Minutes-PC 1965/04/12, .~ ~ s
Citv Hali
Anaheim, California
April 12, 1965
A REGULAR i~ETING OF THE ANAF~IM CITY PLANIJING COMMISSION
REGULAR bIEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was calied
to order by Chairman pr~ tem Camp ~t 2:00 pam,, a quorum being present.
, PRESENT - CHAiRMAN PRO TEM: Campo
; .,:.~+~~ - COMMIS5IONERSs Gauer, Herbst9 Rowlande
~v~~ ' ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungally Perry,
C~ ,
° pRESENr - Zonin Coordinator:
' g Robert Mickelson
;.~ Deputy Ci.ty Attorney: Furman Rok.;rts
Office Enyineez: Arihur Daw
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann K;ebs
i.'I _, Planning Department Stenographera Carolyn Grogg
INVOCATION - Reverend Harmon, Sto Ar~thony Clarei Ch~rch, gave the Invccation.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led the Pledoe of Aliegiance to the Flag,
APPRGVAL OF
Tf~ MINUTES - The Minutes of the ineeting of Marcti i5, 1965; were approved with the
following corrections:
Page 2537, para9raph 1, heading should be "General Plan Amendment No. 55";
paragraph 8, line 1, should be "Resoiution Noo 1574"; line 3
should be "Generai Plan Amendment No< 55";
paragraph 11, hea~ing should be "General Plan Amendment No. 54"0
Page 2536, paragraph 9, iine i, should be "Resoiution No. 1573"; line 3
shouid be "Gener~'i Plan Amendment Noa 54"0
-_ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC 1-IEARING~ FINAD!ClAL FEDERATION, INCORPORATED, 921 West
N0. 64-65-94 Beverly Boulevard, Montebello9 Califoxnia, Owner~ requesting that
' property described as: An irregulariy shaped parcel of land situated
~ TENTATIVE MAP OF northerly of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and westerly of Imperial Highway,
TRACT N0. 5844 the southerly boundary of said property coir,cides with the northerly
right-of-way boundary of the Santa ~na Valley irrigation canal, and the
eastern boundary lies approx.imately 270 feet west cf the centerline of
Imperial Highway; the northern boundary of subject property is the easterly prolongation
of the northern boundary of Tract Noo 5229 which lies immediately west of subject property,
from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, to the R-29 MULT:PLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZpNE,
~ DEVELOPERs GAR-L0, INCORPORATED, 921 West Beverly Boulevai•dy Montebello, Caiifornia.
~ ENGINEER: Kemmerer Engineering Company9 I~corporatady 145 North Painter, Whittier,
California~
Subject tract, located northerly of Santa Ana Canyon Roa~ and westerly of Imperial Highway,
~ and coverin~ approximately 12 acres, is proposed for subdivision ir;to 44 R-2, MULTIPLE-
~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEU lots,
; Subject petition and tentdtive tract were continued from t.he meeting=_ of March 1 and 29,
~ 1965, in order th2t a determination might be made as to tt~e ultimate alignment of the
freeway by the State, and for the petitioner to incurporate said recommendations into a
{ revised tract map.
Mr. Edward Till, representing the engineer and the develcper, appeared before the Commission
and revie,••~:;; the reason fcr having submiti:ed the revised trar± too .late for .'.nterdepartmE.,tal
Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare consideration, He further reviewed the
recent impending zoning action on property in close proximity to subject property, the pro-
posed freeway interchanges, and the access roads neces>ary to the freeway.
In response to Commission questioning relative to the possibility ttiat the tract necessitated
revision, Mr. Till stated t}: ~~~ised map which was submitted had ~11 revisions necessary to
compensate for the State's -„~sition of their property for freeway purposes; further, that
~` '_i:tvas r.ecessary to des~gn a~~. ~ to back on lots with une access road; that because of
- 2~~~5 -
~
~
_, . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 April 12, 1965 2546
RECLASSIFICATION - the State's acquisition of the property,some problem luts existed;
N0. 64-65-94 that to his knowledge, the State did not plan to take any property
from the R-1 lots to the west; and that the freeway would be elevatedy
TENTATIVE MAP OF although no final plans had been made by the State.
TRACT N0. 5844
(Continued ~ Mr. Terrence McGovern, representing the developer, appeared before the
Commission and reviewed the basis for proposin9 the R-2 development on
subject property; that they were also the developers of the R-1 tract
to the west; and that the State had advised them no property was being taken from the R-1
tract, but a retaining wall would be required adjacent to these lots.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
~ ,~•~~
~;~, THE FLARING WAS CLOSEDo
Discussion was held by the Commission on whether or not the Commission should favorarly
consider R-2 developm?nt in the area, or if a hardship might develop if the Commission
felt R-1 zoning should be proposed for subjeci property since it was possible that if
sub3ect petition were approved, this might opr.n up a large area for multiple-family
development; that if the Commission considered the proposed reclassification favorabl}•y
_ a finding could be made that because of the proximity of the fzeeway, the pzoposed re-
classification was more practical; that since the Interdepartmental Committee had not
reviewed the revised tract map, the Commission could not recommend any changes to the
City Council, and, therefore, an incomplete packet would be submitted to the City Councile
Commissioner Rowland ofiered a motion to approve Reclassificaticn No, 64-65-94, This
motion lost for want of a second.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Reclassification No. 64-65-94 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 5844 to the meeting of
April 26, 1965, in order that the Interdepartmentai Committee for Public S~fety ~nd
General Welfare might have time to review the revised tentative tract map, Commissioner
Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC i-IEARIAG~ GREAT WESTERN LAND COMPANY, 511 South Brookhurst Road,
N0. 64-65-108 Fullerton, California, Owner; VOORHEIS-TRIP~DLE-NELSON, INCORPORATED,
13794 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, California, Agent; property des-
_ VARIAIJCE NOa 1596 crfbed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated northeast.erly
of the intersection of the Newport and Riverside Freewaysp subject
TENTATIVE MAP OF property contains approximately 86e3 acres and is bounded on the ncrth
TRACT N0. 4427, by the Santa Ana River and on the south by the Santa Ana Vall.ey Irri-
REVISION N0~ 5; gation Canal which lies immediately north of and adjacent to the River~-
NOS. 5409, 5826, side Freeway; subject property lies north and east of Tract Noo 5000,
AND 5827 and has a frontage on the Riverside Freeway oi approximately 1,293 feet
' and a frontage on the Santa Ana River of approximately 2,535 feet~
! Property presently classified A-1 (County) and R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEN•-
~ TIAL, ZONE.
! REQl1ESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAI., ZONE.
I REQUESTED 6'ARIANCE: WAIVER OF: (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS, (2) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS,
I (3? MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK, AND (4) MINIMUM SIDE YARD FOR REVERSED
~ CORNER LOT.
Subject tracts, located be+.ween the Riverside Freeway and the Santa Ana Rivez•, northeastei•1y
of the intersection of :~d:iington Drive and Santa A~a Canyon Road, and covering approximately
86.3 acres, are propos.: fp:• subdivision into 335 R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lotse
Mr. Ralph Van Buskirk, r?Fi•,.senting the engineers of the proposed development, indicated
his presence and his availability to answer questions.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the fact that the petitioner was reque=t-
ing a variance and was p.roposing subdivision of 86,3 a;,reswith substandard lots and streets;
that the proposed reclassification was in conformance with projections for the area, but
if i:he proposed substandard lots and streets were approved, this would be granting a favor
to one, whereas other developers in the area were required to conform with City of Anaheim
standards.
' Mr. Van Buskirk stated the variance was filed to request waiver of these discrepancies;
' that subject tracts were approved with the assistance of the City of Anaheim through the
~ County; that subject property was in the process of beina annexed to the City ~f A~aheim;
,,,~ and that all engineering work had been compieted prior to the submission to the City of
~ Anaheim.
' I` 4, F
-. .1 .
MINUTES, C•'TY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 12, 1965 2547
RECLASSIFICAT?ON - Further, that a utility agreement had been reached with the Department
N0. 64-65-108 of Public Works relative to supplying public utilities for the tract, and
that this was predicated on requirir,g that the property be annexed into
. VARIANCE NOa 1696 the Citya
TENTATIVE MAP OF Chairman pro tem C;imp stated that if the proposed request for waiver of
TRAC? N0. 4427, requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code was f=~ just a few lots, this
REVIS~ON NOo 5; wou~d be understar.i~.ble, bu~ since 8603 acres were involved and 335 lots,
NOS. 5409, 5826, the developer was probably creating a diversion and would be doing the
AND 5827 citizens of the City of Anaheim an injustice by permitting the four
(Continued waivers reqLesteda
~ Mr> Richard Galeno, agent for the subdivider, appeared before the
, Commission and stated the developer had a utilities agreement with the City; that the
entire tract could be recorded while still under the jurisdiction of the County with the
substandard lots, and then proceed with the initiation of an uninhabited annexation to
the City of Anaheimo
The Commission noted they were quite aware this procedure could be accomplished, but since
the petition was before the Comrrission, it was their feeling any development should be in
accordance with City standards, even though the City had agreed to furnish utilities to
the property, because it would set an unfavorable precedent for development in the City or
subsequent properties to be annexed into the Citye
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso
T}iE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1583, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No> 64-65-108 be apprcved, subject to conditions, (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS= Noneo
ABSEN'I: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Perrye
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, 1584, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance Noe 1696, based
on +.he fact that :he proposed variance wnuld develop four substandard tracts in the City;
that the City required other developers in the City to develop in accordance with Code
requirements; that the proposed circulation was substandard9 with the 335 lots being pro-
posed; and that if subject property were only a small parcel, making it difficult to sub-
divide properly, the variance might te taken into consideration, but due to the fact that
subject property was a large parcel of land, it should be a requirement that the petitioner
develop in accordance with Code requirements of standard lot sizes and standard streets.
(See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSi:~NERS: Allred, Mungall, Perryo
Cortv~issioner Rowland offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract Noe 4427, Revision
No. 5, and Noso 5409, 5826, and 5827 based on the fact that the lots do not conform to
the City of Anaheim standards for R-1 subdivision tracts; further, that substandard street
widths are proposed to handle the traffic from 335 homes, Commissioner Herbst seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRiED.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: MIT-MOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, P, Oo Box No, 334, Anaheim,
TRACT N0. 5611, Californiao ENGINEER: McDaniel Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln
REVISION N0. 4 Avenue, Anaheim, Caliiornia, Subject tract, located on the south side
of South Street and eastE^ly of State College Boulevard and covering
approximately 14e2 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 56 R-1 lotso
No one appeared to represent the developero
*
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the propcsed revised tentative tract map with
the Commission noting that Let Noso 37, 38 and 39, backing onto Nordica Lane, were deter-
mined to be double frontage lots and that the Commission might .~.onsider requiring a 6-foot
~
._ ,.
. : ~; ;,:
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 12, 1965 2548
TENTATIVE MAP OF - masonry wall to be constructed along the westerly boundary of said lots
TRACT NOo 5611, in order that the rear yards would not have to be visible to the lots
REVISION NOo 4,_ fronting on the west side of Nordica Lanea
(Continued)
In response to Commission questioning,Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised
that dedication of access rights would not be needed if a 6-foot masonry wall were required.
Discussion Nas held by the Commission relative to the recommendations of the Staff, where-
upon Commissioner Gauer offered a motion +.o approve Revision Noe 4 of Tentative Map of
Tract No. 5611, subject to the following conditions:
4
~
(1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
(2) That a predetermined price for Lots A and B shall be calculated a~d an agreement
for dedication entered into between the Developer and the City o# Anaheim prior to
approval of the final tract map, The cost of Lots A and B shall include land and
a proportionate shara cf the underground utilities and street improvements.
(3) That the approval of Tentative Tract Map Noe 5611 is granted suu~ec: to the
completion of reclassification proceedings on subject property.
(4) That Viking Avenue and Oakstone Way shall be improved with a 40-foot roadway,
within the 60-foot ~edicatione
(5) That the median islands in Oakstone Way shall provide a net width of 7 feet.
(6) That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed
in the median islands, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject
to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanceo
(7) 7hat a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the westerly boundary cf
the double frontage lots which back onto Nordica Lane, known as Lot Nos. 37, 38
and 39, as referred to in Revision Noe 4 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5611,
prior to f~nal acceptance of the tracta
,~~ _; VARIAI~E NO,~~ - PUgLIC F~ARING~ NOEL Fo AND NOLA To HA'ICH, 2510 West Orange Avenue,
~ Anaheim, California, Owners~ DAVID KORY, 10572 Melric Avenue, Garden
~ Grove, California, Agent~ requesting permission to waive lot aize and
j width for a divi~ed parcel of R-A property described as~ An "L" shaped parcel of land
~! located south and east of a rectangular parcel of land located at the southaast corner of
oj State College Boulevard and South Street, said corner parcel having frontages of approxi-
4~ mately 300 feet on Scuth Street and approximately 148 feet on State Coliege Boulevard~
r;-~ sub~ect property has frontages of approximately 190 feet on the east side of State College
;~ ' Boulevard and approximately 14 feet on the south side of South Street, and further described
~; ` as BOB South State College Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
~j + Mr. David Kory, agent for the etitioner a
P , ppeared before the Commission and stated tha only
~ ~ purpose for subdividing the R-A parcel was to sell one parcel - that no physical change would
~ transpire if said subdivision took place.
k. t The Commission noted, upon a field trip in the morning, that a number of cars and trailers
r, ~ were located on subject propsrty and inquired whether these would be located on subject
property after the property was sold.
i i
F Mr. Kory replied that subject property was presently being rented, and the cars and traile~~s
! were owned by the renters. Further, that it was the petitioners' desire that street ~~prove-
j ments, such as curbs and gutters, be deferred until subject property was developed wi,n a
structure, or such time as a butlding permit was issued.
A letter of opposition was read to the Commission.
THE E~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission as to whether or not a specific time limit for improve-
_.'; , ments such as curbs a.n@ gutters might be required if sub,~ect petition were a
.~ pproved.
~ + Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated that in the past a twu- ear bor.d was
~_, State Division of Hi hwa s Y permitted, but the
~~
and widen the entire9street;TthatenegotiationsYwithrMrtuHatch hadltranspfredCforetheBpastVard
~~ ~ I yesr to obtain approval of said improvements, and it was the recommendation of the engineers
F
` i `~ '.F
MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~G COMMISSION„ Apr?.1 ~2, 1965 ' 2549
VARIANCE N0~ 1695 - that irr.provements be installed or a bond posted for no more than six
(Continued) months, and that if any addition2l time was necessary, the petitioner
could request an extension to the Commissione
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution D,oo 1585, Series 1964-65y and moved for its passage
an? adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gv~uer9 to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1695,
subject to conditionso (See Resolution Booko)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CONUIISSIONERS: CampY Gauery Herbst, Rowlande
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Perryo
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC IiEARING~ B~ E~ B~ GELKER, WILLIAM H< RIFFLE, ROBERT Lo ROHRER,
PERMIT NOo 683 AND WILLIAM H~ CLINE, 1660 East First Street, Santa Ana, Califnrniay
Owners; requesting permission to establish a cocktail lounge i~: conjunc-
tion with an existing motel with waiver of the re~.ired parkir:y spaces
on property described as: A rectangu:arly sti~ped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi-
mately 120 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately
600 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximatel~ 540 feet east of the
centerline of West Street, and further described as 1016 Wes1: Katelia Avenue. Property
presently classified R-Ay AGRICULTURAL, ZONE~
Mre William He Cline, one of *_he petitioners, appeared before t.he Commission and reviewed
the proposed cocktail lounge development and the existing Pixie Mote19 noting that the
nroposed lessee of the cocktail lounge aiready had a:iquor licensea
In response to Commission questioning, Mr, Steve Pavlovic appeared before the Commission
and stated that the Alcoholic Beverage Contro~ had approved a license for operation ef the
cockiail lounge, but had s:~ggested that he request the permission to operate the cocktail
lounge prior to installation of a restauranto
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mici:elson advised Mr, Pavlovic that if he proposed to establish
a restaurant in conjunction with a cocktail lounge, additional parking space wculd be
necessaryo
Mro Pavlovic stated it was his intention to develop the other half of the portion now
being considered for a cocktail lounge as a restauranto
Mre Mickelson advised the Commission that presently the petitioner was shcrt three Farking
spaces, but if a restaurant was proposedY an additional twelve spaces would be reauii•ed~
Mr. Pavlovic stated that at the =ear of the buildin9 there was an additional thirty
parking spaces available which were rarely useda
Mro Micke:son stated there was a possibility re-striping the parking area miaht provide
for additional parking spacesy and that the petitioner was proposing to convert four of
the units for the cocktail lounge and future restaurant~
The Commission informed the proposed lessee of the cocktail lounge these parking require-
ments were being brought to his attention so that in the future if he desired to construct
a restaurant in conjunction with the cocktail lounge, some provi.sion would have to be made
for the reyuired parkinge
'I ~i Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to whether or not a cocktail lounge and
~ ~ restaurantin conjunction with a motel would require additional parking space to that al-
;; i~ ready provided for in approval of the units, since the~e was a possibility of double usage
r ' with occupants of the motel utilizing the restaurant and cocktail facilities~
~;
: In response to Commission questioning relative to the number of patrons of the units
~ I arrivin b helico ter and bus kiro Pavlovic stated a
g Y P ~ pproximately 25% a:rive without carse
~' No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona
'~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSL•D~
~:
k~ Commissioner Herbst offered Reso~ution Noo 1586, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
'~ , and adoption, seconded b~ C~mmissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
6j , No. 683, subject to conditions, (See Resolution Book~)
~, ~, • Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~~~
j'.i ~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland,
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
j ABSENT: CODMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungally Perryo
~
~, _ __ _._.__ - -
~ ~ . '~+-r------'-- - - - - . ~-w , ~ ;~:a'1
._ .: ~
MINUTES, CITY PLAN~~I~G COMMISSIONY April 12~• 1965 2550
CONDITIONAL USE - PIBLIC F~ARING~ NORMA LEE KIMEALL WOLFEy 612 Aloha Street, Camarillo,
°ERMIT N~~ 685_ California, Owner; RICF~IELD OIL CORPORATIOlQy 1?A~ West Lincoln Avenue,
, Anaheimy Californiay Agent~ requasting permission to establish a service
station within 75 feet of R-2 zor,ed property at the intersection of a
primary highway and a loca7 street, with waiver of w~?11 req;~irements on the east property
line, on property described as~ rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the sou;heast
corner of North Street and North Hnaheim Boulevard, with frontages of approximate:y 150
; feet on the south s;de of Nort1~ Street and approxin~ately 105 feet on the east s~ae of North
Anaheim Boulevardy and further desc:ribed as 760 North Anaheim Boulevardo Property oreser,tly
classified C-2, GENERAL CC.MMERCIAL., ZO.~E~
~ Mro P, D, Lippert, i782 West Lincoln A~~•enue, representing the petitionery appeared before
the Commission and stated he ~as a~raiiable to an=_wer .ny ~uestions~
In response to ComTission qLest~oaingy M~, Lippe=t stated that tne proposed ser~:ice stati~m
could not be described as a°'.ench-type" stat:ony b~t was considered a con•.en~zonal stati.ono
Discussion was held by the Co~~ission or the proposed ussv and the opinion was ex~z~ssed
that the proposed use m?ghi be an improvemen~ over the existing usee
' No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~
THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noa 1587Y Seiies 1964-ti5, and moved far its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbsty to approve Pe*_ition for Condi.tional Use
Permit Noo 685y subjec± to condit:ons~ (See Resoi~tion 9ook~)
On roll call ihe foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Carr,py Gauery Nerbsty Rowlend.,
NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: ~one~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS~ A1'_red,; Mungail., Perryo
CONDITIONAL USE - PUE?LIC I-~ARING~ MILTO~! L„ NUGY.ESv 9332 Royal PalmY Garden Grove,
' PERMIT N0~ 68~i_ California; Qnrne:; RICNARD LAYNE TOM, A,I,A,.9 1665 lNest Katella Avenue,
_ Anaheiir.y Caiiforr.iay Agentq :equesting peraission to establisl~ a conuner-
cial store bu:ld:ng and a cocktail :ounge on froperty described as: A
rectangularly shaped parcei of land with e frontage of appro~:iir;.3telv i98 feet on the west
side of Euclid St_eet and a max~mum deptn of appror:ima*_eiy 142 `eet, the northern bo~ndary
of said property being approxirr3tety 529 feet south of the cer.teriine of Csaii Roads and
furthar described as 1237-i2=33 South E;:clid Sti•eeto PIOperty preseritly ;;iassir"ied C-1,
GEHERAL CON,N~RCIALY Z0~lE„
Mra Jan W, Truskiery representing the petitionez, appeared before th.e Commission, and in
response to Commission ouesticningy stated that they wei•e propesing only a cocktail 2ouno~•
and no± a restaurant-•type cocktail lounge, to be buiit in conjLnction witti a commercial
i store buildingo
Mr. Jerry Resnick, representative of the Anaheim School District, appeared before the
Commission in opposition to subject petition9 and statec. that the Hoard of Trustees, at
their meeting held April 8y 19659 had repuested that s p:~c,test be Pntered against subject
petition because of its close proximi_ty to Loara High School which w3s less than 6Q0 feet
away, a grade school to the easty and a library in the area~
Mr. Joseph H, Grant, 1314 Falcony representing twenty persons piesent in the Council Chamber,
homeownersef~ore the Commission and s~~~mitred ~, petition with ll~l signatures of adjoining
, pposing subject petitiony stating that the approval of stibject petitior. would
decrease the value of the adjoining single-family homes; that they were only opposed to the
cocktail lounge and not the commercial buildingp further, that the alley to the west of the
proposed cocktail lounge was being used by school children going to and frorti the Loara High
School locsted to the southy thus making a cocktail loun9e and its implications most undesirablea
Reverend Bryan Crow, P~istor of the Euclid Street Baptist Cnurch, 1408 South Euclid Street,
appeared before the Com.mission and stated he represented approx.imately 600 parishioners of
his church who opposed the proposed cocktail lounge because of its close proximity to schools
and churches in the area,
i' Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Cortmission of a letter received from
'~ ~ Mr. Samuel A, Freedman, opposing both uses on the basis that they woulci decrease the value
4~ „tx of the property in that area, its clos~ proximity to Loaza High School, and the increase in
.r,
crime that could be er.pe,ted from the proposed cocktail loungeo
~
~,
:;
` .. , . . _. ..
.... .. _ ._..,.,__ .. .
.. . _ - _: . - ---~--~-...~,.
;i - --- " r .. ^ . , -
'.' . ~. t
.' ~ _ J
MINU'iES, CITY PLAnNING ^•OMMISSIOA, April 12, 1965 2551
CONUITIONAL USE - THE t~ARING WAS CLOSED~
PERfuIIT NOo 686
(Con+inLed) Commissioner Gauer offered Resoluti+m Nc,,, '.~n?, Series 1964•-65, an~'
moved for iis passage and adoptie^, seconr,;;•~ by Commissioner Herbst,
to deny Petition for Conditiona;. '~.~~ permit No~ 686, on the basis that
it would be incompatible to the ~re=. aue to 'ts clc~s';:°c;, r:ty to schools, a library, and
a churcho
~ On roll call the 1;1!`f'goirq resolution wa, pa=se~ ~,y the foliowing vote:
_ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer9 ~-lerbst, RoMl~.~:d,
" NOES: COMMISSIONERSa Noneo
~~^~~~ ABSENT: ~"(31.lMISSIONERSs Allred, Mung~ii, Perry>
~t c
iA Y ( i
,~' CONDITIONAL USE -.°'JBLIC HEARING~ U'r'ITED BRuTH!:RHOOD OF CAHPENT[RS AND 30INEi25 OF AN~P.Ii.;:~9
~~~ PERMIT N0~ 687 LOCA~ N0~ 2203, 5C8 lYest 1~erm~nt Avenue, A~~ahei~, California, Owrar;
~,
~ ; Co Ma OLD}{AMy t~.06 laest \rermont Avenuey Anaheirn, C'alifornia, Apent;
i requesting oer:nission to establish an additional parking area for an
~' ad,jacent Carpenters` Hail on ro ert desc~ibed a=: A rec_an ularl sha ~
j _ i• with a frontage of a^prux,imately~99 feei cn tha soLth sidejofgWest VermoptdAVer.ueland aand
i- maximum depth of appraxi~cat;ely 4U9 feet, the eastern baundary of :,~~d r_oper±y teing approxi-
~~ i mately 4y2 feet west of the centerl.in•a of Soi~th Narbor Boulevard, _nd further described as
i i 606 West Vermont Avenueo Propc:t~ pre=en;.ly classified R~-A,, AGRICULTURAL, ZONF~
j The pztitioner f~r subject petition was nc.t present at the meeting.,
No one appeared in opposition to subjec~ petitien.,
I TfiE HENRING WAS CL.OSED„
J I
~ Zoning Coordinatoz Robert Mickelsen adv:sed the ~~,,r,mission that Ccr,d_tion Noa 5 might bt~
eliminated, the:•eby giving the petitioner -a chcice in the method o: striping the parking
area since the City had several parkino standazds by which s~bject Froperty co~ld be
developedo
Commissi~~ner ~~~uer offered r~esclLiiic;~ N~. ~^F:~, 5eries 1964•-65, and m~:red for its pa=5age
_, and adopi?on9 ~e"~~'ad 4y Comm'.ssio~e° Rowlanci; to anprove Petition fo~ Conditional Use
,! _ Permit Noo o"r, ~~e_.ting Condition Ni~,. 5y and subject to conditions„ (See Resolutien Booko)
{
~~ On roll ca:l the fore nin ;esaiuiion was ±
~ 9 9 passed by the ollowing vote:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONE3S: CampY ~>uer., Nez•bst, Rowlan~~
F NOES: COMMISSIOAERS: honee
i ABSENT: COMMISSIONF.RSs Allr.ed9 Mungall, Perzy~
i
A; ? CONDITIONAL USE - PUc:.;.C E+.E.qR7~G„ CLYUE C~ FIDICHY 32'; South State Coliege Boulevard,
;j ~ PERMIT 10~ 686 Ar.a;~,~im, California,. Qxner~ requesting permission to use a single-
~ family re=:dence as a cambined use for residerciai
I purposes ar,c: =_~xist-
~.~~g e_~:±ri~ai cr,ntracting business with wai.ver of the require~i parking
~ standards on pr;oerty descc•ibed .~s: An irreguiarly shaped p:rcel of iand with a frontage
t of app:oxima',ely b0 f~et on the west side of ~o•.~th Stete College Boul~vara ar.:l a~naximum
~ depth c•f approximately 107 feetV the ~ortheastern corner of said property being aporoxi-
!: mateiy 340 feet south of tne :enteriine of East Broadway as measured aiong the western
i righ}-of-;ray ;ine o: State College Boulevard, and further described as 327 South State
~ , Coilege Boulevardo property presently cl?.~~'_iicd R-1., ONF-FAMII.Y RESIDEIJTIAL, 20i\E.
~` j ~14r. Cly:le F9nch, the p~titi~ner. a
ppeared b2fore tt~ Comm~ssion and statecl that no new
construc:ion was c;~ntemplate.~ ,,n the pr~perty; that the gaz•age K3s presently being used
~;~. ~ for an eJ•.tricai cor,tracting business; that his contracting bus.~ess was sm~ll; and that
Stiate College Boulevazd wouid no~ be a desirable r~~ce fo.r residential purposes when the
,,, stadium was const~uct~ade
I ~
~~ In response to Cnm_;ission :,uestio~~ir.g? Niro Fir.cti stated he had one em~loyee in the shop,
and that most of thi:~ busir.ess was done by telepho~,~ and geing directly to the job, and .
`~; i that the electricai contr.actor was formerly under the name of "Moody Electz•ical Company",
. + No une appeared in opp~si~ion to subject petitio~e
I ' ,
.~ ~, THE IiEARING WAS CLUSED,
E
_ - _' k.
MINUTES, CITY PLAN.NING COMMISSIO.NY Ap~il i2, I965 '2552
CONDITIONAL USE - In response to Conmission questioning, Zoning Coordinator Robert
PERMIT N0~ 688 Mickelson advised the Commission that the electrir,ai contractor had
(Continued) been th?re for some time; thzt the pctition before the Commission was
the result of a complaint filed by . ieiohbor, stating that the busi-
r.ess was conducted in the wrong z^ .,
The Commission noted that if. the petitioner clearea s~ ? or the debris in the r~~3r area of
his property, sufficient parkin9 could be obtainedo
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo 1590Y Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
a,^.d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowlandy to grant Petition for Conditional lJse Permit
Noe ~, subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Booko)
~ Un roll call the foregoing z•esolutior~ was passed by the foliowing vote:
f ~' AYES: COMMI6SIONER.S: Campy Gauery He~bsty Rowlan~a
I NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
AbSENT: ~JMMISSIO.~ERS~ A_~lredy MungallY Pei•ryo
_ GONDITIONAL USE ~- PiJBiiC NFARI.NG~ HOWARD D„ AND ?EA1V GAr'tBER, 303 l~orth Sunkist, Anaheimy
PERMI'I N0~ 68~ Cal!rornia~ Ownezs; MARVIN WARRE.~, 7760 L3 Falma Avenue, Buena Park,
Califo~nia, Agent; request.ing permission io establish a private school
foT rei~~ed3a1 children with ~aive: of requi:ement for a s~x-foot masonry
wali at rear of pisnte: ~trip opposite a residential zone on property described as: An
irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of apprc•x!^~-tely 140 feet on the north
side of Sequoia Aver.ue and Raxin~um depth=_ of approximately 86 feet on the western boundary
~ ond approximately 50 ieei on the easte:n bour.daryy the weste_n boundary of said property
i being approximately 50 feet east of the northern p*olongation of the centerline of Moraga
Street, and further desciibed as 2325 Seaucia Avenue~ Property presently classified C-1,
GENERAL COMM~RC 7A?_ y ZO~E ~
Mrse Frederika Evsnsy proposed princioal of the schooly appeared before the Commission,
staiing that the petitior.ers :turriey was supposed to have been present, but she would
attempt to answer any of the Commissior~`<_ questions~
In respot~se to Commission yuestionings N¢sv Evans stated there were twelve students at
the ;~r;~sent timey and there would never be sny pa.king prcb?emy that the remedial school
would require working with the students =ndi~•idualiys or in small grouFs; that the school
would have no larger than a 22-student enrollmenty and ~il students would be in the classes
between 9:00 aom~ and 2:30 p~m~ Fur~her, the types of st.udents Nho would be utilizing
their facilities were those who ware unahle to suc.~eed in public sehools - sortie that were
partially physically handic.~~ped, b~t no ment~':ly rancs,capped chi~_dren wou.d be in the
classeso
Discussion was held by the L'c;rmi:sion ~s to the pror;,sed use and ~is proximity to the
residential properties on the South side cf Seoucia .Aver.uey and ii,.~uir-~I o` Mrs~ Fvans
Nhether or not these studen±s were refar:ed to the schooi by other scnool~e
Mrso Evans stated the school er.roilrt~=r.t came fzom si>c ~u~ioz and senior high schoo].
districts ~~ Orange County9 and althcuqh some o: th~ cn.ldren n:ight be c~assified under the
"neurological prob7.em", this was basically ~~rause the~~ were ur3bie to ad;ust to ~school
classes of 38 to 40 children~
•I '~ No one appeared in opposition to subje~t oet:ti.on.
;I I .F~ I-IEARING WAS CLO5ED~
~~ ~
In response to Commission qu~zstioning ;elative to impz•ovement of ?he property, Mrso Evans
i I stated that the property own=.r intended ext~~sive planting and improving of the propertyo
h;
~~ Cocunissioner Gauer offered Re=oiution ''1~0 1591Y Series
` 1.564-65, and moved for its passage
~~ I, and adoption, seconded by Conunissior.er Harbsty to grant Petition for Co~ioitional Use Permit
~: No. 699, subject to conditionso (See Resoiution Fooke)
;. On roll call the foregoing reso~ution was passa~± by the fol'o,wing vote:
r:
E:.~~ AYES: COMMiSSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, R^wlando
~' NOES : COi~iMISS IOIVERS : None ~
r~ _, ABSENT: CvM.4I5SI0~JERS: Allred, Mungall, Perry,
~ ~ ,
' ~ ~: ~
i ~
,
~ - ,
~ _. , _~_~ ~ -^.~~ . _. ,_
~ .__ , .....M~.------.~...- - , ----.......a
- -- - , ._ _,~- ..
.' ~
= .::
MINUTES, CITY PLA~NING COMMISSION, April 12, 1965 2553
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGe ELBIA HALL, 3518 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
NQ 64-65-109 California, Ownerq requesting that property described as: A rectangu-
larl• shaped parceL of land with a frontage of aporoximately 80 feet
on che north side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately
171 feet, the western boundazy of said property being approximately 130 feet east of the
centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2785 West Ball Road, c,e reclassified
from the ~-A, AGRICULTURALy ZONE to the C-ly (~NERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEo
No one appeared to represent the petitionero
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that in the granting of
Conditional Use Permit Noo 629 for a small animal hospital one of the conditions of
approval was that a reciassification be filed and approvedo
No one appeared in oppositio~ to subject petition~
Tf~ HEARING N,'AS CLOSED~
Discussion was held by the Commission =~elative to creating an iilegal less-±}-san-an-acre parcel
if the northerly portion of subjeci property were not reclassified with subject propertyo
Mr. Mickelson advised the Commission that subject petition could be readvertised to in-
clude the northerly portion for reclassification to C-1 so that a hardship would not be
imposed on the rear portion of the property at tne time it was to be developed,
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Cou~cil that Petition for
Reclassification Noo 64~65-109 be approved9 subje~:t to c,nditionsa Commissioner Herbst
seconced the motion,
After considerable discussion, Commissioners Rowlar,d and Herbst withdrew their motions
for approvalo
Commissioner HE~bst offered a motion to reopen the he~3ring and continue Petition for
Reclassification Noo 64-65-109 to the meeting of April 269 1965, in order that the
Planning Department might rea~vertise subject properiy and the abutting property to
the no:the Commissior4r Gauer seconded the mo±ion> MOTION CARRIEDe
_ RECLASS'lFICATION - PUBLIC I-~ARING„ INT ?ATED BY T!-~ CITY PI.AN~!It~G COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 64-65-110 Lincoin Avenuey Anah~:m, Ca:ifornia, proposing that property described
as: An ir:egu:arly e,tiaped parcel of land iocated south of :he Santa
Ana Canyon Road and west of Peralta Hills Drive, with frontages of approximately 733 feet
on Santa Ana Canyon Road and approx.imately 1,130 feet on Peraita Hills Drive; the eastern
and southern boundaries oi sUbject property are coincident t~ the present Anaheim city
limits in this areay the western bounc~ary of approxiTateiy 855 feet lies in a general
' northwesterly directiony be reclassi:ied from ihe R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 7_ONE, to the R-E,
~ RESIDEhTIAL ESTATE' ZONEe
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed a letter to the Commission from the main
property owner involved in the p:oposed reclassification~ requesting that the Commission
continue subject petition until he had time to investigate tF,e possibility of a change in
assessment if the proposed reclassification were approved for subject properties,
Mr. Allen Sum~ers, 8291 Orange Acres Drive, appeared before the Commission representing
the Peralta Hi11s Homeowners' Improvement Asscciation, stating that t~,a members of the
association were interested in maintaining the rura? and estate characteristics of the
entire area; that they were in full ~g:•eement with the City`s proposal to reclassify
subject pruperties to the Residential Estate Zone since this zone was r,reated two years
ago in anticipation of properties in the Peralta Hills being annexed to the City; and
that subjecti property had been annexed into the City prior to the establishment of the
R-E Zone.
Mr. Swimers continued that the Peralta Hills area property owners have submitted a request
to the City for annexetion proceedings, and that the Pubiic Works Department and the City
Engineer were presently working on the streets and public utiiities for the area pending
said annexation; and that the principal property owner in the proposed reclassification
had been contacted by several members of their association and l~ad expressed no opposition
to the plan since the entire area was developad simiiarly in the County, requiring a full
acre i~ aadition to roads, easements, etce
~ ~
~
. ; ,"
~. .-:'~
~~s ~
MINUTES, CITY PLAl~NING COMMISSION, Ap~il l2•, 1965 2554
RECLASSIFICATION - In response to Commi~sion questioning, Ma, SLmmers stated he had no
N0. 64-65-110 objection to the Commission's considering Mro Aever's request for a
(Continued) conti^uance of thirty days9 but ihat he was desirous of preseniing for
the record the viewpoints of the Peralta Hills Homeowners' Associationo
Mr. Frank Liggett, 18112 peralta Hills Drive, a member and officer of the Per.alta H311s
Homeowners' Association, appeared before the Commission and expressed his appreciation
of the ~orunission's initiating subject petition, and in order to allow Mr, Bever ~uffi-
cient time to make his investigation, the homeowners' association was not opposed to a
continuancee
Commissioner Gauer offered a moiion to continue cons±deration of Petition for 4eciassi-
ficacion Noo 64-65-110 to the meeting of Nlay i09 i965, in order te allow ihe principai
property owner to resolve assessment problemso Commissioner Rowl2nd seconded the motione
MO?ION CARRIED,
RECLASSIFICATION •- PI.BL,IC F~ARI!~G~ I~ITtATED BY TF~ C1TY PLANNING COMMISSIONy 204 East
N0, 4-65-112 Lincoln Avenue9 Anaheimy Califor~i~v proposing tnat property described
as: A rectanc!ularly shaped pa:cei of land approx3mately 505 feet by
974 feet in =1ze and containing approx:mately ll05 acs•esy ±h~~ western
boundary of said pr~perty beinc approximately 6ti0 feet east of the centerline of Harbor
Boulevard, and the so~!thern boundary of said property being appioximately 205 feet north
of the centerline of Freedman Wayy and furthe* described as 11 Freedman Wayy be reclassi-
fied from the M-li LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE to the R-A, AGRIGUL:URALy ZOI~E~
No one appeared Lo rep:esent the prope=ty ownero
No one appeared in opposiiion to subject petitione
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised ±he Commission thait subject pe!ition was
initiated in order to place the commerciai complex and Melodyl~nd Hotei in its most
appropriate zone, since the property was c~rrent'.y being developed under Cor.ditional Use
Permit Noo 574 in conformance with the City'= Gommercial-Recreation Area policyo
Tf~ HEARING WAG CLOSED~
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolu*ion Noo i592, Serles i964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoptiony secondpd by Commissioner Row:3nd9 to recoRanend to the City Coun~il that
Petition for Rpclassification Noo 64-65-112 be approti•edy ~nconditionallyo (See Resolution
Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resol~tion was passed by the fo:lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp9 Gauer, Herbst, Rowlande
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~onee
AFSENT: COMMISSIONERSa AllredY Mur.gali, Fe.^rya
RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLIC HEARING,. WILLIAM D, PRGCOPIO, 4i0 Sou2h Euclid Str.eetY Suite 6y
IQOo 64-65-111 Anaheim, California, Owner$ property described as: A rectangularly
shaped pa:cel of land with a iz•ontage of approximately 64 feet on the
VARIANCE NOo 169~ east side of Euclid S*_reet anC a maximum depth of approximately 100
fefti the southern boundary of said property being approximately 160
fe:~ north of ihe centerline of Aloirar Aver.ue, and further described
as 624 South Euclid Streeto Prope,ty presently classified R-l, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE„
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMN~RCIAL9 ZONE~
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF REQUIRED LANDSCAPiNG TN FRON7' SETBArK,
Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney representin, the petitionery z•eviewed the proposed conversion
of the single-family home into a dental office9 together with the fact that the petitioner
proposed a temporary waiver of the froni setback in order to provide parking facilities
until such time as the alley to the rear was improvedo
~~ Mrs. Barbara Flannigan, 605 South Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission in conditional
~~ opposition statin she was o f-
~ , 9 pposed to any commerciai traf.ic using the alley between the
~ proposed cortunercial zoning and the residential properties at~utting the alley to the east
1- because access to the garages was through the alleyf that the existing alley was too small
~~ ~ if the petitioner proposed to use said ziley for parking purposes~ and that the aiiey had
~,~ ~ a blind section which might be detrimental to childr~n using the alley~
_ . . . ..,
_ _,.. __ _ _.
_ ... Y' i - . -
A
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOIV, April 12y 1965 2555
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr, Morris Chapell9 1662 West Alomar Streety aopeared before the
NOa 64-65-111 Commission in opposition, stating that the traffic or, Euclid Street
was ha2ardousy and he opposed any commercial use of the alley originally
VARIANCE N0~ 1647 designed for residential uses,
(Continued)
~ Mr~ Bernard Mott, 701 Alvy Street, appeared before the Commission in
opposition, stating that properi: :siues would decrease if commercial
development occ~rred adjacent to the R-1; that more i~tter and trash would fill the alley
with commercial developmenty that considerably heavier traffic would be utilizing the alley
for delivery p~irpose:s; that the new coR~ercial structure in the vicinity was incomratible
with the resi~~nti-,1 uses since the various c:~;ors were not residential in character;
~,,;;~g~ and that at ~tie time he purchased his property, there was no indication the adjacent
fj propesty wuuld be zoned for commercial purposes.
In rebuttal, Mra Knisely presenied a petition signed by adjacent property owners on Euclid
Street approving the praposed z•eclassification and stated tnat the opposiiion to the alley
being used was a vaiid one, and this was the reason for thE request for temporary waiver
of the parking,
In response to Mrso Flannigan's question to the Con~ission as to whethei• or not the alley
' would be resurfacPd if subject petition were app*_•oved, Chairman Camp stated that if subject
petition were approved, this did not necessarily mean the alley would be improved since the
City had a program for ailey imp:ovement, and this would subsequently toke place when this
alley was on the prog:am agendae
In response to a question by M:, Chapeil relative !o all adjacent properties being zoned
R-1, the Commission stated ihat the righi to fiie a petition fo* any zone change was not
denied any property owne* and was decided only after e~~idence was submitted at a Fublic
hearing before the Commission and City Councile
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickeison advised the ~ommiss:on that in the p:avious reclassi-
fication request there was a notation that deed restr:ctions were attached to subject
property; that the City was not bound by said deed rzst:i~tions~ and that since this was
a Frivate matter between the R-1 property owners, it would h~ve to be resol.ved through
court proced~~re.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~
' Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the heavy traffic on Eur,lid Street,
commercial development in close proximity of singie-family homesy conversion of residences for
office use, and high-rise buildings in the City being virtually eliminated if all homes on
arterial streets were a:lowed to convert into ofiicese
Mr. Mickelson reviewed the previous zoning actipn and the fact that the C-0 Zone was
designed for high-rise struciures in the Cen±er C±ty Area; that if the Commission was
considering Commercial Office Zone for subject property, an area development plan would
have to be pxepared and advertised~ that such a plan might encompass properties fronting
on Euclid Street from Alomar St:eet almost to Ball Road, ox• app-.oximately one-half mile
of lots fronting said street~ that the alley to ti:e rear might be designed to return to
Euclid Street rather than routing commerr,lal traffic through A7.vy StreetY a residential
street; and that limiting the uses to busi~~ss and professional only was a rather weak
means of limiting subject property.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommFnd disapprova: to the City Counci on
Petition for Reclassification Noe 64-05-111. The motion lost for want of a secor~...
C~mmissioner Herbst offered a motion to appro~~e Reclassification No, 64-65-111 subject
to the filing ~f deed restrictions permitting business and profess:.onal cffice ases only-
After considerable discussion by the Commission i•elative to the moi.ion, Commissioner
Herbst withdrew his motion,
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions fo:
Reclassification No. 64-65-111 and Variance No, 1697 to the meetin9 of N1ay 10, 1965, in
order to allow the Planning Staff time to prepare and advertise an area development plan
for those R-1 lots fronting on Euclid Si.reet, together with a review of past and present
Commission consideration indicated in the Report to the Commission~ Commissioner Rowland
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
~
..
.: n, ~
AIINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIO!J, April i2, 1965 2550
CONDITIOMAL USE - PLBLIC HEARI!JC, OPAL ~d~ STEIB A!JD JOfiN P. RALSTON, 316 East Broadway,
°ERMIT I~~4 Anaheim, Cali~o:nia, (Avners; MRS, ,?OSEPH GLEASONY Speech and Language
Development Cente., 1120 West La Palma Avenuey Anaheimy California,
Agentg recauesting permission to estabiish a speech therapy and language
training institute on property described as: A rectangLlarly shaped parcel of land with a
frontage of approximately 97 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue and a maximum depth of
approximately 135 feet9 the western bounda:y of said propezty being approximately 656 feet
east of the centerline of Nutwood Streety and furtt~er desczibe: as Z845 west Oranoe Avenue.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICiJLTURAL4 ZONE.
E i ~I
Mrse Gladys Gleason, agent for the petitiorer, appeared before the Con~nission and stated
she was the assistant director oi the Speech and Language Ce~~iopment Centerq that their
center had been located origi:ially in Lo~g Eea~h; that they ha.'. moved to their present
location four years agog that tY<e cenier ,~~s a nc~-preiit organizaiion, an~ bacause of
this fact, two years ago the boa;ri oi directors d-rectad the^~ ±o find r,n are:~ with less
overhead, wi±n a play yard fo^ children ar.d adults whc co~:e for sueech therapy due to
injurie=_ w!:i;h had affecied iheir sprechg that s~b;ec*_ prope=ty ideally suited the pro-
posed speech and lang~±age ;:enter, beii:g r~ iarge, older reside^~ey cnat ~ne was surorised
that so mucn opposition vras being expresse4y ar,d ehe had a.*ei;oted ±o cont.act the property
owners in the area~ that Dro Borns±ein ind:c:±ed he wou'_~ w~ite a~_;ie: o* ^o::*;end~tior. ;o
the Commission$ ~hat ±he oroperiy owner~,::'_807~,8~g,7822,1826aa-'I838 Orange Avenuey
across the street f:om subjeci proper;yY :ndic•a*_ed no oppo~i;ion upor. being contactedj
that at a meeting of the board of directors of the Or~ng~ Ssp±ist Ct;urch, approval of
the center was gi~ren~ that the charch fu~ther offe:ed t'r:e ~se of :heir park:ng fac:lities
if needed; that the center being of : speciai co=rection nature couid not be clacsified
as a schoolq and th~t the center wa= open two fa?: d:,ys +.i week, otherwise oc:y two other
mornings d~ring the week, witr ~;ot ~~~ore tt:an fc~:_ st~r?a;,::; or iv~o to Five ::hildren in
special gr.oups being pre=ent •~t one t~me~
Mr. Henry Bryant, 1866 West Nutwood P~ace, appeared tefo:e the Cor:~mi=.sion in opposition
and stated that ine area ;rras primar_ly r-_~~dential in characier~ and the proposed use
would inject cor.lmez•cial u~~es in the resident'_~? a.eay ieat ha was opposed to the conversion
of a residentia? home for _nrrunercial p~,:rpose=, since *_his wouid be the firsi step in reduc-
ing the residential potential of ihe area, as weil as the :e=_dle vaiue of their properties.
Mr. Bryant a1=o p.esented a pet:tion signed ~y 34 p:operty own2rs indir,atirg their oppositione
'I Mr. Jo~eph Coffmany 1846 West 0_:ange Ave~u:~ appeared ir cpposi±'_on ar:d st-ted he concurred
i in Mre Bryant's =tatements of opposition, statir,g furt:~e;. that i_' subject petition were
- approved, this wocid cause an ac,e'_er:ti~r~ of reruesis Fa sim±:ar use= or. the R-A parcels~
' that when the first church ir, the arca re•7ue=ted zpprc'~a! oz a condztio~al use per:nit9 rio
one epposed it, but =_ince eight years have passe~„ .ir,o±her ..`~urch was app*oved; thattraffic
' had now become hea~ier taan Proadw.~y; LR•3}, LCP FCC['iOSBd ~C~lJr~rcial use wcu_d :;~crease the
traffic hazazd tc chi~dren in the a.er bec:.~se so^e oi i~,e tor,~es had no sijewi;ks ior
children to use to and froru school; a:-,d that the natu:e cf tne propose~ ~lse wouid have a
dekrimental effect on the residentia_ integrity o~ the arer,
4 Mrs. Aleen 'lgranowitz, operator of !ne SpErC}i ceniera appeareci beiore the Cr~a~ issio^ and
stated that when the center wa= located ir, Long ~+eac;, i~ was also ~n a resider,iia: area.ar.d
~ that a leiter f~om ,: _esident i~ th= a~ea was submitted i~,dic,:*_.ng tnz centrr was ~ot
offensive and creaied no traific p:~~bler,~,
I'
The beg3nnir.~ af t`~e speech center was then reviewee for tt,e Ccm^~issio^ ar:d thc. f=_ct that
the existinc;'~cme wo~id °emain s~zbstantia_:y a; a residence sirce the atr.:osphere of a r.ome
was a remed: ',>,ffect in i:eating speech prob?ems, ar.~ i'r.it tne c;;eration in Long Aeach was
approved by t ~~ Building Depa:tment and the City .4t±o:r,ey'~_ Off°_ce, with the commen± tnat
the occupatioa ~~i the home for the speech certer was theirs for as long as they desired.
' Zoning Coordi.natcr Rcbert Mickelson advised the Corlmissier, tnat the depa.tment had contacted
! the City of I.ong Heach F'lanning Department to determine wrtC!h2* the center there fell within
their jurssdi•:ti~~n, but had been info*med ihey were unaware one existed.
,
I Mrr 0. G. Bluhm, 1863 West Orange Aven~:e, appe~*ed in opposition =nd stated he wns concerned
whet.her the proposed use was adding to the haza,-dous conditions of t~afficY and that the
large portion of vacant land on the resr of s;~oject propez•ty might be developzd for further
commercial usP:•s, thus adding furthe_ to the trariic probleir~
A showiny :.f hands indicated eigh!. persons present in the Councii Chamber oppo~ing subject
petition.
=~ic FJ:~RING WAS CLOSED.
{ ~ I
1 . _i,
, . _ . I'
MINUTES, CITY PLANDJItlG COMMISSION, April 12y i9ti5 '2557
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission noted that ar. an~ique ca: storage a:ea existe~' to the
FERMIT NOo 684 north of subject property9 saia stor:~ge area had existed at the time
(Continued) the properiy was under the jurisdiction of the Countyy that no six-foot
masonry wall hid these cars frort: publ:c view; that a church presently
existed to the west, and two churches were proposed to the east of
subject propertyg that the proposed use would be creating less traffic than the three
families presently living in the homeq that the conditionai use permit would permii ±he
Commission to have control over any futur2 expanaion~ and th3t the therapy school presently
existed in the medical center which made it very limited in scopeo
The Commission f+~rthei inquired what the maximum number of children in the school would be,
to which Mrso Agranowitz repiied that no more than ten at any timey but she would like to
have some leeway in the event an sxcessive number of students applied, and that they could
not handle more than fifteen siudentsq fLi•ther9 thai a:l they des_red wa~ a small sign to
indicate the location of the schoolo
I'he Commission replied that under the ~~ircur,~siar,ces, an uniighted sign9 no larger than
eight square feet or a two-by-iour-r"oot siqr, MoL'_d be permitieoo
Commissioner '?ezbst offered Resoi~~cicn No> ~593y Series 19ti4-65~ and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Cor,ur.issione: Rowland, to gra~t Fetition for ~onditio~al Use Permit
No. 684, subject to :imitation of the numbez• or students to a maxic,i:m of fifteen9 and that
one unlighted,eight-sqLare-fooi sign wo~id be permissible, ar~d conditioris, (See Resolution
Book,)
On roll call the foregoing resoiuiion was passed ty the ioi'owing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp; Gauer. He.bsi, Row:anco
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSe A;lredy Munca~i, Ferry,
AMEND1u~NT TO TITLE 18S - ~~~LIC NEARI~G< :f;ITIATED BY IY.E ANAFiEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAI CODE 204 East Lir.co?n Arenue, Anahein:, Caiifo*nia„ proposing an amend-
ment io Chapter 18e64, Section ;8064,040y Chapter 18~68, Section
18oti8s040y ar.d Chapter i8o?2, Seciion ~8a72o020y Time Limitationo
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed the proposed amendments to the Time Limitation
section of the Cunditionai Use PerRit, Variance~ a~d Reciassification Sections of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, noting that differences of opinion had been expressed by the
Council relative to the interpretation of ihe time limitation for conditional use pe:mits,
variances, and reclassification;o and tha± upon the ~dvice of the City Attorney, it was
recommended t.he Commission's consideraticr. of ._. ~~.r: ;:r.endment to the po<icy be set for
public hearingo
No one appeared in opposition>
THE I~ARING WAS CLOSED~
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 15949 Series i964-o5, and moved for its passage
and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recorunend to ihe City Council that
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapters i~o64„ 18o68y and 18~72 be amended in
accordance with Exhibit "A", (See Resolutior. Book,~
On roll call the foregoirg resolutio~ was passed by the Fellowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS= Camp, Gauer, HerbstY Rowlar.do
NOES: COMMISSIONERSV f;oneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ailredy Mungall, Perrye
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18' - CGhTINUED PUBLIC hzARI>!G~ INITIATED BY TI-IE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9
ANAI-IEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue9 A~aheim9 CaiiforniaY proposing an amend-
ment to Chapter 180409 Section 18040,040(b), proposing thatnurseries
in the C-1 Zor.e be approved ihrough ihe iiling of a conditicnal use
permit.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson acivised the Commission that said 3mendment had been
readvertised to incorporate ihe use in the conditional use permii section, rather than in
the accessory use section or the outdoor use~ as presently indicated in Chapter 18,40.
No one appeared in oppositiona
-- .. a
MIMUTES, CITY PLAI~NIAG COMMISSIfJhy April 12, 1965 2558
~• .. ~~
Ab~NDA~NT TO TITLE 18, - Chapter 18040
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued)
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1595, Series 196A-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recoTanend to the City Council that
Chapter I8e40 of the .Anahein Municipal Code, Section 18e~0o040(b) be amended to include
it as a new subsection (h) in Section 18,40,060, Conditional Uses. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the fo:egoing resolution was p~ssed by the fo'_lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS~ Camp, Gsuer, Herbst9 Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSa None,
ABSENTz COMMISSIOI~ERS: All*E~y Mungall, Fer:y~
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO_ i
RECOMN~NDATIONS Variance No~ i658 •- Request ior an extension of time from
Familian Pipe and Supply Company.
Zoning Coordinator Robezt Mickelsor, reviewed for tne Comn:ission the reouest of the
_ Familian Pipe and Supply Company requesting an exten~ion o' time ;or completion of
conditions, based on the fact that =ubject p*operty was in the pzocess of being trans-
ferred from 5unshine Bisc~its to their company by the Southern Pacific Raiiroad with a
notation that construction would commence within the next 45 to 60 days~
Commissioner Rowland offer=d a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for completion
of conditions in Resoiution Noo 1309~ Serie=_ i964-65,, dated ALCJt:St 31v i964, granting
Variance No. 1658, initiated by tha City Planning Commi~s?o;i~ said 180•-day tire limitation
expiring August 25, 1965o Commissioner Gauer secended the r,ioti.or. MOTION CARRIED,
I?EM .NO.. 2
Conditional Lse Permit No. b35 - Request for an ex±ension of
time from B•ryan Industrial P=O~E..^!1P.=„
' Zoning Coordinato~ Robert Mickelson reviewed ?or the Com~nission the request f=om Bryan
; Industrial Properties r.elaiive to an ex*_ens:on of ±;c. f0_~ CJmpletion of conditions
_; granting Cor,ditio~al Use Permit Noo b35~ It was noted tne petitioner proposes to begin
_ construction in approxir~3tely tn~;±y da}•~~ iurirer, that nore of the conditions had been
complied with as of the present dateo
Commissioner Gauex offered a r~ctior. to g. ~r:::+ rir.~e.; -~,a,• tin,e extension for the compietion
of conditions in Resolution No, 1275y Series i9o4-ti5, gr3nting Conditional Use Permit
No. 635, said ninety-day time l~mitaticr. ic expire July i5, i965. Commissioner Rowland
seconded the motiono N~OTION CARkIED,
ITEM l~0.. 3
Conditional Use Perm3t No~ 200 - Approvai of plans and exhibits
for the expansion of an ex.isting Luiheran Home located at the
northwesi corner of Walnut St:eet and Ball Roado
~~
a
~
1 -
.~ *
~: ~ ,atx
F;
~-,
Zoning Coordinator Robert M3ckelson presenter r.ians .and exhibits for the proposed expansion
of eight additional units, noting that a condiiion of app;ovai by City Council Resolution
No. 62R-216 dated March 13, 1902, reouired tnat any expans~on of the ex.isting us~ would
require the submission of plans to the Cemmission for apprcval~ It was further nated
that the fire department was requesting that fire hydrants be required in accordance
with Code requirements ar,d as directed by the fiz•e chiei eF the City of Ar.aheim.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Ex,hibit N~so 1, 2, and 3- Revision Noo 2,
which proposed an expansion of eight additional units to an existing Lutherdr, Home, provided
however, that fire hydrants shail be instalied as required a~d determined to be necessary
the chief of the fi*e department~ Commissior,er Rnw~and seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
f' ~
-i _ ,
a - •-
~
i
~ ;; ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CGMMISSIOn, April 12, 1965 2359
REPORTS AND
RECOMh~NDATIONS - (Continued)
i
F II'EM NOe 4
, Review of proposed State Assembly biZls,
' Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts presented copies of the proposed amendments to
zoning changes in the State laws presented in both the Senate and the Assembly.
~ C:~airman pro tem Camp requested these be received and filed.
ADJOURNA7ENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissi-_.er Gauer
offered a motion +.o adjourn the meetinq. Commissioner Herbst
seconded the motione h10TI0N CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 pom,
Respectfully submitted,
~/vf~l/y'~~
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim Planr.ing Commissien
~`
~
~'
~
s~
~..
~,
~;~ - ,
~~~~..
ia
~ ~
~ .
,_~ .a~'~
~