Minutes-PC 1964/06/22City Hall
Anaheim, California
June 22, 1964
A REGULnF. MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION
REGULAR MEHTING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P,Ma, a quorum being
presente
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungallo
COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Rowland~ Perryo
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred,, Gauero
PRESENT - Zonin9 Coordinator: Martin Kreidt
Deputy City Attorneys Furman Roberts
Office EnginEers Arthur Daw
Planning Coaunission Secretary: Ann Krebs
INVOCATION - Reverend Frank Co Abbott of the First Presbyterian Church
gave the Invocatione
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago
APPROVAL OF
TIiE MINUTES
- The Minutes of the evening meeting of June 8 were approved with
the following correctionss
Page 2125, last paragraph9 the name should be "Ettinger"o
Page 2126, first paragraph9 line 2, the name should be
"Ettinger" and the word "not" should be deletede
VRAIANCE NOe 1645 - PUBLIC liEARINGa LUSK CORPORATION, Po Oo Box 1217, Whittiery California,
Owners WILLIAM Do LUSK, Po Oo Box 1217, Whittier, California, Agent,
requesting the WAIVER OF REQUIRED FRONf YARD on property described ass
An irregularly shaped parcel of land at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Nohl
Canyon R~oad and encompassed by the boundaries of Tentative Tract Noo 5499 which contains
a total area of approximately 12 acresa Present classification of property: R-A, RESI-
DEACCIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONEo
Mr, William Lusk, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the problems involved in developing Tract Noo 5499, noting that because of the terrain,
it was difficult to maintain the required setback from the curveddrive, and that approxi-
mately 30~ of the land was lost due to this difficultyo
Zoning Cooxdinator Martin Kreidt noted for the Commission a lot width waiver was granted
on March 16, 1964, on'subject tract, and that the proposed front yard setback,for which waiver
was requested, was in accordance with the preliminary draft of the Residential fiillside Zoneo
No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitione
THE HEARLNG WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1219, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1645, subJect
to conditionso (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vo~~es
AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande
NOES: COMMISSIONERSi None.
ABSENTi COMMISSIONERSi Allred~ Gauere
- 2152 -
_ _ .. _.___ ____---~.._.....__.._.r
_ _~-~.-.--._-'--.__- @
._ .._..__~_ _JI~ . ~ . . . . ~ . 71..
~ ~ ~
~s. .
. ~ .
i
i
_ _. _._.___..~.__...___. _ . ,
'
:
. _
~,~....
~, ! ~i ~ ~
MIINfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 196d
2153
RECLASSIF?CATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MARY C. GONZALES, P. 0. Box 353; Woodlake, California,
NOa 63-f,4-125 Owner; S. CRAIG GRAINGER, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California,
Agent, requesting that property described ass An irregular parcel of
land with a frontage of 92 feet on the west side of Lemon Street and a
depth of 120 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being 150 feet northerly of the
center?.ine-o~f Anaheim Boulpvard, and further described a~ 1115 North Lemon Street, be re-
classitied•~from tHe P-1, AUTOMOBILE PARKING, ZONE, to the ~-2, GENIERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to
ESTABLISt; A SERVICE STATION ON SUBJECT PROPERTYo
'i Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the land use map of subject and abutting properties
i exhibited on the wallo It was further noted the petitioner was requesting C-2 Zoning; that
an existing alley was being requested for abandonment to the City Council; that some provi-
, sion should be made for the relocation of the existing alley in order to permit the develop-
ment of a service station site on subject property which was presently bisected by the
existing 20-foot alley; that the Traffic Engineer indicated unfavorable reaction to the
proposal that the traFfic flow from the alley westerly of Lemon Street be directed toward
Lemon Street rather than to Anaheim Boulevard; that this consideration was bea.ng incorporated
in the preparation of the Area Development Plan as was the proposed abandonment of the two
alleys; and that as a condition of granting the abandonment of the existing alley9 the City
Council may desire to request an alternate alley locationo
Mr, Craig Grainger, 125 South Claudina Street, agent for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and stated the alley abandonment would consist only of plimination of ingress
and egress; that the City would retain the utility and sewer easements; that the Park and
Recreation Commission had recommended abandonment of the alley; that additional property
had to be acquired because the present site was inadequate for development as a service
station; and that the request for C-2 Zoning was proposed rather than C-0 because the
majority of the zoning in the area was C-2, adjacent to subject propertyo
In response to Commission questioning, Mro Kreidt stated C-1, Neighborhood Commercial,Zone,
together with the conditional use permit was not recommended to the petitioner because of ,
the fact that if the residential structure were removed, the proposed service station site
would be more than the required 75 feet from a residential structureo ~
~
The Commission then expressed concern that the petitioner was requesting a heavier use in {
the areas that only service station development plans were submitted for the Commissior.~'s ;
consideratlon; that a portion of the property would be classified C-2, and since the C-1 `
Zone permitted a service station by right~ this would seem to be a more appropriate zoneo
Mr, Grainger then stated the application of C-1 Zoning might create a problem since the +
majority of the property was classified C-2, and M-1 existed across the streeto
The Commission informed the agent for the petitioner that to grant C-2 Zoning would permit
the development of the property with a cocktail lounge and bar without Commission approval;
that a cocktail lounge or bar was an incompatible use in close proximity to the La Palma
Stadium, and that the Municipal Courts were also in close proximity to the proposed C-2
propertye
Mra Kreidt then advised the Commission the reclassification petition for the parcel of land
northerly of subject property was continued by the Commission in order to allow time for an
Area DevelopmenL Plan to be prepared and set for public hearing and that the Commission
might consider continuation to the meeting of July 8, in order that the two petitions, to-
gether with the Area Development Plan dovetailed into a private urban renewal of the property
on the.west side of Lemon Street between Anaheim Boulevard and Romneya Drive; that the Com-
mission could act on a portion of subject property and delay action on the balance until the
Area Development Pian was presented, since by the time the Commission action was considered
at a public hearing by the City Council, the Commission may have acted on the Area Develop-
ment Plan for the area.
Commissioner Chavos expressed concern the Commission might consider C-2 Zoning with the
thought in mind the other parcels would be proposed for C-0, Commercial Office, Zoning,
and would predetermine the area without facts presented to thema
Commissioner Camp stated the Commission could act on the service station property now, but
hold in abeyance the decision on the balance of the propertyo
Co~issioner Rowland was of the opinion the abandonment of the existing alley was a further
questior..which the Commission must consider.
Mr. Grainger advised the Commission that development of the service si:ation and the northerly
property was dependent upoq approval of the abandonment of the alley~
i
I
j
!
~ __~__~._....--;---_ _._...-------._.. ---- _..~_..,~ -
I '
.l _ .. . •.:.~
__._...w,,.y.,.e..~~.,,.s.~.,.. ..................... --- ._._... - __ _ _
, `~ ~ ~ '~`1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .;une 22, i964 2154
RECLASSIFECATION'- Mr. S. W. Stinson, 1121 North Lemon Street, appeared before the Commis-
N0. 63-64--.125 siori and stated his property abutted subject property to the north;
Continued that he was opposed to the abandonment of the proposed alley since the
residents of the area utilized the alleys on a daily basisf that the
removal of the existing zoning and redevelopment of subject property
with a service station might be detrimental to the living environment of the entire area
under consideration~ that the Commission should consider continuation of subject petition
until the Area Development Plan was presented, which would also include his property~ and
that if dedication for street widening purposes was requested of him, removal of the home
woula ba imperative, because the proposed street width woul@ go through a portion of his
homee
In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Stinson stated he utilized the alley to the
west of his property to gain access to RoT~neya Driv2, as xell as to Anaheim Boulevard;
and that in his opinion, industrial use of the property might be more appropriate.
Mr. Kreidt then advised the Commission the Area Development Plan might be scheduled to-
gether with the reclassification if the Commission wished to cor.sider it, or it might
also be scheduled at the time the abandonment proceedings were considered by the Council.
TF~ kiEARING WAS CLOSED~
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to continuing subject petition until the
City Council took action on the abandonment of the alley and for Commission consideration
of the Area Development Plan; that subject property would be a good service station site
if the alley was relocatedi that there was a possibility that if the Commission took action
on subject petition today, this might influence the City Council°s action in the abandonment
proceedings; that from evidence submi' ~~, the Traffic Engineer was in #avor of the proposed
alley abandonment to eliminate traffi slow from the parking area adjacent to the existing
alley westerly of Lemon Street to provide access to Anaheim Boulevardo
Mr. Kreidt then stated the Commis:~ion would not have the Council°s cons?.deration of the
abandonment before the Area Development Plan was scheduled for consideration, but at the
time the Area Development Plan was considered, the validity of the land use of the alley
abandonment would read out of the report, and the only consideration he would suggest was
the possibiiity of subject and abutting properties being considered for commercial office
useo
i.ommissioner Perry offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue petition for Reclas-
sification No. 63-64-125 to the meeting of July 8, 1964, in order that it might be considered
in conjunction with the Area Development plan of subject and abutting properties northerly
to Romneya Driveo Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa
RECLASSIFICATION •- PUBLIC HEARINGa ALAN R~ AND MARJORIE S~ TALT, 1695 West Crescent,
N0. 63-64-143__ Suite 560, Anaheim, California, Owners; ROBERT W~ MACMAHON, 1695 West
' Crescent, Suite 560, Anaheim, California, Agent. Property described
VARIANCE N0~ 1044 as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 114 feet
on the east side of Loara Street and a maximum depth of approximately
GENERAL PLAN 355 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately
pMENp6IlENT N0.~5 400 feet south of the centerline of Westmant Driveo Property presently
classified as R-0, ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCEs PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORTS IN LIEU OF
REQUIRED GARAGES.
Mr. Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and advised
that since the date of the filing of sub~ect petitions he had become one of the owners of
subject property; that he voiced no objections or comments to the recommendations of the
Stafff that the architect would be available to answer any technical questions~ and he
would be available to answer any other questions the Commission might have.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that General Plan Amendment No. 25
Exhibit was up for the Commission's consideration; that a church presently existed ad3acent
to sub3ect property, whereas the balance of the property was a business and professional
use{ and that the multiple-family development to the south did not result a.n a General Plan
Amendment that was considered appropriate at this time.
In response to Commission questioning relative to the use of Masonite on the facia of the
structure, the architect, Mr. Wilde, stated the Masonite was only inserts placed at spaced
spots on the facia~ that each dwelling unit would have individual airconditioning unitss
~ t
i
~
~
,
-----____._ .__. ......- -._. _____..._ .. _.. .
~
....- ~
___. __ _. _ __ -----.. --• --
,
.
..._.. ~ , _
_ .._ . ..._
i~...
I '
. :.:.i
~ , ~ '°~ .',
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ June 22. 1964 2155
RECLASSIFICATiON = that because of the size of the lot, they were unablo to provide the
N0. 63-64~143 recommended 300 square feet for a recre~:`onal area; that sin9le-story
~ construction was proposed within 150 feet of the R-0"property to the
VARIANCE N0: 1644 'east; that a church existed to the north and multiple-family development
existed to the south, with a large regional shopping center to the west;
GENERAL PLAN that many studies had been made to determine the best manner of develop-
AME~!OMENT N0. 25 ment of subject property, and after numerous consultations with the
(Continued~) Planning Staff, the plans submitted were the most acceptable to his
clients, as well as meeting all requirements of the Code.
Mr. MacMahon then reviewed the proposed development as presented to the Commission, noting
a turn-around was provided with an access drive, and that the carports would require storage
enclosures, and in response to Commission questioning, stated the access drive to the car-
ports wou2d provide drainage from the R-1 prcperties, and the proposed development would
comply with any drainaqe requirements the City might request.
Mr. Ed Strickler, 501 Meadowbrook, appeared before the Commission and ask to review the
proposed plans, and upon reviewing said plans, stated he was not in opposition to the pro-
posed development, although the carports abutted his property, and inquired whether or not
the masonry wall would have a gate to permit access through subject property to the shopping
center to the west, and was informed by the Commission this was a private matter which he
would have to resolve with the petitionerse
THE HEARIKG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1220, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Councfl that Petition
for Reclassification Noo 63-64-143 be approved, subject to conditions, anG '~~:;ed on the
fact that multiple-family development existed to the south and a church to c~~e north, and
a commercial shopping center to the westo (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIOYERSs Camp, Chavos, Mungall, °erryo
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSEM': COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauere
Commicsioner Rowland, in his "NO" vote, stated the density was considerably higher than had
been proposed in previous multiple-family developments; that the recreation area was far
short of the requirement the Commission has made in the past; and that a12 these requirements
could be met by a reduction in the coverage of buildable site areao
Commissioner Cha~~os offered Resolution Noe 1221, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1644,
sub~ect to conditionso (See Resolution Booko) '
On roll call the foregoing resolution Nas passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perryo
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Rowland.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauero
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1222, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage~
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that General
Plan Amendmeni Noo 25 be approved and that Exhibit "A" constituted an acceptable alternate
to current policies as illustrated on the General Plan. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
aYESs COMMISSIQtiERS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall~ Perry9 Rowland.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
- --.__ .__ _ ._--- ---.._ _ _. _._- - . _ _,__.__. _.
~- - _ .. _----- - -_ __. _. .
_~ . ' k~, ._
i
t
/
__ s _ _ _ ~ .. ~ ,
' i,-._ '
'a; ~,,, ~ .
~~J
~
MINUTES,"CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964
2156
CDNIIITIOIQAL'.USE' - PUBLIC HEARING. WILMA WATTS COOK, 7975 Westward Hq, Indio, California,
PEE~OIIT'NQ: '584 and GEOP.GE N. WATTS, JR., 1218 West North Street, Anaheim, California,
""' "' '` Owners; G. L. GRAZIADIO, JR., 2930 West ImpeTial Highway, Inglewood,
'~ Ca'lifonnia, Agent, requesting permission to ESTAECISH A"GO-CART" TRACK~
TOGETHEA'WTTH'5TaRAGE AND MAINTENQNCE BUILDING on property described asc A rectangularly
sfiaped~percel~~of'Tand with a frontage of 300 feet on the west side'of Beach Boulevard and
a deptii of 400 feet, the sauthern boundary of said property being approximately 364 feet
north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDEN-
TIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE.
Mr, Sarry ~leveland~ agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and stated
he was available to answer questions.
,~
i
i
~
i
In response to Commission questioning relative to why subject property could not be developed
for a higher and better use, Mr. Cleveland replied the proposed use was for a short time,
until the property could be leased on a long term basis for the entire 8~ acres, and presented
colared renderings of similar tracks in operation as the proposed "go-cart" development.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether or not
tiTes were placed around the periphery of the "go~cart" track as a safety precaution; that
some landscaping was being proposed, and that the track portion was of hard pack dirt.
Mrs. Josephine Sherman, 3058 Coolidge Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated
she owned three parcels of land adjacent to subject property; that the proposed "go-cart"
track would be detrimental to the renting of the fourplexes she owned, and a number of
the apaxtment owners adjacent to her property were also in opposition to the proposed "go-
cart" track; that the noise and gasoline fume odors would be detrimental to the health of
the tenants of the apartmentsn
A letter of opposition was then read to the Commission from Dro McLemore Bouchelle, owner ±
of the property at 3072 Coolidge Avenue~ i
In rebuttal, the agent for the petitioner stated that since the proposed "go•-cart" track ~
would be similar to those indicated in the photographs submitted to the Commission, this (
would place the track approximately 75 feet behind a fence, and from previous experience,
it was noted the noise from these small engines would never carry more than 60 to 75 feete '
that all engines in one way or another might contribute to the emog factor, but the sngines '
on the "go•-carts" were much quieter than those on power mower, since the engines had mufflers. :
Mrs. Sherman then stated their property did not front on Beach Boulevard, but was to the
rear of subject property.
The Commission informed the opposition subject property was more than 400 feet from the
nearest apartment on Coolidge Avenue.
TIiB HEARING WAS CL0.5ED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to improving the landscaping proposed, since
the exhibits indicated just grass around the periphery ~f the track~ that the proposed use
would be on a short term basis, and the agent indicated if an acceptable long term lease
was obtainable, the "go-cart" track would then be removed.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1223, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noe 584,subject to providing additional landscaping around the entire track area~ this
landscaping to include a sprinkl:r system; that all landscaping plans should be submitted
to the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance for approval, and conditionsa (See Resolution
Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESa COMMISSIOIVHRSs Camp, Chavos, Munyall, ?erry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIOtdERSs None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Gauer.
Commissioner Camp lef~ the Council Chamber at 3:15 pom.
~
i j
I
:{
_'._~1
--- ----- __ _._-- _-----~
~
I
~
/
_'_."_'__'_'_' . .. ... ..__"_' '~ '•~Y~~~1~ '
. ~..~ ~ ~
MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964 2157
•RECLASSIFICIITIOI~ - PUBLIC HEARINGo REGINA STRICKLIN AdBOTT, 3213 West Ball Road, Anahe~m~
N0."63=64-145 California, Owner; RE1/HREND JERRY KLIPPERT, Youth for Christ of Long
Beach and Orange County~ P. 0. Box 5, Long Beach~ California~ Agent~
GPNERAL PLAN requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel
AMENDMENT N0. 26 of land with a frontage of 192 feet on the north side of Ball Road
and a depth of 295 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being
approximately 132 feet west of the centerline of Western A~enue~ and
further described as 3213 West Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRI-
CUI:TURAL, 'ZONE, to the C-1, NEIQ~IDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission Planning Study 39-6-4 incorporated
subject property and was indicated on the study in grey for C-0 Zoning on the north side
of Ball Road, west of Western Avenue. .
.\
.;
Reverend Jerry Klippert, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated the proposed office building would be utili2ed by a non-profit, non-denominational
corporation; that approximately ten to twelve employees would be operating from subject
propertys that the colored rendering he was presenting would show a considerable improve-
ment in the erection of a structure where a chicken ranch presently existedi that only the
westerTy portion of subject property was proposed for development, and the easterly portion
would be used for possible expansion; that it was noted the Recommendations to the Commission
by the Planning Staff proposed G0, Commercial Office, Zone for subject property~ and since
this met their needs, perhaps it would be much more advantageous for thema
Mrs. 0. J. Range, 92'_ South Western Avenue, appeared before the Commi:ssion and stated she
owned tlie chicken ranch adjacent to subject property, and it was her desire, if the Commis-
sion approved subject petition, a requirement of a masonry wall to the east and north of
subject property be maden
Mr~ Kreidt again reminded the Commission development plans were submitted for the westeriy
portion of subject property only, whereas the petition requested the entire property be
reclassifiede
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission reviewed the proposed plans, noting it was proposed to have one•••third of
the area for recreational purposes, and inauired of the agent for the petitioner the puipose
of this.
Reverend Klippert, in reply, stated that leaders of various high school groups would be
assembled for meetings and training purposes, and the recreational area would be part of
their training ground.
Mr. Kreidt, in reviewing the proposed General Plan Amendment~ reviewed the exhibit for the
Commission, noting both sides of Ball Road and Western Avenue were proposed for revision,
and the Commission may consider requesting the Staff to present additional exhibits which
might indicate amendment for the northwest corner of Ball Road and Western nv~r.:~e.
The Commission noted that the exhibit covering the General Plan Amendmentencompassed entirely
too much coverage for the area, and requested the Planning Staff prepare additional exhibits
to incorporate only the subject property, and further~ that Planning Study 39-6-4 be revised
and updated to include the proposed General Plan Amendment. The Commission further discussed
the implications of the proposed reclassification, noting little commercial development existed
ad~acent to sub~ect propertys that the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one requested was a
heavier use than was being proposed; that it has been the Commission's policy to recommend
multiple-family development along the Ball Road frontage~ rather than strip commercial devel-
opment~ and was of the opinion the General Plan Amendment should be continued, whereas action
could be taken on the reclassification.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1224, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Peti-
tion for Reclassification No. 63-64-145 be approved for C-0, Commercial Office~ Zone, rather
than the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone, originally requested since the petitioner
stipulated he was agreeable to the C-0 Zone9 and further that a six-foot masonry wall be
constructed along the northwest and east property lines where masonry walls do not exist,
and conditions. (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call tha foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ;
AYESs COMMISSIONHRS: Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ~
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Nonea ' ~ j
ABSENTi COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer. ~
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of ~'
General Plan Am~andment Noe 26 to the meeting of July 8, 1964, and directed the Planning
Department prepare additional exhibits wh~ah indicate Gpmmercial Off~ce Zone for subject ~
property only. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, i
~
f
~,:... ~_ .._.---•- _ -
--_ _~t; ~ _,......._.. ,~ -. . _ ._.. _.~',
l t)
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CGi~AMISSION, June 22, 1964
~
~~,
~
2158
CONDITIGPAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. STANTON COMMUNITY CH~IRCH, 2930 West Ball Road, Anaheim,
PEI;MIT"N0:'S86 California, Owner{ EGWARD REESE, 209 South Ci~rus, Covina, California~
Agent, requesting permission to PERMIT EXPANSION OF CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN
EDUCATION FACILITIES on property described as: A rectangular parcel of
land wi'i;h'a'frontage of 221 feet on the south side of Ball Road and aI depth of 610 feet~ the
western boundary of said property being 664 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard,
and fiirther described as 2930 West Ball Road. Property presently classified as R-A, RESI-
DENTTAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE.
hir. Edward'Reese, 209 South Citrus~ Covina, architect for the petitioner, appeared before
tfie Commis'sfon and stated he would not review the proposed development unless there was
opposition, but inquired about the request for additional dedication, since in 1957 the
chtirch dedicated and improved the street 50 feet from centerline of Ball Road, and wanted
to know whether the church was still obligated to remove the existing curbs and gutters
and'pay for their replacement when the street widening of Ball Road to the ultimate 53
feet from centerline was requiredo
Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated it has been the policy of the City that where existing
cuz'b's and cjutters were located, and additional dedication was needed for street widening
purposes, the City paid for the ultimate relocation of the curbs and gutterso
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
Commissioner Rowland express~d concern there might be a possibility the City policy might
change;'that since the petitioner had originally paid for these street improvements, they
should not again be required to pay them because the City deemed it necessary to increase
the street v~idth.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated the only time this improvement would be required
to be paid was in the event the church was removed, and a request for rezoning was submitted
to the Commissione
Commissioner perxy offered Resolution Noe 1225, Series 1963-6~4, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, that Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No> 586 be granted, subject to conditions and a finding that since the curbs and gutters
ar,d street improvements had been paid by the petitioner at the time the church was built,
and since the City had deemed it necessary to require additional dedication, at the time
the street widening plan took place~ the petitioner would not be required to pay for the
improvements since it was the City's policy to take care of any relocation of curbs and
gutterse (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYESi COMMISSIONERS~ Chavos~ Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOESt COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENfs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Gauer.
RECLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC HEARINGe ALBERT GUDES, 8001 Cactus Circle, Buena Park, California,
N0. 63-64-142 Owner. Property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
wi~h a frontage of 120 feet on the west side of Velare Street and a depth
VARIANCE N0. 1 43 of approximately 265 feet, the northern boundary of said property being
approximately 730 feet south of tha centerline of Orange Avenue, and
GENERAL PLAN further described as 625 Velare Street. Property presently classified
A~neNDMENT N0. 24 as R~A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONi R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCEt WAIVER OF SINGLE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN
150 FEHT OF SINGLE-FAMILY ZOI~IED PROPERTY AND
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORTS IN LIEU OF GARAGES.
Mro Albert Gudes, owner and developer of subject property, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed the proposed development, noting that single-story would be constructed within 150
feet of R-1 property; tha: multiple-family development existed approximately 400 feet north
of sub~ect property on the east side of the streetf and that he proposed to reside in one of
the apartments upon completion of the development~
Mrs. Laura Howard, 638 South Velare Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject petitions, and stated the proposed reclassification would increase the traffic on
Velare Street, discourage potential buyers for single-family development of subject and
abutting propezties, or existing single-family residences in the subdivision on the easterly
~
~
.____....,---,-----~.__
• _____.
`~ -
_ -
,
i
. i '
a _ _.. ::..~
__-------_ _ _ _ .___ _._____..~...,.....~,...,~,..~.~,~....._.._..__:_____ _. . --.--._.
~~
~`
~ ,'
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. June 22, 1964 2159
RECLAS5IFICATION - side of Ve2are Street; that the desirability of living in an area
N0. 63'=64-14~,_ relatively stable, quiet and peaceful would be decreased; that the
' ' General Plan proposed low density, residential development for subject
1~ARIAFCE'h0.'1643 property; and that when the Tract Noo 2062 was developed eight years
' ' ago, said properties were not in the City and sidewalks were not re-
GENERAL'PLAN quired, therefore the children were using the streets for walking to
ANiENCMENT'NO". 24 and from school, and the two-story multipie-family development being
Continued) proposed would increase the traffic hazardo
Mrs. Howard also presented a petition signed by thirty property owners,
opposing subject petitions, said property owners living on Velare Street and the cul-de-
sac streets easterly of Velare Streeta
Mrso ITVing Gray, 7652 Crescent, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission and stated he
was in favor of the proposed developmeni; tnai ne ow~ieu property adjacent tc suhject property,
and the deep lots was the only method of development available to the property owner.
Mrs. fioward then stated that Mra Gray brought out the fact he did not live in the area,
and, therefore, would not be subjected to any of the problems involved in development of
the propertieso
Mrse Maxine Dickens, 721 South Velare Street, appeared before the Commission and stated
Nhen she had purchased her property, she was hopeful of having the peace and quiet of a
countiy atmosphere; that surrounding properties have been developed with single-family sub-
divisions and several churches, and she was in favor of the propes,d development since this
was a feasible means of developing the property.
Mss. ~eiber, 7761Eldora, Buena Park, appeared before the Cammission and stated she and her
husband owned property on Velare Street and planned to construct apartments when her husband
retired, and also planned to reside in said apartment developmento
Mrs. Gudes, wife of the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated sub3ect property
backed up to property fronting on Magnolia Avenue, a heavily traveled street; that it would
be inconceivable to develop homes on property which fronted on a heavily traveled street;
that the single-family subdivision development on Webster Street was constructed and it was
difficult to sell the homes, and this same thing would occur if subject and abutting proper-
ties were develooed for single-family subdivision development~
Mr. Gudes, in rebuttal, stated he had received a letter from the operators of twelve businesses
in the shopping center at Magnolia and Bail Road who were in favor of the proposed develop-
ments that the proposed development would enhance the neighborhood; that the reason for the
two-story construction was because a 76-foot turning radius was proposed; that if the Plan-
ning Commission recommended providing an alley through the rear of subject property, he was
in accordance with that; and that he was desirous of obtaining similar zoning to that granted
the property owners on Webster Streeto
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commission inquired of Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt whether or not any study was
given to the lar~d use and how a land assembly of the parcels on the west side of Velare
Street could be developedo
Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski presented two overlays indicating how subject propex•ty
could be subdivided into a single-family subdivision, both for the three parcels fronting
on Magnolia Street and the seven vacant parcels fronting on Velare Street; that it was not
the intention of the Staff to suggest to the Commission subject and abutting properties be
developed for single-family subdivision, but because of the existing land use and present
City policies regarding the area in which subject property is located, the sinole-family
subdivision layout was prepared.
Commissioner Rowland expressed concern that although the Commission had approved multiple-
family development for Webster Street, the prospective developers of the properties were
more desirous of having a considerably heavier density than proposed, and if this similar
reclassification were applied to subject and abutting properties, the same problem would
exist from a financial standpoint.
Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to development and a land assembly
program of subject and abutting properties, and its comparison with the development of
properties on Webster Street; that the one single-family subdivision tract on Webster
Street was indicative of how land assembly could be developed into single-family subdivision
development; and that the overlay study presented by the Planning Department indicatEti subject
and abutting properties could easily be developed for single-family subdivision development. ,
_-__._._---- -.. .._ _ _ _------ ..--..._.~._~-•---.._..._._..
~ , _- ------..;___,_ __.~_____.._.~~. ...
. ~~
I
~ •
1
i% ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COIrIMTSSION, June 22, 1964 2160
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noa 1226, Series 1963-64, and
NOa 63=64-1'42 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos,
' to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
VARIANCE"NO'o_1643 No. 63-64-142 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed
multiple-family development would be incompatible to the existing
GENEHAI:~PLAIQ single-family subdivision development to the south and east of subject
AMENDMENI' N0. 24 propertySandthatsubject and abutting properties, if assembled~ could be
(Continued) developed for single~family subdivision developmente (See Resolution
Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by thE following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOES'i COMMISSIONERS: NIone.
n c^Lrr: ^,vi:~u.ilrJ.Siv~':.C..~w: f:iiT.^.~. ('~l.n ~a11Pr:
~E„"., , P~
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noa 1227, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Variance Noa 1643, based
on findingso (See Resolution Booka)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES~: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Mungall, ~erry, Rowlanda
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauero
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo i228, Series I963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
General Plan Amendment Noo 24 be disapprovedo (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NQES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Gauero
VARIANCE NO_ 1642 - PUBLIC HEARINGs RUTH A MC KEIRNAN, 2025 West Juno Place, Anaheim,
California, Owner, reques~ing the WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR
YARD AND WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING on property described ass
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 70 feet on the north side of
Juno Place and a depth of 112 feet, the western boundary of said property being approxi-
mately 341 feet east of the centerline of Empire Street, and furth~r described as 2025
West Juno Place. Pruperty presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLE-f~MILY RESIDENfIAL, ZONE.
Mro Andrew Dudics., repres~nting the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
when subject property was annexed into the City, they were informed no changes in the
requirements would be made, and that the proposed addition would be for the use of the owner
in carrying out management duties of the property, and was not to~be considered an additional
dwel~ing unit.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
THE fiEARING WAS CLOSED~
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission Conditional Use Permit Noa 94,
ori~~inally approved on subject property for Sunday School use and an existing residential
structure no longer was effective since ownership had changed and the use was being utilized
for multiple-family development; therefore, said conditional use permit should be terminatedo
Commissioner perry offered Resolution No. 1229, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1642,
subject to condi.t,ionso (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing res~lution was passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer.
i
.
~,
-------;... --_._..___.._..._.._ . ____ ----
~ .
~
. ,
j •
.. i-:~ .
;'~ ~, ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964 2161
'; RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HOME RENTAL INCORPORATED, P. 0. Box 3430, Fullerton,
N0. 63-64-84 California, Owner; DONALD E. STEWART, 12801 Village Road, Garden Grove,
California, Agent, requesting that property descrilied as: A rectangularly
GHNERAL PLAN shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Cerritos
AMENDMENT NOe 7 Avenue with frontages of 117 feet on Euclid Street and 157 feet on Cerritos
Avenue, and further described as 1500 South Euclid Street, be reclassified
' from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL,
ZONE.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that several attempts have been mar,e
to have the petitioner submit revised plans as he had suggested at the Council meeting, and
tta response had been received from the agent for the petitioner.
The Commission discussed the procedure in handling this petition since it had originally
been :ecommended for disapproval to the Council, and referred back to the Commission for a
review of the revised planso
Deputy Ci+_y Attorn~ay Furman Roberts advised the Commission this could only be continued;
that a letter could be sent to the petitioner advising him revised plans should be submitted
or a letter of explanation or withdrawal of the petitiono
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to contir.ue consideration of Petition for Reclassifica-
tion No. 63-64-84 and General Plan Amendment Noa 7 to the meeting of August 17, 1964, and
to notify the petitioner plans must be submitted or a letter of explanation or withdrawal
presented to the Commission by that meetingo Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion.
MOTION CAI~RIED. _
CONDITIONAL USE ~ PUBLIC HEARING. WILMA MILLER, ?.028 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California,
PERMIT N0~5~87 Owner; MILTON FREEMAN, MARCO BO1'ICH, DAVID COLLINS, JAMES MC WALTERS,
1333 South Euclid Street, Anahei~n~ California, Agents, requesting
permissioR to ESTABLISH FINANCIAi AND BANKING CENTER WITH HOTEL, INCLUU-
ING SPECIALTY SHOPS AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES ON PORTION "A" AND ESTABLISH FINANCIAL AND
BANKING CENTER ON PORTION "B", on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of
land covering approximately 12 acres and having frontages of approx~mately 706 feet on the
east side of West Street, 537 feet on the north side of Ball Road, 459 feet on the west
side of the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp, and 455 feet on the southwesterly side of the Santa
Ana Freeway and further divided into Portions "A" and "B"; Portion "A" being the southeast-
ernmost o9 acres and having frontages of approximately 210 feet on the north side of Ball
Road and approximately 200 feet on ~he west side of the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp; Portion
"B" being the remaining portion of the above described 12 acreso Present classification of
property R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Mr. Milton Freeman, project coo:dinato•r of the proposed development, presented a general
statement to the Commission as an explanation for the subject petition; that the proposed
financial center was a three story structure which met the requirements of thE Commercial
Recreation Land Use Policy, but that a portion of the first story would be below grade,
and the proposed structures w~uld add an esthetic appearance to the proposed highrise hotel,
being circular in design and 100 feet in diametero
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt stated it was their understanding the proposed plans were
to utilize the new site acquired which was f6rmerly known as the "not a part" for the hotel
itselfo
Mr. Freeman replied this was not their intent; that it was still planned to construct the
hotel as originally approved, and that the original plans for the transportation facilities
were square, whereas the revised plans indicated a circular design, and submitted a colored
rendering of the proposed project as it presently existeda
Mr..David Collins, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the
proposed design and petition were submitted becaus~ of the possibilities of the boundary
lines overlapping, and in order to integrate +he site, it was necessary to inciude the
entire structure, rather than a specific use~ that there were two separate lease agreements
on the parcels, one a lease in fee and the other a land lease, and it was more difficult to
borrow on the lease in fee; therefore, the separate petitions weresubmitted to the Commission.
Mro Freeman again appeared and stated their original,plan was for a 22-story hotel~ but when
the Council a~. t.heir public hearing reduced the height by 8 stories, it was necessary to
relocate some of~the functions originally proposed within the hotel itself, and the financial
center and banking facilities was the most logical oneo
Chairman Mungall inquired whether Mre Ettinger, representing the Disneyland properties, wished
to make any statement and was informed his presence there was to 3ust seek information.
/
/
_~.. ..~~____-----
----.__._. _._-._ ..__ _ _.._...__.~.__ . - --------------•
c~ , Ct: _ _
. ,
I '
• ~
,
~' ~:; ~ e ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964 2162 ',
i
; CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Kreidt then stated Mr. Freeman had made the statement the Disneyland
; PERMIT NO•. 587 Policy was not being violated and read from the Coinmercial Recreation
~ Continued) Land Use Policy, stating that as the Staff interpreted it, the proposed
' development was not in conformance with this Policy.
Commissioner Perry stated, in his opinion, the proposed development did not meet the first
paragraph of the Policy, to which Mr. Fre2nan replied the banking and financial center
would be used basically by the hotel guests, but it would be necessary to have people other
than guests utilize these facilities in order to make them successfuly and in his estimation,
the Global Van Line structure was two stories of building, with one story of ground, to give
~ it the appearance of a three story structure, and the proposed basement would house the
! vault and employees' restrooms.
Mr. Kreidt suggested to the Commission they might wish to present the problems under con-
sideration on subject petition to the City Council at their joint me~ting on June 30, 1964,
fnr fur+.hoT interoretationo __
In response to questioning relative to the proposed banking and finar,~ial center being
constructed prior to or at the same time the hotel facilities were being constructed,
Mr, Freeman replied it was their hope the subject petition would be approved; that it
was their intent to continue with the hotel development, but approval of the Commission
and Council was necessary before complete development plans could be formulatedg and that
it was hoped the Commission would make a decision relative to subject petition at this
hearing since any delay would be harmful to the schedule they hoped to maintain for devel-
opment of the hotel facilitieso
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue the hearing of Petition for Conditional
Use Permit Noo 587 to the meeting of July 8, 1964, and to schedule it as the first item
on the agenda in order that the Commission might meet with the City Council for discussion
on the interpretation of the Commercial Recreation Land Use Policy as it applied to subject
petition. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED.
Comwissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 4s35 pom.
VARIANCE N0. 1646 - PUBLIC F~ARING, CHARLHS D. AND MARY Lo SWINEY, 615 South Philadelphia
Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; DWAYNH J. HAWK, 10650 Beach Boulevard, ;
Anaheim, California, Agent, requesting permission to WAIVE MINIMUM
REQUIRED SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA AND MAXIMUM REAR YARD COVERAGE on property described as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fro-~tage of 45 feet on the west side of
Philadelphia Street and a depth of 109 feet, the r.orthern boundary of said property being
approximately 204 feet south of the centerline of Water Street and further described as
615 South Philadelphia Street. Property presently classified as R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONH. ,
Mr. Dwayne Hawk, 10650 Beach Boulevard, appeared before the Commission as agent for the
petitioner, and stated because of the size of the Iot and the requirements of the family
proposing to utilize the home, a reduction in the minimum square feet per dwelling was
requested; that most of the dwellings in the area were less than 1225 square feet; and that
the existing structure was proposed to be used as a workshop with an attached double garage,
therefore,the request for waiver of the minimum space between accessory building and main
building.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. '
i
,
The Commission reviewed the plans of develapment. ~
;
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1230, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage '
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowiand~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 1646, '
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Booke) ~.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Gauero
.-.__. ____...s.~
-- : ~ __
i
~ '
;, ~
U
~
MINUTES, CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964
~ ~'
i
2163 ;
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING~ WALTER MAIER AND BERNARD PERLIN, 716 East 14th Street,
PERMIT N0. 585 Los Angeles 14, California, Owners; GEORGE BANEY, 1412 Damon Avenue,
Anaheim~ CaTifornia~ Agent, requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAU-
RANT WITH LIGHT ENTERTAINME[1I' AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE; ALSO ESTABLISH A
MOTEL IN THE NEAR FUTURE, on property described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel of land
with a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and a maximum
depth of approximai:ely 908 feet, the western boundary of said property being adjacent to
and•coinciding with the eastern boundary of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
Property presently classified as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and P•-L, PARKING-LAND6CAPING, ZONES.
Mra George Baney, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
proposed development, noting that the Report to the Commission indicated a question as to
the request for a future motel; that the motel was proposed to be located adjacent to the
restaurant~ that two accessways were proposed, one off Lewis Street and the other off of
Katella Avenue; and further submitted a colored render~ing of the proposed development.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt inquired whether the proposed service station was planning
to develop with a tile roof, and the proposed service station operator indicated this was
not to be done.
Mr, Baney advised the Commission pl.ans of development for the motel were not submitted,
bu.t would be submitted at a later date, and it was his desire to have the Commission°s
approval for future development of a motel~
A letter of opposition from the Pacific Railway Company was read to the Commissiono
Mr. George Moran, Passenger Agent for the Southern Pacific Railroad, appeared before the
Commission and stated the letter just read was basically his comment; tliat he had several
additional comments to make relative to opposing subject petition, notablythe proposed
development which would include an eventual :notel would be iocated adjacent to the rail-
road tracks; that subject property had potential industrial use; that the acreage to the
south would be discoura9ed for development for industrial use if subject petition were
approved; that the railroad track, although only a spur track, was a busy one, and was
being extended to the north side of Katella Avenue, and the operation of trains backing
and going forward through that area would cause bells to ring constantly and might be a
nuisance and objectionable to the restaurant patrons and the proposed motel patrons;
that the Southern Pacific and the Pacific Railway owned considerable land which they were
endeavoring to develop as industrial, since this is known as the Southeast Industrial Area;
and urged the Commission to deny the proposed developmento
Mr, Bernard Perlin, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated the
proposed restaurant would be a dinner house only; that the use of the pro~~erty should be
complimentary to the industrial developmant in the area; that Mr. Baney had rather expen-
sive development plans which, in his opinion, would be an asset to the City of Anaheim and
would serve the industrial area as well; that there were a number of other dinner houses
located in an industrial area which were considered basically serving this industry; and
in response to the questioning by the Commission regarding the triangular parcel southerly
of subject property, stated access would be gained to the south, since access was already
provided for the equipment company easterly of this small parcel; and that in the develop-
ment plans any dedication for the extension of Lewis Street southerly was being provided
foro
Mr. Mosan then stated that since the railroad ^~~~ned property immediately adjacent to subject
prAperty, any commercial or other types of uses would be unde~irable to potential industrial
de~elopers; that this would be another step in the erosion of the industrial development
known as the Southeast Industrial Area, and if industry continued to loose potential indus-
triai prop~rty, this would be a detriment to the industry presently located in the City of
Anaheime
Mr. Peilin then stated that in addition to the two service stati.ons existing, a new office
building to the east was proposed; that with the development of the proposed stadium, it
was natural to extend the existing commercial development in the areao
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relativ;. ~o the recommended conditions, concurring ~
with the recommendation that Lewis Street be extended southerly, and inquiring of Mr. Kreidt ~
the incomplete explanation of Finding No. 2 of the Staff Report. j
~
Mr. Kreidt stated a 23•-foot wide dedication was required measured from the centerline of
Lewis Street as it was reflected on recorded Tract No. 5064 easterly of subject property, and ,
if the development was approved, a portion of the structure would have to be relocated since
the southerly port3on v~ould be located on the property line instead of being set back the
`
required 25 feete
3
;
;~
-___.~._..- ..-....__..._._.__....__ . .. . .. . ~
.._.-.._.._._._-~__ . ~.._ __ ......_"'_•.~_.~r._____..~._; ~
.. ..._ . _,_ ----1_., ,
-ti~Aei
T ~ • ~ _
i '
• ~
Lf
~
~
MINLrfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964
2164
CONDITIONAL USE - Mre Baney then stated that at the time the plans were prepared, and
PERMIT NOo 585 when he had purchased the property, there ras no indication Lewis Street
Continued would be a through street, and the plans he noted would locate the street
southerly, cutting in on a radius easterlyo
The Commission expressed the opinion the proposed motel for v+hich plans were not submitted
would be an incompatible use to the industrial area in which it would be located, and that
even if the plans had been submitted for tha motel, it was their opinion they would deny
said request.
Cortmiissioner Chavos offered Resolution No, 1231, Series 1963-64, and moveci for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noa 585 for the restaurant and cocktail lounge only, and to deny the proposed motel facility
for which plans were not received~ with the finding that a restaurant would t~e a compliment-
ary use in the industrial area, and conditions. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Mungall, Pes*y, Rowland-
NOESs CONWIISSIONERSs None.
ABSEM: COMMISSIOI3ERSs Allr=d, Gauero
~
i
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIrG. TITLE INSURAtdCE AND TRUST COMPHNY, 800 North Main,
PERMIT N0. 588 Santa Ana, California, Owner; COUNIY OF ORANGE, Court House, Santa Ana,
~ California, hgent, requesting permission to ESTABLISH A REFUSE TRANSFER
STATION on property described as: All that certain property situated
on the south side of Katella Avenue with a frontage of 208 feet on Katella Avenue and
bounded on the east by the Anaheim City boundary, on the south by the Atchison, Topeka,
and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, and on the west by the Orange Freeway right-of-way,
the total area of said property being approximately 8e4 acrese Property presently classi-
fied as M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Mro A. S. Koch, County Road Commissioner, appeared before the Co¢usission and reviewed the
proposed refuse transfer station, too,ether with Finding Noo 5 of the Report to the Commis-
sion, namely that the County of Orange was not subject to the City of Anaheim zoning require-
ments; that it was not necessary a petition be filed in order to establish a refuse transfer
station; however, the County desired a maximun communication on the proposal and was interested
in developing the property in a'manner satisfactory to the City of Anaheim.
Mr..Koch continued that the petition was filed in the hopes of receiving information and
testimony from the public regarding the refuse transfer station and presented plar.s of
the Huntington Beach transfer station, noting tt-at many hours of work had been spent by
the County in determining the best location for the facility being proposed, which would
be•economically feasibleq that the Commission and City Council had first been approached
in 1960 regarding the location of a similar facility north of the center af tewn on north
Hast Street~ that at that time the City Council had informed him, in view of the public
opposition to the proposed transfer station, it might be well for the County to select a
more preferable site which would be along the river~ that he ha~? taken this advice seriously
and spaced the first two transfer stations in Stanton and Huntington Beach, and the third
was being proposed to serve east Anaheim, east of Eucli~ Avenue area, the City of Oran9e,
and the north part of Santa Ana and the east part of Garden Ga~ove, and at a future date
a fourth would be located in the vicinity of the Orange County Airport; that it was import-
ant economically to locate the proposed facility ire a geometrically central portion of the
area 3t was to serve9 and the proposed location was then recommended to the Bureau of
Sanitation as the only parcel of property in the City of Anaheim east of the freeway:, that
the balance of the property was under County jurisdiction, and he hoped the Commissfon
would consider the establishment of a refuse transfer station at the location indicatedo
In reviewing the recommendations to tne Planning Commission, the requirement of a masonry
wall was acceptable to him, Mro Koch stated; that the proposed facility would accommodate
1200 tons of trash a day; that the Refuse Control TJepartment would trade parcels of land
with the Flood Control District; that estimates as to savings to the City would be $1025
per ton, that through this savings, the refuse transfer center would be paid for within
three years; that the freeway offered a suitable barrier since it wou18 be elevai:ed at
this point and would not be visible from the west side of the freeway; that the heavy
truck use would be compatible with the existing rail=oad and the proposed freeway; that
opposition was always encountered whenever it was mentioned publically a refuse disposal
area would be located in any part of the City; and in response to Commission questioning,
stated the proposed development was not a recent decision as to the most ideal location,
but had been first proposed in an engineering report in Aprii of I962, and the property
owners had been informed of the County's proposal on Nlay 6, 19640
~I
~
.~,y----------------•---------- ----__~
-,. __ . .~:•.. ' ----------~ ~ _.
!' !
i _".
~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS:ONy June 22, 1964 2165
CONDITIONAL USE - ti letter and two affidavits from the attorney for the property owner
PERMIT NOe 88 and the Title Insurance and Tr~st Company were read to the Comonission.
Continued'
In response to Commission questioning, De~uty City Attorney Furman
Roberts advised the Commission the statement that the Commission and
City Council had no legal jurisdiction in considering subject petition was erroneous since
the purpose of the hearing was to hear comments and evidence from the property owner and
interested personso
Mr. Robert S. Barnes, representing the owner of the property being considered for the
refuse transfer station, appeared before the ~ommission and stated, in his opinion, the
Commissivn should not pass 3udgment on the proposed petition since the property owner was
not in agreement with the proposed use of her property; that any actfon by the City Council
and Planning Commission might have a detrimental effect on the property value; that the
property owner did not question the motives of t.he County, but the property owner felt the
County did not consider the serious economic repercussions, since if a decision was favor-
ably returned by the Commission, this would automatically predetermine the price of the
pxoperty; that the County should have taken condemnation proceedings or considered other
parcels for sale within the County; and that the property owner requested the Commission
to continue subject petition until she and her attorney had an opportunity to resolve this
problem with the County, or an alternate site might be considered by the Countyo
Mr, Calvin W Stover, 317 Jacaranda~ Orange, appeared before the Commission and stated the
County of Or~nge had informed him his property was needed for a trash transfer station;
that his property was easterly of the proposed site; that since the refuse transfer station
was proposed easterly of the Orange Freeway, development in this immediate area would bring
an increased traffic flow with restricted access to and from the proposed development; that
a twenty~two million dollar shopping center was being proposed at State College and Katella
Avenue, and if this was developed, considerably more traffic would be projected on Katella
Avenue; i:hat he was concerned with the blowing ti•ash on a windy day during the time of
transfer from one truck to another, and this refuse would then blow onto the freeway and
into the proposed stadium; that the County was proposing to place a refuse transfer station
on property that would cost considerab'ly more than land which might be acquired in close
proximity for considerably less; that on June 19 he had contacted the Chief of the Right-
of-Way Department of the County and was informed the proposed conditional use permit would
have no effect on the property in question, and Mro Kraus then stated Mrso Heinrich could
do anything she desired with her property; that he had been informed not to do anything with
his property until the Right~-of-Way Committee contacted him; that he felt Mra Kraus had
given a two-sided answer, and that he had plans for development of his property which the
proposed development of a refuse transfer station might seriously affecte
Mre Herbert Douglas~ 10611 South Douglas Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition,
and stated he was the owner of 30 acres of land in close proximity to subject property, and
he felt this would be detrimental to any future development on his property, even though he
had no intention of a sale now or in the futuree
A letter from the Pheenix Club was read to the Commission in which a statement was made
that they had purchased property northerly of the proposed refuse transfer station and were
planning to construct a private clubhouse, spending appror.imately $130,000 for its develop-
ment and felt the proposed use of the property southerly of their proposed clubhouse facility
would be very detrimental to thema
Mr.. Douglas then continued his opposition was based on the fact that the proceedings had
been started in a highly irregular manner; that several pcints he would brin9 out would
affect the people of Anaheim, the people of the County of Orange, and the Iandovmers in
the area:
lo The traffic hazard on Katella would grFatly increase since the traffic on Katella
Avenue was heavy even without the prorosed freeway and baseball stadium; that two
additional bridges were ~eing propos~;d by the County, providing a four-lane highxay;
that a ready-mix plant wanted to locate on Katella Avenue, but the County denied
the request~ stating they wanted Katella Avenue to be a showplace in the County;
that the off-ramp traffic merging with the Katella Avenue traffic would be un-
i;oztrollable if the refuse transfer station were permitted; that heavy truck
traffic might create a back-up on Katella, the freaway, and Douglas Street as
these trucks try to gain access to the refuse transfer station>
2. That the pr.oximity to the proposed baseball stadium certainly wouldn`t be an
asset, and it was hoped the baseball park would be the most attractive in the
country; that even if tall eucalyptus and other shrubbery were planted, this
would not screen the transfer station from the view of the patrons at the base-
ball park; that a high wind might blow the refuse onto the freeway and into the
basebail park; that in the heat of summer the debris might create a fly problem
since measures had been taken at the other refuse transfer stations to control
1
~__~
---- __.___._._ ___._ --- ------- . ------• _ _-- -. _.~.---- ----~ ~
~ ~ -. . _ _ - ---
~ • t
. i •:S. ;
•.~!
~ ~ . ~' ~ ~
M~kUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964
2166
CONVI~IONRE•USE - flies, but this was not successful, and the operators
PERMIT N0. 588 indicated they planned to use D.D.T~ this yearo
(Continued
3o That the effect on the local landowne:s by the proposed refuse
transfer station would be very detrimental regardless of a
presentable appearance being proposed; it would have a depr~s-
sive effect upon the assessed land valuation of the area, and
the problem of flies would further be detrimeretal to his
property sinc= it was his intent to continue the raising of
oranges for the next fifty to sixty yearso
Mr~ Douglas further stated the County Road Commissioner did not make any statement as to
where the trucks would be located while they waited their turn to transfer the trash or
how many times a day these trucks would be coming to the refuse transfer station, and that
it might be necessary to relocate the exit so that this backup would not occu:.
Mro Sam DeFilippo appeared before the Commission and stated he had been hired by the Douglas
family to appraise their property on another matter and further to present his views on the
effect of •traffic in the area; that since the off~ramp of the proposed Orange Freeway would
turn Katella Avenue into a major thoroughfare, the haavy truck traffic in the area because
of the industrial development presently existing would be further aggravated if the proposed
refuse transfer station was approved; that a count of traffic on Katella Avenue as of June 6
indicated 9600 cars a day were using Katella Avenue; that from the elevation of the freeway,
traffic would be able to look down into this refuse ~ransfer station, and this would have a
detrimental effect upon people using the freeway and would give them an undesirable impres-
sion of the City; that even though the area was presently proposed for industrial use, the
proposed stadium would ultimately change the uses in the area, and since these changes might
occur, the proposed refuse transfer station would decrease the potential use of the land
adjacent to the property, and the land values as well, and it was his recommendation the
proposal be denieda
Mro Thor.nton Piersall, Pub'lic Works Director, appeared before the Commission and stated it
would be to the City°s advantage to have a transfer station located at the east end of town;
that the City had been aware of the economies affected by the location of the refuse transfer
station at the west end of town; that at the time the trash pickup contracts were discussed,
the contractor stated at the time a refuse transfer station was developed in the east Anaheim
area, the contract would be re-examined and re-negotiated in order to give the City the ad-
vantage of the savings, and in his opinion, it would be economically advantageous to the City
to have a refuse transfer station located in the general vicinity it was proposed by the
County Road Departmento
Mr, Dougias then stated a Mr, Ed9ar Smith owned eleven acres approximately 200 feet west of
subject property, which was developed for citrus fruits, and Mro Hubert Howe also owned a
number of acres westerly of subject property; these property owners felt the City of Anaheim
should not, as a matter of policyf take a stand on the proposed conditional use permit since
the property owner affected by the proposed use did not know of the action until she had
been informed her property was posted with the legal noticey and any action by the Commission
would "freeze"all property in the immediate vicinity of subject property and prevent develop-
ment of these properties to its highest and best useo
Mr. Koch, in rebuttal, stated there were a number of items he might be able to discuss
relative to rebuttal; that basically all that was being requested of the Planning Commission
was a standing on the legal aspect and to obtain the cooperation between the City of Anaheim
and the County of Orange, in order to do the best possible job; that the economics of the
Master Plan of Refuse Disposal was set up i;hree years ago, and many people at that time did
not like a refuse transfer area; since that time, two transfer stations were in operation
and many of the problems formerly encountered had been resolved; that the price of property
would be the same as though a condemnation proceeding had taken place through eminent domainf
and he hoped the Commission would give favorable consideration to.the proposed use.
Mr. Roberts then stated 33 uses were permitted in the light industrial zone which would not ~
have an effect on the value of the property, and if an additional use was placed thera, this '
should also have no effecte
Mro Barnes then replied regardless of whether the use was permitted or not, if subject
property were approved for a refuse transfer station, no me.tter what the ultimete develop-
ment would be, the pr;ce of the property would automatically be judged on the use af the
property, or any properties in close proximityo
Mr. Koch further stated although a statement had been made that when the high winds occurreu
during the winter months refuse would be blowing all over~ this was not found to be so at
other stations,and it was anticipated this would not happen since a chainlink fence was
proposed around the periphery~ and whatever blew off the trucks, no ~urisdiction could be
I
i
MINUTFS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964
2167
COND7TIONAL USE - enfbrced by the Countyy and inquired whether or not the proposed
PEEiMIT N0. 588 Phoenix Club would be a compatible use in the M-1 areao •
(Continued
It was noted for Mre Koch the property was located in the County,and it
had not been ascertained whether or not a conditional use permit had been approved by the
County for the particular usea
Mr, Koch th2n continued regarding the traffic problem, stating if the truck traffic were
channeTed on to Douglas Street, this might solve it; that at the previous hea*in9 held on
the north East Street praposed refuse transfer station, evidence hzd been submitted from
the State Public Health Department that fewer flies were found around the refuse transfer
station than might be fcund in the ordinary rear yard of a home; that 50 trucks would be
using the facilitie~ proposed, and possibly twice as many would be using these facilities
later on; and that as far as any detriment to the proposed stad.ium, the planning of this
facility had begun iong before the City had thought of the stadiumo
Mr. Stover then stated the en•trance of the proposed refuse transfer station was only 79 feet
from the crossover, and he could not foresee how a traffic problem coui.d be resolved with
so many trucks using the facility in conjunction with other trucks utilizing the public
StT@2ta
Mr. Koch stated Katella Avenue was proposed for a six-lane, divided highway and the possi-
bility of 40,000 cars a day utilizing these facilitieso
TfiE [~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussiorr was held by the Commission relative to the manner in which the petition was
filed and the fact that the property owner had not been contacted to apprise her of what
was being proposed; that the Commission v~as not desirous of making a decision on subject
petition until more data had been submitted re9arding traffic problems and the fact that
the City had committed themseives to an investment of twenty million dollars for a base-
ball stadium; that a great deal of consideration must be given to the effect the proposed
use would have on the traffic flow from the freeway interchange and its compatibility to
the existing development in the area; that no testimony was presented as to the cleanliness
of the proposed refuse transfer station; that the Commission had been "placed on the spot"
since it was their opinion the County should have proceeded under normal condemnation pro-
ceedings under eminent domain; that if the Commission would render a decision today~ this
in effect would predetermine the price nf the land; that although it was a matter of record ,
the proposed facilities were necessary to reduce the cost of trash pickup, regardless of +
the decision the Commission made, it would be the wrong decision; that the Commission has
required in the past that anyone making a petition on property not under their jurisdiction,
the permission of the property owner must be obtained, which was not so in the case of
subject petitions that the Commission was not in a position to determine the proposed use
would be compatible with uses being established on the west side of the proposed freeway;
that the Commission was aware of the fact that the County di.d not need the approval of the ;
City to develop the proposed use; and it was their feeling it was not the intention of the ~
County to predetermine the use and cost of properties under consideration; although minutes ;
had been presented which indicated the Board of Supervisors had authorized Mra Kraus to
proce=d with the acquisition of property for the refuse tzansfer station, no actual resolu- ~;
tion had Uear. submitted for Commission consideration, and the petition was filed 3ust to i
receive evidence and consider the City of Anaheirt~'s position relative to the proposed ~
acquisition; and that althougli they were aware tt~P County had a right to own any parcel ~
of land in the County~ the normal proceedings of filing a co~demnation notice of intent ~
would place the property owners on notice their property was under consideration for any ~
proposed use, and their cooperation might be more apparent~ since a state~ent was made by ;
the att~rney for the property owner if the County thought it was necessary to acquire the ~,
propert•~, a mutual agreement might have been arrived at; and that the County should make ~
some attempt to resolve the problem with the property owner before the Commission couid {
render any decision. j
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny Petition for Conditional Uss Permit Noo 588, ~
which lost for the want of a seconde ~
~
Co~nissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Condi- ~
tional Use Permit Noe 586 to the meeting of July 8, 1964, recommending to the County Road
Commissioner to contact the property owner and attempt to resolve problems presented at ~
the hearing; that a report from the Administrative Office should be submitted for Commission ,
consideration, indicating in detail the effect the proposed use would have on the proposed ,
stadium, together with a report fr~m the Traffic Engineer relative to any possible traffic
problem which might incur when the proposed Orange Freeway off-ramp was completed and the ~
possibility of trucks trying to gain access to the proposed use backing up on Katella Avenue
and Douglas Streeto Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. Comrtiissioner
Chavos voted "NO".
..
__..- -- -------_____-- -- -__----._._.._._.__~..,
._ .-=~ `~ ~ . _...__ ._ _~-
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNlISSION, June 22, 1964 2168
RECESS - Commissioner Rawland offered a motion to recess the hearing for
dinnere Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo
The meeting recessed at 6:20 o'clock pomo
RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 8:22 o'clock pam.,
Commissioners Allred, Chavos, and Gauer being absento
~~ENERAL PLAN - COtifINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAf~IM PLANNING COMMISSION~
ti!ENDMENT N0. 21 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject General Plan
Amendment to the Circulation Element proposes the establishment of
Clementine Street and Freedman Way as collector streetsa
Subject General Plan Amendment was continued from the meeting of June 8, 1964~ to allow
time for the Traffic Engineer to make a circulation study of the area and for the City
Council to consider the proposed abandonment of Alzo Avenueo
Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski advised the Commission the abandonment proceedings had
been continued by the City Council to the meeting of June 23~ and it was the 5taff's recom-
mendation that an additional two weeks' continuance be considered in order that the City
Council`s action might be reflected in this amendment~
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the hearing of General Plan Amendment
No> 21 to the meeting of July 8, 1964, in order that the results of the abandonment proceed-
ings by the City Council may be considered in canjunction with subject amendmento Commissioner
Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
AREA DEVELOPMENI' - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION~
PLAN N0. 7 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiao Property being
considered under Area Development Plan Noo 7 incorporates the
northerly side of Lincoln Avenue between Western and Grand Avenueso
Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski presented subject Area Development Plan as follows~
The Anaheim Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 22, 1963~ recommended to the
City Council approval of Reclassification Noo 63-64-9 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 452~
Said Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit requested the a,oproval of construction of
a service station at the northeast corner of Western and Lincoln Avenueso As a result of
their action on said R~classification and Conditional Use Permit,, the Commission directed
the Planning Department to prepare a study which would incorporate the frontage properties
along the north side of Lincoln Avenue between Western and Grand Avenues, for possible
multiple-family residential or commercial developmento The Commission also indicated that
before any development took place the residential structures should be removedo
FINDINGS:
(1) Subject prop~rties are located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue between Western and
Grand Avenues and are bounded on the north by a 20-•foot dedicated alley.
!2) The properties have no vehicular access to Lincoln Avenue and, consequently, the access
is limited to the dedicated alley at the rear of th~ propertieso
(3) No public or private sidewalks exist along the Lincoln Avenue frontageo
(4) Utility poles an@ fire hydrants are located at various points along the Lincoln Avenue
frontage, and their locations are indicated on Exhibit "A",
(5) The land is flat and drains in a southerly direction totvard Lincoln Avenuea
(6) A surface dra3nage structure (cross gutter)~ running north-south, between properties,
exists approximately 540 feet west of Grand Avenueo
(7) All of the properties are presently classified in the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoneo
(8) All of the properties have less than the minimum lot width of 70 feet required in the
R-1 Zoneo
(9) The westerly three parcels a~ the northeast corner of Western and Lincoln Avenues
have been reclassified to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone for the construction
of a service station.
(10) Each of the parcels of subject property contains a residential structure which is
below minimum City standards for dwelling sizeo
(11) Land Use in the area consists of:
a. A large concentration of single-family homes to the northo
bo A vacant parcel, approximately 10a5 acres in size, was recently approved
for multiple-family development to the east of subject propertye
c. A mixture of commercial uses and a neighborhood shopping center to the
south along Lincoln Avenuee
d. An Elementary School and a mixture of commercial and residential uses to
the wP~t. as indicatad on Exhibit "A"~
, ~
~ ---- _----_ _-----
- -- --~.'' ,
~ _ . _ ._.,._.__ __ _._.
.~ ~ ~
__. ~
~
' i '
. ~
_;,,
__._._ _ _ . . . ,
-._.___ ~ \
i
~ ~ ~:
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 229 1964 2169 ,
AREA DEVELOPMENT
PLAN N0~ 7 !
(Continued) •
(12) Discussion with realtors indicates that theMSnbject properties are presently being
merchandised for $17,500-$19,500 per lote ~~ematically speaking, this would put
the land in a price bracket of around $84,000-$85,000 per net acre or $1.95 per
square footo
Further investigation reveals that vacant commercial land along Lincoln Avenue,
between Beach Boulevard and Knott Avenue, is being merchandised for $1015 to $1025
per square foot. Consequently, it appears that the price being asked for subject
properties would essentially put the land "out•-of-the-market for immediate commercial
development, even if it were vacant.
Vacant land is considered, by developers, to be within the econcmic realm of
multiple-family development, if the cost of ttie property is below approximately
$3,000 per dwelling unita Based on the size of the parcels in question, and a
one-story height limitation9 the land cost of subject properties is approximately ~`
$4,680 per dwelling unito The actual cost of the land per dwelling unit will be ,
even higher because of the dwellings being removed prior to developmento The intro- i
duction of these properties on the multiple-family land markets will possibly have ,
two effects on the property: ?
ao The askin price of the land will adjust to the o~e~~ailing selling price, or ;
b. the land will remain as is until the exis~:'ii~ us pply o: multiple-family land ~,,,.~~•~•>-•, ••~ •~••.....,,
is depleted to a point whach will make subject properties economically ~ "~;;;:.
feasible to developo !
(13) The size (approximately 1200 square feet) and shape of the lots are not suitable
for good commercial developmenta Since the lots are only 63 ± feet wide9 access
to Lincoln Avenue would be impractical unless two or more lots were developed
collectivelyo '
The size and shape of the lots make difficult the provision of adequate parking
for multiple-family development in excess of eighteen dwelling units per net
residential acre (2,400 square feet per dwelling unit;a Moreover, multiple°family ~
development woul~ be limited, by Code9 to singleWstory construction or a resultant ;
eighteen dwelli~g units per net residential ~3creo Consequently, individual lots
~gould physical.ly be developed for multiple-family use without difficulty concern-
ing ~ode rey..::em=nts ,,,,,,„~
..
.~ ~
RECOMMENDATIONS:
(1) That subject ~~roperties be reclassified from the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone
to the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone, subject to the following conditions~
ao That the sidewalks shall be installed along Lincoln and Grand Avenueso
bo That the owners of sub3ect property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the ';i
sum of 15~ per front foot along Lincoln and Grand Avenues for tree planting ~
purposeso I .
c. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum 3
of $2v00 per front foot, along Lincoln and Grand Avenues for street lighting S
purposeso `
do That development of subject propexties shall be in accordance with all provisions ~
of the R-3, Multiple-Family Resident.ial, Zone in effect at the time the building ti
permit is issuedo `;,
eo That Conditions a, b, and c, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to :
£inal building inspectiono ~
In response to Commission questioning relative to •~ehicular access, Mro Grudzinski stated
vehicular access would be from a dedicated alley remaining at the rear of the property;
that it was possib:e to develop four two-bedroom units, single-story, and single-story
would be required since subject property was within 150 feet of R-1 propertya
The Commission further inquired how the $84,000-$85,000 per acre could be equated in
comparison cost, to which Mre Grudzinski xeplied that multiple-family development will
round out the development of the area and avert strip commercial development along the
Lincoln Avenue frontage, which was one of the recommendations the Commission had made at
the time the study was requesteda
Mr. Robert Garstan, owner of property at 3107 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the
Commission and stated he was in favor of commercial development for the Lincoln Aven~e
frontage; that it was his understanding when the corne: of Lincoln and Western Avenues
was recommended for approval for C-1, Neighborhood Commerciai, Zone, this would also
.~~____.._._----._._..._.~_,...`_....._...---__.._...... __.---_._.____..~._...
~ -------------• _,
,-
~ . i ~ ,.. .. _. _ _ . _._.__..
~~_ ._ • ___ ~ t
1! ~ ;~
~•
,~
(.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964 2170 ,
~ AREA DEVELOPMENT
PLAN NOe 7
, Continue~-
apply to those lots easterly to Grand Ave~ue if these property owners at any time requested
through the filing of a reclassification petition; that in his opinion, more apartments in
the area wovld not improve the situation since there was an overabundance of apartments,
and to propose apartment development on a heavily traveled boulevard would be detrimental;
that the parcels of property on the easterly portion of the Area Development Plan exhibit
were planning to request commercial zoning, this would leave only a few parcels in the .
center of the block for the recommended muitiple-family development; that he was not in
agreement with the Planning Staff's recommendation the land values would remain the same,
and apartments would eventually be constructed when needed, but the area was undesirable
for further multiple-family development; that recent appraval had been given to rezone the
property easterly of Grand Avenue from C~3 to R-3, and 134 apartments were being proposed
for that area; that at a previous hearing on the reclassification of the properties atWestern
and Lincoln Avenues, he had stated he ~nas desirous of having the Lincoln Avenue frontage for
commercial purposes; that with the exception of the homes in the center of this area, all
were well kept; that commercial development existed on the south side of Lincoln Aven;ie
adjacent to subject propertieso
Mro R. F. Barron, 3135 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated
subject property was undesirable for residential purposes because of the noise and heavy
traffico
Mro Z. Ae Hobson, 3114 Tyler Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he also
owned property on Lincoln Avenue; thet he was opposed to multiple-family development and
felt commercial zoning was more apropos; that if the Commission approved apartments for
that area, he would not sell his property for apartments, and recommended that the Commis-
sion consider commercial zoning for the propertyo
.~';,...
Mro~He '., Ricker, 3111 West Lincoln AvenUe, stated he was one of the two original owners
who still residac on the Lincoln Avenue properties~ that those property owners who were
renting their pr ~erty did not recPive an adequate return for their investment because
of the inability to rent these ho` ~ to desirable clients; that the properties had a
problem of sewers, in that all th~P~~'~...had septic tanks rather than public sewers{
that 15 signatures were needed to obtain sew~•age facilities for those properties, and he
was unable to obtain any signatures at all, and in his o~,jion, this was creating a health
hazdrd 'vecause ar the sewage flow into the streetsa ~~
Mrso Do W, Wallace, 3180 West Polk Street, appeared before the Commission and stated she
understoo~3 that if the properties were recommended for commercial zoning, a setback was
required on Lincoln Avenue, and further that adequate parking spaces would have to be
provided fos commercial useo
Commissioner Camp made a statement there was still plenty of vacant commercial property
for sale which would be considerably less than the price quoted by the report given; that
at a previous hearing, a statement was made that in order to permit commercial development
along the Lincoln Avenue frontage, 280,000 homes would be needed to support that commercial
frontage; that a study had been made of similar situations along the arterial streets and
highways in Anaheim in conjunction with a previous reclassification petition considered on
State Col].ege Boulevard~ this study indicated there were 1,200 homes similar ta •those hor~es
presently fronting on Lincoln Avenue; that at today's prices it was evident that a new buyer
could not purchase these lots on Lincoln Avenue and develop them economically for multiple-
family developments that the owners of these parcels were the more likely people to develop
these parcels for multiple-family development; and that if these property owners were not
desirous of developing their property for multiple-family purpases~ it would be a long wait
before the development took place.
In response to que~tioning by intexested persons, the Commissicn stated that although C-1
Zoning was granted on the corner of Western and Lincoln Avenue, this had no effect on the
ultimate development of th2 balance of the single-family homes fronting on Lincoln Avenue
between Western and Grand because a service station was the only thing approved for that
corner~ that the Commission`s thinking in regard to the Area Development Plan was to afford
some relief tc the property owners who were having a problem, and the Commis~ion would look
favo-rably at any plan of developmentf and that the property owners had the right to petition
the Commission for. any type of reclassification they wished on their properties at any timeo
Mrso Barron then stated the property owners next to her were desirous of obtaining commercial ~
approval of their properties, and several inquiries had been made for development of the
properties in the middle of the block for commercial d~velopmento
/
- --._. ._._...._ _._.--- _. _ ---°------..__~ __ _ -----,---~----- --~
._._------- - -~ -
A~'a . . ~ _ _. _..__._._
i
i '
.:~ .
I
I
i
~
~~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, June 22, 1964
AREA DcVELOP1NENf
PLAN N0. 7
Continued
2171
Mr. Garstan'again appeared and stated it would be more harmful to the homes than helpful
if their properties were developed for multiple-family purposes because the children
would be running into the street, and perhaps it would be better if these properties were
left as they were; that traffic would be flowing both during the daytime and evening if
apartments were proposed, whereas the commercial would be only a day activityo
~~
t~
Commissione: Perry expressed the thought if these were developed for commercial develop-
ment,a land assembly program incorporating several parcels would have to be projected since
individual parcels could not provide adequate parking requirement needso
Mrse Ro~ald Rhodes appeared before the Commission and stated the traffic noises from the
catering service and service station would be detrimental to residential uses in the area
due to the fact that they load their trucks in the early hours of the morning, and prospec-
tive renters or actual renters would never stay in an area where there is too much noise~
and that access to Lincoln Avenue would be prohibited; therefore~ if fcur apartments were
Proposed per lot, this would mean at least four automobiles would be using the alley instead
of the one presently using it,and with these four car.ss it was more than likely they would
park in the alley, thereby creating a traffic hazarde
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the expressions of the property owners
for commercial development against the recommendations of the Staff and the feeling of the
Commission for multiple-family developmentf that the Commission was opposed to strip
com~aercial development along Lincoln Avenue, and there was some concern relative to in-
adequate sewerage facilities for the existing homes; that it was not the Commission's
desire to propose reclassification for properties if the property owners were not desirous
of that type of reclassification; and suggested to the property owners concerned if develop-
ment took place, a land assembly program would be necessary to creata the proper development.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to receive and file Area Development Plan Noo 7, due to
the fact that the property owners were desirous of having commercial development for their
properties, whereas this was contrary to the desires of the Commission who felt multiple-
family development was more appropriatea Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono
MOTION CARRIEDo
Ah7FNDMEM TO TITLE 18~ - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION~
ANAI~IM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Amendment to
Chapter 18.08, Definitions, by the addition of "Main Building"
and "Room"o
Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff advised the Commission the proposed amendment to the
Definition section of the Code had been discussed at the previous meeting; that the Planning
Staff felt the proposed amendment was necessary to assist in administering the multiple-
family residential section of the Code because of the ambiguity of a"main building" and a
"room"o
Deputy City Attoreey Furman Roberts rendered the present definition of what would cover a
"building" in the Codeo
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1232, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Chapter
18.OS,.Definitions of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to include the definition of a
"main building" and "room". (See Resolution Booka)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYHS~ COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSBNTs COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Chavos, Gauero
.~_____._.___~ -.-----._._ _
_._.._- ---
~~ .
~
_ - -~ ~
t1 ~ ~ `,'~
MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964 21~2 ,
AMENDMENT TO T.ITLE 18, - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califorhiao Propos-.,
ing changes and additions to Chapter 18.16, R-A, Residential
Agricultural, Zone; Chapter 18e28, R-2, Two-Family Residential,
~one; Chapter 18032, R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone;
Chapter 18.40, C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone; Chapter 18.61,
' NRC, Natural Resources and Conservation, Zone; and Chapter 18065,
PRD,Planned Residential, Zonee
Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff reviewed the basis for continuance of the proposed amend-
ments to the Anaheim Municipal Code, noting that the Staff had met with the following groupss
(1) Planning and Zoning Committee of the Chamber of Commerce,
(2) Planning and Zoning Committee of the Anaheim Board of Realtors,
(3) Executive Director of the Home Builders' Association of Orange County, and
(4) Executive Director of the Building Contractors' Association of Orange Countyo
He noted that these groups had reviewed the proposed amendments, and had been encouraged
to present their views to the Planning Commission at this public hearingo
Mr. Shoff noted that, in response to a question raised at the last public hearing, the
executive directors of the Home cuiiclers' Association and the Buiiding Contractors' Associa-
tion were asked about any reluctance people might have in developing in Anaheim as a result
of any "red tape" in the Planning Departmento The directors responded that they knew of no
such attitude toward the Cityo They noted that~while there are always people~who will be
dissatisfied with the level of service provided by any Planning Department, the City was
not acting so as to discourage builders or developerse Mro Shoff continued, noting that
some of the confusion probably arose because of the fact that the City had been working on
the multiple-family zones for some time, and that the nature of the problem had changed
several timeso
Mro Shoff continued, noting that all of the recommended changes made at the previous public
hearing and the work session held with the Commission, together with suggested changes made
by the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors, were incorporated in a 12-page memo-
randum setting forth the specific changes recommended for the Commission's considerationo
R-A Residential Aaricultural. Zone - A change was recommended to Section 18~160040 (1) to
clarify what.had been meant by the term "accredited", and by the reference to the State
Education Codeo The intent of this section had been to permit privai:e schools of tnis type
by Conditional Use Permit, and to prohibit trade ai:~ business schools in residential areaso
Therefore, the wording should be as follows:
(1) "Colleges, universities, and private elementary, junior, and senior high schoolso"
In respons.e to Commission questioning, Mro Shoff stated that public schools wese permitted
by right in the R-A Zoneo ,
Section 18e.16o030(5-a-2) should include the word "within" in the last clause.af this section
for clarification purposes and should read as followsc
(2) "Birds and rabbits or pens ~ coops for keeping same shall not be maintained
within forty (40) f!•~t of any window or door of any building used for human
habitation or with`.s. twenty (20) feet of side lot lines or within fo~ty ~40)
feet of a front lot lineo"
Section 18e16v050(2-b). The minimum lot width provision was recommended at 140 feet instead
of 135o Where a one-acre parcel is left out of a subdivision, this would provide for about
a two-to-one ratio of depth to width (140x312)o This would avoid excessively long and narrow
lots, Shoff..noted, and would permit more efficient use of left-over parcels, nn matter what
the future use might be~ The proposed change would read as follows:
(b) "Minimum lot widthe Each lot or parcel shall have a minimum width of one
hundred forty (140) feet; provided, however, that this provision shall be
deemed to be complied with where a lot or parcel has less width and was
af.recoxd on the effective date of this Ordinancee"
When Section.18a16.050(9) was reviewed at the joint meeting of the Plartning and Zoning
Committees of the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors, Mr. Shoff sta.ted that the
question was raised that it might be wise to place a time limitation on appeals from the
action taken by the Development Review Committee, and that when this was reviewed at the
work session by the Commission it was agreed this was a valid point. Mr~ Shoff euggested
that eighteen days represented a reasonable time, according to Zoning Coordinator Martin
Kreidt, and that the following was the suggested wording:
i-- _.-...__._______._,..._:.~.
--_..____------ ---------------------..__..__,_.._T--•.-
~ . i ~-
;
;
~ i
{
,
_._
.. .._. .----i
_ ,
i •
1
_ ------_ _.. _--.J._....~.w.~x~~..s.,-...~,.~.~..:.., -~~__ `:.'
t_.~~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964 2173
ANIHNDMENT 'LO TITLE.18, - (Continued)
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
(9) "DEVELOPNIEDJT REVIEW. In order to promote continued quality development in
Anaheim and to safeguard and enchance both potential and established community
values through the encouragement of compatible developments, all building and
site plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Review
Committee of the Buiiding and Planning Departmentso Appeals from the action
of the'Committee shall be to the City Planning Commission in written form,
stating the reasons for said appeal, and shall be heard by the City Planning
Commission within 18 days of the date of appealo Appeals from the action of
the City Planning Commission shall be to the City Council in written form,
stating the reasons for said appealo"
In response to Commission questioning relative to whether or not the foregoing changes
would be footnotes to the original draft of the Ordinance, Mro Shoff suggested that,
shonld the'Cominission wish to incorporate these changes into the proposed Ordinance, they
wau•ld be used at the joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission prior
t~o•public'hearing~before the Councilo Said joint meeting was requested by the Commission,
arni would 93ve the Commission an opportunity to explain the reasons for the recommended
amendments, and to answer any questions the Council might haveo
The Commission the+~ directed tiaat a copy of the suggested revisions as incorporated in
th~ memoiandum be transmitted to the Council so that evidence may be had which would
indicate when and how the changes took place to the original draft>
In the discussion by the Commission as to what would be needed for Development Review,
it was noted that when the property was already zoned, only site and plot plans were needed
since the Building Department automatically cheCked the Code requirements relative to struc-
tural requirementso
Mra Shoff stated that the department now reviewed the plans at the time the plans were
submitted for a building permit to determine whether all Code requirements and require-
ments as approved by the Commission or City Council in conjunction with a specific zoning
action were incorporated in the plans as being substantially in accorda~~ce with plans
approved, and that by incorporating this xequiz~ement within the Oxdinance~ the Zoning
Ordinance would reflect the current policies and practices toward the enforcement of
Council and Commission requirementso
Section 18a16o050(10) was suggested to be deleted in its entire•ty, because this would
require street dedication and improvements and since the R-A Zone was not to be considered
as-a development zone, it would be inconsistent and unfair~ as the Commission noted in the
work session, to require dedication and improvements in a non-development zoneo It would,
however, be incorporated in the other development zones until such time as the General
Provisions Sections were rewritten.
R-2. Multiule-Familv Residential, Zone - was then reviewed by Mro Shoff noting that the
text of the zone was written so as to be consistent with site development standards which
had b~en approved in the past by both the G~mmission and Councilo
It was noted by Mr. Shoff that permitting bachelor apartments of 400-500 square feet per
unit had been suggestedo Since this type of development had not been considered, the Com-
mission felt that a more thorough study should be made before it could be incorporated into
a_specific zone, and that at the time the Staff prepared the R-4 Zone, this would be covered
in detail, and would not necessitate any delay on the consideration being given to the R-2
and R-3 Zones. At that time it was noted the proper zone or zones could be determined and
amendments to the Code initiatede
Cor,unissioner Rowland stated that he felt there was some doubt that this type of apartment
should be considered for any area other than the Center City.
Commissioner Camp stated that he felt the time was here for consideration of the R-4 Zone
and the bachelor type apartments; further that some consideration should be given to board-
. ic~g houses, since if the density increased, the boarding house type of facility would be in
demand.
, Mr. Shoff stated that the boarding house was permitted in the R-3 Zone by conditional use
permit, that if this became a ma3or problem or the need became apparent,~ this would then
be given consideration in the R-4 Zone, and that from the lai:est information that the Staff
had, Brigham Young University was siiil being considered and planned.
- .. . . __ _ ___ ... . . .. ......_.._._..
-- ------_ _...- -- _----------..___..._ _- __ ~_~_
.L.. .. _
_ _.. _ .-,~ . ~ .
~ . ;
i •
.
,
~~
MINUfES,'CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964
AMENDA~NT TO"TTTLE 18, - (Continued)
ANAH£IM MUNICIPAL CODE
Mr, Shbf~ stated that Section 18e28o040 (2) should read as followss
"Colleges, universities, and private elementary, junior and senior high schools."
and that Section 180280050(6-a-2) because of a clerical error should read as followsi
"Where a building site abuts upon a ma~or~ primary, or secondary highway, or
collector street, building setback5 may be staggered, provided thats
a, In no case shall a setback have a depth of less than fifteen (15) feet.
bo For every foot of building frontage having a setback of less than
twenty (20) feet, there shall be a foot of building frontage having
a setback correspondingly greater than twenty (20) feeta"
Discussion was then held as to the basic reason for the recommendation of a change in the
froat yard wall provisions to allow wrought-iron fencesy h1r. ShofF stating that one of
the basic reasons was to allow for iight and air and private use of a buildingo
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that because of the obstruction of viewirtg
traffic on the street even though the street was a busy arterial highway, a solid 6-foot
masonry wall would be a detriment, while an open-work fence would allow little obstruction
to visiono
Commissioner Camp felt that consideration might he given to a 6-foot high wrought-iron fence
with 20% face coverage since this might be decorative and still not cut out the line of sight
of traffico '
Mr, Shoff stated that in the past the City's policy was to permit a solid fence or wall in
the front yard of not more than 42 inches in heighto
Section 18o28e050 (6-e-3) was then proposed to read as follows:
"Wrought-iron or other types of open work inetal fences, excluding chainlink,
provided that the component solid portions of a fence do not constitute more
than 20 percent of the total surface area of its facea Such fences may be
s.ix (6) feet in heighto"
Section 18a28.050(8) was then reviewed with the Commission with commentary being made as
to the reaction of the joint committees of the Chamber nf Commerce and the Board of Realtors
notably that the developers would be limited and would not be given the opportunity of pre-
senting alternate plans of recreational-leisure areas. ~1re Shoff then stated that as a
result of the joint committees commentary and the Commission's reaction at the work session,
the following would be the rewording of this section:
"Recreational-Leisure Areas
"In recognition of favorable climatic condition$ and the °outdoor living' habits
of local residents, the following standards are found to be necessary to assure a
desirable living environment consistent with the established quality of resideRtial
areas..in the community.
"a. On any building site on which there are located dwelling units other than
either one (1) or two (2) one-family detached dwellings, there shall be
provided a minimum of three-hundred fifty (350) square feet of usable
recreational-leisure space for each dwelling unit. Portions of spaces
. xequired under the yard and minimum distance provisions of this Section
may be included in the calculation of recreational-leisure space to the
extent that they are integrated with and usable as part of a larger
recreational-leisure areao Recreational-leisure space may be provided
for as follows:
1. Where private outdoor living areas are provided, the minimum
recreational-leisure space requirement shall be reduce~? to
three-hundred (300) square feet per dwelling unit.
~
~
----~.____._~ ,,
_
.,_.---•---r-~-----------_._.~.----_------- __--_.~---- ;
- _.___.....
~}y ~ _
,~
~
2174
~ . . . .. ' ~, - -
~
~
~ •,,;,I
+
~
..... . . . . _ . _. .. . ..__. _"itt~ ~ __... ... .._.._ . .
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANDiING CAMMISSION9 June 22, i964
~ ``1
1
~
AMEND~IENf 'PO' TITLE 18, - (Continued)
ANAZiEI1Jf MUIVICIPAL GUDE
(a) Minimum dimensions of such private outdoor living areas shall be as
followss
(1) When provided for ground floor or studio-type units9 such areas
shall have a minimum of two hundred (200) square feet, the
least dimension of which shall be ten (10) feeto
(2) When provided for dwelling units wholly above the ground floor,
such areas sha11 be p•rovided as accessible balconies or decks,
and shall have a minimum area of 50 square feet9 the least
dimension of which shaii be five (5) feeto
2175
(b) Remaining required space not provided in private outdoor living areas
shall be provided for in a common rec:eational-leisure area, as
specified elsewhere in this sectiono
2e Where private outdoor 'living areas are not provided, the required space
shail be provided for in a common recreational-leisure area which shall
b~ conveniently lor,ated and ~eadily aacessible from all dwe113ng units
located on the building siteo The common x•ecreational-leisure area may
extend into the xequired yards but shall be screened from adjacent arterial
streets and higMvays9 and it may include stivimming pools, putting greens9
rc~r.t game facilitiesy and any other recreationai-leisure facilities
neces:,ary to meet the requirements of the sesidents and their guestsa
3o Common recreational~~lelsure areas9 with exception of pedestrian access-
ways and paved •rec•reational facilitiesy sha11 be landscaped with 1awn9
trees, stxues or other plant maierials and sha11 be permanently maintained
in a neat and orderly manner as a condition to useo Fountains, ponds,
sculpture, plants and decorative screen type walls9 where an integral part
of a landscaping scheme comprised primaril~y of p'lant materials, are permittedo
b, On any building site on which there are located no dwelling units other than
either one (1) or two (2) detached one~family dwe113ngs, there shall be provided
a minimum of five hundred (500) square feet usable recreational-leisure space
for each dwelling unito Portions of side and •rear yards may be included in the
calculation of recreationa'1-Ieisure space to the extent that they are integrated
with and usable as part of a lerger recreational-~Yeisure areaa"
Section 18>280050(13)9 Mro Shoff stated would also include the appeal period from action
by Development Review and would read as Followss
(13) "Development Rev3ew
In order to promote the continued quality development characteristic of
Anaheim's residential areas, to safeguard and enhance both potential and
established com~;unity values through the encouragement of compatible develop-
ments, both structuraliy and architecturally, all development plans shall be
sub3ect to review and approval b.y the Development Review Committee of the•
Building and Planning Departmentto Appeal from the actfon of the Committe~e
shail be to the City Planning Commission in written form, stating the reasons
for said appeal, and sha11 be heard by the City Planning Commissicn within
eighteen (18) days of the date of appealo Appeals from the action of the
City Planning Commission shall be to the City Council in written formy
stating the reasons for said appealo"
Mr, Shoff then stated that the Interdepartmental Committee had recommended changes in
the wording of sections relating to street dedication and improvements, street lighting,
and street tree fees9 as follows=
Section 180280050(14-a)
Ga) "Ali required arterial streets and highways, local streetsy and alleys, which
abut the subject property9 shall be dedicated to the fuil width designated
by the City Standards and details as approved by the City Engineer and adopted
by the City Council9 and by the Circulation Element of the General F!an
"Highway Rights-of-Way" as adopted and amended from time to time."
.
_. _ _..
----.. ....-~~_ __.___.__._.. ~~.,.__~.....
-~ , ' ~ _ _ _ _
_ __... .....
~1 v~` ~ ``:
MINUTFS9 CIT'! PLANNING WMMISSION9 June 22, 1964 2176 ,
AMENDM£M"'P0 TI1'I:F°18, - (Continued) '
ANAHEIM MUDiICIPAL ~DE
Section 1Aa28o050(14-c)
(c) "Street lighting facilities shall be installed in accordance with the official
street iighting plan approved by the Director of Public Utilities9 or street
lighting fees in the amount specified by the City Council for any abutting street
or highway9 shall be paid to the City of Anaheim for the installation of said
street 13ghtingo"
Section 18>280050(14-f) ,
(f) "5treet tree fees in the amount specified by the City Council for any abutting
street or highway shall be paid to the City of Anaheim for the furnishing and
planting of said treese Where fully concreted parkways are developed, tree wells
sh~ll be installed as required by official parkway development standards."
R-3a Multinle-Familv Residential Zone - Mro Shoff stated had only two corrections to
the original draft since the basic requirements of this chapter were similar to those in
the R-2 section, except that the density was considerably higher and no consi-!eration was
given to requiring balconies or patios, and that most developers were providing more recrea-
tion-leisure space than herein requiredo
Sectiau~ 18,32e020(2) shouid read as foZlowsa
(2) "Where there are existing buildings and structures on a site for wh3ch more
intensive development is proposed under the provisions of this zone9 no build-
ing permit shall be issued until the Chief Building Inspector, the Utilities
Director, and the Fire Chief have certified that the existing buildinqs and
structures are safe for occupancy and for human habitationo"
Section 18o32s050(2) should read as followsa
(2) "Building Site Area pex Awelling Unito
The building site area per dwelling unit shall be a minimum of twelve-hundred
(1200) square feeto For purposes of this section, buiiding site area is the
total development site minus the square footage of all vehicular rights-of-way
or accessways in excess of 120 feet in lengtho"
PRDs Planned Residential Develooment - Mro Shoff stated had been reviewed in detail at
the 3oint meeting of the Zoning and :•ianning Committees of the Chamber of Commerce and
the Board of Reaitors, and the question was raised that the Definition Section of the Code
did not include a general description, but had a very detailed definition in the chapter
itself, and accordingly9 the following definition was submitted for the Commission's con-
sideration for a.public hearing to incorporate into the Definition Section at •,.:e time the
City Council considers the PRD Section at a public hearinge
Section 18008,605 Planned Residential Developmente A residantial development of three or
more main b~iidings, and substantially incorporating the site planning
principles of Section 18065.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Codeo
Commissioner Camp inquired whether the Commission felt that a planned residential development
constituted three or more buildings, and wanted to be sure no ambiguity existed for develop-
ers to misinterpret its meaninga Mre Shoff noted, and the Commission generally concurred,
that this had been the caseo It was necessa:~y to have some ob~ective definition of a PRD,
and this appeared to be a reasonable oneo
Mr. Shoff replied that the Definition Section further referred to Section 18.55.010 which
was more explicit in the definition of a PRD,
Section 18.65.050(5-a) was suggested to read as followsi
(a) "Two (2) off-street parking spaces9 et least one of which shall be covered9
shall be provided on the site for each dweliing unito"
i
t
'l
~
~
~
_ .... ... . _ _..
-~ , _-_._..
.,. ~ - --~--~
~
I •
:1 -_--°- ..~„w,s..._.....~.~,....e. - _.. r.' -- ~
`„ ? `~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 22, 1964
AMENDMENT TO`TITLE 189 - (Continued)
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ~DE
2177
In a discussion with the Commission relative to the requirement of standard 64-foot streets
in a planned residential development, Mre Shoff stated that this was discussed with the
Joint Committees, as well as the Interdepartmental Committee for Public Safety and General
Welfare, that the Staff had attempted to incorporate as many standards as possible in this
section so as to minimize the waivers requested when a PRD was filed together with a condi-
tional use permit9 that the Code required standard streetsy but that if this standard were
applied in the hillside areas, for instance, it might not be workable, and, therefore, when
each PRD petition was reviewed, it could then be determined whether standard streets would
be applicableo
Section 18,640050(7-a) was suggested to read as follows:
(a) "In order to promote the continued quality development characteristics of •
Anaheim's residential areas and to safeguard and enhar.ce both potential ancl
established community values through the encouragement of compatible develop-
ments, both structurally and architecturally9 all development plans shall be
subjec~i to review and approval by L•he Developmant Revie~ Cammittae of the
Building and Planning Departmentso Appeals from the action of the committee
shall be ta the Planning Commission in wirtten form~ stating the reasons for
said appeal9 and shall be heard by the City Planning Commission within eighteen
(18) days of the date of filing. Appeals from the action of the Planning Com-
mission shall be to the City Council in written form, stating the reaons for
said appeala"
NRC, Natura2 Resources and Conservationo Zone ~ Mro Shoff asked that the Commission consider
a four-week continuance to allow the Staff to review with the County Planning Department
the success they have had with their sand and gravel zone; that the Interdepartmental Com-
mittee was of the opinion that perhaps xequests should be considered under conditional use
permit9 because of the unique problems that might be encountered; and that the following
had been considered by the Commission and the Joint Cornmitteeso
Section 18„61~050(5-d) Slopes and Excavations; Section 18061~050(5-h) Hours of Operation; ;
Section 18a61o050(5-i) Insurance; and Section 18a61o050(6) Development Review, and (7) %
Street Dedication and Improvementso ~
;
C-la General Commercial,LZone - Mra Shoff stated that presently this chapter did now allow '
for residential and comme.r.ciai use in the same structure, that the City had processed several
conditional use permits or variances permitting this type of use9 that the Staff had made :
inquiries of other cities who had a ~imilar zone known as the residential professional zone, `
and a four-week continuance was requested in order that the Staff might be able to evaluate
the in£ormation received from other cities and to explore the possibility of incorporating '
this within the C-1 Zoneo
Section 180400050(1-g) was suggested to read as follows because of the change in the recent
adoption of the definition of an automobile service stationa
(g) "Automobile service station within 75 feet of a residential zone or a
residential structure in an R-A Zoneo"
Suggested wording changrJs for the fo'llowing were also presented to the Commission:
Section 16.40o060(a) Off Street Parking; Section 18.40o060(S) Development Reviews and
Section 18040~060(9) Street Dedication and Improvementso
RepreseRtatives of the Planning ar~d Zoning Committees of the Chamber of Commerce and Board
of Realtors were present but offered no further commentd
THE HEARING WAS.CLOSIDo
Cotmnissioner Rowland offered Re~olution Noo 1233s Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp9 to recommend to the City Council that arnendment
be made to Title ].6, Chapter 18016 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning with the
recoirnnended changes to the original draft of Section 18016.040(i); Section 18,16.030(5-a-2);
Section 18„150050(2-b); Section 18.15e050(9); Section 180150050(10) being deleted. (See
Resolution Booka)
._-____..._._---c-.._... __--..._.._.. ___.--_...__..__..._._._..___.._._._ _....
-~ - --- _._.. . ___-----'-~ ~
__ _ __
~'1 ' ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY~PLANNING ~MMISSION, June 229 I964 21~8
AMENDMENT TO TTTLE 18, - (Continued)
ANA[~1~M MUNICIPAI. ~DE
On roll call the foregoing res~lution was passed by the following votec
AYES: OOMMISSIONFRSa Camp, Mungally Perry, Rowlando
NOESz OOMMISSIONERSa Noneo
ABSEBTfs ODMMISSIONERSa Allred, Chavos, Gauero
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noa 12349 Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that amend-
ment be made to Title 189 Chapter 18028 of the Anaheim Municipai Code relating to zoning
with the recommended changes to the original draft of Section 18.260040(2;, Section 18.280050
(3); Sect£on 180280050(6-~a-2); Section 180280050(6-e-3)•t Section 180280050(8); Section 18028o05U
(13); and Section 18,280050(14)0 (See Resolution Book>)
On ro12 call thp foregoing resolution was passed by the following votea
AYESa COMMISSIONERSa Camp, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
Np}Ss OOMMISSIONERSs None>
ABSENTs OJMMISSTONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauero
CormnissionEr Rowland offered Resolution Noo 12359 Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adaption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that amendment
be made to Ti~le 18, Ch•'pter 1So32 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning with the
recommended changes to the original draft of Section 180320020(2) and Section 180320050(2)0
(See Resolution Book~)
On ro1Z call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the fo'llowing votet
AXESa OOMMISSIQNFRSa Gamp4 Mungal.ly Perry9 Rowlando
NOESt COMMISSIOhFRSa Noneo
ABSENIs OOMMISSIONERSa Allred9 Chavos' Gauero
Coimnissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1236y Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that amend-
ment be made to Title 16, by the addition of Chapter 18065 relating to Planned Residential
Developments.. (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow~ng votea
AYESa ODMMISSIONERSs Campy Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOESs CAMMISSIONERSt Nonea
ABSEMa COMMISSIONERSa Allred9 4"havos, Gauero
Commissioner Camp offered a motion ta direct the Planning Department to set for public hearing
an amen:lment to Chapter 18~08, Definitions by the addition of Section 18008.605, P'lanned
Residential Developments~ Commissioner Row'land seconded the motiono NDTION CARRIIDe
Cu~mnissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue public hearing
of amendments to Title IS, Chapter 18.40, General Commercial9 Zone, and the addition of
Chaptex 18.619 Natural Resources and Conservation, Zone9 to the meeting of July 20, 1964,
in order to allow time for the Staff to obtain additional data. Commissioner Camp seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIL-Do
RLPORTS AIvD - ITf7Jl I~o 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Termination of Conditional Use Permit Noo 940
Afternoon session)
Associate Planier Ronald Grudzinski reviewed the history.of Conditional ': e Fermit No. 94,
noting that the use of the property was for an apartmant development e~~'•~ ~ d by Variance
Noo 1642, and that since subject prope-rty was no longer being used fo•- .sry church
facilities9 the Conditional UsE~ Permit was no longer in effect, and s}• • .~~. terminated.
__.._._ ....._.. _ . ~ _ _ . __
_. -•-- - ___.......t.. _----.._ _.,_.__ __ ...._.._... . .
_ _.~ . ~
i/ ~ ; '~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLAN~IING ~MMISSION, June 22, 1964 2179
REPORTS AAID - ITF~I NOo 1-(Continued)
REQOMNIENDATIONS
Afternoon session)
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1237, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to terminate Conditional Use Permit Noo 94,
based on the fact that the use of the property had changed from temporary church facilities
to apartment development. (See Resolution Booko)
On ro12 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votei
pYES: OONJVfISSIONERSa G~, Mungall, Perry, RowlandJ ~~-c~-~v~-/t~'
; NpESn COMMISSIONERSa Nonee
s ABSEKfs ODMMISSIONFRSa A11red, Eamqa, Gauero C-~~a-e ~c~~-'
TEMPORARY AATOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp
offered a motion to recess the meeting to June 29, 1964, at
5:00 o'c:ock PoM,, to meet with the Orange County Planning
Commission in a work session on the Hill and Canyon Areae
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. NDTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 1Os20 o°clock PoM.
Respectfully submitted,
C~i [r~i~ ' ~
ANN KRFBS, Secret y
Anaheim P'lanning Commission
_._._..__... __ _ . _ _ __ . _ _...,___ _ ... __ .._....._,
a~,. _ ~ . ~