Minutes-PC 1964/09/28~. . ~ ~
A RE(~UI,AR ~PING OF Tf~ ANAH~IEI CITY PLANNING COMl1ISSION
~
Citq Hell
Ansheim, Californie
September 28, 1964
.'.~
,~
p
r
RID(~ULAR ~TIN(~ - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was oslled to
order by Chaix~e,n Mungall et 2:05 0'olook p.m., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - OHAIAE[ATi: Mungall.
- C0~[ISSION~RS: Allred, Chavos, (iauer, Rowland. (Co~iasioner Allred entered
Counoil Chamber at 2:52 p.m;
ABSHINTr - C0~[ISSIONTERS: Camp, Perry.
PRID3ENT - Zoning Coordinator: Martin greidt
Deputy City Attorney F~rme,n Roberts
OiYiae Hfngineer: 9rthur Daw
Planning Co~iasion Seoretary: Ann grebs
Planning Department Stenographer: Corinne (~alvan
INVOCATION - Reverend 8tanley J. Herber, pastor of the Free MethodistChuroh, gave the
invoaation.
PLBiiDGE OF •
AT•TAYSIANOE - Gommissioner Rowland 1ed the Pledge of Allegianoe to the Flag.
APPR01fAL OF - The Minutes oY the meeting oP.August 31, 1964 were approved as
TI~ MINUTES submitted. .
RECLA3$Ib'ICATION - PUBLIO HEARINa. .RF~A R. SPARLING AND CON5TANC~ R. DEWEY, 306 Diemond
N0. 64-65-36 Avenue, Halboe, Island, qalifornia, Osvners; J. E. HADOBA3.OR U. ID. BAUffiEt,
500 "0" North Anaheim Boulevard~ Anaheim, CaliPornia~ Agents; property
VARIANOE N0. 1660 desoribed as: 9 reotangular paroel of land veith a frontsge of 50 feet
on the north.aide of Broedaray and a depth of 158.44 feet, the meatern
AREA I~V~IAPl~III~T boundary of said property.being approximatelq 330 feet east of the oenter-
PLAN N0. 11 line of Citron Street, end Yurther desoribed as 623 -Pest Broadoey.
Property preaently alassified ae R-2, MULTIPLID FAMILY RHISIDENTIAL~ ZOIJ~.
liEpUID3TPD CLB63IFICATION: C-0, p0l~EiCIAL Ob'FICID ~ ZONE
RBfQt1IDS7~D VARIANO~: -PAIVIDR. QF EQINI~L[J~ S.T,T~ AREA AND MIl~NA[ REQUIRED ~ SII~ YARDS
AR$IA DIDVELOPl~lN'P PLAN: COVH4tING PROP'~RTY ON TF~ NORTH SIDHI OF BROADWAY BETWID~i CITRON
STk~,'P AND HARBOR BOULEVARD ~ PHOPOSIDS TFIDI WIDffi~ OF' A1~j' EXISTING
ALI~Y.
Aseoaiete Planner Ronald Grudzinaki, reviewed Area Development Plan No. 11, indioating that f
the land uae of properties in the Plan Were a ohuroh; two multiple family paroels; fourteen
single femily psraels; and a servioe station; tha+,. all the paraels,With the eaaeption of ~
the ohurah site were below the minimum lot width ol 70 fee:; that all properties had aurb,
gutter, sidewalka, street trees and street lights; that land use of properties surrou.-~ding ~
those paraels inoorporated within the plan were ~unior high sohool~ aingle and multiple ~
family residentisl dwellings to the north; 3unior high eahool athletio field and a publio
librery to the south; a be,nk to the east; and single and multiple family dwellinga to the
west.
It was noted in the reao~endations that if any development ooaurred within the Area Develop- ~
ment Plsn that a standard.Width alley be required, sinae the eaiating alley was only.l4:feet 3
in~ w3dth with the eaoeption of the westerly. 195 feet Whioh was a standard 20-foot alley; !
Yurther that oonsideration be given to the eaisting utility polea slong the oouth edge of the ~
alleq right-of-way being ralooated to provide edditional vehiale msneuvering area. ~
In~reViewing the propoaed renlaseifioation it vas noted thst the ~loor plan aovered 4200 square~
Peet~ providing 17 perking spaoes, but two of the spaaes would not a11ow seoondary aooess ~
from the alley, and the Oo~isaion might wieh to oonsider wa3ver oP theae two perking epaoes
in ordor thet seooadary aaoeas may be provided; and that the pnrpoae of the Plan wae to provide~
development of the paroels With a atandard 20-foot eSley. and to urge that as the ad~oi.ning ~
paroela develop, that as Pev aurb outs for ingress and egreea be made to Sroadway.
- 2325 -
,;~.
~~
~
~
MINUTIDS, CIT7C. PLANNII~C} CO~ISSION,. September 28, 1964 2326
~
i
i
RHCLASSIFICATION - Mr. U. E. Bauer~ one of the egents for the petitioners, appeared before
N0. 64-65-36 the Co~iasion, and reviewad the propoaed development, noting that the
two parking sp~oes proposed wi.ioh would not have aooesa to the alley
YARIANOE NQ, 1660 .would not be needed, sinoe there was little need for the par'%ng spaoes
due to the faot that fe~ of the olients oeme to the offioe, and in
ARHiA DEVELOPA~1'P resgonee: to Co~aission questioning stated that the ovners of the property
PLAtd N0. 11 plan to ded3uate and lmprove the alley when ~he remainder of the propertiea
were developed. FStrther~ that the requirement oP the masonry wrsll as
reoo¢nended in his estimation would be a detraation beoause of the emple
landaoaping and lawne ad~aoent to sub,jeot property, e,nd that ha would prefer to disaues the
wall requirement with ad~oining property oWners to determine whether or not the esthetio
appearanoe might be deatroyed.
The Comniasion advised tha agent that a bond might be poated.to insure t?~e wall aonstruotion,
sinoe the wall requirement Was to seperate the residential from the oo~neroial us@ es-d afford
some proteotion to the residenaes.
No one e,ppeared in opposition.
TFIID H[CARINf3 -PA3 CLOS~D.
Disoussion was held by the Co~ission relative to grsnting the waiver of the t~o parking
spsoes and Whethar this would set a preoedent of development in the area, and it ~as deter-
mined that a statement should be made that the parking being provided wes adequate for the
use but should not be aonsidered as setting a pattern of development for the area or for
o~her raquests of waiver oP the parking requirements.
Co~aissioner (3auer offered Resolution No. 1348~ Series 1964-65, and moved for its peasage
attcl adoption~ seaonded by Commissioner Ckavos to reoo~end to the City Counoil that Petition
for fteolassiP3aation No. 64-65-36 be apprwed sub3eot to aonditions.(See Resolution Boolc)
On roll osll tiie furegoing resolution ~as pasaed by the following vote:
9YES: COL~LLI39IOI~RS: Ohavos, (iauer, MungalJ., Rorvland.
NOES: CO~IS3IONIDIKS: None. ,
AB3IDNT: 00lQ~9SIONIDRS: Allred, Camp, Perry.
Co~issioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1349, 8~~es•1964-65 and moved for its passage
and adoption, seoonued bg Comraissioner (iauer to gre,nt Petition for Varianae No. 1660,
sub~oot to aonditions and the poating of a bond ta guerantee the installation oY a 6-foot
masonry wall along the east and west property lines.(5ee Resolutiott Book)
On roll asll the foregoing reaolution was passed by the Pullowing vote:
AYIDS: COLEl~ISSIOIJERS: Chavos, (3auer, Mungall, Roarland.
NOID3: OpI~ISSIONh~tB: None.
ABSEN'P: C01~'i~QISSIONIDHS: Allred, Camp, Perry.
Coa~isaioner RoWland offered Resolution No. 1350, 3eries 1964-65, and moved for its passage
ead adoption, aeoonded by Go~isaioner Gauer to reooamend to the Oity Oounoil that Aree, Devel-
opmant Plan No.ll be adopted in order that the orderly transition of propertiea on the north
side oP Broadmay between Harbor Boulevsrd end Citron Street might inolude adequete aeoondary
oiroulation.(3ee Reaolution Book)
On roll oall the Eoregoing resolution Was psssed by the follo~ing vote:
AYL78s u0~[I3SI01~RS: Ohevoa ~~3auer, Mungall, Row'! and.
NOBf3: C0~99IONIDR3: IJone.
AB3fl~1T: CONOII3SIONIDRS: Allred, Oamp, Perry.
i `
~-~.
..........._~.. . ._ _.._.._.........__- -
~r= -r-----
__ - _._....~ ,
~ . t _ ~
.
•..c
' i
~ .
_--.,---._ _.._..... _. _ _.--_ . _. _ _ _ . .
- - _ -- -----_. ~.,. __.._ -= --__
~_~ ~3 11 .,`
MTNUT53S, CIT3C PT,ANNINf3 C0~[ISSION, September 28, 1964 , 7327
REOLA3SIF7:OATION - PUBI.~C Ii~ARIN(i. L~IITIATED BY TF~1f CITY PLAND(Il~(3 CO~IS9ION, 204 ~ast
N0. 64-65-Z4 Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Josephine C. Cruz, 1121 North j
Lemon Street; J. H1. Oano~ 1017 East Sants Ana Street; Abdslla Anton, ~
(iEI~RAL PLAN 315 West 3yaemore Street, Franaisoo Chino, 1177 North Lemon Street, "
AE~BiAMB1N'P N0. 41 Julia Quiroz, 206 Romneya Drive, Marie Quiroz~ 202 Romneya Drive, i
Arohdioaese oP Los Angeles, Eduoation and VPelfare Qor~rration, 505 ;
West Qenter Btreet, Anaheim OeliPor~i.e, and Pauline B. Olivos, 419 South i
Newhope Street, 5ants Ana, CaliPornia, Arthur Burgos, Box 102, ~lontebello, Oalifornis, Owners;l
proposing that property desoribed as: A reotangular parael of land at the southWeat aorner
oP Lemon and Romneya Drive with frontages of 124 feet on Romneys Drive and 705 feet on Lemon
Street, ozoepting therefrom the 4U-foot by 130 foot paroel loaated at 1129 North Lemon Straet,;
and Yurther desoribed es 202 to 208 VPest Romneya Drive, 1119 tc 1125 and 1135 to 1165 North ;
Lemon 3treet be reolassified from the R-9, Multiple Family Residentisl. and P-1, Automobile ',
Parking, Zones to the C-2~ General Oo~eroial, Zone. i
Zoning Coordinater Martin Kreidt reviemed for the Coffiission ,the Cou~ission and Counoil
aation on previous hearinga on sub~eat realasaifioation,noting that two petitions for ~
realassifioe,tion of properties ad~aoent to the properties under oonsideration were reole,ssi-
fied to the 0-2, aeneral Co~eroiel, Zone by the City Counoil, and aub~eat petition was
referred baok to the Co~ission to readvertise Yor C-2 Zoning and the prepsre~tion of a
(3eneral Plan Amendment~ ~nd that Area Development Plan No. 10 Was still in effeot to provide
seoonde,ry aoaeas for those'1ot~ fronting on Lemon Street.
No one appeared in opposition. ,
Tfi~ FiIDAFtIlV(i VPAS CIASIDD.
Oon~tissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1351, Series 1964-65, and moved for ita pasnage
and adoption~ seoonded by Commiasioner (3auer, to reoommend to the City Counoil that Petition
Por Reolessifioation No. 64-65-14 be approved for C-2 General Comsneroiel, Zone. superoeding
the previously reoommended C-0, Co~teraial Offioe, Zone in Resolution No. 1285. dated
August 3, 1964.(See Resolution Book)
Ori roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYIDS: COl~235IOI~RS: Chevos, aauer~ ~Eungell, Rowland.
NOBIS: OO~Q69IONaRS: None.
AB3HINT: CO1~I33IONEFtS: Allred, Camg, Perry.
Co~issioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1352, Series 1964-65, and moved for ita passage
and euioption~ seaonded by Cou~issioner (iauer, to reaoo~end to the City Counail that General
Plan Amendment No. 41 be approved.(Se6 Reaolution ~'~ook)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution wea pesaed by the following vote:
A7CIDS: COI~LISSIOI~t3: Ohavos, Ciauer, ~ungall, RoWland.
NOES: COEAdIS5I01~RS: None.
ABSIDNT: 00l~Cg3I0NEH8: Allred, Camp, Perry.
RECLA53IFIaATTON - PUBLIa F~ARINCi. ABBRO D~VIDLOPIDRS, INCORFORAT~D, H. Burman~.President,
N0. 64-65-38 HARMAN J. WARD, JR., HALLI E. DOU(it~CRTY, AND RICHARD ID. 1{ATZ, 224 North
(ilasaell~ Orange, Oelifornia, Ownera; requesting that property desaribed
(3Hi1V~tAL PLAN as: . A reotangular paroel of lsnd with a frontage of 60 feet on the west
A9~i~N'P NU. 39 eide oP Aoacie 3treet and a depth oP 125 Peet, the southern boundery`of
said property being approxime,tely 225 feet north of the centerline of
La Palms Avenue, and further desoribed as 1015 North Aaaoia Street be
reolaeaified irom the R-1, One Family Residential, Zone to the C-1,
Neighborhood Commeraiel, Zotte to utilize said groperty for parking faaili-
tiea for the ad~aoent aorrffieroisl etruoture.
Mr. Marko Botioh, arohiteot Por the petitionera, appeared befora the Oou~iesion and etatod '
he rvas availeble to ansaer quoations. !
In reaponae to (loczniseion questioning, hSr. Hotioh stated that the exiating atruature vould
~ be retqoved~ the properi~y uaed for perking purposes, that a Wsll did eaiet on a portion of
I th~ property, and that it was their intent to extand the eziai,:t~g wall to oonPorm with Oode I
!i requirem~nte. ~
' 1
~ ~
t~
~,.
- ._.____. _..____.. _ ..-~
__ ~ _ __ _._ _.___.
---.. ~. _ . _ _ .. _.__... _,----_.._~._._..~,..
..
.,..:~.~.. .._ ,
~
:~
~ ,,,~~
MIMITTS, GITY PLANNIN(i C0~23SION, 5eptember 28, 1964 2328
REQLASSIE'ICATION - Mrs. John Fedor, 1021 North Aaaoia Street, inquired oP the Commisaion
N0. 64-65-38 hoW the height of the required wall rras meesu:ed; further. that the ~
plans indioated a reoreation room ~as being propoaed, and wanted this
~RAL PLAN point alarified whether it wae to be used by outsiders for general ~
Al6~Il~Ip~N'.C N0. 39 sooial purposes. ;.
The Coa¢nisaioK advised Mrs. Fedor that Counail polioy required that the mssonry Wall be
6-feat in height measured from the finished ~rade level of sub3eot or abutting properties.
Mr. Botioh advised the Qommisaion that the proYused reoreation room would be utilized by the
physiaians as a olinio meeting room prinoipally, but that it oould be used by patients uf
the alinio for a publia meeting room for the aommunity.
Zoning•Coordinator Mertin Kreidt inquired Whether it oould be oonsidered a group psyahiatria
oare, to whioh Mr. aotioh replied that he did xiot Wish to have it limited to one Yunotion,
but arould.stipulate that the reareation room would be used for doator and alinioel meetings,
and would not be leased Yor lodge or sooial funotions.
llr. greidt_.reviesved the nroposed (3eneral Plan Amendment noting that the ooma~eraial-proY-
Peasional designation was ~roposed along La Palma Avonue whiah also enoompssaed the property
proposed to be reolassiPied.
Tf~ HPARINQ WAS CLOSIDD.
Disoussion Was held by the Cotmmi~aion relative to the effeat the proposed (3eneral Plan
Amendment would have on the property to the east of sub3eat property,.that this might set
a preoedent +snd would permit Yurther enoroaohment of aoffin,eraial development alang I,~ Palma
Avenue; and that when ad3oining properties proposed realassifiae,tion of their properties,
it,fi;,.;,ght be a more appropriate time to aonsider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Co~nissioner (iauer ~ffered Resolution No. 1353, Series 1964-65, and moved~~'o its passege
and adoption, aeoonded by Oommissioner Chavos, to reoommend to the City Counoil that Petition
for Aeolassi£iaation No. 64-65-36 be approved, further that the petitioner's agent stipulated
that +,he proposed reoreation room would be uaed for dootor and alinioel meetings, and would
not be leased Yor lodge or sooial funations.(See i~edolution Book)
On roll oall the Poregoing resolution was passed by the folloWing vote:
AYID3: COMI~dISSION~RS: Chavos, Qauer, Mungell, Rowland.
NOES : C0~lSI3BIONHIR3: : None.
9B~N'P: COM~T53IOl~ll'uRS: Allred, Camp, Perry.
Co~i.ssioner Allrsd entered the Gounoil Chamber at.2:52 p.m.
Co~issioner Rowland ofPered Reaolution No. 1354, Seriea 1964-65. and moved Yor its psasage
and adoption, aeoonded by Co~isaioner aauer to reaommend to the City Counoil that (3enera~
P1an Amendment I3o. 39 be disapproved based on the faot that tha approved use under the
Petition Yor ReolassiPiaation No. 64-65-38 was too speoifio in nature and too small in area,
and Yurther, this would set a preoedent for nommeroiel development oa the east side of Aoaaia
Street.(See Aesolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution Was passed by the following vote:
AYID3: CO~ISSIONE~tS; Chavos, (3suer, Mungall, Rosvland.
NOE3: C0~36IOYER3: None.
ABSIDNf: COL~ISSIOI~RB: damp, Perry.
ABSTAIN: Od~I53I0b+I~R3: Allred.
' "~. . . . _.~.__ _I '."
_.. ^^•"
' ~
. , . .. ~_ _ ..."'_"_.. . . _. __.__~/
~~.
~
i
~
~
,~.
MINUTD$, CIT7f PLA1~I11VINa C01~![ISSION, September 28, 1964
~ .~
2329
REaLASSTFI~ATION - CONTINUL7D PITBLIC fIDAR.ING. LIONEL H. AND LUCII,T~E BRORaQ, 6749 Mitahell
N0. 63-64-107 Avenue, Riverside, Californis, Owners; DER. JOHId CARAN, 2190 Huntington
Avenue, Anaheim, CaliPornia, and MR. ALBPfRT DE MASCI0~.730 North Fonda,
a0PID1fiI0NAL USE La Habra, California, Agents; progerty desaribed as: A reotangular
~IT N0. 628 paroel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 Peet on the West
side of 5tate College Boulevard and a meacimum depth of approsimately
325 Yeot, the southern boundsry of said property being approximataly 310 Yeet north of
the oenterline o£ Centar Street, and further desaribed as 125 h;orth State College Blvd.
Property presently alassified R-A, A(3HTOU1aURAL, ZOI~'il.
REU ~-]STED OLASSIFICATI:ON: C-19 NEfIGEIBORH00A COL~RCIAL, ZOI~f
RL;(1lIESTED COI~IDI'PIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SPFCIALTY TYpE RE3TAURANP
VPZfiH ON- $ALE B~
Subjeot realassifioation was aontinued 3rom the meetings of Apri1 27, July 20, and
September 14, 1964 to sllow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans and to applg
for s aonditional use permit.
Mr. 7ohn Caran, one of the agents for the p~titioner~ indioated his presenoe to ansWer
questions.
In reaponse to Coannission questioniag the agent stated the,t the proposed restaurant would
fee,ture Italian foods, and presented the proposed menus; that it was not a franahise or
ohain operation but would be operated by he and his partner and. were not presently in
operation, and thst in his estimation the proposed kitohen fsoilities would be adequate.
Mrs. Theodore Meroer, 2016 East Underhill Ave*zue appeared before the Co~isaion in opposition
and stated that shr~ ~as oonoerned about the sale of alooholio beverages sinae many ohildren
would ba passing the proposed development; that it mould be detrimental to the neighborhood
sinoe 26 ohildren reslded in sis homes ad3eoent to the property;that a 3unioz~ high ~ohool
and paroohial sohool were looe,ted not too far away; and that the restaurant was propoaed
on the periphery of a reaidential seotion oP Anaheim.
The Oommission noted that an Italian type resteurant was approved with on sale beer in
olose proxia~ity to a ahurah northerly of sub~ect proparty.
Dr. Herbert ?vttle, appeared before the Co~ission and stated he and a number of other i
physioians were oonstruoting a medical center tao blocks north of the Itelian restaurant, '
that the medioel center would represent an investmsnt of $350,000; that at the time he !
and his aollegues deaida-' on the area for their medioal oentex• it was noted that buainess
and profesaional offioes were being conatruoted in close proximity and that the General
Plan proposed the aree~ for profesaional offioe use; that the proposed Ital.ian restaurant
would not upgrade the area; that additional. property to the south of the proposed resteurant ;
was being negotiated for more medioal Paailities and if the negotiations are suoc;assfil, the
proposed use would be inaompatibl.e to and d~trimental to the a~pearanae of the area. ~
Mr. Harold Peglor, realtor, 120 East Commonvreelth, ~'ullertono appeared beYore the CommiP~ion
and stated he represented Mr. E. P. Baaks 6301 Kiaemer, Plaoentia, owner of property in
olose proximity to sub,ject property, that his alient had not had e,n opportunity to revieW
the plans but it if aas propo:+ed to have a"high alass" type of resteurant he would not
ob3eot, that aost figures oould not determine whether or not it would be oompatible with
development in the area, beoause one of his alients hsd just finished a hamburger stand
whiah aost $45,000, and that the area was developing in a proper manner and the wrong type
of development in the area would deteriorate tlie area. ThersPore, suggested that the
Commission aontinue aonsideration until all interested persons could view the plans and
determine its oompatibi:Lity to the struotures ~::lsting and being built in the erea.
Mr. Lionel 9rown, one of the petitioners, stated that he did not know that sub3eat property
had been designated for businesa and professional usd, that a restaurant was not inoompatible
to existing uses, and that those ob~eating were not aware of the basis for selling the
property Por the proposed use.
Dr. ~Lerous Gertner, 518 YPest Chapman, Pleoentia, secretary or the State Gollege Medioal ~
Qroup appesred before the Cot~tiasion and stated that nine physioians presently oac•.tpied ~
suites in the building; that he was proposing to lease the property south of ~Lr. Be~aks
property oomprising of two aores; that 25 physioiens i~i the area had ettended a meeting ~
indicating their interoat. in the negotietion of land for one of the largeat medioel
faoill~cies in the City aomparable to tha,t e:i~ting ad3eoent to Martin Luther Hospital, and
thia d~velopment ~ae dependent upon the type of developmont whioh would oaour betwaen the
two si.~es.
~
__ __---. --
~_.._--i-------___.. __..__ ____.. .---.....--
v_ - - ---- ' ~.
,
.
,
.
i
~ _ ,
~:
:,
°'t;~;
.
~~ ~ ~
MINUTE3~ CI'PY PLANNIPTG CO~~TSSION; SR~tam~ig+• ?R~ ~oK L~~u
RECLAS9IFICATION - ~Srs. GWen Bartlelowski, realtor, appeared bePore the Co~nmisc~ion ir.
N0. 63-64-107 favor oY the proposed restsarant stating there were only oo:°fee ahops
but not any Worth~hile restaurants, and that a sme,ll animal olinio was
CONDITIONAL USE being aonstruoted eaross the atreet, whioh she felt was less aompatible
P51RMIfi N0. 629 than e restaurant.
THE HEAR7NG YPAS C7~OSED.
Disoussion was held by the Commission as to t::e proposed development and ita oompatibility
to the ad~oining properties, noting that existing C-1 uses Were 3n the general vioinity of
the proposed devel.opment,that the proposed use mas aompatible, that the origine,l requoat was
£or a real estate offioe within the esisting atruoture, and that development should be
aomparable to struotures approved for development or being developed.
Commissioner Allrod offered a motion to reaommend to the Oity Counail that Reolassifioation
No. 63-64-107 be approved~ Co~i.ssioner Chavos seoonded the motion. The motion lost for a
2/3's me,~ority vote, the vote being three for and t~vo against..
Co~issionars Mungall and 4auer atated that development in the area has oonsiderably upgraded
tha area, that the Coffiission should.grant Mr. Baoks requeat Yor oontinuanoe in order tha+~
he might be able to reviem the plans, and •i;hat the petitioners might Wish to submit the plana
to the medioal group to resolve any problems.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Ca~iasion and the petitioners that voting
on tha Patition for Reolassifioation would be taken on subsequent meetings until r,, 2/3's
ma3ority was reaohed.
Co~mmiseioner Ohavos oPfered a motion to grant Petiton for Conditional Uae Permit No. 628,
Co~iasioner A11red seoonded.the motion.
On roll aall the foregoing motion passed by vote: Ayes: Allred, Ohavos, Ro~land; Noes:
(~auer, Mungall.
Co~qissioner Rowland offered a motion to resoind the previous motion and oontinue Petition
for Conditional Uae Permit No. 62$ to be voted on oonourrently with Petition for Realasaifi-
aation No. 63-64-107, sinoe the CIIEt was oontingent upon reolassifioation of the property.
Commissioner 4auer seuonded thd motion. MOTIQN' GARRIED.
CONDI.TIONAL U'SP~ -• I~i7BI,2C 1~lARING. 9HA'NN' COMPANY', 15282 Orangethorpe Avenue ~ Plaoentia,
PIlHMIT N0. 630 Califo:nia, Owner; requesting permission to oontinue operation of a
LANDSCAFE CON2~tACyOR'3 S"~ORA(~E YARD IN [~Pi M_l AREA yQ13'fi ERpANJSION OF
SAID OPSIItATION AT A F"JTIJR~ DATE ON property desoribed as: A reotangular ~
paroel of land approxime,tely 290 feet by 660 feet in size, bounded on the north by the ~
Orange Qounty Flood Control ahannel, with said north boundery running parallel with and
a distant southerly epproxima,tely 375 feet from the oenterline of Orangethorpe Avenue,
the eastern boundery of said property being approximately 1,320 feet west of the oonterline !
of Do~ling 3treet, and further desaribed as 15282 Orangethorpe Avenue. Propert~ prasently i
olassified as R-A, Agrioultural., Zone.
Mr. Alfonso J. Evelyn, representing the petitioner~ appeared before the Coaanission atating ~
he was availab].e to answer questiona. ~
Tho Co~ission advised the agent that at their Pield ingpeotion of sub~eot property, its
appeare,noe Was ~o d'isord.erlqso~ as to be oonsidered e trash oolleotion area rathar than the
nuraery or storage yard.
Mr. Evelyn statad that the use had been approved bef.~re the property had been annexed into
the City, that it was their intent to expand ihe existing use; and further, thet he would
like alarifination on the basia Por requirement of street dediostion and street improvements,
sinoe •they presentlq had.an easement Por ingress to and egress from the property, end from
queationing it Was determined that the City had no i~mmediata plans to oonstruot a street
whioh would be the eatension of Red Gum 3treet.
Disoussion Was then held by the Co~J.saion relative to the atandard reoommendations of the '
Interdepe,rtmentel Qommittee and inquiry was me,de of Offioe Engineer Arthur Daw Yor 4urther ~
olarifioation. ,,
Mr. Daa atated tna•t the intent of the Indepe,rtmental Qommittee was to requeat an irrevooable ~
offer of dediostion within 180 days for the we~',;erly 32 ieet; that ~,t thia time the aity ~
did not have aooess; that atreet improvements and straet treea would onlq be required when i
the oity finalized.plans for the oonstruotion o~ a street, and thet there were no dePinite ~
lans for acquiring the alignment and ,n~roperty for R:sd Gum ::treQt but was only ePleoted
b~n the General Plan and eatended fxam reloma to Or;,,ngethorpe Avenues on the P~an.
.~~~~.. -----------...,.__...____ ---_._._____.~.,.._..~ ,.
o r-
~__: _.-.~.~~ . , , . . . ~ , . . ~ ~ ' ~ ~_. _._- _..__ ... . .
~
MIlVIT.FE3, CITY PLAbUdING COMMISSION, September 28, 1964 2331
OONDITIONAL IISE - No one appeared in opposition.
PF~RMIT N0. 630
'.I~iE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~4~
1
i
~
In disnossion by the Co~ission relative to the unsightliness of the property', the Co~ission
felt thst before any future plans of development oY the property took pleoe that ths peti=
tioner be required to do some housealeaning even though the patitioner ststed this would
be a storage yard, all uses in the M-1 Zone were required to enolose their outdoor storage
arees with a 6-foot masonry wall.
Oo~issioner RoWland offered Resolution No. 1355, Series 1964-65, and ~oved for its passage
and adoption, ;~eaonded by Co~i.ssioner Chavos to grant Petition Por Conditional Use Permit
No. 630, sub~dct to aonditions snd the requirement that the property be aleaned oP all j
refuse and plaoed in presentable order prior to final building inspeotion.(See Resolution Book;
On roll oall the foregoing resolution vve,s passed by the following vote:
AYE1S: C0~lMLSSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: CO~CSSIONERS: None.
AHSTCNT: COMM2SSIONERS: Camp, Perry.
REOLASSIPICATION - CONTIlJfJL]D PUBLIC FIEfARIN(3. INITIATED BY Tf~ CITY PLANI~CING OONUdIS3I0N,
N0. 64-65-22 204 East Linaola Avenue, Anaheim, CaliYornia; proparty described,as:
An irregularly shaped parael of land at the northwest oorner of Le,Palma
Avenue (Santa Ana F4~eeway on-ramp) and Brookhurst Street, and having
frontages oP 564 feet on Brookhurst Street and approximately 1,376 feet on La Palma Avenue
and the Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp, said land having a total area of approaim~tely 15 aares
and further divided into Portions "A".and "B"; Portion "A" - being the 150-Yoot by 150-foot
servioe station site at the northcvest aorner of La Palma Avenue and Bronkhurs$ Street, and
Portion 'B" - being the remaining 14.35 aores of the aforedesaribed land.
OLASSIFIOATTON OF PROPERTY: Portion "A" - C-2, GIII~AI,, CW~tCIAI,~ ZONE q POrt3oa 'B" - ~
R-A, A(~~RICUIfPURAL, C-1, 1~IGH$ORHOOD CO~RCIAL~ AND C-2,
PROPOS~'D CLA55IE'ICATION: POIrTION "A~', C-1 NEIGF~ORHdOD GEI~RAL COMS~',EtCI9L, ZONE3
COMNEiIRCIAL, ZONE '
FORTION "B" - C-0, COM~ERCIAL OFFICE, ZQNE I
Sub3eot petition was continued from the meeting of August 31, 1964, at the requeat oP the ~
prospeative property opner.
Mr. Robert Mao~ahon~ attorney representiag Mr. Harold Murray the proposed purohaser of
the propertv l~own as the Chrysler training center, appeared before the Co~iasion and
stated the,t upon oonsultation with the Plann3ng Department, ~ome of the existing uses to
vrhioh the aenter is being used Would have to _~alify under the 0-0, Zone by the approval ~
of a oonditional use permit; that the pnrahaser has no intention of asking for any additionalj
uaes or ohanges in uses beyond those presently being used, and that the present uaes of the i
property Were not in oonPormsnoe vith uses permitted in the olasaifiaation of the property.
i
Mr. HoWard Mann~ 2276 -Pest Rhodes, appeared before the Co~niasion and asked whetY,er there I
had been aonsideration given to the traffia problems pra~ently eaisting at the interseotion ~
of Brookhurst Strset snd I,a Palma Avenue, if aoumieraial development took plaae on the (
property being proposed for reolassifiaation. ~
Mr. 1[aoMahon stated that he had held a lengthy disauesion with the TrafPio Pingineer, and
after disouesing the problem with Mr. Murray, it was the intent oP Mr. Murray ~rhen he aoquired~
the property to do everything possibZe requested by the Traffia Engineer, even to proposing ~
an aaaesa road along Brookhurst, that the Traffio Engineer had indioated there were some I
plans in the malting for the relief of the t^aifio problem at this oritical interaeation, j
and that no problem Was so gre~st thst it oot.ld not be reaolved with turn lanes, additionsl ~
aignaling devioes, sto. !
The Co~iesion indiaeted that a frontage road might alleviate aome of the problem, to Whioh I
Mr. MaoMahon stated that he would be willing to stipulate for future reoord on behalf oP
Mr. Murray that an aoness rosd would be oonstruated at the entranoe toward the north end
of tha property or dedioate additionai land ~o widan Brookhurat 3treat 3n order thst the ~.
trai'fia problem oould be alleviated. I
i
Mr. 0. H1. Bolle 2284 15est Rhodes in vired whei~her thexo wss an ~
Q y plan tr, reo,pen the . j
atreet Yrom the~Chrysler training~oenter, if this was to hagpen it would reduoe the valuo s
oY his property by pro~eoting rioise from the freeway as cre11 as the street. ~
~3
_____ _ ._._ _._ ...___ __. _ . .. ... .._,. _..... _.._ _ ._.....,_ _.~ .,.. ........._. ._ .. _ __ _ _ .._ _......_ _----•-~
- . __~6i~e--- , • ' Itfl
~ ~
R~rI:83IFICATION - Mr. MacMahon stated that his olient had no intention of opening the
N0. 64-65-22 street to gain aaoess to Rhodes Avenue beaause the City hed already
abandoned that portion, but that the aooess road would be routed so
as to alleviate heavy traffio on Brookhurst Street.
Tt~l FiEAAING WAS QL03EID.
The Co~i.ssion disoussed the eaisting uses on the property noting that a theater was ~
opereted by the training aentero but would not be utilized b~ the oenter in the future, ;
that the theater might later be oonverted into a oommeroial ente^prise whioh oould then
be legalized by the filing oP a oonditional uae permit; and that a aafeteria was a per-
mitted use Yor the oenter.
i,
Zoning.Coordinator Mertin Rreidt advised the ao~i.ssion that the proposed zoning Would
legalize the training oeater in its most appropriata zone, and that the Commission may
mish to initiate a aonditionel use permit to the training oenter to operate as suah, and ~
that the theater was a permitted use so long as no advertisiug on a speaial merquee ~vas ;
proposed.
i
Deputy City Attorney Furms,n Aoberts advised the Cot~ission that they had initiated the ~
reolassiPiaation proceedings and if reoommended for approval Would only be a resolution 3
of intent, that if the future owner had other plans for the property~ he Would be raquired '+
to file reolassifioation prooeedings Por the proper zone for the future usa, that the agent '
Yor the petitioner stated that the training aenter ~ould be used Por some time in the Yuture j
as it Wea presently used, eaoept that the theater Would not oe leased, and sinoe there was 3
no definite plan for ~he ftiture the Cormniasion might wish to reoommend the 0-0 Zone to the ;
City Counoil, and initiate a oonditional use permit pQtition to permit the trsining aenter '
in the 0-0 Zone sinae it was the intent of the future owner to lease it to thc Chrysler
Corp. for the present use, and that sinae no definite plans Were 3.n aight for Yuture develop- 4
ment, zoning aould only apply to the existing use now operating in the R-A, Zone. ~
i
CoQmtissioner Rowland offered Resolutian No. 1356, 3eriea 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seoonded by OoAmiasioner Qauer. to reao~end to the Oity Counoil that Petition ?
~or Reolassifiostiun No. 54-65-22 be approved~ suh~eot to oonditions and the stipulation of ~
the agent for the petitioner that a frontage road or an,q other type oP improyement required ~
by the aity EngineQr to alleviate the trafYio problem on Brookhurst Street would be oon- ;
struoted whsn requested.(3ee Resolution Book) ~
~
s
On roll oall the Poregoing resolution wss passed by the follo9vi.ng vote: j
i
AYID3: OO~MIBSIOl~ftB: A11red, Chavos, aeuer, Mungall, RoWland. '
~
NOID3: Q07~LSSIOPiIDRS: None. ~
i
ABB~N'P: C02~SIS8IOI~t3: Oamp, Perry. i
7I~{:LTI6TION ~ Commisaioner RoWland offered.e motioa to direot the Planning Department j
CONDITION6L US~ to initiate a Petition Por 0onditional Use Permit in ita behalf, to permit '
P~i~EIT P~I'sION the aontinued use of the eziating training center on the property previously~
reoommended for approval under RealeasiPioation No. 64-65-22. Co~niasioner ~
Allred seoonded the motion. MOTION OAREtI~. (
, ~
VARIAavOfl NO.. 1661 - PUBLIO HIDARINC~. JAOg A. (~AfiDI~IDR, ~t. 1014 Oambria Plaoe ~ Anaheim~ ~
California, Osvnari (3LORIA Y~LS, 3263 Topaz Leae, F~llerton, Oalifornie,, ~
Agenti requesting permisaion to ~PANRf 1~i~LIJE[ RIDpiJIRBfD RB1AR YARD on
property desaribed as: A reotangular parael of leud.with a frontage oP 60 feet on the eaet i
side oY nemhria Pieoe and a depth oP 100 feet~ the eouthern boundary oY said property being i
approalmately 212 Peet north of the oenterline of Re,inbow Avenue, and further desoribed ;
as 101,4 Oetnbria Plaoe. Propsrty olassified.as R-1~ ONID~FAMII~Y RIDt~IDIDNTIAL, ZOI~. ~
Mrs. alorie Wells, ageat P,r the petitioner appeered before the Qo~miseion and revleWed ~~e
proposed developmAnt aoting that the patio would be an enoloaed.patio with removsble Windows. ~
that the patio would pro~eot nina P.e~t from ~the house and thet it would be aithin seven feet I
of the rear property line. '
Mr. Jsak'(iardner, the petitloner eppeered bePore the Oo~i.asion and a~eted he ~as opposed to 'l
the proposed.patioi that after the transaation hed been ooneumated~ he and hie vriYe Yelt they {
hed been presaured into eomething whioh they did not want, tha,t the petition wsa e bit embig- !
uoue in thst it etated e, patio, whereae it would.be en.enalosed roovt, and this..WOUld then
detraa, flrom the present appeeranae oY their home~ beosuoe it Was determined.that an aluminwn ~
patio Wss proposed, eud tha,c iP this wore oonetruoted it aould render the rear yard almost
uselese..
_._ _.~_._- ---i-----~--------- __- ------- -... ___...__.,._._
------_...__.. ...._
;$~; . i~ _ _ ---^ _
(~
~iIITSlS, plTy pi,ANNIN(i COD9~3SION, September 28 ~ 1964 1333
VARIANQE N0. 1661 - Disaussion ~aas held between the Oo~;ission and Deputy Oity Attorney
Furman Roberts relative to sub3eot patition qualifging Por r.varianoe;
the faot that evidenoe was preaented indioating that the proposed.pstio
would in fact be au enolosed room addition and would be in viole~tion
with the l~nsheim Municipal Code, that in order that the Co~ission might have authority to
grant a varianoe, '.iardahip must be proven by the petitioner or his agent; and that the
petitioner him,si~lf aas ia opposition to the proposed additSon.
?'HE H~lIRING YYAS CLU~.
,.
Gommisaioner Chavoa oPfered Resolution No. 1357o Series 1964-65. and moved for its passage
and adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Chavos to deny Petition Por'Varianae No. 1661, besed
on the faot that ao herdship had been eatablished, no privelegea denied the petitioner Whioh
were en~oyed by others, and.that the petition request was Por a pstio, when in Yaot, the
addition might be aonstruoted as a permgnent struoture.(See Resolution Book)
On roll oall the foregoing resolution ~as passed by the Yollowing votes
AYES~ Q06~T~SIONERS: Allred, Chavos, (3auer, Mungsll, Rowland.
NOES: COBOdT89I0I~RS: None.
AB~: COI~IS~IO1~Et3t Cemp, Perry.
REOLASS'IFIQATION - PUBT,ZO ~• TOM H. W~iCDA, 2500 West Orangethorpa~ Fatllerton, OaliP.,
N0. 64-65-35 Owner; It.IS~ Ho 03CFII.N, 2500 West Orengethorpe, Fullerton, Cali.fornie,
Agent; property described sa: 9 reatangulex paroel of land with a
VARIADIOID PdQ. 1659 frontaga of 45 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and a depth of
approaima.tely 235 Peet, the eastern boundary oP ee,id property being
approaimately 330 teet vPest oP the oenterline of lYestern Avenue and said property bounded
on the south by the~Orange 0ounty Flood Oontrol ohannel, and Yur~her deaoribed as 3220'West
~,^ange gvenue. Property presently oe,l~sified as R-A, Agrioultural, Zone.
~'AU9ST~D CI,A33IFIa9TI0N: R-3. MOLR`IPI+ID FAMITB RIDBrrnmumTnr,, ZON~
R~41TIDSTEII YARIANQBi: Wti.'V~.R OE 01~1-STORY F~I(~C L~T WI'~'F~i 150 F~T UF'
R-A ZOI~D" ~ PROPHIRTY AND WAIYIDR OF ~ RIDGiIIR~
3T~Hi YARA
Mr. Norris Carrae, arohitaot reprasenting the petitioner indioated his presenoe to ansrer
quoationa.
In response to Comm~isaion questioning, Mr. Carras stated that a minimum amount of landsoaping
was planned for the rear portion whioh abutted the flood oontrol ohannel, and that the Pront
portion oY sub3eat property was aomparatiively level.
The Co~iasion revieWed the plans noting the deep exoeptionally narrow lot estd the faot that
the property abutted the Ylood aontrol ahannel and ~ere of the opinion that the property
should be level with adequate landsoeping to shield Yrom vies the flood aontrol ahannel,
ahioh might be hazardous to ohildren residing ir. the proposed development.
No one appeere3 in opposition.
Tt~ HIDARINa OPAS OLOSIDD.
Disousaion was held by the Commission relative to the ad3eaent properties being advertised ;
for eale; thet some attempt ehould be made to assemblo aeveral of the deep nr~rrow lots in !
order to develop a more preaentable multiple femilq development; that tha aaoesv~vvay being 1
proposed had been found to be inadequate on previouslq approved developments, rind iitquired
oP the arahiteot whether or not he had _unsiderad land easembly o4 the ad~aasnt paroels whioh !
aere for sala. !
i
i
Mr. Carras atg~ted he had not been advised by his olients of their interest in land assembly, I
thRt they only seemed interested in the property under oonsideration, and that he did think ;
they would be interasted in eaploring the idea oY land assembly with ad~soent property ownars.~ ,
Qommissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Reolassification No. 64-65-35, sub~eot to j ~
oonditions. The motion ioat for want of a aecond. ' I
. ~
._ ~
.... ..-__ __,_.-_~_ ------- --- -- ------ -__ ....__.~...~.~- -----
~ ~ - - -•. -~~; ,:.:..:. . _..~ . . ..~_,
V ~
L.~
_ t
~ ;~
i ;~;
_ Y
~ ~ 1
j ~EINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMEd~S9I0N, September 28, 1964 2334
i!
! RECLASSIFICATION - Further disnussion mas held by the Co~tission relative to the Yaat
i NO.. 64-65-35 _ that th.a petitioner was proposing a sub-standard R-3 development;
~ that altliough the proposed development might upgrade the area to
~ VARIANOEI N0. 1659 some extent the petitioner should attempt to assemble ad3eaent nasrow
~ deep lots so that a more presentable residential environment might be
f realized; and that the General Plan indioates the area for medium
i; density development.
CoRmissioner Che~vos offered a sotion to reopen the hearing and aontinue Potitions for I
I Reolassifiaation No. 64-65-35 and Varianoe No. 1659 to the meeting of Ootober :?6, 1964
'~ saheduling it as the first iGem on the agenda, in order to allow the petitioner time to
i ooutaat ad3aoent proparty owners for possible land assembly.Commissioner Allred seoonded
_.~ the motion. MOTION OARRIED.
CODIDITIONAL USE - PURI.~C HEARIN(~. JAMES H. AND DORI9 SAUL9,. 21.19 YPest Ba17 Road, Anaheim,
PERMTT N0. 629 Ca].ifornia, and ELBIA A1~ID YYONNE L. HALL, 3518 YPest Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
Californis, Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SMALL ANIMAL
HOSPITAL on property desoribed as: A reotangular perael of land with a
frontage of 79.5 feet on the north side of Ball Road and e depth oP 194 feet, the vueatern
boundary of said property being approximately 135 foet east oP the oenterline of Dale Street.
Property olessified as R-A, AGRICIILTURAL, ZONE.
Mr.James Sahulei•,11752 f3arden Grove Boul~evard, (iarden (irove, designer of the proposed
development indi,aeted his presenue to answer questions.
fihe Cowmisaion inquired whether tY!ere were any plans Por the rear portion oP the property,
sinae separr~t,, legal descriptions were submitted.
~Ar. Sohuler rep7.ie3 that there were no plans for the rear; that the orPners were a,t•tempting i
to purahase some property to the west to provide for aoaess to the rear portion from Dale ~
Straet; that the property aould not be sold if no aaaess was provided; that the plans ~
indiosted that the height of the aanopy was onlq 10 feet Whioh was inadequate for truaks, ~
and tha plana would be revised to elevate this to 14 feet; that he took exaeption to the j
requirements for a 6-foot masonry wal'1 along the east property line sinoe a ohain link ~
fenne already existed to the north and a higher fenoe to the east; the,t it would be neaessary~
to oonstruat a fenoe 200 Peet in length slong the wost propertq line; and that there would
be no outdoor runwaqs for the dogs.
Disauasion was held by the Couoni.ssion relative to requiring a bond in lieu of the maeonry
vrall, in the event the property to the east developed for multiple family residential pur-
poses, said we11 would be required, but if it developed for aommeraial purposes the Wa11
vrould be unneoessary; further that an additional 3 Peet to the eaisting wall on the west
would be neaessary.
No one appeared in oppoeition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Oo~issioner Allr^d offered P.esolution No. 1358, Series 1964-65 and moved for its passage
and a~optiony seoonded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 629, seb~eat to oonditions and the posting of a bond to insure the oonstr.uation
of a 6-foot ma,sonry wall.(5es Resolution Book)
On roll u;.tl the .foregoing resolution wes pasaed by the follovring vote:
AYES: CO~CCSSIONERS: A11red, Ohavos, Gesuer, Mungall, Rowland. ;
I
NOES: CG7.'l~ISSIOIJERS: None.
AB9ENT: OO~CdTSSIOIVEEt3: Camp, Perry. ~
RECLASSIFICA:?ON - PUBLIC FID1fAR7NG. EI. VAN CASTEQtEIld, 2508 VPest Hall Road, Anaheim,
N0. 64-65-37 California, Owner; FREDRICKS DE'VLILOPMEN'i CORPORATION, 524 YPest Cpmmon-
Wealth, Fullerton, Oalifornia, Agent; property desoribed as: A reotangu- !
VP.RIANC9 N0. 16G2 lar pctroel oP land wi•th a frontage oi 605 faet on the south aide of Besll .{
Rosd and a depth oP approxime,tely 304 Yoet, the western boundary of said !.
property being approsimately 572 feet east oY the aen~arline of Magnolia 3treet snd further ~
desoribed ea 2i08 -P~at Ball Road. Property olsaetfied ea R-A, A4RICULTOItAL, ZONE. i
k ~
i
i
i ~
~ "
"""__~_" "'""_""'__.._.__._..___.~..._..'~_'_'___...____-__.~.~~.._.~.,
...- ...~ ._....__. .' .... ..__. . . ._ . ~
~ ~ ~,~, ~ ~~ `~~,
;
MIIQOTES, CIT7[ PI,AI~ININ(~ COI~ISSION, September 28 ~ la.°.': 2335
7ECLAS32".G'ICATTON - REQUESTEt'i ::LA:.'S~r'tCATION: R-3~ MUIIFIPLFf Fl:odII~Y 1,vSIYLf~NTIAL9 ZONE
NQ. b4-65-37
ftEqITESTED VARTi,IV:I~: PER~IT ~.,:u ESTAB::,I:'~iY.ANT OF A TVPO-STIRY
VARIANUE N0. 1662 AFARTM6~ATT BUi7~DI1`~'r ?:::.TH CAAPORT5 YVITH'!Ai
150 FBII6T dF R-1 A].QD F.:-A Z01~'D Pi~OPII{TY
D~-. I,ee Orr, repress>~ting the agent for the petitionar~s, appearad before the Commission
.s~:id rev~eve3 the proposed d9velopment submitting aalor.ad rend~!•~•Sngs of the uevelopmsnt,
and st:ated hE' Wa3 available to answer questions.
iSo*!?.:ig Goordinator Martin Kreidt, in response to :,o~:ission queationing stated thet
•the ~r_•opoati3 development had a dansity of 32.R por net aare wi~.h a aoverage of 5!i.3,
and i.`at •the property aonsisted o~ 1.74 acres.
1Vo one ag~;~r,ar~~d in opposition.
~ J~AR.ING Y7A9 CT,O~D.
Disaussion was held by the Co~ission on the density oi the proposed development, that
the density eaoeeded standard R-3, that oonsiderable i;^e.Pfio would emanate from the proposed i
development whioh was in such olose proximity to the Msgnolia High Sohool whiah might add
to an alreadg' di.ffioult traffia problem and aould be a reanon for ~ornspeotive tenF~nts not
ren.~i:g the units; that the petitioner oonsider revlsions of ths p?~us to inoorpc.rste one ~
ator; deveLopment along the Bell Road frontage, ar.d that if two ~!~aory were apprcved', t:iig ~
would qet a pattern of duvelopment along Ball Roe.d for continua~. 4~o story devela~;ment. ~
~
~dr. Orr ~tated that they had ~aken into consider~,tion ihe faat :hat oonsiderable t:•c<ffia
would result from the prorosed dovelopmant by ~roposinn `wo e.[its with one way tra'_'fio,
whioh would not baok up on &.till Road, ~:hat the ausjarity o y.he •anits were one bedre. ~~,
whiah ~ot~ld reduae the numbe~• of resiP9nts enrl r.~utcv..~b31eF.; nnd that the additional setbaok
on Hall Road Was to add •io t' 9'" r.'.,etio appearanoe .
Co~i.s=ioner Chavos offerea e. motion to ro-o;:en th~ hearing and oontinue Petitinns for
Recl~:ssifioation Noa 64-6a-3'1 attd Var!.anoe No. iti62 to the meet~.ng of Ootober 26, 1964
in orde^ ~cc allow the petitioners ~ime to rev:~.se plans inoorporr~ting one story oonstruotion
on the Ball Road frontage. Cou,.,missioner (~auer seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLAS3IF'ICATION - OQN'PII~TU~D PUBLSC HEAE~INi3. D~NAI,D D. AND EUGENE YP. WELLS~ P. 0. Box 128;
P'0. 64-65-13 Corone Del Mar, California, Oe~ners; property desoribed as: An irragular
parael o~ la,n~? qd3aoent to the t+erviue station property at the ecuth-
VARTANCE N0. 1653 eeat oorner oY Br•ooichurst gtreet ~nd Orange Avanv9, with Prontadas of
480 feet on Broo'sk~urst Stree•t and. 30 feet on Orange Avenue, er.d further
(3b7NERAI, P'LA1J desoribed as 610 South Bro~khurat Street. Property present'!y alassi-
A~1T N0. 30 fied R-A~ AGRI'uUL7'Lt;.Y;: Z'vNE.
~ REpUP7S?9P :LASSIE'ICA'PSON: 0-1, NEI(iEi}~O.~FIOOD CO~CIAT., ZONID
;:EQUES'i'EL VAfiIANC9: ~~O~~C~', ~~'pQ~-c~A IN PUBLIC RIGFFi'-(?: --PAY
3ub~eot petitiona ~e;e oontinued from •;he meFtings of ugust :? and 31, 1954, to ellow
suffic3ent time for the petitioner to submi~ revised plana.
pir. Dor.ald Wells, one of the petitionera,appeesed befor~ i~.e Co~i.ssion and atated that
the reviaed plans submitted pr~vide 24~. parking spaoes, whereas the C-1 Zone <<~nding before
thb Citq Couneil r~qulres only 225 apaces;thr~',; the plans indioats provi~ion for a 60-Yoot
•ride hali' street, and .hat the ~~equested ~~c:ianoe for the oonstruation of a fenoe in the
publia riglit-of-way wa.; being vri•~hd^awn.
Tne Commission ravieWed the revised plaus to ;zote whether all requeated ohangea had been
3.:~orporated, and Whether the varianoa a~ou7', be raquired,
TFIW E~lARING WAS CLOSED.
Co~i.asioner Garu~r nff'ered Resolutio;i No. 1359, ~eries 1~t~?-65, and moved Yor ite paseage
and adoption, seaa.ded by Commiss:oner ~havoe, to re~ou~and to the City Counoil that Petition
Yor RealesaiYioation No. 64-65-13 be a~,proved, suh~eat to conditions.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the fore~oing reso:i.ution was aassad by the following vote:
AYIDS: COMMI33IONFi~iE: Allred, Chavos, (ieuer, MungelJ., Rowland.
NOE1S: COMSEI33IONERS: None.
ASSLIDI'i': CO~ISSIONffik'tS: Camp, Perr•y.
_._____.~.._ .- .•---- - --- --__._- - - _. ....__ . .._ , ._....._ _ _... __ _- -- -
, - -- -.._ . . . _ ..,
~._ _ . . . _~ __ . __._..
!
~
I
~
~
\
RECLASSIFICATION - Coumnisaioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1360~ 3er~es 1964-65, and
K0. 64-65-13 moved for its passage and adoption, seaonded, by Co~issioner Chavos,
~ to grant Petition for Varianae No. 1653, to permit 225 parking spaces
~AR '.'E N0. 1653 in lieu of 'che required 278 parking spaoes only.(See Resolution Book)
QffidIDRAL a^?~AN On roll aall the foregoing resolution wsa passed by the 3o11owing vote:
A~ N0. 30
A'Y~S: OOMdCCSSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland.
NOEIS: QO~SSIONERS: None.
ABSEN`!`: COM~4ISSIOT~RS: Cemg, Perry.
Co~i.ssioner (~auor ofi:~red Resolution No. 1361, 3eries 1964-65, attd moved for its passage ~
and adoption, seoonded by Oo~i.ss3oner Allred, to reaommer~d to the City Counoil that Qeneral :
Plan Amendment No. 30o Fxhibit "A" be appraved.(3ee Resolution Book) ,
On roll oall tho Yoreguing resolution was passed by the iol~~wir:g vote:
AYES: COlEMIS3IONERS: Allred, Ghavos, Gauer, Mungail, Rowlsud.
NOIDS: CO~LNLISSION~RS: None.
AB35iNT: COE~MIS9:TO1~t5: Gemg~, Perry.
CONDITIONAL U3E - P'JBL•IQ f~t+.tlN:~. PA~LINII ATID LLOYD R. PET'1'ENaIL, 1564 Tonia Lane, Anaheim~
P~RMI'.C N0. 627 Cali:forniap Owners; 6~tICHAEIL CORLEif,.4833 Fruitland Avenue, Vernon,
~ California, Agen•~; requesting permission to E6"PABLTSH A DRNE-TEIEtU
G:~:'Jb!RAI, PT,AN RESTAURANT Y7ITH YYAIVER OF ~IN~fJM REQDIRED PARK~TQ SPACES, AND A~ND
AI~fLii~l'uN'P N0. 40 DE1Hf1D' RESTftICTI0N3 PEtES~L.~' IN FORCE ON STIBJE07' PROPERTY desaribed es:
A reotangular parael of land et the northeest aornax of F,uolid Street
and Buena Vis•i;a Avenue having frontages of 100 Peet on biuolid 3treet and
200.60 Peet an Buena Yista Avemaa. Property olassiYied C-1, Neighborhood
Oo~er:~ial, Zcne.
DSr. Miohael Corley, repz•cFenting the Foodmaker ~orgoration, and tho agent appeared before
the Commisaion t:. ansWe~ ~uestions.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Itre~dt reviewed the ~3eneral Plen Amenamen~ 3xh~.bita, and its
effeot on the acl~oining propertie:~e
Mr. Corley statAd tiiat the prope.rty obviously x•.eeded to be improve3, th~,t the proposed '
"J'aak-in-the-Box" v~oulcl front on Euc•lid Street and would eli~ninate an unimpro~red gortion
of the improved strest, thet the es3.sting ~~tr~iatnre aras substsndard, that the prc~erty had
been on the market for over a year aa:d ~es ;rioed for aommeroi~;_ ssle, and. that the Cov~ieaior
vras familiar with the type of restaurazt bei,lg p*sr+ooed~ '
In reaponse to a request for ~pposi•tioz~ ±o hr,,ve s nhoWing of he.-~ds, 20 psrsons indiaated
their opposition.
Mr. IJuane Dawson, 16G4 9ueria Viata Avenu~, appeared before the Cou~i.saion and stated that ~
the proposed oommeroial nsu of a rosidential si;reet would endas.ger the lives of 76 minor
ohildren in one bloak; tha: he Was submitting a petttion signod by 80 property owners
apgosing the proposad development; ~.iiat the development Would not be aonduoive to residentiel~
l:ving environment as ae'll as the ea3s+ing churoh e-nd a rest home, e~d that the proposed
development would be dc+trimental to the lend value of the existing homes as well ae being
Hazm4ul to liealth, peeao, and safety oP the area in whioh it aae proposed to be loaated.
Mr. ,Jaarea Tovvn~s, 1614 Buana Vista A~enue. appe+ared befcre the Commiseion , and stated that
the d.eed. resi;riotions applied to sub~~ot pro,~erty would permit only business and professional
offioes snd msdioal buildix-ga in oonSunotion ~ritt, the hospitel, whiah would have hours Prom
9 to 5 an,3 the proposed use would have late hours.
Mrs. Ida YYalker,1A40 South Euolid. Straet, appeared beYore the Oo~ission in opposition, and
stated the operstors of t13e r..uraing hame had spes,c a~reat deal of time and money to casin-
tein a prcf.e: ,.~na7. atmosph~ra in the arec, ~.`.~~ 250,OU0 haa been apent for the nursing home~'
t?^,at the pi~ogoaed use wo~:ld be detr;r!antal loua*ed at the entranob to a single Yemily traat,
and that :lie had perntttted a vaoan~~r t•~ re~,.,a„ n in her struo•Uux•e in order thet banners and ~
Plags wou13 be eliminated and a nr..~•.,cc:'_~;~;e.~ •sppearanue preaented to the erea. 3
~~ ---___--... . .. -------- ------,_ . , ~._ .._. ~_._ .~-.~-----___..-----
•
~ ... ;. .. . f . ~ ~ . . . " _._-~..._. ~ _
~ .~ , ~. ... .__'_,._....____"..~". .
~.~
MII4UUTE3,: CITY PI.ANNINC~ CO~LA¢~9SION, 3eptember 28, 1964~ 2337
f70NDITIONAL U39 - Mr. 91 OopahaW~ 1617 Buens Yista Avenue, appeared in opposition and
P9~iM1T N0. 627 stated that the reatriotions imposed.on sub3eat property oeme aYter a
long battle by the s3.ngle family reaidents, and that to li~t tiiesa
~AL FLAN restriotions would enoourage traffia problems on a residential street.
B3~+A+~1T N0. 40
Mr. Forrest Rioks~ 1673 Buena Yista Avenue, appeared in opposition,
and stated that he had puraheaed his home beoauae deed restriotions Were on reoord that
sub3eat property would be developed for buaine.ss and.pruPessionsl use, and.to lift these
reatriations ~vould,be a bresoh of faith, sinoe there had been no ohange in the Rrea to
Warrant liYting the restriotions imposed, and that a11 the property oWners wera proud of
their homea and maintsined them, vrhereas the proposed uye would help dateriorate tne area.
The agent stated he had nothing to aa~ in rebuttal.
~ HdARtN(3 WA5 CL09ED.
The Commission disoussed t,he proposed use and the restriotions filed oa tha property,
eapressing tha opi.nion that no ahange had taken ple,ae in the surrounding area to warrant
removing the deed restriatione, snd that the proposed use was inaompatible.
Oo~issioner (3auer offered R~.olution No. 1362,•3eries 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seaonded by Ooamnissioner Chavos to deny Pe~Lition for Cuzditional Use Permit
No. 627 based on the taat that it would be inaompatible to the R-1 development in the area;
that the teohnique oP signing Was in violation of the purpose and intent of the eign poliay
of the City; that sub~eot property had been deed reatrioted to busineas and pro3essionel
offioe development, upon whioh property owners had relied when they purohased their homes
in that area, and that the haavy oorr~eroial use would be detrminental to the he~lth and
safety of the area.(3ee Resolution Book)
Op roll aall the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by tha following vote:
AY~S: QOlO~SSIONIIRS: Allred~ Chavos, tlauer, Mungall, Rowland. ,
NOES: CO~LISSIOI~R3: None. I
AB~Nf: OO~I3SIO~RS: Oemp, Perry. ,
Co~tissioner Chavos offered Reaolution No. 1363, Seriea 1964-65, e,nd moved for its paesage
9nd adoption, seoonded by Ooamissioner Rowland, to reooa~end to the City Counail that~Gtaneral. ;
Plan Amendment No. 40 be disepproved.(See Resolution Book) '
On roll oall the foregoing reaolution W as psseed by the :'ollovr].ng vote:
AYEIS: BO~OLISSIONH~'i8: Allred, Chavos, Cfau~r, Mungall, Aorvles-d.
NOIDB: QOI~S3ID1~R$: None.
ABS~I'P: 001~ISSIONEA.Sz Oemp, Ferry. ~ ;
RECID98 - Cou~ttissioner Gauer ofPered a motion to reoess th~ :aeeting for dinnera Co~i.ssioner ~
Allred aeoonded the motion. MOTION CARRI~. ;
i
~'he meeting reaesaed at 5:15 p.m. ;
~ ~
ItLaONVEt~,: Chairman Mungall reoonvened the a-eeting at 7:Q0 0'olook P.M., e1Z ao~ise~,onere ;
~ being pressnt ~zoept ~o~:tssionera Oamp and Perry. ~
I
REOLA83IP'ICATION _ CONTIN[JIDU PUBLIC Fi~ARIlV(#. VILLA ~1T~RPRIS~3,. 1405 Elest Chapman Avenue, I
N0. 64-65-17 Orange, OaliYornia, Owner; QL72'F ANDERSON, 1405 8fast Chapman Avenue, I
VARIANG`~1 N0. 1657 Orange, CaliYornia~ Agent; property desoribed as: A reatengular parael I.
oY laad Rith a frontage oY 75 Peet on the south side of Yermaat Aveaue
(3ffiNP~RAL PLAN and a depth oP 224 feot, the ~estern boundary oY said proper+,.y being
ANk1NT~11T N0. 32 appruzimately 312 Peet eeat oP the aenterline of Hsrbor Boulevard, and
further desaribed as 400 Weat Yermont Avenue. Property olasaified R-1, ;
ONID FAMCLY REiSID9RVTIAT,, Z01~.
. I ,
AECUESTbN CLAB6IFTC6TION: R-3, MUIl~'IPLBi FAl~LY RIDSm~r-umrar.~ ZON9 ~
~
REqpIDSTED.VARIANOffi: Waive one-story height limitation Within 150 feet of R-1 property I
waive minimum required parking and ereation ag oarports ia lieu k
oY garages. ~
_ . _.__ _...__. _.._ ._
~_ ._. .._ _ --- -,-- -
,. .
- ~ __..._~I ~ , . ~.
L.! ~
.. ,
~
~ '
• ~
C~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTE9, CI'PY PLANNINCi OO~ISSION, September 28p 1964 ~38
REpI~P;SSIFZCATION - Sub~eat petitions were ooni;inued Erom the meeting of August 17 and
N0, 64-65-17 31, 1964, to allow the petitionar time to subtuit revised plans oP
development.
YARIANf~ N0. 1657
Zoning Coordinator DS~r±ia Areidt advised the Commission that revised
~EN~i, pLAD1 plans had not been reoeiv~•.4.
~ N0. 32
No one appeared to represent t1e pati+,ion3r.
Co~ni.ssioner RoWland offered a motion to aontinue Peti•Lions for Reoleasifics~3on
No. 64-65-17 and Yarianoe No. 1657 together vith General Plan Amendment No. 32 to the
meeting of November 23~ 1964~ and to advise the petitioner that plans be submitted or
representation at the meetin,3 to ansxer any questions the ao~'isaion might have. Comm~is=
sioner Chevos beaonded the mction. MOTION CARRI~D.
R~iCLA3SIE ICATION - GONTINU&~ PUBLIC HEARINQ. J'OIiN F. AND MARY R. KIP~OIi, HICHAIID Q. AND
No. 64-65-18 PATRICId SlIMPLINQ~, ?240 Elast South Street; CEll~1TRAL NANA~iT COMPANY,
1905 East 17th Street. Santa Ana, Oelifornia, Agent; Property desoribed
CONDITION9L USE~ as: An irregularly shaped peroel of ].and with a frontage of 205 feet
pERMl~ N0. 613 on the aouth aide of South Street and a maximum depth of approaimately
1,294 feet~ the rvesternmost boundary of said property being approai-
(~FIl~RAL pL,ADT mately 661 feet east of the oenterline of 3tate College Bouleverd, and
A~T N0. 19 further desoribed as 22tF0 Esst 3outh Street. Property olassified as
°-9, AaRICULaURAL ZOl~f.
TT~NN'TATIYk7 MAP OF
TRAO'P N0. 5611 DENBLOPIDR: CENTEfAL MAN9~F~ a0~~N7~+ 1905 East 17th Street,• Santa
REVISION N0. 3 Ans~ CaliYornie. ~II~t: Moote, Sempa and (3allooua,y, 1907'F~ast 17th
Street, Santa Ane,, Californie. 3ub~eat traot looated on the south aide
of Bouth Street and oovering approaimately 14.7 aares ia propoaed Yor
subdivision into 84 R-2~ Multiple Family Residential~ Zoned lots.
PRG:'OSED. CLA3S~'ICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE F1~+Y Ab1SST~~`TAr ~ ZONE .;
,~
YROPOSWlD CONDITION9L USID: ESTABLI3H A 01~1 AND TIAO STORY M(77+TIPLEf ~AMILY PLANDIDiD 3
, f~13IDENTIAL IDE1f~LOPl~1'P VPITH A330C:CA'1'ED RPCREATIONAL ~
FACTLITI~S Ai~ ~EQTJBST IRAN~R OF Tf~ FOLLOY~IG PROVISIONS: ~
(1) MIN'.II~dOM REQU.LEtHQ.I b"ftONT, 1~AR, AI~ID 5IDk1 YARDB: (2) ;
~I~I I~T SIZID: AI~ID (3 ) MIlVIMt1M DTS1rANGHI BP'!!'VP~'~N MAIN ~.
nrm nco~sso~c s~u~nn~s. ~
~
~ Zoning Ooordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed~the exhibits und~r,aonsids~.,~ion in General ~
Plan Amendment No. 19, and Planning 3tudy No. 45-114-4 previously aonaidered bq the ~
Oo~i.saion, said study indioating methods of developing sub3eot property for aingle !
femily subdivision. ~.
Mr. Paul Bruns, representing the potitioners and the developer, appeared before the' ~
Commission and requested alarifioation oP the proposed aeneral Plan emendment sinoe ~
e number of persons he he,d talked with had iaquired Whether or not all the vaoant I
properties would be rezoned by the (3eneral Plas- Amendment aotion. i
Mr. Kreidt then eaplained the method oY determining whe+:~b. or nQ±: a Qeneral Plan ~
amendment was neoessary and should be advertised, that thP proposad reolassifioation i
had possible implioetians, and the exhibits were prepared by the Staff, but that the i
proposed amendment Would affeot the General Plan only~ snd had noth:ng to do wi.th I
zoning the property.
lir, Bruns then ste,ted ths3,t there vrere three basio aonoepta of multiple Pemi.ly development ,
1) the typioal topnhouae pro~eot providing one guest aaoesa; 200 square Peet for a patio, ~
although he was ev~are the,t Aneheim had reaently ohanged their requiremen~~ to 300-350
square Yeati a oommon area together with reorestional faailities; and a minimum amount i
of privaoy; 2) The standard R-3 oonaept with 7200 aquare feet 4or eaah lot; one gueat I
aoaesa; no reer aaoess; no reareational Paoilities~ other than publio.parks; but does
provide privaoy= and 3) being that proposed for sub~eot property whioh inoorporategtios i
the beat features of tha previoua two aonoepts; providing one servioe aoaesaway; p
avoraging 1100 aquare Peet whlah aYPord additional privaay~ aaoessways to other properties;l
and sb~~are.]. reoreational faailities;all under separate ownership. `
Exhibits were then preaented illustrating the proposed developmdnt avith: 1) a site plar.t ~
indioeaing the amount o4 green area, private and publio atreeta, patios, and atruotures;
2) Looations of the reoreationel Paailities; 3) arohiteutura~ deaigns; 4) floor plane ~
indioating individual units Will have 1500-2200 equare Yeet; 5) open areas not cevered 1
by atree•ca or struatures; 6) ownership of the various areas suoh sa publio right-of-wey, ~
ao~non areea, reoreatioxial faailities, and individual unita.
__ ..._ ._ ___ _.....__-/
..
_
- ~-----~-------- `~"~." ~
"__.__._._... ...-..._.... .'_.":_...~:.~.."___J...__.__.._"~._^__ _._... _`. _ ......'_
~~.. .
. . ,
.. - . .
~
, ' ~i. .
`.... ~
~
~
MINtJT~g~ CI+Fy pLANNIT~ CO~LI83ION, September 28, 1964 2339
RECLASSIFIOATION - In response to ^vommi.ssion queationing, Mr. Druns atated that one
N0. 64-65-1E publia street Was proposed; that the oare and maintenanae of. tho
privete streets, together ~ith the landsoaping and outside :;iaintenanoe
CONDITIONAI,.USE w~uld be inaorporated in the CC3R's whioh would be Yiled ;v~;.6a the City
F~RMrP N0. 613 prior to the approval oY a final traat map; that he had o~iitaated the
assistant Pire ahieP who had advised him that 36-foot aide streets
(~HAL PLAN Would aoaommodate fi.re f3.ghting equipment; that the revisions were
A~1T PIO. 19 all inoorporated i~~ tii:a latest plans before the Co~tission, and tha,t
the pro3eotions iato the street were aotuslly parking spaoes.
TEN'PATIL ~ DLAP OF
TRACT 1~0. 5611 Offiae Engineer Arthur Dacv advised the Commission that the Interdepart-
R&YISION N0. 3 mentsl Committee and Planning Department had reoommended thet the strests
be the standard vuidth for A-3 aubdivisions, and that the proposed
streets were not aoaeptable.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Coffiission that approved CGb~I't's aould
be required prior to th~ Commiasion's Yormal eation of the petition, or the petitions
oould be aoted upon, sub3eat to the dCB,R's being submitted to the City Attorney prior
to the submission of and approval of a Yinal traat map, and then axplained the Cata '
Whioh the City Attorney needed together With requirements in aooordanoe with State j
requirements to ob,.ain approval of any CCd~Ft's. 1
~
Mr. Bruns then stated~that the proposed development had the aharaateristioe oP single ~
femi.ly homes, 30$ being single story; that the typiaal_town house was tWO story with
6-10 unita in one length, whereas the proposed development Would never have more than
tWO units attaohed, e.nd mere oYfering aonneoting oo~on reareational Psoilities in a
aondominium developmant vuhile atill trying to retain the single femily environment.
Mr. Rustq Roquette, 948 S. Paregrine~ eppeared in opposition to the proposed development
noting that the East Anaheim area had a pe.ttern of development set by the 1979 homes
oooupied or being aonstruate3, thet a new traat Was 3ust being started whiah had an
additional 64 lots, thst 105 acires still remained to be developed, that the proposed
development was similar to proposing two homes for one single family lot, and that he
was opposed to the proposed R-2 Zoning.
Mr. Earl Butoher, 2310 East Alden, reprasenting the East Aneheim Homeowners Assooiation
appeared before the Co~ission presenting petitions signed by 111 persons oppositing the
propoaed development an3 stated that not so muoh aonaern was felt about the proposed
development if it would be developed but more oonaern was espressed that a preoedent
wss being set for R-2 Zoning on the balanas of the vndeveloped property, that this then
oould not be oonsidered as being the orderly development of the City; that apartments
enoouraged strip oo~eraial development ad~eoent to them whioh would Yurther have an
adverse af°sot on the residential environr~ent and the valuo of the single Pamily homea
in the area,.that the heavier density Would add to the already overloeded sohools
faoilities and areate additional shortages in the park'system; and that the present le,nd
owners would benefit by the sale of their property for multiple family use, but in tu•.m
the aingle Pamily home owners would sutPer a loss in the value oY their properties.
Mr. Herman Lenz, representing Mr. VPagner, the property omner immediately ad3saent to
sub~eat propertg appeared before the Commission and atated that both h.e and Mr. Wagner
were in 4avor of the proposed development sinae it represented dupler. type oY development;
the,t he Would be opposed.iP the development were proposed for R-3 Zoning Whioh representad
e, higher density; the,t ~he homes north of South Street were no larger than the homes
being propcaed; thet he had opposed +•he oonstruation oY the homes on State Col]e ge Blvd.
about ton years ago beoause their aonstruotion wss uonoiderably smaller than what he
had hoped for beaause of the amount of money expended on ~tu~3r.h3mes Whioh were aonsider-
ably larger; that a lerge ohuroh had been oonstruoted to the west, and a sohool and park
were developed on the east of sub~eat pr~perty whiah made it diffiault to develop for
R-1 aubdivision; and that mes-y oP the homes now fronting on State College Boulevard Were
being proposed to be sold Por ao~neroial uses.
The Commtssioa atated tY.at one of the best reaidential areas in the oity ]mown as the
Westmont Eatates surrounded a sahoo~ site and the lots aold for 317,000 eaoh; thet the
Clara Bar•~on 3ahool wss loaated in the oc~nter of an R-1 area; that sahools and ohurohes
ware oonsidered oompatible uses in the R-1 Zone; that When the City ap.?roved homes on
State Gollege Boulevard it wsa ass~uned at that time thst Anaheim would be a arorkin~an's
ooa~unity, but the ao~unity ohanged thus requiring lerger and more eapensive homes for
the eseoutive groups in the oity, and that only diYYerenoe betWeen R-2 and R-3 was the
density vrith R-2 Zone not neaeasarily representing dupleaea, sinoe the reoently amended
- R-2 Zone permitted up to 18 dWelling unita per net aore to be aonstruated. .
J
_. .._._.j
i
, ~ ,
~
.
.,
~ ~~ ~
~LINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~SISSION, September 28, 1964 2~~
REOLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Helen Thompson, 533 South ~anaos Plaoe apgeared before the
N0. 64-65-18 Commission and presented petitions of opposition signed by 115
property owners to the north and east of sub3eot property, and
QONDITIONAL USE stated that Mr. Lenz would naturally be in favor of the proposed
FflRMIT N0. 613 development beoause this would set a preaedent and a pattern of
multiple 4amily development on the ad~oining orange groves ovmed
(}EPIDRAL PLAN by his father-in-laW and himself; that the group she represented
A~NDDdENT N0. 19 were oonoerned thet the added density for the area would oreatu a
shortage of sahool spece, sinoe the sohools ~cere so crowded now there
T~N'PATNE MAP OF was almost the possibility that the children Would go on half sessions
TRACT. N0. 5611 that the even after the elementsry sohool and 3unior high sohool were
R~VISTON N0. 3 aompleted many ohil3ren would hsve to be bussed out of the area to
attend sohools; that 8 homes reaently oonstruoted in close proximity
to sub~eot property oontained 2t~00 square feet and sold for $36,000; thet if the 36-foot
streets were approved it would be eztxemely di.ffiault for the sohool busses to ruas-euver
through the ar~,to piok up the ohildren, neaesattating having the ohildren walb to State
College Boulevard; that the narrow atree•ts would also oreate a hazsrd for automobiles
parked in the area when Yire equipment wou13 traverse there streets, and that if the
developer was unable to sell these units, he would from neoessity have to rent to more ,
transient type of persons, who did not fael the same responsibility for their homes as
thoae now residing in the e,rea. Furthei, if these homes were rented Would funds be deposited~.
for the upkeep of these units through the CCbR`s, or would the area be sub3eoted to a run ~
down appearanae from the proposed development?
Mr. J. A. Tino, 627 Peregrine appeared before the Commission in favor of the proposed ;
development stating that sinae the CCbR's guaranteed maintenanoe and upkeep of the privete :
streets, landsaaping and the outside of the struotures this would be better than the existingi
appearanoe of many of the homes in the area, which in many oases, left weeds and debris ~
aacumulate on thei.r properties.
Mr. Louis Clement, 2.125 Eest Viking, appeared in opposition and stated that the ad3aaent
property owners ob3eation was the proposed R-2 alassifiaation, beoause it permitted up to
18 un3ts .oer net aore and if a future dsveloper attempted to develop this with revised plans ,
submitted the density would be oonsiderably more than was presently proposed, and further ;
reaommended that the Commission oonsider single femily development only for the property.
Mr. Riahard Kampling, 2240 East South Street, one of the petitioners, appeared before the
Commission stating he was in favor~of the proposed development because aonstruction of ~
cingle femily homes ad3acent to a sahool, football field and park would be extremely
diffiault beoause many people did not wish to purohase homes aith so muah noise emana~;ing
from games in a sahool yard; that he had meetings with the varioua neighbors to explain the
proposed development and many of thoae preserit were impressed with the development but were
stiJ.l opposed to R-= zoning.
Mr. Hiram Johnson, appeared before the Commie;sion and stated he had reaently purahased a
home ad~aoent to subieat groperty,that he wa~a in favor of the proposed development beaeuse
the single family hc.~ue oWner:~ would obtain a 5-foot mtssonry wall; that he had vieitod many,
single Pamily subdiv.::.ans which had tWO-story homes oausing an invasion of privacy from the '
seaond story; that me. r>f the homes in the area were not maintained and the East Anaheim
aree, Would benefit by •'~ri proposed devolopment because of the maintenenae program, and that
because of the aost of :Land in Aneheim it might be neoessary Yor the Citq to ohange their
ideas about requiremen';s ~:or single Yemily residentiel development by proposing to approVe
t..e proposed develops~nt.
Mrs. E. Dora, 2319 Eas.~ South Street, appeared before the Co¢~ission stating that the area
in her estime,tion was very well maintained, that she opposed multiple family development in
an area predominatsly single family, and further that the statement made by Mr. Tino was
quite misleading beoause the area had some of the niaest laaPns she had ever seen.
Mr. Riahexd Harlan, 930 Peregrine, appeared before the Co~ission an3 stated that he heal been',
a guest of Mr. Kempling that the proposed development was an attempt to get as many homes on
a small pieoe of land to get more eaonomia returns, and that the proposed development would'
set a preaedent Por the area, sinae ell pro~ections for sahools and parke had been based on
single femily residentisl development.
Mr. Paul Sherman, 508 Colt Street, stated thai: when he moved into +.ne aree, he had rcada a
thorough investigation of future development for the area and the General Plan indioated
the area for low density development~ and if the proposed development was approved, it would '~
mean that the City would havo to Frovide edditional sohool and park faoilities because there ~
would be more homes per aore tha~ the (3eneral Plan pro3eoted, he therefore, opposed the
proposed development.
~.. ~.__.._~ ~_"'._.~. ... _..
:'.
. _._
~.. ... . ... _'_...__.~ _ .~~
,~
i
i
MINTiPPItIS, CI'1'Y PLANNINCr COMMISSION, September 28, 1964 ~'1
REOLASSIFICATION - Mr. Tino again appeared.beYore the Co~ission and stated he felt the
N0. 64-65-18 opposition was basing density on the number of units, but this nould
slso apply to the single family homes with 5 and 6 bedrooms to a home,
CONAITIONAL USE therefore,.density should be based on ntmaber of rooms in a home ratner
pA~'P N0. 613 than number of units on an aare.
(}~, gLAN Mr. Bruns in rebuttel stated thet the proposed units Would have 1526
Atd~i~l'P NO.. 19 square feet minimum per unit with tvo-oar garages and the oost would
range from $27,000 to ~32,000 per unit Whioh was aomparable to the
TENPATI1fF3 MAP OF larger homes in the Ea.at Aneheim area; thst in his opinion density
TRACT N0. 5611 should.be estimated on gross aoreage rather than net sareage; that the
RE"b~'ISION N0. 3 proposed development Was 5-7 units per gross aare; that it was estimated
there would be only an inorease of 30 ohildren over the oonventional R-1 ~
development; that more rear and aide yards Were proposed than many of the 7200 square foot i
lot homes; that in addition s 6-foot masonry wall was proposed, and that the proposed develop•;
ment would be aompatible to the existing single femily residential development in the area. ~
The Cou~i.seion requested that the ~gent explain. ~hat the developer propoaed to do ebout the ~
reao~ended oonditions of the E#epart to the Co~i.ssion, sinoe the proposed development did !
not meet Code requirements Yor a planned residential development. ~
Mr. Bruns steted that the proposed development was in aoaordanae with the R-2 Code Whiah
would beoome effeotive Ootober 1, 1964.
Mr. Kreidt advised the Co~i.ssion that even though the atatement was made that the develop-
ment oonformed With the naW R-2 Zone, the petitioner would need a varianoe Yrom sll the set-
baok requirements, and if the nonditional use permit Was approved,Pindinga ahould be made
that the one story height limitation wsa not being waived ad3aaent to the R-1 Zone.
Mr: Roberts steted that the if Ctl~R's Were approved these would guesantee that the home owner
assoaiation would assume •ihe responsibility for the meiatenanae of the property; thet the
oondominium Was an o~vnership aonaegt, end iP oonditions were attaohed in the approval Whioh
oould not be met, this vould present aome problepu.
Mr. Bruns oontinued that tne development plans had been amended in aaoordanoe With many oY
~i,~ Interdepartmentel Corc,3.ttee reoormaendationa; that the disposal aomyany had been aontaoted
arid had advised.him that the 27-foot radiua return ~es adequate for piokup in the City.
Mr. Daw stated that if a trash piokup aompany had entered into r~egotiation with a private
property osvsier, a hold harmless laW was in ePfeot in the event oP demage done to the private
streets and property.
Mr. Bruns revieWed the reao~ended ohanges to be me.de in the Report to the Co~i.ssion noting
thst through easemen~s water and sewer fRailities aould be obtained, that tne proposed
development had feW problems whiah oould not be overoome, and thet the developer was in
aoaord With the proposed reooffiendationa. Further, as 8 last thought, the proposad develop-
ment vras a nem oonaept in the aity from a land plannirig standpoint, that the Yew detrimental
aspeats of the development aould be resolved, sinae they mere minimal, and the Co~iasion
was urged to aonsider the proposed development favorably.
Tf~ HEA~iING WA3 CI;09blp.
Disoussion Was held b-; the Oo~ission Whioh indioated that the property was developed in i
orange groves, 30,000 ohiokens and palm treea; that the property was still te.zed on an ~
agriaultural basis; that the inoreese in land value made sub~eot property a desirable pieoe i
oY lend for speaulation sinne it was ao*r selling Por $36,000 per aore, and that tho Co~i.ssion~
must deaidg whether the land use had ohangecl ta warrant Pavorable oonsideration of sub3eat i
petition, or whether a ahange in density might be aonsidered for the ares. ~
Co~issioner Hoevland offered Resolution No. 1364, 3eries 1964-65, and moved Por ita psssage
and adoption, seoonded by Co~tissioner Chevos, to reoo~end to the City Counoil that Petition ;
for ReolassiYioation No. 64-65-18 be disapproved based on the fsat that the ~:~posed develop- !
ment wculd set a pattern of development. for the remaining undeveloped propertiea, that it ~,
Would be 3naompatible to the existing single family residential devalopment to the West, north,i
and southeb.st of sub~eat property, that the proposed development does not mset R-2 subdivision :
steudrds, ti'ast the nearby churah and sohaol are oompatible uaea to single Yemily development, i
and that the property is tnore suitabZe for single family subdivision development.(See i
Hesolution Sook) I
I ~
; On roll aall the foregoing re~solution was passed by the folloming vote: '
i •
~
` ~
~ .
• -..---_._._..~ ~ ,
__ _ _..... .
.. . ~ ,
. -r-_^ ~_._ ._ _.._.,.
__..._.. .---
~ ~ •
. _ ..~ .
r i
!
' ~
... ........._"___.-._ ____.. . _......"__
_ .._ .. ... .....
'
, ...
. . ..._~_.._.::~..2~ ......_.:.__.....
(
~~ ~ ~
1~WUTE[3~ CITY YLANNINC~ COl8~3SION~ September 28~ 1964 2342
` RECL95SIFIOATION - AYIDS: QW~dI3SI0NIItS: Allred, Chavos, (~auer, Mungall~ RovPland.
~ N0. 64-65-18 NOES: CO~ISSIOI~R,S: None.
~ COI~IDITIONAL U6E ~~~: COM~I3SIOI~fftS: Cemp, Perry.
PERl~T N0. 613
;~ ~ P~ Oo~iss3oner Ohavos oYfered Resolu~ion No. 1365, Series 1964-65, and
j ~IT N0. 19 moved for its passage and adoption~ seaonded by Co~issioner Allred,
; to deny Petition for Cottditional Use Per.ait No. 613.(3ee Resolution Book)
~', ~~~ ~~~ On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
TRACT N0. 5611
REIII3ION N0. 3 AYFoY: CO~EflISSI01~ff'uRS: Allred Chavos (3auer
. , , Mungall, Rowland.
NOID,S: C03~[I33IONERS: None.
ABSEN'P: CO~SSIOI~R3: Oemp, Ferry. '
Ooamqiasione~ Allred offered Resolution No. 1366, 3eries 1964-65, and moved Yor its passage
and adoption, seoonded by Cua~issioner Chavos, to reaommend to the Qity Counoil that (ieneral
Plan Amendment No. 19 be disapproved.(3ee Resolution Book?
On roll oell the foregoing resolution was paesed by the Po1loWing vote:
AY~3: OO~OiISSI01~R8: Allred. Ohevos, Qauer~ Mungall, Row~and.
NOEf3: CO~I9SIOI~RS: None.
ABSENT: CQt~83I01~i5~t3: Oamp, Perry.
Oo~i.ssioner Ohavo$ offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of 'Praot No, 5611, Reviaion ~
No~,•. 3, based on the fact that the requeated Petition Por Reolaaifiaation No. 64-65-18 was ~
reao~-ended for denial, and would be neoessary in order to develop sub3eat traot. Co~iasionex~;
RoWland seoonded the motion. MOTION OARRIED.
A~~ND~NT TO - P"JBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIeH PLANNINC3 COZ~CSSION, 204 East ;
TEIE ANAI~~ Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an emendment to Title `
MUNICIPAL CODE Eighteen, Chapter 18.04, Qeneral Proviaions, amending Seotion 18.04.030(b-5)
by deleting rePerenae to Churohes; and the addition of "b-13" Ohuranes:
Zoning Coordinetor Martin Kreidt revieWed for the Commiasion the polioy established by the
Commission for the administration of parking requirements for ohurohes, and advised that
in order to administer the requirement of one pe,rking spaoe for eaoh five seats in the
sanatue.ry, it had been suggested that the General Provisions seation oP Title Eighteen.
No one appeared in opposition.
Tf~ EiEAAING YPAS OL05IDD. .
Co~ti.ssioner Roaland oYfered Resolution No. 1367, Series 1964-65, and noved Por its passage
and adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Gauer, to reoo~end to the C'tty Qounoil that'Titl@r.,, !
Eightee~rn., .C,,.h_epter 18.04, General Provisions, Seation 18.04.030(b5-ibe amended-by the deletion '
~'°o~M~lTe~x;`~"'ss3!~i~~dition oP Seotion 18.04.030(b-13) as follows: '•
^`. "(13) CHURCHES,~st least one parking spaoe for every Pive seats, exaept for '
regularly established ohurahes in presently eaisting looationa on the j
effeotive date of thia oode ohange." j
On roll oe11 the Yoregoing resolution Was passed by the folloWing vote: ~.
. I
AYIDS: CO~LlSISSIOI~R3: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. ,
NOES: CObIS~IS3I0N~RS: None.
ABS~I'i: CO~ISSIONIDRS: Cemp, Perry. i
i
____ .---- -~- '
_.~_,_~ ~ - ----- . . ' ~..------. ~.~ .
i
i '
. `;
l __ ,
REPOHTS AND - ITESd N0. 1
RECO~DATIONS RevieW of the reoommonded ahanges to the
Sign Ordinanoe
~. : }
M~IUTES, CIT7C PLANNING C0~lSISSION', September 28, 1964
~
,~
2343
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed Yor the Commission all their reoommended
ahanges at the September 21, 1964 hearing~ stating that he ~vas desirous of havin~ all
the ahanges approved before preparing the final propos~d ordinanae arlopted at said
hearing.
Disaussion aas held by the Co~ission, Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff and Mr. Roberts
relative to the size of t~ permitted sign in an industrial subdivision after whioh it Was
determiZed ~hat limitation sho~+td be ma.de to a m~x3mum size of ~00 square feet in tlie M-1 Zone,
for a single-faoed s3~n or 350 square`feet for a double-£aneg~sign.
~r. Roberts stated that the Section 18.62.180 referring to the intensity of lighted signs,
had boen disaussed w3th the Eleatriael Division, that little enthusiasm was eapressed Por
the milliamps Pormula by them or by Mr. Ed Cronan and members of the Eleotrio Sign Industry;
thet sinoe it was e rather diffiault formula to put into writing thst whioh was proposed
Was the most appropriate at the present time, and that further study ~ould be made, and a
report submitted to the Commission for their reoommendetions to the City pounoil.
Mr. Ed. Cronan, Exeuutive Direotor, Califarnia Eleotria Sign Industry udvised the Commisaion
that sinoe the last publin hearing, a naw formu?a had been devised whiah aould be used by the
building industry as-d building department,.but that it was not presently available, and aould
be ina~rporated at a later dai;e into the ordinanae.
Mr. Oronsn further ststvd that in bahalf o; the Eleotria Sign Industry, he wished to express
his appreoiatian fo* having had the opportunity to Work with the City Attorney's offioe and
th~ Pla.~ning Commission and Planning Department in the formulation of the Sign Ordinanae.
Tha Commission advised Mr. Roberts that all the.reoo~ended ohangea met With their approval.
;
it
1
~
rra~a xo. z
Reviaions to the C-1, Zone,
presentl~ considered by the Oity Counoil
HE~ight 8trsndias~ds in the C-0 and H[-1 Zones
Planning Coordinator !l"~1;sn 3haff reviexed the memorandum addressed to the Comnission and
Oity Counail relative to r~ao~nended ohanges to the C-1, Zone.
The Oormnission upon reviewing all the itema requested that reforenoa to "Notions Store"
be ohanged to "$nitting and (ii3t Shop" snd that the height limitations as set forth in
Seation 18.40.060(3) be emended to indioate one-Pourth the distenoe , further that the
maaimum height of all other buildinga or struatures be limited to 75 feet as it ooourred
in the C-R Area.
Mr: ShoYf further ststed that height standards had not been established in the C-0 and M~1.
Zones and suggested that theae be set for publio hearing.
Coum~issioner Ro~land offered a motion to direot the Planning Depsrtment set for publio hearing
oonsiderat3,on oY the hei.ght ste.udards Por tha C-0 and M-1 Zones. Co~issioner Chavos saoonded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
IT~ N0. 3
Amendment to Reaolution No. 1324. Series 1964-65 approving Heolassifiostion
No. 64-65-15.
Zoning Coordina,tor Martltt Kreidt advised the Cot~ission that in the preparation oP Resolution
No. 132A, Series 1964-65 whiah the Co~iasion passed on September 14, 1964, the reaolution
ez•roneously stated that the Planning Co~isaion had reoommended C-1 Zoning, whereas the~
petitioner had agreed to M-1 Zoning and ~hich the Co~i.ssion had subsequently reoo~ended,
and that in order that the oorreot information Was transmitted to the City Counoil Yor their
publia hearing, a oorreotion was neoessery in the Porm of a resolution.
Commissioner RoWland offered Resolution No. 1368, Series 1964-65, and moved Por ita passage ;
and adoption, seaonded by Oo~issiouer Allred to reno~end to the City Counoil that an !
amendment be made to Resolution No. 1324, Series 1964-65 in Whioh the Co~i.saioa had originally;
reoommended C-1. Zoning Wliereea it was the intent of the Oo~iasion to reooa~end that the i
petition Por Reo].esssiPioation No. 64-65-15 be reoommended for approval for M-l, Light s
Industrial, Zone. ;
v~
\._. ~
..
i
( r
~
~.
~ ~
~1'PE3, CIT7C PLA~'~iIlVa GOIL6dI3SI0N~ SepteaFbex 28, 1964
RFIPORrS AND - I~ N0. 3(Continued)
2344
On roll oell the foregoing resolution Was passed by the following vote:
A7CEfS: C01~9SIONERS: Allrad, Chavos, Gauer~ Mungall, Rowland.
NOES: C0~lLI9SION9gtS: None.
ABBEQdT: tlO~ISS20I~RS: Cemp, Perry.
I'~ N0. 4
3etbaok study in the Cou~eroial Aeareation Area
Zoning Coordiuator Martin Kreidt advised the Coa~ission that the cvritten report as the
preliminary one whioh the Coami.ssion would reoeive oa the Co~eroiel Reareation Area setbaoks,
and asked whether any suggestions to the report,revisionsaould be made by the Co~ission.
~
The Commission stated that the :^eport was we11 reoeived and well done, that setbaoks should
ba established as they fit the land in the area.
Mr. Kreidt then stated that further study wou~d be mede and the aolution applied to other
streets in the ~ity.
ITF~ NO. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 356 - 97-unit motel, 2748 9Pest Linooln Avenue
P~xtension of time
Zoning Ooordine~tor Martin Breidt reviewed the staff's reaoaanendations on the request for
an additionsl eatension of t3me oY one year to eapire Marah 18, 1955, noting that e bon8
had been poated to insure that the street 'mprovements be made as-d that the street lights
had also been paid.
Co~isaioner asuer offere~.a motion to grent the request for extenaion of time for th?
oomgletion oP all oonditions in Conditional Use Permit No. 356, said estension oY time to
eapire Maroh 18y 1965. Co~issioner 611red seoonded +he motion. MOTION CARRI~D.
I'.A~d N0. 6
dONDITIONAL U3L1 P~RMIT N11. 542 - Town Churoh Assembly of God
1759 West Broad~ay - request to permit the payatent of street
trees and street lights prior to final building inspeation
instead oY the 180 days.
Zoning'Coordinator Mart3.n Kreidt read a request Prom Rev. D. M. Buttram asking that the
Resolution No. 1093~ 3nriea 1963-64~ Condition Nos. 1 and 3 be emended to require peyment
prior to Pinal buildin;~ inspeotion rathor $han the required 180 days, together With the
staPf reoo~endations.
Oommissioner C~auer offered a ~aotion to amend.the requirement of paymeat of street lights
and street trees from the reo;tired 180 days to prior to finsl building inspeoti.on.
Co~i.ssioner Allred seaonded the motion. MOTION CARRIHID.
I~S N0. 7
Realasaifioation No. 64-65-19 and Qonditional Uae Permit No. 614
Request fram Cedrio YOhite for oonsideration oP raoommendations
Zoaing Ooordinator Martin Breidt read a request from Oedrio White relative to oonditions
in the Commisaion's approval of Reolassifioation No. 64-65-1~ and Oondit;onal Use Permit
No. 614, noting that the-se petitions had been oonsidered by the Qity Counoil on 3eptember 22,
1964 and had been aonti~iued to September 29, 1964 for a review of the property.
Oo~uissioner (iauer offered a motion to direat the Oot~miasion Seoretary to forWard the letter
from Mr. -Yhite to the City Counoil Por their oonaideration. Oo~issioner Allred aeaonded
the motion. MOTTON CARRIEU. ~
IT~ N0. 8
3outhern Oelifornis Plannin~ Congress - Anaheim Hoet Oity '
Invitation to the Oity uounoil ~
Commi.asioner (3auer ofPered a motion to ixivit9 the City Counail to be gueats af the Planning ~
Commisaion at the 3outhern Celifornia Planning Congreas dinner and.mee:ting to be held at the i
l;k•.arterhouse Hotel Ootober ti, 1964 at 6 p.m. Oommisaioner Ohavos seoonded the motion. i
b'(f~'TON CARRIHIB.
~ - J
;
~ ~
..
,
_.:
_ _ __, .~.r ______ _ __ _ _
_ _~ , . -~ _.
M.Il~iUTIDS, CIT7( PLANNIN~ CO~SI6SION, September 28 ~ 1964 2345
RHfPORTS AAID - ITP~ N0. 9
RECO~E~IDATIONS 11ARIABTCID N0. 1399 - Gare,ge use for Antique Shop - 2820 -Pest L3.nooln Avenue
Request for extension oY•time f~r the eaiating use
Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt reviewed the request of Mrs. Marie Shook £or an edditional
estension of ti.me for the use of a garage for an antique shop on her property noting that
the time had eapired Por use whioh the Co~ission had g:anted, and the,t the requeat was Yor
an additional three yesrs.
~' Coamissioner Gauer of~ered a motion to gra't;t an extension oY time of three sa~~s for the
use of an eaisting garage as an antique shop on property at 2820 Weat Linooln Avenue.
' Co~i.asioner Allred seoonded the motion indiaating that the time ea~ensiott be stipulated as
y September 6, 1967. MOTION CARRIDD.
r~ xo. io
OONDITIONAL USE PF~FiMIT N0. 302 - First Christian Ohuroh, 2216 East Bouth St.
Request for 90-day estension of time to aontinue use of a residenoe for
ohuroh purposea.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Breidt reviexed the looetion of sub~eat proFerty and the letter
requesting a 90-day eztension of time for the use of the proparty for ohuroh purposes.
Commissioner Allred oPfered a motion to grant an eatenaion of 90 days for the ~~se of an
esisting residenae for ohuroh purposes loaated at 2216 East South 3treet to eapi:e
Deoember 17, 1964. Oou~issioner Chavos seoonded the motion. MOTION OARRIICD.
I'tEM NO.. 11
Pleaning 3tudy 72-97-3 .
Setbaok study on South 9naheim Boulevard
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt revieWed the report submitted to the Co~ission at the ~
meeting of September 14, 1964 and inquirad of the Commission what disposition should be j
made of tha report. '
Co~issioner Rowland offered a motiott to reoeive and Yile Planning Study 72-97-3. Co~issioner,
Chavos seoonded the motion. MOTION OKRRIED.
ADJOURIVid~NT - There beiag no furi.ner business to disouss, Coum~issioner Allred offered ~
motion to ad3ourn the meeting. Commissioner RoWland seoonded the motion.
MOTION CARRII~7D.
The meeting e,d3ourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respeatfully submitted,
ANN ~S, 3eoretary ~,
Anaheim Planning Commnisaion
. . . i
~
~~
i`
_~
______.~_ . ___..__.-. _
=_:` ~`. . ~ ..__ __ . . -
' ' ~c - - ....._ _