Minutes-PC 1965/03/15City Hall
Anaheim, California
March 15, 1965
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANA!-~IM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 p.m., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Robert Mickelson
, Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
Planning Department Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg
INVOCATION - Reverend Harold Maiden, West Anaheim Methodist ~hurch, gave the
Invocationa
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Comrt;issioner Herbst led the Pledge of Alle~iance to the Flag>
APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meetin9 of March 1, 1965, were approved as submitted.
-. i
~ONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGa PHILLIP H. CASE, 2501 West Ball Road, Suite "A",
PERMIT N0. 680 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to establish a one
and two-story multiple-family planned residential development on
property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a
frontage of approximately 255 feet on the east side of Webster Street and a maximum depth
of approximately 3G1 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 398
feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 912 and 918 South
Webster Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mr, Phillip H. Case, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
proposed development, stating that it would be a good improvement for the overall appear-
ance of that area.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
The Commission requested that a reduced color rendering, as exhibited at the hearing,
be submitted for inclusion with the exhibits of the petil;ion.
THE [-IEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1558, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to ?rant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 580 subject to conditions and the requirement that the petitioner submit a small color
rendering of the proposed development for inclusion into the petition file. (See Resolution
Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP.S: None.
- 2517 -
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 1965
2518
VARIANCE ~d0. 1690 - PUBLIC HEARInGo RAY E. AND NANCY L~ LOWERY, 1207 Chateau Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Owners; reque~ting permission to waive the
minimum 5-foot side yard requirement to permit an addition, which
will encroach to within 3 feet of the side lot line, to an existing single-family resi-
dencey on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage
of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Chataau Avenue and a maximum depth of
aPproxima;:ely 110 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 91 feet
west of the centerline of Walnut Street, and further described as 1207 Chateau Avenue~
Property presently classified r~•-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZON~.
Mr~ Ray E~ Lowery. the petitioner, appeared before the Cortur.issicn and reviewed the
purpose of the *ecuested variance, concluding by st3ting t~at his neighburs had no
objection to the proposed addition as a block wali exzst~d between their properties~
The Co7unission informed the petitiore* that the uniform buil~ing code would not aliow a
door batween the garage and a r~om that couid be used f.or sleeping purposes, and in
response, the petitioner stated that the room in ques±ion was a kitchen and also that
it h3d a fire door~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
Th~ fiEARING 'NAS CLOSED.,
Commissioner Perry offered '?esolution Noo 1559, Series 1964•~65, and mo~~ed for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for `Jariance No•, 1690,
: subject to a finding that the granting of subject petition would not set a precedent for
any future similar repuests that might be made for the area in question, and conditions~
(See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing reso:ution was passed by the fo?iowiny votea
.YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Nerbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowiand,.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~'one„
ABSENT: COMJ~fISSIONERS: None~
_ VARIANCE N0~ 1~ - PUBLIC tiEARING. CNARLES L.., BARn~ARD, 2346 Mail Avenue, Anaheim,
- California9 Owner; SA1. MERAZ, Forcier Construction Company, 8742
Oceanview, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to
waive the minimum required distance between an addition to an existing structure and
the rear lot lineg the minimum coverage of the required rear yard; and the minimum
required side yar.d on property described as: A rectangul.srly shaped parcel of land
with a frontage of approximately 72 feet on the south side of Mall Avenue and a rtisxi-
mum depth of approximateiy 100 ieet, the western boundary of =aid property being
approximately 535 feet east of the centeriine of Gilbert Street, arid further described
as 2346 Mali Avenueo Property presently classified R-l, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAI., ZO~E.,
~ Mr„ Sa2 Meraz, representative of the agent, appeared before the Conurission and reviewed
~ the purpose of requesting subject va:iance~
In response to Commission questioning, Mr~ Mer~z stated that 40~,K maximum coverage require-
ment would take care of 335 feet; that the back yard patio which was not sttached to the
house would not be removed and may have been included in the coverage; and finally, that
the proposed addition would not exceed the 40% maximum coverage rern~irement,. It was
fLrther determined that the existing tall trees on the south side of subject property
would serve as a sound deterrent to any encroachment into the side yard~
It was determined by the Commission that the Staff, in interpreting the Code requirements,
had included the covered patio, but it was the Commission's opinion that this cover~ge
sh~uld not have included tf.a covered patioo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED>
s' Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 1560, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commission Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No~ 169i, subject
to construction being in accordance with Exhibit Noo 1, and subject to a finding that the
;:~~ granting of subject variance would not set a precedent for any future simi;~z requests that
might be made for the area in question~ (See Resolution Book~)
''~ , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Periy, Rowland~
~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIO~ERS: None~
,~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~
`~ 1
~
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 1965 2519
RECLASSIFICATICA - PUBLIC !-lEARING.. FRANK .J~ AND EVELYN B~ CURRIE, 6392 South Highland
N0~ 64-65-98_y Avenue, Yorba Lind:, California, Owners; BEN KUMA~RFELD, 8422 Lampson
Avenue, Garden Grove, California, Agent; property described as: A
VARIANCE N0~ 1092 rectangularly shaped parcei of land at tYie northeast corner of Mohican
Avenue and C~:•1pa Avenue, with frontages of approximately 108 feet on
Mohican Avenue and approximately 92 feet on Catalpa Avenue~ Property
presently classitied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~
REQUESTED CL4SSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAi:, ZONE~
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD~
Mr~ Ben Kummerfeld, 8422 Lampson Avenue, Garden Grovey California, agent for the petitioner,
appeared before the Commission and reviewed the basis for +he requested reclassification
and variance, stating he was proposing subject addition to his existing house in order to
come within the requirement ior a two-bedroom unit to convext an existing single-family
home into a multiple-family development~
No one appeared in ppposition to subject petitionso
TN.E I~EARING WAS CLOSED.,
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No, 1561, Series 1964•-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that
petition foi Reclassification No. 64-65~•98 be 3pproved, subject to conditions~ (See
Resolution Booko)
On roil call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campy Gauer, Herhst, Mung311, Perry, Rowiand~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~'one•.
ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: None~~
Commissioner Per:y offered Resolution No, i.562y Series i964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Noa 1692,
subject to conditionso {See Resolution Rook~}
On roll call the foregoing :~solution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Camp, Gauer, ~erbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland..
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None,
ABSE~~T: COMN!ISSIO!~ERS: ~one~
AMENDIu1E~'T TO TF{E AR'AHEIM - CO~,'TT~~'JEC ~;~P.:.IC F~ARIAG., II~ITIATED BY TI-~E CITY PLANNING
MUNICIPAI. CODE ~ COMMISSIONy 204 East iincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California,
proposing an amendment to Title i8, Chapter 18~62 SIGNS AND
ADVERTISING S?GNS, by an amendment to Section 18~62o030(g)
Projecting Sign. Section 18~62o030(j) Wall Sign, Section 18,62~03G(~) Are: of Sign,
Section 18~62~090(b-1) Number of Free-Standing Signs Permitted, Section 18~62.090(i)
~,re ~:3•.es; ar. 3ddition to Section 18a62.155 Commercial Use of Residentia? Structures -
Signs Permitted; and the addition of sub-section (cj to Section 18~620180 Intensity of
Lighting and Directin9 of Lighting of Signso
Deputy C;ty Att~rney Furman Roberts reviewed for the Commission the recommended amendments
discussed at the hearing of ~darch 1, 1965o Mro Roberts further advised the Commission he
had prepared altered wording of the light intensity sectior which the Commission had asked
him to redraft; that the revision was made after he had contacted Ed Cronan of the Cali-
fornia Electrical Sign Association, and that if the Commission had any additional recom•-
mendations, he would attempt to present the revised wording at the hearing~
Discussion was then held by the Commission as to the definition of "foot :amberts", and
the maximum lighting intensity permissible under certain conditions which would be accept-
able to the sign industryo
~` ~ It was determined through discussion that a number of factors would have to be t3ken into
consideration when measuring the light of any sign, and it would be necessary to take a
' reading with the light rneasuring device directly against the sign in order to eliminate
~,, as many outside light factors as po=_sible~
a ~.
;~ ~' Mro Ed Cronan, representing the Cslifornia Electrical Sign Association, appeared before
I the Commission and in response to Commission questioning, s±eted there were a number of
'i lighi. metering devices available on tFie market which could meet the requirements ~;f
~ measuring the ~ight ir.tensity..
E
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 1955 2520
AMENDMENT TO THE ANAI-~IM - Discussion was continued by the Commission, representatives
MUNICIPAL CODE_ of the Chief Building Inspector, and Mr, Roberts on the advisa-
(Continued) bility of stipulating a specific light measuring device, where-
upon Mr. Roberts suggested that the revised wording for Section
18~62~180(cj be: "No illuminated sign shall hereafter be
erected or constructed unless the i.l.lumination of said sign is 250•-foot lamberts or less
as said foot lambe~ts are measured on any surface; and there shall be a statement of the
manufacturer att,~ched to the sign there±.o indic=..ting tF~3t ;sid sign dces not exc2ed 250-foot
].amberts as measured at any su::ace„ Such measurement shall be established by any lignt
me3su_ing device approved by the Chief Building Inspector~ Said illumination snall exclude
the effects of other light sources and shall exclude the effects of other externai condi-
tions which will affect the foot lamberts illumination of said sign„"
The Commission then stated the ordinance was necessary to provide some vehicle of regulating
signs in the City; that if the formula just considered was not effective, and a number of
variances would be r,onsidered by the CoR~ission, the Conmission couid Iater review the
ordinance for po;sible amendments~
n~^o Harley Hess, elect.rical inspectory st3ted the ordinance was a good start toward a
mor~ efficient method of determining the lighting on signs, and th~t in the last two years
a considerable change had taken piace in the lighting industry, necessitating some form
of administrative direction in the determination of the brightness of lights~
TI-~ NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No i563, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
ard adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Herbst; to r~commend to the City Council that
Title 18, Chapter 18062 of the Anaheim Municipai Code be amended .is foiiows: Section
18~62~020(d) Name Plates; Section 18.,62~030(g) Piojecting Sign; Section !8.62.030(j)
W~11 Sign; Sec±ion i8.62.030(i) Area of Sign; Section 18„62~090(b-1! Number ef Free-Standing
Signs PArmitted; Section 18~62a090(i) Name F,~tes: an ~ddition to Section 18.02 155 Commercial
L'se of Residential Struci:ures •- Signs Pezn?itted; end the addition of sub-section (c) to
Section 18~62~180 Intensity of Lighting and Directing of Lighting of Siyns, (See Resolution
Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution .vas p.sssed by the following vote:
AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauezy Herbst, Mung,a]1, Perxy, Rowiand..
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~Jone~
ABSENT: COMPdISSIONERS: None~
REPORTS AND ITEM_MO_ 1
RECOM~IJDATIONS - Street Name Change of Miralom.3 Avenue to Sunkist Street..
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that at the last City Cour.cil
meeting the Council had requested that the Ccn~nission consider under Reports and Recommenda-
tions the possibie name change of Miialcma Avenue to anotner name, with the possible sugges•
tion of Sunkist Street since said street would extend over an o~erpass of the Riverside
Freeway and be a continuation into Miraloma Avenue~ Fu:ther, th~t it was the opinion of
the Council that Miraloma Avenue was not an appropziate name for an industrial complex
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson also reviewed the City Council`s reason for reo~,es±ing
the Commission's consideration of a name change. Further, it was the department`s feeling
the extension of Sunkist Street would not be 3 desirable one because of the fact ±fiat tt~is
would be boih an east-west ~nd a north-south street wit.h the sti•eet having addresses in a
residential area as well as an industrial area; that the post office had expressed their
opposition because of the confusion of delay of mail since many people neglected to indicate
the geographic connotation of north, east, south, or west; and then read a letter from the
postmaster of the Anaheim United States Post Office indicating further opposition to a
proposed name change to Miralcn•~3 4~,~enue. It was further noted that upon contacting repre-
sentatives of Autonetics, opposition had been expressed by them, but rather than repeat
their opposition, i;heir representative, Mr~ Jerry Davis, was present in the Council Chamber
to present his viewso
Mr. Jerry Davis, representing Autonetics, appeared before the Commission and stated his
firm was stiil filling the "pipeline" to their eastern offices with the new name end
address change on stiipping materials and stationery; that they had made a comprehensive
stvdy of expenditures due to the City chan9ing the name of ihe street from Anaheim Road
to Miraloma Avenue, and a~ that time no opposition had been expressed by his comp~ny
because it was felt it was more appropriate to have the name change due to the si~nilarity
of the main street in town; that the cost in msking the change was astionomical, and s
similar cost woUld have to be incuri•ed if the naRe were to be changed again; that the
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 2965 2521
REPORTS AND
RECOMN~NDATIONS - ITEM N0, 1 (Continued)
magnitude of the effect in confusion alone could not be measured in dollars, for example,
one department alone had 38 forms which would be changed at a cost of $2,000 for each
plate change, not to mention the cost of the forms which would have to be discai•ded;
that the Anaheim office held 600,000 payroll checks presently imprinted with the Miraloma
Avenue name, and these would aiso have to be discar~ed; that many of their suppliers had
preprinted shipping tickets and forms with the new address which would also become obsolete;
I that the field departments which operated on a minimum supply would become shorthanded
because the printers had been unable to keep up with the present change in n3mes, and since
Autonetics had become used to the namey plus the fact ihat another change would invoive a
I considerable expenditure, Autonetics preferred the name remain Miraloma Avenue~
Discussion was then held by the Commission rela±ive to any suggested cE~ange to Miraloma
Avenue, and expressions were indicated that at the time the Commission had held public
hearings relative to the change, no opposition had been expressed to the proposed name;
that the term meant "view of the mountains" and was most appropriate foz?:e S~;?cne+:cscomp?ox;
and that since opposition from both the post office and the manufacturing concern most
affected by the name change had opposed ttie name change, no name change should be si~ggested.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council *_h~t :i;er r,ea*~ny e•,zdence
submitted by the post office and Autonetics, th~ n~ir~a Mi.aloma Avenue iemain as is.
Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion~ M1MJTION CARRIED~
ITEM NO„ 2
Conditional Use Permit No~ 618 - Reauest for extension of
timeo Property located at the intersection of Santa Ana
Street and Hessel Avenue, proposing to ~:se the property
for the wholesaie storage of petroleum and its fluid prociucts.
Associate Planner Ronald ThomFson advised the ComTission that a request had been ieceived
for an extension of 180 days for the completion of conditions in the Commission`s approvel
in Resolution Noo 1317, Series 1964-05, granting Conditional Use Permit No~ 6i8 It w3s
noted in the request that proceedings had been going forward in the preparatior. of drawings,
changing the name of the grantor since the property had been sold after the Commission's
action, and other conditions would be complied with prior to app:ication for thE building
permit~
Cor!unissioner Perry offered a motion to grant an extension of i80 days for the completion
of conditions in Resolution Noo 1317, Series 1964-65, granting Conditional Use °ermit
Noo 618, said time extension to expire August 26, 1965~ Commissioner Camp seconded the
motione MOTION CARRIEDo
ITEM N0. 3
Placentia Unified School District - Proposed elementary
school site, located B00 feet north of Orangethorpe Avenue,
600 feet east of the p*cposed head of Lakeview Street in
the recently annexed P~ortheast Annexztion Noo 3,
Associate Planner Ronald ;humpson presented to the Commission a map of the proposed
elementary school site for the Placentia Unified School District located in the North-
east Annexation Noo 3 area, noting the County Planning Department had been contacted
relative to the relationshiQ of the proposed site to the land uses proposed in the
Yorba Linda General Plan, and had been advised no objection would be made; that the
proposed site was part of a parcel which would be before the Commission o;~ Ma*_ch 29,
1965, in conjunction with a petition for reclassification of the total parcel, including
the school site, for R-2, low-medium density zoning; and that upon review by the Planning
Staff of the proposed site, no opposition was indicated~
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson indicated on the General Plan map the location of the
proposed site and further stated that although the site was being proposed for a schooi,
the owner of the property had requested R-2,low-medium density zone be considered for the
property in the event the school site was abandoned by the Placentia Unified School llistrict,
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the Placentia Ur.ified School District
that the proposed site for an element~ry school north of Orangethorpe Avenue and east of
Taylor-Lakeview be approvedo Commissioner Camp seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.
~ 1 ~x
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 1965 2522
REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 4
RECOMA~ NDATIONS Conditionai Use Permit No~ 471 - Request for extension of time
(Continued) for the completion of conditions at Linbrook Bowl, 201 South
Brookhurst Streeta
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a request for a six-month
extension of time for the compietion of conditions in Resolution Noo 894, Series 1963-64,
qranting Conditional Use Permit Noo 471 had been received. The only condition yet to be
completed was the payment of street light feese
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to yrant a 180-day time extension for the completion
of conditions in Resolution N~o 894, Series 1963-64~ granting Conditional Use Permit No~
471 for the construction of a children's playroom and a meeting room in conjunction with
the bowling center9 531ti t.ime to exF;ie A!gust 15, i965o Commissioner Allred seconded
the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~
ITEM ~0.. 5
Conditional Us~~ Permit No~ 612 - Request for extension of time
to complete conditions in Resolution Noo 1318, Series 1964-65,
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the request from the
Anaheim Mexican Baptist Churc~ for an extension of time to complete conditions attached
in the Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit Noe 612 on September 10, 1964,
indicating the property was located approximately 81 feet west of the corner of Fann
Place and Orange Avenue on the north side of Orange Avenueo
Cortunissione: Rowiand o.'fered a motion to grant an ex±ension of 180 days for the completion
o.' conditions in Resolution Noo 1318, Series 1964-65, granting Conditional Use Permi±
No, 6i2, sa~d extension of time to expire on September 5, 1965~ Comrc:issioner Perry
seconded the motio~~. MOTION CARRIED,
ITEM h0~ 6
Precise alignment of Gerda prive W/0 Pinney Drive, adjacent to
the park site recently approved for acquisition by the City
Council north of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Pinney Drive,
Associate Planner Ronald Thor,.pson reviewed for the Commission the report by the Planning
Division in which a request from the architect for the Orange Lnified School District was
reviewed9 requesting information on the precise alignment of the service road across the
school propertyo It was also noted that since no exact date for the construction of the
freeway could be de*ermined, and the fact that the date might coincide with the construc-
tion of the schooly the precise alignment could not be established, but that if any ctianoe
weie to be proposed, a General P1an Amendment and precise alignment public hearing wouid
have to be ~eid~
Discussion w3s held by the Commission as to the method of advising the architect reg~rding
the City's posi±ior,.. It was then determined that the Commission could recommend to the
City Council for study and consideration and approval the precise alignment study made by
the Engi.neering Department,.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that their body could only
recommend to the City Council, sir,-e public hearings must be held on any t:ighway right-
of-way amendmenty and that the a:ct~;tect of the Orange Unified School District should be
advised of the c,::cent status of the property and the fact that the exact date of ttle
freewa}~ construction had not been determined~
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed
alignment of Gerda Drive,precise alignment study,be reviewed and considered for approval,
and that their decision be forwarded to the architect of the Orange Unified School District,
Adrian Wilsona Commissioner Allred seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0~ 7
Termination of Variance Nos. 409 and 613 and Conditional Use Permi.t
Noa 514~
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the uses of property under
Vari3r,ce No, 409, and the fact that the Planning Commission on December 15, 1964, recommended
approval of Reclassification No. 64-65-76 in Resolution No. 1487, Series 1964-65~ that C-1
zoning be approved on subject property; and the Council approving in Resolution of intent
Nu~ 65R-80 the C-1 rezoning of a service station site at the southeast corner of Orange
Avenue and Brookhurst Street~
~.
F
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 1965 2523
REPORTS AND
RECOM1u~NDATIONS - ITEM N0. 7 (Continued)
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1566, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate Petition for Variance No. 409,
based on the fact that the most appropriate zoning had been approved for the service station
site under which Variance No~ 409 was approved, and, therefore, the variance was no longer
necessaryo (See Resolution Book.)
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
ti~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: kllred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~
~`~~ ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
`~y ABSENTD COMMISSIONERS: None.
i,
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the uses established on
property at 2160 West Bail Road under Variance Noo 613, and the Commission's action in
recommending approval of Reclassification Noo 64-65-SO and Conditional Use Permit Noo 667
_ in Resolution Nosa 1496 and 1497, Series 1964-65o Further, that the City Council, on
' February 23, 1965, had approved Reclassification No. 64-65-80 in Resolution Aio. 65R-107
and Conditional Use Permit Noa 667 in Resolution Noe 65R-108, reclassifying the retail
stores and office building approved under Variance No. 613 to its most appropriate zoneo
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1565, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
, and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate Varianca No. 613, based on
the fact that the va~iance was no longer necessary since the most appropriate zoning, and
a conditional use permit to legalize tne existing operation of on-sale beer and wine,had
been approved by the City Councii. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIQ[dERS: No~~e.
ABSEM : COMMISSIUNERS: Nons.
; Associate Planner Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that under Conditional Use Permit
_ Noo 514, the redevelopment of a service station site with a new service station was approved,
and that on December 15, 1964, i.n Resolution No. 1484, Series 1964-65, the Commission recom-
menued approval for C-1 zoning in Reclassification No. 64-65-73, and the ~ity Council approved
Reclassification Noo 64-65-73 in Resolution No. 65R-75 for C-1 zoning on February 2, 1965q
therefore, the conditional use permit was no longer necessary, since the most appropriate
zoning was applied to the service station site.
': Cormnissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1564, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
s and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate Conditional Use Permit Noo 514,
t based on the fact that the most appropriate zoning had been applied to subject property, and
; the conditional use permit was no longer necessary. (See Resolution Book.)
i
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ITEM N0. S
Orange County Use Variance No. 5518 - Proposing to construct a
second single-family dwelling with attached garage on property
located at the northwest corner of Cherry and Van Buren Streets
in the Atwood Area, in the M1, Light Industrial District.
Associate Planner Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the location ef the subject
property, noting that an existing single-family home was on the property, and from indica-
tions, expansion of industrial uses in that area would not be in +.he foreseeable future,
and when said area was being developed for industrial purposes, ecanomics would govern
whether or not the single-family homes would remain in that areae
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to receive and file Use Variance No. 5518o Commissioner
Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo
. ._ . ...:.: - -- ,. ...
~ _. , -
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 1965 2g2q
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 9
RECOMN~NDATIONS Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1169 - L. W. LeFort Co., Incorporated,
(Continued) proposing to establish a manufacturing business engaged in the fabrication
of steel, lead and plastic-lined products in the 100-M1-20,000 Light
Industrial District; property located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue
approximately 200 feet west of Red Gum Street.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented to the Commission Orange County Conditional
permit No~ 1169, reviewing the location, the proposed use of subject property, and the plans
which indicated that the petitioner proposed a 20-foot setback from Miraloma Avenue, whereas
the City required a 50-foot parking-landscaping setback of properties in close proximity to
subject propertyo
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the required 50-foot parking-landscaping
setback required and urging the City Council to consider recommending that the City of
Anaheim's 30-foot parking landscaping setback be made a requirement; further that there was
a possibility that the proposed use might be too intense for the area in comparison to the
uses aiready established in the northeast industrial area, and inquired whether information
, could be obtained as to the proposed usea
Hr~ Mickelson advised the Commis=_ion that subject petition was being considered by the
Orange County Planning Commission on March 17, 1965, which would not permit a continuance
of the Commission`s considera±ion and recommendation, but that he would ascertain the in-
tensity of the proposed use and make the information available to the City Council for their
consideration~
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Commission be urged to consider the City of Anaheim's requirement of a 50-foot
parking•-landscaping setback for the Miraloma Avenue frontage of property being considered
in Conditional Permit ::o„ '169, in order to provide for the continuity of said setback in
the northeast industrial are•a, Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~
ITEM !~'0 0 10
Orange County Conditional Permit No., 1167 - Orange Unified School
~'' District - Proposing to construct an elementary school in the A1
_, General Agricultural Dis±rict on the north side of the Riverside
_' Freeway approximately 1,100 feet west of Tayloi• Street, in East
~ Anaheim~
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson presented to the Commission Orange County Conditional
Permit No, 1167, reviewing the location and the proposed use of subject property r.oting
that the location was in conformance with the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plan~
Commissioner Cu~uer offezed a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Commission be urged to approve Conditional Permit No. 1167 for a proposed elementary
schoolo Commissioner Allred seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0~11`a
Orang~ unt.y Use Variance No. 5513 - Setback variance for a pump island
and c~.nopy at an existing service station site on the northwest corner of
Li~coln and Dowiing Avenues in the West Olive area,
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the location of subject property for the
Commission, noting that the service station was already approved for estabiishment in
January of 1963 by the County, and that the proposed use variance was for the construction
of a pump island and detached canopy and ball sign on said service station.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Use Variance No. 5513.
Commissioner Pec~ry seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 11•-b
Orange County Use Variance No. 5517 - Modification of certain conditions
regardir,g business hours, outdoor advertising and landscaping in connection
with the establishment of a service station in the NC, Neighborhood
Commercial District, at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and
Sunkist Streeto
, Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission Orange County Use Variance
No~ 5517, and the proposed request for extension of operating hours, the establishment of
~ a spherical rotating sign, and the establishment of a 5-foot landscape strip instead of the
-+~ required 10-foot strip, abutting La Palma Avenue at Sunkist Streeto
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Use Variance No~ 5517.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma*ch 15, 1965 2525
REPORTS AND - ITEM NOa 12
RECOMMENDATIONS Request from Sully-Niller Company, regarding the study of the change in
(Continued) ~ classification of Richfield Road from a collector street to a local
street~
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission a request from Sully-~diller
Company for the re-study of the classification of Richfield Road southerly of Walnut Street
to change its classification from a collectnr street to a local street,
~ Mr. Thompson further reviewed the information received from the Engineering and Public
~~ Works Departments relative to the requested change in classifir.ation,
It w~s noted for the Commission's information that if the proposed change was considered
favorably, this would entail a change to the Genera; P!an Streets and Highways Righis-of-
Way and should be set for public hearing.,
Commissioner Rowland offeied a motion 'to di*ect the Commission Secretary to set for public
heaz•ing General Plan Amendment No. 53, proposing the change _n classification of Richfield
Road easterly of Jefferson Street from a collector street to a local street, said public
hearing to be held March 29, 1965~ Commissinner Perry seconded the motion~ MOTION C,aRRIED„
ITEM NO_ _?
Froposed art~endment to Title 18,, Chapter 18,40, Section i8~40~040(b) -
Outdoor Uses Reiating to Plant Nurseries.
Associate Flanner Ronaid Thompson reviewee fo: the CoR~is:,ion the probl?ms entailed in the
administering of r,urseries in tne C-1 Zone, and inquired whether the Commission considered
it sufficiently important to recommend that the City Counci.l adopt an urgency ordinance to
change said Section i8„40o0A0(b) of the Ar.aheim ti~~::~cip~J. Code~
~'
Discussion was held by the Commission and tt was determined no urgency ordinance was
' necessary, but consideration should be made at the nexr pub.ic hea:ing.
: Commissioner A:lred offared a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public
~ hearing on March 29, i965, considez~tion of amendment to Title 189 Chapter 18,40, 5ection
18040~040(t,) ~- C••1, Commerc~al, Zone - Outdoor Uses Relating to Plant Nurseries, Commissioner
_ Gauer seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~
ITFM NQ,_ i4
C;.~nge oi designation of ?efferson Street from a primary highway
to a major highway,
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the 0*ange County Planning
Commission's proposai to consider at a p~hlic hearing on April 7, 1965, the reclassification
of Jeffeison Street from a primary highway to a major highway; further, that the Commission
y had continued consideration of the precise alignmen# of Jefferson and Linda Vista Streets
ij to the meeting of April 26, 1955a
Discussion was held by the Commissi.on as to whether the change in street classification
of Jefferson-iinda Vista be considered concurrently with the precise alignment, or whether.
a separate public hearing should be held or. March 29, 1965, in order that the Commission's
recommendations to the City Council and the Orange County Pianning Commission might be
expressed at the Cour.ty Plann:ng Commission's public hea.ring~
It was noted by the Commission that a bridge for .Tefferson Street to traverse the Santa Ana
River was budgeted by the County for construction in 1966; that industry was more inclined
to prefer property adjacent to a major highway, since this would provide access for trucks,
etco, and that property owners might realize considerably more than if left a primary highway~
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to c~et for public
hearing on March 29, 1965, to consider a chan9e in designation of Jefferson Street from a
primary highway to a major highway~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED~
I '
;.j ~
'i ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 1965 2526
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 15
RECOMMENDATIONS Consideration ~of an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code,
(Continued) Section 18.640~40, Section 18.68>040, and Section 18072.020,
to amend the terminology of the time limitation :or compliance
with conditionso
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that at recent public hearings
by the City Council, differences in opinion were expressed by the Council relative to the
interpretation of the time limitation for conditional use permits, variances, and reclassi-
- fications, and that upon the advice of City Attorney Joseph Geisler, it was recommended
.~:%~-~ that the Commission set for public hearing to recognize through an amendment the policy
~ which is taking place on the time limitations and extensions after time had expired on
~s ~ conditional use permits, variances, and reclassifications.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the interpretation of the City Attorney
and City Council o:•. ~ime limitation on petitions, after which Commissioner Rowland offered
a motion to direct the Comniission Secretary to set for public hearing on April 12, 1965,
consideration of an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18, Section 18.64.040,
Section 18e68~040, and Section 18072.020, Time Limitation~ Commissioner Gauer seconded
the motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0~ 16
Consideration of an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code,
Section 18a16o030(b-1-2) governing the number of horses and
size of an R~A parcel to accommodate said horseso
Associate Planner Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission problems had in the inter-
pretation of Chapter 18016 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the number of
horses allowed on an acre parcel since there seemed to be some ambiguity as to its
administration, and the fact that the old R-A Code indicated a maximum of three adult
animals w~s permissible on a one-acre parcelo
Discussion was held by the Commission, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, and Zoning
Coordinator Robert Mickelson relative to the problertis involved in the administration of
Chapter 18a16 - R-A, Agricultural, Zoneo Mra Roberts stated it was his opinion a definite
minimum size should be indicated and felt the Staff should further review thiso
Mro Mickelson advised the Commission that the Advanced Planning Division was in the process
of dr~fting an ordinance governing equestrian trails, and that perhaps after this was com-
pieted, a clearer picture couid be presented to the Commissiono
Chairman Mungall ~ec:ared that the consideration of an amendment to Section 18016 of the
Anaheim MuniciFal Code be tabled until such time as the Planning Department presented the
equestrian ordinance and presented further data regarding the proposed change~
ITEM N0. 17
Representative of tne City of Anaheim to the International
Planning Congress to be held in April in Toronto, Canadao
Commissioner Perry noted for the Commission that Commissioner Gauer~presently on the Southern
California Pianning Congress~had been recommended to attend the International Planning Con9ress
in Toronto, Canada, with the Southern California Planning Congress paying for transpoztation,
and that z recommendation should be made to the City Council to consider payment of other
incidental expenses of Commissioner Gauer at said convention since the City of Anaheim had
been honored by the election of one of its Commissioners to be president of the Southern
California Planning Congress,and to be a representative of that group was also considered
quite an honoro
Discussion was then held by the Commission, and all Commissioners concurred in the recommenda-
tion just presented by Commissioner Perry.
Commissioner Gauer abstained from any discussion.
Commissioner Perry offered a motiun to recommend to the City Council that consideration
should be given to the reimbursement for all incidental expenses involved, other than
transportation, for Commissioner Gauer to represent the City and the Southern California
Planning Congress at the International Planning Congress in Toronto, Canada, in April, 1965~
Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono NpTI011 CARRIEDe Commi.ssioner Gauer abstained~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 15, 1965 2g27
REPORTS AND ~ ITEM N0~ 18
RECOMN~NDATIONS Joint session of the represEntatives of the City of Anaheim
(Continued) with the County Assessor's Office relative to "not a buildable lot".
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that at their request on
January 18, 1965, relative to the City Attorney's Office meeting with the Orange County
Assessor's Office to determine remedial steps to be taken in the assessment billing
of "not a buildable lot" in subdivisions in the City of Anaheim, he and Mro Wallace
Crenshaw of the Engineering Division, met with a representative of the County Assessor's
Office to discuss the problems and possible remedial action to take place where lots in
subdivisions were required to dedicate a one-foot strip for the construction of a six-
foot masonry wallbein9 biiled separately from the main lots,and the fact that since
they were billed by the County Assessor's Office separately, many times the assessment
was not paid by the owner of the property, and by default became the property of the City;
that after considerable discussion with the assessor's representative wh~ indicated they
weie aui~, aware of the problems the City of Anaheim faced, no final decision was arrived
at, but i~e hac? been informed they would take the problem under consideration.
Mro Roberts further stated that where two lots were contiguous to each other, the assessor
would attempt to have a policy for the assessing and billing on one bill any property
indicated as "not a buildable lot", and that he would continue to work with the County
Assessor's Offic~, in order to attain some resolution to the problem facing the Cityo
- There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland
offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Herbst
seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDo
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 peme
Respectfully submitted,
C/v'7 "(.-~j~~~~l,n~
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
~