiehed to state thet'his oompany reaommended that the Oemmiasion give favorable aonsidera- ~
tion to the Plan, E~chibit 'B", together ~ith the requirement that sidewalks and traes in
the ourb area, and his onlg reao~endation for deviation would be the requirement that
the landsoaped aetbaok approved be 3 feet in height to maintain a more uniform pattern of
landsoaping.
Mr. LeWia Herbst~ representing the zoning and planning oommittee of the Chember of Commeroe,
appesred before the Com~isaion, ead steted that the proposed landsoaping plan had been
thoroughly reviewed for thsir oo~ittee by the Planning 5taYf, that his Co~ittee unsnimously
+~ndoraed the plan and urged the Co~:.asion to e,dopt it, thet the area was part of the entranoe
•L'o the Oity Yrom the aouth, tha•t if industrial plants had been established there, the required
setbaok oP 50 Yeet and a 10-20 Poot atrip of landsaaping Would have been required, but sinoe
automobilea Were permitted. in the sree, some oompranise Was neob~+;ary and the plan as presented
offered a reasonable oompromise beoauae oP this tretnsition from induatrial to oommeroial uae.
Mr. 7oe VPhite, 809 VYest Broadway, appeared before the Co~ssiun and inquired mhether the
proposed landsasping plan would aPfeat property r^r~herly of Ball Road. The Oommiasion
3r3ormed him that the plan enoompassed only the aree Prom Ball Raad southerly to Oerritoe
Avenue.
~
{
, J
.
.____._..-----r--._ .__ .__... . _..._._.. _. ___-•------------- --_...__...__~_ .._.__ _._, :-
.., . . - . ~1~._. _. .. .. . ..._....
~i'l7N , .r .. _
~ ~ + ~
i '
~ ,~
\J
~
MINUTHIS, CITY PI~AHIIING CO~dISS20N, 9pri1 13, 1964
2053
ARPJA DEVIDId1P- - Mrs. Ruth Hoenhaus, 113 West ~Pinston Road~ representing the oPfiae
MLNT PLAN N0.6 building and apartments on Anaheim Boulevard, appaesed before the
Oot~issiori and ate,ted that the proposed plaa of development we~s
yARIANCID NQ. aoaeptable to those she represented, but tl~at it vould be a hardship
1627 (aont.) if anything less than that proposed"on Eahibit "B" vrere approved, that
those eh~ represented had attempted to develop and m~intsin an ettraotive
landsnaped area, thst lo~ suoauleats and evergreons Were less Work to
maintsin than s blsoktopped area~ and presented a nore attraotive appeexanoe by breaking
the harahaess of solid aonorete, and the~t a oertain emount of beauty added to e~y buainess
frontage would be an asset rather than a hindrenae.
Mr. Vio Hardin, representing Herdin Oldsmobile,appeared be£ore the Co~iasion and stated
that he proposed to spend E4000 for landsoaping of 10 teet and 2$, that the salea of auto-
mobiles depended 80$ on display and 20$ on neWSpaper advertisement, that the plan was a
oompromiae and as suoh was fine, even though he v~ould hsve like tc see the landaoaping
eliminsted, and that he endoraed the master landsoaping plan as preaented.
Mr. Zsk appeared again and etated the,t if landaoaping of 3 feet in height were required,
this vould eliminate the diaplay of the lo~ver 2~3 rds of the oar, and that iP the depth
•ere inoreased to 10 £eet oonsideration should be given as to the lo~ groving type oY
shrubbery.
',Phe Qonmiesion suggested that the Superintendent oP Parkway Maintenanoe be oontaated Yor
a suggestad list oP plants to be ueed in the landaoeped~area.
fif~1 HEARING WAS CLOSIDD.
Disaussion ~tss held by the Com~3.saion as to the size of shrubbery and ~vidth whioh might
be applioe,ble to the oo~teroial frontages, that a 3-foot atrip at approaimately 4 feet
in height be applied to areea being used to perk ouatomer aars, that the automobile agenaies
purohased the property ]mowing it was zoned for 3t-1 with s 50-Poot P-L Zone~ that e~ny plaus
Por laadsoaping should be revieved by Devslopment RevieW and the Superintendeat of Parksay
Msini;eneaoe, that the minimum height of the lsndsoap'ing„would be tWelve inohes, and that a
pe,ttern oY uaes was establiahed when the various automobile agenoies Wera grarted a Condi-
tione~. U'se Permit to establieh 1n the BS-1 Zone, and that beoauae of thie some oompromise
vas neoessary to me,intain the las-dsoaping program started on the street Prontage, and yet
meet the demands of these automobile agenaies, and.to require the sideaalks whioh had been
weived in the M-1 Zone, beoeuse of the oommeroisl trend of the area.
Commissioner Gauer ofPered Resolution No. 1121, Series 1963-64, and moved for its pessage
and adoption, aeoonded by Co~i.ssioner Chavos to reoot~end to the City Counail that Area
Development Plan No. 6 be adopted, sub~eot to oonditions end the requirement that walkWa9s
30 inohes in Wi.dth spaoed at a minimum oY every 20 feet Yor the landsoaped areas, and that
the 50-Poot setbaok be maintained.(See Resolution Book)
On roil oall the Poregoing resolution Was passed by the Polloaving vote:
AYES: COI~IS$IONERS: Allred, Oamp, Che,vos, Gauer, M~.:nga71, Perry.
NOEfS: CO~~dISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSENT: C0~l4ISSIONERS: Pebley, 3ides.
Co~ni.ssioner Rowland qualified his vote by stating that the Plan ~ras too rigid, and that
it was a aompromise whioh Would not ellov Por Puture building and required lsndsoaping in
the existing zone.
Oa~isaioner Allred oPfered Reaolution No. 1122, Series 1963-64, and moved for its pa~sage
and adoption, saoonded by Co~issioner 4auer to „zx~ant Petition Yor Varianoe No. 1627, aub-
~eot to oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oe11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloWing vote:
AYEfS: OO~ISSIONEgiS: Allred, Oamp, Ohavos, (ia»er, f~ungall, Perry.
NOHIS:' OOE~AISSIONERS: Rowland.
AB6HAlT: OO~ElLISSIONHQ~S: Pebley, Sidea.
~ ~
--..._ _..._ _--- ...--- .._.._.._.__ .._....__ .~.._.___..,._.__.._. .,._.. _ __.--- -.._-----
. ~ _._.___-.---- i1 __ . ~
_ ,__ . .
C.~ ~ ~ ~
~
'
MINUT~g, pITY pLADIlQIl~ COl~ISSION, April 13, 1964 Z~~
OONDITIONAL USID - CONTINIJED PBBI+IG HEARII~• W• x• ~~+ 1141 East Ash Avenue, Fullerton,
~k'IE~'P N0. 539 OeliPornia. Ovuer; R. L. CURRY, 17A13 Sungrove ~(ie,rden (~rove, California,
Agent; requesting permission to: establish a svimming pool display area
OONDITIONAL USffi qith retail sales to the general publio and with a building msteriel
pIDAN2T N0. 5A~6 etorage yard on property desaribed as: An L-shaped psroel of land with
a frontage of approaimstely 81 feet 'on the esst side of Btate College
~HgI, pLAN Boulevard~ and a maaimum depth of approaimstely 382 feet, the northerly
96~ID~'F N0.15 boundary oP said property being approzimately 353 feet south oi the oenter-
line oP Se,tella Avenue, and Purther desoribed sa 1822 South State College
Boulevard for Coaditionsl IIae Permit No. 539; E13TABL23H A BIIILDiNC3 MATHiRI6L STOEtAL~ID YARD
m;m;; ?,~mrnamimcr, SqL7CS AND DISPLAY YARD on property desaribed as: An L-shaped paroel of
lead tith a Yrontage of epproaimately 81 Peet on the ee,st alde os ~va%a uoiiega B~:LLO:~'~
and a mszimum depth of approatmstely 382 Feet. the aortherly boundary of said property
being approzimately 375 fee~ south of the oenterline of Satella Avenue, eud Yurther desaribed
as 1832 3outh State College Boule~~ard £or Conditional Uae Permit No. 546. Property presently
alsasiPied as M-1, LI(~iT IIdDUSTRIEiL and P-L, PARKING LAND50APINl~/ ZONE.
Sub~eot petitions were oontinued from the meeting of February 17, Meroh 16 and 30, 1964~ for
the submiasion of revised plans and at the request of the petitioner.
Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt advised the Caa~iesion that a letter had been submitted by
tha petitioner askin6 'that sub~eot petitions be oontinued Yor another ~wo Weeks.
Qommissioner Rowland ofYered a motion to oontinua Petit,ions for Conditionel Use Fermit No.
539 and 546, and Qeneral P1ea- Amendment No. 15 to the meeting of April 27, 1964, ae requested
by the petitioner. Co~issioner Perry seoonded the motion. MOTIOPi OARRIIID.
RH~LAS3Ib'IOATION -• CONtING'~ PuEI~IO BEARINQ• SR~M'htil Rt38ABA ~ T• SATOp 3047 West Ball Roed,
N0. 63-64-94 AND MILT~D ~'OUT,, 3065 '~est Aall ~oad, Anaheim, California, Owners; JACK
'tOdOWAY ~ F'RANK HOAPEL, 2200 South Loara, Anaheim, Qalifornis, Agenta;
VARTANOE ft0. 1628 Froperty desaribed as: A reatangular paroel o~ leud with e fronte,ge oP
818 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a maaimum depth oP 1,290
RPVI3ION NO'. 2 OF fee~, the easterly boundery of said property being approzimstely 338 feet
fi~1T6q+Iy8 ~L~lp Ob` west oY the oenterline of Beanh Boulevard, the total area of ssid prop-
fiRAO~ N0. 3823 ertq being approzia~.tsly 28 sores, and Yurther deaoribed e~s Portions "A"~
ngn9 ~ upn, pp~_', t0 be zoned 0-0, COMMEROIAL OFFIQE~ ZONID
AEV23ION N0. 2 OF (original request for C-l~ Neighborhood Commeroial, Zone amended) hsving
T~1TgTIYE MAg OF a Prontsge of 350.5 ~eet on the north sid~ of Ball Hpad estd.~o e~~ely
TRAOT N0. 5519 198 Peet, the easterly bounde;y oY said Portion"0" lying epp
338 feet rreat oP the oenterline o~ Beaoh Boulevard. PORTION"A" to be
a~, p~ zoned A-3, MUItPIPLE FAMIL7C RESIDi'.:NTIAI+r Z01~. lying direatly north and
A~ID1+~NT N0. 13 appr aimately~567 5tand being~approzimately 1,290 Yeet~in dep~ ~YORTIC;+i
"B", ta be zoned R-l, O1~I FANL£IaY RIISI~ITIALr ZONE, lying direatly
ad3aoent to and to the east oP the stub ends qP Roma Avenue and (ilen Holly Drive, xith a
width oY approzimately 270 Yeet= the easterly bo~;adary of said Portion"B" meqting and ooin-
oiding with the ~veaterly boundary oP the aPorementioned Fortibn "A",•the•nor~therly boundary
11ne af ssid Portion "B" being e oonti.nnation oP the northerly boundaxy line oY Portion "A";
pORTION "B" ertending thereProm in s aoutherly direation to a distanoe of ap~r~o~ziu~tely
1,092 ~ebt. Property presently olaeaiYied as A-A, RIDSIDLQ-TIAL 6C3RTWI1rURAL+
REIQIIID9Z'IDD OLASSIFI06TIOPi: P00~ N„~~ _ R-1, ONID FpAMILY RESIDHIl~I~AT,~~ ONID.ZONFI.
PORTION "Q" - 0-0, OOD~4i0TAL Ob'FIOID, ZOI~.
~ ~~ (}ol~dengBinginee~~651 o00~RP0RATIDDt 3tOeet', 3anta Ana,3CaliPornia.e Revision Noo~2 B.
TRAdT N0. 3623 - looated on the north side of Bsll Rosd epprozimstely 900 feet weat oY Heaoh
Sou].evard, and aontaining approaimately 6.6 aores~ is proposed for subdiviaion lnto 26 R-1,
O1~ FAMILY F(IDBID~TI6I+, Z01JIDII lots. Revision No. 2, TRAOT N0. 5519 - loaated on the aorth
side oY 8s11 Aoad approaime-tely 338 feet west bP Besah Boulevard, iamiedietely ad3aaent to
thv eest oP T`raat No. 3823 and oonte~i.ning spproaime,tely 22.1 aores~ is proposed Por subdiv-
ision in~o 56 R-3~ E6UIiFIPLE FA~ILY R~ISI17~bPrIAL and 1 0-0~• dd~f{aIAL OFFIQID ZONH3D lots.
Sub~eot petitions and Tentative fireot Mape were oontinued Prom the meetings of Maroh atad d
30, 1964 to allaa the petitioner time to submit revised treat wsp inaorporating augge
ohanges by the Oo~nieeion.
~-_--__------r- ---
~
~
;
~
--- _---:----___.__ ., . .,
- -:
~:- . ...__:.,. ,. . _. _ __ -
r', U ~. ~
~
x
1
~ MINUTP~S, CITY PLANNINa CO~ISSION, April 13, 1964 2055
~
R~CLASSIFICATION - Assooie,te Planner Ronald Grudzinski revieWed the four General Plan
N0. 63-64-94 Amendment eahibits for the Co~i.ssion noting that Exhibit "D" represented
the Commission's request for oommeroial offioe zoning designstion for the
VARIAPICE N0. 1628 north and south side of Ball Road.
REVISION N0. 2 OF Zoning Qoordinetor Martin Kreidt in revieWing for the Coumission the lov-
TENTATNE MAP OF medium density designation stated that the proposed development even though
TRACT N0. 3823 tWO story was being proposed for a portion, that oslaulations of the lot
erea indioated that the tWO-story would be 18 units per net residential
REifISION N0. 2 OF aare and the remaining R-3 lots would be 12-13 units per net residential
TDNTATIYE MAP OF aore.
i3AV1 1YV• Jlii~
Mr. Jsok RogoWay, agent for the petitioner, indiaated his presenoe in
~iERAL PLAN the event the Co~ission wished to ask questions.
AMEIdDMEN'P N0. 13
(oontinued) No additional opposition was presented at the hearing.
THG HEARING YPA9 CLOSED.
Commissioner Chavos expressed opposition to developing sub3eot property with almost 70$
proposed for multiple femily use, that property ~ust a few bloaks away a~es developing for
single Yemily development, and that the only evidenae presented to substantiete the pro-
posed development was the faot that the prioe of land pronibited it beittg developed for
single femily use, vhiah presented a highly aonoentrated aareage Por apertment use.
Futher discussion by the Co~i.saion revealed tl~~t multiple family development was more
oraotioal beosuse of the alose proximity of sub3eat property to the ooaenero.~el-reoreation
Yrontage on Beaoh Boulevard, and the two story stadio tqpe epartments aoted as a buffer
for the single Yamily aubdivision tc the West of sub3eot property, and that in previous
multiple femily petition aonsiderations, evidenoe had been presented that 10 aores of eingle
family homes would heve more ohildren that 10 aores of apartments, although this pernentaga
might ohange iY management ohenged.
Commissioner Perry offered Resoliition No. 1123, Series 1963-64, and moved Yor its passage
and adoption, seounded by Commissioner Gauer, to reoommend to the City Counail that Petition
for Reolassifioation No. 63-64-94 be approved sub~eot to oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~~SISSION'~RS; Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Roalan3.
NOES: COD~ISSIONFR3: Chav~s.
ABSENT: COMEEISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides.
Commissioner RoWland offered Resolution No. 1124, 5eries 1963-64, and moved Yor its passege
and adoption~ seoonded by Oo~issioner aauer, to grant Petition for Varianee No. 1628, sub-
~eot to oonditions.(5ee Resolution Book)
On~roll'oell•the•foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vote: ~ _,
A°ES: CO~ISSIONEEtS: Allred, dsmp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: CO~ISSIONEftS: Chavos.
ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: Pebley, Sides.
Cou~issioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1125, Series 1963-64, and moved Por its passage
and adoption, seoonded bq Commissioner Allred, to reaoffiend to the City Counoil that General
Plan Amendment No. 13, Exhibit "D" be approved for that property general bounded on the north
by the Flood Control Channel, on thd east by Beaoh Boulevard, on the south by Cerritos Avenue,
and on the west bq VPestern Avenue.(See kesolution Book)
On roll aall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: OOI~LI9SIONERS: Allred, Cavp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOFS: COI~ISSIONERS: Chavos.
ABSENT: CO~SSIONERS: Pebley, Sides.
~_..__~...._ _~__.. ._ _ .____. ._...- --_. _ -------.. _. ..
3~a
i
~
~ ~. .
r
MINUTE3, CIfiY PLANNTNQ COM~ISSION, April 13, 1964
2056
RECLASSIb'ICATION - Co~i.ssionar Perry oPfered a motion to approve Revision No. 2 of
N0. 63-64-94 Tentative Map of Traot No. 3823, sub3eot to the following oonditions:
VARIANCE N0. 1028 - 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdi-
vision,eaoh subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative ~ortn
REVISION N0. 2 OF - for approvel.
TENTATNE ~lAP OF
TRACT N0. 3823 2. Thst a sis-foot mssonry mall be aonstruoted along the east traot
boundary, as stipulated by the developer.
REITI9ION N0. 2 OF -
TIDN'PATNE MAP OF 3. That a ten-Poot drainage and Publia Utility easement be provided
TRACT N0. 5519 from Rome Avenue to the north traat boundary, unlesa satisfied by
qther means, suoh as utilization of the ten-foot strip owned by
Gffi~tAL PLAN - by 5avanna Sohool Distriot.
Al~ID~NT N0. 13
(Continued) 4. That the City of Anat;eim will attempt to aoquire the ten-Yoot strip,
aithin Rome Avenue, from the Savanna Sohool Distriot.
~
5. That the approval of Revision No. 2 of Tentative eiep of Treat No. ~
3823 is granted sub3eot to the approval of Reolaesifioation j
No. 63-64-94.
6. That the oonstruation and fenoing of the pedestrian easements shall
be approved by the City Engineer, and that the minimum Pa:laing shall
be a 42-inah high ohain link Penae. j
~
1
7. That Street "A" shall be reoorded as Ladera Street.
i
Co~mniasioner Camp seaonded the motion. MOTTON CARRIED. ~
i
Commissioner Csmp oPfered a motion to approve Revision No. 2 of Tentative Map oY Traat
No. 5519, sub~eot to he folloaing oonditions: ;
i
1. That ahould this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, eaah subdiviaion
thereof shaLl be submitted in +.entative Porm for approval.
2. That the alley interseotions shall aonform to Standard Plan No. 130.
. ~
3. That a one-Poot strip, Lot "A" be established along the north traot boundary, ezoept at ~
the end oP "C" Street~ and that a predetermined prioe Por Lot "A" shall be oeloulated j
and an agreement for dedioation entered into between the developer and the City of Anaheim !
prior to approval oP the final traot map. The ooet of Lot "A" shall inolude land and a ~
proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvemdnts. ~
i
4. The,t Lot Nos. 43-a through 56-s, one-foot wide, be eatablished along the esst traot !
boundary for the oonstruotion of masonry walls. '!
f
5. That the drainage faoilities shall be installed along Ball Rocsd and Redorest Street~ as . i
. required by_the City Engineer es-d,in aooordanne wi~h standard.plans end speai~ioationa
on file in the o£fioe of the City Engineer.
6. That the approval of Revision No. 2 oP Tentative Map of Traot No. 5519 is granted aub- ~
~eot to the approval of Reclasaifioation No. 63-64-94 and Varianoe No. 1628. ~
i
7. That "B" Strest sha11 be reoorded as Redorest 3treet, and Strsat "C" shell be reaorded ~
as Redfield Street. !
8. Thet adequate proviaions be mede to aooep~ the drainage Yrom the properties to the north. i
~
Co~isaioner Perry aeoonded the motion. MOTION CARRI~D.
~
I
i
i
I
i
/
~
- - ----- - -- --_ _
~ . --~ , -.- - .-'"~. -- __
i
~ ~
. ,i ~
_.. . ..1
~J ~ ~
MIIiUTIDS, CITY PLANNINQ COb~I33I0N~ April 13, 1964 2057
VARIANCE N0. 1631 - PUBLIO Ei~AR~. lIR. YICO d~ ~ERS. PERY FIA9~Na0, 2525 iflest Orange
Avenue, Aneheim~ Oelifornis, Ownara; AVAIAN SAVIld(3S b IAAN A9SOCIATIaN,
P. 0. Sox 668, YPilmington, Oali3ornie~ Agent; requesting permiasion to
(1) WAIV~ Tf~ 70-FOOT MINII~[UM LOT WIDTH IN TFF1E R-1 ZONID ON IAT NOS. 13 APID 18, (2) PERlIIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6-FOOT 1(ASONRY 7PALL ALON(3 ~Fffil STR~ll7P SIDE OF IAT "A", AND (3) Y9ANID TF~
9~i~U![ 3IDE.YAF(D AND 78.5-FOOT MINIl~T~S IAT WIDPH ON REVER3~D COR2~A LO~f N0. lA~ on property
desoribed as: An L'shaped paroel oY land Wi.th a frontage of 218 feet on the north aide of
Orange Avenue and a meaimum depth oY 710 feet. the Westerly boundary of said.property being
approximataly 897 Paet east of the oenterline oY Magnolia Avenue, and further desoribed as
2523. YVest Orange Avenue. Property preaently olessiPied as R-A, EtESIDffi~TIAL A(~RIOIILTURAL,ZON~.
No one anpeared to represent t' ~ petitioner.
Zonizig Coordinator Martin Sreidt advised the Cortenission that Tentative Map of Trsat No. 5556
had been approved by the Coa~ission et their meeting on Msroh 30, 1964.
No one appeared in opposition.
TFIE FIEARINQ W9S OIA9F,D.
Co~missioner Allred ofYered Rosolution No. 1126, 5eries 1963-64, and moved Por its pessage
and adoption, seoonded by Cou~i.ssioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Varianoe No. 1631,
sub~eat to aonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On r~ll oell the Yoregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE9: CO~I3SIONERS: Allred, Cemp, Ohavos, (iauer, Mungall, Perry, RoWland.
NOFS: C0~93IOA~RS: None. ,
ABSffiN'P; COME~ISSIOI~RS: Pebley. 3ides.
VARIANCE N0. 1633 - PUBLId HEARING. HUBEfRT S NANA V. VYADE, 1754 PUast Lemon Heighta Drive~
Santa Ana, Celifornia, Owners; IRffi~ TAYIAR, PLAZA LAND b D~IAPl~N'T
CORPORATION', 212 North State College Boulevard, Anehaim, California~
Agent; requesting permisaion to waive TF1E REQUIRED QARA(~ES AND SINf3L~ STORY F~I(3HT LI![ITA- '
TION -7ITHIN 150 FFID~T OF F~~A ZOI~D PROPERT'Y TO PEI~'I.T TE~ QONSTRUCTION OF A TVPO-STORY APARTl~Il~'P
COMP~LT W~H CARPORTS on property desaribed as: A reatsngularly shsped paroel nf land oith a
frontege of 80 feet on the south side of Orange~ Avenue rsn3 a depth of 262 feet, the easterly
boundary of said property being approximately 504 ~eet west of the oenterline oY Knott Avenue,
and further desaribed es 3614 west Orange Avenue. Property presentlq alasalYied as A-3,
MULTTPI,~ FAMILY FtESID~NTIAL, ZOhd7.
Mr. Do~.ald Taylor, representing the ager.t for the petitioner appeared beYore the Co~i.aeion i
and revieved the surrounding multiple feaily development. noting that the requeated varianae i
was neoeaearq in order that the petitioner might en~oy the seme propertq rights ea those in `
olose proaimity to aub~sot property~ the,t the size and snape of the property made it neo- ~
esaery that oarports ba oonstruated, and that the esthetio appearanae of the oarports would
~ ao~ affeat the ad;jaoent ptoperty benauae•the aarports would not be vi3ible~ Yrom the•alley .
or atreet.
Mr. Hubert Wade~ one of the petitioners~ appeared bufore the Co~iasion and steted tha.t if
aub~eot vsrianae were not gres-ted, he would be deprived of his righta to develop aub~eot
property to ita highest and best use, sinoe ad~eoent pr~~perty ovnera had been grented weiver ;
oY the one story height limitation.
No one sppeared in opposition.
'Pf~f F~IARIN(3 WA3 OL09~D.
Zoning Ooordinator ~lartin Kreidt advised the Oom~iseion that no petition aae pending for the
R-A paroel to the north and ~the ohuroh to the west.
Oomaiaeionar Camp offered Resolution No. 1127, 9eriee 1963-64, and moved for ita passage and
adoption, seoonded by Qo¢miesioner Allred to grant Petition Yor Varianoe No. 1633 ~ub3aot ~t~~
the ineida we11e o8 the oarporte being finiehed with exterior materiels, bumper gutsrde, aad
storage osbinets.(See Resolution Book)
~ _. ..__.__...___ . ~ . _ .. ..._ .. _ _ ~
L~ ~ ~
1@lUTID3, OITY PLANNINQ COl~[t3SI0N, April 13, 1964
2058
VARIANC~ N0. 1633 - On roll aall the foregoing resolution ~Ba passed by the follo~ing vote:
(Continued)
AYIDS: C0~[ISSION~RS: Allred, Cemp~ Chavos~ (3auer, Mungall, Perry,
Rowland.
NOES: CO10[I9SIONERS: None.
ABSII~'T: COlOlI39I01~RS: Pebley, Sides.
Commiasioner Cemp left the Counoil Chamber st 3:45 g.m.
YARIANCID NG.1634 - PUBLIC HEARIl+IQ. BLAINE D. QUICK, 104Q 9outh Brookhurat, F~llerton~
Celifornia. Oaner; a. !~. DRTSCOLL, 535 West CommonRealth~ F'ullerton,
Callfornle, Agent; requasting permission to WAIVE TEIE REQUIRED 97X-
FOOT MASOI~fftY WALI, ON THE PROPERI'Y LINE ABUTTINa R-1 PROPEHI'Y TO TEIE Wb1ST, AND RR~i REOUIRFB
aARAGPS TO P~RMIT Tf~ CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORTS on property desoribed Ba: An irregularly
shaped parael of lax-d loorsted on the reat aid'o oP Jo;Por~aa 3tra~t ~d extending from Sauta
Ana Canyon Rond on the south to Batsvia Street on the north; also bounded on the west by
Traot No. 4600~ a R-1~ One Femily Reeidentiel, Zone aubdivision, the tctal area of said
property oonaisting of 19.8 aares, and further desor3bed as Traot No. 4643. Property
presently olassified ao R-3, M(TUr2Pl~ FAMILY RIDSID~NTIAL, ZONE.
Zoning Coordinator ldarti.n Kreidt presented the proposed grading plan of sub,jeat propertq
as it oomrared vith the existir..g grading levol of the R-1 homes to the vest, and notad that
grading difference~ did exist, that where a grading differenoe existel, c. `-foot m~.sonrg ~^~11
be required, and that if the re~uired vall wea not Raived ssid 6-foot wall Would have to be
aonstruoted on top oP the retaining wall.
Mr. Osoar YPhitebook, representing the developer. apgeared before the Co~isaion and revieped
the proposed requests, noting that in the finel atages of the grading of sub~eot property,
there Was a poaeibility that very little retaining Wsll sould be necassery, that the peti-
tioner would oomply vith the City's requirements for a rataining vall, that the eaiating
wooden Yenae wea only one qear old and ~as in good oondition, the,t the retaining vall would
be oonetruoted Yluah againat the ezisting aedar fenoe, that if the 6-foot fenoe were oon-
atruoted the fenoe might be ereoted on the aity property, nemely a dedioated alley, whioh
might preaent a problem in the nature oP a suit iP the vsll Was oonstruoted on the alley.
that he hed purohased the property Yrom the original developer Who hed proposed a targe
planned unit development~ but he ~as proposing more open green spaoe, that the proposed
develoymeat would have less ahildren beoause of the ahange in pleas for the units, and that
the ezietin~ ~eooden fenoe aould sarve the needs of an adequate aeparation betRaen the R-3
and the R-1.
Cotrmi.esioner Camp returned to the Counail Chsmber at 3:59 p.m.
The Oo~iasion reviewed the greding plen for aub~eot property to familiarize themaelves
~ith the variations vhioh might affeot the height of the retaining wall, and disoussed vith
the representative of the developer the implioations and problems whiah might enaue if the
future tenants oY tha four-plez units utilized the alleq to gain ingress to and egresa Yrom
the Oarpox~s~ nating that the ea~Ating,aedar Yenoe would,ba inadequate if oars baaked into .
the Yenoe and ohild.en playing on the wooden fenoe. ~
Co~issioner Ro~land left the Counail Chember at 4:03 p.m.
The Co~iseion also informed ERr. Whitebook that it had been the Co~iaeion's established
prooedure to require a masonry xall betpeen +.he eingle femily subdiviaion and tha multiple
Yemily developmant~ that the longevity oY the wooden Yanoe ~rould onlq be 10-15 yeare, wheress
a masonry wall would last the lifetime of the homes, and further inquired oP OfYioe Engineer
Arthur Daw whether or not the Diraotor of Publio Worka would ob~eat to aonetruotion of s
mssonry vall on the publio dedioated elley.
1[r. Daw atated that in ~.he past vhen multipla femily devalopnents vera proposed with alleys
slong tha ezterior oP the proparty, a apaoisl one-foot lot asa required for the purpose oY
aonetruoting a six-foot masonry wsll, thet the Oitq bsoema reeponeible for the maintenanoe
of the wdlls, snd therefore, the intent in reoant petitions for the retention of a one-Yoot
etrip was required oY 1~he developar making it their responeibilit? for maintenanae of the
wall, and thdt at the time the traot vae reviewed at the Interdepertmental Co~ittee meating~
the engineere Nera questioned ea to providing tha one-foot etrip, but they deolined to do eo.
Oo~iseioaer Rowland x•eturned to tha Oounoil ahember at 4:10 p.m.
I~
!
_ . ._ ,.. , ___. ., .
~(;i , .
~ ,
._......
~. ~ s
MINUTID3, CITY PLANNIN(~ COl~ICCSSION, April 13 ~ 1964 2059
VARIANOffi N0. 1634 - Mr. Fred Haberman, engineer for Toups Enginaering Co. revie~ed for tho
(Continued) Co~i.saion the many problems that might inour iP the masonry a&lls were
requirad to ba built, that me^.; timas the home owners put in Yill to
build up their rear 9ea'ds again~t the va11, and the walls then oollapsed,
that it was the intention of the developer to build the retaining wall in aooordanoe with
the Oity's requirements~ sinoe a retaining aall was requlred ahere the slope was over one Yoot
Prom the natural grade level~ and in response to Co~ission questioni.ng sta,ted that the R-3
lots pould dratn to the alley~ but the R-1 lots did not, and that there vsa a possibility
that a difYerenoe in grade might not eaiat after the grading had been oompleted, sinoe it was
their inteation +o add fill so that the grade would be as it prasently ezisted.
Mr. Jemes Coslow 4229 Santa Luoia 3treet, Orange, appeared before the Co~iasion in opposi-
tion to sub~eot petition and ateted ~'~^st the eaisting fenoe was 5 Peet high, that the reaent
heevy ~vinds had blor~n many fenaea da.~.., `hat when the graders ~ere oorking ad~aoent to his
fenae they underminded and broke the Yenoe, that the gredera had raised the ground under the
Ya:.ca ~ w'::t a•rsr. *?:o~~P *•he fenae ~ere oonstantly maintained they would not last tao years
if the oara were permitted to baok into the alley from the oarports whioh arere only 2A feet
Prom the fenae, that before the grading program took plaoe, his property was level with
the sbutting property but now was higher, that +.he A-1 traot did not oreate the problem the ~
petitioner was heving beasuae he had oreated his owr- problem, that the leu~-d vras being graded
to slope to tho alley, and this eatended for ~s diatanae Prom Santa Ana Canyon Road to the
river, that he ~eas oonaerned ~hat damage might ooour vhen the tenents beaked into the alley,
thst the ma,jority oY the aingle femilq homes had their family room to the rear, Rhioh faoed
sub~eot property, that beoause o4 the heigh: oY tho eaisting Yenoe, iY the required fanoe
were not ereated it ~ould be di.ffioult to meintain thc~ir privaoy, and the,ti in his opinion
a door for the psrking esea vas neoessary beaause a£ the atorage of various items in the
gareges. B[r, Coslos also presanted a petition signed by 36 property ownera in opposition. ~
Mr. IDdWi~ Pelster, 4119 Santa ~,uaia Street~ Orange, appeared beYore the Commission in opposi-
tion, e•.id stated that prior to the greding operation aub~eat property vas 3 feet higher than
hia groperty~ but noa his proparty was 2} Peet higher than aub~eot property, and that he had
a Qenoe on one eide of his property with ma,sonry on the other tvo sidea, with a grest deal
oY msinteneaae on the Aoodea fenae and none on the masonry fenoe.
Ten persona present in the Counail Chsmber eapressed thair opposition by raising their hands. ,
In rebuttsl, Mr. Haberman, saked that the Coamaiseioa oonsider their request for oerporta. and
theo would aithdra~ their request for vaiver of the maeonr3 ~all~ and stipulated that the
retaining aall would be built in aooorde~nae with the City epeoii'iaations~ and the masonry
wtsl.l vould be built on top of the retaining wsll.
Deputy Qitq Attorney Furnian Roberts edvlsed the Oo~i.asion that the Oity Qounoil po'liay
required that the 6-foot masonry be built from the finished grade level of tha higher
praperty line.
Mr. Daw advised the Co~isaion that in the past there he.d bsen e diffarenoe oY opinion ae
to who hsd the suthoritq for the messurement of the retaining mall and masonry wall, and
that it no.longer was under the ~urisdiut~.on af tha Lkiginaering Department but Would be ._
handled as part oY the inspeotion pro'oadure oY the Ruild~ing Departmeat.~
A letter oP opposition was read to the Cot~ission from the City oY Ore~nge Plenning Oo~i.ssion. '
i
TfIDf fIDiARIl~ YPA9 CL09~. !
Uo~iasioner Oemp oPfered Resolution No. 1128, 8eries 1963-64, and moved Por ite psesage i
aad adoption, eooonded by Oo¢eqissioner Allred to grant Petition for Vsrianoe No. 1634 Yor
waiver oY the oarports only, sinoa the petitioner aithdrep his re~ueat Yor paiver of the ,
mneonry nall, ead aub~eot to aonditione.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the Yoregoing resolution r as psseed bq the Pollowing vote:
AYID9: OOI~Y99IO1~R8: Allred~ Oamp~ Ohavos, (3auer, Mungsll~ Perry~ Rovland.
NOIDB: OOddQ88I01~i3: Nono.
ABS~+1T: 001Q~II38IOI~i9: Pabley, 81dee.
Oo~nieeioner Perry left the Oounoil Ohsmber at 4:45 p.m.
/
-~_ ___---.__..._~.._ . ~ . _ ._.... _ _. ~
° . . . . . . . ., _ -,- , -
~ ~
~",
'' ~~
~~ ~ •
~[INUTID9, OITY PLANNINt3 COM.-~[I6SION, April 13, 1964
2060
OOIIDITIONAL USID -~~~ ~+~~• ~~T ~~~ORIE DAY AND BLAIL~ d LOUIS~ SANBORN~
P~E~IIT N0. 554 a/o Nels Feterson, 1436 Vronte Drive~ Whittier, Califoraie, Owaers;
1~I1~iH B. CLAU3E~I, 1791 St. James Plsoe, P~aoentia~ California, Agsnt;
requesting permisaion to IDSTABLI3H A RIDSTAURANT WITH ON-3AL~ OF SID~R on
property deaoribed ea: A reotangularly shaped paroel of land.rlth a frontage of 150 Peet
on tha north side of Linooln Avenue and a depth of 213 feet~ the easterly boundary of said
property being approzimately 195 Peet West of the oenterl~ine oP Dale Avenue, e~nd further
deaoribed as 2815 Weat Linool,l Avenue. Property presently olassified as 0-1, NIDfIf3fIDORH00D
O0~O~IROTAL, ZOI~f.
1tr. Senneth Clausen, agent 4or the petitioners appeared be~ore the Co~iasion and revieaed
the proposed reataurant use atating ?urther that the request for on-sale beer was neaessary
sinoe pizza Was ususlly sold vith beer, that the walls of the reataurant ~eould be insulatad
to reduoe any noiae that might i~i.nate from the eatsblishment, and that the restaursnt
vould be similar to oae now eatablished in Elxllerton.
No one appeared in o~position.
Tfi~ FIDIARIt~ WA5 CIA9ED.
In response to Co~i.seion questioningt Mr. Clausen stated that the struoture would be built
in saoordanoe with the Building Code, that the air aonditioning fsailities would be properlq
shielded Yrom view, end that the sesting oapaaity would ba for 200 peraoas.
Cocmisaioner Allred offered Resolution No. 11299 Seriea 1963-64, and moved for ita passage
and adoptioa, seoonded by Oo~ai.saioner Chavos, to grant Pstition for Oonditional Use Permi.t
No. 554, sub~eot to oonditions.(3ee Aesolution Book)
On roll oell ti:e Poregoing resolution ras pesaed by the following vote:
A7CE79: 00l~lISSIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Ohavos, (3auer, Mwngall, Ropland.
NOIDS: COI~SISSIOI~EiS: None.
ABS~PP: OOMldTS9I01~R3: Febley, Perry, 3id~s.
CONDITIONAL U~I - PU6LIC f~ARINQ. C. 3. d Ai7HII~ E1. BAUMSTARK, 2201 Domittgo Road, Flillertoa~ ,
PIDRMIfi N0. 555 Ca'liPornia, Ovners; JAY LAWYIDR, P. 0. Boz ?A87, Santa Fe Springs, OaliPornie~
~ Agent; requeating permission to HISTAB~aISH A 3~RITICID STdTION on property
desoribed as: A reotangulerly sY~aped perael of land at the northeast aorner i
of Rnott end Orange Avenues~ with frontages oE 150~Yeet on the ass~t aide of Knott Avenue and ;
]~Q feet on the north side of Orange Aven~a. Property preE~•ently alasaiPied as 0-1~ Neighbor- ~
hood Co~eroial, Zone. i
Mr. Jaq I,aWyer. agent Yor the petitioner, ~ppeared before the Cc+coniasion and~ststed he pas
avai.lsble to ans~er queetiona.
Zoning Ooordinator Mestin Kreidt noted Por the Oommiesion that ~hen aub~eot propsrtg had teen
approved Yor 0-1 2oning~ a sme11 paroel was omitted in the plana of develop~ent, and it had
bean the Coa~ieaion's assump~,i.on at.the time thet.a aerviae,gtat~.on would h~ requeeted Bt a_
lat~r date.
Oo~iseioner Perry returned to the Qounoil Ohamber at 4:55 p.m.
Commiasioner Ohavos left the Qounail Chember at 4:55 p.m.
No one appeared in oppoeition.
TF~1 F~ARIN(~ WA8 aL.`BIDD.
Ooc~i.seloner Oemp offered Resoluti.on TJo. 1130~ 3eries 1963-64, end moved for ita pasaege
and adoption, seoonded by Co~iseioner Ciauer to grant Petition Yor Oonditional Uae Permit
No, 555, sub~eat to oonditions.(3ee Resolution Book)
On roll oell tha Yoregoing reeolution wae passed by the folloping vote:
AYID3: OOl~LT98I0NIDR3; Allred, tlamp, (3auer, Mungall, Rosland.
NOID5: OOl~dI99I0NIDR3: None.
A89~NT: QOb~S3I0N~iS: Ohavoe. Peb~.ey, 81des.
AB3TAIl~f: 00lI~tlI99I0N~i3: Perry.
I
i
, ~
~ .Y__.__.~___, ~
. . ~ . ~'. . . . . . ~-' . .. _ . ..-_
.. . '. ': .. ~' . . . .. b. ~ :. ~ .
~ ~ ~
MINUTES9 OITY PLANNIIVa COM!(ISSION, April 13, 1964
2061
OONDITIONAL USID - PUBLIa HEARJN(~. MAR4UERT~F] E. S~TH, 510 South Ohio 3treet, Anaheim~
P~RMIT Id6.. 556 California~ Ovner; JAl~S L. 3 VPANDA S. MORRIS, 904 VPest Broad~ray, Anaheim,
Californie, Agents; requesting permiasion to ESTABLISH A WALi{-UP RHISTAURANP
wITH WAIVER OF TFIlf7 MII~fTM REQi3IRID PARI~1(3 on property deaoribed ea: A
reatangulerly shaped paroel of land at the northeast oorner of Linooln Avenue and Oitron
3treet, having frontages of 57 feet on the north side of Linooln Avenue and 77 feet on the
east side oY Citron Street. and further desoribed as 719 VPest Linooln Avenue. Property
preaently alassified as C-2, GEI~RAL• CON~EEtOIAL, Zone.
Co~i.ssioner Chavos returned to the Counoil Chember at 4:58 p.m.
Five letters oY opposition e~ere read to the Commisaion from property ovners ad~aaent to the
propoaed restaurant.
Mr. James Morris,one of the agents for the petitioaer, appeared before the Cor~ission and
revie~ed the proposed Orange Julius soft drink, hemburger and hot dog restaurant, and further
stated thrzt the size oY tha stxn:eture had been reduoed from that whiah had been previously
oor_aidered by the Co~isaion in order the,t 9 perki.ng apaoes oould bs provided.
Mr. B. B. Cort~ representing the Orange Julius Corporation, appeared before the Co~isaion
and gave a hiatory of the firm he represented, and the method of dispenaing food and drink
by their establishment. He Yurther stated the,t proposed establiahment would not appeal to
the high sohool students beoause of tha prioe o£ the food, that the prioe Was beoausa they
oere interested in sel'.ing quality food rather than quantity, atating that most of their
other loaetions provided an average of 4 parking spaoes, that the speed at whiah the ~ood
was dispensed. and that there would be no traPfia problem beaeuse of the priae.
Mr. Bill ~~~~ 701 Weat Linooln Avenue, operator of Maores Florist appeared in opposition
to sub~eat petition, and steted that at the time he purohaaed his property there had been
a Similar requeat for a reataurant on sub~eot property~ that he built and provided adequste
parking faoilities for his p~trona. although most oY h3s buainess wss by telephone, that he
Was proud oP their struoture, and hed hoped this aet a pattern of development for the entire
area. that he owned the propertq up to the easterly boundary oY sub~eot property, but did
not purahase sub3eat property beoauee the prioe was prohibitive, that he xas desirous of no~
having the aree ad~aaent to his property turn into a downtown deteriorated area, that a
restaurant with only 250 aquare Peet vas not an improvement Por the area, th~t he mas plan-
ning to tear all the old building doWn and replaoe ovith new struotures vhioh would be a
oredit to the oity as sell as himself, that he was deairous of having sub~eot property develop
so thnt it Would be a oredit to the area9 that the eaisting restaurant to the east of his
property was having parking problems, that the high sohool was a olosed aempue and oara parl:ed
by the studenta rema.i.ned in the area all day, that it was urgent that the Co~iseion oonsider
tha inadequ~ay of parking in the erea along suoh s busy thoroughPare, and thet the propoaed
use ~eould be a detriment to the aree in any Yuture plan of reoonatr~xot3on.
Mr. Williem Keele, 9684 Sharon, Arlington, ovmer of property on the southeast oorner of
Citron and Linaoln, appeared before the Commission in opposition, and stated that he was
speaking in bahalf of the lessees of the property Who opposed the proposed use ss being
" inaompatible to the a"rea,~and tnat inadequete parking ~'aoilities'tagether wi'th the inarease
in traffio for that area would be detrimental to any future development of the area.
Mr. J. R. 9Phite, 707 9Pest Linaoln Avenue, operstor of the real eatate offioe et that addreas,
appeared in opposition and stated thst students attending the high sahool were parking along
Citron Street. that the proposed uae was not providing adequate parking fsailitiea. that
parking for olients of the vsrious busineases along Linooln Avenue was at a premium, and the,t
the petitioner ahould meet the minimum requiremer.t, even though only one parking spaae wse
requeated to be waived.
Tf~ I~ARINQ YPAS CLOSED.
The Oo~iasion disouased the evidenoe presented by the oppoeition, noting that the property
oRner immediatelq ad3aoent to sub~eot property eapresaed his intention of Yurther ezpansion
oY~.new struotures, that if the propoaed development Were epproved, thie would be a detriment
to the area, thet although the high sohool obaerved a olosed oampus~ this might be an undesir-
eble meeting plaoe for the atudenta after sahool houre~ that elthough the property wae s
size whioh made it diPfiault to develop, the proposed use would be inoompatible, and that the
propoaed use was not an improvement to develop it to its highest a::d beat uae.
~ ![r. Qort advised the Co~nisaion that 70,~ of the bueinoas pould.be"telse out", and that the
businesa Yrom th9 high sohool atudenta aould onlq be a"plus"
~
i
J
.._
_,_ _ .._ __. ,-_____.__ _ _. ~
. ~ ~ . ._... __. _____ . ~ __ _
- . ~
i •
,
, . ,v.
~ .
_._~_ _ - -....~,..,., „ ~
C) ~ t'~
MIIJUTF7S, CIT7C PLANNIN(3 COlISLISSION, April 13, 1964 2062
CONDITIONAL US&f - Tha Oo~.iasioa exprassed the hope thr~t sua~eat property oould be oombined
PHIRMIT N0. 556 with some ad~aaent property in order that es overall development might take
(oontinued) plsoe, and urged the pet3tioner to attempt to assemble additional property.
Ooimnisaioner Chavoa ofYered Aesolution No. 1131, Series 1963-64, and moved Por 3ts passage
and adoption, seoonded by Commiasioner Allred to deny Petition for Oonditional Use Permit
No. 556, based on the faot that the proposed use Would be inoompatible, that the ad~aoent
property proposed to eapand his eaisting struature, and Would be unable to do so iP sub~eot
petition were approved beaause of its inoompatibility, that the parking along the street
side would areate a traYPio hazard, and that the proposed use might ureate an undesirable
meeting plaae for the high sohool students after sohool hours.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the Poregoing resulution was passed by the folloWing vote:
AYES: COI~CCSSIOI~RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, RoWland.
NOIDS: C~99IONERS: None.
AB3EN'P: COMlSISSIOI~uRS: Pebley, Sides.
OONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIO HEARING. MI~LI B. SIDGURA, 1870 Mandeville Canyon, YPeat Los Angeles,
PEHMIT N0. 558 CaliYornia, O~ner; DUAl~f 701~S b, J'AQK OOMP5IRE, 3811 Los Olivoa Lsne, Le,
Oresoen~tap CaliPornia, Agents; requesting per~.~sion to E{STABLISH A SALID9
At~ID SERVICH OPERATION OF LI(3HVPPuIC3EiT MOTORCYCL'~S on property desoribed as:
An irregularly shaped paroel of laad at the southeast aorner of Linooln Avenue and Loara
Street, with frontages of approaimately 100 feet on the south side of Linooln Avenue and
166 Yeet on the east side of Loara Street, the easterly boundary of said property abutting
the peaterly boundary of the Southern Paoifia Railroad right-of-way, and further deaoribed
as 1568 C9est Linooln Avenue. Property presently olessified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and P-L,
PARRaR3 LANDSCAPING, ZOPIES.
Mr. Duane Jones, one of ths agents for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and
reviewed the proposed use, noting that he proposed the sales and serviae of a Japanese impqrt
motorayole, and that iY he were not permitted to have outdoor display of the motorayales;•he
pould be unable to operate the proposed use.
The Co~ission eapressed aonoern that the eide streets vould be utilized Por a testing area
for the motornyoles and vuould be a detriment to the industrial buildings and treffio eman-
ating from these streets would also ar~ate a haze,rd. i
i
Mr. Jones stated that he antioipated that older people wonld be puror.ssing these motoroyoles ,~
and that he did not oonsider motorayoles dangerous. y
Five lettars of opposition Were read Yrom the various owners of the induatriel property in ~
the area in Whioh the proposed use would be looated.
i
Further disoussion Was held by the Co~iasion as to the aompatibility oP the propoaed use
to the industrial ares, that the testing of motoroyoles would oreate a traffio hazerd in
, aq alr@~dy developgd i.ndustrial area,. and,thet outdoor disRley of inerohand~sa was a violation
of the M-1, Zone. ~
~ F~axnua wns aLOSnn.
Cottmissioner Perry oPPered Resolution No. 1132, Series 1963-64, and moved Yor ita passage
and adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Oonditional Use Permit
No. 55f3, based on the faots the,t the proposed use would be inaompatible to the industrisl
area, that the petitioner proposed outdoor displey of the merohandise~ a violation of the
Ansheim ][unioipal Code, and that the proposed use would oreete a traffio hazard.(See
Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYID9: COMlQISSIONIDRS: Allred, Camp, Ohavos, Qauer, Mungall, Perrq, RoWland.
NOIDS: OO~ISSIO2~IRS: None.
AB6IDNT: OODLOSIS9I0NE~R9: f'ebley, Sidea.
Oo~isaioner Oamp left the Qounoil Chamber at 5:30 p.m.
.... ~__.. ._. ..._...._.. _. _. ___ ._. _ _ _ ._
._ _ _.___. _.__- f
I
;
~.
,
.
.
,.
~ ~ ~ 'i
,
~
;
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNINa CO~ISSION, April 13, 1964 2063 I
CONDITION'AL U3E - PUBI,IC F~IARIN~. MC ALISTER CON3TRUCTION COMPANY, 1709 South Brookhurst,
PERMIT N0. 559 Anaheim, California, Ovmer; JAE~S HODGEfS ~ ASSOOIATES, 1709 South Brook-
hurst, Anelieim, CaliPornia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A
SMALL A;i?~AL Cl~PIIC on property desoribed as: An irregularly shaped parael
of land aith a Prontage of 131 fest on the east side oP State College Boulevard and a maaimum
depth o£ 147 Yset, the northerly boundsry of said property being approaimately 1~191 Peet
south oY the aenterline of La Palma Avenue. Property presently alassi33ed as C-1, NEIGHBOR-
HOOD OOI~fEtCIAL' ZONE.
D[r. Jemes Hodges, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ui.ssion and revieWed the
proposed use and development, stating that he hoped that they hsd minimized the opposition
to the proposed use by oonsulting a sound engineer in an effort to reduoe the noise .feator,
that the tao lots to south of sub~eat property had been reolassified to C-1, Zone and would
be either aonvertod or replaoed and utilized for ao~eraial purposes. that he ~ae,s deairous
of having any aonditions impoaed on sub~eot property similerly imposed on the ad3aoent
property relative to setbaoks, and that the Code permitted development of C-1 l.ats to the
side+~alk.
In revie~ring the proposed use the Cou~ission inquired of Mr. Hoages the number oP oustomers
that the petition vould be able to serve in order that adeque,te parking were provided~ to
Whioh Mr. Hodges replied that the operator of the olinio felt that 4 parking spaoes vere more
theu adequate, that it was not plarmAd to board dogs, eaoept during an 111ness, that the pro-
pcsed reduation of sound to 47 cleoibels Was adequate to handle any loud barking by the dogs.
and thst upon measuring the property to the south, it vras determined that the setbeols from ;
the sidesalk was agproximately 15 fee't. 3
Zoning Coordinstor ~dartin Kreidt advised the Commission that on a previous petition for a p~,roeli
to the nortY:, it had been reoo~aended that the setbaak be uniYorm, but the City Counail
had not aoaepted this reoommendation. ;
No one appeared in opposition.
Tf~ F~IARII~ -PAS CIASED.
Coceni.ssioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1133, Series 1963-64, and moved Por its passage
and edoption, seaonded by Commiasloner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 559, sub3eat to the setbaok aorresponding to the eaisting setbaok to the south of sub~eot
prar,erty, and the deaibels oY sound to provide adequate sound protoation being oheoked by
a li.aensed aoaoustinal sound engineer, and aonditione.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall tha foregoing i•esolution wes uassed by the follo~ring vote:
AYP1S: CONm'LTSSIONEFtS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rowland.
NOIDS: COM~ISSIOPTERB: None~
. ,AB3EIl~1'P: OOM~ISS,~Ol~ki~: Cemp, Pebley, Sidss. , '
I REOPu33 - Oo~iasioner Allred oPfered a motion to reoess for dinner. Commi.ssioner (3auer
seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting reoeased at 5:40 p.m.
REOONVETii~ - Chairman Mungell reoonvened the meeting at 7:25 p•m. Co~i.ssioners Chavos and
Pebley being absent.
OONDITIONAL USID - PUBLIC I~]ARINa. COSTA M6fSA SAVINGS b LOAN, 1895 NeWport Boulevard, Costa
PERI~~' N0. 561 Mesa, Celifornia, OaPner; DAVIU W. Fi00K, 1780 YYeat Linooln Avenue, Ansheim~
Californie, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLI~I A 7-3TORY APARTE~IV'P
gUII,DIl~(~ VpITH UNDER(3ROtTDID PARKING on property desaribed as: A reotangulerly
ahaped parael of land ~ith a frontege of 385 feet on the west aide of Brookhurat Street and
a degth oP 300 Yeet, the northerly bour.dary of Raid propertq being approsimately 660 Yeet
s~uth of the oenterline of Cresoent Avenue, and further desoribed as 411-431 North Brookhurat
StrPet. Property presently aleasified as R-A9 RESIDENTIAL A(3RICUTA'URAL, ZUAID.
.. ;
I
~
• ~ 1 .
•
(1 ~ ~
MINUTIIS9 CI'PY PLANNING OO~ISSTON, Apri1 13, 1964
zoc~a
CONDITIONAL U3D - Mr. David Hook, agent for the petitioner, appesred before the Commission
PERMI'P N0. 561 an3 reviewed the proposed development of a 7-story apertment building
(aontinued) ad3eoent to the golf oourae, and further stating that sub~eat propertq
would be developed in two stages,the first being the apaxtment struoture,
and the seoond aould be oommeroial development for the frontage. Colored
renderings of the two stages Aere exhibited for the Co~ni.ssion's oonsideration vhioh indioated
that more than adequate parking would be provided for the apartment struoture, that subter-
ranean parking was proposed approsimately 4-5 feet below the street level beloW the struature,
that the setbaok ovas approsimately 150 feet Prom the street, that 78 apartments were proposed.
vith a gross erea of 875 feet per dwelling unit, that Type 1 oonstruation Was proposed vith
pre-oast aonorete slabs, that the entire frontage eaoept for guest parking Would be landsoaped,
until the seaond stage oP development was Pormalized and ready for oonstruation, and that
tap borings to 10 feet had been msde to determine iY a solid foundation aould be found. ;
Dr. E. T. Metz, 335 North Brookhurst Street, appeared before the Co~ission, and stated that ~
he operated the animel hospital to south of sub~eot property, that he was in favor of the ~
proposad development, that he Would only oppose any setbaok whioh pould be datrimental to
his operation, beaause their aade of ethios did not permit any advertising, and iY a similsr !
se%uaak wera no% maicrt~:uieii as io w8'o r~:,ui: ~3 ±a ~:e•!e e± ±ha t3,me the County of Orastge
gave him permiasion to aonstruot his hospitel, namely 77 feet from the oenterline oP Brook- j
hurst Street, his establishment would be hidden by e. 7-story development or if the ao~eroisl j
development ooaurred on the front of sub3eot property a 3-story barrier, that the City ~
ahould establish a dePinite pattern of setbeaks from Cresoent Avenue southerly Whiah would
be oompatible with egisting developments, that a sia-foot masonry wall should be oonstruoted
bahind the 77-Yoot setbaok to sepa;rate subjeat property from his property, and that his
statments were ma,de so that the petitioners would be oognizent of diPPiculties whiah might ,
inour if a uniform setbsak were not maintained.
Mr. Hook then advised the Co~ission that he would like to have rear of the oarports as a
portion of the 6-foot masonry ~sll, and that the proposed oarports would be within 68 feet
o£ the Brookhurst Street setbaok.
In response to Co~3.ssion questioning, NCr. Hook stated that a Conditional Use Permit would
be filed Por eaoh phase of development.
The Oommission noted that the property had been advertised for R-3, Multiple Family Residen-
tial, development and no plans were presented for the oo~eroial development and, therefore,
it ~ould be neoessary by finding to note that only the R-3 development was being oonsiderod
by the Co~ission, and thet subjeot property should be realassified to the R-3 Zone.
Tf~ HEARIN(3 WAS CLOSED.
Disoussion ~as held by the Co~iseion as to maintaining the previously estsblished aetbaok
on Brookhurat, and advised Dr. Metz that the Co~ission had no firm oontrol over the setbaok
on any street, beaeuse the City Counnil had indiaated previously that this oould not be done.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1134, Seriea 1963-64, and moved for its passaga
snd adoption~ seocnded by Co~issioner Gauer to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 561, sub~eot to the realessifiaati.on of the property ~o the R-3,Zone, that waider of height
limitation aas granted, that the masonry Wall should be waived on the south property line
for the front 68 feet, and that the Commission's eation was in no way to refleat any Puture
aotian on the Pront portion of sub3eot property, and oonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the Poregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A1'E9: COD~ISSIONERS: Allred, Cemp, Gauer. Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sidea.
NOLf3: CO~ISSIONERS: None.
ABS~NNT: CO~dI3SI01~R8: Chavos, Pebley.
Commisaioner Rowland ofYered Resolution No. 1135, Soriea 1963-64, and moved Por ita passage
and adoption, seoonded by Com~.tssioner Gauer to raoommend to the City Counoil that General Plan
Amendment No. 17 be approved.(See Resolution Book)
On roll osll the Yoregoing resolution aras pasaed by tha Pollowing vote:
AYES: CO~I5SION~RS: Allred, Camp, (iauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOH1S: CO~I93IONERS: None.
AAS~IT: COME~LSSIONERS: Ohavos, Pebley
-- --~------
,
~
~
~
_ ' ~~:_.._.__ , _ .. ., _
_. .
_ ...._...~.~., , ,
t~l ~ • ~ '1
I
!
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN(3 CO~AI3SION, April 13, 1964 2065 ~
REOLASSIL'ICATION - P~~C HEARING. ~EARJORIE L. HAM~, 1177 Beaoon, Anaheim, CsliPornia,
N0. 63-64-102 Ovvner; S'FEPFIL~N V~. BRADFORD, 125 South Claudina Street. Anaheim,
Californis, Agent; requesting that propertq desaribed as: Two reotan~u-
larly shaped paroels of land with frontages on the west side of Magnolia
Avenue and Purther desaribed as folloms: PARCEL 1- the northernmost paroel, having a
frontage of 82 feet and a masimum depth of 202 feet, the northerly boundary of said property
being approximetely 518 Yeet south of the aenterline of Orange Avenue; PARCIIL 2- the south-
ernmost parael, having a Prontage of 78 feet and a ma.ximum depth of 220 lAit, the northerly
boundary of said property being approaimately 160 Yeet south of the southerly boundary of
Paroel 1, and approximately 678 Peet south of the oenterline of Orange Avenue and further
desaribed as 645 South Magnolia Avenue be reolassified from the R-A, RESI~I'PIAL AGRIOUL-
TURAL, ZONE to the R-1, OtN(E FAEGIL'Y RE3IDF~NTIAI.,, ZONE to oreate two R-1 paraels.
The daughter and son-in-law of the petitioner stated they were present to ansWer questions
iP the Coami.ssion hsd any.
No one appeared in opposition.
Tf~ HEARING YVAS CLOS~ED.
Zoning Ooordinator Martin Ii:reidt advised the Co~ission that the aenter paroel was still
more than an sare, and th~t a aondition of approval reqaired that a Reaord Af Survey ba
reoorded aith the Orange County Reoorder.
do~mnissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1136, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
end adoption, seaonded by Co~issioner Camp, to reoommend to the City Counail that Petition
for RealassiPioation No. 63-•64-102 be approved, sub~eat to aonditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oa11 the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: COMNLISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, (3auer, Mungall~ Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOE9: CO~SSIO'NER.S: None.
63SII~T: COM~L3SIONEHS: Chavos, Pebley.
RECLASSIFICA'PION - PUBLTC F~5fARTNG. ONEAL X, DAN'A STORTS, 10625 Gexnish Drive, Dorvney,
N0. 63-64-104 Cslifornia, Ovvners; MONROE d, RFIBA FREEl~AN, 223 Haaienda Avenue, Anaheim,
~ California, Owners; requesting that property desoribed as: A reotangu-
lexly sh .7Cr• narael of land with a frontage of 62 feet on the vvest side of Walnut Street
and a mcx~ m depth of 117 feet, the southerly boundary of said.property being epproximstely
287 feet :.,rth of the oenterline of Broadway be reolassified from the R-2, TVPO-FA~ILY
IiE9IDF~NTIAL, ZONE to the R-3, MUUL•IFT_~ FAMILY RHISIDENTIAL, ZONE to estatliah a three unit
apartment building on sub~eot property.
Mr. Monroe Freeman, one of the oWners, appeared befora the Co~ission, and reviewed the
proposetY developmen~ • - - - • - .
Mr. (3eorge MoIntyre, 206 South Cherry Street, appeared before the Gommission and stated ~
that iP the garagea were proposed for the rear portion oP sub~eot property that a Wooden
fenae be oanstruoted so thet there ~eould be no trespassing by automobiles on his property.
The Co~ission inYormed Mr. E~olntqre that a Penoe oould not be a requirement beoause of the
~
similarity of the proposed zone to the eaisting zone.
T~ F~iIARING VPAS OIASIDD.
Commiasioner RoWlend offered Reaolution No. 1137, Series 1963-64, and mcved Por its psssage
and adoption, seoonded by Co~isaioner Camp to reaommend ~o the City Counoil that Petition
Por Reolasaitioation No. 63-64-104 be approved, sub~eot to oonditions.(3ee Reaolution Book) I
On roll oall the ~oregoing resolution wae pasaed by the folloWing vote: ~
AYIDS: QOEEDLI9SIONH{.SS: A.~lred, Camp, aeuer, Mungall, Perry , Rowland, Sldes. '.
NOIDS: COM~El9$IO'.~RS: None. '
AB3IDNT: CO~ISSIOI~RS: Chavos, Pebley. i
_.._ ....._ _ _._._._ _._..._... ._... ._._ ._ _ .~.----.....__ -_ -----._._..~~~.___.__.. .
.. . ~__- -,-,--
, ,
*~__°°__-__ _-.~ ~ ~ :_ -: --__:- _- _------- -
~J
~
MINUTES, CITY PLAN_'JINa OOM~LISSION, April 13, 1964
,
~
2066
RPC'LASSIPTCATTON - PCJBLTC FIDARING. JOHN N(7NEMAN, 419 Fast Orangevood Avenue, Anaheim,
NG. 63-64•-105 and California, Owner; T. E B. DE1/E]LOP~NT COMPANY, P. 0. Box 3966,
Anaheim, California, Agent; property desoribed as: A reotangularly
COIQDITIONAL USE shaped paroe7. of land.with a Yrontage of 330 feet on the north side
PERMLT N0. 560 of Orangewood Avenue and a depth of 640 feet, the Westerly boundary
of said property being approaimately 1,320 feet east of the oenter-
line of Hester Street, and further desoribed as 419 East Orangewood
Avenue. Property presently olassified as R-A,RESIDENTIAL 9GRTCUL-
TG~tAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLA3SIFICATION: R-3, MCLfiIPLE FAMILY RE3IDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTEJ7 CONDITIONAT, JSD: (1) ESTABZ~TSH A ONE AND TVPO-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANN~D
RF7SIDENTIAL DEV'IILOPMGN'P VPITH GVANER OF TEIE REQUIRED (~ARA(3ES
TO PE~i~IT 1'IiE CONSTRD'CTION OF CARPORTS, AND (2) VPAIYER OF THE
ODfi~- STORY F~IGHT LIl~TP,TION WITF~i 150 FEET OF R-A ZOI~D
PROPERTY.
Mr. Jaak Jolley, representing the petitioner, appeered before the Co~i.ssion~ and stated
that sinoe he had read tha Report to the Commission~ it would be neoessary that reviaed
plans be submitted and, therefore, requested a oontinuanae of sub~eot petitions in order
to aubmit revissd plans and a tentative traat map.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Co~mi.ss~on that it would be neoessary Yor
the petitioner to submit the tentative traot map by April 17, 1964 in order that sub~eot
petitions might be oonsidered in fou.r weeks.
Mr. Jolley then requested that the Commission oortinue sub~eot petitions for six weeks.
Ooapni.ssioner Rowland offered a motion to oontinue Petitions for Realassifioation No.
63-64-105 and Conditional Use Permit No. 560 to the meeting of June 8, 1964, for the
aubmission of revised ple,ns and a tentative traot map. Commissioner Gauer seaonded
the motion. MOTION CARR~D.
GENERAL PI~AN - PUBLIC HH~CAHING. Il~iITIATED BY T'EIE ANAHEI~ PLANNING CO~ElSI33ION~ 204 Eest
AMEND~eENT N0. 16 Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, Cel.ifornia to aonsider an amendment to the
Ciroulation P7lement of the General Plan for Manohester Avenue eastorly
Yrom Harbor Boulevard.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt ravieped the Co~.i.ssion's previous aotion in Conditional
Use Permit No. 544, noting that sub~eat amendment was neoessary in order that the street
might be resligned northerly beoause it Would involve s oonsiderable eapease to relooate
the faoilities of the servioe station on the southeast oorner of Manahester and Herbor
Boulevard, and the,t it had been asoertained by the Ci:y Engineer ihati %neir previous
3urvey of the street in question was inaomplete, and additionel time would be nenessary
to make an additional survey.
Co~i.ssioner Rowland offered a motion to aontinue the publia hearing of (~eneral Plan
Amendmant No. 16 to the meeting of June 8~ 1964, in order that the Engineering Department
might oomplete a survey. CoQmni.ssioner Camp seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORTS AND - ITE~ N0. 1
RE001~@INDATIONS Cou~unioation from the attorneys far the Robert Doxling property on
Orange:horpe Avenue.
Zoning Coordinator Martin ~raidt read a letter, whioh was a oopy addressed to the attornays
oP Mr. Riohes~d Brown, olarifying the intent of the Dowling femily regarding any development
for their property.
Chairman Mungall direoted the Co~ission Searetary to receive and file the letter.
-.-- -~
I ~~
I
r
l~
:'~
MINUTP~S, CITY FLANN'ING COMB4I3SION, April 13, 1964
2067
REPORTS ADID ITE~4 N0. 2
REfCO~IDNA7.'IONS ORANGE COUNTY CASE N0. 778 (Seational Distriot Mep 1-4-10, Dzhibit A),
proposing e ohange in Distriats Yrom the R4, Suburban Residential, M1,
Light Industriel, and Al, (ieneral Agrioultural, Distriats to R-2, l3roup
Drrellings Distriot for property looated south of Anaheim Road, north of
Goronado Street, and mest of Blue Gum Street in the northenct Anaheim area
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented Orange County Case No. 778 to the Planning
Co~i.ssion and noted that sub3eat petition was being oonsidered by the County Plennin~
Oou~i-asioa April 22, 1964, tor property whiah was looated in the Northeast Induatriel Ai~~.
The Coe~issioa disaussed their pest aation on similar requests to the Orenge Couaty Planning
Cotmti.ssion for residentisl uses in the Northeast Indus~trial Area.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reoo~aend to the City Counoil that the Orange County ~
Planning Coaanission be advised that sub3eat property is looated ~ithin the Northeast Indus- ~
triel Area, that the City of Anaheim's polioy has been to retain this ares for industrial ~
uses, tha~ t~s Oounty P~R*!ning ~ommission reoently approved industri8l zoning ir, the area .
imnediately ed~aaent to the east of sub3eat property (Case No. 744), and that residentiel ~
uses are niefsr7v inoompatibls with tho industrial uses and zoning in the Northeast Industriel E
Area. Ca~issioner '_4ovland seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~
~
ITEM N0. 3
Conditional Use Permit No. 118
North side of Anahei.m Road, approsimetely 1320 feet west of the
oenterline of B1ue Gum Street granted by the City Counail June 13, 1961
to oonstruat a trailer
Zoning Ooordinator Martin xreidt revieved Yor the Co~ission past zoning aotion on sub~eot
property, noting that apertments ~aere presently being oonstruoted, and the treiler park
permit would no longer be i.>> eYfeot. Therefore, Conditional Use Permit No. 118 should be
terminated.
Oommissioner Roaland offered Resolution No. 1138, ~eries 1963-64, and moved Yor its passage
and adoption, seconded by Cor~misaioner Gauer to reaommend to the City Counoil that Conditional
Uae Permit No. 118 be terminated base3 on findings.(See Resolution Book)
On roll aall the foregoing resolution Was pessed by the follovuing votE:
AYES: COD~tlISSION~RS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOES: CO~IS5IONER3: None. j
AB,SEN'P: CO~ISSIOPIEHS: Chavos, Pebley. i
IT~I[ N0. 4 i
CONDITIONAL USD PEFiMIT No. 277
_ . 932 North Eualid Street - HoYbrau ~
-• • .. _ .. ._ . . • • - •- - ._ ~
Zoning Ooordinator Martin Kreidt revieWed the previous zoning aotion on aub~eot oonditional ~
use permit and noted that the petitioner did not reaeive permission from the State of Cali- I
Pornia to operate the HoYbrau by refusing them a liquor liaense~ and that upon aontaating
the p~titioner, he auggested that the Co~i.ssion oonsider any prooeedinge pending to be ,
olosed. ~
i
CoaQnissioner RoWland oP~er~d Resolution No. 1139, Series 1963-64, and moved Yor ita passage 1
snd edoption~ seoonded by Commissioner Gauer to reoommand to the City Oounail that Oondi-
tional Uae Perrnit Na. 277 be termineted e,s requested by the petitioner.(3ee Resolution Book)
~ Qn roll os11 the foregoing resolution pas pasaed 'ny the Yolloring vote: j
4 ~
AYIDS: CO~dLS$IONPR3: Allred, Camp~ (iauer, Mungell, Perr9. Rowland, 3idea. ~
I
I~UID3: CO~dI53I0NERS: None. '
i
~
ABSLIlq'P: OOD~23SIONER5: Chavos, Pebley. ~
i
;, I
~
~~, i
~ I
r,' ~
s:
~ _ . _ _....__ . . . . _..
. __ ._ . __ ____ ~
.-,. _-~ . '- - ---_~ _ - - _- , - --- - . _
i
~
~
~
~
~
1
~
i
i
L~ ~ •
MINU7.~S, CIT7C PIJINNINCi 003~IS$TON, April 13, 1964
2o5s ~
AIDPORTB At~A - ITE![ N0. ~
RIDOW~NDATION3 AEOLASSIFICATIObI No. 58-59-99
Mar~an Corporatioa - West side oP Magnolia Avenue north of Linooln Avenue
Zoning Coordinator ![artin & eidt r~~d e lei,ter from the Mar~an Oorporation requeeting thst
Aeoleas3Yiaation No. 58-59-99 be terminated, ainoe sub~oot property had ahanged n~nership
and uaea several timbs, and the bond insuring the etreet improvementa had been oarried by
their oompany although they no longer Were involved in the property.
Offiae ~nginear Arthur Dav advieed the Qo~ni.ssion, that subsequent petitionars had not been
required to post a bond to insure the inatallation o£ impravements, and it would be neoessary
to have the Oity Attorney's oPfioe rev3ew the Pile to determine how the request for the bond
relaeese aould be granted eud a new bond posted by tha present oss-ers.
Ootamiasioner Oamp ofYered e motion to oontinue oonsideration of P.eoleaslYiastion No.
58-59-99 to the mleeting of April 27, 1964. ead direoted that the City Attorney'e oYPioe
analyze the file Por meana of determining the diaposition oi the eaiating bond and the postiag
of a aew bond by the present owners. Qo~isaioner Allred seooaded the motion. MOTION C~t~.
ITL~n T~CO. o
RECLASSIFICA"_'I.~i H0. 53-54-26 - reoeamend realassiPioetion to R-3 Por a
portion.
Eoning vuordinator Martin Kreidt revieved aub~eat petition noting that the easte:ly aul-
de-saa atreet vras zoned for 0-1, but rsstrioted to R-3 uaea, that a reoent request to
terminata the deed reatriotion in ordar to utilize so~te of the apartments for oommeraieJ.
Yeoilitiea wes denied by the Citq Oounail, and that it was reao~nended that the Co~niesioa
oonrider aetting Por publio hearing the property whioh ia reatrioted to R-3 uses for
reolasaifioation to the R-3, Multiple Family Resider.tisl, Zona.
Oo~i.s~'.oner Rowlend oYPered a motion to aet Yor publio hearing property presently restrioted
to R-3 uses in Aeolassifioatioa No. 53-54-26 Por reolsssifioation to the R-3, Multiple Faccily
Resideatisl, Zone. Commisaioxier Cemp seoonded the motion. MOTION OARR~.
ITEM N0. 7 ~
Oonsideration of property on the south side of Linooln Avenuo weat oP
Evolid Street to ths C-0, Oo~eraiel OfPioe, Zone
Zoning Ooordinator Nesi~in I{reidt reviewed the developueent .Y property on Linooln Avenue
weat oP IDuolid 3treet not3ng that the ~zeoutive Suites Was being uti.lized 4or the proposed
zone and that ad~aaont properties were developed or being developed Por bueinese and pro-
Yeaeional uses.
Oo~iseioner (ieuer oP~ered a motion to set for publio hearing,.pr-~perty presently developed
ior business and proPessional oYfioe u~e to the 0-0~ Oo~aroiel. OYfice~ Zone ].bonted on the
south side oY Linaoln Avenue west o~ IDttolid Avenue. Oo~i.asioner Oemp eeoonded the motioh.
MOTION OP.RRI~D.
IT~u[ N0. 8
Oonaideration~and reviex oY the R-A, R-2, R-3, PRD, 0-1,"and PRU, ZoneB '
to be aet ~or publio hearing.
Zoning Ooordinator Mertin Kreidt asked the Ooa~miesion whether they piehed to ooasider
revieving all the propoaed zonea, or whetner they aiahed to aet these rones Yor publio
hasring~ and then later revieW all reaomm~endetions at a work session.
Diaouseion by the Ooanoiseion wae then held, and it Was determined tknt the best method Por
ooneidAration oY the proposed ne~v zones pae at a publio hesring beYore sohednling them st
a Work sesaioa.
Qo~mmiseloner Damp oYYered a motion to set Por publia heesing on May 11~.1964~ the R-A,
Resideatiel Agriou].tural, R-2, Tao Femtly Residentiel, R-3~ Multiplo Family Residentiel,
PRD~ Planndd Raeidential Dovelopment~ 0-1, Neighborhood Oommeroiel~ and MtO~ IJdtursl
Aeaouroee Oonservatioa~ Zor.as. Oo~ni.eaioner aauer seoonded the aotion. MOTION OARAI~.
~~
~ ,
~•.
~
~_.__.... _,.-..__.__..__.._---...___._....____.. .
-- -~- ~•
ei~ . _ _ _ .
. ' '
_ ._..__~r__...___. _ ~__ _
~
1.l
~
~ITJUTID3, CITY PLANNIN(i COl~lI33ION, April 13, 1964 2069
REPOAT3 AND - IT~!! N0. 9
REOOID~NDATIONS Program for Tree Preaervation in the parkpays oY the City
Oom~isaioner Ro'land{Qea~essed~oo~n~er~ in the latest soheduling of the removal of trees
in the parksay~`~iaoeus G~o he ourba snd aideialks, that many of the trees baing
removed were 40 year old treas, that in hia opinior. tiieae treas aould be saved left
in the park~ays by a method of trirm~ing the roota, that trees that wer~;~~`~a~`~i b`~~~ the
parkways were quito smsll and Would ~~ake another 40 qeara to grov, that the City' plan to
beautify the oity would be taking a setbsok if the ~ro oaed progrem of thq removal of
, ~
approximatelq 1~OQ~t~~q~ r~r aontinued. that if the,~~ rkit~y lasintenanoe •vare interested
in saving these~`txeas the oi~ies of O~ai and Pasadenan ~d tree ordiaanoes Whioh have ba~u
eYfeotively pre~ervsd manq of their old trees, and ask~d that the Pl~nning Department
prepare a propoaed ordinanoe to preserve all the old, large and beautiful trees that the
City had.
Co~issioner Rorland offered a motion to direot the Planning Department together vith the
Dopartment of Publio Worka to initiate a tree preaervation prog~am together ~ith a stree's
--.:88 Ord3.^.eS1Ce-!!hieh-eoul.d sav9_ thP.1200.trees in_the. parkways of the City. Oo~iasioner
(3auar seoonded the motion. YOTION CARRIED.
~g~(ppgpRy - There being no further busineas to disouss, Oo~i.saioner Camp offered a motion
MJOURNl~NT ta ad~ourn to 7:Q0 0'olook P.l~., April 21, 1964 for a work sesaion on the neo j
Zones to be oonsidered by the Co~iesion at a future publia hearing. I
Commissioner 31dea seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. !
s
The meeting ad~ourned e.t 8:50 p.m.
Respeatfully submitted
/
ANtl I4~EBS, Searetarq
Anaheim City Planning Commisaion
r
~
~
Y
4_ _
........._...'_'_._ ,.
~~ 1.
. . . . .... .._.. .... ... . . . ....,....~