Minutes-PC 1965/04/26City Hall
Anaheim, Califoznia
4p;il 26, 1965
A REGUI.AR MEETING OF THE ANAF~IM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETIhG •- A regu:ar meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Ch3irman Mungall at 2:0', p.m , a auorum being present.
PRESENT •- CNAIRMAN: Mungall,
~ - COMM:SSIONERS~ Allred, Camp~ Nerbst9 °eriy; Rowland_
, ' ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS; Gauer.:
PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Robert Mickelson
Deputy City Attorney: Purm3n Roberts
Ofiice Engineer: Arthur Daw
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
Planning Department Stenoqrapher: Carolyn Groog
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led the Piedge of Allegi3nce to tne Flag
APPROVAL OF
TI-IE MINUTES •- The Minutes of the meeting of Aprii i2, i965, weze 3ppro~~ed as submitted,
~
,
rZECLASSIFICATIGN - CONTINUED PUPLIC }-EARING. FINANCIAL FHDERAT:O~; INCORPORATEDJ 92i West
N0, 04-65-94____ Reve::y Boulevard, Montebeilo, Ca:ifornia, Owne=; request~ng that
property described as: An '_rregula„y shaped pa~cei of lsr.d situated
TENTATIVE MAP OF northerly of the S~nta Ana Canyon Road 3nd wesie:iy of impe:i~i Nighway,
TRACT NO.. 5844, the southerly bound3ry cf =_3id property coir:c:des with the northerly
REVISION NO__1__ right-of-wsy bcundary of the Sar.ta Ana U3iiey i_rig3tior c3n3:, ar.d the
e-aste:n boundary lies approximate.y 270 feet west of tne centerline of
Imperiai Highway; tne northerr, beunda*y of subject pioperty _s the easterlv
prolongation of the northern bour.darV of Tract No- 5229 which i.ies immediate~y west of subjact
property, be reclassified from the R A, AGRICULT!JRAL, ZQ~~E, to the R 2, MULTIPLE-FAMI'LY
RESIDENTIAL, ZUNE
DEVELOPER: GAR-LO., INCORPORATED, 92i we=_t Beveriy Bouiev:i;d. Mon.ebe.ic, Caiifozn~.a.
ENGINEER: Kemrrerer Engineer`_r.g Comr3ny, Inco=porated, i45 ~'o=*!-~ P3ir.ter. '~n'i~;±tie•r,
Californi3.
Subject tract, loc~ted nortneiiy of Santa Ana Canyon ftoad and weste:yo uf Impe:iel 1-ighway,
and covering approximately 12 acresY :s p:oposec' for suodivis:on :r:to 44 R•2, MULTI~iE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED ~ots:
Subject petition and tentative tract were cortir:ued f~om the meetines of M~rch :, 29; and
April 12, 1965, in order tFat .a determ?nation m~9ht be made 3s *_c the ult?mate a:ignmen*
of the freeway by t~~ State, and for the petitioner to ir.co:porate said recommendations
into a revised tract m~;~
Mr. Ed T:11, representir•; `he, engineer and the deveiopezy appeared ~+efore the Commission
and revie~:ed the changes which had occurred in the rev;sed trart map He fu:±her stated
that the Yorba property to t'r.e south projected multipie-family :esidentiai development ,or
their property south of the Santa Ana Canyon Road, and that because the 5tate wa= -eouiring
additional land for freeway property, the tr3ct had been reduced from the oriG?nai 44 lots
to 25 lotso -
; Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the Staff had been discussing
, the proposed cul-de-sac with the engineer of tne tract, and an agreement had 6een made to
extend this street over the Santa Ana Valley irrigation cana; to provide two 3ccess roads to
Santa Ana Canyon Road; further, after the discussion, ±h2 enginee: stated he did not think
it would be necessary to revise the tract to indicate a cut in tne <ots; that upon imresti~
gati~n, the Staff was unabie to determine whether or not the property to tie e-~st wou:d have
some access road, since access rights were prohibited by the State to ar~Y .`~eew3y., ar,c? there
was a possibi.tity the tract under consideration mignt have commerciai i..affic u*i;izing the
streets if no other access was availab?e in the future for ihe p_oner~v abuttiny to the east.
' It was noted by Mr~ Mickelson that even if a street were considered on the :eaz p;operty
* line, no law could require the easteriy property owner utilizir.g and payino for a portion
of the street and improvement c~sts, and that the City had had some unfortun3te experiences
on half streets and were unalterably opposed to permitting half stree*_s in any future develop-
mentso
- 2560 -
r
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 26, 1965
2561
RECLASSIFICATION - Mro Ed Moze~, engineer for Kemmerer Engineering Company, appeared before
N0~ 64-65-94 ~ the Commission and present~d two preliminary drawings which encompass
suggestions for extension of the street across the Santa Ana Valley
TENTATIVE MAP OF irrigation canal to provide access to Santa Ana Canyon Roadg that because
TRACT N0. 5844, of this proposed extension of the cul-de-sac from the tract, it was noted
REVISION NO'. 1~ that no lots would be lost, although it seemed the tract would meet the
(Continued) barest minimum reqi..irements, if at all; that the lot sizes on the r,ul-de-
sac were sufficiently large to be able to reduce ±hem somewhat, but that
it would be necessary to constzuct smaller units on the smaller lots:,
_ It was noted by the Commission that the proposed commercial property abutting to the east
~~T fiight be reduced so drastir.ally that little would be left for ultimate development when
;. ~, the State acquired land for the freeway right•of-way,
Mr, Mickelson stated that if the line indicated on the tract map were similarly extended
over the property to the east3 more than half would be taken by the freeway right-of-way;
that the commercial property would h3ve no access and might be a land-locked parcel; and
that after having discus;ed this problem with the developers of the property to the east,
they indicated they st~il planned to continue with their petition for commercial develop-
ment on the a.ssumption there was a possibility the State might provide some form of an
access road for themy further, in response to Commission question:ng, that the easterly
parcel might b•=iand-locked, stated he was unabie to determine whether the State had created
the land-locked parcei or whether a smaii portion would be turned back to provide access to
Santa Ana Canyon Rosd
It was noted by Mr.~ ~ozer ttiat their main opposition to proposing ;3 street on tt~e easterly
property line was tne fact tnis would create a possibiie front•on situation ad~acent to
commercial development, 3nd that at the Interdepar*_mental Cortmittee Meetino the engineers
tiad agreed if the property were to be reclassified to the R-2 Zone; as requested, there
wc~ld be no opposition to providing a second access road, but if single family :esidential
subdivision was app~oved-, it w.3s imperative the wl•de sac remain ;s presented on the r.evised
map~
It was noted hy the Commission that al±hough the cui de sac wa; lenge: thar, normally permitted,
o~ly o~s-hal•f the ~umber of ;ots fronted on tne cui~de sac because of the freev~ay front~ge on
tne northesly boundary of the street
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
TI-~ HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Discussion was held by the Commission as to whether or not the proposed mu:tiple-fan~ily
residential zoning was appropriate for the propertv i>:ased on the fact that. the property to
the west had already 6een developed fo: sing,e ~;miiy residentzal subdi~ision; with a por-
tion of the homes backino on the freeway prope:Ly, and the fact that ±his might set an
undesirable precedent for other developments in the r.ortheast Anaheim area since, at the
present time, no multiple•femi2y development had 'oeen approved foi that area
Cammissioner Allred offered Resolution ~'o. i596. Ser:es 1954-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Campy to recommend to the City Council that R-2,
Multiple-Family Residential~ Zoning for Petition for Reci_3ssif_cation No 64-65-94 be dis-
approved; further, that the i;ommission recommend that R-i~ One~Fami:y Residentiai, Zone
be approved for subject property as the most appropriate zone considering the fact that
single-family residential subdivision had already been develope3 to the west of subject
property, and the fact that this would be setting ar undesir.abie paecedent foz the properties
in the originall,~ undeveloped northeast Anahein; area, and conditions. (See Resolution Book )
On roil c,-11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMI5FTONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Non?.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauero
Commissioner Camp off~red a motion to cleny the requested R 2, Muit:p:e-Famiiy Fesidential,
Zone, and to approve Tentative Map of Tract No., 5844, Revision No. 1 for R••1, One Family
Residential, Zoned lots, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That should this su~division be deveioped as more tn3r. one subdivisior,, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tent3tzve fo:m for app,ovai
,ax
MINIffES, CTTY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, Aprii 26y i965 2562
RECLASSIFICATION -(2) That the approval of Tentative Map of T;ac~ ~o~. 5844, Revision Noo 1,
N0~ 64-65-94 y is granted subject to the 3pproval of Reciassification No, 64-65-94
for R•-iy One•Fami:y Residential, Zone,
TEivTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0~ 5844s (3) Thai the a:ignment of the proposed Riverside Freeway shall be
REVISION N0~ 1 approved 'by the State Division of Highways.
(Continued)
(4) That "B" StreetY adjacent to the proposed Riverside Freeway shall
be 54 feet in width.
(5) Tha± ail grading shail conform to O;dinance No, i950,
°~""`~ Comnissi•~ner Rowland secor.ded the motion. MOTIGN CARRIED,
~ ~
' VARIANCE NOw1689 - CONTINUED PUBL7C NEARING. FR.4NK AND iORETT4 H KROGMAN, 2338 Wagner
Street; An3heims Caiifornia, Owners; ~AMES E_ GRAVES;6849 Live Oak,
3ell Gardens, Caiifornia; Agent; requesting permission to waive the
foi.owing Code provisions: (1) number of f~ee-standing slgns withir, 300 feet of another
and total number of free-standing signs or one parcel, 3nd (2) permitted location of free-
-. standing signs (closer to prope:ty iine than 40% of width of parce?), on property described
as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located west and south of the service station
site located at the southwest corner of La °alma and Magnoiia Avenues, subject property
having frontages of approximately 105 feet on the so~th side of La °aima Aver.ue and
approximately 458 feet on the west side of !~agr.olia Avenue, the wester;, boundary of
said property being approximate?y 290 fee~ west of the certeriine of Magnol:a Averue;
and further described as ;027 North Maer,o::e 4ven~e Property presentiy c.a=sified G-i,
GE~!ERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE
Subject petitior. w.s contir,.:ed f;em ±he ~:eet~nc o~ Ma=ct: 29, :965, ir. o:eez to nro~ide
the petitioners sufficier.t tiR;e to sub:~~_~ ~e~~>ed F~ar,s wt=~~. _eso_ved the D3TIClt1~ p=ob:em
Zoning Coordinato<- Robert Mlcke:sor:.;d~-ised tre ComT..ss;or: *_h3! a~eiter frcm the ager,*
for the petitionen had been :ecEived, reouest~r.g in a~dii:or.a: two weeks eriens:or: cf
time for consideratior of s:b~ert oe:it!o~
~ Commissioner Rowland offered a Rotion :o cor:tir,~e p:~iic i~e~;ir.c o~ °etit:on io: Variance
_, Noo 1689 to the meetino of May _G, i965, ir, orde: to ai:ow ±he oeti*iore:.su{ficient time
_ to submit revised p~ans wnicn resol~ed pa.*.kir~g p_ob.ems on sub,7ect p,ope:ty Commissioner
Allred seconded the motion, hY~TIG~~ CARR'ED
CONDITIONAL USE • PUBLiC FEARING (-FRMAN FFEESF, ET A1., 2:4? Wes* ~'-r,3dN~a~ qraF,eim,
PERMIT NO_ 289_ Caiifo:nia; DA~ID W NOGK, ET qL, ,786 West Lir,coln AvenuP, Anaheim,
CaLfo*ni3, I_essee and Aqent; :eqt:esting pe.~r.is~_oi; ror ,~n :r.terpretation
of perr~itted uses on pruperty described a=: 4n 'i' =h3ped p3;:ei of land
having a frontag~; of approxim:~tely 2:3 feet or; ~he =_outn side of ~ir,co~ir. 4~•ern~e ano a maxi-
mum depth of app:czimjteiy 62? feet, the e.;st,e_n bound~:y of said a:~per?y being approximately
1,015 feet west of the center:~ne of Euci~d Street, ar.d further de;c:_ibed a~ 1~84 and !7E?6
West Lincoln Avenue. proper+.y presentiy classi*ied P.•=„ AGRIC'_'ITURSI., ZpR~E
REQl1ESTED CONDJTIrJNAL USEs ES1'ABLISI- A''DRAM4 STUDIO WORKSI-QF' A~~D i.I1't Ti?E4TRE IN
AN EXISTING STRIiCTURE
Niro Martin Brandt, the propo,~.d .essee and ope: ~!or o~ the d-arra wo~ksr.op 3r.d tF.ea±re,
appeared before the CoRmission and stated he p_opo;ec to ie3se =_pace in the preseet
Lincoln West Professionai Cente=; that Anahei~n was ti~e or._y :~r9e c:t.•; ln ~: c,r,ae County
which did not have the proposed type o~ operation =ir.ce ~r.::.c;e, =,.i:eiton, ard Newpo.t
Beach had their drama groups; t"at he fidd C@Eii contac+_ed by -3 chora_ ~,c•~~ who we:e desirous
of utilizing the proposed the~i:e to give con~erts on Sunday; and tha± va;ious o±he: special
artists had app~oached hi~ with the thouqht of ;:or.du•.tzr.g c:asses in *_he -~*ter~oon
No one appeared ',n opposi*_ion to su~.~ect petition
TF!E ~ARING WAS CLOSED.
j,:I, I The Commission inquired of ore
b of ~.he p;eser± :essee< oi cr.E~ p:o{:e:ry wr.~•_he: the=e wouid
^i~
` e sufficient parking space if
offi cla;ses we.e conduc~e^ du: :no tr.E d,vt;rre hou:c wher ±,~e
3 ces would be utiiizing tne pa:king sp3ces p~oc:ded
~ '
'
*
Mr~ David Hook appeared before
±he Commission ar.d ;ep:ieo
t.he
p~:k~ng a-ei wou
d l
;
,~
~
than sufficient because ~: the
present
time i! w3s ne~~e.
~
ri_, .
;e more
~
ed to c3c~-~c:*~
and *
hey
ro-
~
;? i vided one space per :25 fee~ of office space for p3:kir.g f~c: ,
_
p
.:ties
~
.. _ .. ,
P
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 26r 1965
2563
CONDITIO~AL USE - Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed the lessee's request for
PERMIT N0~ 289 the Commission to interpret the proposed use, together w:th the oriyinal
(Continued~ ^ liet oi permitted uses approved by the Commission in Resolution No. 522,
Series 1962 63, dated October 29, 1962, in which specific uses we:e listede
Commissioner Perry offered Resoiution No- 1597, Series 1964•-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to amend Resolution Nos. 465 and 522, Series
1962-63, dated August 2G and October 29, 1962, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 289, with
specific uses by the inclusion of "a drama studio and workshop including instruction and
live theatre"o (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMAIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Uone,
ABSENT: CCMMISSIONERS: Gauer~
VARIANCE N0, I69Q - pU3LIC HEARING. ALFRED M.~ DESTRO, 1224 North Ventura Street, Anaheim,
Caiifornia, Owner; ANDREW G, DUDICS, 1018 East Chestnut Street, Santa
Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to waive the 25-foot rear
yard requirement to construct an addition to an existing residence within 19 feet, 6 inches
of the rear iot iine on property described as: A rectangular?y shaped parcel of land with
a frontaqe of approximately 61 feet on the east side of Ventura Street and a maximum depth
of approximately :03 feet, the southern boundary of subject property being approximately
156 feet north of the centerline of Grayson Avenue; and furti~er described as 1224 North
Ventura Street, to permit an addition to an existing single•-fa.,ily dwelling.
No one appeared to represent the property owner.
Zoning Coordir,ator Robe:t Mickelson reviewed the p:oposed variance request for the Commission,
stating that it did not meet the requirements of the R-1 Code which required an equal area
to be provided eisewhere on the lot, front yar~ excluded; that the petitioner could not
provide an area equal to the proposed encroachment into the rear yard; that this was the
basis of requesting subject variance; and that the Code required 25 feet, and the petitioner
was proposir~ i9 feet, 6 inches; furiher, that the existing driveway could not be included
as open space.
No one appea:ed in opposition to sub~ect petition.
TI-lE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Camp offered Resoiution No 1598, S~ries 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner A11red, to approve Petition for Variance No. 1699.,
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland-
NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None-
ABSEIVT: CUMMISSIONERS: Gauer-
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC (-lEARING, DR. ROSS DEAN, :561 +Y~st Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
y~ _oa-o5-113___ California, Owner; DAVID C. MADDOX, 111 North Westerr. Avenue, Anaheim,
Californiay Age~t, Property described as: A rectangularly shaped
VARIANCE NO _1698 parcel of land with a frontage of aporoximately 264 feet on the west
side of Knott Hvenue and a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet,
the northern boundary of said property being approximately 1,079 feet
south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue-, Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE ~
~. ' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE„
t,
~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS,
" Mr~ James Shule:, :epresenting the petitioner and th~ a ent a
~ 9 , ppeared before the Commission
!;~~ and reviewed the existing development in close proximity to subject property, anrJ in response
to Commission questioning relative to relocation of the gaiages to provide additional patio
~- space, stated that after analyzing all of the requirements, it was felt a central recreation
Y~ * area with a pool was more desirable than to increase the patio space.
: ~x
~
MINU'~ES, CITY PLAtiNING COMMISSION, April 26, 1965
2564
RECLASSIFICATION - Com„issioner Rowland again expressed concern relative to reque::ting
N0~ 64~65 113___ need for a waiver of the requirements of the R-2 and R-3 Zones since
considerable time had been spent in attempting to draft a zone which
VARIANCE NO, 1698 would be compatible to both the developer and the City; and that in his
(Continued) opinion, the Commission should make every attempt to increase the private
areas for apartments~
Mr~ Shuler then stated they had considered every aspect of providing adequate patio space,
but this would reduce the pri.vate area still more if the Commission's suggestions were
followed; further, that approximately 50~ of the apartments in the proposed development
had no private patios, and it was important that a common green area be provided for these
peoplee
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions~
THE HEARING WAS CLUSEll.:
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 1599, Serie, 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to reco~mend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No, 64•-65-113 be approved, subject +.o conditionse (See Resolution Book~)
On roll caii the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbsty Mungall, Perry, Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer,.
C~mmissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 1600, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner He=bst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1698,
subject to conditions. (See Resoiution Book,)
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ail:eds Carp, Herbst,. Mungail9 Perry.
NOES: COMMISSIO~ERS: Row:~nd.,
ABSc'NTv CUMMISSIONERS: G.suer,
~ _ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEAR?NG JAMES D., P+CANENA, c/o Bob Balen, 3500-B East Coast
PERMIT_N0, 694_ H:ghway, Corona del h1a,, Ca:iforniay Owner; WOODY JOHNSON, 224 L^lest
i 5th Street, Santa tina~ California, Agent; *equesting permission to
~ estabiish a wa_k-up restaurant on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of iend iocaied at ihe northeast corner of Be:~ch Boulevard and Lynrose Drive
;-~ (a private road), with :;ont.~ges oi approximate?y 125 fee't on Lynrose Drive, the southern
'f°•{ boundary of said property being appzoximaiely ~?5 feet north of the centerline of Ball Roade
~ Property presently classified C•1, GE~ERAL COMA~RCIAI., ZONE.
i
Mro Woody Johnsor.s agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
i proposed deveiopment, noting that the subject and the abutting commercial property would be
I developed as a neighborhood commercial centerg that a walk-up restaurant, seating 30 persons
~ was proposed whi~h would serve ice cream, pies, sandwiches, etcay that adequate parking would
be providedq that a blacktop access road extending southerly from Rome Avenue to the norther-
ly boundary of the commercial property presently existed, but that property for the extension
of the frontage road through the commercial develcpment was not dedicat~d; that residents to
the north would have access to the projected commercial development and the parkino area
i without the necess3ty of using Beach Bouievardg that access from Beach Boulevard was only
`: available to north-bound traffic; and that the cor,ur,ercial development would serve the single-
~ ~ family residential development to ihe north and the multiple-family development to the east.
i I
~ It was noted by the Commission that when the single-family homeowners to the north purchased
~. their homes, it was anticipated that the frontage road would be extended to Lynrose Drive, to
~~ which Mr, Johnson stated th,at the frontage z•oad was seldom used by these property owners, but
gain~d access ~y drivir.g northerly to Rome Avenue, and that to extend the frontage road might
r,-
~. create additional traffic problems between the tract and the commercial development.
i
f The Commission expressed concern that a
arkin private drive (Lynrose Drive) would be utilized for
~'~ p g purposes rather than cars being parked in the area provided, or that said drive would
~ be closed by the construction of the proposed development, and then inquired of the agent
when his client anticipated construction.
.d ~ Mr~ Johnson stated that it w:+s their intent to build as soon as a
,,~ was final, since the walk•-up restaurant was the onl PProval of subject petition
~''~ the commercial zoning., Y Part of the development not covered by
~
;
MINUTES, CITY Pi_.;~dKIKG COMMiSS:OU; Aprii 2b, 1965 2565
CONDITIOK~-4L uSF Zor:irg Coord:r~tor Robezt Mickeison advised the Commission if the
PEP.MIT ~0_ 694_ petit;oner orooosed io seil ihe northerly portion, a lot split would
(Contir:~edi na~:e to be f.ied p_ior to issuance of a building permit, and that if
ar: ag_ee~.er~.z w:;; ;-.ade p_iva`ely :egarding the sharing of parking space,
*_r.:s W3s a p-•;~,3te n•et*er so iong as adequate parking was providede
In response to Comr~is,iuc -:uest_or.ir.e- M_ Mickeison stated that a specific condition of
tt,e rec;assif~c=.~ior. ~r. O~d:r.ar.ce No ;223 requi:ed that as the service road be ex.tended
so~.the_:v to Iyr~,ose Dri~e, ±hai :he Co:ur.ission cculd recomnend to the City Council that
Conditior~ No : of O~d:::erce ~~o- .223 we deieted; further, that the Commission by this
' actior, couid ze~ui:e 3~:~odii:ed cui de-sac with cu:b break be constructed adjacent to the
~, ,:;i~iflil~ comirercial prceerty to tt~e north; if ro street er.tension was required.
' Office Enginee_ .Ar~hU:i J?W; ;n -e;porse to Ccn~s~ission questioning, stated that to his
knowledge, there we_*e r~o p~.:t.ic ,:-.iiit:es in that area where the extension of the access
road might be; ~_ti~o.:9t tte:e was ~ GOSS7.G'_i_.y that gas mair.s and telephone wires might
be ioc3ted the:e, ~r.c :ra= tt~e St~•e D~v:sio~ o: !iighways at one time had considered exten-
sion of tt~:e 3ccess ro=~d j:or.c ~et.:: 6ou~:e~a:d; bu± tY~at there had been a change in plans,
and ihe p_oposed fzontaye or ~::~ess =cad wa= abander.ed and the balance of the property
:everted back .to the p~ope=ty owr.ers
^' I
; In =esponse to Co:~v:~ss~cr, :uesiior_nr., the agent =*.~ted that subject development had been
~ deveioped w;.th the :c*.e; *_:.er o~ cer~.~ :ur.c ac~ess : ights tc Lynrose Drive to the City of
~ Anahei;r.; ?~a±. *_r.ev we:e p__sh~>_ng c..t to ±ne cr::erlire of Lynrose Drive and would give
i;
ri.ght-of-~way tc ~he : j_ cr.er -s ce tr.e e:_*.
M:- ^.:;old S~e~er,so; cwre_ c= `r.P ;.:st_: Mo'.e:; appea:ed before the Commission and expressed
cor,ce=r th?t. *he w.:~E; ,-~~r:of:~ w~:,ch a=:gir~a:iy ;.an in*_o subject property, might inundate the
p3-king 3_e: 3cc ;r_es- 'c ~-~e -c:e. •
Mr. Daw sts'*_ec ~h.:t o.~:.~ 'e• tre :,__._lition or dra:raoe fac~':ities had been drawn which
wouid p:ov'_de ti:~: dr~.r.=.oe wo_~ic occ~* tn-ough Gavrtont to Rome Avenue and Beach Boulevard
3nd into a d:dlf,.'.C@ =i'E9=, S'.fi~Q C!'.:S wo.~'d also ~ake care oi the water from the large single-
famiiy res=der.ti~1 ~_~:•- to ::e wes? o: 9e~ch ?oulevard.
In respor.se t.o Coc-iss:or. c.e•:?:o;~~ng .:ega=ding oarkirg or access easement rights over subject
~ propertv; as ir•„•.c.~~.ec o: *:-e o_e::~,ir,ary tztie report fiied with the petition, to determine
' whereir, haif o= Lyr_c•sa I.-i.r ;r:iyhi ;:e ~~rned ~uio a pri~ate parking iot, Mre Mickelson stated
- that he w~s ~~r.~;.e ~c ~r.s~•e- rt:e .^....estior. without n?king a thoroogh analysis of the various
e-ssements ~isted; b.:~ `~.:rt zi te co~.~ reca~i correctiys at the time the multiple-family
development io t'r.e eis`_ w?s appro~•ed; Lynrose Drive was required to be constructed to City
st3r.dards an~ tnat ~r: ;:_e•;uc,b:e o're. of ded.ication was established at that time~,
No one appea:ed ir: opposi*_~or~ ;.o sucjzst petitior:
TF.E NEF~R.I~G WAS CIOSED
A discussion was neid by the Commissior ir which it was determined that a finding should be
j made that Lynrose Drive be m.air~ained as a permanent access road unless an alternate access
I: to si~bjec*_ p_ope~ty were developed:
Comrissioner Ali:ed offe:~d Resolutio~ No., :60i, Series i964•-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded 'cy ~ommissioner Perry, to app:ove Petition for Conditional Use Permit
• Nc~ 694; subject te -one~itions, and that a modif~ed cui•-de•-sac, with curb break, be constructed
~ on the comme;cia! prope~ty no:the:iy of suhject property, as stipulatzd by the petitioner, and
that ar irrevocab;e deed of easement be reco_ded in the ofrice of the Orange County Recorder
~ for the p:ivate ro~d kr,own as i.yr.rose Drive to provide access for the development to the east
i' of subject property; prior to final buiiding inspection~
On :oll cai? the .'oregcing reso~utior. w3s passed by the following vote:
{ AYES, COMMISSIOKER5~ Aii:ed; Camp; F'.erbst, Mungall, Pe;ry, Rowland~
NOES: COA!MISSIONERS: None•
ABSEhT~ COMMISSIONERS: Ga::er.
RECOMME~D AN .AME~CMENT •- Cor:~issioner Row:ar.d offered a motion to recommend to the City
TO ORDINANCE NO_ ;223 Couecil that Condi±ior~ No• i of Ordinance No, 1223, which reclassi-
iied p*operty under consider~tion in Conditional Use Permit No. 694
co tne C•:, Gener3i Commercial, Zone, be amended to provide that a
, modified cu!-de-sac, Nitn cu.re bieaky be _equired on the north property line adjacent to the
~ • frontage road p:eser.:_y existing on the east side of Reach Boulevard, Commissioner Camp
~i'. seconded the motlon MC)TIO~ CARRIFD.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 26, i965
2566
RECLASSIFICATION - Pi1BLIC HEARING: DON M. LANDER, ET AL, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
N0~ 64-65-118~_ Caiifornia, Owner3 property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land
lying south ar.d east of a 146-foot by 148-foot rectangularly shaped parcel
VARIANCE N0, 1700 at the sotitheast corner of Ball Road and Dale Avenue, subject property
havin9 f;ontages of approximately 146 feet on the south side of Ball Road
approxim~teiy 130 feet on the east side of Dale Avenue, and further des-
cribed as 1204 South D~?e Avenue and 2?80 West Bal'_ Road, Property presently classified
C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICEs ZONE~
~. :,.-,-~'-~ ~
{s<1 ~ ~
a~ -
f~+ ~*
t. I
i' i
;
!~
'M .
a --
REQUESTED CLASSI=ICATION: C-i, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
REQUESTED VARIA~7CE: W4IVER OF MI~~IMUM REQU?RED SIDE YARD WIDTH ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.
Mro Garet Smith, architect fo: the deveiopment, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the zoning of p:operties ad;acent to subject property,
It was noted by the Comr.,ission th~t where the former development was indicated for a profes-
siona: office buiiding, sub~ect propertp would now be developed for commercial stores, and
a ma*ket wjs to be the m~jo_ tenar.t,
hL., Smith stated it was thei: :r.tent to maintain the same a*chictectural theme as had been
formerly presented, except this wou:d now be a small, neighborhood shopping center which
was a necess~ty due to the muitip;e-family deveiopment being constructed to the east of
subjec± oroperty; and in :esponse to Commission questioning, stated the air conditioning
units were or. the roof and wouid be <_,creened.,
No one appea*ed in opposiiion to sub~ect petitions~
THE i-IEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Ferbst o.'fered Resoiution No i602, Series i964•-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Conunissioner 411red, to recommend to the City Councii that Petition
for Rec:assification ~'0 64-65-118 be 3pproved, subject to conditions, with an added condi-
tion that ali air condition:ng facilities be shieided from view~ (See Resolution Booko)
On rol.! call the fo~e9oing reso:~t:on was p3ssed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIORERS: Alired; Camp,. Fierost; Mungail, Perry9 Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: !~or.e
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: G3ue.
Conunissioner C;mp oifered Reso:~tior No 1603; Series 1964•-65, and moved for its passage and
adoption, secor,ded by Co~T,:r~issicr.er Periy; ±o grant Petition for Variance No, 1700, subject to
conditions. (See Reso~:;tion Book l
On ro11 cali the foregoing resoiutio;: wss passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired.; Camp, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland,
NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: Nor.e.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer-
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEqRItJG JAMES T. PALM, 1635 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim,
PERMIT ~0_ 690_ Cali;ornia, Owner; CURTIS A LENTZ, 739 Van Bibber Avenue, Orange, California,
Agent; :equesting permission to establish a three-story office building,
restaurant and cocktail lounge, and an automobile service center on property
described as: A"pie-shaped' p..,:cel of land of approximately 4~9 acres with a curved frontage
of approximateiy 855 feet on the north side of Katelia Avenue, the northernmost boundary of
approximately 51? feet parallels and is adjac~~nt to the A.T, d S~F. Railroad right-uf-way;
the westernmos;. boundary is app=oximately 58 :e=! in len th and its southern end lies a
mately 255 feet from the centerline of Soutt. :. .,• College Boulevard~ and further describedrasl
2150 East Katelia Avenue- Property presently c.~~sified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Mro William Livingston, represer~ting ±he petitioner3 appeared before the Commission and
presented a colored rendering oi the proposed office building and automobile service center,
stating that more than the minimum required parking was being provided; that the types of
tenants they proposed to have were similar to insurance offices; that facilities would be
flexible so that any size office reyuest of a prospective tenant could be resolved by moving
of flexible petitiors; ar.d that some of the major prospective tenants would be companies
associated with services to tne baseball stadium.,
~
MINUTES; ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 26, 1965 2~~
E
~
~
CONDITIONAL• USE - Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the
PERMIT NOa 69D Staff was currently preparing a study and survey of the impact of the
(Continued) baseball staciium and possible commercial development to the industry
presently and potent',ally anticipated in the Southeast Industrial Area,
and that the report would be available in a~proximately four weeks.
In response toCommission questioning relative tr~ the fact thata railroad was :ocated ~orth of subject
property, the agent replied that subject praperty was six to ten feet below the railroad
right-of-way and was not adaptable for industrial useo
The Commission noted that many industriai complexes were not served by a railroad spur,
and the petition should be held in abeyance until the report presently being prepared
relative to the Southeast Industrial Area was presented for the Commission's consideration~
Mro Livingston stated that he was hoping to receive action by the Commission at this hear-
ing, but was naturally in sympathy with the Commission's concern for the general welfare
o_° the City~
Mra Mickelson stated the resuit of the study might indicate a possible change in stree"t
patterns, a change to the General Plan Circulation Element, although no change was antici-
pated for State College Boulevard which was 106 feet wide, or Katella Avenue which was
120 feet wide, but if the study indicated a change to commercial development, this would
mean providing additional streets for commercial developmenta
The Commission advised they wanted the Staff to work with the railroad and other existing
industries in the area for their viewpoints, since the proposed use might have a serious
impact on the entire Southeast Industrial Area,
Mre William Katz, architect for the proposed project, advised the Commicsion `hat it was
his opinion most other baseba~l stadiums had commercial development adjacent ta them;
therefore, he felt the proposed use was the most compatible because the stadium encourages
commercial uses~
In response to Commission qu.~.tidning9 Mr Atickelson stated that the previous study made
on the stadium's influence or: t.~.~; ;;oi:~,'c;e~st In~~istrial Area indicated it was no generator
of cortunercial uses~
Commissioner Allred ieft the Council Chamber at 3:40 p,m~
Commissioner Herbst offe:ed a motion to continue public hearing of Conditional Use Permit
No, 690 to the meeting of May 24, 1965, in order to allow time for the Sta.'f to complete
a report on the impact of the stadium and commercial uses in the Southeast Industrial Area,
Commissioner Perry seconded the motion~ MOTIO~ CARRIED,
RECLASSIFICATION - CG~~TINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ELBIA HALL, 3518 West Orange Avenue9 Anaheim,
N0, 64-65-10~ California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 80 feet on the north
side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 335 feet, the western
boundary of said property being approximately 130 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue,
and further described as 2785 West Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
to the C-1, GENERr+L COMN~RCIAi, ZONE.,
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 12, 1965, in order to allow the
Flanning Department time to readvertise subject petition to znclude the northerly 135-foot
land--locked R•-A parcel for C-1, General Commercial, Zoning<
No one appeared to represent ihe petitioner.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that a condition of approval of a
cat and doo hospital on the suutherly portion of subject property under a conditional use
permit was that the property be reclassified to the C-1 Zone, and that at the last public
hearing, the Commission had ielt that the entire parcel should be reclassified in order not
to allow the northerly portion i:o become a land-locked R-A parcela
No one appeared in opposition to subj?ct petition.
THE 1-~ARIPlG V~AS CLOSED,
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 26, 1965 2568
F . ,.-z ;~
Ef ~
:.'~ ~
RECLASSIFICATIO~ •- Commissione= Perry offered Resolution No~ 1604, 5eries 1964-65, and
NO„ 64-65-109 moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Rowland,
(Continuedj~Y to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reciassification
No~ 64-65•-109 be approved, subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: C~mp, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Gauer,.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FiEARINGe HORACE Ha RATHVON, 2151 South Loara Street, Anaheim,
N0~ 64-65-114 _ California, Owner; DELTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 504 Newport Boulevard,
Newpurt Beach, California, Agent; requesting that property described as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately
8U feet on the north side of Bali Road and a maximum depth of approximately 335 feet, the
, western boundary of said property being approximately 130 feet east of the centerline of
Dale Avenue, and further described as 2785 West Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-1, OIJE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, subdividing subject property
as indicated in Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5584, Revision No~ 1,
~o one appeared to iep.resent ihe property owner.,
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelsor, advised the Commission that Tentative Tract No~ 5684,
Revision No, 1, approved on i~larch 29, 1965, by the Planning Commission for R•-1 Zoning, was
approved subject to the completion oi subject reclassificatior. proceedings~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition,
TNF 1-IEARING WAS CLOSED..
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No,. 1605, Series 1964-65; and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to approve Petiticn fc~r Reciassification
Noe 64-65-114, subject to conditions~ (See Resolution Book,)
On roil call the foregoing resoi~iion was passed by the following v~te:
~i
_, AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Camp, Herbst, N~unqaliy Perry, Row:an.~±.
_ PJOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.•
TI-IE FOLLOWING PETITIONS WERE CONSIDERED AS ONE ITEM ON T!-~ AGENDA. Nu ONE APPEARED TU
REPRESENT THE PROPERI~Y OWNERS, AND NU ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION Tli THE PETITIONS
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARIIJG. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CUM~MISSION, 204 East
NOo 64-65-115 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Robert W: Stewart, Jr,, 1795 West
Orange Avenue, Anaheirti~ California, Owner, P;operty described as: A
CONDITIONAL USE rectang~~larly shaped parcel of land at the southwest corner of Broadway
PERMIT N0~ 691 and Euciid Street, with frontages of approximately 150 feet on the sovth
side of Broadway and approximately 150 feet on the west side of Euclid
Street~ Property presently classified C-3, i-~AVY ~OMMERCIAL, ZONE9 deed
restricted to a service station or any C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONED usee
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATI(iN: C-19 GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CONDTTIONAL USE: PERM1"C OPEf2ATI0N OF AN EXISTING SERVICt STATION WITHIN
75 FEET UF R-1 ZONED PROPERTYo
il RECLASSTFICATION - PUBLIC !-IEARINGD INITIATED BY TF~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
~ N0. 64-65-116 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Howard Cunningham, 10950 Dale Street,
I Stanton, California, Owner, Property described as: A rectangularly shaped
CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Orange
PERMIT N0~ 692 Avenue, wiih frontages of 3pproximately 120 feet on Euclid Street and
approximately 103 feet or, range Avenue. Property presently classified
R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIi,L, ZONE.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~ ' PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATICN WITHIN
!I ' 75 FEET OF R-1 ZONED PROPERTY,
* Subject service station was originally approved for service station use under Variance
,~ „e~ Noo 410 in September, 1965~
c~
t' ~
_. /
MINUTES, CI'TY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 2b, 196~ 2569
RECLASSIFICATION T PUBLIC Hi:ARING~ INITIATED BY Tl-lE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0~ 64_~5•=117~ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Robert Pannier, et al, 11611
Euclid Street, Gar~?en Grove, California, OYvnero Property described as:
CONDI:ION~\L USE A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner
PERMIT NOe 693__ of Euclid Street and Ball Road, with frontages of approximately 150 feet
on Euclid Street and approximately 150 feet on Ball noad, Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GEPJERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION
WITHIN 75 FEET OF R-3 ZONED PROPERTY.
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Reclassification Nose
64-65-115, 64-65-116, and '04-65-117 and Conditionai Use Permit Nos~, 691, 692, and 693
were part of the continuing p:ogram of reclassifying properties to their most appropriate
zones~
T[-~ 1-IEARING WAS CLOSED~
G'ommissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, 1606, Series 1964•-65; and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 64-65-:15 be approved, unconditionaily. (See Resolution Book~)
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Perry, Mungall; Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
Ab&ENT: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Gauer.
Commissioner Rowland offe:ed Reso~ution No,• 1607, Seiies 196•4-F~S, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 691, unconditionally, (See Resolution Book,)
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISS?ONERS: Cartip, Nerbst; Perry, Mungall, Rowland,.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred; Gauer-
Commissioner Rowland oifered Resoiution No- 1608, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissior.er Pe*ry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No 64-65~i1? be =_pproved, unconditiona:ly. (See Resolution Book,)
Un ro'1 call the foregoing reso~ution was passed by the fo:iowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, I'erbst, Perry, Mungaii, Rowland..
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None..
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer~
Comrrissioner Rowland offered Resolution No„ 1609, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
anc~ a~option, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
Noo 693, unconditionaliy.. (See Resolution Booke)
On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Perry, Mun9a11, Rowland,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Gauer.,
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, 1610, Series 1964~-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification Noo 64-65-116 be appr~ved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book,)
~? On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Perry, Mungall, Rowland~
~.~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauero
:~ , Commissioner Rowland offered Reso~ution No, 1611, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
~~~ ~ Noo 692, unconditionaliy~ (See Resolution Book,)
~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
,3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Perry, Mungall, Rowland.,
ij j. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
!~i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer,
t'
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 26, 1965
2570
PRECISE ALIGNIV~NT OF - CONTINUED PUBLIC h~ARING INITIATED BY TI-~ CITY PLANNING
JEFFER50N_LINDA VISTA STREETS COMMISSION, 204 East ~?nroin Avenueq Anaheim, California -
to reconside: the precise aiignment of Jefferson-Linda Vis'.a
Streets betweer, Orangethorpe Avenue on the nori;h and the
Riverside Freeway on the south-.
Subject precise alignment was continued from the meeting of February 15, 1965, in order to
allow time for the Planning Staff to review studies made and present docume~;:~d data for
the Commissior's considerationo
Planning Coordinator Ronald Grudzinski -eviewed for the Commission a report (on file in the
Planning Division, Development Services) submitted to them which indicated existing and
projected conditions in consideration of the genera; and precise alignment of Je~ferson-
Linda Vista Streets- It was further noted that Jefferson Street was the gateway to the
Northeast Industriai Area from south Orange County and the Riverside-San Berna*dino areao
Mro Grudzinski further indicated that many general aiignment studies had been prepared by
the County of Oran9e and the City of Anahein; Engineerirg and Plann?r.g Departments; that the
Commission had adopted Ger.eral Plar Amendr,ent No~ 20 on .;une 8, i964, and the City Council
on July 14, i964 adopted the Commission`s recommendations or the general alignment of
Jefferson-Linda Vista Streets; that on February :59 i965, based on the fact that the Orenge
County Board of Supervisors had adopted the precise alignment of .:effersom~Linda Vista Streets,
the Commission conside=ed at public hea:ing >aid precise alignment and referred it back to the
Planning Staff for complete documentatior. of the studies made by t.h:e City ~nd the County of
Orange with possib.e aiternate precise alignments which were 3ccep+.;bie to the Engineering
Department we:e also to be pzesen+_ed; and that after ar. e~~:ensive review being made by the
County and City Departments., it was the concen~us of opinion tha~ nothing nad tianspired
which might chanqe the general aiignment adop:ed by the City- It was aiso noted that
representatives of the Co:inty ~nd Engineerirg Depart~r,ents were preser.t *o answe= puestionso
Five alte:nate precise ~iignmen'ts :uere ti;en pzesented to the Conmission, with Aiternate
Noo 4, Exhibit "A" being recommended by the Engineering Staff as beir.a the iease objection-
able to both the City and Coui,ty Road Departn,ent
City Engineer .James Maodox revi.ewed the five s:terr.~t9~e precise 3;igrments for tne Commission,
noting that Aiternative No,. 4 bisecred one large parce~, having ~t ;unctior, w_th the railroad
at the southerly property l;ne and dividing the orope~ty into :hree separate parcels rather
than four as Aiternative No. i oi General Pian Amendrnent tio 20 oroposed; and th,;s made two
corner paice~s larger in order to convert them intu more comp;atible sizes for u~ti•-.ate indus-
trial development.
In response to Cortm?~sion uuestion'.ng re;ative to the ez:s±ir,g snd proiec±ed ~.3E{1C loads
for Jefferson-Lir.da ~~ista Stzeets; Zoning Ccordinator Robezt M:ckeison stated the Commission
had recommended approvai of a change ir. street desianatior. of .'effe.sen~iincia Vista St:eet
from 3 primary to a major higha~ay; sa:d maj a highway designa±ior: navinq been ~or.sidered by
the Orange County Pl~nning Commissicn on Aprii '. i9E5, 3nd we; to b? 'rea:d bv `_'r.e C;tv
Council on Aprii 27, i965- •
Mr~ Murray Storm, representing the Orange County Road Department, appe~red beroze the
Commission and stated he had attended the hearing in ozder to be av=_i:ab:e to answer any
questions the Commission might have reiative to the County~s position or, the precise aiignment.,
Mr.. Storm further reviewed tlie Cou~ty`s program for arteriel streets and highways, noting that
Jefferson-Linda Vista Stree*_ w~s one of the iast items to be comp~eted on the p-ogram; further,
that the bridge across the Santa Ana River extending Jeife_son Street northeriy had been
originaily budgeted extendir,g .iei:erson Street southezly; and 1:3d 'oeen orioinaily budgeted
for the 1965-66 fiscal year, 'out was taken off the budget bec.~use the C~ty of Anaheim had
not adopted a precice alignment; and that the bridge wouid be scheduied for the 1966-67
budget if Anaheim adopted a precise alignment foz• Jeffersom•Linda Lista Streets
i h1r. Storm, in reviewing the aiternative aiignments prepared by the c'ngineering Department,
stated that the slight change over the Cour,ty's originaily adopted precise alignment as
• indicated on Alternative No~ 4, Exhibit "A", could be adopted by those departments in the
jurisdiction of the County invoived without any difficulty: Further, that the construction
on the connec±ion between iinda ~ista Str==t and Rose Drive in Placentia would commence ir.
a few weeks which could provide a complete northerly ex.tension to Imperial Highway from the
p Riverside Freeway, if the precise alignment for ?efferson•Linda Vista Streets was adopted„
A~lr~ Jack Danforth, representing North American Autonetics, appea:ed before the Commission
~ and urged that the Gommission adopt the precise aligr.ment for Jefferson•-Linda Vista Streets
* substantially as indicated on General Plan Amendment No 20, since tnis aiignnient would add
~ zmmeasurably to alleviating traific problems for empioyees residing in Y"orba I.inda and areas
northeriy of Orangethorpe A;enue beceuse the extension for this street wouid provide these
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 26, 1965 25?i
PRECISE ALIGNMENT OF
TEFFERSON-LINDA VISTA STREETS
~Continued~~ ~ ~
people with acc-ss southe:ly of Orangethorpe Avenue to Miraloma Avenue, instead of having
to make a right or ieft turn to event~aliy gain access to the Autonetics parking area;
that presently the company had a staggered stazting schedule, with the first shift startin9
at 7:00 a,m, and the las*_ morning shift starting at 8:48 a.m-.; that m=.ny timas it took over
an hour to clear the area of workers be~ause of inadequate access roads; and that the pro-
, posed precise alignment wouid eventuai;y carry cars southerly to the Riverside Freeway when
: the ultimate interchange was constructed upon completion of the bridge.,
C. ,.-3r~~
'.~! Mr. Sam Hurwitz, 100 West Chapman Avenue, Orange, princip~l property ownez involved in the
,_,~~ ' proposed al~gnment, askeo that the City Engineer indicate the proposed pzecise aiignment of
-;, Alternative No, 4, Exhibit "F." on a"!arger map, and inquired what was the purpose of the
i intersection at Waln~t Street in the proposed Jeffe_•,on Street a:ignment; furthe*s he was
,~ desirous of knowing wnen the City ar the County planned to c~n=_truct the propo=_eu yi;gnment
~
Mr, Storm again stated thaC i; the City of Anaheim adopted the prec:se aiignmen? of Jefferson•
_ Linda Vista St:eets, this couic be budgeted for the 1956~5' i:scai yea:
Mr Grudzinski indicsted that tne flow of traffic soutF~e::y cn tF: present 'ef`erson St-eet
would have to ~n~ke a con.plete U-tuin, whereas access no:tr:er.y *:oir: :.e`te:sorrl.ir.d3 bis;3
Street wouid be permitted; th~t the exte~sion of h1„-.alo~ra A~~e^:~ w-as p;o~.osed fo- ~ ~ r.e~:
future to be extended to 'i3yior St:eet, ~nd that tF.e q?~ei ~. ,:;ancer.' fo: : a ~'.::e,a, ~„-er.~.:e
extended had been adopted by tne Fi~nning Conunission ;r,d Ci~y Co~.~~i_ whicr p-oposed tne
exte~sion of said street to tne Impeci.~: Freewav
Mr Roy Solomon, 219 West Fardy Street, Inq;ewood, ~~ppeazed tefore L:^,e Com~r.iss:on acd st~ted
that although he did not iike to see his property div:ded as ind~c,~ed or. ?t,e proposed :iign
mert, since the maiority present =.t the hea*ing were in ;y:eement !hat ~he p~opoaed precise
alignm?nt was r.ecessary; he wouid wi:hdraw his previ~~s ob;ection:
Mr~ Don Pierotti, 50i St Jo~n PJay, P'.acentia, anot4:ei proper!y ownei involved in the precise
alignm=nt, asked that hE be advised or the new A:ternative A,ignment No 4, Exhibit "A", as
he arrived too late to hear the origina: exp:anation This was done by Mr. Gzudzinski
~x
THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED.
ComTissioner Camp in reviewing ai: evidence submitted by the various G-unty ard City staffs
noted that considerable study and work had gone into ary recommer.d~*,iors :nade for the most
feasible alignment of Jeffersom-Lind3 Vista 5treets, bo±h ±rom ~ cost s±;r,dpcint '_n reference
to the possibility of e!imination or relocation of oii Neiis on or,e propesed 3iigr,ment, :ands
which wouid have the ieast number of property owners affected on ano±her; togethez with the
fact. that the p:incipil property owner on Aiternative No- 4 would, in f:~ct, gain by the pro-
posed alignment since his p.operty, presently iand-iocked, woL;d now nave censiderable f:GflCnge
on a majo'r highway, as well as having access to said highway; and *hat the Tr~ffic Engineer's
report on the F:esent and projected average daiiy traffic couni for the streets in t~e ~orth-
east Industrial Area indicated that the proposed Alternative No 4, Exhibit 'A" wou~d render
the best answer to the traffic problems in that area,
The Commission then directed ~he Engineering Department to prepare a prec:se 3iignn:ent map
which incl~~ded the mechanical terms of said alignment, with the unde=standin9 that since the
engineering problems had already been resolved in accordence w?th the a:ignmeni ind:c~ted in
Exhibit "A", Alternative No 4, the exhibit would be completed in suf~icient time for presenta-
tion at public hearing before t;:e City Councii-.
Convnissioner Camp offered Resolution No, 1612, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and
adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowiand, to recommend to the City Counci; that the precise
alignment of Jefferson•-Linda Vista Streets be adopted in accordance with Exhibit "A",
Alternative No~ 4, which proposes th-: the ultimate alignment of said streets bisect the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad at the southerly boundary of the ma,7or parcel affected
and owned by Mr~ Samuel Hurwitz, in accordance with a directive to the Engineering Department'
for a mechanical terminoloyy and a map of said precise alignment which shali be made available
at the public hearing of the precise alignment of Jeffe:son•-Linda Vista Streets before the
City Council. (Sea ^zsolution 3ook.)
Gn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbsty Perry, Rowland, Mungail.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 26, 1965
2572
C~NERAL PLAN - PUBLIC FLARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
A1~NDMENT NO_20 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to reconsider the ge~eral aiignment
of Jefferson-Linda Vista Streets between Orangethorpe Avenue on thP north
and the Riverside Freeway on the south,
~
Discussion was tield by the Commission to determine if the proposed precise alignment of
Jefferson-Linda Vista Streets would affect the Commission's previous consideration and
adoption of the general alignment of said streets,
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that since their original
consideration of General Plan Amendment No, 20 indicated a general area in which the
general alignment took place9 namely between Orangethorpe Avenue and the Riverside
Freeway, no change had taken place by the Commission`s action on the precise alignment~
Commissioner Rowland ofFered a motion to recommend to the City Council that at the Commission's
reconsideration of General Plan Hmendment No> 20, adopted by the Planning Commission in
Resolution No, 1193, Series 1963-64, on June 8, 1964, and the City Council Resolution Noe
64R-502•,~dated July 14, 1964, no change had taken place, and no evidence was presented
to warrarrt any change to Exhibit "A", Aliernative No, 1, and that it was the recommenda-
tion that•the previous action of the Commission on General Plan ~mendment Noo 20 be ;ustained,
Commissioner Perry seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED.
REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Noe 634 - Request for an extension of
time from s representative of the owner~
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mic~elson reviewed for the Commission the reauest submitted by a
representative of the owner for an extension of time for completion oi conditions in Resolu-
tion No~ 1378, Series 1964-65, granting Conditional Use Permit No, 634 on October 29, 1964,
to permit the construction of a 22-unit motel with a manager's unit, by the ComTissior.; that
the basis of the request was due to a delay in construction; and that no previous time ex.ten•-
sion had been granted on subject peti±ion,
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant a six-months` extension of time for Conditional
Use Permit Noe 634, said time limitation to expire October 24, 1965~ Commissioner Rowland
seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED,
ITEM NO. 2
Orange County Use Variance No~ 5541 - Request of Mr. C- L: Pharris
to permit a sand and grsvel operation,
Zoning Coordinator Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the subject request, indicat-
ing that the proposed operation was to be located east of Impe.rial Highway in the S3nta Ana
River~
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to receive and file Orange County G~riance No~ 5541
Commissioner Camp seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED,
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Perry
effered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Comrr;ission Camp seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIeD.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p~m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~ j.~
ANN KREBS, Secretary~ ~
Anaheim Planning Commission
*
~
F
,__ ~0'.i
i
Y
F• ~ ~
R
JY