Minutes-PC 1964/12/21~,`
City Hall
Anaheim, California
December 21, 1964
A REGULAR MEETING OF TIiE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~ REGULAR 1~~ETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2t00 o'clock p.me, a quorum being
I~ present.
,! PRESENT - CHAIRMANs Mungallo
- COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Perry, Rowlanda
"'~ ABSENT - COAnMISSIONERS: Allred, Campa
PRESEM - Zonin9 Coordinator Robert Mickelson
Deputy City Attorneys Furman Roberts ~
Office Engineers , Arthur Daw
Planning Commission Secretary= Ann Krebs
Planning Department Stenographers Carolyn Grogg
IMIOCATION - Reverend Robert Berndt of the Grace Lutheran Church gave the
invocatione
PLEDGE OF
ALIEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of December 7, 1964, were approved with
the following corrections Page 2416, Paragraph 6, Line 1-
"Mre R9y PineLo 0 0"~
RECLASSIFICATION - COMINUED PUBLIC HEARING. AMON D. GEIGER, 7661 Haldor Piace, Bwena
N0. 64-65-56 Park, Californiay Owner; JAMES Ka SCHULER, 914 East Katella Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangular
CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 292 feet on the west
PEkhiIT N0. 52 side of Velare Street and a depth of approximately 269 feet, the
northern boundary of said property being approximately 270 feet south
of the centerline of Orange Avenuee Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENITAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLiSNNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WITH WAIVER OF ONE-STORY kiEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET
OF R-A ZONED PROPHRTY.
i:
~:
.~
S
1
!
~
i
i
i
;
f
~
~
~
~
1
~
Sub3ect.petitions were held over from the meeting of December '7, 1964, for l.ack of a
majo^ity vote to approve or deny.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the CoRUnission that since the last public hearing
on sub3ect petition, the developer had submitted a revised plot plan, said plot plan conform-
ing with all requirements of the R-3 Zonee
Mr. James Schuler, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
revised plot plan for the Commission~ noting that although the plan had been changed from a
planned development to a straight R-3 development~ the same number of dwelling units was
proFibsed, and that he had still maintained single-story construction within 150 feet of the
R 1 to the east.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission, with Mr. Rowland noting that in the interest of ;
uniformity, the area should remain R-1. 4
Gommissioner Perry statad he had originally offered the resolution approving one-story within i
150 feet, but since the last Commission hearing, he had made a personal f:ald check of the i
p:operty and waa now of the opinion that all`development in the area should be one-story.to~nain- ~
tain the inte~rity of the R-l property to the east and to reduce tHe traffic on a residential
street from an influx of heavier traffic duo to more units being proposed ori the west.side of
Velare Street.
- 2427 - _ -..
~~
~~....,-._, --,-_._._.
M TM . ---
. .. , ,.: ,
~'Vii ,., . --r-.,,-- - _ ~.. . .. ""'~ - ------_ .
~ , .. . f. 7..
~_ _ _ _~~) ~3
~ MINIII'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 21 1964
e ~
RECLASSIFICATION
•
2428
- Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1454, Series 1964-65,and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassffication
Noo 64-65-56 be approved for R-2, Multiple-Family Residential, 2one,
which required a density of 18 dwelling units per net residential acre
and single-story construction, based on the fact that Velare Street and
Orange Avenue were narrow streets and would ~e unable to handle the
heavier traffic from multiple-family units of two-story construction.
(See Resolution Booke)
ry I NOa 64-65-56
i CONDI7IONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 652
; Co~tinued
~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOESe COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENI's COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campa •
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1455, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petiticn for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 652, based on the fact that the revised plans were an R-3 development rather than a
planned residential development, and that the Commission had recortenended ~ne-story height
for the entire developmenta (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call i~~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None.
ABSEIaT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Campo
~
~
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I'.EARINGe LEO FREEDMAN, 2018 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Heverly
PERMIT NOa 661 Hills, California, Owner; requesting permission to establish a restaurant
with cocktail lounge on property described ass An irregularly shaped
parcel of land having a northern boundary of 125 feet in length, and
said northern boundary being approximately 47 feet south of and parallel to the centeriine
of Freeda~an Way, the depth of subject property being approximately 298 feet with the southern
boundary being approximately 945 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue; the western-
most boundary of subject property lies approximately 1,183 feet east of the centerline of
Harbox Boulevard~ and further described as 20 Freedman Way. Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo
Mre Leo Freedman, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed
de'velopment.
In response to Commission questioning relative to the possibility of reducing the necessary
parking fo-r the ad~acent Melodyland Theatre, Mro Freedman replied that in accordance with
the recorded lease, parking was provided for a 3,000 seating capacity with 550 parking spaces
on the theatre property, and an additional 50 on the Charter House Hotel property, and that
the theatre operators had compounded their parking problems by adding an additional 274 seats,
together with 200 temporary seatso
The Commission noted that without counting the temporary seats, 655 parking spaces were
required in accordance with the Codee
Mr. Danny Dare, 235 West Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and
clarified some of the statements made by the petitioner, and stated if subject petition
wera approved, the theatre would not have adequate parking since a portion of their patrons
parked on sub3ect property in accordance with an agreement with Mr. Freedmana
Mr. Harrison Hertzberg, attorney for Mr. Dare, appeared before the Commission and also reviewed
the inadequacy of parking if sub3ect petition were approved~ and stated tha~i in accordance with
Conditional Use Permit No. 186 governing the theatre, a condition of approval required that
parking be in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Codeq this would automatically require the
property owner, namely the subject petitioner, to provide adequate parking which he had never
done.
Mr..Odra Chandler, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated I
that the Commission should consider the merits of sub3ect petition as to land uses that ~
any.parking problem with the theatre lessees shouid be a police problem or should be re-
so~ved as a private matter, rather than being a part of the Commission's consideration of
sub3ect petition. ~
Considerable discussion was then held between the Commission, the attorney for the petitioner, '
and the attorney for the theatre operators relative to the theatre parking problema •
No.one else appeared in opposition to subject petitiono .
__ _ _.. _ _ _ _ .._ - - - _ . .___ ._,.._... .._ ....^.. --
_. _~- z--- _ ' • . - ,. ~~ .. . : _ . . . . _ ... . __ _
~_~ ~1
MINFlfES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1964
~ ~
2429
CONDITIONAL USE - THE (-IEARING WAS CLOSED.
`
PERMIT.NO. •
Continued The Commission then reviewed the findings of the Report to the Cummission
and considered the parking problem previously discussed, noting that it
~ would be in the interest of the City, the petitioner, and the theatre
~ operators•if they attempted to resolve their parking problem before it was turned over for
~ Code enforcement requirementso
;i Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that at the Interdepartmental
~~ Committee R1e2ting the Electrical Department was of the assumption that street lights had
'' paid for under Conditional Use Permit Noe 186 for street lights along Freedman Way, but
~ a further check would be made of other records and if the street lights were not paid, it
i; wo~rld be made a part of the conditions of approvale
The Commission then discussed the possibility of the structure on subject property being
more than 75 feet in height, and a further requirement of a recommended condition should
~ establish that any structure on subject property be in conformance with the Cortnnercial-
Recxeation Policy Height Standards in the City of Anaheimo
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1456, i~r?ss 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 661, subject to conditions and the requirement that all structures on the site be erected
in.accardance with the height standards of the Commercial-Recreation Areas furti~e~, that a
finding be made that the Commission was of the opinion that parking for the proposed develop-
ment, as well as the adjacent theatre, was a matter of consideration, and it was the hope of
the Commission that the parking would be resolved in a manner satisfactory to tt-e operators
of the restaurant and the theatree (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing votes
AYESs COMMISSIONERSe Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda
NOES~ COMMISSIONERSa Noneo
ABSHNT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Campo
RECI.ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo OLIVER Go BAKER, 147 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim,
N0. 64-65-68 California, Owner; RUSSELL JAY and BEN ROCFiELLE, 8681 Katella Avenue,
Stanton, California, 'Agents; requesting that property described ass
A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 1;OlU feet
on the west side of Beach Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 216 feet, the north-
ern boundary of said property being approximately 327 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln
Avenue, and further described as 147 South Beach Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-3, HEAVY COMA~RCIAL, ZONE, to establish two 45-unit motels~with
restaurant and cocktail lounge.
Mr. RusselL Jay, one of the agents for the petitioner, appeared before the•Commission and
reviewed the propused development, notiog that the use was in conformance with the Commer-
~ cial-Recreation designation on the General Plan along Highway 39; that the motels would be
`• coristructed first, and the cocktail lounge and restaurant would follow later.
~
~ Mr. Jay further noted that a revised tentative tract had been submitted for the property
~ ad~acent ta subject property, since under Reclassification Noo 62-63-108 a resolution of
intent to reclassify subject and ad~acent property to R-3 was covered under Tentative Tract
~ Noe 5141, and since sub3ect petiti.on would be mox•e in conformance with the General Plan, a
revised.tract would be submitted '.'or Commission consideration later.
~
In response to Commission questioning, Mra Jay sta±ed that Adobe Drive would be eliminated,
and the east-west alley would also be eliminated.
No one appeared in opposition to sub,~ect petii:iono
i
THE EiEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that if sub~ect petition were
approved, the legal description on Reclassification No. 62-63-108 should. be amended, and
that it should also be contingent upon the approval of the revised tentative map'of Tract
No. 5141.
- Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1457, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, secondzd by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 64-65-68 be approved, sub3ect to conditions ahd contingent upora the
approval of revised tentative map of Tract No. 5141. (Se~ Resolution Baok.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes
~:
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOESt COMMISSIONERSi None.
ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERSt Allred, Campo
_.. - ~__.._._ ___.._._.. --
~_.~..._,.~
„ '
.. ,
_
;,...__._.~---
MINIITES, CFTY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1964
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1473, Series 1964-65, and
N0. 8 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry,
Continued to recommend to the City Council that the legal description of Reclassi-
fication Noo 62-63-108, approved in Resolution of Intent No. 63R-475
on May 28, 1963, be amended to read as followss "The West 405.00 feet
of tl~e East one-half of the Northeast one-quarter of the IJortheast one-quarter of Section
14, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as shown on a map thereof
recorded irt Book 51, page 11, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California,
excepting therefrom the North five acres"o (See Resolution Book.)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
Noneo
Allred, Camp.
RECLASSIF.ICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HARDING TORRES, 14619 Aigeciras Drive, La Mirada,
N0. 64-65-67 California, Owners property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel
of land with a frontage of approximately 111 feet on the west side of
VARIANCE NO. 1675 Gilbert Street and a maximum depth of approximately 282 feet measured
at right angles from the centerline of Gilbert Street~ subject property
is boueded on the southwest by thp Santa Ana Freeway right-o.f-way.
Property presently clas=~iied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED YARD AREA AND
MINIMUM REQIJIRED PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYo
Mre Hax,ling Torres, the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and submitted revised
plans which eliminated the problem presented in the original plans, as suggested in the'
Report to the Commission, Finding Noo 2, in that he was proposing to relocate the proposed
single unit dwe2ling southerly nine feet and providing access to the rear units between the
existing structure and the proposed single dwelling structureo
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson and Office Engi.neer Arthur Daw reviewed the plan sub-
mitted by the pe~itioner and wexe of the opinion that the revised plan would be acceptable
by the Sta.f.f.
Mro Robert Brockman, 1257 Monterey Street, inquired of the Commission whether or not there
was any future plan of extending Gilbert Street over the freewayo
The Commission adv~.sed Mra Brockman that there were no plans for an overpass extending
Gilbent Street southErly across the freewayo
In response to Commission ques~ioning, Mre Torres stated that he intended to construct a
slab wa11 with pilasters every ten feet rather than the suggested six-foot masonry wall,
but this was a thought and not a final decision as far as the type of wall was concernede
The Commission advised the petitioner that most of the prcperties ad~acent to the freeway
and ad3acent to sub~ect property had masonry walls, and the continuity would be to his
advantage, as well as beautifying the appearance from the freewaye
Mr. Brockman stated that he had no opposition to the proposed developmente
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of aba~doning the southerly ~
portion of Gilbert Street and construc~in9 a knuckle at its terminus, or establishing~the
street for a cul-de-sac, or possibly ending Rhodes Avenue in a knuckle adjacent to sub~ect
propertyo It was further noted by the Commission that since there were no definite plans ~:
of abandonment or cul-de-saci.ng Gilber+. Street at its present southerTy termi~us ad3acent '
to the freeway frontage, no street lighting cr improvement of the street could be required ~
at a speaific date of the petitioner until the Council had determined whether oz• not this !
should he abandoned. !
,
I
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1458, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage ~
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition i.
for Reclassification Noa 64-65-67 be approved, sub~ect to development of a six-foot masonry
wall along the freeway frontage of sub3ect property to reduce the noise and.add privacy, as j
stipulated by the petitioner, and conditionse (See Resolution Booko)
-~~.. . _ , ~ ` ' ~ .,. '~
~`. : ..
._..~._ _. _:..._.__. .__. _ ..__.,.,.ti...~--.- -
~~ ~
MINIfTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1964
~
~~
2431
RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
N0. 64-65-67
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
~ VARIANCE N0. 1675 NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonea
i (Continued ABSENTc COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Campo
~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1459, Series 1964-65, and
i moved far its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for
~~ Variance Ro. 1h75 with the finding that the front yard may be reduced in accordance with
'i plans, and the condition that a six-foo± masonry wall be constructed along the freeway
; frontage of subject property, as stipulated by the petitionere (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
enSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo
RECLASSIFICATiON - PUBLIC HEARINGa AGAJANIAN INVESTi~M CORPORATION, 13571 Harbor Boulevard,
N0.•64-65-62 Anaheim, California, Ownera Property described as: A rectangular parcel
of land with a frontage of approximately 280 feet on the wes+ side of
CONDITIONAL USE Haster Street and a depth of approximately 630 feet, the nor•chern boundary
PERMIT N0. 653 of subgect property being approximately 150 feet south of the centerline
of Wilken ~-'ay, and further described as 2229 South Haster Streete
GENERAL PLAN Property presentl; classified R-A, AW2ICULTURAL, ZONEo
AN~NDA~NT N0~ 49
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONt R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEMIAL~ ZONEa
~ REQUESTED CONDI''_'IONAL USE: ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLE-
FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPA~NT
WITH CARPORTS AND WAIVER ~' THE FOLLOWING
PROVISIONS OF THE CODEs (1) SINGLE-STORY
HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A
AND R-1 ZONED PROPERTY~ (2) MINIMUM PARKING
REQUTREMENfS; (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED FROM YARD
SETBACK; AND (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN
BUILDINC~o
Mro Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and requested
that the Commission consider continuation of subject petition until the petitioner was able
to answer the Commission`s questions, since he was presently in the hospiialo
Mrse Nancy Schmall, 108 Cliffwood Avenue, appeared before the Commission in c~position ta
sub3ect petitioris, stating that subject property had R-i development on three sides; that
at one time the Commi~sion expressed the feeling that R-3 development should be confined
northerly of.Orangewood Avenue, and she realized the property had to be developed, but if
the Commiesion considered subject petition favorably, it be lim:ted to one story, since
two-story would be incompatible to the existing living environment; that no hardship could
be claimed in the request for the various waivers because the property was purchased with
the.intent to develop, and should be developed in accordance with Code requirements so
that it would not be detrimental to the existing develepment in the area~ and that the.re
should be no exceptions to Codo requirement permitted without giving the same consideration
to the single-family homeowners in the areao
Four persons in the Council Chamber indicated their presence, opposin9 subject petitions.
Mr. Kniseiy then stated that, speaking for himself, he a,~reed with the opposition that the ~
proposed development was incompatible as it was presently being considered by the Commissio~~, r
and the Commission couid either deny or continue the petition as requestede ~
i
i
The Commission indicatec,l that the Plannina Department had done layv•~ts for sub3ect ~~• •, • ~
which indicated that ly or 20 lnts couid b? developed on ~ubject prnperty similar t< , i
lots in the area which had 60-foot wi~~ths anci less than 7,200 squa^e foet, thereby ~ ;~p- i
ing the property for singie-family residential us, and being more compatible with ~h. ~ rround- '
ing area.
Mrs. Tsudy Malloy, 13021 Tiller, Crange, appeared before the Commission stating tier property
was adjacent to subject property~ that because she was in the real estate business, sk~e felt
the pr~perty owner should be able to develop to the highest and best use, but that single-
story construction such as garden apartmen•cs would be roore palai;able ±han the proposed two-
stury construction because the single-family residents would retain their privacyo
TI~ E~ARING WAS CLQSED.
. i
. . ~,__ __ T __ ____ _~ _ ~
. ~.~ _ __ _ _ _
.., , . . ,
. ._ .,_._._,__~~ _.
~ .
\_,~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1964 2432
. \
1
RECLASSIFICATION - Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to whether or not
NOo'64-65-62 the Commission wished to go on record in favor af R-3 development~of -
subject property, or R-lf that sub~ect property ~vas easily developable
CONDITIONAL USE into 20 R-1 lots similar to those developed to the north, south, and ;
PERMIT N0. 653 west which had been annexr~d into the City~ that R-1 lots in thts area ,
would have a good market~ and it would be against the Commission's
GENERAL P.LAN policy to establish multiple-family development surrounded by R-1 uses. ,
AN~NDIu~NT N0. 4
Continued The Commission further expressed amazement that of all the single-family
homeowners in the area, there was so little opposition since this was a
prime R-1 area and should merit their consideration for protection of ;
their interestso ~
Commfs.sioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue the Petitions for ~
Reclassification Noo 64-65-62 and Conditional Use Permit Noo 653 and General Plan Amendment `
No. 49 to the meeting of January 18, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner time to appear ?
before the Commission to answer questions. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motione MOTION j
CARRIEQ. f
AIY~NDI~NT TO TITLE 18~ - CONTINIJHD PUBLIC NEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CONONISSIOPl~
ANAE~IM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an addition
to Title 18 by adding Section 18.63 - BILLBOARDS, and the amendment
• to Section 18064 - CONDITIONAL USES, BILLBOARDSo
Subject amendments to Title 18 were continued from the meeting of December 7, 1964, in
order to allow the Planning Department additional time to obtain additional data regarding
amortization of billboardso
Assistant Planner Jack Christopherson reviewed for the C~mmission the contacts made with
the Bui.lding Department and the billboard industry regard3ng the amortization periods of
three and five years indicated in the original draft of the Code, noting that both the
Building Department and the billboard industry expressed a definite preference for a flat
amortization period extending from the effeative date of the ordinanceo Mro Christopherson
then reviewed the special report to the Commission relative to amortization of non-conform-
ing billhoardsa
In response to Commission questioning relative to billboards along the freeway in violation
of the distance from the freeway, Mro Christopherson stated that uistance measured from the
freeway was not the controlling factor; it was based on whether o: not the billboards were
oriented toward the freewaya
Tt was further noted by the Commission that most of the frontages of the freeways were
landscaped within the City of Anaheim, and that 38 signs were located along the freeway
frontageso
Mr. Don Davis, representing Foster and Kleiser, appeared before the Commission and stated
that as the proposed Billboard Ordinance was written, it was felt that their company could
abide with the ordinance, ,
Mr. Harold Goff, representing Pacific Outdoor Advertising, appeared before the Cormnissian
and stated that although mer,±;on•had been made of the number of signs which could be built
at the intersections in t~~: City, there were many drawbacks because some of these facilities
already had signs which wo:~ld block the outcloor ndvertising structure, or they were too near
residential areas, or the s`.•reets did not carry sufficient traffic to warrant outdoor
advertisinge
THE IiSARING WAS CLOSEDo
The Commission expressed appreciation to the Planning Staff, the City Attorney's Office, and 1
for the cooperation _eceived from the biilboard industry in formulating the proposed ~
ordinance. ' !
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1460, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage I
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to re~ommend to the City Council th:t Title ~
18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended by the addition of Section 18063 - Billboards.
(See Resolution Book.) ~
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande
NOHSs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Campo
I
/' i
7__•__ _ ~---- ._.... _.. . ... ..._._. ..__...~
__ _ __ _ __ ._ -
~ ._..._" ~
-
V ~
~
MINIlfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1964 2433
AMENJN~NT TO TITLE 19,
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - (Cont:nued)
In reviewing Conditional Uses of Section 18064 relative to billboards, Mr. Christopherson
stated that reference would be made to Section 18.63 governing conditional uses of billboasds
in various zones<
Commissior~er Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1461, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that amendment
to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Cade, Section 18o64v020 - Conditional Uses, Billboards, be
made. (See Resolution Book.)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEDTI's COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
AN~NDh~NT N0. 47 Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim, California, proposing that Cerritos Avenue
and Douglas Road be designated as secondary highways on the Circulation
Element of the General Plan between Sunkist Avenue on the west and the
Santa Ana River en the easto
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed Exhibit "A" of the proposed General Plan amend-
ment, noting its proximity to the proposed Orange Freeway and the future baseball stadium.
It was further noted by Mr. Mickelson that although subject property was not within the
boundaries of the City of Anaheim, it still was a part of the General Plan as adopted by
the Planning Commission and the City Counail, and that the City'Council recommend to the
Orange County Planning Commission that the County Highway Rights-of-Way General Plan be
amended to designate Cerritos Avenue and Douglas Road as secondary highwayso
THE k~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1462, Series 1964-~65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commission~r Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
General Pian Amendment Noa 47 be adopted proposing the anendment to the Circulation Element
of the General Plan depicting Cerritos Avenue and Douglas Road as secondary highwaysf further,
that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider ari amendment to the County
Circulation Element of the General Plan by designating Cerritos Avenu~t and Douglas Road as
secondary highways, based on findin9so (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing votes
AYESs COMMISSIOIVHRSs Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEM ~ COMMISSIONERSi Allred, Campo
AIWENDMENT.TU ANAHEIM - PUBLIG FIEARING. INITIATED BY Tf~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 204 i
MUNICIPAL CODE. TITI.E 4 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that amendment ~
be made to Section 4008 - Advertising Signs and Structures Along
Freeways.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that in con~unction with their
recentlg recommended change to Title 18, Section 18a63 and Section 18064 - Billboards, to
provide for uniformity in the amortization of billboards along freeway frontages since said f
Chapter 4.08 ariginally required the removal of billboards along the freeways one year af~er 1
the e3fective date of the ordinance, which was September 10, 1958, a change indicating removal I
three years from effective date as being more realistic and more in conformance with the pra- '
~
posed Bil.lboard Ordinanceo ~I
Further, Mr. Roberts continued, the pr~posed ordinance as presented to the Cemmission required ~
a minor change in that the Section 4.08.080 - Non-conforming Signs and Structures9 referred to
an~`ord~.nance; whereas it should have referred to "section", and the second paragraph should
reads "All such non-conforming outdoor advertising structures shall be discontinued and
removed not later than three years after the effective date of this section as amended".
I'FIE 1-IEARING WAS CLOSED.
I ~
~\\ ~
._.._..... ._. _..
.
r -.__ .,.~ .~ +~::' ,.. ,. , : -~ : '. ~. . : . , , ~"1[
~ •
(~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1964 2434
AA~NDMENT TO ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 4 - (Continued)
Commissioner Gauer offered Rssolution Noe 1463, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, ~econded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that
Title-4, Chapter 4008, Section 40080080 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to signs
be ainended to read as followss
"A1.1 outdoor advertising structures, signs, or displays which are legally in
existence on the effective date of this ordinance and which do not conform to
the provisions of this chapter shall be regarded as non-conforming and may be
cantinued as follows:
"All such non-:onforming outdoor advertising structures shall be discontinued
and removed not later than three years after the effective date of this section
as amendede" (See Resolutiun Booko)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, perry, Rowlando
NOESs- COMMISSTONERSe Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campa
REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 1
RECOMA~NDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Noo 557 - Elizabeth Lancaster, 235 South Beach
Boulevard, Anaheim, Californiao Expansion of an existing trailer parke
Request for time extensiane
Zoning Coerdi.nator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the property owner of the
property under consideration in Conditional Use Permit No. 557 approved by the Planning
Commission in Resolution Noo 1245, Series 1964-65, on July 8, 1964, with conditions, was
requesting an additional 180 days in which to complete the recommended conditions, based
an the fact that she wss still attempting to obtain financing of the proposed expansion.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant an extension of 180 days for the completion
of conditions in the approval of Conditional Use Permit Noo 557, said time extension to
expire July ~~, 1965o Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe
ITEM NOa 2
Planning Study Noe 75-113-1 - Proposed extension ~f the north-south
alley located easteriy of State College Boulevard ->etween Virginia
Avenue and Westport Drivee
Zoning Coordinat~r Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Plannir,g Study Noo 75-113-1
incorporating t:.: proposed extensfon of an alley through the center of Lot Noe 3 of Tract
No. 2688, located easterly of State College Boulevard between Virginia Avenue and Westport
Drive recently recommended~to the City Council for adoption, should have been numbered
77-113-1~ and requested that the Commission offer a motion amending the planr~ing study
number; further~ that this motion be submitted to the City Council in order tnat their
records might be correctede
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Plannii~y Study
No. 75-113-1 be amended to read "77-113-1"a Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIEDo
ITEM N0. 3
Commescial-Recreation Area Setback and Landscaping Policye
2oning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the Report to the Commission covering the
recomeended setbacks and landscaping of all streets in the Commercial-Rer,reatiun Area.
The Commission, in reviewing the data submitted to them, requested that an amendment be
made to Recommendation Noe 11 to read: "A landscape and parking setback area to be -- '
defined ast The setback area may be landscaped as defined for a landscaped setback, or '
may be•used as a parking area~ provided however, that a three foot to ten foot planting
strip (width to be determined by adjacent and/or nearby existing dc~velopment) shall be '
maintained adjacent to am~ right-of-way line and that a minimum of 2 percent oF ai), park-
ing areas shall be landscaped".
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1464, Series 1964-65, an~ moved for its pass~ge and ~
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City~:ouncil tha•t a setback and ,
landscaping policy be established along the street frontages in the Commercial-Recreatil.on ,
Areaj further, that the Commercial-Recreat3on Area Setbacks Tabulation Sheet of Existir~g
L'ev~elopment be made a refarence document in the future development of properties on said ~
stre~ts not already devalopede (See Resolution Book.)
~
~ _.
(~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1964
A '
2435
REPORTS.AND
RECOIYII~AIDATIflNS - ITEM NOa 3 (Continued)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~i
AYESs CoMMISSIONERS: Gauer~ Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp.
ITEM N0. 4
Planning Study No. 76-5-1 - Delineation and extension of Del Monte '
Drive westerly from Westchester Drive to Knott Street. 1
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Planning Study Noo 76-5-1 as follows: i
Backaxound ~
i
A request for extension of time for Tract Noo 5839 was submitted to the City Councile ~
Said txact is located southeast of the intersection of Knott Street and Lincoln Avenueo ~
Said tsact depicted the extension of Del Monte Drive westerly to Knott Streeto The exten- ~
sion of Del Monte Drive westerly to Knott Street had been the object of much discussion ~
when Conditional Use Permit Noe 293 (a Planned Residential Development) was proposed on
an 8-acr.e parcel of property which was south of Lincoln Avenue and had frontage on the ~
east side af Knott Street.
3
~
At the time the Interdepartmental Committee reviewed Conditional Use Permit No. 293, ?
the need for continuous drainage, adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and public 3
utility service was recogni~ed and as a consequence, the extension of Del Monte Drive was
deemed vital to the ultimate development of this area of the communityo
As a result of staff discussions concernin the re uested extension of time for Tract .~
9 9
No. 5839, it was felt that a s;ady should be prepared which would document the need for the ~
extension of Del Monte Drive westerly to Knott Street. I
Pla~ning Study 76-5-1 was prepared and the results are as follows:
Findinas
1. The existing land uses in the study area consis.t ofs
(a). A heavy concentration of 2-story multiple family dwelling units
(b). Approximately 20 acres of undeveloped vacant land (of which approximately
13 acres is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial)
(c) An elementary school
(d) A. high school • ~
2. The General Plan indicates a potential for Medium Density Residential Development
in this area of the City. ' ,
3. Existing dedicated Del Monte Drive (in this section of town) is approximately 700 feet
long and extends east to west from Westchester Drive to Bella Vista Street. (See i
LaAd Use Quarter Section Map No. 5) I
4. At the westerly terminus of the existing dedicated Del Monte Drive is a 64-foot wide ~
flx.te~ion•(approximat ty 3~0 feet long) which functions as a~ublfc utility easement.
This extension is pa•,:;, and has curb and gutter constructed to C3ty standards. i
5. In.the Study I+rea, there is no east-west ~hrough circulation f~r vehicles between ~
Lincoln Avenue and Orange Avenue. The multiple family land use concentration in which
Dei Monte Drive is located i~ served by one access point from Lincoln Avenue, Westchester i
Drive. In the event of a disaster r~r emergency which would render Westchester Drive un- ~
usabl.e, the dwelling units located along Westchester Drive, Del Monte Drive, and Bel•la. '
Uista Street would b~ virtually isolatoda
6. The Gi.ty Traffic Engineer has expressed concern over the fact that only nne access ~ !
pain~ .(Westchester Drive) exists between Knott Street and Western Avenue south of t
I.inc:ln Avenue. Westchester Drive, in con3unction with Del Mbnte Drive and Bella Vista. ~
Street, constitutes the extent of vehicular circulation to the multiple family units ~
surrounding said streets. As traffic loads increase generally in the area, and spe~i- 1
fically along Lincoln Avenue, the intersecting traffic pattern at Westchester and ~
,.... ..~ __.._.~_._____~ ,..~.~.._..~
~ ~-.__ _--__~ , .- ~ ..
. -...- ~
• . . _.. :; s
. . . . . ,k,. . .
' . . . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~.I ~
. . ~ . ~ . ~ ~~ . .~.. ~ ~ ~
~~
~ . _ . _ . . . _.___~._.~Y._
\~~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1964
REPORTS AND
RECOMh~NDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 (Continued)
~~
~
2436 ; .
Lincoln could..warrant ,some type of signalizationo However, the possibility of the
D~vision~af Highways approving an additional traffic signal on Lincoln Avenue aetween
Krtott Street and Western Avenue is remoteo
To adequately serve the vehicular circulation demands of this area warrants one more
access pn~i~t to the arterial highway systeme The extension of Del Monte Drive to
Knatt Street would most logically satisfy this neede
7. niscussions with the Department of Public Works reveal a~need for completion of 1i
adequate•surface drainage facilities within the Study Area. The extension of Del ~
Monte Drive to Knott Street wo~ld satisfy this need by following the logical drainage ,
caurse anro~s the remaining vacant parcels.
8. The litilities Department, Division of Water, indicated that the extension of Del Monte
Drive was not absolutely necessary for completion of the water mains in this area
because a public utility easement had been granted and a main had been connected, in
a.meaadering fashion, to Canoga Placeo However, the extension of Del Monte Drive, if
completed, would be used for completion of the main the complete length of Del Monte
Driveo
9. Na development exists on the S-acre parcel directly in line with the possible westerly
extension•of Del Monte Drivea However, past development proposals have included the
extension of Del Monte Drive as a necessary and integral part of the development
proposalo
R~co~dation
1. That any•development which takes place on the properties west of the pro~ected center-
line of existing Del Monte Drive (as depicted on Exhibit A) incorporate the continued
extension of Del Monte Drive as shown on Exhibit A or in such a manner as to provide
vehicular access, surface drainage and utilities service to the parcels served by
existing and proposed Del Monte Driveo
The Commission then reviewed the previous zoning actions on vacant property affected by
the propased extension of Del Monte Drive, noting that in addition to providing vehicular
access.and resolving some of the draina~e problems, the future street could be used for
underground utilities, and that in conjunction with the request for an extension of time
on Trast No.:5839, the study as presented to the Commission presented a feasible means of
future.~levelopment and extension of Del Monte Driveo
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Planning Study
Noa 76-5-1 be adopted as a feasible means of th~• extension of Del Monte Drive westerly to
Knutt.Streete•- Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo
ITEM NOa 5
Reclassification Noo 62-63-112 - Robert Ro Dowling, et al,
15622 Placentia-Yorba Boulevard, Placeatia~ California.
Property located on the south side of Placentia-Yorba Boulevard,
easterly of Dowling Avenue and northerly of Orangethorpe Avenuea
Amend legal descriptiono .
~
~-.~-
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that at the time Reclassification '
No. 64-65-28 was rec~mmended for approval to the City Council, incorporating the 150 by i
150-foot parcel at the northeast corner of Dowling and Orangethorpe Avenues~ a recommenda= 4
tion to.amend the legal description of Reclassification Noo 62-63-112 was not made~ there-
fore a resolution was in order for recommendation to the City Council that an amended legai
descri.ption.£or Reclassification No. 62-63-112~ deleting the 150 by 150-foot parcel at the
northeast corner of Orangethorpe and Dowling Avenues be madeo
Commissioner-Rowland offered Resol~~tion No. 1465, Series 1964-65, and moved for its pessa9e i
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that the i
legal description on Reclassification Noe 62-63-112 be amended in accordance with revised i
Hxhib3,t "A", deleting the 150 by 150-icot portion of the original 3egaldescription atthe northeast
corner of Dowling and Orangethorpe Avenues recently recartunended for approval to the G1, I
Neighbdrhaod Commercial, Zone, for the establishment of a service station in Reclassifica- :,
tion No, fi4-65-280 (See Rasolution Book.) ~
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing votes
AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlan~i. ~
NOESs COMMISSIQNERSs None. '
ABSENTt COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Camp. j
i
'
~- r- - --- -- - - _ -- - - - --"
_ . . ~-. . _ . . . . _ .._ _....
. ~~~ U O
MINUTESr CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, D~cember 21, 1964
~
.,~
2437 ~
~ REPORTS-AMJ - - ITEM NOa 6
RECONYI~AlDWTIONS Orange Covnty Tentative Tract Noe 5757 - DEVELOPER: Se Ve HUNSAKER 8 SONS,
(Contiriaed~ 15855 East Edna Place, Irwindale, California~ ENGINEERs Consolidated
( Engineerin9 Company, 1101 South Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles 35,
Californiao Sub~ect tract, located on the east side of Placentia-Yorba
I Road between the Santa Ana River and Esperanza Road containing approxi-
''' ; mately 75 acres is proposed for subdivision into 317 R-i, Single-Family
I Residence lotsa
Z~ni:;g Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented Orange County Tentative Tract No. 5757 to the
Commission notxng the location of sub~ect property, and further reviewed the Planning
Departiaent findings on said tract.
Discussio~-was held by the Commission regarding the discrepancies noted by the Staff, and
possihle future annexation of said property into the City of Anaheime
Co~issioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the ~ity Council that the Orange County
Planning Commission be informed of the following findinge relative to Orange County Tentative
Map of Tract Noo 5757:
le That the proposed tract does not make allowance for the proposed Yorba Linda Freewaye
2o Tha.t.•the proposed tract does not meet the Cii:y of Anaheim Code requirements as follows:
ae That lots marked "RoC," denote reversed corner lots, all af which are below the
Title 17 minimum lot width of 7805 feet for said reversed corner lots.
bo That a vast ma~ority of the proposed lots are below the allowed 70-foot minimum
Iot width; however, all lots are in excess of ly200 square feet as required by
!_the Gity of Anaheim's R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoneo
ce That cul-de-sacs A, B, G, and D, are only 56 :eet in street width, with a 48-foot
radius for the bulbo City stanc~ards are 60-foot minimum street width, with a
50-toot radius for the bulb<
do That the first street west of Fairmont Boulevard, which "L's" and connects to
the perimeter street, together with the peximeter street, should be a 64-foot
collector street.
C~mmissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe
ITHM N0. 7
Reclassification Noe 56-57-50 - Dream Homes Incorporated,
1085 North Palm Street, Anaheim, Californiaa Property located
south of Katella, with frontages on Katella, Haster, and the
Santa Ana Freewayo
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Reclassification Noe
56-57-5Q hud been filed January 22, 1957~ and on June 17, 1957, the petitioner had sub-
mitted a.letter to the City Clerk requesting that the reclassification proceedings be
withdrawne No Planning Commission or City Council action had been taken on it, and it
was the recommendation of the Planning Department that all proceedings be officially
terminated oR Reclassification Noa 56-57-50,
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Reclassification
No. 56-57-50 be terminated on the basis that no action had been taken by the Planning Commis••
sion ax City.C~uncil after the request of the petitioner had been submitted on June 17, 1957.
Commissioraer Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe
ITEM N0. 8
Conditional Use Permit Noe 165 - 9593 Sequoia Avenue.
Russell J„ Murray and John T~ Callahan, Petitionerso Use of
the property for temporary church facilitieso
Zoning ~oardinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Conditional Use Permit
No. 165 was granted in Rosolution Noe 101, Series 1961-62 on October 2, 1961, with condi-
tions; that Condition Noo 3 of said resolution had a tia~e limitation of three years for
the r~a of the property, subject to review of the petition at the axpiration of said time ~
period-_that the property owner had been contacted on November 5, 1964 relativc: to provid-
~:R ing a written:request for extension of time for the use of subject property, and that one ofthe ;
petitioner s wives advised the Planning Department that the property was no longer being
~ ::sed for the use originally granted, namely a church, and the property was up for sale~
therefore, no ieq~:est for a time extension wouid bs madee
, ,~ .~. __..______.____---..---~.,-,----r- - -
~ .=..=:~ .~.,. ..._.._.._._....-~
~ , . _. .~.,...~: . i . , .. f ~.~ .=_..z --- ---_.._..~'~ .. .. ..~..
l~ V •
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 21, 1464 2438
REPORTS AND
RECOMIV~NDRTIONS - ITEM NOo 8 tContinued)
It was the recommendation of the Planning Department that the Commicsion terminate
Conditiawl lJse Permit No. 165 based on the fact that the use was no longer being
exerciseda
Commissioner P.erry offered Resolution Noo 1467, Series 1964-65, and moved for it~ passage
and adoption,.seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 165,
based on the fact that the time limitation for the approved use had expired, and the peti-
tioner advised the Planning Department that the property was no longer being used for church
purposese !See Resolution Booka) ,
On ro11...ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votei
AYESe COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee
ABSENfs C()MMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp.
ITEM NOo 9
Conditional Use Permit Noe 278 - Ralph Dornette, 1623 East
Verde Circle~ Agente Property located at 1021 Arlee Place~
Request for permission to utilize the properiy ;ar temporary
church servicesa
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that tne time limltation of
one year for the use of the structure at 1021 Arlee Place granted in Conditional. Use
Permit Noe 178 in Resolution Noo 141, Series 1961-62, expired~ and no r.equest for an
extension of time for the proposed use was submitted; that the Planning Department had
contacted.the ~vife of the agent for the petitioner, and was informed that the Conditional
Use Permit had never been ?xercised because the church had located a more suitable build-
ing and had never occupiad the building under consideratione Therefore, it was the Planning
Department's recommendation that the Commission terminate Conditional Use Permit No< 178,
based on the fact that the use was never exercisedo
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1468, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to terminate Conditional Use Permit Noo 178
based on the fact that the use was never axercisedo (See Resolution Booke)
On roll caJ.l the f~,egoing resolution was passEd by the following vote:
AYES: CONOuIISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando
NOESs CUN~OESSIONERSs Noneo
AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo
ITEM NOe 10
Conditional Use Permit Noo 368 - Domnick Bastionell,
1140 West Katella Avenue. Use proposed - motelo
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Conditional Use Permft
Noe 368 was granted in Resolution Noe 638, Series 1962-63, on February 18, 1963, and
that conditions attached in said resolution had not been complied with; that on December 1o-,
1964, the petitioner was contacted relative to his intent to proceed on the conclitional use
pQrmit~ and that the petit3oner had advised the Planning Department he did not intenc~ to
exerctse the use of Conditional Use Perrnit Noo 368~ and requested that all proceedings be
termina.ted .
Commfssioner Gauer uffered Resoluti~~ Noa 1469, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland~ to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 368
based on the fact that the peiitioner had not completed conditions and had advised the
Plannfng Departanent that he did not intend to proaeed under the corr.iitional use permit
granted. (See Resolution Booka)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followino vote:
hYESx COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rawlande
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None>
ABSENT: 'COIWMISSIONERSi Allred, Campe
~
~
~~ ~'
'----------_ . _ _._. __....__..___...___.._..._._..___.~.
. ..~--..__._.___.~_.~ _.,__._
. , ., . . ;, ~ . , ,
>-
, . . , ..
~ .:~... , ~:.
~~ ~
MINUTES~, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2I, 1964
~ ~
2439 I
REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 11
RECOh9u~NDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Noo 389 - U. So Hobbs, 105~ South '~~gnolia,
(Continued Fullerton~ Californiao Proposing to ~:tablish an ice vending macnine
at 600 South Anaheim Boulevard in con3unction with an existing liquor
storeo
i Zoning Coardinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Conditional Use !':rmit
~J No. 389 was granted in Resolution Noe 697~ Series 1962-63 on April 1, 19b3; that deeds for
! the dedication of property along Anaheim Boulevard and the installat.,ion of the landscapi'ng
. i
. !~ in the uncemented portionsof Water Street and Anaheim Boulevard rights-of-way had been
I; submitted, but had never been returned; that on December 10, 1964, Mro Hobbs was contacted
,j by the Planning Department and he advised the Planning Department that since he could not
~ place the ice vendin9 machine on the specific corner he requested, the allowa4le location
j; was not satisfactory for his purposes, and he did not intend to exercise the authority of
~ the conditional use permito
~
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1470, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to terminate Conditional Use Permit No< 389
based on the fact that the petitioner stated he did not intend to exercise the authority
of the conditional use permit~ (See Resolution Booko)
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Ga»er, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES s COA9ulISS IONERS s None o
ABSENIs COMMISSIOI~RS: Allred, Campo
ITEM NOa 12
Conditional Use Permit Npe 4?5 - William Je Messecar,
446 South Poplar, Brea, Californiao Proposed use -
~ automatic car wash at 2154 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Conditional Use Perr.,it
No. 475 was granted by the Commission in Resolution Noo 906, Series 1963-64, on September 2E,
1963, and the time limitation having expired, the petitioner was contacted relat;ve to his
intent to utilize the authoriLy granted under the conditional use permit; and that the peti-
tioner had advised the Planning Department that the negotiations with the prospective lessee
had not mater4alized, and it was not his intent to act further, and, therefore, submitted a
letter.xe.questing that all proceedings under Conditional Use Permit Noo 475 be terminatedo
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Nu~ 1471, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passagE
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to terminate Conditional Use Pe~mit Noo 475~
br^ed on the fact that the petitioner had requested terminationo (See Resolution Booko)
On rol.l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYESs CONVNISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENfs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo
ITEM N0. 13
Variance Noo 1421 - Sylba B, Marks, 2612 West Lincoln Avenue,
requesting permission to convert a guest house into living quarters.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Variance Noo 1421 was
granted by the Planning Commission in Resolution Noe 152, Series 1961-62, on November 27,
1~s61, Condition No, 2 being amended December 27, 1961, in Resolution No. 187, 5eries 1961-62,
i.~t a time limitation for the occupancy of the guest house was one year with the option to
submit.for'review by the Planning Commission a request for an extension of times that ~he
time limitation had expired, and the petiticner had submitted a letter requesting that the
variance be made a permanent permita On December 7, 1964, the petitioner nad k,een contacted
and had advised the Planning Department that the guest house was being occupied by a nurse
who was.caring for Mrs. Marks.
1!4e Commission requested that the Planning Department investigate the property to note
whether all conditions of the variance had been complied with and whether or not~ in fact,
the g~iest house was being occupied by the nurse, and to report back to the Commission on
January 4, 19E5o
_,
, ., ~ ~_.__ -._~ .-•---.._._..... _.._.
- ._. ,,.~ ~ -- -- --
-- , . .. , . ,_ . . ---
_ .h.,....._...,,_..: ~ , ,. ~..
/~~
~.~ / ~
MINUTES,-CITY PLANNING CONaIISSION~ December 21, 1964
.~~-•~~.~~•
2440
REPORTS AND• - ITEM NOa 14
RECOA~{HNDATIONS Variance Noo 1601 - R. t:~. Heald, 114?_ ~~:irt 7r~adway, Apartment lo
(Continued)- Proposing to develop a iour-piex ~t 2ii f~cuih :tiio Street. Request-
ing w~.iver of minir.am requi.red par!::_r,a_ splcs;; in a garage.
Zoning Ceordi~ator Robe•rt ~~t:c~slson advised the C~~mrtissfo,~ that Variance Noo 1601 was
granted in~Resolution Noa 956, Series 1963-6~, on No~e~,'rrv:r 21~ 1963; that prior to thP
Commission's approval of said variance, the~ original ~~e•y~.iested waiver far required side
yard and garage width was withdrawn, and ttiat final d~ave:~opment on the property inc!,uded
five garages, 1:~ereby meeting mini~num Code requirements and eliminating the need for thA
variano~q.thereforp, it was in order for the Commissi~~n to terminate all proceedings on
Variance Noo b601e
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutio~i:Voo 1~72, 5er.ies 1964-65, and rr:~ved for its pas~age
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to ter~minate all proceeciinqs on Varianc: Noe
:601, based on the fact~. that it was no longer appli.c,able since th2 pe~i;itioner had developed
in accordance with minimum Code requirements. (See Resolution i3ooko}
On .roll call the fore,o,oing r~ae,c].ution was E~assed hy the following votE~e
AYESs COhIMISSI~NERS: Gauer, Mungall, Per.ry, Rowlando
NOESs COMMISSII)NERS: Noneo
ABSENf: COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Camp,
1~
~
ITEM NOo 15
Amendment to Title 1'i, C;~apter 17,•Oi3 ~3vison of Rea..l Property
Developed for,or Proposed to be Dev~l~~ped for, Resic'ential Usee
Deputy City Attora~ry rurman Roberts ad~rised the Com~rission that no prcvisfons :!?re made ~
in Titl$ 17 to proviue for tha subdiv3.sion of ~ir space as well as land, or to designat~± ~
that "no't a bui;ld.ablE sito" could only be 1'mited tu certain accessory usas; that the !
Covenants, Conditions, and Restricti~~ns reques::~d 'co be filed in conjunct,ion with condominium ~
developmen_ts in tY~e City was ,-.nt a part oi the ~~rc{?.nance, and it was reyussted that the Com-•
mission .consi.der t'.e r~salu ion to •recomme~d i.c~, ~:~ City Council that Ser, ~i.~n 1~.08, 300 F,e
made a part di° th!. ^~'.:.~~nce, snd in conj~ancti~m with sald Ordinance, tha# a re:;olution
~rstablishing a cYeck list entitled "Check 'List of Provisions to be included in Covenants,
Conditions., and Restrictior.~. Lo be submitted to the City of Anaheim for approval; kno~r~m
as Exhibit "A", also be re~.ummendeci for approval to the City Councilo
Uiscussi.on was held 'cetween the Conunissian and Mro Roberts relative to fund m~nugemen~L for
the CCBR's; that the Commission mighF require fund, filed for contingency purposes fo:^ the
recreatiu„ erea~ since under ihe new -?-3 Code, developers must devote a specific numbe=• oi
square feet.far recreational purposeso '
Commissioner Gauer offered Re,olution Noo i474, Series 1964-65, c~n~ movpG fo.r its passage '
and adootic,n, seconded by Commissioner ?erry, ta recommend to the City Council that Title 17. ~
Chapter 1?o08,.be amended L; the add3tiuz of Section 17v09o300, enti~led "Division oi Real i
Prope-rty Developed for, or Propossd ta be Deveioped for, Residenti.al Use", known as F,;hibit ~
"A". (oee Resol'it.' .a Booka ) ~
On :oll ca~,l the foregoi.ng resolution wa:~ passed by the following votes
AYES~ ' CONVr1ISSI0NHRSe Gaue.r, Mamgall, Perry, Rowlando
~;~ESs ' CG~9MISSIONEkSx Noneo
ABS~NTe CONONISSIONERSs A~lred, Campo
Com^i;:stoner Pe~ry offered Resaluti:m No~ 1475, Series 1964-5b, and movsd for its passage
and a;ioptio., secondei. by Commis~ioner Gauer, to recommend to the C:ty Gouncil that in.
conjunction .c.:ih the r2cently rer..cmmended amendment to Title 17, Cha~:ter 17~08, Section
17.03.30Gy that Standards for i:he Guidance of Persons c: E~tities Seeking Approval of
Covenants, Conditions and Res•tricti.ons~ known as Exhibit ."A"~be approved. (See Res~lution
Book.)
On roll call ihe rore~cing ror.olution was passed by +he following votes
AYESa COhIMISSIONEHS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlan6.
NOESs COMMISSIONERSc Nones
ABSENT.: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp.
AA70URNIV~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a
motion to adj ~rn the meeting. Commissi~ner Rowland seconded the motion
MOTI~N CARRIE,~„ Tne msating ad~uurned at 4e30 o'clock p.mo
' Respectfully submitted~
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Ananeim Planning Commission
~ ~~ - -- - --- - . _---
~.._,~.,.. ..~. . ;~ _ ____..._ ~, ._ :.. _ ,_~_ _. - - . _ _. ~ ...___ . ..--
.~
I
i
~ ;
~ ~
,
~
.__ ._~..~